Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the Smith Amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Authorization. I do not do so because I think that the lawsuits filed against the Japanese corporations by the former Prisoners of War who were used as slave labor during World War II should not go forward--just the opposite--but because I believe that this Amendment takes the wrong approach to this issue. I strongly support the right of the POWs to file lawsuits against the Japanese corporations. The POWs and veterans are only seeking justice from the private companies that enslaved them, and these claims should be allowed to move forward. In fact, Senator Hatch and I introduced legislation earlier this year, S. 1272, the POW Assistance Act of 2001, precisely because I believe that it is important for those POWs who were used as slave labor during World War II to have their day in court, and an opportunity to press their claims for remuneration and compensation. There are serious questions about whether the 1951 Treaty between Japan and the United States has settled these claims, and these questions should be dealt with seriously. But as these lawsuits go forward, I do not think that it is right and proper to enjoin the Department of State and the Department of Justice from offering the court their opinion on the meaning and interpretation of the 1951 Treaty. That opinion--which may ultimately be determined to be incorrect--is a perfectly legitimate part of the proceedings. I strongly support the right of the POWs to seek justice. This is a matter that belongs before the courts. But I do not think that the Smith Amendment is the right way to go, and I urge my colleague to oppose its passage.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky and I joined together in this legislation because we believe that if the violence between the Palestinians and Israel is to end and the peace process is to gain any momentum, the Palestinian leadership must show it can muster the political will that is necessary to meet the commitments they made at Oslo. Most people, I think, don't know what the Oslo accords were. In fact, the Oslo accords were letters that were sent between the Palestinian and Israeli leadership in 1993. Those letters became the Oslo accords. I want to indicate what the Palestinians, over the signature of their chairman, Mr. Arafat, said they would do on September 9, 1993: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. These are not my words, these are the words of Chairman Arafat. It goes on: The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violence, and discipline violators. In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles, and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent [with the commitments of this letter] are invalid. For its part, Israel, under Prime Minister Rabin, in a letter to Chairman Arafat, stated: I wish to confirm to you that in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process. Mr. President, that was what formed the beginning of Oslo--not the end, but the beginning of the Oslo peace process. They were the necessary minimum threshold to begin that process--a recognition that Israel has the right to exist in peace and security and that the Palestinian people have a right to be represented in peace negotiations by representatives of their own choosing. Unfortunately, since Camp David last year, the Palestinians have carried out more than 6,700 armed attacks against Israelis in a fundamental violation of their peace process commitments. This Palestinian campaign of terror has killed 155 Israelis, 114 of them civilians, and it has wounded another 1,500 Israelis. As the Senator from Kentucky pointed out, whether it is a bomb that goes off in a pizza parlor, a discotheque, a school bus, or a shopping mall, this is the way that kind of violence has happened. Now, Israel has responded. Some have criticized Israel for that response. Yet if Israel is not going to practice that kind of response, the violence--such as the incident that just happened in Jerusalem, I think, yesterday, when somebody dressed as an Orthodox Jew walking down the street with a bomb in his backpack, detonated the bomb when an Israeli officer came up to him--must stop. A group of schoolchildren were nearby, but luckily they were not injured. Many others were. The subject here is terror, and no Israeli and no Palestinian should have to live with terror every day, when a child gets on that school bus, when a son goes to work, when a wife goes shopping, when friends meet at a cafe or pizzeria or go to a night club. The bombings, the terror, and the violence must stop. The Palestinian use of this kind of terror over the past 10 months runs contrary to what is expected of a peace partner. Mr. Arafat must understand that allowing an atmosphere of violence and terror to continue will not and cannot lead to peace. The bill we are proposing today, the Middle East Peace Compliance Act, sends that signal clearly and simply and says either the PLO live up to these commitments or we return to a pre-Oslo posture. So it is a very simple and very straightforward bill based on these commitments. It calls for the President to issue a report addressing whether the PLO and the Palestinian Authority are in compliance with the fundamental commitments they have repeatedly made to renounce terrorism. If the President is unable to find that the PLO or the Palestinian Authority is adhering to its commitments, it requires him to restrict nonhumanitarian assistance to the West Bank and Gaza and to impose one of two additional sanctions: Denial of visas to Palestinian Authority officials, or closing the Palestinian office in the United States. I think this legislation is necessary to send a message that we cannot continue this kind of violence. We cannot see that letter abrogated in chapter and verse--the letter that became the foundation of PLO recognition, and the letter that became the foundation of the Oslo peace process. Let me be clear. It is also my expectation that the Government of Israel, for its part, must continue to meet the commitments it has made to peace and continue to exercise restraint in reaction to these Palestinian terrorist acts. Mr. President, we submit this legislation. Again, I am very delighted to work with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. We have a bill and, as the Senator said, we will also offer this as an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill. I thank the Chair and the Senator. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership. We have consulted together on this bill, and I am very proud to join him as the lead Democratic cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent to put the following Members from this side of the aisle on the bill: Senators Daschle, Schumer, Mikulski, Clinton, Carnahan, Boxer, Torricelli, Edwards, and Cleland.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership. We have consulted together on this bill, and I am very proud to join him as the lead Democratic cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent to put the following Members from this side of the aisle on the bill: Senators Daschle, Schumer, Mikulski, Clinton, Carnahan, Boxer, Torricelli, Edwards, and Cleland.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky and I joined together in this legislation because we believe that if the violence between the Palestinians and Israel is to end and the peace process is to gain any momentum, the Palestinian leadership must show it can muster the political will that is necessary to meet the commitments they made at Oslo. Most people, I think, don't know what the Oslo accords were. In fact, the Oslo accords were letters that were sent between the Palestinian and Israeli leadership in 1993. Those letters became the Oslo accords. I want to indicate what the Palestinians, over the signature of their chairman, Mr. Arafat, said they would do on September 9, 1993: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. These are not my words, these are the words of Chairman Arafat. It goes on: The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violence, and discipline violators. In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles, and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent [with the commitments of this letter] are invalid. For its part, Israel, under Prime Minister Rabin, in a letter to Chairman Arafat, stated: I wish to confirm to you that in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process. Mr. President, that was what formed the beginning of Oslo--not the end, but the beginning of the Oslo peace process. They were the necessary minimum threshold to begin that process--a recognition that Israel has the right to exist in peace and security and that the Palestinian people have a right to be represented in peace negotiations by representatives of their own choosing. Unfortunately, since Camp David last year, the Palestinians have carried out more than 6,700 armed attacks against Israelis in a fundamental violation of their peace process commitments. This Palestinian campaign of terror has killed 155 Israelis, 114 of them civilians, and it has wounded another 1,500 Israelis. As the Senator from Kentucky pointed out, whether it is a bomb that goes off in a pizza parlor, a discotheque, a school bus, or a shopping mall, this is the way that kind of violence has happened. Now, Israel has responded. Some have criticized Israel for that response. Yet if Israel is not going to practice that kind of response, the violence--such as the incident that just happened in Jerusalem, I think, yesterday, when somebody dressed as an Orthodox Jew walking down the street with a bomb in his backpack, detonated the bomb when an Israeli officer came up to him--must stop. A group of schoolchildren were nearby, but luckily they were not injured. Many others were. The subject here is terror, and no Israeli and no Palestinian should have to live with terror every day, when a child gets on that school bus, when a son goes to work, when a wife goes shopping, when friends meet at a cafe or pizzeria or go to a night club. The bombings, the terror, and the violence must stop. The Palestinian use of this kind of terror over the past 10 months runs contrary to what is expected of a peace partner. Mr. Arafat must understand that allowing an atmosphere of violence and terror to continue will not and cannot lead to peace. The bill we are proposing today, the Middle East Peace Compliance Act, sends that signal clearly and simply and says either the PLO live up to these commitments or we return to a pre-Oslo posture. So it is a very simple and very straightforward bill based on these commitments. It calls for the President to issue a report addressing whether the PLO and the Palestinian Authority are in compliance with the fundamental commitments they have repeatedly made to renounce terrorism. If the President is unable to find that the PLO or the Palestinian Authority is adhering to its commitments, it requires him to restrict nonhumanitarian assistance to the West Bank and Gaza and to impose one of two additional sanctions: Denial of visas to Palestinian Authority officials, or closing the Palestinian office in the United States. I think this legislation is necessary to send a message that we cannot continue this kind of violence. We cannot see that letter abrogated in chapter and verse--the letter that became the foundation of PLO recognition, and the letter that became the foundation of the Oslo peace process. Let me be clear. It is also my expectation that the Government of Israel, for its part, must continue to meet the commitments it has made to peace and continue to exercise restraint in reaction to these Palestinian terrorist acts. Mr. President, we submit this legislation. Again, I am very delighted to work with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. We have a bill and, as the Senator said, we will also offer this as an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill. I thank the Chair and the Senator. