Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is based on the simple fairness principle that you should pay for what you get, no more and no less. In this case California water districts have been paying for years for conveyance capacity on the Folsom South Canal that they do not use. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled, reimbursable costs of California's Central Valley Project, CVP, the capital costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. Congressman Lungren has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. In 1970, two CVP contractors signed contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation to take water from the Folsom South Canal, which had yet to be built. The canal diverts water out of Lake Natomas, a regulating reservoir immediately downstream of Reclamation's Folsom Reservoir, to areas in southern Sacramento County. The canal was originally designed to incorporate five ``reaches''--or sections--and deliver water to southern Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, and to the San Francisco Bay area. Because the planned East Side Division irrigation project was never constructed, the anticipated deliveries through the Folsom South Canal never materialized. Only two reaches of the canal were constructed, and those are dramatically overbuilt. In a departure from normal reclamation policy, which dictates that signed contracts are required prior to construction of projects, signed contracts were not obtained. The canal was built with the capacity to deliver 2.5 million acre- feet of water per year, but the only entity currently diverting water through the canal--the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD--has only diverted a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet per year. In short, a significantly oversized canal has been used to deliver a very small quantity of water. Under reclamation policy, the agency allocates the capital costs of the canal to the pool of all CVP municipal and industrial water--M&I-- users regardless of whether they divert water through the Folsom South Canal. There are 32 M&I customers that are paying for the canal, including SMUD, Sacramento County Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District and Contra Costa Water District. Today, only SMUD diverts any water through the canal, albeit only about 8 percent of the canal's capacity; the other customers have little or no benefit to the project that they fund. This inequity is difficult to explain to ratepayers that are already burdened with replacing aging infrastructure and upgrading water treatment technologies. My legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from those pooled reimbursable costs of the CVP, the costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. While final deferral calculations will be performed by reclamation as directed by this bill, it is estimated that this bill will result in a deferral of approximately $35 million excess capacity costs. The concept of deferring costs is not unique to the Folsom South Canal. Congress has authorized deferrals for other elements of the CVP and in other reclamation projects. Even though there are many instances where customers pay for unused capacity, there are no instances that come close to approaching the absurd inequity of being forced to pay for a canal that is producing 8 percent of what reclamation promised it would deliver. Should the amount of CVP water conveyed through the Folsom South Canal change in the future, this bill includes a provision directing Interior to review the change and adjust the deferred costs accordingly for unused capacity. I strongly believe this deferral is the correct approach to this issue. Reclamation made the decision to oversize this canal based on future planned expansions--expansions that did not materialize. The water districts that use the existing canal for limited conveyances should not pay for the consequences of public policy decisions that resulted in a significantly oversized canal. Water districts should pay for the canal conveyance capacity that they use--I think this is a fairness principle that we can all accept. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Sessions to introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation protects the safety of consumers who wish to purchase prescription drugs over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies. Just a few weeks ago, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a DOJ Oversight hearing. In discussing the Department's priorities, he singled out how ``the purchase of ... controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet is of great concern.'' He noted how the Internet's wide accessibility and anonymity ``give drug abusers the ability to circumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice, a[s] they dispense potentially dangerous controlled pharmaceuticals.'' With ``no identifying... information on these Web sites, it is very difficult for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind them.'' I believe this bill will address many of these problems that the Attorney General has identified. To understand how many of these Internet pharmacy Web sites exist, just visit any Internet search engine. Type in the name of any controlled substance or prescription drug. Several Web sites will appear, offering to sell you these drugs without a prescription and without a medical examination. Some of these Web sites simply ask patients to send copies of medical records, with no verification of their validity. Patients use these pharmacies to obtain addictive drugs, like Vicodin and Oxycontin. They can receive prescription medications like Viagra without a doctor performing a physical exam to ensure that an underlying health condition will not cause a dangerous side effect. At the same time, receiving medications from a legitimate, licensed Internet pharmacy is one of the new conveniences ushered in by the Internet age. This bill preserves the ability of well-run pharmacies and well-intentioned patients to access prescription drugs and controlled substances by means of the Internet. This legislation imposes basic, commonsense requirements on an industry that presents both promise and