Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today joined by our colleague, Senator Kempthorne, to offer this amendment on behalf of a broad coalition of State and local governments. Since announcing my intention to proceed with this amendment, I have received letters of support from hundreds of cities across the country, including the States of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. This amendment is supported by the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, to name a few. Mr. President, as a former mayor, I fully understand why Governors, mayors, city councils, and county boards of supervisors question allowing the Federal Communications Commission to second-guess decisions made at State and local government levels. On one hand, the bill before the Senate gives cities and States the right to levy fair and reasonable fees and to control their rights of way; with the other hand, this bill, as it presently stands, takes these protections away. The way in which it does so is found in section 201, which creates a new section 254(d) of the Cable Act, and provides sweeping preemption authority. The preemption gives any communications company the right, if they disagree with a law or regulation put forward by a State, county, or a city, to appeal that to the FCC. That means that cities will have to send delegations of city attorneys to Washington to go before a panel of telecommunications specialist at the FCC, on what may be very broad question of State or local government rights. In reality, this preemption provision is an unfunded mandate because it will create major new costs for cities and for States. I hope to explain why. I know my colleague, the Senator from Idaho, will do that as well. A cable company would, and most likely will, appeal any local decision it does not like to the telecommunications experts at the Federal Communications Commission. The city attorney of San Francisco advises that, in San Francisco, city laws provide that all street excavations must comply with local laws tailored to the specifics of the local communities, including the geography, the density of development, the age of public streets, their width, what other plumbing is under the street, the kind of surfacing the street has, et cetera. The city attorney anticipates that whenever application of routine, local requirements interfere with the schedule or convenience of a telecommunications supplier, subsection (d), the provision we hope to strike, would authorize a cable company to seek FCC preemption. Any time they did not like the time and location of excavation to preserve effective traffic flow or to prevent hazardous road conditions, or minimize noise impacts, they could appeal to the FCC. If they did not like an order to relocate facilities to accommodate a public improvement project, like the installation, repair, or replacement of water, sewer, our public transportation facilities, they would appeal. If they did not like a requirement to utilize trenches owned by the city or another utility in order to avoid repeated excavation of heavily traveled streets, they would appeal. If they did not like being required to place their facilities underground rather than overhead, consistent with the requirements imposed on other utilities, they could appeal. If they were required to pay fees prior to installing any facility to cover the costs of reviewing plans and inspecting excavation work, they could appeal. If they did not like being asked to pay fees to recover an appropriate share of increased street repair and paving costs that result from repeated excavation, they would appeal. If they did not like the particular kinds of excavation equipment or techniques that a city mandate that they use, they could appeal. If they did not like the indemnification, they could appeal. The city attorney is right, that preemption would severely undermine local governments' ability to apply locally tailored requirements on a uniform basis. Small cities are placed at risk and oppose the preemption because small cities are often financially strapped. As the city attorney of Redondo Beach, a suburb of Los Angeles writes, every time there is an appeal, they would have to find funds to come back to Washington to fight an appeal at the FCC. Recently, the engineering design center at San Francisco State University, conducted an interesting study for San Francisco on the impact of street cuts on public roads. The expected life and value of public roads and streets directly correlates with the number of cuts into the road. Although this is rather dull and esoteric to some, the study reveals that streets with three to nine utility cuts are expected to require resurfacing every 18 years, a 30-percent reduction in service life, relative to streets with less than three cuts. The more road cuts, the steeper the decline in value of the public's asset will be. Streets with more than nine cuts are expected to require resurfacing every 13 years, a 50-percent reduction in the service life of streets with less than three cuts. An even more dramatic decline in a street's useful life is found on heavily traveled arterial streets with heavy wheel traffic. For those streets, the anticipated useful life declines even more rapidly, from 26 years for streets with fewer than three cuts to 17 years for streets with three to nine cuts, a 35-percent reduction, to 12 years for streets with more than nine cuts, a 54-percent reduction. What does this mean? It means that financially struggling cities and counties will undoubtedly be forced to include in franchise fees, charges to allow the recovery of the additional maintenance requirements that constantly cutting into streets