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Export Administration Act of 2001 and urge its passage. Congress has not reauthorized the Export Administration Act on a permanent basis since 1990, and for close to a decade the export of dual-use goods--items with both civilian and possible military applications--have been governed in an ad hoc way by the President using Executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and without a comprehensive regime in place to monitor exports. Such an approach creates obvious problems in trying to assure that the proper balance is struck between the need of U.S. businesses to be competitive in the international economy and the need to prevent sensitive technologies that have military applications from falling into the wrong hands. The Export Administration Act will allow the U.S. government to effectively focus attention and exert control over sensitive technologies that have military implications, improve the export control process, and enhance national security. The major provisions of the Export Administration Act of 2001 will: Give the President the power to establish and conduct export control policy, and direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish and maintain the Commerce Control List of items that could jeopardize U.S. national security and to oversee the licensing process for items on the Control list. Authorize the President to impose national security controls to restrict items that would contribute to the military potential of countries in a manner detrimental to U.S. national security, directing the Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the national security agencies and departments, to identify items to be included on a National Security Control List. This strengthens the hand of the national security agencies in the export licensing process by giving them for the first time a formal procedure by which to be involved in this process. Provide specific control authority based on the end-use or end-user for any item that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Authorize the President to set aside ``foreign availability'' or ``mass-market'' determinations in the interests of national security, and establish an Office of Technology Evaluation to gather, coordinate and analyze information necessary to make to these determinations. Establish procedures for the referral and processing of export license applications, and establish an interagency dispute resolution process to review all export license applications that are the subject of disagreement. Declare it U.S. policy to seek and participate in existing multilateral export control regimes that support U.S. national security interests, and to seek to negotiate and enter into additional multilateral agreements. Given the wide availability of some of these dual-use items, multilateral agreements are critical to assure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. Establish new criminal and civil penalties for knowing and willful violations of the export procedures. By streamlining and bringing transparency to the licensing process this legislation, then, strikes a good balance between assuring that the export licensing process is good for trade, the U.S. economy, and jobs, and national security concerns. This legislation is supported by the President and has been endorsed by the Secretary of Defense, by the Secretary of State, and by the President's National Security Adviser. It also has the support, I believe, of the majority of my colleagues. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to move forward with passage of the Export Administration Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have come to this Chamber because I want to make a few comments of welcome to President Vicente Fox. I had the pleasure of speaking with him at Secretary Powell's lunch yesterday and listening to him in the House of Representatives in the joint session this morning. Because I have been critical of Mexico's efforts to stop drug trafficking, their unwillingness to arrest cartel leaders, to vigorously prevent the laundering of drug money, their refusal to extradite a single Mexican national on drugs charges, and because of the widespread corruption within the ranks of Mexican law enforcement, I thought I should come to the Chamber today while President Fox is in our country to say recent reports I have had indicate there has been truly a dramatic change in Mexico. I believe he is to be commended for that. It looks as if he is responsible for an entirely new attitude on the part of his country in the fight against drugs. I wish to take a few moments to commend him and to say how important this is to the United States and to the people of this country. We all recognize that we have a demand problem in this country. In fact, there is even a growing demand problem in Mexico today as well. But, nevertheless, the flood of narcotics across the border represents a major problem for both our nations. It brings with it also collateral problems in the United States and in Mexico: violence, corruption, and even, as we have seen, the brutal torture and murder of literally hundreds of public officials, judges, prosecutors, journalists, and any who dare either to cross the cartels or stand in their way. It is fair to say that these major consequences of the drug trade require that we solve the problem together. Simply put, the Fox administration has made more progress in the war against drugs over the last 6 months than the Government of Mexico made over the previous 9 years. I would like to share some examples, some specifics, if you will, of the progress made by Mexico through the leadership of this brave new President. Prior to the Fox administration, not one major Mexican national drug cartel member had ever been extradited to the United States on drug charges--not one, ever--despite a whole list of pending requests. Since President Fox took office, however, this has changed dramatically. In fact, I had the privilege, at the Davos World Economic Summit, in January, to meet briefly with President Fox. At that time I handed to him directly a list of requested extraditions, prepared by our Drug Enforcement Administration. He said he would take action. I did not really believe him at the time, but he has. After years of court battles, earlier this year the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that Mexican nationals could, indeed, be extradited to the United States. Since January, 14 fugitives have been extradited to our country from Mexico. Four of these were Mexican nationals, and three of the four, for the first time, were Mexican nationals extradited on major drug charges. That may not sound like much, but I can assure you it is a big deal, because many of us who have worked in this area for years believe extradition is a major deterrent to the cartel leadership. The defendant in the Supreme Court case, Everardo Arturo Paez Martinez, is a key member of the Arellano Felix cartel. The United States has been requesting his extradition for years. He was extradited to the United States to stand trial. He is here today. Miguel Angel Martinez-Martinez, an accused drug trafficker, was extradited and is awaiting trial in San Diego. Martinez is a principal figure in the Joaquin ``Chapo'' Guzman Organization. This Sinaloa-based cartel is believed responsible for smuggling tons of cocaine and other illicit narcotics into the United States over many years, and for trying to build a 1,400-foot tunnel from Tijuana to Otay Mesa in California. Rafael Camarena Marcias has also been extradited to the United States. He was responsible for successfully building a tunnel between Agua Prieta, Senora, and Douglas, AZ, through which up to 2 tons of cocaine flowed every day. Extradition has always been the most visible and effective sign of how seriously the Mexican Government is taking the fight against drug cartels. I am very proud to say thank you to President Fox and to the Government of Mexico for their cooperation in this regard. It is not easy for Mexico to target these individuals and send them to the United States for trial. It is politically difficult, for many in Mexico do not believe that Mexican citizens should face trial in the United States, and it is difficult for personal safety reasons as well. Let me give an example. The lawyer who represented Everardo Arturo Paez in opposing extradition for 3 years and who failed to prevent his extradition was found murdered. That is the reward for not succeeding with a cartel. I am told that others may well be in personal jeopardy as well. President Fox's leadership has given the entire country new courage to stand against the cartels, their killers, and their traffickers. In addition to extraditing those already under arrest, the Mexican Government has also made new arrests of certain leaders of Mexican cartels. Adan Amezcua, one of the three Amezcua brothers, was arrested in 1997, but he was freed by a corrupt judge who has since been fired from the bench. Amezcua was rearrested by Mexican officials this past May. Why are they important? The Amezcua brothers are major methamphetamine traffickers. They are responsible single-handedly for the introduction of methamphetamine throughout this country. Indeed, the cartel and its nationals still run meth labs throughout the United States. In cooperation, the Governor of Quintana Roo, Mario Villaneuva, who was arrested while he was still Governor, asked to serve out his term of Governor of Quintana Roo, and then he disappeared the day after he left office and has been gone. Well, he was arrested in May for major drug crimes in Cancun, and today he is in a maximum security prison in Mexico. In February, the Government dismantled an entire cell of the Arellano Felix cartel, perhaps the most vicious cartel operating right out of Tijuana. They arrested 7 of its leaders. They seized 8 houses, 18 vehicles, 19 firearms, and communication devices. Seizures of illegal drugs have been on the rise. Some of them are at an all-time high. In February, the Mexican Government seized 14 tons of marijuana in cookie boxes; in April, another 131 tons. In February, they seized 8.8 tons of cocaine aboard the fishing vessel Forever