peril. First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies. Second, this bill prohibits an Internet pharmacy from dispensing or selling a prescription drug or controlled substance without an in- person examination by a physician. Third, it allows a State attorney general to bring a civil action in Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operating in violation of the law and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law. The disclosure requirements contained in this bill will allow patients to differentiate between shady offshore pharmacies, and legitimate licensed ones. Under this legislation, pharmacies must clearly disclose the name and address of the pharmacy, contact information for the pharmacist-in-charge, and a list of States in which the pharmacy is licensed to operate. They must also clearly post a statement that they comply with the requirements in this legislation. The bill states pharmacies can dispense to patients only if they have a valid prescription from a practitioner who has performed an in-person examination. This requirement will ensure that doctors can verify the health status of a patient and ensure that the drug he or she will receive from the pharmacy is medically appropriate. This legislation recognizes that in the case of an emergency, a patient may not always be able to see his or her typical physician. For that reason, it allows a doctor to designate a covering practitioner to write a valid prescription if he or she is not available. Finally, this bill contains real penalties to hold accountable those who continue to operate pharmacies in violation of these requirements. First, for Internet sales of prescription drugs and controlled substances, the bill makes clear that such activities are subject to the current Federal laws against illegal distributions and the same penalties applicable to hand-to-hand sales. Second, the bill increases the penalties for illegal distributions of controlled substances categorized by the DEA as schedule III, IV and V substances, with new penalties if death or serious bodily injury results and longer periods of supervised release available after convictions. The bill also allows a State's attorney general to file a Federal motion to stop these pharmacies from operating illegally, no matter where the entity is headquartered. Previously, this type of enforcement would require a filing in every State. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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. 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. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is based on the simple fairness principle that you should pay for what you get, no more and no less. In this case California water districts have been paying for years for conveyance capacity on the Folsom South Canal that they do not use. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled, reimbursable costs of California's Central Valley Project, CVP, the capital costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. Congressman Lungren has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. In 1970, two CVP contractors signed contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation to take water from the Folsom South Canal, which had yet to be built. The canal diverts water out of Lake Natomas, a regulating reservoir immediately downstream of Reclamation's Folsom Reservoir, to areas in southern Sacramento County. The canal was originally designed to incorporate five ``reaches''--or sections--and deliver water to southern Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, and to the San Francisco Bay area. Because the planned East Side Division irrigation project was never constructed, the anticipated deliveries through the Folsom South Canal never materialized. Only two reaches of the canal were constructed, and those are dramatically overbuilt. In a departure from normal reclamation policy, which dictates that signed contracts are required prior to construction of projects, signed contracts were not obtained. The canal was built with the capacity to deliver 2.5 million acre- feet of water per year, but the only entity currently diverting water through the canal--the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD--has only diverted a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet per year. In short, a significantly oversized canal has been used to deliver a very small quantity of water. Under reclamation policy, the agency allocates the capital costs of the canal to the pool of all CVP municipal and industrial water--M&I-- users regardless of whether they divert water through the Folsom South Canal. There are 32 M&I customers that are paying for the canal, including SMUD, Sacramento County Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District and Contra Costa Water District. Today, only SMUD diverts any water through the canal, albeit only about 8 percent of the canal's capacity; the other customers have little or no benefit to the project that they fund. This inequity is difficult to explain to ratepayers that are already burdened with replacing aging infrastructure and upgrading water treatment technologies. My legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from those pooled reimbursable costs of the CVP, the costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. While final deferral calculations will be performed by reclamation as directed by this bill, it is estimated that this bill will result in a deferral of approximately $35 million excess capacity costs. The concept of deferring costs is not unique to the Folsom South Canal. Congress has authorized deferrals for other elements of the CVP and in other reclamation projects. Even though there are many instances where customers pay for unused capacity, there are no instances that come close to approaching the absurd inequity of being forced to pay for a canal that is producing 8 percent of what reclamation promised it would deliver. Should the amount of CVP water conveyed through the Folsom South Canal change in the future, this bill includes a provision directing Interior to review the change and adjust the deferred costs accordingly for unused capacity. I strongly believe this deferral is the correct approach to this issue. Reclamation made the decision to oversize this canal based on future planned expansions--expansions that did not materialize. The water districts that use the existing canal for limited conveyances should not pay for the consequences of public policy decisions that resulted in a significantly oversized canal. Water districts should pay for the canal conveyance capacity that they use--I think this is a fairness principle that we can all accept. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I share my home State colleague's support for the great work the Northern California Institute for Research and Education is doing on behalf of our veterans. NCIRE was founded in 1988 to administer research at the San Francisco VA Medical Center. It is the largest of over 90 nonprofit research institutes associated with the VA. It is also designated as a Department of Defense Center of Excellence in Neuroscience and Neuroimaging for its work benefiting our more recent veterans, including gulf war illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurotrauma and closed-head injury resulting from combat. The Neuroscience Center of Excellence is the VA's premier research instrument for neurodegenerative diseases and brings together VA and Defense resources to conduct medical research in the areas most important for our active military and veterans. Research in neuroimaging, neuropsychiatry and basic neuroscience is targeted at diagnosis, prevention and management of neurodegenerative diseases, brain and spinal cord injuries, and neuropsychiatric disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder. In the near future, NCIRE will be working to enhance high-resolution imaging strategies to predict and prevent combat-related damage to the brain and the nervous system, expand neuropsychiatric studies into PTSD, and understanding of vulnerabilities to PTSD and its effect on combat performance. I would note that the House version of this bill provides $4 million for the Neuroscience Center of Excellence's research in neuroimaging and neuropsychiatric trauma in U.S. warfighters. I understand the chairman's concern about the growth of health research spending in this bill, but would point out that this facility is designated as a DoD Center of Excellence. I look forward to working with Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye as we go to conference. It is my hope that we can work together to support this important funding provided in the House version of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Kyl amendment dealing with royalty relief. The amendment would put an end to the Federal Government giving the oil and gas industry incentives to drill when oil and natural gas prices are high. The amendment includes a provision that Senator Gregg and I successfully included in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill that would fix an administrative error that was made in 1998 and 1999. This provision also passed the House by a vote of 252 to 165. In 1998 and 1999, the Department of Interior inadvertently omitted price thresholds from contracts entered into with oil and gas companies. This omission has allowed oil companies to produce in Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico for free while consumers are paying $3 a gallon at the pump. And it will cost American taxpayers $10 billion over the next 25 years. Essentially, the amendment provides energy companies with a choice: They can keep their existing leases royalty-free if they so choose, but be barred from bidding on a new lease, or agree to renegotiate the terms of the existing lease and be free to bid on new leases. In my view, the oil companies do not need incentives at a time when they are making record profits. Just last week, the companies reported their second quarter profits, and again, they hit new records. ExxonMobil made $10.36 billion in the second quarter of 2006; that is almost $3 billion more than they made in the second quarter of 2005. Shell reported a second quarter profit of $7.32 billion--more than $2 billion greater than their second quarter profit in 2005. And BP's profits were $7.27 billion, or just less than $2 billion greater than their second quarter 2005 profits. The oil companies themselves have said that they do not need royalty relief. At the Joint Energy and Natural Resources and Committee hearing on November 9, 2005, the oil executives were asked by Senator Wyden: Gentlemen, the President says and I quote ``With $55 oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.'' Now today the price of oil is above $55 per barrel. Is the President wrong when he says we don't need incentives for oil and gas exploration? All responded that they did not need incentives. In addition, a lawyer for Shell Oil, Michael Coney, recently told the New York Times: Under the current environment, we don't need royalty relief. The amendment passed by the House and by the Senate Appropriations Committee has spurred oil companies to admit publicly that they would be willing to renegotiate their leases to include a price threshold. But without congressional pressure, there is no reason for them to actually do it. We need to hold their feet to the fire in order to make sure the leases are really renegotiated. I just want to take a minute to focus on the issues that the oil companies have raised in opposition to this amendment: First, they raised the issue that foreign companies were going to take over production in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Regulations implementing the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act state that ``Mineral leases issued pursuant to the Act . . . may be only held by Citizens and Nationals of the United States . . . or private, public or municipal corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or of the District of Columbia or territory thereof . . .'' Secondly, the oil companies have argued that the amendment will hurt oil and gas production. In fact, the amendment will not impact the daily production of more than 1.5 million barrels of oil and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico. Oil companies are also free to explore and drill in the more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico that have already been leased to them. The