Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support Judge Otis Wright, a distinguished nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Wright is nominated to a seat that has been designated as a judicial emergency. The Central District of California, based in Los Angeles, is the largest and busiest Federal judicial district in the Nation. When this Congress began, there were five vacancies on this court more than twice as many as in any other judicial district in the country. I am pleased that the Senate has already confirmed two new judges for the Central District this year, and I thank Chairman Leahy for moving the California judicial nominees quickly. Judge Wright is a graduate of California State University at Los Angeles and of the Southwestern School of Law. After graduating from law school, Judge Wright was a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice for 3 years. During that time he specialized in criminal appeals. He went on to join the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, where he became a partner during a career that spanned more than 20 years. He practiced civil litigation in many areas, with a particular focus on insurance coverage litigation. While in private practice, Judge Wright was a volunteer attorney with the HIV AIDS Legal Services Alliance. His work on behalf of those with HIV and AIDS included housing and employment discrimination cases, as well as preparing wills for the terminally ill. Judge Wright's public service has not been limited to his legal career: he was a deputy sheriff in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department while attending college and law school, and before that he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Reserves. He is one of only 16 African Americans who have been nominated to be federal judges in the 6 years that President Bush has been in office. During the first 6 years of the Clinton presidency, by contrast, 53 African Americans were nominated. Judge Wright will be a welcome addition to the bench. In California we have developed a bipartisan process known as the Parsky Commission for selecting Federal district court nominees. Under this system, a committee of lawyers, including Democrats and Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President. I am proud of this system and pleased to say that Judge Wright was recommended by the Parsky Commission. This gives me confidence that he comes to the bench without an ideological agenda and prepared to serve all the people of California. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Wright's nomination. nomination of john preston bailey

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation that would expand the Federal student loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers. Nationwide, only 31 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program. In California, that number is even smaller: only 21 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree. To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning. Recruiting and retaining teachers with such qualifications is critical to ensuring that our children start elementary school ready to learn. A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), found that ``teachers with higher education levels were found to have more high quality language activities and more creative activities in their classrooms.'' In order to give every child a jump start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving. Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better. Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of about $21,000--almost half the amount of elementary school teachers' salary of about $43,000. Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, makes it increasingly difficult to attract and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers. We must provide incentives to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in this important field. This legislation would allow recent college graduates (obtaining a minimum of a bachelor's degree), and current Head Start teachers without a degree, to receive up to $5,000 of their Federal student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a qualified Head Start program; and provide Head Start teachers with the same opportunity as currently offered to eligible elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 5 years of service. Providing our Nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified Head Start teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success. Head Start is the primary Federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing. Research shows that Head Start is a smart investment in our children's future. For example, a 2003 Kindergarten Readiness: Head Start Success study of more than 600 graduates in San Bernardino County, CA, demonstrated that society receives nearly nine dollars in benefits, i.e. increased earnings and employment, for every one dollar invested in Head Start children. That is why we must act now. Every teacher that the Head Start program loses impacts the quality and access to services for our Nation's neediest children, and ultimately can impact their future success. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Voinovich in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with Senator Durbin to restore our Nation's agricultural inspection functions to the Department of Agriculture. This bill would transfer the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program--AQI--from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection back to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--(APHIS). In 2003, as part of the Homeland Security Act, agricultural inspections at all points of entry in the United States were transferred from the USDA to DHS. Four years later, it is clear that fewer agricultural inspections are being conducted at our borders and ports. I have heard this message loud and clear from: California Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura, California Farm Bureau, the American Landscape and Nursery Association, the California Agriculture Commissioners and Sealers Association, the Nisei Farmers League, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, and the San Diego County Agriculture Commissioner, the Contra Costa County Agriculture Commissioner, and many California farmers. These groups have observed not only the decrease in the number of inspections since the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--but also decreased communication between the program and State agricultural organizations. Last year, the Government Accountability Office produced a report that highlighted the problems associated with the transfer of the program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security, entitled ``Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease.'' The GAO study found: The inspection rate at several key American points of entry has significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7 percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent. Sixty percent of agricultural inspection specialists believed they were doing either ``somewhat'' or ``many fewer'' inspections since the transfer. Sixty-three percent of survey respondents did not believe that their port had enough agriculture specialists to carry out agriculture duties. Lastly, 64 percent of the agriculture specialists reported that their work was not respected by Customs and Border Patrol. These statistics are deplorable. The failure to protect our borders from the invasion of agricultural pests places our farmlands and forests at great risk of infestation. USDA estimates nationally that agricultural pests cost the American agricultural industry an annual loss of about $41 billion. In California alone, pest infestations cost my State's farmers about $3 billion. This amount includes crops lost in the quarantine, and the cost of measures taken to control and eradicate pest outbreaks. The farmers in my State continue to battle against serious agricultural pests, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the Asian long-horned beetle, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and many others. During the time that DHS has been in charge