Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much. That may be a much smaller amount. But virtually every State represented in this Chamber can come forward with a like amount of people. Virtually every Member in this Chamber can come forward with problems they are having with harvesting at this particular point in time. I am told there are problems harvesting citrus in Florida, apples in New Hampshire, strawberries in Washington, and cherries in Oregon. In Wyoming, it has been reported that the labor shortage played a central role in the eminent closure of the $8 million Wind River Mushroom Farm. Let me quickly run through a couple of other things. Perhaps the most impacted are the organic farms, which are highly labor-intensive. Hand-picked crops such as at Lakeside Organic Gardens, which happens to be in my State, are suffering as fields go untended and acres have been torn up because there is no one to harvest them. The situation is so bad that this particular farmer, Dick Peixoto, has been forced to tear out nearly 30 acres of vegetables and has about 100 acres that are compromised because there is no one to weed them. He estimates his loss so far this season to be $200,000. That is worse than anything he has seen in 31 years of farming. Some fields in the Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County are being abandoned because farmers can't find enough workers. Farmers in that area say there are 10 to 20 percent fewer workers available to harvest strawberries, raspberries and vegetable crops. That is the great Pajaro Valley that produces artichokes and acres and acres of row crops. They say we have sustained strawberry and raspberry losses due to shortage of labor. Strawberries lost are approximately 100,000 cartons for the fresh market, raspberries approximately 50,000 cartons. Due to the shortage of labor, we were unable to harvest 900,000 pounds of lemons and 128,000 pounds of grapefruit. These are some examples of what is happening. You can pick up newspapers, the San Jose Mercury News, headline: ``Worker Shortage Crippling Farmers.'' It goes on and depicts it. Morgan Hill: Farmers are reporting a shortage of labor to harvest crops forcing them to take huge losses. The impact is mixed, varying with the amount and type of crops a farmer is growing. Those growing more fragile crops such as strawberries and peppers have been scrambling to find enough workers to pick the harvest. This goes on to say they cannot harvest their yields. Labor pains increasing for the great San Joaquin Valley that Senator Craig spoke about. Manuel Cunha said symptoms of labor shortages are showing up with fewer pickers in the Valley's orchard. Between the tree fruit guys, the crew sizes are varying from a crew of 20 to 22, down to 9 to 15. What is happening now is we are starting to see a trend going toward table grapes. The Valley is starting to get into the table grape harvest in the Arvin area. The word I am hearing is that the table grapes may take workers from tree fruits because the free fruit workers are only working so many hours in the day because of the demand. Union-produced labor shortages became more pronounced in the coming weeks with the start of the raisin grape harvest. It goes on like this in article after article. The Farm Bureau Federation of my State: Headline: ``Labor Shortage Teeters on Critical Edge.'' As the border with Mexico tightens, and Congress continues to drag its feet on passing comprehensive immigration reform, farmers and labor experts say that the California farm labor pool is rapidly shrinking. A lag in reporting labor statistics makes it hard to pinpoint exactly how short the labor supply really is, but many growers put the gap again at about a 10 to 20 percent shortage Statewide. This goes on and on, report after report. There is rarely a time where issues come together and it is possible to move aggressively on something such as this. This is one of those times. AgJOBS has been debated on the floor of the Senate. It has been debated in the Judiciary Committee. It has been amended. It has come out of part of the immigration bill. Senator Craig and I have worked to see that the amendment at the desk remedies all the problems that were brought up in the last floor discussion. It is ready to go. It can be added to this bill. It will pass in the House. Why won't the leadership allow this amendment? It would be one thing if there was not a crisis out there. It is another thing if there is a crisis. And there is a crisis. Everyone in this body knows that. Everyone knows farmers are scrambling. Everyone knows farmers are losing their crops. Everyone knows there is produce on the ground that can't be harvested. Why don't we do something about it? And everyone knows that agricultural labor in the United States of America is virtually dependent on undocumented workers. This is a way to document them. This is a way to enhance security. This is the way to get the workforce for our farming communities that we need. I went to ports, and I saw boxes and carton after carton of export products at the ports. We depend on exporting our fruit. You can't do it if you can't harvest it. What happens when the prices begin to rise in the markets? And they will. Lettuce that can't be harvested, tomatoes that can't be harvested, almonds, raisins, grapes. We had a chance to do something about it, and you have Senators standing here on the floor saying we could do something about it now, it will pass, it will be signed, it will go into law. AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everybody in both bodies knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration tightens up, and they begin to pull people and deport them, as farmers have trouble finding them, as they hide in the shadows more, the result is our crops go unharvested. We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is so easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted and vetted and vetted. Senator Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill. Why don't we pass it? What kind of a plea will be heard? How many farmers have to be ruined to prove a point that I don't understand, that I can't fathom, that I can't believe we turned down this opportunity to solve a real problem. If you want a Republican amendment, it is at the desk. If you want a Democrat amendment, it is at the desk. They are both the same. I am simply here to say, Mr. Leader, let this come to the floor. Mr. Leader, take the steps that can save American agriculture right now. Leader, pass this bill which has be vetted, which has been debated, which has been discussed in both Houses, several committees and on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Simply bring this amendment to the floor. Don't fill the tree and now allow this amendment. I say once again, the 75,000 farmers in my State, if there ever was a time to weigh in, this is it. If there was ever a time for you to pick up that phone and call every Member of this body and anyone you can and say, Hey, I am a farmer, and I can't find labor to harvest my crop, this is a bill that can help me, and I want you to pass it now. In my State, 76,000 farms. If half would do it, if a quarter would do it, if a tenth would do it, we would get this bill passed. For farms in other States, this is your moment. Stand up, weigh in. We are, after all, a representative democracy. We represent people. We represent States. These people and these States have weighed in, in the press, and said: We are in trouble. We need help. Now is the time. I say to the Republican leader of the Senate, do not turn your back on the farm community of America. This community needs undocumented labor to plant, to prune, to clear out weeds, and to harvest. That has been the case for years. Give it certitude. A pilot program; 5 years; 1.5 million blue cards over the 5 years; specific requirements; taxes paid; filing with the Government; fines paid. But people can work and harvest the crops. I say to the Members of this Senate, it would be a terrible tragedy if we turn our backs on the breadbaskets of America. We have an opportunity. It is so simple. Just enact this AgJOBS program now. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Idaho on his comments. I subscribe to them 100 percent. I congratulate him and thank him for the leadership he has provided on the AgJOBS program. I don't think there is anyone in the U.S. Senate who knows more about what the needs in agriculture are across this great land than Senator Larry Craig. He has been consistent and he has been devoted. I think his expressions here today are really the expressions of virtually everyone in the Senate who knows what is happening in their own State with respect to agriculture today. I also rise joining you, Mr. President, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, and the one who moved the AgJOBS program on to the immigration bill that is part of the Senate bill. I come here with a plea and that plea is, if there is going to be a border security bill before the full U.S. Senate, add the AgJOBS bill to it, because it is a crisis and it is an emergency and there is a practical need to do so. It just so happens that there are two amendments at the desk that would do this. There is a Republican amendment on AgJOBS sponsored by the Senator from Idaho, and there is a Democratic amendment on AgJOBS sponsored by the Senator from California. They are one and the same. They could be easily added by either one of us and either one of us is willing to cosponsor the amendment of the other. The reason is because it is in fact an emergency. This is harvest season out in all the great States. I was once told-- Senator Craig, you know him well--by Manuel Cunha, of the Nisei Farmers League, just for raisins alone in my State, it is 4 counties and it takes 40,000 workers to harvest those raisins. The Senator mentioned that California is so large in agriculture. I want the President to know that it is a $31.8 billion industry. That is in 2004. It is an enormous industry. We have 76,500 farms in California. I am asking every one of those farm owners to weigh in at this time. Let the Senate know that there is now an opportunity to see that you have a certain, stable workforce. Weigh in with the Senate and say: Put AgJOBS on the border security bill. We have 1 million people who usually work in agriculture. I must tell you they are dominantly undocumented. Senator Craig pointed out the reason they are undocumented is because American workers will not do the jobs. When I started this I did not believe it, so we called all the welfare departments of the major agriculture counties in California and asked, Can you provide agricultural workers? Not one worker came from the people who were on welfare who were willing to do this kind of work. That is because it is difficult work. The Sun is hot. The back has to be strong. You have to be stooped over. It is extraordinarily difficult work. For a State as big as mine, there is an immigrant community which is professionally adept at this kind of work. They can pick, they can sort, they can prune, they can harvest--virtually better than anybody. This is what they do. This is what makes our agricultural community exist. It is very hard for a farmer to hire a documented worker. It is very hard to find that documented worker. So if they are going to produce, they have to find the labor somewhere. My State produces one-half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts. One-half comes from California. We produce 350 different crops. We have an opportunity now, with this bill, to get adequate labor for this harvest season on this border security bill. We know the votes are here in the Senate. We know the votes are in the House of Representatives. We know the President would sign the bill. Why not do it? Why not do it? Both Senator Craig and I want to plead with the leadership of the Senate, allow us to put this amendment up before the Senate. We can limit our debate. We know the votes are there. Let me ask the Senator, when this matter came before the full Senate; that is, before the immigration bill, how many votes did you have for the AgJOBS program?