amendment simply prohibits oil companies that fail to renegotiate existing royalty-free leases from obtaining new ones. Finally, and most importantly, the oil companies say that the amendment attacks the sanctity of contracts. And the oil companies couldn't be more wrong on this point. CRS has issued two papers now stating that the amendment is constitutional. Specifically, CRS says ``the amendment's incentive to renegotiate . . . gives the government side a classic argument that there is no taking here: the decision of a . . . leaseholder to renegotiate is voluntary, and voluntary actions cannot be the basis of a taking claim.'' In addition, CRS shows that case law supports the fact that amendment does not violate contracts. The courts have determined that if there is no legal compulsion, the voluntary compromise of a property right in exchange for an economic benefit is not a taking. And I would like to reiterate--the amendment offers energy companies a choice: compromise a property right--exemption from payment of royalties--in exchange for a possible economic benefit--ability to bid on new OCS leases. This amendment is not a taking, because the government is not taking any property right from the oil companies; it is merely offering an incentive to renegotiate their leases--an incentive that the oil companies are free to decline. We should not be giving away this oil and gas for free while consumers are paying record high prices to fuel their cars and heat their homes, and oil companies are making record profits. Unless we act to force the companies to renegotiate the leases, taxpayers are going to be left holding the bill for $10 billion. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S. 3711, which will allow drilling in the gulf and create a new revenue-sharing scheme to provide additional resources for the Gulf States. Let me first say that I am not opposed to drilling in the gulf. In fact, in 2001, I voted to open a portion of the gulf, known as lease sale 181, to drilling. That vote was a codification of the agreement between former President Clinton and the former Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles. Yet the agreement was repudiated after President Bush came into office and reduced the amount of acreage that could be drilled in the Gulf of Mexico at the request of Florida's Governor Jeb Bush. In fact, I rise today in opposition to this bill not because it opens up areas of the Gulf to drilling, but because it protects the west coast of Florida from drilling until 2022--10 years beyond the current Presidential moratorium, while providing no additional protections for California's coast. California should be accorded the same protection as Florida gets in this bill. An oilspill would scar our coastline, costing billions of dollars and destroying vulnerable marine ecosystems. In addition, a healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Our State's Ocean-dependent industries are estimated to generate $17 billion of revenue each year. That is why Californians continue to be nearly united in their opposition to drilling off the coast. Today, 64 percent of Californians oppose drilling, and the number of Californians opposing drilling off our coast has only grown. The opposition to drilling off of California's coast dates back more than 30 years. In 1972, California voters passed a citizen-initiated proposition which created the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, charged with developing a statewide plan for protecting the State's coastal resources. In the years that have followed, 17 cities and 9 counties have passed voter-approved ordinances opposing oil drilling. In 1994, the California Legislature passed a bill that prohibited the extraction of oil and gas in State waters. Every year since the passage of this law, the State legislature has passed joint resolutions opposing oil drilling off the California coast. The Governor, the California Resources Secretary, the Secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Lieutenant Governor, have all been on record supporting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing activities off the coast of California. Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean Protection Council, has in fact stated: Any pending federal legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium and should seek to make these protections permanent. Governor Schwarzenegger has sent a letter to every Senator expressing his ``opposition to any measure that would weaken the national oil and gas leasing moratorium that has been protecting the California coast for the last 25 years.'' I will ask that the Governor's letter be printed in the Record. This bill cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would lift the current moratoria that exists for the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Congressman Pombo, a key sponsor of the House bill, has said that the House will not accept the Senate bill. Congressman Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said on Wednesday, July 26, that ``we would certainly encourage--the Senate--to go broader'' than allowing drilling in the gulf. Without a concrete commitment from the House leaders that they will take up the Senate bill and pass it without amendment, I cannot support this bill. I would also like to express my disappointment that we have been denied an opportunity to offer amendments to this bill. First, I believe we need a vote on an amendment I have cosponsored, authored by Senator Menendez, which would extend the moratoria for the Pacific and Atlantic coasts through 2022. For California, this would extend the Federal moratorium by 10 years as it is set to expire in 2012. This amendment would provide the same protections to California as the underlying bill does for Florida. In so doing, the amendment would reliably protect the California coast by enacting a long-term legislative moratorium. But we will not be allowed to consider this, or any other amendments that would promote energy efficiency and new energy technologies. With oil prices at $75 per barrel, and natural gas almost $7 per million Btus, we need real fixes to our energy problems. Unfortunately, the underlying bill is not going to fix this nation's energy problems. I have