My Friend, and the 10 crew members have been transported to San Diego; in May, another 12 tons of cocaine aboard a vessel flying a Belize flag. Overall, this past year, 24 tons of cocaine have been seized from fishing vessels as a result of cooperation between Mexico and the United States. The Mexican Government has also addressed the serious issue of internal corruption. The captain of the Mexican Army, Luis Rey Abundis Murga, was sentenced to 17 years in prison for assisting the Carillo Fuentes cartel. Retired general, Jorge Mariano Maldanado Vega was sentenced to 26 years for aiding the same organization. And Mario Silva Calderon, former agent of Mexico's national police, was sentenced to 36 years in prison for similar activity. As Donnie Marshall, former head of the DEA, testified before the drug caucus earlier this year, no one country can possibly combat the wealth and sophistication of these major drug trafficking organizations. Only by cooperating and sharing locally gathered intelligence and assets can we hope to succeed. That is why I am so encouraged by the progress being made by the Fox administration. In the past I know that American law enforcement and even Mexican law enforcement felt that the other side could not be trusted. Now finally that is changing. A new 117-member Mexican organized crime unit, which works hand in hand with our DEA, has fostered new relationships and trust between the law enforcement agencies of our two nations. It is only with this type of cooperation that we can hope to defeat the drug cartels and stem the flow of illegal drugs onto the streets. Before I yield the floor, I would like to address one request President Fox made earlier today regarding passage of S. 219, the Dodd certification legislation. Let me be clear: I continue to support the certification process. We have nothing to replace it. I happen to believe it has some salutary value. Because President Fox has asked, I would be prepared to support a suspension of the certification process with regard to Mexico for the 3 years as requested by President Fox. I would do so because he asks and in the new spirit of cooperation between our two nations. I would be very pleased to work with my colleagues to pass such legislation immediately. I am not, however, prepared to abandon the process entirely with respect to all countries, as S. 219 would do. There are many places in the world where progress has not been made. Syria, Iran, Burma, and Afghanistan are just a few examples of continuing major problem countries. Only a robust certification process gives Congress and the President the tools we need to encourage change in these nations. I hope the Senator from Connecticut would work with me on a compromise that would address only Mexico so we can move forward on this issue. In closing, I again welcome President Fox to the United States. We look forward to working with him in our continuing mutual fight against the drug cartels. I personally, deeply, say thank you and salute this brave and courageous new President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001 along with Senator Shelby, Senator Corzine, Senator Kyl, and Senator Grassley. The goal of this legislation is to require credit bureaus and banks to take precautions against identity theft and to assist identity theft victims in restoring their good name. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans or other services in the victim's name. The criminal literally assumes the identity of the victim for illicit gain. Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the new economy. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates 350,000 cases of identify theft occur annually. If recent trends continue, reports of identity theft to the Federal Trade Commission will double between 2000 and 2001, to over 60,000 cases. Fully 40 percent of all consumer fraud complaints received by the FTC in the first three months of 2001 involved identity theft. Consider some of the following cases: my constituent, Kim Bradbury of Castro Valley, reported that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name through the Internet in just 10 seconds. The false application only had her Social Security number and birth date correct. A man's drivers license was stolen at a night club in Florida. The thief opened a checking account in the man's name at multiple banks and used the accounts to engage in financial fraud. The police, in pursuit of the identity thief, mistakenly arrested the victim five times for crimes committed by the identity thief. One of the arrests caused him to miss his honeymoon. Three youths robbed a young woman on a San Francisco MUNI bus. The thieves stole her driver's license and Social Security card. While the victim was traveling over the Christmas holiday, the thieves represented themselves as her and drained her bank accounts, and applied for cell phones and credit cards in her name. This bill attempts to stem the tide of identity theft by requiring banks, credit bureaus, and other financial institutions to take some practical steps to protect sensitive personal information. 1. The Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001 would require all new credit-card machines to truncate any credit card number printed on a customer receipt. Thus, when a store gives a customer a receipt from a credit card purchase, only the last five digits of the credit card number will show. This prevents identity thieves from stealing credit card numbers by retrieving discarded receipts. Existing machines would have to be reprogrammed to truncate credit card numbers on receipts by 2006. Given that most credit machines have a working life of approximately five years, this reprogramming requirement will put a minimal burden on businesses. 2. The bill requires a credit card company to notify consumers when an additional credit card is requested on an existing credit account within 30 days of an address change request. 3. The bill would require credit bureaus to alert credit issuers of discrepancies between the consumer's address in the bureau's records and the address in the consumer's application for credit. Thus, credit card issuers would be alerted to possible fraud. 4. This bill codifies the industry practice of placing fraud alerts on a consumer's credit file and gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose fines against credit issuers that ignore the alert. Too many credit card issuers are granting new cards without adequately verifying the identity of the applicant. Putting some teeth into fraud alerts will curb irresponsible granting of credit. I also would have reintroduced a provision from the Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000, requiring that the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, develop a Model Reporting Form for victims to send to creditors. However, I am pleased to report that the FTC, encouraged by last year's identity theft bill, has drafted this model form. The new form will be launched in the next several weeks, and will be accepted by the three major credit bureaus as well as several major financial institutions. It will reduce substantially the paperwork burden on identity theft victims who otherwise would have to file literally dozens of reports of fraud. The simple, concrete proposals of this bill are are necessary because financial institutions are the stewards of personal financial data. They have unique access and control over the most sensitive personal information like one's bank account balance or one's credit card number. With this unique access comes a responsibility. Some may question why Congress needs to impose tighter information practices on banks and credit bureaus to address the identify theft crisis. After all, it is true that banks are on the hook for any personal credit losses over $50 due to fraud. Presumably, if banks were losing excessive amounts of money due to identity theft, they would tighten their information practices. However, the problems that face identity theft victims are independent of market forces. So much of identify theft victims' suffering comes from sources other than credit card losses. For example, victims often face extreme difficulties clearing their damaged credit, or even a criminal record, caused by the thief. The typical victim of identity theft spends over 175 hours over two years to clear his name. This legislation has earned the widespread support from a number of consumer and victims groups including the Identity Theft Resources Center, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, and Consumer Federation of America. The Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001 requires financial institutions to take some simple precautions to prevent identity fraud and protect a person's good name. Verifying a credit applicant's address, complying with ``fraud alerts'', notifying credit card holders of unusual requests for new cards, and truncating credit numbers on receipts are all measures that will it make harder for criminals to engage in identify fraud. It is appropriate and necessary for financial institutions to take these steps. These companies have a responsibility to prevent fraudsters from using their services to harm the good name of other citizens. Morever, in this complex, information-driven society, consumers simply can't protect their good name on their own.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001 along with Senator Shelby, Senator Corzine, Senator Kyl, and Senator Grassley. The goal of this legislation is to require credit bureaus and banks to take precautions against identity theft and to assist identity theft victims in restoring their good name. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans or other services in the victim's name. The criminal literally assumes the identity of the victim for illicit gain. Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the new economy. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates 350,000 cases of identify theft occur annually. If recent trends continue, reports of identity theft to the Federal Trade Commission will double between 2000 and 2001, to over 60,000 cases. Fully 40 percent of all consumer fraud complaints received by the FTC in the first three months of 2001 involved identity theft. Consider some of the following cases: my constituent, Kim Bradbury of Castro Valley, reported that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name through the Internet in just 10 seconds. The false application only had her Social Security number and birth date correct. A man's drivers license was stolen at a night club in Florida. The thief opened a checking account in the man's name at multiple banks and used the accounts to engage in financial fraud. The police, in pursuit of the identity thief, mistakenly arrested the victim five times for crimes committed by the identity thief. One of the arrests caused him to miss his honeymoon. Three youths robbed a young woman on a San Francisco MUNI bus. The thieves stole her driver's license and Social Security card. While the victim was traveling over the Christmas holiday, the thieves represented themselves as her and drained her bank accounts, and applied for cell phones and credit cards in her name. This bill attempts to stem the tide of identity theft by requiring banks, credit bureaus, and other financial institutions to take some practical steps to protect sensitive personal information. 