Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Criminal Gang Abatement Act of 2001, a bill to give law enforcement additional tools to fight the scourge of gang violence. This legislation builds on and improves the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the first Federal statute to address directly the problem of criminal gangs. I am delighted that Senator Hatch joins me in introducing this bill and I thank him for his hard work in helping develop the legislation. I know that this bill will be familiar to my colleagues. It is similar to legislation that was included in the Juvenile Justice bill in the last Congress. The Senate passed the Juvenile Justice bill overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, it did not become law. That is why Senator Hatch and I are introducing this gang legislation separately. Mr. President, I care deeply about solving the problem of gang violence and crime. I worked extensively on this problem when I was Mayor of San Francisco and have long considered it one of my top priorities. I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be, and how damaging they are to the victims and to the surrounding community. Let me give you a couple of recent examples from my own home city of San Francisco. Last year, gang members tried to rob a passerby with an assault weapon from their car. When the victim resisted, the gang shot the victim 17 times. The victim survived but will never walk again. Only two months before that assault, two rival gangs had a shootout in San Francisco's Mission District. An innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and shot through both legs. A brave eyewitness gave law enforcement the name of one shooting suspect, who was then arrested. The gang then tracked down the witness, put a 9 millimeter automatic to his head, and threatened to kill him for cooperating with the police. I would like to explain how this legislation will help deter and punish such crimes, and why Congress should act quickly to pass it. First, the bill makes it a separate Federal crime to recruit persons to join a criminal street gang with the intent that the recruit participate in a Federal drug or violent crime. The penalty is up to 10 years in jail. The offender can also be held responsible for reimbursing the government's costs in housing, maintaining, and treating the minor until the age of 18. The purpose of this provision is to deter criminal gang recruitment. Such recruitment has continued to grow and grow every year. Even while crime has been dropping generally, the number of criminal gangs and gang members has spiraled. The 1999 Justice Department survey of gangs, the most recent available, found that the number of gang members has increased 8 percent just from 1998. In fact, the growth of criminal gangs in the country over the last 20 years, has been extraordinary. Twenty years ago, the gang problem was centered in Los Angeles and Chicago. Today, though, there are gangs in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. In 1980, there were gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they are in over 1500 jurisdictions. In 1980, there were about 2000 gangs. Today, there are over 26,000 gangs. In 1980, there were about 100,000 gang members. Today, there are 840,500 gang members. Let me read from a Department of Justice publication entitled ``The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States: 1970-1998'' that was just released a few months ago: Youth gang problems in the United States grew dramatically between the 1970's and 1990's, with the prevalence of gangs reaching unprecedented levels. The growth was manifested by steep increase in the number of cities, counties, and States reporting gang problems. Increases in the number of gang localities were paralleled by increases in the proportions and populations of localities reporting gang problems. There was a shift in regions contains larger numbers of gang cities, with the Old South showing the most dramatic increase. The size of the gang-problem localities also changed, with gang problems spreading to cities, villages, and counties smaller in size than at any time in the past. And as gangs have increased, so have all forms of youth violence. That is because youngsters who join gangs are much more likely to commit violent crimes than similarly situated youngsters who are not in gangs. Research shows, for example, that young people who join gangs are four to six times more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they are gang members than when they are not. And it is also because gang members are responsible for a large proportion of violent crime. They don't just commit one violent crime but many. One study found, for example, that gang members, who were 14 percent of sample, reported committing 89 percent of all serious violent offenses in the area. Enacting this bill would give law enforcement an important tool to deter criminal gang recruitment, thus reducing gang crime. The bill makes it a separate Federal crime to use a minor to commit a Federal violent crime, and sets penalties for doing so. The penalty is twice the maximum term that would otherwise be authorized for the offense or, for repeat offenders, three times the maximum penalty. The bill also increases the minimum penalties for persons using minors to distribute drugs. Currently, both first-time and repeat offenders can receive a minimum of only a year. Under the bill, a first-time offender will receive at least 3 years and a repeat-offender will receive at least 5 years. These provisions are intended to deter gangs from recruiting youngsters to commit crimes. Gangs recruit minors because they know that children are often not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Gangs also know that, if the child is caught, he or she will probably receive lighter punishment than an adult. Gangs commonly start new recruits as drug lookouts or runners. Once the youngsters get older, gangs encourage them to engage in more violent activity. And young recruits often commit violent crimes to gain the gang's respect and improve their status within the gang. I am very troubled by the fact that many youngsters, some barely in their teens, are lured into gangs by older children and start a life of crime even before they start high school. One study of eighth graders in 11 cities, found that 9 percent were currently gang members and 17 percent said that they had belonged to a gang at some point in their lives. According to California law enforcement, the average age of a new gang recruit in Los Angeles is 11, in San Diego 12-15, and in San Francisco 15. In Alabama, it is 12-14. In Virginia, it is 13. In Ohio, it is 16. In gangs such as the Latin Kings, babies of gang members are considered gang members from birth. A South Carolina law enforcement officer told us that he recently looked into the case of one six-year-old child, who was found wearing typical gang attire, holding a gun and beeper, and tattooed with the phrase ``Thug Life.'' I believe that we need to punish gang recruitment of children very severely. This bill would do that. The bill increases the penalties for gang members who commit drug or violent crimes and who use physical force to tamper with witnesses, victims, or informants. The bill also generally directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for criminal street gang members who commit crimes. There is a strong link between gangs and drugs. By fighting gangs, we can help reduce the supply of illegal drugs in this country. According to the 1999 Justice Department gang survey, almost half of youth gang members sell drugs to generate profits for the gang. A survey of California law enforcement by my staff found that gang members in the States' largest cities are involved in 50 to 90 percent of all drug offenses. This is confirmed by gang members themselves. For example, in one survey of State prison inmates who were gang members, almost 70 percent said that they had manufactured, imported, or sold drugs as a group. Worse, the DOJ 1999 gang survey found that about 40 percent of youth gangs are ``drug gangs,'' that is, gangs organized specifically to traffic in drugs. This is an increase from the 34 percent reported for 1998. The increase was particularly pronounced in rural areas. There is also a close correlation between gangs and violent crimes. For example, gangs commit about half of all violent crimes in California's major cities. In some areas of Los Angeles, such as South Central and East Los Angeles, gangs account for 70-80 percent of all violent crimes. The increased penalties in this legislation will help reduce drug and violent crimes, including threats against witnesses and informants. Currently, under the Federal gang statute, 18 U.S.C. 521, gang members can only get enhanced penalties for gang crimes that involve drugs or violence. The penalty is up to an additional 10 years in jail. This bill allows enhanced penalties for crimes that are often committed by gang members but which may not involve drugs or violence. These crimes include distributing explosives, kidnapping, extortion, illegal gambling, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and illegally transporting aliens. The crimes act as ``predicate'' crimes permitting an additional charge of participating in a criminal gang. The Federal gang statute is sort of similar in design to the criminal RICO statute. That statute permits an additional RICO charge where the defendant, as part of his or her criminal conspiracy, commits two or more predicate acts. The bill ensures that, for gang offenses, offenders can get a sentence up to 10 years greater than the maximum term they receive for their most serious offense. They can also forfeit property derived from the offense. The offenses added by the bill are those commonly pursued by gangs. One study of gangs in various counties, for example, found that: 44- 67 percent of gang members reported being involved in auto theft; 34-48 percent in intimidating or assaulting witnesses or victims; and 4-10 percent in kidnapping. Other studies have found that gang extortion is also common. Drug gangs commonly use booby traps, that sometimes include explosives, to protect their cultivation or manufacturing sites from law enforcement authorities and the public. Numerous gangs illegally launder their illicit drug profits. These include Russian and West African criminal gangs as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings. Alien smuggling and harboring is especially prevalent in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York. Among the worst offenders is the brutal Fuk Ching gang. After a police crackdown in New York, law enforcement reports that Fuk Ching began to branch out to Chicago, Maryland, and western Pennsylvania. The changes made by this legislation should help reduce drug and violent crimes. The Travel Act allows Federal prosecutors to charge certain interstate crimes such as extortion, bribery, and arson, and for business enterprises involving gambling, liquor, drugs, or prostitution. This statute was passed in 1961 with Mafia-related criminal activity in mind. This legislation amends the Travel Act to enable law enforcement to respond more effectively to the growing problem of organized, highly sophisticated, and mobile criminal street gangs. While the Travel Act currently allows law enforcement to target some activities, such as drug trafficking, the list is not complete. The list needs to be updated to better reflect interstate crimes often committed today by gang members. Thus, the bill amends the Travel Act to include crimes such as drive- by shootings, serious assaults, and intimidating witnesses. In California's largest cities, gang members commit 80-100 percent of all drive-by shootings and around 50 percent of violent crimes. The numbers are similar for other states as well. A recent survey in Illinois, for example, found that 50 percent of the jurisdictions in that state face a serious problem of gang drive-by shootings. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for most violations of the Travel Act from 5 years to 10 and authorizes the death penalty for certain homicides that technically do not qualify as murder. Defendants who commit violent crimes covered by the act or who try to intimidate or retaliate against witnesses can get 20 years. And, if they kill someone, they can get life imprisonment or the death penalty. The bill should ensure that prosecutors can use the Travel Act to act against crimes caused by the new Mafia: organized street gangs. The bill would increase the penalties for using or attempting to use physical force to intimidate witnesses. The bill would increase the maximum punishment for this crime from 10 years to 20 years. The bill would also create a crime of threatening to use physical force against a witness. Such a threat could be punished by up to 10 years. Violent crimes by gang members often go unpunished because witnesses are afraid that, if they testify, gangs will kill or hurt them or their families. For example, the Philadelphia deputy district attorney testified before Congress in 1997 that a very high number of the unsolved homicides in Philadelphia were unsolved due to gang intimidation. One study found that intimidation of victims and witnesses was a major problem for 40-50 percent of prosecutors. A similar study determined that witness intimidation occurs in at least 75 percent of violent crimes in gang-dominated neighborhoods. Recently, DOJ estimated that witness intimidation has been growing since 1990 and is now a factor in about two-thirds of violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods. The bill would help deter and punish victim and witness intimidation by gangs. The bill amends several criminal statutes to address violent crimes frequently or typically committed by gangs. Crimes include carjacking, assault, manslaughter, racketeering, murder-for-hire, and fraud against the United States. These amendments make it easier for prosecutors to prove these crimes by eliminating or modifying the intent requirement for the crimes or by increasing the penalties for violations. The bill permits the Attorney General to designate high intensity interstate gang activity areas, HIIGAs, and authorizes $100,000,000 for each of 7 years for these task forces. These provisions are modeled after similar provisions creating high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs. HIDTAs are joint efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies whose leaders work together to assess regional drug threats, design strategies to combat those threats, and to develop initiatives to implement the strategies. HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies. HIDTAs integrate and synchronize efforts to reduce drug trafficking. They eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize resources. And they improve intelligence and information sharing both within and between regions. HIDTAs are necessary because drug trafficking tends to be ``headquartered'' in certain areas of the country, from which it spreads to other areas. Moreover, drug traffickers have been highly organized and developed sophisticated interstate and international operations. However, both of these points are true for criminal gangs generally. While criminal street gangs flourish in certain urban areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, they typically also use these cities as bases to invade more rural locales. In addition, many gangs have gone from relatively disorganized groups of street toughs to highly disciplined, hierarchical ``corporations,'' often encompassing numerous jurisdictions. The Gangster Disciples Nation, for example, developed a corporate structure. They had a chairman of the board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for streets, governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers, and ``shorties,'' youth who staff drug-selling sites and help with drug deals. From 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing more than 200 people. Moreover, one-half of their arrests were for drug offenses and only one-third for nonlethal violence. In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago-based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 States. Southern California-based gangs are equally well-dispersed. In 1994, gangs claiming affiliation with the Bloods or Crips, both of whom are based in Southern California, were in 180 jurisdictions in 42 states. As a result of such dispersal, violent criminal gangs can be found in rural areas. For example, Washington State law enforcement told us about one gang member that they traced from Compton, California to San Francisco, then to Portland, Seattle, and Billings, Montana, and finally Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Justice Department has found that, from the 1970s to the 1990s, the number of small cities or towns, those with populations smaller than 10,000, with gangs increased by between 15 to 39 times. This is a larger relative increase than for cities with populations larger than 10,000. In the 1999 National Youth Gang Survey, law enforcement estimated that almost 1 of every 5 of gang members in their area were migrants from another area. In fact, 83 percent of respondents said that the appearance of gang members in more suburban or rural areas was caused by migration of gangsters from central cities. Gang members even travel to countries such as Mexico and El Salvador. The Logan Heights Gang in San Diego, for example, is currently employed by the Arellano-Felix Cartel to help guard drug shipments in Mexico. The Logan Heights Gang has also been linked to the killing of Cardinal Juan Pasados-Ocampo in Guadalajara in 1993. As gangs have spread into rural areas and become more interstate and international, it has become more important than ever to ensure coordination between local, state, and federal law enforcement to combat gangs. The HIDTA program has worked well and provides a good model for the high intensity interstate gang activity area program that this bill creates. I expect that the high intensity interstate gang activity area program will help reduce the gang problem in the same way that the HIDTA program has helped reduce the drug problem. The bill also allows serious juvenile drug offenses to be Armed Career Criminal Act predicates. This provision ensures that career criminals do not escape higher sentences just because their most serious drug offenses occurred when they were a juvenile. Under this legislation, all armed career criminals will get up to the maximum statutory maximum of 15 years in jail, time which may be not reduced through suspension or probation. The bill makes the gang statute consistent with the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Apprendi v. United States. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be treated as an element of the offense. This decision has caused some problems for law enforcement in prosecuting gang crimes. This is because the Federal gang statute has been treated as a sentence enhancement statute, not a stand-alone criminal offense statute. Before Apprendi, prosecutors would charge gang members with drug and other crimes. If they were convicted, they would then ask the court to enhance the gang member's sentence because of his or her membership in a criminal gang. On many occasions, this sentence enhancement would go beyond the statutory maximum for the underlying offenses. In light of Apprendi, this bill rewrites federal law to ensure that prosecutors can charge gang members for a separate offense under the federal gang statute. In doing so, the bill also makes it easier for prosecutors to charge gang members by reducing the membership requirement for a criminal gang from a minimum of five members to a minimum of three members. The bill authorizes $50,000,000 for 5 years to make grants to prosecutors' officers to combat gang crime and youth violence. This money will help implement this legislation by ensuring that law enforcement has the money to prosecute gang members. This is important legislation. I urge my colleagues to act quickly to pass it. I would also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an accompanying section-by-section description be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am proud to express my support for Hector Barreto, nominee for Administrator of the Small Business Administration, and a fellow Californian. Mr. Barreto has been involved with small business concerns from an early age. His father, Hector Barreto, Sr., helped found the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. As a young adult, the nominee helped his father manage a family restaurant, an export-import business, and a construction company. In 1986, Barreto founded a small business of his own: Barreto Insurance and Financial Services. The entrepreneur designed the firm to address a lack of financial services available to Southern California's rapidly growing Latino population. Today, the firm generates $3 million in sales a year, and is considered one of the premier insurance and retirement planning firms in Los Angeles. Barreto also acts as the vice chairman of the board of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and until 1997, he was chairman of the board for the Latin Business Association in Los Angeles. Barreto founded the Latin Business Association Institute, an extension of the Latin Business Association, to provide technical assistance, education, and business development opportunities to Latin Business Association members. For his dedication and commitment to the Latino Business Community, Barreto was awarded the Gold Medal of honor by the Multicultural Institute of Leadership for his work in promoting diversity and improving race relations. In addition, he has received special recognition from Congress, the California State Senate and Assembly, the County of Los Angeles, the Mayor's office, the City of Los Angeles, YMCA, and the American Red Cross. The number of small businesses continues to rise exponentially both in California and across the country. I look forward to working with Mr. Barreto to see that our small businesses flourish. I am pleased to support his nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Criminal Gang Abatement Act of 2001, a bill to give law enforcement additional tools to fight the scourge of gang violence. This legislation builds on and improves the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the first Federal statute to address directly the problem of criminal gangs. I am delighted that Senator Hatch joins me in introducing this bill and I thank him for his hard work in helping develop the legislation. I know that this bill will be familiar to my colleagues. It is similar to legislation that was included in the Juvenile Justice bill in the last Congress. The Senate passed the Juvenile Justice bill overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, it did not become law. That is why Senator Hatch and I are introducing this gang legislation separately. Mr. President, I care deeply about solving the problem of gang violence and crime. I worked extensively on this problem when I was Mayor of San Francisco and have long considered it one of my top priorities. I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be, and how damaging they are to the victims and to the surrounding community. Let me give you a couple of recent examples from my own home city of San Francisco. Last year, gang members tried to rob a passerby with an assault weapon from their car. When the victim resisted, the gang shot the victim 17 times. The victim survived but will never walk again. Only two months before that assault, two rival gangs had a shootout in San Francisco's Mission District. An innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and shot through both legs. A brave eyewitness gave law enforcement the name of one shooting suspect, who was then arrested. The gang then tracked down the witness, put a 9 millimeter automatic to his head, and threatened to kill him for cooperating with the police. I would like to explain how this legislation will help deter and punish such crimes, and why Congress should act quickly to pass it. First, the bill makes it a separate Federal crime to recruit persons to join a criminal street gang with the intent that the recruit participate in a Federal drug or violent crime. The penalty is up to 10 years in jail. The offender can also be held responsible for reimbursing the government's costs in housing, maintaining, and treating the minor until the age of 18. The purpose of this provision is to deter criminal gang recruitment. Such recruitment has continued to grow and grow every year. Even while crime has been dropping generally, the number of criminal gangs and gang members has spiraled. The 1999 Justice Department survey of gangs, the most recent available, found that the number of gang members has increased 8 percent just from 1998. In fact, the growth of criminal gangs in the country over the last 20 years, has been extraordinary. Twenty years ago, the gang problem was centered in Los Angeles and Chicago. Today, though, there are gangs in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. In 1980, there were gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they are in over 1500 jurisdictions. In 1980, there were about 2000 gangs. Today, there are over 26,000 gangs. In 1980, there were about 100,000 gang members. Today, there are 840,500 gang members. Let me read from a Department of Justice publication entitled ``The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States: 1970-1998'' that was just released a few months ago: Youth gang problems in the United States grew dramatically between the 1970's and 1990's, with the prevalence of gangs reaching unprecedented levels. The growth was manifested by steep increase in the number of cities, counties, and States reporting gang problems. Increases in the number of gang localities were paralleled by increases in the proportions and populations of localities reporting gang problems. There was a shift in regions contains larger numbers of gang cities, with the Old South showing the most dramatic increase. The size of the gang-problem localities also changed, with gang problems spreading to cities, villages, and counties smaller in size than at any time in the past. And as gangs have increased, so have all forms of youth violence. That is because youngsters who join gangs are much more likely to commit violent crimes than similarly situated youngsters who are not in gangs. Research shows, for example, that young people who join gangs are four to six times more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they are gang members than when they are not. And it is also