requires. The exemption means that every time a cable operator does not like it, the Washington staff of the cable operator is going to file a complaint with the FCC and the city has to send a delegation back to fight that complaint. It should not be this way. Cities should have control over their streets. Counties should have control over their roads. States should have control over their highways. The right-of-way is the most valuable real estate the public owns. State, city, and county investments in right-of-way infrastructure was $86 billion in 1993 alone. Of the $86 billion, more than $22 billion represents the cost of maintaining these existing roadways. These State and local governments are entitled to be able to protect the public's investment in infrastructure. Exempting communication providers from paying the full costs they impose on State and local governments for the use of public right-of-way creates a subsidy to be paid for by taxpayers and other businesses that have no exemptions. change the outcome in some of the dispute between communication companies and cities and States. The FCC is the Nation's telecommunications experts. But they do not have the broad experience and concerns a mayor, a city council, a board of supervisors, or a Governor would have in negotiating and weighing a cable agreement and setting a cable fee. If the preemption provision remains, a city would be forced to challenge the FCC ruling to gain a fair hearing in Federal court. This is important because presently they can go directly to their local Federal court. Under the preemption, a city, State, or county government would have to come to the Federal court in Washington after an appeal to the FCC. A city appealing an adverse ruling by the FCC would appear before the D.C. Federal Appeals Court rather than in the Federal district court of the locality involved. Further, the Federal court will evaluate a very different legal question--whether the FCC abused their discretion in reaching its determination. The preemption will force small cities to defend themselves in Washington, and many will be just unable to afford the cost. By contrast, if no preemption exists, the cable company may challenge the city or State action directly to the Federal court in the locality and the court will review whether the city or State acted reasonably under the circumstances. Edward Perez, assistant city attorney for Los Angeles, states this will be a very difficult standard to reverse, if they have to come to Washington. On matters involving communication issues, courts are likely to require a tough, heightened scrutiny standard for matters involving first amendment rights involving freedom of speech. Courts are likely to defer to the FCC judgment. The FCC proceeding and its appeal in Washington will be very different from the Federal court action in a locality. Both the city and the communications company are more likely to be able to develop a more complete and thorough record if the proceeding is before the local Federal court rather than before a Government body in Washington. We also believe the FCC lacks the expertise to address cities' concerns. As I said, if you have a city that is complicated in topography, that is very hilly, that is very old, that has very narrow streets, where the surfacing may be fragile, where there are earthquake problems, you are going to have different requirements on a cable entity constantly opening and recutting the streets. The fees should be able to reflect these regional and local distinctions. Mr. President, this stack of letters opposing the preemption includes virtually every California city and virtually every major city in every State. What the cities and the States tell us they want us to give local governments the opportunity for home rule on questions affecting their public rights-of-way. If the cable company does not like it, the cable company can go to court in that jurisdiction. By deleting the preemption, we can increase fairness, minimize cost to cities, counties, and States, and prevent an unfunded mandate. If the preemption remains in this bill, it creates a major unfunded mandate for cities, for counties, and for States. I hope this body will sustain the cities and the counties and the States, and strike the preemption. So I ask unanimous consent to have a number of letters printed in the Record. There being no objections, the letters were ordered to be printed in

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kempthorne and myself, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lott I offer this amendment, which is a rather simple and direct amendment. It concerns the proliferation of adult video programming that is easily accessible for children to view. It is a commonsense amendment and it is simple. It would require multichannel video programmers, such as cable operators, to fully scramble or otherwise block sexually explicit adult programming unless a subscriber specifically requests such programming. The full blocking requirement would apply to those channels primarily dedicated to adult sexually oriented programming, such as the Playboy and Spice channels. Until these channels are fully blocked, cable operators would have to restrict their broadcasts to certain times of the day when children are least likely to view it, such as at night. Last year I learned that in many households across America, adult programming was being broadcast around-the-clock on certain primarily sexually orientated channels, with only partial audio and video scrambling. This issue first came to my attention when a local city councilman in Poway, CA, a suburb of San Diego, wrote to me about the problem in his community. He