also filed an amendment, with the bipartisan support of Senators Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, Inouye, Collins, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Boxer, Menendez, Lieberman, and Reed to increase fuel economy standards by 10 miles per gallon in 10 years. Not only is this technologically feasible to do today, the proposal would also save more oil in just over 1 year than the underlying bill will generate. Specifically, this amendment would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2025, the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf every day. That translates into 912.5 million barrels of oil per year, or just less than the 1.25 billion barrels that the underlying bill would generate. Increasing fuel economy standards would also prevent 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, or the equivalent of taking 90 million cars--or 75 million cars and light trucks--off the road in 1 year. Perhaps most importantly, though, the bill would save consumers as much as $2,500 over the life of a vehicle. So if we are serious about bringing down the cost of gasoline at the pump, this amendment would be considered and adopted by the Senate. And if we want to have a real impact on natural gas prices, we would be promoting energy efficiency. California has proven that energy efficiency works--through the most aggressive energy efficiency policies in the Nation, the State has kept its per capita energy use flat while the rest of the Nation's energy use has increased by 50 percent. That is why Senator Snowe and I wanted to offer an amendment on tax incentives for consumers to install the most energy efficient technologies in both residential and commercial buildings. While proponents of the underlying bill say that lease sale 181 and 181 south will provide 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, our amendment would save 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In other words, we can save more natural gas through the Snowe-Feinstein energy efficiency tax incentive package than from lease sale 181 and 181 south combined. I also have significant fiscal concerns with the underlying bill. While I commend Senator Landrieu for shepherding a proposal through the Senate that will generously benefit her State, I have concerns about the cost of the proposal. According to estimates, the bill will cost the Treasury approximately $20 billion from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2055. This bill creates a new permanent Federal entitlement for just four States that could cost the Federal Treasury $12-15 billion per year in 2056 and every year thereafter. At a time this Nation is facing a mounting national debt of $8.4 trillion and a crushing Federal deficit of $300 billion, we should not be creating a new entitlement program for four States that could cost us hundreds of billions of dollars over the next century. We are already struggling to meet our long-term commitments and face a looming entitlement crisis as baby boomers retire, straining the already overextended Social Security and Medicare systems. For all these reasons, I am going to vote no on cloture and no on the bill. Before I close, though, Mr. President, I would like to say that Senator Landrieu has been a tireless advocate for her constituents. I had hoped to support her in her efforts to restore coastal Louisiana. Unfortunately, though, given the potential for a bill to come back that would threaten California's coast, I must vote against this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Governors letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of legislation to renew the ban on all imports from Burma for another year. The House unanimously passed this bill earlier this month and I urge the Senate to follow suit today. This bill amends the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to allow the sanctions to be renewed, 1 year at a time, for up to 6 years. Simply put, the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council has done nothing over the past 3 years to warrant a lifting of the sanctions. It has failed miserably to make ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards recognition of the 1990 elections--decisively won by Aung San Suu Ky's National League for Democracy--and a full restoration of representative government. If we vote to lift the sanctions prematurely, we will only reward Rangoon for its rejection of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Let us review the facts. Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, is confined to her home by orders of the military junta. She recently celebrated her 61st birthday under house arrest and on June 9, 2006, her detention was renewed for another year. She has spent the better part of the past 16 years imprisoned or under house arrest. The human rights situation in Burma is deplorable and demands a clear, unified response from the international community: 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail; according to a report by the Asian human rights group, Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, 127 democracy activists have been tortured to death since 1988; 70,000 child soldiers have been forcibly recruited; the practice of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by the Burmese military; use of forced labor is widespread; human trafficking is rampant; and the government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine. Given this substantial list of abuses, it is no surprise that a recent report by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and retired archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa--``Threat to Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act on Burma''--confirms the need for United Nations intervention. It details how the situation in Burma fulfills each of the criteria used for past intervention by the Security Council: overthrow of an elected government; armed conflicts with ethnic minorities; widespread human right violations; outflow of refugees--over 700,000--and drug production and trafficking and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The report should be required reading for all members of the United Nations who doubt whether or not the Security