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I actually believe, if I might respond, that there are 60 votes because of the amendments that we made in Judiciary--which certainly brought me along, and I wasn't there before.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I think it brought others along as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is absolutely right. I think he has made an excellent point. We know that many of the workers in agriculture who are undocumented have gone on to work, for example, in construction, in the service industry, in the restaurant industry, in the hotel industry, and so on and so forth. But they work in the shadows. They work with fear today. The program that the Senator and I are speaking of is not just a pile of programs. This is a 5-year sunset program. But you would see how it would work. You would then have documentation of every individual that is legally working in that program. In my State of California, growers are reporting that their harvesting crews are 10 to 20 percent of what they were previously due to two things: stepped up enforcement, a dwindling pool of workers, and the problem that ensues from both. We have an opportunity to put AgJOBS on this bill, a modified AgJOBS, reforming the H-2A program, pilot AgJOBS for 5 years. I will explain very quickly how that works. I think it is important that people understand this. The first step would require the undocumented agricultural workers apply for a ``blue card,'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the prior of 2 years. The second step requires that a blue cardholder must work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years and work 100 days a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year; again, a blue card, biometric, would be documented. For the first time you would know who the worker is. The farmer would have certainty that he can hire that worker. If the worker meets this expected work requirement, they will then be eligible for a green card. Employment would be verified through the employer-issued itemized statement, pay stub, W-2 forms, employer letters, contracts, or agreements, employer-sponsored health care, timecards, or payment of taxes. The program is capped at 1\1/2\ million blue cards over 5 years. It will not have an annual cap. I have explained it. My State alone has a million agricultural workers. How many does Idaho have? I ask he Senator through the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 250, I voted ``yea''; it was my intention to vote ``nay''. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote since it will not change the outcome.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the port security bill being considered before the Senate. This legislation is of particular importance to my home State of California, and I am deeply grateful to Senators Collins and Murray and all the others who have worked so diligently to craft this comprehensive and bipartisan effort to better protect our Nation's ports. It is no secret that I have long considered security at our Nation's ports to be a significant hole in homeland security. The global maritime supply chain system is a vast network consisting of hundreds of ports worldwide moving millions of containers each year, and frankly I don't believe this Nation has done nearly enough since 9/11 to improve the security of our ports. As has been repeated many times on this floor, only 5 percent of containers entering the country are inspected, meaning that millions of tons of cargo move through our ports without serious scrutiny. With its long coastline, California is vulnerable. My home State receives containers from more than 750 different ports worldwide and is home to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which is the busiest container port complex in the entire United States, processing 7.2 million containers in 2005. To highlight the risk we face, I cite a Rand Corporation report released last month. If a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb, hidden in a shipping container, were to explode at the Port of Long Beach, it could kill 60,000 people instantly, expose another 150,000 to hazardous levels of radiation, and cause $1 trillion in economic losses. Needless to say, this is an issue of great importance to my constituents and the economic welfare of the State. I believe strongly that the need for action to better protect our ports is essential and it must happen now. I am glad to say that this port security measure takes a number of critical steps toward filling the gaps in security at our Nation's ports. This legislation directs the Department of Homeland Security to work with State and local governments to create a strategic plan to secure our ports and prepare for a swift resumption of trade in the event of an attack. We learned by devastating experience during Hurricane Katrina what happens when Federal, State, and local governments do not have an integrated plan for responding to and recovering from a catastrophic event. The bill authorizes $400 million in competitive grants to help ports address security vulnerabilities, $1.2 billion for rail security improvements, and $3.4 billion for mass transit security. In addition, 1,000 more Customs and Border Protection agents will be patrolling our Nation's ports of entry thanks to this legislation. But despite the advances of this legislation, there still remains much work to do. We cannot stop until all containers are fully scanned for radiation and by other means including full x-rays of all containers. It was a disappointment that amendments to initiate a plan for 100 percent scanning were rejected this week. In fact, this bill does nothing substantive to increase the number of containers inspected before reaching our shores. It is clear to me that only inspecting 5 percent of containers is unacceptable. Moving forward, a clear test of this Congress will come when the time arrives to appropriate funds for many of the programs authorized in this bill, including grants for port security. To tell the truth, much of what is accomplished will be for naught if we don't provide the funds necessary to get the job done. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I plan to do whatever I can to make these funds available. They are simply too important to my State and too important to this Nation. Again, I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this bill and express my hope that we can continue to work towards filling the gaps in security at our ports.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President yesterday, we lost a great politicial great woman with an incredibly energy who helped to change the attitude of Texas politics. Ann Richards was born in Lakeview, TX, in 1933. She died yesterday, September 13, in Austin, TX, at the age of 73. She battled cancer in the last months of her life, being diagnosed with esophageal cancer in March and undergoing chemotherapy treatments. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to her four children-- Cecile, Daniel, Clark and Ellen--who were with her when she passed away. Ann Richards was a homemaker and teacher before beginning her political career as a county commissioner in Travis county, TX, in 1976. Six years later, in 1982, she ran for State treasurer and won. She was reelected in 1986. Winning the office of Texas State treasurer made her the first woman elected statewide in nearly 50 years. Like so many female politicians of our time, running for office in a male-dominated political environment took courage and determination. But Ann didn't take on these challenges only to prove that she was a worthy candidate. She wanted to show Texas, and the Nation, that all women could succeed in the same way that men had for many years. She blazed a trail for women, in politics and in life. Two years later, in 1990, Ann Richards narrowly won the election to Governor, winning by a margin of 49 to 47 percent. Again, she fought a tough campaign battle against a male opponent. But with her fierce determination, she came out on top. During her 4 years in the Governor's office, Ann Richards made a strong effect, championing what she referred to as the ``New Texas.'' As Governor, Ann Richards promoted women and minorities who historically were ignored in Texas politics; reformed the Texas prison system; backed proposals to reduce the sale of semiautomatic firearms and ``cop-killer'' bullets in the State; instituted the Texas State lottery to provide funding for education; revitalized the State's economy; and worked to protect the environment, particularly with a veto of legislation that would have allowed for the destruction of the Edwards Aquifer in south central Texas. She was defeated in her 1994 reelection campaign by George W. Bush. Near the end of her term as Governor, Ann Richards said: ``I think I'd like them to remember me by saying, `She opened government to everyone.' '' She was a popular figure in Texas politics, known for her white head of hair and her great sense of humor. And she was daring, on the political stage and off. At the age of 60, she learned to ride a motorcycle. Ann Richards will be missed. For her charisma, for her integrity, and for her honesty.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join with friends and associates across the country to honor the 100th birthday on September 17 of Dr. Edgar Wayburn of San Francisco. From the time that his appreciation of the American landscape began in Macon, GA, to his role today as honorary president of the Sierra Club, Dr. Wayburn has built a lifetime of conservation activism that has immeasurably benefited our country and the world. Across our Nation, 100,000,000 acres of some of the most beautiful landscape in the world are protected for future generations thanks in large part to the dedicated efforts of Dr. Wayburn. Never a full-time conservationist, Dr. Wayburn has dedicated weekends and hours away from his medical practice to protecting our wild lands and wildlife. From the Mount Tamalpais State Park in California to Admiralty Island in southeastern Alaska, Dr. Wayburn's accomplishments read as an honor roll of conservation achievements. He has been a true visionary in promotion of conservation and has inspired countless other Americans. One example in particular uniquely epitomizes Dr. Wayburn's legacy. Driving out of San Francisco International Airport, you face west toward the hills of San Mateo County. Beyond those hills, along the coast for more than 10 miles to the south and for 75 miles to the north stands one or our country's most majestic national parks--the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The park encompasses 80,000 acres in 3 counties and lies adjacent to Point Reyes National Seashore; thus more than 150,000 acres are preserved for habitat and wildlife and are enjoyed by more than 20 million people every year. Dr. Wayburn played an instrumental part in the founding of both of these national parks. For over 100 years, the U.S. military fortified the region now home to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. But in the 1960s the military became aware that its bunkers and missiles had little value for our Nation's defense and made plans to sell parts of the area's installations and fortifications. Bay Area residents were determined that this magnificent landscape not be lost to ordinary development. Here was the chance for people to see the natural world in an urban context, to look upon the wilderness from the city, and Dr. Wayburn helped lead the way. When he learned of a farsighted Interior Department proposal to preserve underused military land across the Nation for public use and enjoyment, he became the leader of the citizens' group organized to save the land at his doorstep. He also insisted upon enlargement of the original 8,000-acre proposal. Thanks to widespread support and the indefatigable efforts of Dr. Wayburn, the campaign to protect this invaluable natural treasure was a resounding success. Congress authorized the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in 1972, which now stands as a monument to the committed efforts of so many like Dr. Wayburn. The story of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area stands as just one of many achievements that mark Dr. Wayburn's inimitable career. In 1999, President Bill Clinton recognized Dr. Wayburn's lifetime of service by awarding him our Nation's highest civilian honor--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In honoring his achievements, President Clinton counted Dr. Wayburn as the person who had saved ``more of our wilderness than any other person alive.'' I can think of no more fitting praise to offer Dr. Wayburn. Dr. Wayburn has created a legacy that will live on for generations to come, and he has made our Nation and our world a better place. I commend him on his efforts and offer my heartfelt gratitude for his service.