1. The Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001 would require all new credit-card machines to truncate any credit card number printed on a customer receipt. Thus, when a store gives a customer a receipt from a credit card purchase, only the last five digits of the credit card number will show. This prevents identity thieves from stealing credit card numbers by retrieving discarded receipts. Existing machines would have to be reprogrammed to truncate credit card numbers on receipts by 2006. Given that most credit machines have a working life of approximately five years, this reprogramming requirement will put a minimal burden on businesses. 2. The bill requires a credit card company to notify consumers when an additional credit card is requested on an existing credit account within 30 days of an address change request. 3. The bill would require credit bureaus to alert credit issuers of discrepancies between the consumer's address in the bureau's records and the address in the consumer's application for credit. Thus, credit card issuers would be alerted to possible fraud. 4. This bill codifies the industry practice of placing fraud alerts on a consumer's credit file and gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose fines against credit issuers that ignore the alert. Too many credit card issuers are granting new cards without adequately verifying the identity of the applicant. Putting some teeth into fraud alerts will curb irresponsible granting of credit. I also would have reintroduced a provision from the Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000, requiring that the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, develop a Model Reporting Form for victims to send to creditors. However, I am pleased to report that the FTC, encouraged by last year's identity theft bill, has drafted this model form. The new form will be launched in the next several weeks, and will be accepted by the three major credit bureaus as well as several major financial institutions. It will reduce substantially the paperwork burden on identity theft victims who otherwise would have to file literally dozens of reports of fraud. The simple, concrete proposals of this bill are are necessary because financial institutions are the stewards of personal financial data. They have unique access and control over the most sensitive personal information like one's bank account balance or one's credit card number. With this unique access comes a responsibility. Some may question why Congress needs to impose tighter information practices on banks and credit bureaus to address the identify theft crisis. After all, it is true that banks are on the hook for any personal credit losses over $50 due to fraud. Presumably, if banks were losing excessive amounts of money due to identity theft, they would tighten their information practices. However, the problems that face identity theft victims are independent of market forces. So much of identify theft victims' suffering comes from sources other than credit card losses. For example, victims often face extreme difficulties clearing their damaged credit, or even a criminal record, caused by the thief. The typical victim of identity theft spends over 175 hours over two years to clear his name. This legislation has earned the widespread support from a number of consumer and victims groups including the Identity Theft Resources Center, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, and Consumer Federation of America. The Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001 requires financial institutions to take some simple precautions to prevent identity fraud and protect a person's good name. Verifying a credit applicant's address, complying with ``fraud alerts'', notifying credit card holders of unusual requests for new cards, and truncating credit numbers on receipts are all measures that will it make harder for criminals to engage in identify fraud. It is appropriate and necessary for financial institutions to take these steps. These companies have a responsibility to prevent fraudsters from using their services to harm the good name of other citizens. Morever, in this complex, information-driven society, consumers simply can't protect their good name on their own.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I applaud my colleagues for passing the Federal Firefighters Retirement Age Fairness Act. This legislation raises the mandatory retirement age for Federal firefighters from 55 to 57. Federal firefighters are first on the scene to many types of disasters in addition to fires. They respond to hazardous materials threats and terrorist incidents such as the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Due to an oversight, however, Federal firefighters are currently the only Federal law enforcement employees required to retire at 55 years. Because many Federal firefighters wish to continue providing their services to the American people after the age of 55, they are frequently hired back by the Federal Government as ``consultants.'' Private consultants charge a higher fee than Federal firefighters' salaries. As a result, the Federal Government pays more money for the same individuals' services, simply because they are over the age of 55. This bill does not change the minimum age to retire with full benefits. If an individual wishes to retire at 55, he or she may do so without penalty. The legislation gives firefighters the option of working until the age of 57 if they wish. The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and the endorsement of key labor organizations such as the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Association of Government Employees, and the International Association of Fire Chiefs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation will save taxpayers more than $4 million over the next four years. Federal firefighting capabilities are being sorely tested; we need to make it possible for agencies to retain experienced, qualified firefighters. ``The Federal Firefighters Retirement Age Fairness Act'' was the first bill the House of Representatives passed unanimously this year. I am pleased my colleagues here in the Senate chose to support this important legislation, as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to honor the late Julian Dixon, an esteemed Member of the House of Representatives from California for more than 20 years. Julian Dixon lived a full life; highlighted by almost thirty years of public service. He served in the Army from 1957 to 1960 and in the California Assembly from 1972 until 1978. Julian was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. As the representative for the Thirty-Second District of California, Julian consistently fought to maintain our Nation's commitment to civil rights and to increase the economic upward mobility of his constituents. Julian was also chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and worked tirelessly to establish a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. here in our Nation's capital. Julian's legislative work covered myriad issues from intelligence to defense to congressional ethics. He was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the committee that determines defense appropriations. He used his position on the appropriations committee to provide Federal aid for communities that were devastated by base closings and other defense cuts. He also helped secure emergency funding for damaged businesses after the Northridge earthquake and the Los Angeles riots. Julian was not only a great legislator, but also a great human being. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word who was willing to work across partisan lines to improve the lives of his constituents and so many Americans. I was privileged as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee to work with Mr. Dixon. In this role, Julian always put California's needs first. Julian served with passion and distinction. He was a man of the highest integrity and credibility. I am sure his constituents will be proud to have a Post Office named in his honor. Julian Dixon was a man of principle and fairness whose grace and humility will be sorely missed. I am pleased to honor his memory by introducing a bill to designate the Post Office at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles as the ``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post Office Building.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to honor the late Julian Dixon, an esteemed Member of the House of Representatives from California for more than 20 years. Julian Dixon lived a full life; highlighted by almost thirty years of public service. He served in the Army from 1957 to 1960 and in the California Assembly from 1972 until 1978. Julian was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. As the representative for the Thirty-Second District of California, Julian consistently fought to maintain our Nation's commitment to civil rights and to increase the economic upward mobility of his constituents. Julian was also chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and worked tirelessly to establish a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. here in our Nation's capital. Julian's legislative work covered myriad issues from intelligence to defense to congressional ethics. He was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the committee that determines defense appropriations. He used his position on the appropriations committee to provide Federal aid for communities that were devastated by base closings and other defense cuts. He also helped secure emergency funding for damaged businesses after the Northridge earthquake and the Los Angeles riots. Julian was not only a great legislator, but also a great human being. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word who was willing to work across partisan lines to improve the lives of his constituents and so many Americans. I was privileged as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee to work with Mr. Dixon. In this role, Julian always put California's needs first. Julian served with passion and distinction. He was a man of the highest integrity and credibility. I am sure his constituents will be proud to have a Post Office named in his honor. Julian Dixon was a man of principle and fairness whose grace and humility will be sorely missed. I am pleased to honor his memory by introducing a bill to designate the Post Office at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles as the ``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post Office Building.