of agriculture inspections, Fresno County experienced its first fruit fly outbreak, quarantine, and eradication. According to the Fresno County Department of Agriculture, a 105- square-mile area had to be quarantined due to an outbreak of the peach fruit fly. The pest is indigenous to Asia, and is believed to have entered the country on smuggled fruit carried by an airline passenger. The eradication effort cost approximately $1 million. The interception of pests at inspection points, coupled with the elimination and eradication of pest outbreaks, is a top priority for California agriculture organizations. And these groups have asked for help in improving the agricultural inspection process. But this is not just a California problem. Farmers and foresters from every corner of our country have faced the imposing threat of a foreign agriculture pest invasion. Here are just a few examples of the pests that threaten our Nation: The glassy-winged sharpshooter is a devastating new pest for California. Since its migration into California in 1990 from the southeastern United States, the glassy-winged sharpshooter population there has ballooned throughout southern California. This pest transmits Pierce's disease, which threatens 450,000-plus acres of winegrapes, more than 330,000 acres of raisin and table grapevines, a crop production of $4 billion and associated economic activity of $45 billion. There is no known cure for Pierce's disease. The glassy-winged sharpshooter also threatens crops such as almonds, citrus, and peaches as well as native plants, shrubs, and trees. Citrus canker is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and was discovered in Florida in 1995. It causes lesions on the leaves, stems, and fruit of citrus trees, causes leaves and fruit to drop prematurely, and makes fruit too unsightly to be sold. The Federal Government has spent $378 million for eradication, with little results. The Asian long-horned beetle was introduced to the United States in August 1996 inside solid wood packing material from China. The beetle is a serious threat to hardwood trees and has no known natural predator in the United States. The beetle has the potential to destroy millions of acres of America's hardwood forests and industries such as lumber, maple syrup, nursery, and tourism accumulating over $41 billion in losses. The beetle has spread to New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California. In the summer of 2002, scientists detected a new exotic insect in Michigan, the emerald ash borer. This insect is an invasive species originally from Asia. To date, it has killed or damaged millions of ash trees in Michigan. It has been detected in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, and in Ontario, Canada. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--NASDA-- recognizes the impending danger and has first-hand experience of how inspections have changed since the DHS takeover. NASDA recently announced that one of its key recommendations is to reassign cargo inspection from DHS to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS. NASDA explains: APHIS has ``the expertise and communication system to carry out a focused and effective agricultural safeguarding effort at our borders.'' Our Nation's agriculture is too important to leave open to the risk of invasion of agricultural pests. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Let us reprioritize the plant and animal border inspections and strengthen the anti-terrorism mission of DHS by returning the Agricultural Quarantine Inspections to its logical place, the United States Department of Agriculture. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as we approach the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, I rise today in support of a resolution introduced by Senator Richard Durbin, calling on the President to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Specifically, this resolution would: encourage the President to incorporate the memory and lessons of the Armenian Genocide into the foreign policies of the United States, and; urge the President to accurately portray this terrible episode as ``genocide'' in his annual statement. Between 1915 and 1923, as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished and 500,000 were exiled by the Ottoman government in a systematic campaign of murder, deportation, and forced starvation. Ninety-two years later, nearly all of the survivors are no longer with us. Yet their solemn voices still echo, urging us to remember them and work to ensure that their suffering was not in vain. In my 15 years in the U.S. Senate, I have received thousands of letters from members of the Armenian-American community in my home State of California, encouraging our government to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Many of them are descendants of the genocide's survivors, who immigrated to the United States and, over the course of a few decades, built a strong and vibrant community in California and elsewhere. For the genocide's victims, there can be no justice. But by preserving and cherishing their memory, we can begin healing the wounds that still linger. The recent murder of Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist who championed human rights and advocated Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide, serves as a chilling reminder of the dangers that loom in our silence. An open, informed, and tolerant discussion of the genocide is necessary for true and lasting reconciliation between present-day Turkey and the Armenian people. Equally important, recalling the Armenian Genocide is essential to the prevention of ongoing and future atrocities, including the genocide in Darfur. By taking an unequivocal stance against genocide--regardless of where or when it occurs--we and other members of the international community will send a strong message that such atrocities will not be tolerated. Let us remember Adolf Hitler's ominous words on the eve of the 1939 Nazi invasion of Poland: ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' So today, let us speak loudly. Let us join the hundreds of thousands of Armenian Americans in my home State of California and across the United States, as well as millions of people around the world, in acknowledging and commemorating the Armenian Genocide. Let us ensure that the legacy of these atrocities is one of reconciliation and hope. And let us fulfill the promises our parents made us, and we made to our children: never again.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with Senator Durbin to restore our Nation's agricultural inspection functions to the Department of Agriculture. This bill would transfer the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program--AQI--from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection back to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--(APHIS). In 2003, as part of the Homeland Security Act, agricultural inspections at all points of entry in the United States were transferred from the USDA to DHS. Four years later, it is clear that fewer agricultural inspections are being conducted at our borders and ports. I have heard this message loud and clear from: California Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura, California Farm Bureau, the American Landscape and Nursery Association, the California Agriculture Commissioners and Sealers Association, the Nisei Farmers League, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, and the San Diego County Agriculture Commissioner, the Contra Costa County Agriculture Commissioner, and many California farmers. These groups have observed not only the decrease in the number of inspections since the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--but also decreased communication between the program and State agricultural organizations. Last year, the Government Accountability Office produced a report that highlighted the problems associated with the transfer of the program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security, entitled ``Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease.'' The GAO study found: The inspection rate at several key American points of entry has significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7 percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent. Sixty percent of agricultural inspection specialists believed they were doing either ``somewhat'' or ``many fewer'' inspections since the transfer. Sixty-three percent of survey respondents did not believe that their port had enough agriculture specialists to carry out agriculture duties. Lastly, 64 percent of the agriculture specialists reported that their work was not respected by Customs and Border Patrol. These statistics are deplorable. The failure to protect our borders from the invasion of agricultural pests places our farmlands and forests at great risk of infestation. USDA estimates nationally that agricultural pests cost the American agricultural industry an annual loss of about $41 billion. In California alone, pest infestations cost my State's farmers about $3 billion. This amount includes crops lost in the quarantine, and the cost of measures taken to control and eradicate pest outbreaks. The farmers in my State continue to battle against serious agricultural pests, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the Asian long-horned beetle, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and many others. During the time that DHS has been in charge of agriculture inspections, Fresno County experienced its first fruit fly outbreak, quarantine, and eradication. According to the Fresno County Department of Agriculture, a 105- square-mile area had to be quarantined due to an outbreak of the peach fruit fly. The pest is indigenous to Asia, and is believed to have entered the country on smuggled fruit carried by an airline passenger. The eradication effort cost approximately $1 million. The interception of pests at inspection points, coupled with the elimination and eradication of pest outbreaks, is a top priority for California agriculture organizations. And these groups have asked for help in improving the agricultural inspection process. But this is not just a California problem. Farmers and foresters from every corner of our country have faced the imposing threat of a foreign agriculture pest invasion. Here are just a few examples of the pests that threaten our Nation: The glassy-winged sharpshooter is a devastating new pest for California. Since its migration into California in 1990 from the southeastern United States, the glassy-winged sharpshooter population there has ballooned throughout southern California. This pest transmits Pierce's disease, which threatens 450,000-plus acres of winegrapes, more than 330,000 acres of raisin and table grapevines, a crop production of $4 billion and associated economic activity of $45 billion. There is no known cure for Pierce's disease. The glassy-winged sharpshooter also threatens crops such as almonds, citrus, and peaches as well as native plants, shrubs, and trees. Citrus canker is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and was discovered in Florida in 1995. It causes lesions on the leaves, stems, and fruit of citrus trees, causes leaves and fruit to drop prematurely, and makes fruit too unsightly to be sold. The Federal Government has spent $378 million for eradication, with little results. The Asian long-horned beetle was introduced to the United States in August 1996 inside solid wood packing material from China. The beetle is a serious threat to hardwood trees and has no known natural predator in the United States. The beetle has the potential to destroy millions of acres of America's hardwood forests and industries such as lumber, maple syrup, nursery, and tourism accumulating over $41 billion in losses. The beetle has spread to New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California. In the summer of 2002, scientists detected a new exotic insect in Michigan, the emerald ash borer. This insect is an invasive species originally from Asia. To date, it has killed or damaged millions of ash trees in Michigan. It has been detected in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, and in Ontario, Canada. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--NASDA-- recognizes the impending danger and has first-hand experience of how inspections have changed since the DHS takeover. NASDA recently announced that one of its key recommendations is to reassign cargo inspection from DHS to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS. NASDA explains: APHIS has ``the expertise and communication system to carry out a focused and effective agricultural safeguarding effort at our borders.'' Our Nation's agriculture is too important to leave open to the risk of invasion of agricultural pests. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Let us reprioritize the plant and animal border inspections and strengthen the anti-terrorism mission of DHS by returning the Agricultural Quarantine Inspections to its logical place, the United States Department of Agriculture. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation that would expand the Federal student loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers. Nationwide, only 31 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program. In California, that number is even smaller: only 21 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree. To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning. Recruiting and retaining teachers with such qualifications is critical to ensuring that our children start elementary school ready to learn. A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), found that ``teachers with higher education levels were found to have more high quality language activities and more creative activities in their classrooms.'' In order to give every child a jump start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving. Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better. Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of about $21,000--almost half the amount of elementary school teachers' salary of about $43,000. Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, makes it increasingly difficult to attract and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers. We must provide incentives to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in this important field. This legislation would allow recent college graduates (obtaining a minimum of a bachelor's degree), and current Head Start teachers without a degree, to receive up to $5,000 of their Federal student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a qualified Head Start program; and provide Head Start teachers with the same opportunity as currently offered to eligible elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 5 years of service. Providing our Nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified Head Start teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success. Head Start is the primary Federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing. Research shows that Head Start is a smart investment in our children's future. For example, a 2003 Kindergarten Readiness: Head Start Success study of more than 600 graduates in San Bernardino County, CA, demonstrated that society receives nearly nine dollars in benefits, i.e. increased earnings and employment, for every one dollar invested in Head Start children. That is why we must act now. Every teacher that the Head Start program loses impacts the quality and access to services for our Nation's neediest children, and ultimately can impact their future success. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Voinovich in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to particularly commend the leader, Senator Reid, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, for the work that has been done in putting together a resolution which, as much as possible, can meet some of the objectives of the Democratic majority of this body at the present time. That is not an easy task. I think Members who participated in this effort took into consideration that in less than a week our Nation will mark 4 years in Iraq. We have spent nearly $400 billion. We have lost more than 3,000 Americans. More than 140,000 of our own brave men and women find themselves trying to salvage a situation that simply cannot be solved through military force. If I believed there was any chance the military could solve the problem of hundreds of years of hatred between Sunni and Shia by resolving what is effectively a civil war, I would believe this surge and more troops might solve this situation. But I do not. The only solution rests with the Iraqi Government and the Shia majority. The Iraq of today is embroiled in four different wars--a terribly complex civil conflict that even General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, says requires a political solution. Simply put, there is no end in sight. Yet the President insists on escalating our troop presence there. None of this makes sense to me because I deeply believe we must change our course in Iraq. That is why I support the joint resolution before us today. Where the administration expands our involvement in Iraq, this resolution sets a time limit. Where the administration sees a military solution, this resolution recognizes that the solution must be political. Where the administration calls for more money and more troops, this resolution says: Enough is enough. Where the administration fails to put demands on the Iraqi Government, this resolution tells them: You must take responsibility for your own future. The Iraqis must realize our commitment is not open-ended and they must stand on their own. How can we ever expect that Iraqis will be able to stand up and make the political choices if we keep such a large, sustained American troop presence in Iraq? We become the buffer, then, that prevents the solution. Only the Iraqis can choose to end this civil war. Only the Iraqis can unify their country if, in fact, the Shia majority want a unified Iraq. Yet this will never happen until we begin to draw down our troop levels. This resolution does exactly that. It is a vehicle for the Congress to show leadership, to tell the President that he has put us on the wrong course and that a political solution is the key to this conflict. This resolution sets us on that path. It spells out clear deadlines: The phased redeployment of our combat forces must begin within 120 days of the resolution's passage. A goal of March 31, 2008, would be established for the redeployment of our combat forces out of Iraq. This resolution also redefines the mission. A smaller force could remain in Iraq. The mission would be limited to force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism operations. It is, in a way, similar to the resolution I introduced last month which set an expiration date for the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. This resolution fills a void. It puts a long-term political, diplomatic, and economic strategy for Iraq at the center of our national policy. That is where I believe it should have been a long time ago. It is consistent with the views of the American people, whose opposition to this war and this escalation or surge remains strong and sustained to this very day. But instead of following the will of the American people, this administration is pursuing a surge in forces which appears to be growing. The administration has not set any limits on the number of troops needed or on the duration of the mission or the cost to the American people. In January, the President said he would send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq at a projected cost of $5.6 billion. Yet just this week the White House asked the Congress for another $2.5 billion to pay for an additional 4,700 support troops for the surge in Iraq. The costs keep rising. The Pentagon initially said it would be only a matter of months before we could assess whether the surge was a success. I believe the new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, said we should know within 4 months whether this surge is successful. But the commanders on the ground now suggest we may have to sustain the escalation until well into next year. Yet it is clear our military is under such strain that the only way to maintain those 20 brigades is by extending the deployment of many of our soldiers in Iraq, and by making many more deploy overseas much earlier than planned. We are breaking our own military in Iraq, even as it becomes increasingly evident that success cannot be achieved militarily. Just consider these facts. More than 420,000 troops have been deployed at least twice; 420,000 men and women have been deployed twice. More than 50,000 troops have had their tours extended through ``stop-loss'' orders. Troops are being rushed into the field without proper training and without enough armor. We are leaning more and more heavily on the National Guard. Yet 90 percent of the Guard units in the United States are rated ``not ready.'' I understand why the President may wish to talk about ``encouraging signs'' in Iraq. But the facts show otherwise. Even while the violence in Baghdad has decreased, violence outside the capital has increased. Two hundred Shia pilgrims have been killed in just the past week alone. As insurgents have left Baghdad to avoid the ongoing military crackdown, they have simply melted away into outlying regions, waiting for the pressure to ease. What makes anybody think this will be any different by the end of this year, the middle of next year, or the end of next year, or any other time? While more American soldiers deploy to Baghdad, the Iraqis have yet to provide all the troops they promised. There is no end in sight. This joint resolution changes that. It changes course. It redefines the mission. I urge the Senate to vote for it. I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007, along with Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Feingold, Cantwell, and Kerry. This important legislation will govern the way the Federal Government treats undocumented immigrant children who end up or show up all alone at our borders or within the United States. I first introduced legislation similar to this bill in January 2001. It has now passed twice out of the Senate. Yet, unfortunately, both times it stalled in the House of Representatives. Despite the passage of time, this bill remains vital to the proper treatment of young undocumented children who get caught within our Federal system. My hope is that this is the year that this bill will become law. Every year, more than 7,000 undocumented and unaccompanied children are apprehended. Most are from Central America, but others come from Mexico, India, China, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and remote places around the world. Some have parents or other relatives who the child is trying to find in the United States, but many have no one. These children come to the United States for many reasons: reuniting with family, pursuing education or employment, escaping family violence or abuse, fleeing political or religious persecution, and seeking protection from gang violence or recruitment. Some children are brought here by adults seeking to exploit them for commercial sex work, domestic servitude, or other forced labor. Sometimes they're too young to understand why they've been sent to the United States at all. These children are the most vulnerable immigrants who come to this country and I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that they are treated humanely and fairly. Historically, U.S. immigration law and policies have been developed and implemented without regard to their effect on children. This result has been similar to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--it just cannot work. Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles, let alone courtroom and administrative procedures. Because of this, children who may very well be eligible for relief are often deported back to the very life- threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge. For example, the New York Times recently reported the story of Young Zheng, who was 14 years old when his parents sent him from China to the United States. He was first detained for a year at a facility that was later closed due to abysmal conditions. Fortunately, he was then transferred to Chicago, where he was assigned a child advocate who spent time with him and urged his release to his relatives. Six months later, Young was released to live with his uncle in Akron, OH. Then, immigration authorities suddenly attempted to deport Young in April 2005. Young so feared being deported that he tried to hurt himself. Young was terrified that he would be subject to torture by the Chinese government or that the traffickers would exact physical revenge. The traffickers had already threatened retribution against his family if they did not repay the trafficking fee of $60,000. With the help of a team of pro bono attorneys and the child advocate, Young's removal was stayed. In April 2006, Young received his green card and is now a model high school student. This example dramatically highlights why this legislation is still so critical. It was only because Young was lucky enough that pro bono attorneys and a child advocate happened to intervene in his case that he was not deported. And, they intervened only after he was detained for 1 year in squalid conditions in the United States. According to an analysis of Department of Justice data in 2000, those children fortunate enough to find representation, usually through a pro bono attorney, are more than four times as likely to be granted asylum. Sadly, many children never get the help of a child advocate or a pro bono lawyer. Worse, for those children who are victims of human trafficking, their only advice may come from lawyers hired by the traffickers who care nothing for the child's best interest. The legislation that I am introducing today builds on the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which adopted components of the bill that I first introduced during the 107th Congress. The Homeland Security Act transferred responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. This change finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system that pitted the enforcement side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service against the benefits side of that same agency in the care of unaccompanied alien children. I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was included in the Homeland Security Act, and that by all accounts, the transition in the care of children between the affected agencies has gone well. Yet, because the Homeland Security Act was crafted quickly, it left the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee Resettlement without clearly distinguished mandates and responsibilities in some key areas, including legal custody, age determination procedures, and State court dependency proceedings. Congress now has a responsibility to go beyond the simple transfer of children from one agency to another to actually laying out the process and steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated fairly and humanely. We must provide the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the tools they will need to succeed in their missions regarding the care of unaccompanied alien children after the transfer of jurisdiction took place. First of all, I want to stress that this bill is not about benefits, as it provides no new immigration benefit to unaccompanied alien children. Rather, this bill is about the process of how we treat these children under the current system. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee and Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the following areas: first, in the custody, release, family reunification and detention of unaccompanied alien children; second, it provides access by unaccompanied alien children to child advocates and pro bono counsel; third, it streamlines the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program and provides guidance on the training of federal government officials and private parties who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children; fourth, it requires the issuance of guidelines specific to children's asylum claims; fifth, it authorizes appropriations for the care of unaccompanied alien children; and, sixth, it amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide additional responsibilities and powers to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with respect to unaccompanied alien children. Central throughout the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' are two concepts: (1) The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and, (2) In all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a priority protecting the interests of these children who are not criminals or do not pose a risk to our national security. Imagine the fear of an unaccompanied alien child, in the United States alone, without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system he or she does not understand, provided no access to pro bono counsel or a child advocate, placed in jail with adults or housed with juveniles with serious criminal convictions. I find it hard to believe that our country would allow children to be treated in such a manner. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children to treat them fairly and humanely. I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Heartland Alliance, Amnesty International USA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA. I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. In the 18 years that the Plascencias have been here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to fire their attorney for gross incompetence, secure competent counsel, and file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken. For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States. First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community. Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 14 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest,'' and ``reliable.'' Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, improved her skills, and became a medical assistant. For 5 years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.'' The physicians themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions effectively.'' Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want to send their children to college and give them an even better life. This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community. Christina, 14, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno. Erika, 10, and Alfredo Jr., 8, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.'' The Plascencia's youngest child is 3-year-old Daisy. Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be most tragic for their children. These children were born in the United States and, through no fault of their own, have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to alter their lives dramatically. It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life. The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make. Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be entered into the Record immediately following this statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA. I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. In the 18 years that the Plascencias have been here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to fire their attorney for gross incompetence, secure competent counsel, and file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken. For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States. First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community. Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 14 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest,'' and ``reliable.'' Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, improved her skills, and became a medical assistant. For 5 years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.'' The physicians themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions effectively.'' Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want to send their children to college and give them an even better life. This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community. Christina, 14, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno. Erika, 10, and Alfredo Jr., 8, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.'' The Plascencia's youngest child is 3-year-old Daisy. Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be most tragic for their children. These children were born in the United States and, through no fault of their own, have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to alter their lives dramatically. It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life. The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make. Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be entered into the Record immediately following this statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007, along with Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Feingold, Cantwell, and Kerry. This important legislation will govern the way the Federal Government treats undocumented immigrant children who end up or show up all alone at our borders or within the United States. I first introduced legislation similar to this bill in January 2001. It has now passed twice out of the Senate. Yet, unfortunately, both times it stalled in the House of Representatives. Despite the passage of time, this bill remains vital to the proper treatment of young undocumented children who get caught within our Federal system. My hope is that this is the year that this bill will become law. Every year, more than 7,000 undocumented and unaccompanied children are apprehended. Most are from Central America, but others come from Mexico, India, China, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and remote places around the world. Some have parents or other relatives who the child is trying to find in the United States, but many have no one. These children come to the United States for many reasons: reuniting with family, pursuing education or employment, escaping family violence or abuse, fleeing political or religious persecution, and seeking protection from gang violence or recruitment. Some children are brought here by adults seeking to exploit them for commercial sex work, domestic servitude, or other forced labor. Sometimes they're too young to understand why they've been sent to the United States at all. These children are the most vulnerable immigrants who come to this country and I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that they are treated humanely and fairly. Historically, U.S. immigration law and policies have been developed and implemented without regard to their effect on children. This result has been similar to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--it just cannot work. Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles, let alone courtroom and administrative procedures. Because of this, children who may very well be eligible for relief are often deported back to the very life- threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge. For example, the New York Times recently reported the story of Young Zheng, who was 14 years old when his parents sent him from China to the United States. He was first detained for a year at a facility that was later closed due to abysmal conditions. Fortunately, he was then transferred to Chicago, where he was assigned a child advocate who spent time with him and urged his release to his relatives. Six months later, Young was released to live with his uncle in Akron, OH. Then, immigration authorities suddenly attempted to deport Young in April 2005. Young so feared being deported that he tried to hurt himself. Young was terrified that he would be subject to torture by the Chinese government or that the traffickers would exact physical revenge. The traffickers had already threatened retribution against his family if they did not repay the trafficking fee of $60,000. With the help of a team of pro bono attorneys and the child advocate, Young's removal was stayed. In April 2006, Young received his green card and is now a model high school student. This example dramatically highlights why this legislation is still so critical. It was only because Young was lucky enough that pro bono attorneys and a child advocate happened to intervene in his case that he was not deported. And, they intervened only after he was detained for 1 year in squalid conditions in the United States. According to an analysis of Department of Justice data in 2000, those children fortunate enough to find representation, usually through a pro bono attorney, are more than four times as likely to be granted asylum. Sadly, many children never get the help of a child advocate or a pro bono lawyer. Worse, for those children who are victims of human trafficking, their only advice may come from lawyers hired by the traffickers who care nothing for the child's best interest. The legislation that I am introducing today builds on the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which adopted components of the bill that I first introduced during the 107th Congress. The Homeland Security Act transferred responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. This change finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system that pitted the enforcement side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service against the benefits side of that same agency in the care of unaccompanied alien children. I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was included in the Homeland Security Act, and that by all accounts, the transition in the care of children between the affected agencies has gone well. Yet, because the Homeland Security Act was crafted quickly, it left the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee Resettlement without clearly distinguished mandates and responsibilities in some key areas, including legal custody, age determination procedures, and State court dependency proceedings. Congress now has a responsibility to go beyond the simple transfer of children from one agency to another to actually laying out the process and steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated fairly and humanely. We must provide the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the tools they will need to succeed in their missions regarding the care of unaccompanied alien children after the transfer of jurisdiction took place. First of all, I want to stress that this bill is not about benefits, as it provides no new immigration benefit to unaccompanied alien children. Rather, this bill is about the process of how we treat these children under the current system. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee and Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the following areas: first, in the custody, release, family reunification and detention of unaccompanied alien children; second, it provides access by unaccompanied alien children to child advocates and pro bono counsel; third, it streamlines the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program and provides guidance on the training of federal government officials and private parties who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children; fourth, it requires the issuance of guidelines specific to children's asylum claims; fifth, it authorizes appropriations for the care of unaccompanied alien children; and, sixth, it amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide additional responsibilities and powers to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with respect to unaccompanied alien children. Central throughout the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' are two concepts: (1) The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and, (2) In all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a priority protecting the interests of these children who are not criminals or do not pose a risk to our national security. Imagine the fear of an unaccompanied alien child, in the United States alone, without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system he or she does not understand, provided no access to pro bono counsel or a child advocate, placed in jail with adults or housed with juveniles with serious criminal convictions. I find it hard to believe that our country would allow children to be treated in such a manner. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children to treat them fairly and humanely. I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Heartland Alliance, Amnesty International USA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter, Harkin and I are introducing legislation to ban human reproductive cloning, while ensuring that important medical research goes forward under strict oversight by the federal government. The Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2007 would create a straightforward ban on human reproductive cloning. Despite disagreements over various types of biomedical research, there is near unanimous agreement that scientists should not create human clones. At the same time, this legislation will enable research to be conducted that provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from paralysis and debilitating diseases including juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease. The concerns with human reproductive cloning are many, and are both scientific and ethical in nature. The National Academy of Sciences explains that using cloning, or nuclear transfer to create a child could require hundreds of pregnancies and result in many abnormal late- term fetuses. Some scientists question whether a human clone could ever be created without significant abnormalities. These concerns led the National Academy of Sciences to conclude that there is an ``ethical and scientific consensus that nuclear transfer for reproductive purposes has no place in legitimate research.'' That's why this legislation will make it a crime to clone a human being, or attempt to clone a human being by implanting cells that result from nuclear transplantation into the uterus (there are no exceptions); prohibit the shipment of the product of nuclear transplantation in international or interstate commerce for the purposes of human cloning; prohibit the export of an unfertilized blastocyst, a form of an embryo 5 to 7 days after conception, to any foreign country that does not ban human cloning. These prohibitions ensure that valuable research undertaken in the United States will not be shipped abroad and used to create a human clone in a country without restrictions. These prohibitions are supported by strict penalties, including: A maximum ten-year prison term for cloning, or attempting to clone a human being; a fine of either $1 million, or three times any profits made for any human cloning attempt. A violator is subject to whichever fine is greater, and these financial penalties are in addition to prison time. Any real or personal property used to commit a violation of this ban, or derived from violation of this ban, will be subject to forfeiture. The time to pass a legal framework for addressing reproductive cloning is now, before any rogue scientist successfully creates a human clone. At the same time, this legislation does not prohibit scientists from working with embryonic stem cells in the hopes of discovering cures and treatments for dozens of catastrophic diseases. This legislation draws a bright line between human reproductive cloning and promising medical research using somatic cell nuclear transplantation for the sole purpose of deriving embryonic stem cells. Somatic cell nuclear transplantation is the process by which scientists derive embryonic stem cells that are an exact genetic match as the patient. Those embryonic stem cells will one day be used to correct defective cells such as non-insulin producing cells or cancerous cells. Then those patients will not be forced to take immuno- suppressive drugs and risk the chances of rejection since the new cells will contain their own DNA. It is truly astonishing that somatic cell nuclear transplantation research may one day be used to regrow tissue or organs that could lead to treatments and cures for diseases that afflict up to 100 million Americans. What we are talking about here is research that does not even involve sperm and an egg. I believe it is essential that this research be conducted with federal government oversight and under strict ethical requirements. That is why the legislation mandates that eggs used in this research be unfertilized and--prohibits the purchase or sale of unfertilized eggs to prevent ``embryo farms'' or the possible exploitation of women by coercing them into egg sales. Imposes strong ethics rules on scientists, mandating informed consent by egg donors, and include safety and privacy protections; Prohibits any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days-- After 14 days, an unfertilized blastocyst begins differentiating into a specific type of cell such as a heart or brain cell and is no longer useful for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research; Requires that all egg donations be voluntary, and that there is no financial or other incentive for egg donations; Requires that nuclear transplantation occur in labs completely separate from labs that engage in in vitro fertilization. And for those who violate or attempt to violate the ethical requirements of the legislation, they will be subject to civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation. To be clear, this is research that involves an unfertilized blastocyst. No sperm are involved. It is conducted in a petri dish and cannot occur beyond 14 days. It is also prohibited from ever being implanted into a woman to create a child. For those who believe that the clump of cells in a petri dish that we are talking about is a human life, that is a moral decision each person must make for himself, but to impose that view on the more than 100 million of our parents, children and friends who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer is immoral. The voters of Missouri affirmed this approach in 2006, approving a State ballot initiative banning reproductive cloning, while protecting important and potentially lifesaving medical research. In the absence of Federal guidance, many other states are taking action, sometimes contradictory. Sixteen States have passed laws pertaining to human cloning. Thirteen of these States prohibit reproductive cloning--Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia. Five States prohibit biomedical research like somatic nuclear transfer, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota. Six States explicitly permit it, New Jersey, California, Missouri, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa. It is time to standardize these policies, under a common set of ethical guidelines. This patchwork of laws will result only in confusion, forbidding some researchers from conducting lifesaving research, while their colleagues in a neighboring state receive state funding to do the same work. Just like we have observed with the President's prohibition on embryonic stem cell research, this uncertainty is forcing our best and brightest researchers overseas, to countries that fully embrace the promise of embryonic stem cell research. They have a number of overseas options: The United Kingdom is providing at least $80 million to fund ongoing research, including somatic cell nuclear transfer research. This is helping to attract scientific talent from all over the world, including the United States. Roger Pedersen, a renowned scientist, left the University of California San Francisco in 2001, citing the unfriendly research climate in the United States. He is now conducting human stem cell research at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. He and his UK team are exploring the biology behind pluripotent, or multipurpose stem cells, and looking for ways to use them for treatments. The Australian Parliament lifted a ban on therapeutic cloning research in December 2006. It will allow Australian scientists to fully pursue important cures, and now provides an attractive alternative for American scientists who do not want to wait any longer for Federal guidance. It is time to provide some certainty and sanity in our national policy. We must stop unethical human reproductive cloning, while unleashing our scientists to develop cures for catastrophic diseases that impact millions. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill and help turn the hopes of millions of Americans into reality.