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I make my statement, which will be on the Reid amendment, I would like to congratulate Senator Collins, Senator Inouye, Senator Murray, and all of the Members who worked in committee on this bill. Although one doesn't often tell tales of what happened in a Democratic caucus, I would like to quote Senator Murray in that caucus. She said, ``This bill will make a difference.'' I think that is a very dispositive, definitive, and positive statement. So I would like to offer my congratulations to the chairman of the committee and all who worked on it and thank them very much. Amendment No. 4936 Mr. President, I would like to speak about this very long Reid amendment which has been offered to be part of this bill. The amendment, much like the Real Security Act introduced last week, is a comprehensive package of ways to strengthen our national security through improved intelligence, military, diplomatic, and homeland security tools. But in particular I would like, as a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, to address the issue of electronic surveillance to identify and prevent terrorist attacks. All Democrats support giving the President the tools he needs to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways. It is a fact, and I have never heard anything to the contrary. We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools, especially electronic surveillance of telephone content--the content of a phone call or wiretapping of a phone call--can and should be done in a way that protects constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans, because whatever is done here will go on for decades and because whatever is done here will likely impact tens of thousands of persons in the United States. I am pleased that the minority leader has endorsed these concepts, as they are the key pillars of legislation that Senator Specter and I have introduced. That is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act. I thank the minority leader for ``Rule 14'ing'' my bill, which now appears as the Feinstein-Specter bill as hotlined, S. 3877. Tomorrow in Judiciary we will be marking up FISA bills. This same bill but under a different bill number, namely S. 3001, will be subject to markup along with the other bills. Senator Specter's Administration bill, Senator DeWine's bill, and a bill by Senator Schumer will be marked up tomorrow morning and Thursday morning. My legislation, which is pretty simple and pretty limited, is aimed at providing our intelligence agencies with more authority, more resources, and more flexibility to conduct electronic surveillance. In doing so, the legislation reaffirms that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence in the United States. I believe this is very important. We have had hearings in Judiciary. The Attorney General has testified. The head of the NSA program has testified. It is pretty clear to me that this terrorist surveillance program can be fit into the confines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed in 1978. What has to be done is a streamlining of the process leading up to it and some revised provisions for emergency hot pursuit. So what I have tried to do is take what the Attorney General has said to the committee were obstructions to using FISA and solve those obstructions but keep FISA because it is so important. The legislation that I have introduced would recognize that further changes are needed in this shadowy world of asymmetric terror. That is why the legislation would give the executive branch the authority to listen in to conversations between terrorists and their conspirators inside and outside the United States. At the same time, we preserve the cornerstone of FISA, and that is that it is by warrant, that a Federal judge reviews and approves every individual warrant request for content to ensure the Government is not spying on innocent Americans. I think it is useful to remind ourselves why this body wrote and enacted FISA in the first place. In 1976 a committee headed by Frank Church, which became known as the Church committee, provided a report to the Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. There are three books just like this, on what went on in our Nation prior to 1976. It is startling. I will get to it in a moment. But it was the genesis for the 1978, very carefully considered Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This committee reported--and please read it, Members--on a series of excesses and abuses that had taken place in the intelligence community. These included some of the worst civil rights violations our Government has ever committed, such as the secret campaign to smear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and domestic targeting of Americans peacefully advocating civil disobedience in areas such as civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam war. The Church committee found these abuses stemmed from a lack of oversight and checks on Government power. Watch lists were established on people whose views ranged from Joan Baez on the left to members of the John Birch Society on the right. The Church committee's report led not only to FISA but also to the establishment of the Permanent Intelligence Committees in both Houses of the Congress. It was a historic report. So discussions today that the President has the authority to go around FISA and doesn't need court approval should cause Members of this great body serious concern. It was a surprise to almost every Senator to learn last December that the President had authorized the National Security Administration to electronically surveil U.S. persons without following the law. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have received many briefings on the President's program. There are still some unanswered questions, and the administration has a responsibility to provide Congress with answers. But basically the Senate Intelligence Committee has been briefed on the program in the main. But from what I have learned to date, I am convinced of two things: First, the work that NSA is doing is important to prevent terrorists from attacking us again--and I support it. Second, the surveillance that is done under the ``terrorist surveillance program'' can be done under FISA's framework with some changes. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I participated in the hearings, and I thank my chairman, Senator Specter, for holding these hearings. The conclusion I draw from them, and from the briefings, is that fairly modest changes can be made to FISA which would remove the barriers standing in the NSA's way while also restoring the FISA Court oversight that is necessary to protect a citizen's constitutional right. Let me briefly tell you what we have done. We have expanded hot pursuit. Currently, the law states that during specified ``emergency'' periods surveillance can proceed without a warrant for 72 hours. At the recommendation of former FISA judges, we have extended the time for hot pursuit to 7 days. So if something happens and the NSA wants to immediately wiretap someone, they can, provided they notify the Attorney General within 24 hours that it is happening, and then go to the FISA Court. Attorney General Gonzales testified to us that he personally has to approve applications before they go to the FISA Court. That was a problem. So we created additional flexibility to handle the increased caseload by allowing the Attorney General to delegate this authority to two Senate-confirmed officials: the Deputy Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General for National Security. Wartime authority: Currently, FISA provides the President with authority to wiretap without a warrant for 15 days after a declaration of war. That is a good thing, I believe. Our bill would expand Presidential authority by allowing the President to also order wiretaps without a warrant for 15 days following a congressional authorization to use military force and a terrorist attack on the United States. Additional resources: The staff and court need additional resources, and Members have expressed concern about a backlog of FISA applications. We would authorize additional judges as necessary, additional OIPR assistant United States attorneys as necessary, and additional NSA and FBI staff as necessary, so that this problem would be taken care of. Then we clarify ``foreign to foreign.'' It has often been said that in the 28 years since FISA was written changes in technology have made the law outdated. Communications that start and end outside of the United States but may switch through the United States--communications that FISA never attempted to cover--are now regularly put before the FISA Court. General Alexander expressed his frustration that foreign-to-foreign communications impede the FISA process. This bill--which again has been ``Rule 14'd''--would explicitly exempt these telephone calls and e-mails from FISA while preserving the existing process for the appropriate handling of communications involving a U.S. party that were inadvertently wiretapped. We believe these provisions will go a long way. We also would mandate that briefings on electronic surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes be given to the full Intelligence Committee of both the House and the Senate, really to prevent what was happening, which was the beginning of a major wiretapping program where only eight Members of Congress knew very early on about the program, and therefore there was virtually no congressional oversight that was meaningful in any way, shape, or form. In this bill is a two-page sense of the Senate beginning on page 313 of the Reid amendment and going through pages 314 and 315. Essentially, it states up front that the U.S. Government should have the legal authority to engage in electronic surveillance of any telephone conversation in which one party is reasonably believed to be a member or an agent of a terrorist organization. It goes on to say that absent emergency or other appropriate circumstances, domestic electronic surveillance should be subject to judicial review in order to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens or Americans with no ties to terrorism. I strongly support the Reid amendment. I support the Sense of the Senate. And I look forward to being able to debate the bill which Senator Reid has agreed to cosponsor, as well as Senator Specter--it is a bipartisan bill--at the appropriate time when bills to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are before the body. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Once again, I indicate my very strong support for the bill before the U.S. Senate today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today along with Senator Inhofe, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation is crucial to respond to the expanded scope of terrorist activity that has threatened to impede important medical research and scientific innovation. The legislation we introduce today would: clarify that it is a crime to damage or interfere with an ``animal enterprise''--which includes legitimate companies and non-profit organizations that use animals for education, research or testing; expand Federal law to also make it illegal to harm or cause property loss to anyone connected with an animal enterprise; Criminalize threats, harassment, and other illegal activity that uses interstate commerce to intentionally cause fear of death or injury to anyone connected with an animal enterprise; Establish graded penalties of up to 20 years depending on the financial damage or level of bodily injury caused by such illegal conduct, and up to life imprisonment if death results; establish that a convicted animal enterprise terrorist can also be ordered as restitution to pay the animal enterprise's cost of repeating experiments and other losses resulting from the criminal conduct; and clarify that all legitimate protest activities protected by the First Amendment are exempted out from any prosecution under the bill. The need for this bill is obvious. On June 30 of this year, extremist activists, acting in the name of animal rights, attempted to firebomb a Los Angeles home thought to belong to a prominent UCLA primate researcher. The home actually belonged to a 70-year-old woman, and thankfully, the device did not ignite. But the desired impact was nonetheless achieved. Just weeks later, a colleague of the targeted researcher announced that he will discontinue his important research at UCLA. He had two words for the terrorists who orchestrated the failed bombing: ``You win.'' While I recognize that reasonable people might disagree about animal research, and believe in the right to legitimate protest, it is outrageous that violent acts, threats and extortion have ended a legitimate medical research career. Unfortunately, similar incidents have occurred throughout the State of California for several years, including the two bombs placed at the Emeryville offices of Chiron Corporation, a pharmaceutical company in the Bay area, that employs 4400 employees as our Nation's 2nd largest manufacturer of flu vaccines. Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first- responders arrived. Yet extremist organizations, such as the Animal Liberation Front, defend these actions around the country as morally justifiable, and shamelessly take credit for these heinous acts. Their tactics have evolved in the face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of their terror is widening. In recent years, animal rights extremists have expanded their campaigns to include secondary and tertiary targets, such that businesses and associates who maintain even highly-attenuated relationships with animal research facilities have found themselves the targets of terror and harassment. These targets include banks, insurance companies, stockbrokers, customers, construction services, food services, Internet service providers, telecom companies, and even janitorial services. No matter how remote the relationship, anyone who does business with an organization engaged in animal research is at risk. But these indirect attacks are outside the scope of our current laws, and threaten to slow the progress of one of our Nation's largest and most valuable industries. We must recognize that scientific research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical advancement, conducted by respectable professionals deserving of our support. The deplorable actions of these terrorists threaten to impede important medical progress toward lifesaving cures and medical innovation. They threaten to dishearten noble researchers, and to discourage promising young scientists and graduate students from ever entering these important fields of research. It is in light of these dangerous threats that Senator Inhofe and I today introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation addresses the changing tactics of these terrorists, and provides law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to protect our Nation's researchers more effectively. This new legislation will expressly outlaw the targeting of secondary and tertiary targets, by including within the scope of prosecution terrorists who act against any ``person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.'' This is an important step toward combating the modern tactics of animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists, and toward protecting vital business relationships that foster and support the research industry. At the same time, however, this legislation confronts these terrorist threats in manner that gives due protections under the First Amendment. I fully recognize that peaceful picketing and public demonstrations against animal testing should be recognized as part of our valuable and sacred right to free expression. For this reason, all conduct protected by the First Amendment is expressly excluded from the scope of this legislation. This law effectively protects the actions of the law-abiding protestor while carefully distinguishing the criminal activity of extremists. The bill is also mindful and respectful of State efforts to address these problems. For this reason, the bill makes clear that it does not preempt State or local laws that address such conduct. We are keenly aware of our responsibility to protect legitimate businesses and educational institutions from the damaging effects of this new breed of domestic terrorism. It is with this goal in mind that we introduce this bill today. Biomedical research is a multi-billion dollar industry, but more importantly, it is a lifesaving industry. With the passage of this legislation, we can help to ensure both the productivity of this important field, and the protection of our scientists and their associates. I would like to express my thanks to Senator Inhofe for his hard work and support on this important issue. I would also like to thank Senator Hatch for his early initiative and continued support for this goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today along with Senator Inhofe, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation is crucial to respond to the expanded scope of terrorist activity that has threatened to impede important medical research and scientific innovation. The legislation we introduce today would: clarify that it is a crime to damage or interfere with an ``animal enterprise''--which includes legitimate companies and non-profit organizations that use animals for education, research or testing; expand Federal law to also make it illegal to harm or cause property loss to anyone connected with an animal enterprise; Criminalize threats, harassment, and other illegal activity that uses interstate commerce to intentionally cause fear of death or injury to anyone connected with an animal enterprise; Establish graded penalties of up to 20 years depending on the financial damage or level of bodily injury caused by such illegal conduct, and up to life imprisonment if death results; establish that a convicted animal enterprise terrorist can also be ordered as restitution to pay the animal enterprise's cost of repeating experiments and other losses resulting from the criminal conduct; and clarify that all legitimate protest activities protected by the First Amendment are exempted out from any prosecution under the bill. The need for this bill is obvious. On June 30 of this year, extremist activists, acting in the name of animal rights, attempted to firebomb a Los Angeles home thought to belong to a prominent UCLA primate researcher. The home actually belonged to a 70-year-old woman, and thankfully, the device did not ignite. But the desired impact was nonetheless achieved. Just weeks later, a colleague of the targeted researcher announced that he will discontinue his important research at UCLA. He had two words for the terrorists who orchestrated the failed bombing: ``You win.'' While I recognize that reasonable people might disagree about animal research, and believe in the right to legitimate protest, it is outrageous that violent acts, threats and extortion have ended a legitimate medical research career. Unfortunately, similar incidents have occurred throughout the State of California for several years, including the two bombs placed at the Emeryville offices of Chiron Corporation, a pharmaceutical company in the Bay area, that employs 4400 employees as our Nation's 2nd largest manufacturer of flu vaccines. Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first- responders arrived. Yet extremist organizations, such as the Animal Liberation Front, defend these actions around the country as morally justifiable, and shamelessly take credit for these heinous acts. Their tactics have evolved in the face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of their terror is widening. In recent years, animal rights extremists have expanded their campaigns to include secondary and tertiary targets, such that businesses and associates who maintain even highly-attenuated relationships with animal research facilities have found themselves the targets of terror and harassment. These targets include banks, insurance companies, stockbrokers, customers, construction services, food services, Internet service providers, telecom companies, and even janitorial services. No matter how remote the relationship, anyone who does business with an organization engaged in animal research is at risk. But these indirect attacks are outside the scope of our current laws, and threaten to slow the progress of one of our Nation's largest and most valuable industries. We must recognize that scientific research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical advancement, conducted by respectable professionals deserving of our support. The deplorable actions of these terrorists threaten to impede important medical progress toward lifesaving cures and medical innovation. They threaten to dishearten noble researchers, and to discourage promising young scientists and graduate students from ever entering these important fields of research. It is in light of these dangerous threats that Senator Inhofe and I today introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation addresses the changing tactics of these terrorists, and provides law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to protect our Nation's researchers more effectively. This new legislation will expressly outlaw the targeting of secondary and tertiary targets, by including within the scope of prosecution terrorists who act against any ``person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.'' This is an important step toward combating the modern tactics of animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists, and toward protecting vital business relationships that foster and support the research industry. At the same time, however, this legislation confronts these terrorist threats in