said that in San Diego County, partially scrambled video pornography--replete with unscrambled and sexually explicit audio--was being automatically transmitted to more than 320,000 cable television subscribers. Unfortunately, many subscribers and parents were unaware of these transmissions until they or their children accidentally discovered the programming. In San Diego County, for example, the partially scrambled pornography signal was broadcast only one channel away from a network broadcasting cartoons and was easily accessible for children to view. Parents would come home after work only to find their children sitting in front of the television watching or listening to the adult's-only channel, a channel that many parents did not even know existed. In Poway, the city councilman's young son learned about the adult's-only channel at school, where the easily accessible programming was a hot topic among children. This is not an isolated program.Until just a few months ago, the local cable company here in Washington also automatically transmitted partially scrambled video pornography--replete with unscrambled and sexually explicit audio--to all of its subscribers. To their credit, some local cable companies are taking voluntary steps to address this problem. For example, in San Diego, one local cable company restricted the times when such programming was broadcast. In Washington, the local cable company eventually fully blocked the programming so both the video and audio portions of the signal are now undistinguishable. However, numerous other cable services across the country are still transmitting similar adult video and audio programming that is not sufficiently scrambled, with many subscribers and parents unaware of its contents. And, with the emerging information superhighway and other forms of video programming now or soon to be available, such sexually elicit adult programming will be even more prevalent. The problem is that there are no uniform laws or regulations that govern such sexually explicit adult programming on cable television. Currently, adult programming varies from community to community, as does the amount and effectiveness of scrambling on each local cable system. Right now, it is up to the local cable operator to regulate itself. This is like the fox guarding the hen house. Following complaints from myself and other officials--and the threat of legislation--the National Cable Television Association recognized that this was indeed a problem and adopted voluntary guidelines that local cable operators can follow. The California Cable Television Association also adopted similar guidelines. However, the voluntary guidelines simply recommend that local cable operators ``block the audio and video portions of unwanted sexually- oriented premium channels at no cost to the customer, upon request.'' While this is a somewhat commendable effort on the part of industry, I do not believe that it goes far enough. First, the guidelines are only voluntary and simply recommended that local cable operators take action. There is no guarantee that such blocking will be provided and no enforcement mechanism. Second, the guidelines put the burden of action on the subscriber, not the cable company, by requiring a subscriber to specifically request the blocking of indecent programming. As I stated earlier, many subscribers do not even know that such programming exists, only to discover their children watching and listening to adults-only channels. I do not believe that sexually explicit adult programming should automatically be broadcast into a program subscriber's home. On the contrary, I believe that sexually explicit adult programming should be automatically blocked, unless a program subscriber specifically requests the programming. The amendment I am proposing today is similar to language approved by the Commerce Committee last year as part of S. 1822 and contained in Senator Exon's bill, the Communications Decency Act of 1995. It would require that all sexually explicit adult programming be fully scrambled unless requested by a subscriber. This amendment does not prohibit or out-right block indecent or sexually explicit programming. Anyone requesting such programming is entitled to receive it, as long as it is not obscene, which is not protected by the first amendment. The amendment, however, protects children by prohibiting sexually explicit programming to those individuals who have not specifically requested such programming. The cable television industry, in meetings over the past year or so with my staff, have expressed their opposition to this amendment, citing technological and fiscal concerns. The bottom line, however, is that fully scrambling both the audio and video portion of a cable program is technologically feasible. In fact, several cable operators have already instituted such blocking, such as here in Washington. With regard to their fiscal concerns, I have never been given any information from the industry to document what the actual costs to cable operators would be. This amendment gives the industry flexibility in implementing the requirement to fully scramble all sexually explicit adult programming. Until a cable operator or other multichannel video programming distributor is in full compliance, access to such programming will be limited to protect children from the sexually explicit material. The programming will be prohibited from those times of the day--to be determined by the FCC--when a significant number of children are likely to view it, such as during the mid and late morning, afternoon, and early evening. So, the amendment leaves it up to the local cable operator on how and when to come into full compliance. Some