Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. He has been a very distinguished chairman of the committee. This is an issue in which, as a member of the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee, I have had an intense interest. The Senator from Pennsylvania recognizes that. I appreciate that. I am unsure whether this bill is for the purpose of judicial review of the President's article II authority--I think I understand what the Senator is doing. He is essentially exempting all those calls which come into the United States, not calls from point A to point B in the United States. I think that bears further discussion, but I trust no action will be taken on this bill in this session but that the Senator from Pennsylvania is submitting it as a marker for next year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman. I would like to look very closely at this bill. I am very reluctant to move right now. You have mentioned the case percolating up through the courts now. I am really unsure why passage of this bill now would achieve anything. It seems to me it would be better to wait and see what the court does. I would appreciate your response to that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Again, through the Chair, if the Senator will put up with this for a moment more, is that to handle the switching issue, or would this apply to all calls coming in from outside the United States are exempt?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, a second question: Will this bill allow the President to use his plenary authority to wiretap outside of FISA, first, and secondly, will it allow for program authority for wiretaps?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was trying, as the Senator from Pennsylvania spoke, to figure out exactly what bill it is he is speaking of. I gather this is his bill, not our bill, on which he is adding some of our bill's provisions, but he leaves out the critical part, which is reinforcing the exclusive authority of FISA; is that correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5141

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5129

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am aware that there is a need for more veterans cemeteries nationwide. I would be very interested in hearing about the situation in Montana.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5126

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, beg your pardon, if this is by voice vote, I suggest we have a voice vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have no objection to amendment No. 5131, as modified.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, as I was standing here looking out at a woman presiding and a woman chairman, a woman ranking member. I thought, there has been progress. I am very pleased to join my chairman in recommending the 2007 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill to the Senate. I thank my friend Chairman Hutchison for her hard work on this bill, and I especially thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their support and help in bringing this bill to the floor. This past weekend the Nation observed Veterans Day, the day we set aside to honor America's veterans with ceremonies across this great land. Today the Senate takes up a bill that backs up the speeches and ceremonies with the funding necessary to provide the services our veterans were promised and that they both need and deserve. The bill before us today is a critically important funding measure for our Nation's veterans and for the Active and Reserve Forces in the military. It is a good bill. The bill provides a total of $94.3 billion in its three titles. The bulk of the funding, $77.9 billion, is for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of that amount, $41.4 billion is mandatory spending for veterans benefit programs, such as veterans compensation and pensions, and $36.5 billion is discretionary spending, primarily for the medical program. This means that medical service programs are funded at the level necessary to meet the needs of our veterans. Both the chairman and I believe this is so. The funding in this bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs is equal to the President's budget request and almost $6.5 billion--that is an increase of 9 percent--over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This increase is necessary due to the Iraq and Afghanistan situation. For veterans health, the bill provides $32.67 billion. That is an increase of 11.3 percent above the 2006 level. It includes $3.2 billion for mental health, a $340 million increase over last year's enacted level. And it includes $4.3 billion, a $228 million increase over last year's enacted level, for geriatrics and extended care to assist the Nation's aging veterans population. For military construction, which 2 years ago was all that we did together--now we also have the veterans budget for the second year--the bill includes $16.3 billion in funding. That is for a wide range of mission-critical facilities--barracks, daycare centers, family housing projects, both within the United States and overseas. Also included in that funding is $5.24 billion to implement the most recent base realignment and closure round, not so fondly known as BRAC around here. Last but not least, the bill includes $143 million for a group of small but essential agencies, including the American Battle Monuments Commission and the Armed Forces Retirement Home. This title of the bill also funds Arlington National Cemetery, a sacred site familiar to all Americans which in many ways is the centerpiece of our homage to those who serve the Nation and our military in war and in peace. In a year in which the Appropriations Committee has been faced with severe budget constraints, we are fortunate to be able to bring to the Senate a bill that fully funds the President's request for veterans and meets the pressing infrastructure requirements of the military. We were able to accomplish this without imposing any new fees or copayments on veterans. Most importantly, perhaps, is we do not appear to be facing the same kind of shortfall in funding for VA health care that the Senate was confronted with last year. Providing affordable, accessible, first-rate health care to our Nation's veterans is a priority for