because gang members are responsible for a large proportion of violent crime. They don't just commit one violent crime but many. One study found, for example, that gang members, who were 14 percent of sample, reported committing 89 percent of all serious violent offenses in the area. Enacting this bill would give law enforcement an important tool to deter criminal gang recruitment, thus reducing gang crime. The bill makes it a separate Federal crime to use a minor to commit a Federal violent crime, and sets penalties for doing so. The penalty is twice the maximum term that would otherwise be authorized for the offense or, for repeat offenders, three times the maximum penalty. The bill also increases the minimum penalties for persons using minors to distribute drugs. Currently, both first-time and repeat offenders can receive a minimum of only a year. Under the bill, a first-time offender will receive at least 3 years and a repeat-offender will receive at least 5 years. These provisions are intended to deter gangs from recruiting youngsters to commit crimes. Gangs recruit minors because they know that children are often not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Gangs also know that, if the child is caught, he or she will probably receive lighter punishment than an adult. Gangs commonly start new recruits as drug lookouts or runners. Once the youngsters get older, gangs encourage them to engage in more violent activity. And young recruits often commit violent crimes to gain the gang's respect and improve their status within the gang. I am very troubled by the fact that many youngsters, some barely in their teens, are lured into gangs by older children and start a life of crime even before they start high school. One study of eighth graders in 11 cities, found that 9 percent were currently gang members and 17 percent said that they had belonged to a gang at some point in their lives. According to California law enforcement, the average age of a new gang recruit in Los Angeles is 11, in San Diego 12-15, and in San Francisco 15. In Alabama, it is 12-14. In Virginia, it is 13. In Ohio, it is 16. In gangs such as the Latin Kings, babies of gang members are considered gang members from birth. A South Carolina law enforcement officer told us that he recently looked into the case of one six-year-old child, who was found wearing typical gang attire, holding a gun and beeper, and tattooed with the phrase ``Thug Life.'' I believe that we need to punish gang recruitment of children very severely. This bill would do that. The bill increases the penalties for gang members who commit drug or violent crimes and who use physical force to tamper with witnesses, victims, or informants. The bill also generally directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for criminal street gang members who commit crimes. There is a strong link between gangs and drugs. By fighting gangs, we can help reduce the supply of illegal drugs in this country. According to the 1999 Justice Department gang survey, almost half of youth gang members sell drugs to generate profits for the gang. A survey of California law enforcement by my staff found that gang members in the States' largest cities are involved in 50 to 90 percent of all drug offenses. This is confirmed by gang members themselves. For example, in one survey of State prison inmates who were gang members, almost 70 percent said that they had manufactured, imported, or sold drugs as a group. Worse, the DOJ 1999 gang survey found that about 40 percent of youth gangs are ``drug gangs,'' that is, gangs organized specifically to traffic in drugs. This is an increase from the 34 percent reported for 1998. The increase was particularly pronounced in rural areas. There is also a close correlation between gangs and violent crimes. For example, gangs commit about half of all violent crimes in California's major cities. In some areas of Los Angeles, such as South Central and East Los Angeles, gangs account for 70-80 percent of all violent crimes. The increased penalties in this legislation will help reduce drug and violent crimes, including threats against witnesses and informants. Currently, under the Federal gang statute, 18 U.S.C. 521, gang members can only get enhanced penalties for gang crimes that involve drugs or violence. The penalty is up to an additional 10 years in jail. This bill allows enhanced penalties for crimes that are often committed by gang members but which may not involve drugs or violence. These crimes include distributing explosives, kidnapping, extortion, illegal gambling, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and illegally transporting aliens. The crimes act as ``predicate'' crimes permitting an additional charge of participating in a criminal gang. The Federal gang statute is sort of similar in design to the criminal RICO statute. That statute permits an additional RICO charge where the defendant, as part of his or her criminal conspiracy, commits two or more predicate acts. The bill ensures that, for gang offenses, offenders can get a sentence up to 10 years greater than the maximum term they receive for their most serious offense. They can also forfeit property derived from the offense. The offenses added by the bill are those commonly pursued by gangs. One study of gangs in various counties, for example, found that: 44- 67 percent of gang members reported being involved in auto theft; 34-48 percent in intimidating or assaulting witnesses or victims; and 4-10 percent in kidnapping. Other studies have found that gang extortion is also common. Drug gangs commonly use booby traps, that sometimes include explosives, to protect their cultivation or manufacturing sites from law enforcement authorities and the public. Numerous gangs illegally launder their illicit drug profits. These include Russian and West African criminal gangs as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings. Alien smuggling and harboring is especially prevalent in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York. Among the worst offenders is the brutal Fuk Ching gang. After a police crackdown in New York, law enforcement reports that Fuk Ching began to branch out to Chicago, Maryland, and western Pennsylvania. The changes made by this legislation should help reduce drug and violent crimes. The Travel Act allows Federal prosecutors to charge certain interstate crimes such as extortion, bribery, and arson, and for business enterprises involving gambling, liquor, drugs, or prostitution. This statute was passed in 1961 with Mafia-related criminal activity in mind. This legislation amends the Travel Act to enable law enforcement to respond more effectively to the growing problem of organized, highly sophisticated, and mobile criminal street gangs. While the Travel Act currently allows law enforcement to target some activities, such as drug trafficking, the list is not complete. The list needs to be updated to better reflect interstate crimes often committed today by gang members. Thus, the bill amends the Travel Act to include crimes such as drive- by shootings, serious assaults, and intimidating witnesses. In California's largest cities, gang members commit 80-100 percent of all drive-by shootings and around 50 percent of violent crimes. The numbers are similar for other states as well. A recent survey in Illinois, for example, found that 50 percent of the jurisdictions in that state face a serious problem of gang drive-by shootings. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for most violations of the Travel Act from 5 years to 10 and authorizes the death penalty for certain homicides that technically do not qualify as murder. Defendants who commit violent crimes covered by the act or who try to intimidate or retaliate against witnesses can get 20 years. And, if they kill someone, they can get life imprisonment or the death penalty. The bill should ensure that prosecutors can use the Travel Act to act against crimes caused by the new Mafia: organized street gangs. The bill would increase the penalties for using or attempting to use physical force to intimidate witnesses. The bill would increase the maximum punishment for this crime from 10 years to 20 years. The bill would also create a crime of threatening to use physical force against a witness. Such a threat could be punished by up to 10 years. Violent crimes by gang members often go unpunished because witnesses are afraid that, if they testify, gangs will kill or hurt them or their families. For example, the Philadelphia deputy district attorney testified before Congress in 1997 that a very high number of the unsolved homicides in Philadelphia were unsolved due to gang intimidation. One study found that intimidation of victims and witnesses was a major problem for 40-50 percent of prosecutors. A similar study determined that witness intimidation occurs in at least 75 percent of violent crimes in gang-dominated neighborhoods. Recently, DOJ estimated that witness intimidation has been growing since 1990 and is now a factor in about two-thirds of violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods. The bill would help deter and punish victim and witness intimidation by gangs. The bill amends several criminal statutes to address violent crimes frequently or typically committed by gangs. Crimes include carjacking, assault, manslaughter, racketeering, murder-for-hire, and fraud against the United States. These amendments make it easier for prosecutors to prove these crimes by eliminating or modifying the intent requirement for the crimes or by increasing the penalties for violations. The bill permits the Attorney General to designate high intensity interstate gang activity areas, HIIGAs, and authorizes $100,000,000 for each of 7 years for these task forces. These provisions are modeled after similar provisions creating high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs. HIDTAs are joint efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies whose leaders work together to assess regional drug threats, design strategies to combat those threats, and to develop initiatives to implement the strategies. HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies. HIDTAs integrate and synchronize efforts to reduce drug trafficking. They eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize resources. And they improve intelligence and information sharing both within and between regions. HIDTAs are necessary because drug trafficking tends to be ``headquartered'' in certain areas of the country, from which it spreads to other areas. Moreover, drug traffickers have been highly organized and developed sophisticated interstate and international operations. However, both of these points are true for criminal gangs generally. While criminal street gangs flourish in certain urban areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, they typically also use these cities as bases to invade more rural locales. In addition, many gangs have gone from relatively disorganized groups of street toughs to highly disciplined, hierarchical ``corporations,'' often encompassing numerous jurisdictions. The Gangster Disciples Nation, for example, developed a corporate structure. They had a chairman of the board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for streets, governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers, and ``shorties,'' youth who staff drug-selling sites and help with drug deals. From 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing more than 200 people. Moreover, one-half of their arrests were for drug offenses and only one-third for nonlethal violence. In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago-based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 States. Southern California-based gangs are equally well-dispersed. In 1994, gangs claiming affiliation with the Bloods or Crips, both of whom are based in Southern California, were in 180 jurisdictions in 42 states. As a result of such dispersal, violent criminal gangs can be found in rural areas. For example, Washington State law enforcement told us about one gang member that they traced from Compton, California to San Francisco, then to Portland, Seattle, and Billings, Montana, and finally Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Justice Department has found that, from the 1970s to the 1990s, the number of small cities or towns, those with populations smaller than 10,000, with gangs increased by between 15 to 39 times. This is a larger relative increase than for cities with populations larger than 10,000. In the 1999 National Youth Gang Survey, law enforcement estimated that almost 1 of every 5 of gang members in their area were migrants from another area. In fact, 83 percent of respondents said that the appearance of gang members in more suburban or rural areas was caused by migration of gangsters from central cities. Gang members even travel to countries such as Mexico and El Salvador. The Logan Heights Gang in San Diego, for example, is currently employed by the Arellano-Felix Cartel to help guard drug shipments in Mexico. The Logan Heights Gang has also been linked to the killing of Cardinal Juan Pasados-Ocampo in Guadalajara in 1993. As gangs have spread into rural areas and become more interstate and international, it has become more important than ever to ensure coordination between local, state, and federal law enforcement to combat gangs. The HIDTA program has worked well and provides a good model for the high intensity interstate gang activity area program that this bill creates. I expect that the high intensity interstate gang activity area program will help reduce the gang problem in the same way that the HIDTA program has helped reduce the drug problem. The bill also allows serious juvenile drug offenses to be Armed Career Criminal Act predicates. This provision ensures that career criminals do not escape higher sentences just because their most serious drug offenses occurred when they were a juvenile. Under this legislation, all armed career criminals will get up to the maximum statutory maximum of 15 years in jail, time which may be not reduced through suspension or probation. The bill makes the gang statute consistent with the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Apprendi v. United States. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be treated as an element of the offense. This decision has caused some problems for law enforcement in prosecuting gang crimes. This is because the Federal gang statute has been treated as a sentence enhancement statute, not a stand-alone criminal offense statute. Before Apprendi, prosecutors would charge gang members with drug and other crimes. If they were convicted, they would then ask the court to enhance the gang member's sentence because of his or her membership in a criminal gang. On many occasions, this sentence enhancement would go beyond the statutory maximum for the underlying offenses. In light of Apprendi, this bill rewrites federal law to ensure that prosecutors can charge gang members for a separate offense under the federal gang statute. In doing so, the bill also makes it easier for prosecutors to charge gang members by reducing the membership requirement for a criminal gang from a minimum of five members to a minimum of three members. The bill authorizes $50,000,000 for 5 years to make grants to prosecutors' officers to combat gang crime and youth violence. This money will help implement this legislation by ensuring that law enforcement has the money to prosecute gang members. This is important legislation. I urge my colleagues to act quickly to pass it. I would also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an accompanying section-by-section description be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for her comments. I very much appreciate her solidarity and unity on this subject. It is extraordinarily important. I also want to say there is a statement from the administration in support of this appropriation. We have the support of the Secretary of the Interior, as well as the administration, that this appropriation move forward. I am very hopeful that we will have unanimous support from our side of the aisle as well as support from the Republican side. As my colleague has well stated, we are fighting for every dollar. The energy subcommittee listened. I think it is a fact that the money in this appropriations bill is extraordinarily important. I believe that unless we can move aggressively to build an environmentally sensitive water infrastructure in our State, there is no way we are going to be able to meet the challenges of the future. This is a beginning. I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman and my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I regret that I have to strongly oppose the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I recall both in the committee and in the Senate Chamber hearing the distinguished Senator from Alaska talk about supply, particularly in view of the electricity and natural gas portion of the energy crisis that faces this Nation. One of the things we in California have learned is that the electricity crisis is a forerunner of what is going to happen with water. California has 35 million people. It is the largest high-tech State and the largest agricultural producing State. It has a need for high- quality water for high-tech, and it does not have enough water. Just last week, this Senate debated the Klamath with an endangered species issue involving both the coho salmon and the suckerfish. The Bureau of Reclamation had to cut off water for farmers, and 1,500 farmers on both sides of the Oregon-California border essentially could not plant. This is not going to be an isolated incident. We are going to see this happen up and down the Central Valley if we do not act smart, if we do not work smart, if we do not move to improve the water supply, to work smarter on the big pumps on the California Water project, if we are not able to recharge our ground water and, respectfully, if we are not able to take from the wet years and store that water to use in the dry years. The Senator is precisely going after this money so that we cannot build the storage we need. The three projects that he mentioned: Raising Shasta Dam--that is a dam that is already there--raising the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which is for reasons of water quality. There is a need for water quality both for the people in the area as well as what is supplied to the high-tech industry. That is Los Vaqueros. And the third is a delta wetlands project to provide water for the Central Valley water community. He mentioned that there is no authorization. CALFED was authorized, he is correct. The authorization has expired. Tomorrow we have a hearing in the committee on a bill he mentioned which I have authored to provide the necessary authorization. There are three bills in the House. I believe we are going to authorize this project. Not to do so would be a terrible mistake. I must correct the Senator on one point. He mentioned $8 billion in the authorization. This is not correct. Although the bill says ``such sums as may be available,'' the fact is the Federal share would be $3 billion and the State share $5 billion. The point of what I am trying to do in the authorization bill is have all segments of the project--the ecosystem restoration, which is necessary for fish, the environmental water account, which is there to avoid an additional takings issue, as well as the storage and the water quality improvements--moved together concurrently so there is a balanced plan to move on the California water issue prior to the time it becomes a real crisis and the fifth largest economy on Earth is put out of business. I plead with the Senator from Alaska not to take these dollars, particularly from the storage project. Unless we can take water from the dry years and save that water and use it for the wet years, California has no chance of solving its problem. We have 34 million people, projected to be 50 million people, and we have the same basic water infrastructure we had when we were 16 million people. That is why this isn't going to work. The chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, has worked very hard to be helpful. I am enormously grateful to him. He has worked in a prudent way to meet the need, I think knowing we are going to be able to produce an acceptable authorization vehicle in this session. Once again, I am willing to work with the Senator from Alaska. I am willing, as an appropriator, to try to help find other funds. His project is worthy. His offset is not. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join in the tribute to Senator Coverdell. As a Senator from California, I found him to be a remarkable man. He was a humble man. In a way, he was a prototype of the Southern gentleman. He was a determined man; he was a skilled legislative craftsman. I was really delighted to have the pleasure to work with him. Paul had a profound interest in improving the education of our young people. I worked with him closely as an original cosponsor of his Educational Savings and School Excellence Act, and during that time, I found him to be energetic. He was determined and, most importantly, I found him to be very easy to work beside. He was also very much above political correctness, and he strived to do what he thought was really doable, practical, and would help people. Another common interest we shared was in reducing the amount of illegal drugs on the streets of America. In fact, we worked together on several antinarcotics efforts. We debated together in this Chamber the issue of certification. I was his Democratic cosponsor of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. This law made it easier to crack down on leaders of the major drug cartels operating in Latin America. I believe these efforts are paying dividends today because U.S. law enforcement is more able to close in on some of the cartel leadership. Paul Coverdell knew these were important debates, and I will never forget because the Republican Party was in the leadership, and every time he called me, he asked if he could come to my office to talk with me. It was a very interesting effort on his part because the fact that he was willing to come to my office and sit down to have a discussion on an issue that we would work on together made me even more dedicated to the success of that effort. I had a wonderful across-the-aisle relationship with Paul Coverdell. The Narcotics Kingpin Act, the educational savings account, and Excellence in Schools Act are a few specific tangible pieces of legislation on which he put his leadership stamp. All I can say is: Paul Coverdell is missed in the Senate of the United States. I truly wish all of God's blessings on him. He was a wonderful man. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to commend Mr. William N. Guertin for his election as President of the American Association of Medical Society Executives and for his 30 years of service to the medical doctors of Alameda-Contra Costa counties and his many achievements. Mr. Guertin has been a member of the Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association, ACCMA, since 1971, and has held two executive offices, Assistant Executive Director and Executive Director. The ACCMA serves over 3,100 doctors and is the second largest medical association in California. Mr. Guertin's leadership supported many California doctors' efforts to help, cure, and care for people in need of support and medical help. He has worked to create programs that promote public health, quality access to care, and professional standards in California. Mr. Guertin has worked to protect physicians from impositions that would interfere with their ability to interact successfully with their patients. Mr. Guertin created the first doctor-owned professional liability insurance carrier in California, at a time when doctors were not able to obtain the insurance necessary to practice quality medicine. The practice of medicine has long been a profession of people who devote their time and effort to helping others. Mr. Guertin has worked tirelessly for the past 30 years to facilitate the work of physicians and to enhance the quality of care for the people of Alameda-Contra Costa counties. For these reasons, I congratulate Mr. Guertin on his new position as President of the American Association of Medical Society Executives. I am confident that Mr. Guertin will succeed in his new position and work to augment the lives of patients and physicians throughout the Nation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the proliferation of small arms around the world and, specifically, the remarks made by John Bolton, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs before the United Nations this past July 9 at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects. I begin by saying what I sincerely believe: I think it is right and necessary to limit the illicit sale of small arms and light weapons on a worldwide basis. In order to do that, however, one also has to address transparency and legal transfers of small arms and light weapons because so much of the illicit proliferation problem has its roots in legal sales. I was therefore very surprised that Under Secretary Bolton said the United States may well be opposed to measures being considered by the conference that are aimed at curbing the international proliferation of small arms and light weapons. Before I address Mr. Bolton's speech, and the question it raises about the direction of the administration's policy in this area, I would like to briefly sketch out the scope and scale of this problem: The worldwide proliferation of small arms--this includes shoulder- mounted missiles, assault weapons, grenade launchers, and high-powered sniper rifles--is a staggering problem today. Right now there are an estimated 500 million illicit small arms and light weapons in circulation around the globe. In the past decade alone, an estimated 4 million people have been killed in civil war and bloody fighting, many of them with these same small arms. As a matter of fact, 9 out of 10 of these deaths are attributed to small arms and light weapons. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, more than 50 percent of the 4 million people killed-- that is 2 million people--are believed to be civilians. The sheer volume of available weaponry has been a major factor in the devastation witnessed in recent conflicts in Angola, Cambodia, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan, as well as the sort of violence endemic to narcotrafficking in Colombia and Mexico. These conflicts undermine the regional stability, and they endanger the spread of democracy and free markets around the world. The United Nations and the Red Cross estimate that more than 10 million small arms and light weapons, ranging from pistols to AK-47's to hand grenades to shoulder-launched missiles, are today in circulation in Afghanistan where the terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden is based. The United Nations estimates that over 650,000 weapons disappeared from government depots in Albania in the 3 years leading up to the outbreak of violence in the Balkans, including 20,000 tons of explosives. NATO peacekeepers and U.S. soldiers in the region are under threat and in danger from these weapons. In fact, the increased access by terrorists, guerrilla groups, criminals, and others to small arms and light weapons poses a real threat to all U.S. participants in peacekeeping operations and U.S. forces based overseas. Clearly, this is a substantial problem, and it has profound implications for U.S. security interests. It is because of the scope and scale of the problem that the United Nations conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, I believe, is so important. Unfortunately, as the Washington Post editorial on July 10 put it, Mr. Bolton's opening address ``appeared designed to cater to the most extreme domestic opponents of gun control''. Although I do not disagree with all that Mr. Bolton said, I want to ask that we examine more closely the implications of some of his statements, and how they conflict with both settled Supreme Court precedent and the goals of stemming the tide of illicit arms into the hands of terrorists, drug cartels, and violent rebellions. First, Mr. Bolton stated that ``The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.'' As the Post's editorial points out, ``No such measures appear in the draft documents before the conference.'' Why, exactly, did he do that? I believe not only is Mr. Bolton wrong in his assertion about the connection between the Second Amendment and the work of conference, but in any case Mr. Bolton's position on the Second Amendment is in direct contradiction to decades of Supreme Court precedent. Not one single gun control law has ever been overturned by the Court on Second Amendment grounds. Contrary to the constant claims of the NRA, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been well-settled for more than 60 years--ever since the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. In rejecting a motion to dismiss the case on Second Amendment grounds, the Court held that the ``obvious purpose'' of the Second Amendment was ``to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness'' of the ``state Militia.'' Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a ``state Militia'', like the National Guard, the Second Amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court. If a sawed-off shotgun is not protected by the Second Amendment, why does the Administration seem to be taking the position that the Second Amendment protects the international trafficking of shoulder-launched missiles? If an American citizen cannot freely transport a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, why can't we work to stop the international transportation of grenade launchers and high powered, military sniper rifles? This second amendment argument simply makes no sense, and has no place in this debate. Second, Mr. Bolton's opening statement attacked language that calls on governments to ``seriously consider'' curtailing ``unrestricted sales and ownership'' of arms specifically designed for military purposes. So Mr. Bolton essentially objected to even considering merely curtailing the ``unrestricted sales and ownership'' of military weapons. In point of fact the United States already curtails the sale and ownership of many of these guns. The National Firearms Act, for instance, places severe restrictions on the manufacture and possession of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, grenades, bombs, rockets, missiles, and mines. We also passed the 1994 assault weapons ban, which stopped the production of semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons. These firearms have no sporting purpose, and our laws recognize that fact. Yet these guns contribute enormously to terrorist threats, drug cartel violence, and civil strife throughout the world. Congress has already recognized that curtailing the use of military- style weapons is reasonable, appropriate, and even life-saving. To now object to a clause that would call upon other governments around the world to do the same is nonsensical at best, and undermines U.S. security interests--and the lives of U.S. military personnel--at worst. Next, Mr. Bolton stated that the United States would ``not support measures that would constrain legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons.'' That may be legitimate read on its face. People can understand that. Although it is my belief that the United States is not the biggest contributor to the problem of the global proliferation of small arms and light weapons--the United Nations has found that almost 300 companies in 50 countries now manufacture small arms and related equipment--in 1999 the U.S. licensed for export more than $470 million in light military weapons. With the average price of $100-$300 per weapon, this represents a huge volume of weapons. The problem is that in addressing the issue of the international proliferation of small arms and light weapons one cannot simply address the illicit side of the equation without also looking at the interactions between the legal trade and the illegal trade. In fact, there is good evidence of an increased incidence of U.S. manufactured weapons--legally manufactured and legally traded or transferred--flowing into the international black market. In April, 1998, for example, The New York Times reported that the United States had to rescind pending licenses for sale of U.S. firearms to the United Kingdom based on the European Union practice allowing retransfer of guns between EU members without review or oversight. In 1999 the State Department stopped issuing licenses from the U.S. to dealers in Venezuela because of concern that many of the guns-- legally exported and sold--were in fact ending up in the hands of narco-traffickers and guerrillas in Colombia. In 2000 and to date in 2001, the ATF has processed more than 19,000 trace requests from foreign countries for firearms used in crimes: 8,000 of these guns were sold legally in the United States. So they are sold legally and they get into the black market and they become part of a crime. In 1994, Mexico reported 3,376 illegally acquired U.S.-origin firearms. Many of these weapons were originally sold legally to legitimate buyers but then transferred illegally, to many Mexican drug cartels. Between 1989 and 1993, the State Department approved 108 licenses for the export of $34 million in small arms to Mexico, but it performed only three follow-up inspections to ensure that the weapons were delivered to and stayed in the hands of the intended users. According to the South African Institute for Security Studies, an estimated 30,000 stolen firearms--again, firearms originally manufactured and traded, sold or transferred in a legal manner--enter the illegal marketplace annually in South Africa. Given this undeniable connection between legal sales and illicit trade, the approach suggested by Mr. Bolton to the Conference--that it should only address one part of the equation while ignoring the other, appears to me to be untenable. I would also suggest that certain measures which may be seen by some as constraints on legal manufacture and trade--such as international agreements for the marking and tracing small arms and light weapons, or seeing that there are international regulations governing the activities of arms brokers--are in fact wise policy. Mr. Bolton also stated: Neither will we, at this time, commit to begin negotiations and reach agreements on legally binding instruments, the feasibility and necessity of which may be in question and in need of review over time. Yet, as Mr. Bolton himself points out in his statement, the United States has some of the best laws and regulations on the books regarding the sale and transfers of light weapons. In my view it is clearly in the U.S. interest to see that those standards are replicated by the world community. Mr. Bolton's statement is fulsome in its praise of U.S. brokering regulations. Why do we not want to see others rise to the same standards? Mr. Bolton's statement cites U.S. regulations governing the transfer of military articles of U.S. origin and U.S. exports of small arms and light weapons. Instead of going it alone--with limited success even when it comes to some of our closest allies, like the United Kingdom, as the example I cited above indicates--shouldn't we be working to see to it that the rest of the international community adopts similar standards? I think so. In approaching the United Nations Conference, the U.S. government should negotiate and support making the trafficking of small arms traceable, strengthen international regulations of transfers, bolster rules governing arms brokers, and eliminate the secrecy that permits thousands of weapons to fuel crime and war without anyone's knowledge of their source. We should be taking the lead on this issue based on our foreign policy and national security interests, not taking the NRA line based on domestic political considerations. And U.S. leadership should ensure that the Conference is the first step, not the last, in the international community's efforts to control the spread of small arms and light weapons. The problem is you cannot look at the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, which is killing millions upon millions of people, 50 percent of them innocent civilians, without increasing the transparency of the legal market because so many of these weapons go from the legal market into the black market--the illicit market. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 20 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to join the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee to discuss an issue important to the State of California. That is the continuing funding for the acquisition of San Francisco baylands adjacent to the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. Since the early 1900s, more than 90 percent of California's interior wetlands have been lost to development and other land use changes. The property for purchase constitutes more than 13,000 acres of salt ponds at the edge of San Francisco Bay, which itself provides important habitat for more than 1 million birds per year. This purchase will increase the bay's wetland area by 50 percent.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I understand the chairman's concern about the level of funding required to complete this purchase. I share his concern. I am personally working with all parties involved in the agreement in an effort to substantially reduce the federal share of the purchase price. I am concerned, however, that by providing no funding in the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill, the seller will be forced to seek other buyers. This would be a lost opportunity of historic proportions. It would be my intention to secure a small amount of funding in the Senate bill to keep the project alive as we move forward in appropriations process with the goal of increasing the project's appropriation should a more realistic price be negotiated.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am aware of the problem raised by the ranking member. To this end, I am willing to reduce funding for two California land acquisition projects--the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and the San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge--by $250,000 each. I want to be very clear--I fully support these projects. In fact, they were included in the bill at my request. I intend to see that they are fully funded by the end of this process. However, due to the procedural necessity of providing an offset, the only way to ensure that all three equally important projects go forward is to make this reduction. Should the interested parties fail to come to an acceptable agreement over the San Francisco baylands, the funding could return to the San Diego and San Joaquin projects.