cable operators, for example, are already in full compliance. For those operators that are not in full compliance, children will be still be protected until the adult programming can be fully scrambled or otherwise blocked. This amendment also does not become effective until 30 days after enactment, so cable operators will have plenty of time to either fully block the programming, or restrict access to certain times of the day. While I realize that some cable operators may incur costs in implementing [[Page S8168]] this amendment, I believe that the price to protect children from sexually explicit programming is well worth it. In addition, as I stated above, the amendment gives the industry flexibility in coming into compliance; it lets individual cable operators decide what costs, if any, they will incur and when they will incur such costs. It is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary. One would have hoped that cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors would have automatically fully blocked or scrambled sexually explicit adult programming or, at a minimum, restricted the programming to certain times of the day. But, industry has only taken baby steps to address this problem through voluntary policies that simply recommend action. The end result is that numerous cable operators across the country are still automatically broadcasting sexually explicit adult programming into households across America, regardless of whether parents want this or subscribers want it. So I believe the provision is both necessary, timely, will be helpful, and will disadvantage no one. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a CRS analysis of this amendment as it relates to the first amendment, which is in support of the amendment of Senator Lott and myself, and some recent court decisions, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have actually two amendments, one involving the cities and a preemption clause in the bill, and the second is an amendment I would like to send to the desk right now. Amendment No. 1269 (Purpose: To provide for the full scrambling on multichannel video services of sexually explicit adult programming)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide for a nationally coordinated program of research, promotion, and consumer information regarding kiwifruit for the purpose of expanding domestic and foreign markets for kiwifruit. This bill is identical to H.R. 1486 introduced in the House by Congressman Wally Herger, Congressman Vic Fazio, and others. The kiwifruit industry is an important and growing sector in American agriculture, with tremendous potential to expand sales both at home and abroad through increased promotion and consumer education. California presently represents 99 percent of the U.S. kiwifruit production. Kiwifruit are commercially grown in Kern, Tulare, Fresno, San Joaquin, Yolo, Sutter, Butte, Yuba, and Colusa Counties. Altogether, there are about 700 kiwifruit growers in my State. In 1993, U.S. consumption of kiwifruit was 59 percent California grown, 33 percent Chilean imports, and 8 percent New Zealand imports. It is my understanding that Chilean exporters have expressed interest in participating with California growers in promoting kiwifruit to encourage increased domestic consumption and expand opportunities in foreign markets. The self-help program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, would be funded almost entirely by industry user fees. The industry would assess benefiting domestic growers and importers to equitably share in the costs. Currently there are 18 similar federally authorized commodity research and promotion programs. Once Congress approved the authorizing legislation, the promotion program must be approved by a majority of the handlers of kiwifruit, including the handlers of imported kiwifruit. Specifically, this bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a federal order for kiwifruit research, promotion, and consumer information; establish an eleven member kiwifruit board composed of six growers, four importers, and one member of the general public to run the promotion program; authorize the kiwifruit board to collect assessments, at no more than $0.10 per seven pound tray of kiwifruit, to pay for research, promotion, and consumer information and for administrative expenses incurred by the kiwifruit board; authorize use of the assessments not only for domestic generic promotion, but also for promotion activities outside the United States; and require the kiwifruit order to be approved by a majority of the producers and importers and by a majority of those producing and importing more than 50 percent of the total volume of kiwifruit produced and imported. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues today in commemorating Margaret Chase Smith, the Republican Senator who made history as the first woman to win election to both Houses of Congress, and the first woman ever to be elected to the Senate. It is a privilege to be a U.S. Senator. And I am grateful to Margaret Chase Smith for paving the way for me, and the women before me, to serve in this great Chamber. And more importantly, I salute her for being an inspiration, setting an example by being tough yet compassionate. Senator Smith's accomplishments were great. Among them, a long list of firsts, including being the first woman to sit on the Naval Affairs Committee and to have her name advanced for the Presidency at a national convention. But it is here legislative record and her long history of independence--always voting her conscience, that has left a last impression on me. She was a political independent, voting with her party when she saw fit and