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig and 14 of my colleagues in support of a resolution designating the week of March 12 through 17, 2007, as National Safe Place Week. This resolution recognizes the participating businesses, community organizations, youth service agencies, and volunteers that are part of the YMCA National Safe Place Program and work for the safety and well being of at-risk youth. Youth today face a growing amount of pressure in their daily lives at school, at home, and in the community. For some youth, problems include abuse or neglect at home, drug or alcohol addictions of family members and friends, trouble at school or dangerous situations on a date. Young people who face these serious situations should not feel left alone and should have a place to go to in their community. Over the past 24 years, the National Safe Place Program has provided immediate help to more than 200,000 youth in crisis at nearly 16,000 Safe Place locations and with counseling by phone. This important program is currently operated by 140 agencies serving 700 communities in 40 States--bringing together the private and public sector to reach out and help at-risk youth who might be neglected, abused, threatened or in unsafe situations. In my home State of California, there are nine designated Safe Place programs with 1,738 Safe Place sites located in over 65 communities which have served more than 5,000 youth. National Safe Place sites include fast food restaurants, convenience stores, fire stations, schools, libraries, office buildings or even a city bus and are marked by large, yellow Safe Place signs displayed prominently in front windows. In Fresno, CA, for example, city buses are all designated as Safe Places. Any youth can walk into a Safe Place site and receive immediate help from a trained volunteer, and further help from a Safe Place staff person who can provide counseling, residential assistance or professional referrals, as needed. The National Safe Place Week recognizes the commitment, resources, and energy of thousands of businesses, community organizations and volunteers who make this effective, growing network of support for youth possible. In addition, it seeks to increase awareness of the crises that youth face today. I am encouraged by the National Safe Place Program's positive impact on communities throughout the Nation, and I hope that more communities will choose to participate in this innovative program. The National Safe Place Program brings us closer to making our country safe for youth, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, yesterday I spoke on an amendment we offered. It is cosponsored by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, Obama, Menendez, Kerry, Coburn, and Casey. Essentially, what this amendment does is provide that more funds will go to States and localities based on risk, threat, and vulnerability. As you know, Madam President, the 9/11 Commission in their 25th recommendation said, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risk and vulnerabilities.'' ``And Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing.'' In current law, 40 percent of the money goes to a guaranteed minimum allocation--in other words, revenue sharing--and 60 percent is allocated based only on risk and effectiveness. The Lieberman-Collins bill--and I thank them--changes that. Twenty-four percent of the money goes to satisfy this minimum revenue-sharing requirement, and 76 percent is allocated on risk and effectiveness. That is a major step forward. There is no question about that. However, Senator Cornyn and I and our cosponsors believe that in this day and age, we have to give more money to risk, vulnerability, and threat. Therefore, the formula we present in this amendment will give 87.5 percent of the dollars based on risk and effectiveness, regardless of where that risk and effectiveness is, and 13 percent will go to satisfy guaranteed minimum allocation. The second point I wish to make is that 35 States would benefit under this amendment: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. I believe this is the right way to allocate homeland security dollars. Do you have the risk? Is there a threat? The President, in his State of the Union Message, mentioned how a threat and a terrorist plot against the tallest building on the west coast was eradicated. That tallest building on the west coast is shown in this picture. It happens to be the Library Tower building in Los Angeles--now under a new name, but nonetheless ``Library Tower'' is its historic name. This is the largest tower on the west coast. There was reportedly a second strike by al-Qaida devoted to the west coast. So it seems to me that if there is this kind of a threat, the money should go where the threat is. States such as New York, California, and Texas have vast infrastructures. Terrorists go where the hit is going to be greatest, where the infrastructure is--big ports, big petroleum reserves, big buildings, big congregations of people--and where they can do the most psychological damage. So we feel very strongly that this money should have an even stronger formula that puts money where the risk and threat actually are. I do wish to correct one thing. Someone on the floor, and I don't know who, but somebody said Washington, DC, would receive less money under this amendment. We do not alter the risk-based distribution of the Urban Area Security Initiative Funds--which are called, in the vernacular of Washington, UASIF--and that comprises the lion's share of homeland security preparedness received in our Capital. Washington received nearly $50 million in UASIF funds last year alone. So we do not believe Washington would be negatively affected. I know Senator Lautenberg wishes to come to the Chamber to speak. May I inquire how many minutes of the 13 I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I believe I have 13 minutes; is that correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the point of this amendment is to produce a bill that, as nearly as possible, mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Those recommendations were clear and distinct. Money should go to communities based on risk, threat, and vulnerability. This should not be a revenue-sharing program. Yes, the big States have more infrastructure, more highrises, more tunnels, more subways--the kinds of things that are attractive to terrorists. If that is in fact the case, as judged not by us but by the experts, then that money should be able to go where there is risk, threat, and vulnerability. That is all this amendment does. We did not pull our figures out of the clear blue that concluded that 35 States are benefitted. These are the products of the Congressional Research Service analysis. We sent them the facts, and what they say is, assuming a $913 million authorization for the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Program, this would be the result. You cannot say whether someone is going to get a grant, but these are their nearest computations of who would benefit on that list. Yes, some States do lose; there is no question. Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As I say, I understand there is a basic conflict here between small States and big States. There is a basic conflict between those who think the money should be spread around and those who believe this money should be used based on risk, vulnerability, and threat. I am in the latter. If the big threat is in Vermont, I am all for the money going to Vermont. I have no problem with that. I look at the intelligence and I see the threats as they come in and I think the agencies that make the decisions should send the money based on their analysis of the intelligence and the threats. I do wish to at least give my source, which is the Congressional Research Service, for these numbers which show 35 States as beneficiaries. I know Senator Lautenberg should be here momentarily. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I believe I have 6 minutes, and I would like to use 2 of them. I very much disagree with the figures of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. We wrote to the Congressional Research Service and asked them to compute the grant numbers. They gave us back a document, dated February 27, that relates to the two programs funded in this bill. One of them is the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the other is the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and these are the numbers that CRS presents. Actually, Vermont, according to CRS, benefits $72,250, according to the Congressional Research Service, as do 35 States. I didn't make up these numbers. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, which is a straight mathematical computation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I do for an amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.