Council should take up Burma immediately. Some may argue that because the sanctions have not achieved their desired goals--the release of Suu Kyi, the restoration of a free and democratic Burma--they should be terminated. I could not disagree more. First, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continue to support a ban on all imports from Burma. Second, the international community is coming together to put pressure on Burma: In July 2005, ASEAN forced Burma to forgo its scheduled rotation as chairman of the organization; on December 16, 2005, the U.N. Security Council debated the situation in Burma for the first time. Last month, the United Nations Under Secretary for Political Affairs briefed members of the Security Council on his meeting with Suu Kyi, her first meeting with a foreigner since 2004; a group of legislators from member countries strongly urged ASEAN last week to take concrete measures to resolve the political situation in Burma; Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, whose country currently chairs ASEAN, blasted Burma in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week for undermining the credibility of ASEAN by not moving closer to democracy. And, finally, I believe we are making progress on having a majority of the United Nations Security Council support adding Burma to the agenda of the Security Council for debate and possible passage of a binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma. By taking a leadership role on this issue, the United States has inspired other countries in the United Nations to put pressure on Burma to respect the wishes of its people and the international community to release Suu Kyi and restore a democratic, representative government. They have begun to recognize that--as the Havel-Tutu report documents--Burma's actions not only represent a threat to the rights and freedoms of the Burmese people, but to the region and international community as a whole. I strongly urge those members of the Security Council who have not done so to add their names to the growing list of countries who support adding Burma to the council's agenda. Passage of this legislation today will serve as another beacon of hope for the Burmese people and another example of leadership that will bring other countries to their side. I remind my colleagues that under the provisions of this legislation, we will have the opportunity to debate sanctions on Burma every year. That is how it should be. Sanctions are not a panacea for every foreign policy dispute. But, when they are backed by a robust international response, they can be effective and they can compel change. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has rightly said, ``As long as [Suu Kyi] remains under house arrest, not one of us is truly free''. Today, I urge the SPDC to release Aung San Suu Kyi, recognize the 1990 elections, and engage in a true dialogue with the National League for Democracy. I urge the United Nations Security Council to debate and pass a binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma that recognizes the threat the regime poses to the region and calls for Suu Kyi and all prisoners of conscience to be released. And, finally, I urge the Senate to renew the sanctions on Burma for another year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Child Custody Protection Act, which imposes criminal penalties on those who help transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion if she does not first meet the parental involvement requirements of her home State. My primary concern with this legislation is that it unnecessarily puts minors' health and well-being in danger. In addition, the language is so broadly written that it has the effect of harshly punishing those adult family members and loved ones who try to help a young woman in a time of need. In addition to criminalizing the actions intended to assist a young woman with a difficult decision, this bill would create a new civil action where parents can file a lawsuit against the individual assisting the minor this means relatives, teachers, other trusted adults as well as potentially the doctor, nurse or clinic staff all could face civil court action. As a mother and a grandmother, I would argue that, in a perfect world, young women and their parents should communicate openly about all major decisions, including whether to terminate a pregnancy. And, in fact, many young women do involve a parent in these decisions. However, the reality is that not all young women live in a household where they can turn to their parents. Some young women face physical, sexual or emotional abuse from their parents; some families do not have open, supporting relationships. For these young women, they may be more comfortable confiding in an older sister, aunt, or a grandparent. Yet this bill would turn these trusted relatives into criminals if they helped her seek an abortion. An unplanned pregnancy is upsetting at any age, and this legislation would deprive young women of support when they most need it. First and foremost, this bill flies in the face of accepted legal precedent. While it reflects a great deal of concern for potential harms and the violation of parents' rights, it ignores the legal rights of young women to choose safe medical care that protects their health. The legislation lacks an essential, constitutionally required exception in cases where the restriction it places on the ability of a young woman to get an abortion endangers her health. I am very concerned that once again language is being proposed that would omit this essential protection for women and girls. The bill provides some limited exceptions to its criminal and civil liability by allowing a sister, aunt, grandmother, or friend to help a girl cross a State border to get an abortion if her life was in danger. But it does not protect actions taken if her health was in danger. First of all, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that there must be protection for both the life and health of the mother. The Supreme Court has ruled time and again from Doe v. Bolton, 1973, to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, to Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000, that any law restricting access to abortion must