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer my personal congratulations and all good wishes to Jeri. I think she is going to be a superb Secretary of the Senate. What most people don't know about Jeri Thomson is that not only is she a talented professional, but she is a very nice person. She and I had knee surgery at approximately the same time, and I really never had a better friend during that period. She sent me books to read, made phone calls, even sent me a special pillow that could be used to help the pain from one knee to another. It was a wonderful gesture. In the course of discussions about our relative injuries, over the past almost year now, I have come to know her very well. This is truly a distinguished woman because it is very hard to be an excellent professional and also to take the time that is necessary to reach out a hand to make someone feel a little bit better. Jeri, you are all of the above. Congratulations and godspeed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Thompson, to introduce legislation to restore pay equity for our Federal judges. This legislation would guarantee judges automatic and annual cost-of- living adjustments, COLAs, just like other rank-and-file Federal employees. In addition, the legislation would end a decade of Federal judicial salary neglect by giving judges a one-time salary increase of 9.6 percent. In the past decade, Congress has denied COLAs for judges in four separate years, in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1998. This bill would restore to Federal justices the four COLAs they have lost. In his year-end report on the state of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William Rehnquist called the ``the need to increase judicial salaries'' the most pressing issue facing the Federal judiciary. Simply put, while government service offers its own rewards, we should not create financial disincentives to service on the Federal bench. Federal judges bear enormous responsibility as they preside over the most pressing legal issues. Often, they must render life-or-death decisions or preside over cases with millions of dollars at stake. For this vitally important work, they deserve appropriate compensation. Recently, Congress took some action to restore equity in Federal salaries by doubling the salary of the President of the United States from $200,000 to $400,000. Congress should now consider an appropriate pay adjustment for the Federal judiciary. As of January 2001, Federal district judges receive an annual salary of $145,000. If judges had received the COLAs to which they were entitled, a Federal District judge's salary would actually be $164,700, nearly $20,000 higher. Now, $145,000 is a lot more money than the salary of a typical worker but it is not so high when you compare it to equivalent positions of authority in the private sector. For example, the average partner in a major national law firm earns well over $500,000 per year. It is even more striking to note that major national law firms are offering first-year associates salaries topping $125,000 a year. With bonuses, some of these newly minted lawyers are earning more than appellate judges. The bottom line is that we cannot expect to keep our country's best lawyers interested in serving on the Federal bench if we continue to denigrate the salary of the post. Just since 1993, the salary of Federal judges, adjusted for inflation, has declined by 13 percent. Not surprisingly, more and more judges are leaving the Federal bench. Between 1991 and 2000, 52 Federal judges resigned their seats, many of them for the purposes of returning to private practice. These 52 judges represent 40 percent of the 125 Federal judges who have left the bench since 1965. Attorneys should not expect to become wealthy through an appointment as a Federal judge. Neither should judges expect to have their salaries eroded by Congress' failure to give them Cost-of-Living Adjustments. Preserving judicial salaries is vital to maintaining the high quality of our Federal judiciary. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to restore fairness to judicial compensation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf of myself and Mr. Hagel, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001. This legislation would address the situation of those whose U.S. sponsor dies while they have the chance to adjust status or receive an immigrant visa. Under current law, a family member who petitions for a relative to receive an immigrant visa must sign a legally binding affidavit of support promising to provide for the support of the immigrant. This is the last step before a green card is issued. If the family sponsor dies while the green card application is pending, the applicant is forced to find a new sponsor and restart the application process, usually a 7- to 8-year process, or face deportation. The legislation I have introduced today would correct this anomaly in the law by permitting another family member to stand in for the deceased sponsor and sign the affidavit. Without this legislation, another relative who qualifies as a family sponsor would have to file a new immigrant visa petition on behalf of the relative and the relative would have to go to the end of the line if the visa category is numerically limited. Thus, the beneficiary would lose his priority date for a visa based on the filing of the first petition, and in some cases, face deportation. With the passage of this legislation, even though there may be a different sponsor, the beneficiary would not lose his or her priority date to be admitted as a permanent resident of the United States. Nor will the beneficiary be subject to deportation even though they meet all the requirements for an immigrant visa. A classic example of this situation was presented to my office just recently. Earlier this year I introduced a private bill on behalf of Zhenfu Ge, a 73-year-old Chinese grandmother whose daughter died before the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, was able to complete the final stage of application process: her interview. As a result, her immigration application is no longer valid and she is now subject to deportation. The private bill I introduced would allow her to adjust her status, given that she has met all the requirements for a visa. In previous years, I have introduced other private bills which eventually became law. One bill was on behalf of Suchada Kwong, whose husband was killed in a car accident just weeks before her final interview with the INS. In 1997, I introduced a private bill on behalf of Jasmin Salehi, a Korean immigrant who became ineligible for permanent residency after her husband was murdered at a Denny's in Reseda, California, where he worked as a manager. In all of these cases, a family's grief was compounded by the prospect of the deportation of a family member, who had met all the requirements for a green card. This legislation is an efficient way to alleviate the need for private legislation under these circumstances by making the law more just for those who have chosen to become immigrants in our country through the legal process. We introduce the ``Family Immigration Act of 2001,'' in the hopes that it will go further to alleviate some of hardships families face when confronted by the untimely death of a sponsor. Similar legislation has gained bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move it quickly through the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Thompson, to introduce legislation to restore pay equity for our Federal judges. This legislation would guarantee judges automatic and annual cost-of- living adjustments, COLAs, just like other rank-and-file Federal employees. In addition, the legislation would end a decade of Federal judicial salary neglect by giving judges a one-time salary increase of 9.6 percent. In the past decade, Congress has denied COLAs for judges in four separate years, in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1998. This bill would restore to Federal justices the four COLAs they have lost. In his year-end report on the state of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William Rehnquist called the ``the need to increase judicial salaries'' the most pressing issue facing the Federal judiciary. Simply put, while government service offers its own rewards, we should not create financial disincentives to service on the Federal bench. Federal judges bear enormous responsibility as they preside over the most pressing legal issues. Often, they must render life-or-death decisions or preside over cases with millions of dollars at stake. For this vitally important work, they deserve appropriate compensation. Recently, Congress took some action to restore equity in Federal salaries by doubling the salary of the President of the United States from $200,000 to $400,000. Congress should now consider an appropriate pay adjustment for the Federal judiciary. As of January 2001, Federal district judges receive an annual salary of $145,000. If judges had received the COLAs to which they were entitled, a Federal District judge's salary would actually be $164,700, nearly $20,000 higher. Now, $145,000 is a lot more money than the salary of a typical worker but it is not so high when you compare it to equivalent positions of authority in the private sector. For example, the average partner in a major national law firm earns well over $500,000 per year. It is even more striking to note that major national law firms are offering first-year associates salaries topping $125,000 a year. With bonuses, some of these newly minted lawyers are earning more than appellate judges. The bottom line is that we cannot expect to keep our country's best lawyers interested in serving on the Federal bench if we continue to denigrate the salary of the post. Just since 1993, the salary of Federal judges, adjusted for inflation, has declined by 13 percent. Not surprisingly, more and more judges are leaving the Federal bench. Between 1991 and 2000, 52 Federal judges resigned their seats, many of them for the purposes of returning to private practice. These 52 judges represent 40 percent of the 125 Federal judges who have left the bench since 1965. Attorneys should not expect to become wealthy through an appointment as a Federal judge. Neither should judges expect to have their salaries eroded by Congress' failure to give them Cost-of-Living Adjustments. Preserving judicial salaries is vital to maintaining the high quality of our Federal judiciary. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to restore fairness to judicial compensation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf of myself and Mr. Hagel, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001. This legislation would address the situation of those whose U.S. sponsor dies while they have the chance to adjust status or receive an immigrant visa. Under current law, a family member who petitions for a relative to receive an immigrant visa must sign a legally binding affidavit of support promising to provide for the support of the immigrant. This is the last step before a green card is issued. If the family sponsor dies while the green card application is pending, the applicant is forced to find a new sponsor and restart the application process, usually a 7- to 8-year process, or face deportation. The legislation I have introduced today would correct this anomaly in the law by permitting another family member to stand in for the deceased sponsor and sign the affidavit. Without this legislation, another relative who qualifies as a family sponsor would have to file a new immigrant visa petition on behalf of the relative and the relative would have to go to the end of the line if the visa category is numerically limited. Thus, the beneficiary would lose his priority date for a visa based on the filing of the first petition, and in some cases, face deportation. With the passage of this legislation, even though there may be a different sponsor, the beneficiary would not lose his or her priority date to be admitted as a permanent resident of the United States. Nor will the beneficiary be subject to deportation even though they meet all the requirements for an immigrant visa. A classic example of this situation was presented to my office just recently. Earlier this year I introduced a private bill on behalf of Zhenfu Ge, a 73-year-old Chinese grandmother whose daughter died before the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, was able to complete the final stage of application process: her interview. As a result, her immigration application is no longer valid and she is now subject to deportation. The private bill I introduced would allow her to adjust her status, given that she has met all the requirements for a visa. In previous years, I have introduced other private bills which eventually became law. One bill was on behalf of Suchada Kwong, whose husband was killed in a car accident just weeks before her final interview with the INS. In 1997, I introduced a private bill on behalf of Jasmin Salehi, a Korean immigrant who became ineligible for permanent residency after her husband was murdered at a Denny's in Reseda, California, where he worked as a manager. In all of these cases, a family's grief was compounded by the prospect of the deportation of a family member, who had met all the requirements for a green card. This legislation is an efficient way to alleviate the need for private legislation under these circumstances by making the law more just for those who have chosen to become immigrants in our country through the legal process. We introduce the ``Family Immigration Act of 2001,'' in the hopes that it will go further to alleviate some of hardships families face when confronted by the untimely death of a sponsor. Similar legislation has gained bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move it quickly through the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass this resolution to honor the 150th anniversary of the University of the Pacific. Today, the University of the Pacific celebrates its founding in 1851. The University of the Pacific has remained throughout its history, devoted to the teaching and development of students by a faculty of outstanding scholars. It has prepared more than 60,000 students for lasting achievement and responsible leadership in their careers and communities. The University of the Pacific is also a trailblazer in higher education. Pacific was the first university in the West to