this Senate and for both the chairman and myself. At a time when our Nation is at war and over 155,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are seeking VA health care services, many with grievous physical and mental wounds, veterans health care must be placed at the top of the list. Money is tight, to be sure. But like America's military forces currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the veterans who have fought in those and past wars deserve the fullest measure of our support and gratitude. Likewise, the Nation's military forces need and deserve quality facilities in which to live and work. With the new round of BRAC and the ongoing global realignment of United States forces in Europe, Korea, and elsewhere overseas, the Defense Department's base structure is undergoing change. Tens of thousands of military personnel are returning to the United States from bases that are being closed overseas, placing great demand on domestic installations that will absorb them and their families. At the same time, the Army is in the midst of reinventing its military structure, transforming from cumbersome divisions and brigades into more mobile and agile modular units. This modularity carries with it a new set of infrastructure requirements, and new emphasis regarding new facilities is being placed on the Nation's special operations forces, including the fielding of a new Marine Corps special operations command. All of this restructuring, of course, is going on while upwards of 170,000 United States military personnel remain fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all, there are many challenges facing the military construction budget. Yet when the $5.2 billion for a new BRAC round is taken out of the equation, the amount of military construction funding requested by the President remained nearly level with last year's funding. Nevertheless, with the budget constraints we face this year, we were able to provide sufficient military construction dollars to fund the hundreds of military construction priorities both at home and abroad that have all been authorized in the Defense authorization bill. This is a carefully balanced, bipartisan bill that is designed to meet the health and welfare needs of America's veterans and the infrastructure requirements of America's military forces with very tight budget limitations. I again commend Chairman Hutchison for her work in developing this package. With the passage of this bill, we will have done our work in the Senate. I firmly believe we can work quickly to complete a conference with the House and send a good bill to the President, if the leadership gives us the opportunity. There has been some speculation that no appropriations bills will emerge from this lameduck session and that we instead will be operating under a continuing resolution for months to come. I hope that speculation is wrong. It would be a serious disservice to our Nation's veterans and our active-duty military to relegate the programs funded under MilCon-VA to a continuing resolution in the new year. It will be at a $6.5 billion loss to these programs to do that. I know Chairman Hutchison, Chairman Cochran, and Senator Byrd share my desire to send a conference report on this bill to the President and see it signed into law before the end of the year. I very much hope we can do so. A great deal of work on both sides of the aisle has gone into producing this bill. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I thank my staff--Christina Evans on my immediate left, BG Wright on my far left, and Chad Schulken who is back in the staff dock--and also Senator Hutchison's staff--Dennis Balkham, Sean Knowles, and Rose Fabia--for the long hours and great effort they have put into this bill. The bill is a direct result of a remarkable working relationship between Senator Hutchison and myself and between her staff and my staff. I thank the chairman again for this warmth and most particularly for her leadership. I am very pleased to recommend passage of this bill to the full Senate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, through the Chair, is there a crisis in the State of Idaho?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we have an opportunity today with the border fence bill and with the concurrence of Members of this body to help an industry that right now is in deep trouble, and that industry is American agriculture. The reason it is in deep trouble is because it does not have the workforce to harvest the crops. This is true whether it is Florida, the State of Washington, Iowa, Idaho, California, Arizona, or any other agricultural State. The reason for the shortage of workers is because agriculture dominantly depends on what is an undocumented or illegal workforce. The reason that is the case is because it has been found over the years that American workers simply will not do this work. Therefore, agriculture, the huge industry that we have in America, has come to depend on an undocumented workforce. Just to give one example--and I wish I had a big chart--but this is the pear crop in Lake County, a farm owned by Toni Scully, and these mounds are rotting pears on the field because they cannot be harvested in time. California is the largest agricultural State in the Nation. It is a $34 billion industry. It has 76,500 farms. California produces one-half of all of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. If these products cannot be harvested--and it is late in the harvest season today--the price of fresh produce all over this Nation is going to rise. We have an opportunity to do something about it. I am joined on the floor by Senator Larry Craig of the State of Idaho who is the main author of the AgJOBS Program. In the Judiciary Committee in the immigration bill, we revised AgJOBS and it was part of the Senate- passed immigration bill. Along with AgJOBS, we have reformed the agricultural guest worker program called H-2A. These two programs combine to give the farmers of America the certitude they need that there will, in fact, be a workforce able to harvest their crops, plant their crops, prune, cut, pack, and sort crops in this great country. In my State we have roughly 350 different crops: lemons, tomatoes, raisins, lettuce, prunes, onions, cotton, and many others that are grown all across the State. Growers are reporting