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing this important legislation. I rise today with Senators Chafee, Snowe, Schumer, Collins, Bingaman, Specter, Clinton, Jeffords, Graham, Harkin, and Corzine to introduce the Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2001. The Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2001 would give States the option to provide family planning services to low-income women who do not qualify for Medicaid. Each year, approximately 3 million pregnancies, or about half of all pregnancies, are unintended. Increasing access to family planning services could help avert these 3 million unintended pregnancies and all the decisions and costs associated with either continuing or terminating a pregnancy. Family planning services give women the necessary tools to space the births of their children, which improves women's health and reduces rates of infant mortality. Medicaid family planning is also cost effective. For every $1 invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health care- related costs. The Federal Government currently reimburses States for 90 percent of their expenditures for family planning services under Medicaid. If States want to provide Medicaid family planning services to populations of low-income women, other than low-income pregnant women or low-income women with children, they must apply to the Federal Government for a waiver. Presently, 14 States, including California, have obtained Medicaid waivers from the Federal Government to provide family planning services to over 1.3 million women annually. Another eight States have applied for waivers. The waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, often taking up to three years to receive approval from the Federal Government. This is legislation is timely because once again the door is being closed by the Administration on women's reproductive health. This time, the losers will be low-income women. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson announced last month that he will not approve any new waiver requests nor grant any renewals for single service waivers, which includes this Medicaid family planning waiver. And if the Administration gets its way, California will lose $100 million a year, and over 900,000 low-income Californians will have to look elsewhere for family planning and reproductive health services. Family planning and reproductive health services are much more than just accessing contraceptives. Services provided include screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, basic infertility services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Women can receive pap smears and breast exams, which are crucial to detecting cervical and breast cancer. It is estimated that this waiver will save California $900 million over the 5-year waiver period in public expenditures for medical care and social services. It is ironic that an Administration that is seeking to reduce the number of abortions would try to halt the very family planning services that could avoid unintended pregnancies. In effect, the Administration is asking the clinics in our States, which provide services to some of our Nation's sickest and most vulnerable populations, to either turn away low-income women that need family planning services at the door or to provide them with services without the necessary funds. I am pleased to join my colleagues in saying enough is enough. Low income women deserve access to family planning and reproductive health services. And States should not have to ask the federal government for permission to use Medicaid funds to provide these essential services. It is time that this Administration walk-the-walk and talk-the-talk. We cannot afford to shut the door on those who cannot otherwise afford family planning and reproductive health services. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Boxer's amendment to establish once and for all a protective standard for arsenic in our Nation's drinking water. As most of my colleagues know, I have had a longstanding interest in cancer. For me this fight is a personal one. I lost my father and my husband to cancer. My current husband, Richard, lost both his parents to cancer. And I have lost a host of dear friends to this terrible disease. With cancer, you're never the same after experiencing this with a loved one. You're determined to do something about it. This is the major reason I was extremely disappointed when the current administration, soon after taking office, postponed the implementation of Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new drinking water standard for arsenic earlier this year. Arsenic has long been know as a carcinogen, a substance that produces cancer, and yet the current administration shelved the new rule in 58 days flat. Administration officials explained that the reason for this postponement was to allow for additional scientific review. I find this position difficult to comprehend when one considers how much scientific review has gone into this ruling. The Federal Government has studied arsenic for almost 40 years. In fact, few government environmental decisions have been more thoroughly researched, over so many years, than the EPA's move to lower the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. This standard was first proposed by the U.S. Public Health Service back in 1962. Over the next three decades, regulators weighed dozens of studies on the issue as they struggled to balance the health risks, which mostly include increased risk of cancer, with the costs of extracting the metal from drinking water. We should take note of a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences. In this report the Academy concluded that the arsenic standard for drinking water of 50 ppb, set in 1942 before arsenic was known to cause cancer, ``does not achieve EPA's goal for public health protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as possible.'' In fact, the Academy reported that drinking water at the current EPA standard of 50 ppb ``could easily'' result in a total fatal cancer risk of 1 in 100 about 10,000 times higher than the cancer risk EPA allows for carcinogens in food. And we should remember that children's increased exposures to environmental carcinogens, such as arsenic, are potentially even more serious. Children's higher risk results from the fact that they breath more air, drink more water and eat more food per pound than do adults; for example, a child in the first six months of life consumes seven times as much water per pound of body weight as does the average American adult. Therefore, a carcinogen has a much more significant impact on a child. There are over 70,000 chemicals in common use today in the United States and several dozen known carcinogens, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Rachel Carson warned us in 1962, ``For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death.'' For those dangerous chemicals which we have the ability to limit from human exposure, such as arsenic in drinking water, we should absolutely take the necessary steps to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their understanding and willingness to work with me on this project. The Metrolink system is quickly reaching capacity. With continued federal support, it will be able to meet the growing demands for its service, while reducing congestion and improving the air quality of southern California. funding to improve the highway system of aroostook county in northern maine

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss a transportation infrastructure project that is of great importance to the southern California region. I want to first, however, thank Chairman Murray and Senator Shelby for their outstanding work on this bill. The fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill provides appropriations for important transportation and transit projects in the State of California and the rest of the nation. The transportation needs in California alone are tremendous. I understand the difficulty you faced in trying to meet as many of these needs as possible under tight budget constraints. I am concerned, however, that this is an important California project that was not funded--the Metrolink's double track project on the San Bernardino line.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise alongside my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``POW Assistance Act of 2001''. This legislation makes an important statement in support of the many members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were used as slave labor by Japanese companies during the Second World War or subject to chemical and biological warfare experiments in Japanese POW camps. The core of this bill is a clarification that in any pending lawsuit brought by former POWs against Japanese corporations, or any lawsuits which might be filed in the future, the Federal court shall apply the applicable statute of limitations of the State in which the action was brought. This legislation is important because a recently enacted California law enables victims of WWII slave labor to seek damages up to the year 2010 against responsible Japanese companies, just as any citizen can sue a private company. Seventeen lawsuits have been filed on behalf of former POWs who survived forced labor, beatings, and starvation at the hands of Japanese companies. By asking Federal judges to look to the State statute of limitation, this legislation sends a clear message to the courts that we believe that suits with merit should not be precluded. Today, too many Americans and Japanese do not know that American POWs performed forced labor for Japanese companies during the war. American POWs, including those who had been forced through the Bataan Death March, were starved and denied adequate medical care and were forced to perform slave labor for private Japanese companies. American POWs toiled in mines, factories, shipyards, and steel mills. Many POWs worked virtually every day for 10 hours or more, often under extremely dangerous working conditions. They were starved and denied adequate medical care. Even today, many survivors still suffer from health problems directly tied to their slave labor. It is critical that we do not forget the heroism and sacrifice of the POWs, and that the United States government does not stand in the way of their pursuit of recognition and compensation. They have never received an apology or payment from the companies that enslaved them, many of which are still in existence today. The bill that Senator Hatch and I have introduced today does not prejudice the outcome of the lawsuits which are pending one way or another. The legislation we have introduced today simply holds that the lawsuits filed in California, or any which may still be filed under the California statute of limitations, should be allowed to go forward so that this issue can be settled definitively, without impeding the right of the POWs to pursue justice. One of my most important goals in the Senate has been to see the development of a Pacific Rim community that is peaceful and stable. And I am pleased that the Government of Japan today is a close ally and good friend of the United States, and a responsible member of the international community. And I want to clarify that this legislation is not directed at the people or government of Japan. The POWs and veterans are only seeking justice from the private companies that enslaved them, and this legislation has been designed in the interest of allowing these claims to move forward. But I also believe that if Japan is to play a greater role in the international community it is important for Japan, the United States, and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region to be able to reconcile interpretations of memory and history, especially of the Second World War. If, as Gerrit Gong has written, Japan aspires to be a normal country, this question of ``remembering and forgetting'' is critical if Japan hopes to forge an environment in which its neighbors ``do not object to that country's engaging in a full range of international activities and capabilities.'' The goal of this legislation is to remove this outstanding issue in U.S.