standing alone when she felt strongly about an issue. Indeed, in her first major address to the Senate on June 1, 1950, the freshman Senator denounced Joseph McCarthy. She accused the Wisconsin Senator of reducing the Senate to a ``forum of hate and character assassination.'' In 1954 she voted for his censure. McCarthy exacted his political payback--expelling Senator Smith from a key committee and, in her next election, leading a vicious campaign against her. Still, it was that speech that was the beginning of the end or his career and which cemented her place in history. In 1970, during the Vietnam war, she addressed the Senate again in a speech that was later expanded into a book called ``A Declaration of Conscience.'' In that speech, the Maine Senator warned Americans that ``excessiveness and overreactions on both sides is a clear and present danger to American democracy.'' Senator Smith knew that if we did not elevate the level of political discourse beyond mean-spiritedness, that we risked chipping away at the democratic process itself. Her standing up for what she believed earned her the moniker ``the conscience of the Senate.'' But she stood her ground without resorting to personal invective or shrill tactics. It is this sort of reasoned debate and moderation--the very principles that this Chamber has always stood for--that should continue to guide those of us who sit here today. Margaret Chase Smith was born in Skowhegan, ME. Her father was the town barber and her mother was a part-time waitress. She herself earned only a high-school education. She taught grade school, was a telephone operator and the circulation manager for a weekly newspaper where she met her husband, Clyde Harold Smith. When, in 1940, her husband died of a heart attack, she successfully ran for his seat in the House of Representatives. She served four terms in the House. Later, in the Senate, she served on the Appropriations, Aeronautical and Space committees and was the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She also was the chairwoman of the Conference of Republican Senators. Senator Smith served under six presidents--from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon. Although she advanced considerably in what was considered a man's world, Senator Smith did not consider herself a champion of women's rights. Yet she wrote legislation that paved the way for women to serve in the military and later voted for the equal rights amendment. By her example, Senator Smith pioneered the way for many women, including myself, to enter the political arena. Late in her career, Senator Smith said: ``I have no family, no time- consuming hobbies. I have only myself and my job as United States Senator.'' It is in her job as a U.S. Senator that Margaret Chase Smith distinguished herself, and that she will always be remembered and honored.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment that establishes a clear standard of behavior other countries must meet in order to be eligible to purchase military equipment from the United States. It amends the Arms Export Control Act by adding a section which states that no defense article or defense service may be sold or licensed for export to a country unless the President has certified to Congress that the country is cooperating fully with the United Stats, or taking adequate steps on its own, to help achieve U.S. antiterrorism objectives. This amendment does recognize that certain transactions of military equipment do have a direct bearing on our national security, so it allows the President to waive the prohibition with respect to specific transactions if he determines that they are essential to the national security interests of the United States. The United States is the leading exporter of military equipment in the world. In fiscal year 1994, the United States sold some $12.86 billion worth of defense equipment and services around the world. By and large, these exports serve the interests of the United States by helping to build up the security of our allies. Improving our allies' abilities to defend themselves is one of the most effective ways we can advance and protect our own interests abroad. It is not unreasonable to expect a certain level of cooperation from countries to whom we sell military equipment. Obviously cooperation in defense matters is taken into consideration, as it should be, because of the clear benefit it brings to United States security interests. But our security these days is affected by other, less conventional problems. Today, terrorism poses a major threat to U.S. security interests, and to our way of life. Because of that, we must demand and expect cooperation from our allies to help us achieve our antiterrorism objectives. When we share our most advanced military technology with our allies, we should be able to expect full cooperation in these crucial areas. For the most part, the commitment to combat terrorism is strong among our allies who purchase U.S. military equipment. Many of them know first-hand the scourge of terrorism, and have been deeply affected by it. Indeed, the State Department's 1994 Patterns of Global Terrorism report describes some 321 international terrorist attacks in 1994, in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Occasionally, however, we have been disappointed by the cooperation we have received in our antiterrorism efforts. This amendment is designed to add an additional incentive for those states to cooperate with U.S. antiterrorism efforts. We need their full cooperation in: Apprehending, prosecuting, and extraditing suspected terrorists; sharing intelligence to deter terrorist attacks; pressuring state sponsors of terrorism to change their behavior; curbing private fundraising efforts for terrorist organizations within their country; and, taking actions to prevent or deter terrorist attacks. Where we have signed agreements and treaties, they should be fulfilled in both letter and spirit. Where we do not have such agreements, our allies should work with us to put them in place as quickly as practicable. The threat of international terrorism demands that the civilized nations of the world band together to defend against those who would use violence for political ends. This amendment will help ensure that the United States gets the cooperation it needs from our allies to fight this threat.