that their harvest crews are 10 to 20 percent of what they were previously. It is a disaster, and it will be a very costly disaster for the farm community as well as for the consumers of America. And it can be solved. We could move today to put the AgJOBS bill on the border fence bill. We all recognize it isn't germane postcloture, but the body could agree to include it because of the emergency circumstances that exist in agriculture States throughout the Nation today. In my State we employ at least 450,000 people in the peak of the harvest, with farm workers progressing from one crop to the next, stringing together as much as 7 months of work. The estimate is that the season is falling short by 70,000 workers. It is a very serious situation. Fields in Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County are being abandoned. Farmers can't find workers to harvest strawberry, raspberry, and vegetable crops. In the Pajaro Valley, one farmer reports he has been forced to tear out 30 acres of vegetables. He has about 100 acres compromised by weeds because there is nobody to weed the field. He estimates his loss so far to be $200,000. California and Arizona farmers say they need 77,000 workers during December to May to harvest vegetables, and they estimate the shortage will be 35,000 workers. It is amazing to me that we can't do something about this by passing a bill that has been heard in the Judiciary Committee, that has been amended, that has been discussed over a period of years. I would ask, if I might, the Senator from Idaho a series of questions, through the Chair. The first question is how long the Senator from Idaho has been working on the AgJOBS bill?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his response. The fact is we have a pilot program that is part of the immigration bill that would provide over a 5-year period 1.5 million undocumented workers the opportunity to become documented, and provided they do agricultural work for a period of time, over time, to earn a green card. In discussing this with some Members they said they would agree if it were a temporary program. Well, it is a temporary program, because it sunsets in 5 years. I believe, and the Senator from Idaho will correct me if I am wrong, we would be prepared to change that sunset from 5 years to 2 years, or a time that would bring about concurrence from the Members. But the point is there is a crisis out there. The point is we can solve that crisis now with this legislation. And the point is it is not new legislation. It has been authored, debated, discussed, heard now over a 6-year period. It has been refined. Both Senator Craig and I are convinced it will work. It was part of the immigration bill. So what we are asking this body to do is essentially suspend the rule and allow this program to go into law at this time so the remainder of the harvest season and, more importantly, the planting season for winter vegetables and crops can be handled. If we do not do this, we will go well into next year without the agricultural labor present to sustain an agricultural industry in America in an adequate way, and the costs will be enormous. I think somebody around here should begin to think of the consumer. I don't want to say to California families they are going to go in and buy heads of lettuce at $4 a head or more or broccoli at $5 a head or anything else because of a dramatic shortage, because farmers won't plant, because farmers can't pick, because farmers can't harvest, they can't sort, they can't pack, they can't can. That labor is needed, and year after year it has been documented that Americans will not do this kind of difficult, hot, stooped labor. So this is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for us to respond to an industry of which we are all proud, and an industry which is in deep trouble at the present time. Let me go on with a few other examples. I mentioned that California and Arizona farmers say they need 77,000 workers during the December to May to harvest, and they estimate they may be 35,000 workers short. The estimates from my State are that illegal immigrants make up at least one-fourth of the workforce and as high as 90 percent of the farm labor payroll. It is also estimated that for every agricultural job lost, we lose three to four other related jobs. I am told that in the Senator's State, farm workers are down 18 percent, and the potato growers of Idaho want AgJOBS passed to keep the industry growing. In the State of Washington, in Cowlitz County, one-third of one farmer's blueberry crop rotted in the field because there were no pickers. Apple growers in the central part of the State were scrambling to find someone--anyone--to do the work of thinning the apple crop. Also in Washington, production at Bell Buoy Crab in Chinook, Pacific County is down 50 percent since April. In Florida, Citrus Mutual notes: ``There is very little doubt we will leave a significant amount of fruit on the tree.'' Orange production in the State has been predicted to be the lowest since 1992 if the worst projections are realized. Six million boxes of oranges may well go unharvested in Florida this year because of a shortage of fruit pickers. In Wyoming, they face the imminent closure of the $8 million Wind River Mushroom farm. And in Oregon, farm workers should be harvesting 25 tons of fruit per day from the Polk County cherry orchards. This is some indication. We have a bill, and that bill would provide the opportunity for an undocumented worker who has worked in agriculture for a substantial period of time--there are two different formulas in the bill--to go in to register, to pay a fine, to show their tax returns, to agree to pay taxes in the future, to get a temporary work card called a blue card, which would be biometric so that that worker is identified; it would eliminate fraud, and it would enable that worker, if they continue to work in agriculture for a period of years, to then gain a green card. It is a sound program. It will give farmers certainty. They will know there is an agricultural workforce, and it will involve people already in this country who are skilled, who are professional at farm work. I don't know what it takes to show that there is an emergency. I think next year we would be ready, willing, and able to do this, but we will have lost another agricultural season, we will have lost a spring season, a summer season. I hope that someone will listen, that the leadership of this body will allow us, and I will call up--well, I can't do it now, but at an appropriate time I will call up the amendment that is at the desk. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICl. I agree.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I strongly believe the true test of a nation comes when we face hard decisions and hard times. It is really not the easy decisions that test our character and our commitment to fundamental principles and values. It is when the easy answer is not the right answer, but is politically expedient. We face one of those times right now. The war against terror has challenged our country to fight a nontraditional enemy--one that is not part of any State or military. The enemy does not wear a uniform, it has no code of ethics, and it relishes in the killing of innocents. It strikes in cowardly ways. They have also challenged us as to whether we can continue during this period in fighting this enemy to abide by the bedrock of our justice system, the Constitution. Before us on the floor of the Senate is a bill to address how our country will interpret the Geneva Conventions, and how we will treat those we apprehend and detain in this nontraditional, asymmetric war. I truly believe that how we answer these challenges will not only test our commitment to our Constitution, but it will also test our very foundation of justice. It sends a message, also, to other countries--a message that will ultimately dictate how our soldiers and personnel are treated should they be captured by others. Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of Senators worked together to develop a solution to these complex issues, and the Armed Services Committee reported a compromise military commissions bill to the Senate by a vote of 15 to 9. Unfortunately, that is not the bill that is before this body today. Instead, House and Senate Republicans met with the White House and made changes that significantly altered the impact of this legislation and changed the bill in such a manner that I cannot at present support its passage without substantial amendment. I do not believe the bill before us is constitutional. It is being rushed through a month before a major election in which the leadership of this very body is challenged. The first of my concerns is the issue of habeas corpus. I very much support the amendment offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The bill before us eliminates a basic right of the American justice system, and that is the right of habeas corpus review. It is constitutionally provided to ensure that innocent people are not held captive or held indefinitely. Habeas corpus has been a cornerstone of our legal system. It goes back, as it has been said, to the days of the Magna Carta. Our Founding Fathers enshrined this right in the Constitution because they understood mistakes happen and there is need for someone to appeal a mistake or a wrong conviction. Just a few weeks ago, a man named Abu Bakker-Qassim, who was held at Guantanamo, described how he was held for years, even though he had never been a terrorist or a soldier. He was never even on a battlefield. He had been sold by Pakistani bounty hunters to the United States military for $5,000. Qassim said it was only because of the availability of habeas corpus that this mistake was able to be corrected. That is why Senator Specter's amendment is right. If innocent people are at Guantanamo--and they presumably are and have been--or if abuses are taking place--and its likely some have-- there must be an avenue to address these problems. Eliminating habeas corpus rights is a serious mistake and it will open the door to other efforts to remove habeas corpus. Next, I am very concerned about the ability to use coerced testimony. This will be the first time in modern history that United States military tribunals will be free to admit evidence that was obtained through abusive tactics so long as the judge determines it is reliable and relevant or so long as it was obtained before December 30, 2005. We have heard from countless witnesses that coerced testimony is inherently unreliable. We don't want to send the message that coercion is an acceptable tactic to use on Americans as well. The fact is we had testimony in the Judiciary Committee from the head of all of the Judge Advocate Corps who said they did not believe torture worked. I am very concerned about the definition of torture and the lack of clarity on cruel and inhumane treatment--especially combined with giving the President discretion to decide what he believes interrogation methods are permissible. We have already seen through press reports that this administration pushes the boundaries on allowable interrogation techniques and these abuses cannot continue. Finally, I am concerned about the rules for what evidence may be used to convict someone and then their limited ability to have a court review their case. If one is not allowed to know what the basis of conviction was and then is only given limited judicial review of their conviction, how can we be confident that we are not holding innocent people who were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time--such an outcome severely harms our standing in the global community. I believe these issues are too important for us to rush through a bill of this magnitude. These are difficult times and difficult issues. However, I do not believe the expediency of the moment or the political winds of an impending election should lead us to abandon our core values as a Nation. The Founding Fathers created specific constitutional limitations. And since that time the United States has been at the forefront of demanding humane treatment of all people. We must not turn our back on these fundamental principles. I am disappointed to be voting against this bill. I had hoped a real bipartisan compromise could be reached.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct. If I may, through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator one question. He mentioned the H-2A Program which in my State has not been a widely used program. This is a reform, also, of the H-2A Program, to make it more broadly applicable across the line. Is that not correct?