manner that gives due protections under the First Amendment. I fully recognize that peaceful picketing and public demonstrations against animal testing should be recognized as part of our valuable and sacred right to free expression. For this reason, all conduct protected by the First Amendment is expressly excluded from the scope of this legislation. This law effectively protects the actions of the law-abiding protestor while carefully distinguishing the criminal activity of extremists. The bill is also mindful and respectful of State efforts to address these problems. For this reason, the bill makes clear that it does not preempt State or local laws that address such conduct. We are keenly aware of our responsibility to protect legitimate businesses and educational institutions from the damaging effects of this new breed of domestic terrorism. It is with this goal in mind that we introduce this bill today. Biomedical research is a multi-billion dollar industry, but more importantly, it is a lifesaving industry. With the passage of this legislation, we can help to ensure both the productivity of this important field, and the protection of our scientists and their associates. I would like to express my thanks to Senator Inhofe for his hard work and support on this important issue. I would also like to thank Senator Hatch for his early initiative and continued support for this goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand it is appropriate for me now to speak on an amendment I offered yesterday having to do with cluster bombs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss again the amendment offered by myself and Senator Leahy to this bill on the use of a munition called a cluster bomb. Our amendment is very simple. It prevents any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians. That is not a difficult requirement. It seems to me, because of the widespread damage caused by these munitions, that there ought to be specific rules of engagement which ban their use in areas where civilian death or maiming might result. Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations, and they release these small bomblets over the radius of a half mile. In practice, they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bomblets over a large area, and they are often inaccurate. In some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended. Bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball, so they are attractive to small children who pick them up to play with them. Then the bomblet explodes and the individual is either killed or maimed. I would like to show three photographs. On March 25, 2003, a youngster by the name of Abdallah Yaqoob was sleeping in his bed in his home in Basra, Iraq when he was hit with shrapnel from a cluster munitions strike that hit his neighborhood. He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely damaged. He was hit by a British L20A1/M85 munition--a cluster bomb. Second, Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground- launched submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003. The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel throughout his body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs. This is a photo of an unexploded M42 cluster submunition found on a barbed-wire fence in southern Iraq in August 2006. As you will see, this is the bomblet and this is a small pinecone. You will see how small this bomblet is, hanging on the barbed wire. These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, de facto landmines. The issue was first brought to my attention by a 2005 PBS documentary entitled ``Bombies'' which chronicled the impact of unexploded cluster bombs in Laos. This is startling. In Laos alone, there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster bombs. They are leftovers from U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured since that war ended--11,000 killed or injured by cluster bombs. So 40 to 50 years after these munitions were used, their deadly force remains active. As the documentary showed, these unexploded cluster bombs have ended up in bamboo trees, in playgrounds, in houses, on rice paddies, and in schools. They have been found in the ground where farmers prepare their fields to plant. They have threatened their lives and their livelihood. As one farmer from northern Laos put it, ``Working in these fields is a problem. There are lots of bombies. But we work very carefully. If we work fast, we are afraid we'll hit a bombie.'' These farmers have to tend the fields and put their lives at risk because they have to grow food to feed their families. Decades after the last bomb was dropped, they are still threatened by death and serious injury. A cluster bomb is lethal for up to 150 yards. It will kill or maim the person who picks it up and those nearby. I remind my colleagues, these munitions have been used in many battles in many wars. In the first gulf war, 60,000 cluster bombs were used, containing 20 million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500. In Afghanistan in 2001, 1,228 cluster bombs with nearly a quarter of a million--248,056--bomblets were used. Between October of 2001 and November of 2002--that is just 1 year-- 127 civilians were killed, 70 percent of them under the age of 18. In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with nearly 2 million bomblets were used. Combining the first and second gulf wars, the total number of unexploded bomblets in the region is approximately 1.2 million. An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1991 by these discarded munitions. Here we have it: In Iraq, 13,000 cluster bombs, two million bomblets; in Afghanistan, 1,200 cluster bombs, a quarter of a million bomblets, numbers killed in a year, 127 civilians; in the first gulf war, 61,000 used, 20 million bomblets lying around, 1,600 innocent, men, women, and children killed, more than 2,500 wounded since 1991. This gives rise to recent developments in Lebanon. Throughout southern Lebanon, more than 405 cluster bomb sites containing approximately 100,000 unexploded bomblets have been discovered. Each site covers a radius of 220 yards. As Lebanese children and families return to their homes and begin to rebuild, they will be exposed to the danger of these unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble. Thirteen people already, including three young children, have been killed, and 48 injured. One United Nations official estimates that the rate of unexploded bomblets is 40 percent in southern Lebanon. So far, more than 2,900 exploded bomblets have been destroyed. It will take 12 to 15 months to complete that effort. The State Department is looking into charges that the cluster bombs found in southern Lebanon were American-made and that they were used in violation of agreements between the United States and Israel that govern their use. I do not know whether that is true. We have tried to find out. At this time, and despite repeated inquiries, I am unaware what those agreements actually say and what conditions they place on Israel. It seems to me we ought to know. It seems to me this information ought to be transparent and that the Congress of the United States, in the process of lawmaking, is entitled to that information. By passing this information and codifying this language in statute we will help ensure that civilian populations will be protected by adequate rules of engagement that accompany the sale or transfer of these weapons to another country and the rules of engagement that condition their use by our military in foreign countries. Each death that results from an unexploded bomblet weakens American diplomacy and American values. How do people in Laos feel when they live and farm with the daily threat of running into one of these bomblets? How do they feel in Afghanistan, Iraq, in southern Lebanon, in any other place where civilians can be wounded and killed by these bomblets? Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment. They make security, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts that much harder. Senator Leahy and I are not the only ones that feel this way. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen recognized the threat that cluster bombs pose to civilians and U.S. troops alike because they litter a battlefield. He issued a memorandum which became known as the Cohen policy. It stated that beginning in 2005 all new cluster bombs would have a failure rate of less than 1 percent. This was an important step forward. But we still have 5\1/2\ million cluster bombs containing 728 million bomblets. They are aging in the American arsenal. This indicates we are still prepared to use, transfer, or sell an enormous number of cluster bombs that have significant failure rates. I ask this question: Is this the source of legacy we want to leave behind in Iraq and Afghanistan? Let me be clear, this amendment does not place a ban on cluster bombs. It is a simple step that will give the Pentagon time to develop specific guidelines to ensure that cluster bombs are not used in or near populated areas. Does anyone in this Senate believe that a cluster munition should be used in a civilian populated area? That person can stand up and talk to that point of view. It is unconscionable. It is immoral. It is beyond the laws of warfare. If somebody wants to argue that point of view, so be it. If that is the kind of country a Member wants to represent, so be it. It is not the country I want to represent. This is a simple amendment which says no funds will be used until there are rules of engagement that say that these munitions will not be used in civilian areas where death and maiming is apt to result. This amendment will go a long way toward ensuring only prudent battlefield use. I hope this amendment has an opportunity to pass. I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time remains?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is here, Senator Leahy of Vermont, someone whose leadership on the landmine issue has been unparalleled in the Senate. He is a cosponsor of this amendment. I yield the Senator the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join Vice Chairman Rockefeller in calling for the Senate to take up and pass the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As has been said already, this legislation is the primary way in which the Congress directs the Nation's 16 intelligence agencies. In writing this legislation, the Committee worked closely with the Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, to identify new authorities needed to protect our national security. The bill authorizes a pilot program to allow intelligence agencies to better share information that could help uncover and thwart a terrorist; empowers the DNI to build information-sharing systems across the Federal Government; and creates a strong inspector general for the intelligence community. The bill also requires the intelligence community to explain how it is complying with the Detainee Treatment Act and provide Congress with information on any ``alleged clandestine detention facilities'' that it may be operating and continues the process of intelligence reform begun in 2004. It is not surprising that the creation of the DNI and major organizational changes across the Government's national security apparatus left some things undone. This Intelligence authorization bill makes a number of small but useful changes to allow the DNI and the Nation's 16 intelligence agencies to operate on a day-to-day basis more effectively. These are a few of the important provisions in this legislation. But here I would like to focus on language in the bill that was adopted on a bipartisan basis at committee. The provisions, sections 304 and 307 of the bill, ensure that the congressional Intelligence Committees are fully informed of all intelligence activities. The National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to ``ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States. . .''