-Japan relations, and to try to heal wounds that still remain. I hope that the Senate will see fit to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise alongside my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``POW Assistance Act of 2001''. This legislation makes an important statement in support of the many members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were used as slave labor by Japanese companies during the Second World War or subject to chemical and biological warfare experiments in Japanese POW camps. The core of this bill is a clarification that in any pending lawsuit brought by former POWs against Japanese corporations, or any lawsuits which might be filed in the future, the Federal court shall apply the applicable statute of limitations of the State in which the action was brought. This legislation is important because a recently enacted California law enables victims of WWII slave labor to seek damages up to the year 2010 against responsible Japanese companies, just as any citizen can sue a private company. Seventeen lawsuits have been filed on behalf of former POWs who survived forced labor, beatings, and starvation at the hands of Japanese companies. By asking Federal judges to look to the State statute of limitation, this legislation sends a clear message to the courts that we believe that suits with merit should not be precluded. Today, too many Americans and Japanese do not know that American POWs performed forced labor for Japanese companies during the war. American POWs, including those who had been forced through the Bataan Death March, were starved and denied adequate medical care and were forced to perform slave labor for private Japanese companies. American POWs toiled in mines, factories, shipyards, and steel mills. Many POWs worked virtually every day for 10 hours or more, often under extremely dangerous working conditions. They were starved and denied adequate medical care. Even today, many survivors still suffer from health problems directly tied to their slave labor. It is critical that we do not forget the heroism and sacrifice of the POWs, and that the United States government does not stand in the way of their pursuit of recognition and compensation. They have never received an apology or payment from the companies that enslaved them, many of which are still in existence today. The bill that Senator Hatch and I have introduced today does not prejudice the outcome of the lawsuits which are pending one way or another. The legislation we have introduced today simply holds that the lawsuits filed in California, or any which may still be filed under the California statute of limitations, should be allowed to go forward so that this issue can be settled definitively, without impeding the right of the POWs to pursue justice. One of my most important goals in the Senate has been to see the development of a Pacific Rim community that is peaceful and stable. And I am pleased that the Government of Japan today is a close ally and good friend of the United States, and a responsible member of the international community. And I want to clarify that this legislation is not directed at the people or government of Japan. The POWs and veterans are only seeking justice from the private companies that enslaved them, and this legislation has been designed in the interest of allowing these claims to move forward. But I also believe that if Japan is to play a greater role in the international community it is important for Japan, the United States, and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region to be able to reconcile interpretations of memory and history, especially of the Second World War. If, as Gerrit Gong has written, Japan aspires to be a normal country, this question of ``remembering and forgetting'' is critical if Japan hopes to forge an environment in which its neighbors ``do not object to that country's engaging in a full range of international activities and capabilities.'' The goal of this legislation is to remove this outstanding issue in U.S.-Japan relations, and to try to heal wounds that still remain. I hope that the Senate will see fit to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Roberts and I are submitting a resolution on civic participation. The resolution has three provision: 1. It proclaims the week beginning September 15, 2002 as National Civic Participation Week; 2. It proclaims National Civic Participation Week as a week of programs and activities that encourage greater participation in elections and the political process; and 3. It requests the President to issue a proclamation calling on organizations and the people of the country to promote the use of technology in fostering civic participation through the dissemination of information. The thrust of this resolution is to encourage activities among Americans, especially young people, to use technology to become more involved in the country's civic life. As our Nation's leaders, it is our job to show Americans, especially young people, the importance of being involved in local, State, and national affairs. Civic participation is the arena in which citizens can express their views and engage in dialogue and actions that, influence public policy and guide public officials to carry out the citizen's views and recommendations. With advances in Internet technology and other computerized forms of communication, today we can offer citizens new and innovative ways of learning about and interacting with their local, State and Federal Government in an easily accessible way. With only 65.9 percent of all Americans registered to vote in the 1996 Presidential election, according to the Federal Election Commission, the Civic Participation Week resolution will try to make more people aware of their right and responsibility to take an active role in government. There is no question that we need more Americans involved in their government. In fact, our democracy depends on it. In the most recent Presidential election last year in the United States, only 50.7 percent of the registered voters actually voted, according to the November 9, 2000 Washington Post. This compares to 49 percent in the 1996 and 50.1 percent in the 1988 Federal elections. Among young people, the voter turnout in this country is considerably lower. In the 18-21 age group, only 43.6 percent are registered to vote, and a dismal 18.5 percent actually voted in 1998, according to Federal Election Commission data. In many other countries, the voter turnout is considerably higher than in the United States. According to the Federal Election Commission, in Kazakhstan's 1999 Presidential election, there was a 87.05 percent voter turnout. In Iceland, there was a 85.9 percent voter turnout in the 1996 Presidential election. The 1995 Presidential election in Argentina had a 80.9 percent turnout of registered voters. Internet technology may be an especially effective way to reach young Americans because information is highly accessible. Available at the click of a mouse, and young people seem to prefer computers as an information-gathering tool over more traditional methods. This use of new technology can help bring people together and can promote citizen participation in the political process through more volunteerism, easier access to information, and heightened activism in our Nation's civic life. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very concerned about unsafe Mexican trucks entering the United States and endangering American motorists. I have no doubts that there will be accidents and lives will be lost. I very strongly believe that the U.S. Senate must stand firm and do everything in our power to make sure trucks are not allowed to travel throughout the U.S. unless they comply with all U.S. safety rules and regulations. This includes making sure Mexican drivers hold valid drivers licenses, retain adequate American insurance, and abide by U.S. hours of service limits. Right now on our border, even if a Mexican truck crossing into the United States is inspected, the safety inspector has no idea how long the Mexican driver has been driving. I believe we should not let a driver who has been driving 20 hours into the United States because doing so would endanger American lives. I have spoken with the Mexican Ambassador on this issue, and we both agreed that Mexican trucks should meet all U.S. laws. I don't want to discriminate against Mexican trucks, but we need to have the proper procedures in place before these trucks expand their travel throughout the United States. There are clearly not enough inspections at the border right now because only 1 or 2 percent of the trucks crossing the border are given safety inspections. I believe strongly in this issue, and I raised these concerns with Senator Murray, the Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and I think she has done an excellent job to include provisions to address safety while still ensuring the language is NAFTA compliant. The Murray-Shelby provisions will keep our highways safe, while meeting our obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement. I strongly believe that we must make safety the highest priority and that is exactly what the Murray-Shelby provisions do. Last year, more than 5,300 Americans died in accidents involving commercial trucks. As the Department of Transportation's Inspector General said last Wednesday, 5,300 fatalities would mean an airline crash every two weeks. Now just think about that. If there were a catastrophic transportation incident every 2 weeks, would we want to do something to worsen the danger and increase fatalities? I hope we wouldn't, but that is exactly what we are doing if we allow the Bush Administration to proceed and open up the entire U.S. highway system to Mexican trucks. Mexican trucks pose significant safety threats when out on the roads. U.S. safety inspectors have found that, on average, 36 percent of the Mexican trucks inspected have significant safety defects. This means over one-third of all Mexican trucks have serious safety violations, such as defective breaks, inoperative steering, and bald tires. Truck drivers might also not have a valid drivers license, lawful insurance, or logbooks to document how many hours they have been driving without sleep. True, U.S. trucks have an ``out-of-service'' rate of over 20 percent, but the rate for Mexican trucks at 36 percent is still well above the U.S. average. More importantly, safety inspectors can only evaluate 1 or 2 percent of the 4.5 million trucks that cross the U.S.