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, the certification procedure is designed to require one certification annually for each country that purchases defense articles or defense services, or has them licensed for export, from the United States in a given fiscal year. Most certifications will probably be provided at the beginning of the fiscal year, but a country that is not certified at that time may, if eligible, be certified at any time prior to the first sale or export license to it in the fiscal year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted 90 to 0 to approve an amendment I authored to the counterterrorism legislation. Because of the importance of this amendment, I want to clarify its intent and language. This amendment will make it easier for law enforcement officials to trace the origins of bombs used for violent or criminal purposes. The legislation specifically requires the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study within 12 months on the use of taggants in all explosive materials, including black or smokeless powder. Once that study is completed, the Treasury Department must enforce the use of taggants in explosive materials within 6 months, depending on the study's findings and other factors. In addition, this amendment instructs the Treasury Department to also study ways of making common chemicals, such as fertilizer, inert and unusable as an explosive. This amendment exempts putting taggants in black or smokeless gun powder when that powder is used for small arms ammunition, or bullets-- an exemption that already exists under current law. In addition, black or smokeless powder used in antique firearms for recreational purposes is also exempted from this amendment. The amendment does allow for the use of taggants in black or smokeless powder produced for sale in large quantities or for other uses. I want to clarify that this amendment extends the existing exemption under current law. Under sections 845 (a)(4) and (5) of Title 18, United States Code, small arms ammunitiona and antique weapons used for recreational purposes are exempt from all explosive regulations, except for a few specific circumstances. This amendment simply reiterates current law.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be prepared to do that, Senator. It is my understanding this affects gels, slurries, dynamite, emulsions and cast boosters, and black powder. But it does not include smokeless powder.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator from Delaware is 100 percent correct. I might say, coming from a State that has a $18 billion agricultural industry, I called up to see if we have had any phone calls at all from Agriculture, Farm Bureau, anybody else. The answer is no. I would hazard a guess, knowing the agricultural community of California, that they would not object to a study. So I think this is probably a very targeted lobbying drive at the present time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have here an amended amendment that may solve the problem. There are some technical amendments which I can read. But the one that deals right now with the situation that my colleague is referring to, smokeless or black powder would be as follows. At the end of subsection (c)(1) insert the following: For purposes of this subsection, explosive material does not include smokeless or black powder manufactured for uses set forth in section 845(a)(4)(5) of this chapter. Which is ``Small Arms Ammunition and Components Thereof.'' That is the exception, just for small arms ammunition and components thereof.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield? We believe it is already exempted. This is a restatement of that.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Mr. President, say to the Senator from Delaware, we are prepared to move a modification to the amendment. We require unanimous consent to be able to do so. I am hopeful that will be forthcoming.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might include in the Record at this time perhaps, if the Senator will yield, the Federal Register, volume 60, No. 80, Department of the Treasury. This is a listing of those explosive materials that we are dealing with precisely. So that will be in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may respond, and perhaps the Senator from Delaware, because I think this is a useful discussion. I would like to respond to the Senator from Utah. What concerns me is somebody writes a terrorist handbook. We have that case. And they tell somebody how to steal; how, in detail, to put together, let us say, a light bulb bomb. You come to them and say, ``You violated a criminal law.'' They say, ``I did not intend this to be used for crime.'' Then the comeback is, ``You should know it is going to be used for crime because that is the only purpose for a light bulb bomb. It is the only purpose for a toilet paper bomb, for a candy box bomb.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. I would be delighted. I thank the Senator.