. Even more than other committees, the Intelligence Committee relies on the executive branch to provide it with information. Without full and timely notification of intelligence programs, problems, and plans, the committee cannot judge whether agencies have adhered to the law, nor can we judge whether changes in authorities or resources are needed to better protect national security. It was, in fact, Congress's lack of regular oversight that led to the creation of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1976. Following the Church Committee's report on Executive abuses, the Senate established the Committee to ``provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.'' Thirty years after the Senate Intelligence Committee was created, however, it is not living up to its charge. Members of the committee are not provided with sufficient information on intelligence programs and activities to legislate or oversee to intelligence community. Provisions in the stalled legislation--the Intelligence authorization bill--would fix this problem. A good example of how the system fails to work is the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was publicly revealed last December but which had not previously been briefed to the committees. According to the White House, this National Security Agency program was too sensitive to be briefed to the 15 Senators on the committee-- the 15 Senators hand-selected by the majority and minority leaders for this assignment. Instead, the President and Vice President decided to inform only 8 of the 535 Members of Congress: the party leadership in both houses and the leadership of the two intelligence committees. The National Security Act does provide for limited briefings to these eight Members of Congress but only for especially sensitive covert actions. The NSA program is not a covert action. The administration also points to statute saying that it must take ``due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters. . .'' The 1980 Senate report accompanying this ``due regard'' provision explained this provision more directly--and makes clear that it does not allow the administration to restrict information from the committee indefinitely as was done with the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The report recognized ``that in extremely rare circumstances a need to preserve essential secrecy may result in a decision not to impart certain sensitive aspects of operations or collection programs to the oversight committees in order to protect extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods.'' The ``due regard'' language that the administration cites was intended, at most, to limit briefings on the most sensitive aspects of operations, in extremely rare circumstances. It was also expected that withholding this sensitive information would be a temporary measure. This language was not intended to conceal the existence of entire programs from all committee members. So in effect, the White House has broadly interpreted the National Security Act to void meeting its responsibility to inform Congress. This Intelligence authorization bill's changes to the National Security Act close the loopholes but, in fact, are far more generous to the executive branch than many would like. The bill acknowledges that there are times when not all Members have to be ``fully and currently'' briefed on all intelligence matters. However, in those cases, it requires that all committee members receive a summary of the intelligence collection or covert action in question. This arrangement would allow the intelligence agencies to protect the most sensitive details of sources and methods, but crucially, it would allow the full committee to assess the legality, costs and benefits, and advisability of an intelligence operation. The authorization bill also changes a definition in the National Security Act to make clear that the requirement to keep the committees ``fully and currently informed'' means that all Members will be kept informed. Congress has allowed the intelligence community to brief only the chairman and vice chairman on too many programs for too long. I do not need to remind my colleagues that full committees, not a single Democrat and Republican, vote to authorize programs and funding. All Members must be informed if they are to perform their Constitutional duties. The pending authorization bill would make one additional change to what it means for an intelligence activity to be authorized by Congress. Stemming from the wiretapping abuses in the 1970s and because of the special challenges to conducting oversight of classified programs, the National Security Act prohibits the use of appropriated funds for any intelligence activities unless they are authorized by Congress. The pending bill would specify that an activity can only be ``authorized'' if the members of the authorizing committees have been fully briefed on it--or given a summary in the especially sensitive cases I described before.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a no- confidence resolution on the leadership of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld has overseen a failed strategy, policy, and military tactics for Iraq that have weakened the state of our national and homeland defense. Despite clear evidence that our current strategy is not working, he has stubbornly stuck to a deteriorating course. We need a new direction. ``Staying the course'' is not the answer and Secretary Rumsfeld has been the key proponent of this failed policy. I first publicly called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation 6 months ago, after watching 3 years of mismanagement of our war effort in Iraq. And, since that time, I have become more convinced of the importance of changing the leadership at the top of the Department of Defense. In truth, the Bush administration's failed strategy and tactics in Iraq have significantly diminished the United States' standing in the world and made waging the global war on terror more difficult. Despite optimistic reports by Pentagon officials regarding the security situation near Baghdad over the past several weeks, it is clear that Iraq is on the edge of civil war. For example, in recent days news agencies have reported that: 40 bodies, 25 of which had been blindfolded and executed by gunshot, were discovered in a mass grave in Baghdad--this from the New York Times. The number of killings in and around Baghdad grew substantially last week despite an American-led security crackdown, with morgues receiving as many bodies as they had during the first three weeks of August combined--this from the Los Angeles Times. Finally, the Iraqi parliament voted to extend a state of emergency throughout much of the country a strong indication that the security situation remains tenuous--this from the Associated Press. Yet we are continuing down the same failed path, buttressing the Shiite-dominated government and preventing it from taking actions necessary to end the insurgency and prevent a full-scale civil war. As a result of these failed policies under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, Iraq continues to be a nation in chaos. Yes, there is a permanent government in place. But the ministries do not function properly; terror, kidnappings, and assassinations continue on a daily basis. Iranian influence is growing, and Shiite militias dominate the police. Civilian killings now top 3,000 a month, and a Sunni-Shiite civil war is emerging, with U.S. forces caught in the middle. Despite spending almost $20 billion on reconstruction efforts, our plan for Iraq reconstruction has stalled as security requirements continue to tax our resources. Unemployment may be as high as 50 percent, many utilities are not online, and demand for subsidized gasoline--U.S. $0.55/gallon--has led to a thriving black market and corruption. Oil production has yet to meet revenue goals. The list of failures in our war policy in Iraq is comprehensive and long: (1) Failed strategic, logistical, and financial planning for the Iraq war Secretary Rumsfeld ignored suggestions early on by advisers like Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, Senators such as John McCain, and reports by well-respected think tanks such as the RAND Corporation, that many more ground troops were needed. For questioning Rumsfeld's plan, General Shinseki was effectively forced into early retirement. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey found himself out of a job after differing with Rumsfeld in suggesting that the Iraq war might cost up to $200 billion Rumsfeld initially argued that it would cost only $50 billion. With the addition of emergency supplemental funding, the cost of the Iraq war has now reached $320 billion, with spending averaging $2 billion a week. American troops went into combat without the proper equipment and protection. Hundreds of soldiers and marines were killed or maimed in the early stages of the war due to the lack of appropriate vehicle and body armor. Yet in responding to these concerns, Secretary Rumsfeld famously quipped, ``You go to war with the Army you have.'' (2) Failed policy of de-Baathification, including abolishing the Iraqi Army with no severance pay or pensions for soldiers Perhaps the biggest strategic mistake made by military planners, beyond the lack of adequate troop strength, was the decision to demobilize the standing Iraqi Army, while ``blacklisting'' other civilian professionals who had been members of the Baathist Party. Many of these soldiers, government officials, doctors, lawyers, and other civilian workers, with their jobs eliminated and no money to feed their families chose to join the insurgency that has now grown to an estimated 20,000 individuals. Remarkably, Rumsfeld until only recently tried to characterize the insurgency as a group of ``foreign fighters,'' failing to understand the deep resentment cultivated by American policies in post-Saddam Iraq. (3) Faulty belief that capturing Baghdad meant controlling Iraq As related in recent firsthand accounts of the initial invasion, commanders on the ground quickly identified the threat of a guerilla war, but after GEN William Wallace, who was leading the march toward Baghdad, recommended crushing the small insurgency along the way, he was nearly forced to resign. While U.S. forces successfully captured Baghdad within 3 weeks, this strategy allowed an insurgency to grow within the Sunni triangle and hundreds of foreign fighters to stream across Iraq's unguarded borders. (4) Failure to manage the chaos in the aftermath of the invasion Some of the first signs that the U.S. lacked adequate troops were the pictures of Iraqis rioting and looting in several key cities immediately following the invasion. Rumsfeld dismissed the chaos as a symbol of ``freedom and democracy,'' simply saying ``stuff happens.'' Sadly, it demonstrated to all Iraqis that American military resources were limited. This shortage of U.S. troops also resulted in a failure to secure munition dumps and small arms that were stashed throughout the country. The insurgency was able to thrive through access to these munitions and weapons caches, and many American troops have been killed or injured from bombs or RPGs that could have been secured in the initial invasion, had we had enough troops. (5) Failure to stop abuse and torture One of the greatest stains on America's reputation that will come out of the war effort is our failure to properly protect the rights of those detained by our military. While