enroll women and to introduce coeducation. It also established California's first medical school and music conservatory. I am pleased to sponsor this resolution to congratulate the University of the Pacific, and its faculty, staff, students, and alumni on the university's 150th anniversary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to first express my appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his work on the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill. It is only through his persistence and determination that we are able to bring this bill to floor within the spending limits proposed by the President. I want to specifically thank Chairman Byrd for his work on an issue of great importance to California. This bill includes $20 million in disaster assistance to crop growers in the Klamath Basin of northern California and southern Oregon who are faced with a total loss of income resulting from a lack of water. I am very grateful that Chairman Byrd saw the true emergency in this situation. This year, the Klamath Basin is facing one of the worst, if not the worst drought in the Klamath River Project's 90-year history. Federal disaster declarations have been issued by the USDA for Modoc and Siskiyou Counties in California and Klamath County, OR. Economic losses to the farming communities have been estimated at up to $220 million. Over 200,000 acres of farmland are irrigated in the Klamath River Basin. There are roughly 1500 farming families in the Klamath Irrigation Project. The Endangered Species Act requires the Bureau of Reclamation to review its programs with consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, with the obligation to protect endangered species. In Klamath this includes two species of suckerfish, the coho salmon, and the bald eagle. In addition to the Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Reclamation must protect tribal fishing and water rights. What little rainfall that has occurred this year must be first applied to minimize endangered fish species losses and then to mandatory Tribal Treaty obligations. This leaves literally no water for about 85 percent of the Klamath Project-dependent farmers. And this problem is not going to go away. Based on Bureau of Reclamation estimates, there will not be enough water for all users in 7 out of the next 10 years in the Klamath Basin. Lack of water in the Klamath Basin is a problem that requires a long term solution. I am committed to working with the administration and my colleagues here in the Senate to develop that solution. Unfortunately, a long-term solution will not help the farmers today. That is why this assistance is so critical and so necessary. I am grateful that Chairman Byrd recognizes this need. I want to again thank the chairman for making this assistance possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today in New York the United Nations convened the conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, the first effort by the U.N. to address the pressing issue of small arms trafficking. The mass proliferation of small arms--shoulder-mounted missiles, assault weapons, grenade launchers, high-powered sniper rifles and other tools of death--is fueling civil wars, terrorism and the international drug trade throughout the world. The grimmest figures come from developing countries where light, cheap and easy to use small arms and light weapons, such as AK-47s and similar military assault rifles, have become the weapons of choice of narco-traffickers, terrorists and insurgents. The problem is staggering: An estimated 500 million illicit small arms and light weapons are in circulation around the globe, and in the past decade four million people have been killed by them in civil war and bloody fighting. Nine out of 10 of these deaths are attributed to small arms and light weapons. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, more than 50 percent of those killed are believed to be civilians. Starting today, the United Nations will host a conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects. At this conference, the U.N., for the first time, will seek to devise international standards and procedures for curtailing small arms trafficking. It is an issue of extreme importance to the United States. Not only because of the violence and devastation itself, but because of the threat these weapons pose to our political, economic and security interests. The volume of weaponry has fueled cycles of violence and been a major factor in the devastation witnessed in recent conflicts in Africa, the Balkans, and South Asia, among other places. These conflicts undermine regional stability and endanger the spread of democracy and free- markets around the world. Here are a few examples. In Mexico a lethal flow of guns south from the United States has fed that nation's drug war. Hundreds of thousands of weapons over the last decade have flooded into Mexico from the United States. Authorities recently traced a sale of 80 Chinese assault weapons from a San Diego gunshop to a Tijuana weapons dealer for $27,000. Many of these ended up in the hands of the Arellano Felix drug cartel and are believed responsible for at least 21 deaths, including two infants, six children and a pregnant 17- year-old girl shot and killed during a mass murder at Rancho el Rodeo in September 1998. In Albania more than 650,000 weapons and 20,000 tons of explosives disappeared from government depots in the three years leading up to the outbreak of violence in the Balkans, according to the U.N. The continued presence of the weapons poses a very real threat to NATO and U.S. peacekeepers in the region. And in Colombia, the continued instability is in part due to the torrential flow of rifles and pistols to rebel groups and drug gangs who have used the imported weapons to murder judges, journalists, police officers, as well as innocent passers-by. The increased access by terrorists, guerrilla groups, criminals, and others to small arms and light weapons puts in jeopardy U.S. law enforcement efforts, business people based or traveling overseas, and even U.S. tourists. In approaching the United Nations Conference, it is critical that the U.S. government negotiate and support making the trafficking of small arms traceable and eliminate the secrecy that permits thousands of weapons to fuel crime and war without anyone's knowledge of their source. It is my hope the United Nations will move to create international procedures to control the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. The United States has some of the strongest arms export controls in the world, and it is in the U.S. interest to see that those standards are equaled by the world community. In addition, the United States has a moral responsibility to push for the development of measures that stop weapons from winding up in the hands of abusive government forces, terrorists and drug-traffickers. Specifically, the U.S. Government should champion a conference program of action that mandates countries' early negotiations on legally binding procedures: a Framework Convention on International Arms Transfers that sets out export criteria based on countries' current obligations under international law; and an International Agreement on Marking and Tracing that develops systems for adequate and reliable marking of arms at manufacture and import and record-keeping on arms production, possession and transfer. The Program of Action must also include the establishment of regional and international transparency mechanisms and concrete steps to achieve improved implementation and enforcement of arms embargoes. United States leadership should ensure that the conference is the first step, not the last, in the international community's efforts to control the spread of small arms and light weapons.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with, and I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague from Idaho to introduce legislation that provides fair compensation to producers and other landowners who maintain open spaces for plants and animals to thrive. This bill creates a voluntary program authorizing the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, to obtain either 30-year or permanent easements from landowners in exchange for a cash payment. Easements allow for grazing while maintaining the viability of native grass species. Moreover, these uses must only occur upon the conclusion of the local bird nesting season. Vast amounts of grassland are being lost to urban development every year in large part because of economic pressures faced by ranchers, livestock producers, and other grassland owners. Currently, there are no long-term programs to protect grasslands on a national scale. The Grassland Reserve Act provides real options to financially-strapped land owners of grasslands who wish to keep their lands in a natural state. There is a need for this bill because existing programs to protect lands, such as the Forest Legacy program, target forested lands only. This legislation represents a win-win situation for both the environment and people who make their livelihood on grasslands. The loss of grassland is a serious problem for preserving wildlife habitat and a rural way of life. This bill is a step in the right direction to protect these lands from future development. I have always felt that protecting our Nation's unique natural areas, including grasslands, should be one of our highest priorities. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Craig and me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague from Idaho to introduce legislation that provides fair compensation to producers and other landowners who maintain open spaces for plants and animals to thrive. This bill creates a voluntary program authorizing the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, to obtain either 30-year or permanent easements from landowners in exchange for a cash payment. Easements allow for grazing while maintaining the viability of native grass species. Moreover, these uses must only occur upon the conclusion of the local bird nesting season. Vast amounts of grassland are being lost to urban development every year in large part because of economic pressures faced by ranchers, livestock producers, and other grassland owners. Currently, there are no long-term programs to protect grasslands on a national scale. The Grassland Reserve Act provides real options to financially-strapped land owners of grasslands who wish to keep their lands in a natural state. There is a need for this bill because existing programs to protect lands, such as the Forest Legacy program, target forested lands only. This legislation represents a win-win situation for both the environment and people who make their livelihood on grasslands. The loss of grassland is a serious problem for preserving wildlife habitat and a rural way of life. This bill is a step in the right direction to protect these lands from future development. I have always felt that protecting our Nation's unique natural areas, including grasslands, should be one of our highest priorities. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Craig and me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, we are all waiting for the majority leader to come to the floor and deliver the reorganization message. As part of that, I believe he is going to announce that Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is going to make public the blue slip process. As a member of that committee, I would like to take a few moments and make a few comments about my experience with the blue slip--in essence, what I think about it. For those who do not know what the blue slip is, it is a process by which a Member can essentially blackball a judge from his or her State when that Member has some reason to do so. Why would I object so much? I object so much because there is a history of this kind of thing. Historically, many private clubs and organizations have enabled their board of directors to deliver what is called a blackball to keep out someone they don't want in their club or organization. We all know it has happened. For some of us, it has even happened to us. The usual practice was, and still is in instances, to prevent someone of a different race or religion from gaining access to that organization or club. This is essentially what the blue slip process is all about. The U.S. Senate is not a private institution. We are a public democracy. I have come to believe the blue slip should hold no place in this body. At the very least, the use of a blue slip to stop a nominee, to prevent a hearing and therefore prevent a confirmation, should be made public. I am pleased to support my chairman, Pat Leahy, and the Judiciary Committee in that regard. Under our current procedure, though, any Member of this Senate, by returning a negative blue slip on a home State nominee, or simply by not returning the blue slip at all, can stop a nomination dead in its tracks. No reason need be given, no public statement need be made, no one would even know whom to blame. With a secret whisper or a backroom deal, the nomination simply dies without even a hearing. This is just plain wrong. I have watched the painful process over the last 9 years. During 6 of those years, the blue slip itself contained the words, ``no further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominee's home State Senators.'' As a result, I saw nominees waiting 1, 2, 3, even 4 years, often without as much as a hearing or even an explanation as to why the action was taken. These nominees put their lives on hold. Yet they never have a chance to discuss the concerns that may have been raised about them. These concerns remain secret and the nomination goes nowhere. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I believe our duty is either to confirm or reject a nominee based on an informed judgment that he or she is either fit or not fit to serve; to listen to concerns and responses, to examine the evidence presented at a hearing, and to have a rationale for determining whether or not an individual nominee should serve as a district court judge or circuit court judge or even a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. That duty, in my view, leaves no room for a secret block on nominees by any Member which prevents their hearing and confirmation. I believe in the last three Congresses, based on information I have been able to come upon, that the blue slip has been used at least 21 times. Consider this: An individual graduates college with honors, finishes law school at the top of the class; he or she may even clerk for a prestigious judge or join a large law firm, or maybe practice public interest law or even serve as staff of the Judiciary Committee. In fact, a nominee can spend years of his or her life honing skills and developing a reputation among peers, a reputation that finally leads to a nomination by the President of the United States to a Federal court. This must be the proudest day of his or her life. Then the nominee just waits. First for a few weeks. He or she is told things should be moving shortly but the Senate sometimes takes a while to get moving. Then the months start to go by, and maybe friends or associates make some inquiries as to what could be wrong. They don't hear anything, so the nominee is told just to wait a little longer; things will work themselves out. I have had nominees call me and say: I have children in school. We need to move. Shall we do it? I don't know what to do. Do I continue my law practice? A year passes with still no hearing or explanation; finally, the second year, and maybe the third, or even the fourth, if one is ``lucky'' enough to be renominated in the next session. The time goes by without so much as a word as to why the nomination has not moved forward. Simply put, the nominee has been blackballed by a blue slip, and there is nothing that can be done about it--no one to hold accountable. I believe that if a Member wants to use a blue slip to stop a nominee from moving forward, that blue slip should be public. And I also believe that the Member should be prepared to appear before the Judiciary Committee and explain why the Senate should not consider the nominee and hold a hearing. Making the blue slip public is no guarantee that a nominee will receive a hearing. It is no guarantee that an up or down vote will ever be held. But at least the nominee will have the chance to see who has the problem, and what that problem is. In many cases, a nominee may choose to withdraw. In others, perhaps a misunderstanding can be cleared up. Either way, the process will be in the open, and we will know the reasons. I believe that many members of this Senate did not even realize they held the power of the blue slip until just recently. In my view, the rationale behind the blue slip process is faulty. The process was designed to allow home state Senators--who may in some instances know the nominee better than the rest of the Senate--to have a larger say in whether the nominee moves forward. More often than not, however, this power is and will be used to stop nominees for political or other reasons having nothing to do with qualifications. As a matter of fact, the Member who uses the blue slip, who doesn't send it in, or sends it in negatively, may never have even met the nominee. If legitimate reasons to defeat a nominee do exist, those reasons can be shared with the Judiciary Committee in confidence, and decisions can be made based on that information--by the entire Committee. The blue slip process as it now stands is open to abuse. I would join with those--I am hopeful there are now those--on the Judiciary Committee who would move to abolish the blue slip. Before I conclude, I want to read from a recent opinion piece by G. Calvin Mackenzie, a professor at Colby College and an expert on the appointment process. In the April 1, 2001 edition of the Washington Post, Mackenzie wrote: The nomination system is a national disgrace. It encourages bullies and emboldens demagogues, silences the voices of responsibility, and nourishes the lowest forms of partisan combat. It uses innocent citizens as pawns in politicians' petty games and stains the reputations of good people. It routinely violates fundamental democratic principles, undermines the quality and consistency of public management, and breaches simple decency. I find myself in agreement with every word in that quote. It is quite an indictment of our nominations process. On both sides of the aisle, we hear: Well, they did it, so we are going to do it. Well, they blocked our nominee, so now we will block their nominee. I don't believe that has any merit whatsoever. I believe at some point we have to stop this cycle. At some point, nominees have to come to the Senate Judiciary Committee, go promptly or as promptly as they can go to a hearing, have the questions asked, and we do our duty which we took our oath to do, which is to make the judgment whether that nominee qualifies to be a Federal court judge or district court judge. I make these remarks to say that this is one Member of the Judiciary Committee who will happily vote to do away with the blue slip. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Larry Craig, in introducing this legislation to accelerate the development of fusion energy as a practical and realistic alternative to fossil fuels for our nation's energy needs. I would also like to commend my colleague, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who introduced the ``Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001'' on the House side as H.R. 1781. Since the beginning of the Manhattan Project, scientists have been trying to harness energy from fusion to produce electricity. This legislation will help the scientific community expedite the development of fusion as a viable option for our energy needs. To help fusion science move from the lab to the grid, this bill fast- tracks a key experimental fusion project. This bill also authorizes $320 million for Fiscal Year 2002 and $335 million for Fiscal Year 2003 to speed up fusion's current estimated 45-year implementation timetable. I have spoken frequently to my colleagues on California's current energy situation. Last week the Department of Energy predicted the State will suffer from around 110 hours of rolling blackouts this summer. Experts say $21.8 billion of economic output will be lost and over 135,000 workers will lose their jobs because of this summer's blackouts. I will continue to try to help California and the rest of the West in the short-term. Making rolling blackouts less frequent, lowering electricity costs on the wholesale market, keeping natural gas prices reasonable, and bringing new supplies of power online are the key objectives I have been working toward to bring stability to the Western Energy Market. While I work on the short-term problems in California, I join my colleague from Idaho on this bill to develop a key long-term solution to our current energy problems. As world populations grow, and as civilization advances, we need to pursue new energy sources beyond traditional fossil fuels. It is no secret that fossil fuels are finite and polluting. Beyond expanding renewable energy sources such as those from the sun and the wind, fusion holds a great deal of potential to expand our nation's energy supply. Fusion is a safe, almost inexhaustible energy source with major environmental advantages. As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I hope to see fusion move quickly from an experiment in the lab to a reality for our homes and businesses. We have already succeeded in using scientific advancements to harness energy occurring elsewhere on our planet. Solar panels collect the sun's rays to heat pools and power homes. Windmills transfer nature's gusts into electrical currents. Water running from mountaintops to the sea can produce significant amounts of hydroelectric power. And now, with fusion energy, we will be able to harness the power of the stars to create an almost unlimited and clean form of energy. Fusion energy is the result of two small hydrogen atoms combining into a larger atom. The energy released from this fusion of the atoms can be harnessed to generate electricity. Unlike nuclear power, which uses radioactive materials for fuel, fusion uses hydrogen from water. Unlike fossil fuels, which pollute the air when burned, the only byproduct in a hydrogen fusion reaction is helium, an element already plentiful in the air. Besides being environmentally benign, fusion is a practically unlimited fuel source. In fact, scientists predict that using 1 gallon of sea water, fusion can yield the energy produced from 300 gallons of gasoline. And with fusion, 50 cups of sea water can be the energy equivalent of 2 tons of coal. Fusion energy has been proven to be a practical energy endeavor, worthy of more investment for research and development. So just where do we go from here? How do we harness the power of the stars? A 1999 review by the Department of Energy's task force on Fusion Energy concluded: one, substantial scientific progress has been made in the science of fusion energy; two, the budget for fusion research needs to grow; and three, a burning plasma experiment needs to be carried out. To expedite the use of fusion to meet our energy needs, we need to strengthen the efforts already underway in fusion research and development and create new programs financed by the government. Scientists agree that at current funding levels, fusion is approximately 45 years away from entering the marketplace as a viable energy source. This timetable is based upon a three step process in which the scientific community can: first, carry out a burning plasma experiment; second, build a fusion energy test facility; and third, establish a fusion demonstration plant to generate electricity. Since practical fusion energy generation is still three stages from real implementation, the first thing we can do is fund the development of a burning plasma experiment. This legislation will ensure this project will happen soon, carried out either by the scientific community in the United States, or in collaboration with an international effort. The bill requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan by 2004 for a magnetic fusion burning plasma experiment. It is important to point out that this bill adds the burning plasma experiment in addition to, and not at the expense of, other ongoing projects. The goal of fusion energy is to create a continually burning fuel like a fire refueling itself. Developing a magnetic fusion plasma experiment will help the scientific community demonstrate how the heat from the fusion reaction can maintain the reaction as a self-generating fuel. Strong magnetic fields allow the hydrogen plasma to be heated to high temperatures for fusion. This legislation will help the scientific community overcome the key stumbling block to fusion development. By authorizing $320 million for Fiscal Year 2002 and $335 for Fiscal Year 2003 the fusion plasma experiment will be carried out and fusion funding that peaked in the 1970s, but has since tapered off, will be restored. Let me just take a moment to mention where this funding is going, because it is particularly important for me to point this out. Annual Federal funding for fusion energy has averaged around $230 million in the last few years. In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated $248.49 million for fusion research. This money has provided approximately 1,100 jobs in California at the following U.S. Fusion Program Participant locations: UC Davis, UC Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, Cal Tech, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, Occidental College, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Sandia National Lab, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, TSI Research Inc. and General Atomics. Despite all of the past advancements at these facilities and others, the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee has concluded that lack of funding is hindering the technological advance towards fusion energy development. And the Department of Energy's task force on Fusion Energy has concluded that, ``In light of the promise of fusion,'' funding remains ``subcritical.'' Currently, the international community is outpacing us on the road to realizing the myriad benefits of this new energy resource. The Japanese budget for this type of research is about 1.5 times that of the U.S., and the European budget is about 3 times greater. It is critical that we be the leader in the renewable energy resources sector. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Craig and me in supporting fusion energy as a clean, safe, and abundant energy source for our Nation's long-term energy supply.