-Mexican border each year. I believe that until our Nation has the people and the infrastructure at the border necessary to inspect Mexican trucks sufficiently, they must be contained in the 20-mile commercial zone where they now operate. There are three different approaches to address how to keep our roads safe: First, the House has said, ``no matter what, keep the trucks out.'' On June 26 the House passed an unconditional ban on Mexican trucks, and that is one option. Second, the administration and Senators working with the administration on this issue have said, ``open the border as soon as possible.'' Now, they do call for some safety requirements and some enforcement to be in place, but this is not an issue where we should provide a half-loaf solution. And third, there is the option that I support--the option chosen unanimously by the members of the Appropriations Committee--to put safety first and not open the border until specific safety requirements are in place. The Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $103.2 million not approved by the House to pay for more resources at the border. The bill includes $13.9 million for additional safety inspectors, $18 million for grants to border states, and $71.3 million for facilities along the U.S.-Mexican border. Even with the steps being taken, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General has said that ``additional actions are needed to reasonably ensure the safety of commercial vehicles and drivers as they enter at the southern border, operate within the commercial zone, and traverse the United States.'' To address these concerns, the Appropriations Committee included comprehensive safety provisions in this bill. Most importantly, Mexican trucks will stay within the commercial zone and off all other U.S. highways until they meet the safety standards demanded by American motorists. Specifically, under the bipartisan Murray-Shelby provisions, Mexican carriers will be given full safety reviews before they will be allowed to operate in the United States and the Department of Transportation will keep a watchful eye on how they operate once they are found to be safe carriers through a follow-up safety audit. In addition, the following steps must be taken by the Department of Transportation and the 190 Mexican carriers that are awaiting permits to send their trucks throughout the United States: The Department of Transportation must: Certify that all border crossings have complete coverage by trained inspectors during all operating hours; Certify all 80 new border inspectors as ``safety specialists''; Provide adequate facilities to conduct inspections and place unsafe trucks out of service; Conduct a sufficient number of inspections to maintain safe roads; and Certify that there is an accurate system to verify Mexican drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, and insurance certificates on the border. Mexican carriers must: Comply with U.S. hours-of-service rules so that U.S. inspectors know how long a trucker has been driving when they arrive at the border; and Provide proof of valid insurance granted by a U.S. firm. It is essential to recognize that the Murray-Shelby provisions don't open the border until safety standards are met, but the Bush administration wants to open the border as soon as possible and monitor safety while trucks are operating throughout the United States. Should we not err on the side of caution and have our inspectors and infrastructure in place before Mexican trucks are allowed north? As I mentioned, I have met with the Mexican Ambassador, Juan Jose Bremer, on this issue and we both agree that Mexican trucks should meet U.S. safety standards. Because--at this stage--Mexican trucks present a greater danger than other trucks on our roads, we must protect American motorists. I am encouraged by the steps Mexico has taken to work with the United States--not just on this issue, but on others as well. Yet, I am a strong supporter of the provisions authored by Senator Murray because I believe some more steps need to be taken on both sides to address safety before Mexican trucks travel throughout the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself and 71 other Senate cosponsors, I rise today to offer legislation to extend the life of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for an additional six years. I was surprised by the U.S. Postal Service's recent rule-making which could possibly terminate the Breast Cancer Research Stamp program by next July. The Postal Service effectively decided to permit only one stamp to be issued at a time to raise funds for a specific cause. This rule would therefore force competition for survival among a number of other potential and worthy fund-raising stamps. This action would be a terrible mistake. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp has demonstrated itself to be a highly effective and self-supporting fund-raiser. To date, the stamp has raised $21.1 million for research in addition to the $60,000 the Postal Service has recovered for administrative costs. Every year the stamp has existed, it has generated strong consumer sales. In two months of operation in fiscal year 1998, consumers bought 9.2 million stamps, generating $700,000 for research on net sales of $3.68 million. In fiscal year 1999, consumers bought 101.2 million stamps, yielding 7.5 million for research on net sales of $40.48 million. In fiscal year 2000, consumers purchased 119.9 million stamps, garnering $8 million for research on net sales of $47.96 million. In fiscal year 2001, the program continues to be vital. With two months remaining, consumers have already bought 75.2 million stamps, raising $4.8 million for research on sales of $30.08 million. In total, the American people have purchased 305 million Breast Cancer Research stamps. This means that, on average, more than one stamp has been purchased for every citizen in our Nation and 100 million stamps were sold per year since the stamp was first introduced in August 1998. Clearly, the program continues to have a strong and committed customer base. We should also recognize that the National Cancer Institute and the Department of Defense have put these research dollars to good use by funding novel and innovative research in the area of breast cancer. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, National Cancer Institute director, these awards benefit ``over a dozen critical areas of breast cancer research.'' Millions of Americans have bought the stamps to honor loved ones with the disease, to highlight their own personal battle with breast cancer, or to promote general public awareness. Virtually everywhere I travel, people tell me they buy the stamps in the hopes of helping to find a cure. Moreover, one cannot calculate in dollars or cents the value the stamp has played in increasing the visibility of the disease and the need for additional research funding. The life of such an extraordinary program should not prematurely end because of an administrative decision. There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our nation: breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer among women. In 2001, approximately 192,200 women will get breast cancer. This year 40,200 women will die from breast cancer. Breast cancer represents 31 percent of all new cancers faced by women. Approximately 3 million women in the United States are living with breast cancer. Of these individuals, 2 million know they have the disease, and 1 million remain unaware of their condition. We have learned over the past few years how effective the Breast Cancer Research Stamp is at promoting public awareness of the disease. Yet, we still must reach out to the one million American women who do not know of their cancer. Some may argue that the Breast Cancer Stamp should end so that other semi-postal stamps can have their turn at raising funds for a cause. But it is a faulty premise that only one semi-postal stamp can succeed at a time. I believe there is room for multiple fund-raising stamps at the same time. Every year, the Postal Service issues dozens of commemorative steps. In 2001, for example, the Postal Service sold stamps commemorating topics as various as diabetes awareness, Black Heritage, and military veterans. Many of these stamps have sold extraordinarily well. The viability of a postage stamp depends on its appeal to postal customers. Over a three year period, the Breast Cancer Research has demonstrated a sustained and committed customer base. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to grant the Breast Cancer Stamp another six years. Every dollar raised to fight the disease can help save lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself and 71 other Senate cosponsors, I rise today to offer legislation to extend the life of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for an additional six years. I was surprised by the U.S. Postal Service's recent rule-making which could possibly terminate the Breast Cancer Research Stamp program by next July. The Postal Service effectively decided to permit only one stamp to be issued at a time to raise funds for a specific cause. This rule would therefore force competition for survival among a number of other potential and worthy fund-raising stamps. This action would be a terrible mistake. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp has demonstrated itself to be a highly effective and self-supporting fund-raiser. To date, the stamp has raised $21.1 million for research in addition to the $60,000 the Postal Service has recovered for administrative costs. Every year the stamp has existed, it has generated strong consumer sales. In two months of operation in fiscal year 1998, consumers bought 9.2 million stamps, generating $700,000 for research on net sales of $3.68 million. In fiscal year 1999, consumers bought 101.2 million stamps, yielding 7.5 million for research on net sales of $40.48 million. In fiscal year 2000, consumers purchased 119.9 million stamps, garnering $8 million for research on net sales of $47.96 million. In fiscal year 2001, the program continues to be vital. With two months remaining, consumers have already bought 75.2 million stamps, raising $4.8 million for research on sales of $30.08 million. In total, the American people have purchased 305 million Breast Cancer Research stamps. This means that, on average, more than one stamp has been purchased for every citizen in our Nation and 100 million stamps were sold per year since the stamp was first introduced in August 1998. Clearly, the program continues to have a strong and committed customer base. We should also recognize that the National Cancer Institute and the Department of Defense have put these research dollars to good use by funding novel and innovative research in the area of breast cancer. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, National Cancer Institute director, these awards benefit ``over a dozen critical areas of breast cancer research.'' Millions of Americans have bought the stamps to honor loved ones with the disease, to highlight their own personal battle with breast cancer, or to promote general public awareness. Virtually everywhere I travel, people tell me they buy the stamps in the hopes of helping to find a cure. Moreover, one cannot calculate in dollars or cents the value the stamp has played in increasing the visibility of the disease and the need for additional research funding. The life of such an extraordinary program should not prematurely end because of an administrative decision. There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our nation: breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer among women. In 2001, approximately 192,200 women will get breast cancer. This year 40,200 women will die from breast cancer. Breast cancer represents 31 percent of all new cancers faced by women. Approximately 3 million women in the United States are living with breast cancer. Of these individuals, 2 million know they have the disease, and 1 million remain unaware of their condition. We have learned over the past few years how effective the Breast Cancer Research Stamp is at promoting public awareness of the disease. Yet, we still must reach out to the one million American women who do not know of their cancer. Some may argue that the Breast Cancer Stamp should end so that other semi-postal stamps can have their turn at raising funds for a cause. But it is a faulty premise that only one semi-postal stamp can succeed at a time. I believe there is room for multiple fund-raising stamps at the same time. Every year, the Postal Service issues dozens of commemorative steps. In 2001, for example, the Postal Service sold stamps commemorating topics as various as diabetes awareness, Black Heritage, and military veterans. Many of these stamps have sold extraordinarily well. The viability of a postage stamp depends on its appeal to postal customers. Over a three year period, the Breast Cancer Research has demonstrated a sustained and committed customer base. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to grant the Breast Cancer Stamp another six years. Every dollar raised to fight the disease can help save lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, last week I came to the floor to express my concern about U.S. policy at the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. This was the first effort by the international community to address the issue of the illicit proliferation of small arms and light weapons at the United Nations. I believed it was imperative that the United States take a leadership role in the conference rather than being an impediment to progress. It seemed to me, that the position staked out by Undersecretary Bolton in his opening statement at the conference--a position which I found to be unwarranted and unwise--had created the very real possibility the conference, because of the U.S. position, would be doomed to failure. The conference did not fail--a consensus on a program of action was achieved. But the conference was far from a total success. The conference had presented the international community with an unparalleled opportunity to take meaningful and concrete steps to develop and implement a clear international plan of action. Instead the program of action, approved by the conference, is all too often silent on important issues, and all too often weak and equivocal in places where a course of action is needed. The program of action does contain provisions addressing such critical issues as: establishing national regulations on arms brokers; the need for greater security of weapons stockpiles held by states; a commitment to carry out more effective post-conflict disarmament and demobilization programs, including the destruction of surplus stocks; and, criminalizing the illegal production, possession, stockpiling, and trade of small arms and light weapons. If individual nations and the international community are able to effectively follow through in these areas it will mark a significant step forward on this issue. And, just as importantly, the program of action calls for a follow-up conference, no later than 2006, the time and place to be determined by the 58th United Nations General Assembly. Unfortunately, consensus on the program of action was only achieved after lengthy and sometimes acrimonious negotiations. Many of the participants--especially those from sub-Saharan Africa, which has been hit so hard by the scourge of small arms and light weapons--have come away with a deep sense of disappointment that more was not accomplished. And they are laying the blame for much of the conference's shortcomings squarely at the feet of the United States. A number of critical issues were left out of the final program of action, including: failure to reach a commitment to negotiate international treaties on arms brokering or the marking and tracing of weapons; absence of any reference to regulate civilian ownership of weapons; no reference to protecting human rights; and, a lack of commitment to greater transparency on the trade in small arms and light weapons. In addition, in all too many cases the forward looking action that was agreed on is to take place ``within existing resources'' rather than with the additional resources that are required to address this issue--or to only be carried out ``as appropriate'' allowing wide latitude for interpretation. Considering the strong commitments for such issues as international agreements on brokering and the marking and tracing of weapons in the earlier drafts of the Program of action, it is very disappointing that these items were blocked from inclusion in the final document. While some of the blame must also be allotted to others, the United States must face up to the role it played in impeding action on some of these issues--including in areas where the United States itself already has strong laws on the books. For example, there were legitimate questions about what the appropriate language for the program of action should have been regarding private ownership of small arms and light weapons. But it is important to recognize that U.S. law and numerous Supreme Court rulings recognize that government regulations on private ownership of weapons is legitimate, notwithstanding somewhat spurious arguments about the nature of the Second Amendment raised by some who influenced the U.S. position at the conference. The National Firearms Act and the assault weapons ban are just two of the laws that the United States has on the books which control private ownership of small arms and light weapons and pass constitutional muster. For the United States to stand in the way of a non-binding document suggesting international efforts to seek ways, consistent with individual national constitutional and political structures, to control private ownership of small arms and light weapons is, to me at least, mind boggling. This is especially important given the clear nexus between legal trade and private ownership and the growth of the international black market in small arms and light weapons. According to the independent Small Arms Survey 2001 by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, the black market often operates on a individual basis, where a small numbers of legally purchased guns are sold to illegal buyers across international borders. Such individual black market transfers have a dramatic cumulative effect. The United States, with its huge stores of privately-held firearms, is both a source, a supplier, and a recipient of these transfers. Although it is very difficult to quantify illicit arms trafficking in the United States, there are clear indicators that a number of criminal gangs operating on U.S. territory are active in the trafficking of small arms and light weapons into Canada and Mexico. The United States is the largest source of illegal weapons for Mexico, for example, with this arms trade directly linked to the drug trade. I believe that Ambassador McConnell and Assistant Secretary Bloomfield and others on the U.S. delegation acted to the best of their abilities to represent the United States. But I am also concerned that the unrelenting unilateralist position taken by the United States has served to undermine and damage our reputation as a leader in the international community. The majority of delegations at the conference expressed displeasure with the U.S. attitude and approach to the meetings, sometimes in terms that verged on the undiplomatic. For example, Camilio Reyes of Colombia, the president of the conference--who deserves recognition for his hard work on this issue--said at the conference's close that: ``I must express my disappointment over the conference's inability to agree due to the concerns of one State on language recognizing the needs to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to nonstate groups.'' Both of these issues were blocked by the United States. As I stated on the floor last week, I believe that the global flood of small arms is a real and pressing threat to peace, development, democracy, human rights, and U.S. national security interests around the world. These weapons are cheap: An AK-47 can be bought for as little as $15 in sub-Saharan Africa. They are durable and easy to transport and to smuggle across international boundaries. And, with little or no training, anyone--including children--can use these weapons to deadly effect. According to the independent Small Arms Survey 2001, small arms are implicated in well over 1,000 deaths around the world every single day. The goals of the United Nations conference was not to infringe on national sovereignty or to take guns away from their legal owners. And it would not have, in my opinion, even with the inclusion of some of the language to which the United States objected. The freedoms and rights of American citizens would not have been diminished by a stronger, more forward looking program of action. As Secretary General Annan stated, the goals of the conference were to address the problems created by ``unscrupulous arms dealers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, terrorists and others who bring death and mayhem into streets, schools and towns throughout the world.'' The conference's program of action represents an important first step by the international community toward developing an international framework for cooperation and collaboration to promote better national and international laws and more effective regulations to eliminate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. In fact, the United States has not formally consented to the program for action, so this is a step I urge the Administration to take as soon as possible. And much more will be needed in the future. Many important issues that should have been addressed by the conference were not and other issues that were did not receive sufficient emphasis. I am hopeful that, looking ahead, the United States will be able to play a more constructive leadership role as we work towards developing real and binding international norms and agreements on these issues.