most of our men and women have served honorably, it is clear that the Pentagon allowed a culture of abuse to develop in prisons such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Camp Nama. Yet despite the clear evidence of detainee abuse, no high-level official has been held accountable for these actions. (6) Failure to maintain military readiness The Iraq war has taken a significant toll on the state and preparedness of our military. Our armed forces are stretched thin; our men and women in uniform overburdened. Last month, the Marine Corps was forced to issue call-up orders for 2,500 from its Individual Ready Reserve the first time it has had to do so since the war started. Top Army commanders have suggested that two-thirds of all Army brigades do not meet the necessary state of readiness, and National Guard chief, LTG Steven Blum, estimates that two-thirds of the National Guard cannot even be deployed today. Equipment is fast wearing out. It is estimated that the Army and Marines will need a combined $75 billion over the next 5 years for maintenance, repair, and replacement alone. As a result of failed policies under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, we may well end up with a broken force and an Iraq held captive by civil war. There must be a change in course and a change in those who have managed the war effort. This is critical if we want to have any chance for success in Iraq. Just last week, Secretary Rumsfeld employed truly shameful rhetoric by comparing those who have criticized the Iraq War with those who ``appease[d]'' the Nazis in the run-up to World War II. In the speech at the American Legion conference in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld stated: Once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism but some seem not to have learned history's lessons. Questioning the patriotism of those who might not support the war, he said: The struggle we are in is too important the consequences too severe to have the luxury of returning to the ``blame America first'' mentality. These baseless, partisan attacks are simply over-the-top and are being used to fill a gaping vacuum created by the lack of a successful plan for Iraq. It is clear to me that this administration, led by the President and Secretary Rumsfeld, has been wrong at almost every turn. Still, Secretary Rumsfeld remains in place, despite a growing number of bipartisan calls for the President to replace him. Consequently, I believe that now is the time for the Senate to assert its oversight role and move forward with a vote of no-confidence. Ultimately, it is true that President Bush is responsible for the failures in Iraq, but no Bush administration official was closer to the war planning than Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld was and remains the chief architect of the strategy and policy in Iraq. Consequently, it is time for President Bush to ask for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation and pursue a course correction under new Pentagon leadership. There must be accountability for the disastrous policy pursued in Iraq. It is time to bring in a new team to run our military. Secretary Rumsfeld must step down. Our men and women in uniform deserve better.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont and myself, I offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill to address a humanitarian issue that I have actually thought a great deal about over a long period of time; that is, the use of the cluster bomb. The human death toll and injury from these weapons is felt every day, going back decades. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off. I believe we need to take a look at our policies and adjust them. Specifically, our amendment would prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees. Every year, hundreds of civilians are killed and many more are injured due to unexploded cluster bombs. From the fields of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, through the streets of Kosovo and Iraq, to the arid hills of Afghanistan and the playgrounds of Lebanon, these lethal relics of war continue to cripple life, hope, and peace. Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor, covering approximately a .6-mile radius. In other words, their swath is over one-half mile. Yet in practice they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. They end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping. They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play. They end up in homes where families live. And in some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended. This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball. Children outside with their friends and relatives come across these cluster bombs. They pick them up out of curiosity because they look like balls and they start playing with them and a terrible result follows. On March 25, 2003, Abdallah Yaqoob, whose picture is behind me, was sleeping on his bed in his family's home in Basra, Iraq, when he was hit with shrapnel from a cluster munitions strike in his neighborhood. He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely injured. Abdallah was hit by a British L20A1/M85 munition. Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground-launched submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003. The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel through his body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs. This is a photo of an unexploded M42 cluster submunition found on a barbed-wire fence in southern Lebanon in August 2006. You can see the size of the bomblet. Right next to it is a small pinecone. So this is a small munition hanging on a piece of barbed wire. These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, landmines. Instead of targeting troop formations and enemy armor, unexploded bomblets target innocent civilians, seriously maiming or killing their victims. This runs counter to our values, and I believe it also runs counter to the laws of war. Make no mistake, the impact of unexploded cluster bombs on civilian populations has been devastating. This first came to my attention in Laos, many years ago. In Laos today, there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster bombs, leftovers from our bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured since the war ended. In the first gulf war, 61,000 cluster bombs were used, containing 20 million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500. In Afghanistan in 2001, over 1,228 cluster bombs with almost a quarter of a million bomblets were used. Between October 2001 and November 2002, that year, 127 civilians were killed, 70 percent of them under the age of 18. In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with 2 million bomblets were used. Combining the first and second gulf war, the total number of unexploded bomblets in the region today is 1.2 million. How many people will die? Already, an estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1991 because they innocently picked up one of these bomblets. What gives rise in part to my amendment are recent developments in Lebanon over alleged use of cluster bombs. Throughout southern Lebanon, more than 405 cluster bomb sites containing approximately 100,000 unexploded bomblets have been discovered. Each site covers a radius of 220 yards. As Lebanese children and families return to their homes and begin to rebuild, they will be exposed to the danger of these unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble. Thirteen people, including three young children, have been killed so far, and 48 injured. One United Nations official estimates that the rate of unexploded bomblets is 40 percent. So far, more than 2,000 unexploded bomblets have been destroyed, but it will take 12 to 15 months to complete the effort. Let me say that I join the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon, David Shearer, in calling on Israel to provide information on where the cluster bombs were used. Such information is vital to speed up the cleanup process and save lives. We have called the State Department. We have asked for information about the conditions for the sale of cluster munitions to Israel, and we have not been able to get that information. It seems to me that information should be readily available and transparent, particularly to the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. The State Department is currently looking into charges that the cluster bombs found in south Lebanon were American made--I do not know that they were--and that they were used in violation of agreements between the United States and Israel. I do not know that they were, but I think we should know, and I think we should not cloak ourselves with ignorance. I am hopeful that this inquiry will be completed as soon as possible and the findings reported to the Congress. If there are violations, there should be consequences. Looking at these figures, it is clear that several countries are awash with unexploded bomblets--Laos, 7 to 27 million; Iraq, 1.2 million; and then Lebanon, 100,000. Some say: Why should we be doing this? I have always believed that this country stands for justice, it stands for right, and it has a moral compass. I believe the use of these weapons in civilian areas should be stopped. I also know that there is a dud rate--in other words, a rate at which point these bomblets do not explode. I ask this question: How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in those countries where we leave behind such deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill young children? How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, ensuring electricity and water supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs? They remind innocent civilians that it was America that launched these weapons in populated areas; that it was America that failed to take the necessary steps to protect them from unexploded bombs by demanding a low failure rate; and it was America that failed to remove, expeditiously, unexploded bombs. Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment and make security stabilization and reconstruction efforts that much harder. It is not just a humanitarian problem, it is also a military problem. By showering targets with cluster bombs, we ensure that our own personnel will face thousands of unexploded bombs as they move forward. This forces them to change course. It slows the mission. During the Iraq war, U.S. troops fired 6 rockets containing 4,000 bomblets to eliminate 1 artillery piece in a civilian neighborhood. With a 16-percent failure rate, approximately 640 unexploded bomblets were left behind. That is 1 artillery piece--6 rockets, 4,000 bomblets, and today 640 unexploded bomblets on the streets. As an August 2003 Wall Street Journal article noted, ``Unexploded bomblets render significant swaths of battlefield off-limits to advancing U.S. troops.'' In fact, during the first gulf war, unexploded cluster munitions killed 22 of our own military. That was 6 percent of the total U.S. fatalities, and it injured 58. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen recognized the threat cluster bombs pose to civilians as well as our troops. He issued a memorandum which became known as the Cohen policy. It stated that beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster bomblets would have a failure rate of less than 1 percent. This was an important step forward, but we must remember that we still have 5.5 million cluster bombs containing 728.5 million bomblets. That means we are still prepared to use an enormous number of cluster bombs that have significant failure rates--some estimate as high as 40 percent. Out of the 728.5 million cluster submunitions, only 30,900 have self- destruct devices that would ensure a less than 1 percent so-called dud or unexploded failure rate. Those submunitions account for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. total. The Pentagon has stated that cluster bomblets with failure rates of more than 1 percent ``will remain in the Department's inventory until used or until they have reached their extended life and are demilitarized.'' That is pretty clear information that we are going to continue to use them. I think that is wrong. In fact, by fiscal year 2011, the United States will still possess 480 million old cluster munitions with significant failure rates. The latest Pentagon study on cluster bombs cite failure rates of 2 to 6 percent for the entire U.S. arsenal. Other studies, however, including one by the GAO, found failure rates as high as 16 percent. U.S. marines in Karbala, Iraq, in 2003 believe the failure rate in some places was as high as 40 percent. But even if you accept the conservative estimate of the Pentagon report, if the United States used its entire arsenal of cluster bombs, we would leave 27 million unexploded bomblets somewhere in the world. And a 16-percent failure rate would equal 117 million unexploded bomblets, and a 40-percent failure rate would equal 300 million unexploded bomblets. Where am I going with all this? Think about it. Three hundred million unexploded bomblets spread from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, southern Lebanon, wherever it may be, and those bomblets remain there decade after decade until somebody picks them up. And then that somebody is either killed or maimed for life. I ask you: Is this the legacy we want to leave behind in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is this the legacy Israel wants to leave behind in Lebanon? Or is this the legacy anyone that manufactures and sells these munitions want to leave behind? There are steps we can take to ensure a failure rate of less than 1 percent. And the Pentagon isn't going to do it. But at a cost of between $8 and $15, a self-destruct device can be added to cluster submunitions that destroy these munitions if, in fact, they survive intact. The Pentagon has argued that adding this device is cost prohibitive. And it may well be. The amendment of Senator Leahy and myself does not address this issue. I would like simply to end by reading the amendment. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated population of civilians. Is that too much to ask? That if you are going to use a cluster munition which spews bomblets for a half mile that you be certain these are not going to be used in a civilian area? I think the answer is clearly is no. I hope the Senate will see fit to agree to this amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4882.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the COMPETE Act of 2006, along with Senators Collins and Cornyn. This is a bill which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow certain minor league athletes and ice skaters to be admitted temporarily into the United States to compete or perform in an athletic league, competition or performance under the same non-immigrant visa category as professional athletes. The purpose of this legislation is to level the playing field for minor league sports teams that depend on getting the best athletic talent, regardless of where in the world that talent is discovered. Under current law, minor league players and ice skaters who use the H-2B temporary visa category face severe visa shortages, while major league players qualify for uncapped P-1 temporary visas. This unfair discrepancy in the law needs to be remedied, and the bill we are introducing today provides a commonsense solution because it allows minor league athletes--whether in baseball, basketball, hockey, or ice skating--who will perform competitively in the United States to apply for a P-1 temporary visa as opposed to an H-2B visa. By way of background, The H-2B temporary visa category allows U.S. employers in industries with seasonal or intermittent needs to augment their existing labor force with temporary workers or augment their labor force when necessary due to a one-time occurrence which necessitates a temporary increase in workers. Typically, H-2B workers fill labor needs in occupational areas such as construction, health care, landscaping, lumber, manufacturing, food service and processing, and resort and hospitality services. Additionally, and perhaps what people do not know, is that not only is the H-2B visa category used by loggers, lifeguards, crab pickers, amusement park employees, hotel and restaurant employees, but it is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes who are recruited by U.S. teams and theatrical ice skating productions. A chronic H-28 visa shortage over the last 3 years has posed challenges for all industries using the H-2B visa category. In fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, the 66,000 visa cap has been reached, leaving American teams and the athletes they are recruiting out in the cold. The COMPETE Act is a solution that not only helps professional American teams, but it also relieves the stress on the H-2B visa program added by a misclassified group. The reality is that minor league athletes do not belong in the same visa category as seasonal workers. There is no reason major league athletes can't and shouldn't qualify for P-1 visas, which are granted to talented athletes, artists, and entertainers. The COMPETE Act would remedy this unfair situation. What follows are some examples of how classifying minor leaguers and ice skaters as H-2B workers harms American sports and how it would be better that they be reclassified as other athletes for temporary P-1 visas. Disney on Ice has seven domestic tours per year, bringing approximately $400,000 to each of the 150 to 170 U.S. cities in which it stops. There are not enough U.S. skaters to fill the roles each production requires, thus the organization relies on foreign skaters to supplement its cast. As the cap on H-28 visas has been consistently reached before the commencement of their training period--(August in Florida--and subsequent touring seasons--September through February or March--they are often short of ice skaters for their productions. Major League Baseball was unable to bring 350 baseball players to the United States in the 2004 and 2005 seasons as a result of the H-28 visa cap having been met. Promotions of promising young players to the U.S. Minor League affiliates could not be made. Due to the unavailability of visas, signings of Canadian players drafted in baseball's June first- year player draft have declined by 80 percent. Furthermore, clubs who have already signed talented non-U.S. citizens have been prevented from bringing these players to the United States given that the H-2B cap has been reached in past years. National Hockey League recruits from independent minor league teams, such as the American Hockey League, Central Hockey League, and the East Coast Hockey League, for foreign players to fill its ranks. Most minor hockey league teams' rosters are filled with a majority of foreign national professional athletes. This is evident by the number of slots that are requested each year by the minor leagues on their temporary labor certification applications filed with the Labor Department. For instance, the AHL requests approximately 21 player slots out of a roster of approximately 26 players; the other leagues are similarly situated where the number of requests for slots on temporary labor certifications is usually in the ballpark of 80 percent of the roster. Further, hockey leagues usually have a few if not more clubs that are located in Canada. Of course these players do not need H-2Bs to play for a Canadian team, but in the event that they are traded during the season to a U.S. team, the acquiring team would have to file an H-2B. This frequently presents problems when the numbers have been exhausted as the trade becomes dependent upon the availability of a visa number and not the professional needs of the team. In addition, players are signed throughout the season; this can also prevent teams from signing players if the numbers have been exhausted. This is particularly true at the end of the season--usually March or April 1--when the numbers have been exhausted and the need to sign players for playoffs and finals increases. National Basketball Association created a developmental league in 2001. The NBA Development League, or D-League, has functioned both as a feeder system for the NBA, whose teams annually call up players to fill out NBA rosters beginning in January and, commencing with the 2005-06 season, as a place where inexperienced NBA Players, within their first two seasons, may be assigned to get additional playing time. The D- League, currently comprised of 12 teams across the country, signs and recruits the best basketball athletes from around the world who are not playing in the NBA. On average, international players comprise approximately 10 percent of active D-League rosters, which currently stand at 10 players per team. The H-2B cap has prevented the D-League from being able to sign a significant number of qualified international players during each of the past two seasons. So a simple, commonsense solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. This is what the COMPETE Act would do. Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, and Feld Entertainment, which owns Disney on Ice, all support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include minor league players and ice skaters. Americans love their sports teams and want to see the highest caliber athletes competing or performing. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill rather than visa availability. In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-28 visa category making more of those visas available to the industries that need them. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins and Cornyn, as well as Mikulski, Leahy, and Lieberman, in introducing the COMPETE Act of 2006.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco. Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study mass communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her. Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning. The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats's nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband. Four days before Mr. Coats's death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported. Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to. . . . I've been here 4 years. . . . It would be like starting a new life.'' Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats's seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving. . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.'' The San Francisco and bay area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats's right to remain in the country. Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years. I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.'' I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death. For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats. I also ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this bill will allow two California counties, Ventura and Merced, to provide health care to Medi-Cal beneficiaries through the model they have determined best meets their communities' needs. This legislation allows Merced and Ventura to establish community operated health systems, COHS, and raises the percentage of Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are enrolled in these programs from 16 percent to 18 percent. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.