contain an exception to protect a woman's health. Most recently, three Federal courts in California, New York, and Nebraska declared the partial birth abortion ban, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2003, unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. All three courts concluded that the law was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's health. This measure before the Senate today ignores these precedents and demonstrates a complete disregard for the health of young women. Secondly, in addition to being unconstitutional, this is bad public policy. If a girl turns to her sister to ask for help because she is having complications with a hidden pregnancy how are either of them going to know whether the complication is life threatening or not? Do we really want to create a situation where a girl's sister, aunt, grandmother or friend has to step into the shoes of a doctor and determine whether complications with a pregnancy are life threatening or face criminal and civil charges for helping her? This could occur even if the girl wants to continue her pregnancy but because of health complications cannot. Does Congress really want to say it is the best public policy to have young women and girls who are in traumatic situations not get medical assistance because it could result in an abortion for a non-life- threatening complication? Let's be clear, that is the impact of this legislation. I believe it is unconstitutional and bad public policy. A pregnant minor who feels she cannot confide in a parent is already left with few options. She can seek a judicial bypass. But few young women have the tools to navigate our complex legal system. The legal system is very difficult for the average adult to manage let alone a minor in an extremely difficult and vulnerable position. In addition, the legal system has demands that further restrict a girl's access; for instance, court hours are usually 9 to 5, requiring a young woman to miss school in order to appear in court. And many girls are reluctant to discuss such a personal decision that could involve traumatic experiences with a judge. She may delay her decision. However, an abortion that occurs later in her pregnancy will be more dangerous and complicated than one that occurs in the early stages of her pregnancy. She may opt to travel out of State, alone, undergoing a medical procedure with no family or friends there to support her. She may seek a dangerous and illegal abortion. A pregnant minor who cannot safely tell a parent about her situation faces enough obstacles. We do not need to criminalize well-intentioned assistance provided to her. I am also concerned that it is not only the young women making a deliberate choice not to tell a parent of an abortion who would suffer under this bill. Access to abortion is declining in this country, for women of all ages. Eighty-seven percent of counties no longer have a doctor who will perform an abortion. For many women, the most convenient provider is across State lines. An older sister or aunt accompanying a minor to the nearest provider may unwittingly become a criminal. Even if neither woman intended to evade parental consent laws, this act of family support would be criminalized. A grandmother or sister could have no idea that she is violating a Federal law when she helps a family member access legal medical care. But proponents of this legislation would like you to believe that this debate is not about young women who can no longer find a doctor who will provide full services in their home State. To them, this is not about the young women who, for whatever reason, need to look beyond a parent for adult support. While supporters of this bill are correctly horrified by stories of girls kidnapped by older boyfriends and forced into having abortions they did not want, this legislation does not create a limited solution to fix that problem. In fact, in many cases the actions in these circumstances are already illegal. Laws prohibit kidnapping. Laws prohibit statutory rape. Medical ethics require that physicians obtain informed consent from the patient before performing any medical procedure. People who violate these laws can already be prosecuted. I welcome a debate on policies that will crack down further on sexual predators who abuse young women. If there is a problem that current laws are not being enforced, then let's address that; if there is a problem that these laws are not strong enough, then let's address that, but let's not criminalize behavior of a loving family member, friend, or confidant who is trying to help a young girl in a traumatic time in her life. This bill is not about protecting vulnerable young women from crime. It is about limiting their access to a constitutionally protected medical procedure. This legislation does reflect a great deal of concern for potential harms and the violation of rights--of parents. Under this proposal, a parent has legal recourse if his or her supposed ``right'' to stop their daughter's abortion is violated. Parents can sue to collect damages. This bill, in fact, could create a situation in which a mother sues a grandmother for helping her granddaughter exercise her right to choose. Yet it leaves a young woman with no recourse for the violation of their right to seek and receive safe medical care of her choice. This legislation also runs counter to basic notions of federalism, linking a young woman to the law of her home State no matter where she may be living. No other State laws follow her to college or summer camp. In this country, State laws do not extend beyond State borders. When residents from my home State of California travel to Nevada for vacations, they are allowed to play the slot machines, even though gambling is illegal at home. There is no reason why laws should reach across State lines to restrict access to a safe and legal medical procedure. I wish this were a perfect world. I wish we could legislate that every child has a loving and stable parent to guide him or her through the trials of adolescence. I wish we could legislate that every family talk openly and honestly about the risks of sexual activity. But we cannot. Parental consent laws do not create these idealized families. Instead, they further burden those that are already troubled. A young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy in an unstable situation must be able to turn to another trusted adult--without the fear of subjecting the adult to Federal criminal liability. The very fact that we are having this debate is a clear demonstration of the leadership's misplaced priorities. They claim this is a women's health issue, a family values issue. We have only a few legislative days remaining this year. There are so many other problems we should be addressing. We should be debating ways to prevent these difficult situations from arising in the first place. We should be discussing policies that promote honest information about reproductive health and ready access to contraceptives. No teen should face an unplanned pregnancy. Those that do must not face it alone. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that endangers young women's health and turns their relatives into criminals.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the right of a citizen to vote is the most basic right in any democracy. At the signing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 in this very Capitol Rotunda, the President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, said these words: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a critical breakthrough in the struggle for civil rights. However, the Voting Rights Act, which came the next year, 1965, is considered the most important and successful civil rights law of the 20th century, because it finally ensured every voting-age citizen of this Nation a voice in his or her own fate. The passage of the 14th amendment in 1868 and the passage of the 15th amendment in 1870 both prohibited disenfranchisement on the basis of race. But in the absence of legislative protection for the right to vote, that right was systematically denied to millions of African Americans for nearly a century. Similarly, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Alaskan Natives were excluded from the ballot box through an assortment of voting tests and intimidation. We are all here today because of the courage and persistence of the civil rights leaders of the last century, who fought so long and hard to attain the franchise the Constitution had already granted them. Several of these heroes are memorialized in the title of this bill: Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Cesar Chavez. All of us owe them a debt of gratitude. On this day, I am also mindful of the contributions Californians have made in the civil rights battles. Let me share one story. On June 10, 1964, the Civil Rights Act was being filibustered on this very floor. No filibuster of a civil rights bill in the 20th century had ever been broken. Senator Claire Engle of California, who held the seat I now occupy, was suffering at the time from terminal brain cancer. He was wheeled in dramatic fashion into this Chamber. He was too sick to speak, but he indicated his ``aye'' vote for cloture by gesturing toward his eyes. His vote proved to be the decisive 67th vote that overcame the filibuster and ultimately led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Senator Engle died later that year. However, the filibuster was no longer an impassable barrier to civil rights legislation, and the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the following year. I thank my predecessor and I pay him tribute. In the last 50 years, California has often been ahead of the curve in guaranteeing voting rights. In 1961, California prohibited election day challenges based on literacy. In 1971, California required that a copy of the election ballot in Spanish be posted in each polling place, where the language minority population was greater than 3 percent. In 1973, California passed a law allowing the use of languages besides English in polling places and required county clerks to recruit bilingual deputy registrars and precinct board members. In 1975, California allowed voters to register to vote by mail. In 2001, California passed the California Voting Rights Act--the first State voting rights act in the Nation--to combat racial bloc voting. Unfortunately, however, the end of the 20th century did not mark the end of efforts to disenfranchise minority voters in my State and the Nation. Nevertheless, several provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire in August of 2007 if we don't take this action today. Two of the provisions set to expire are particularly significant. The first is section 5, which requires jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to clear any changes in voting procedures with the Department of Justice before instituting any change. The second is section 203, which requires language assistance for bilingual voters in jurisdictions with a large number of citizens for whom English is a second language. The section 5 so-called ``preclearance'' provision is critically important. I guess this is the section that has drawn the most comment on this reauthorization. It is important because it stops attempts to disenfranchise voters before they can start, not after they start. In the last decade, the Department of Justice has repeatedly struck down proposed changes to voting procedures under section 5 preclearance. This section has prevented the redrawing of municipal boundaries designed specifically to disenfranchise minority voters, blocked attempts to exclude minority candidates from the ballot, denied efforts to change methods of elections intended to dilute minority voting strength, kept polling places from being moved to locations that would have reduced minority voter turnout, and it has thrown out redistricting proposals that would have marginalized minority voters. Clearly, this section has served us well. In California, the rejection of a discriminatory redistricting plan in Monterey County under section 5 led to the first election of a Latino to the Monterey County Boards of Supervisors in more than 100 years. The most significant impact of section 5, I believe, is not from its enforcement mechanism but from its deterrent effect. Just as the presence of police deters more crime than is stopped by actual police intervention, it is likely that the threat of Government action prevents far more attempts to disenfranchise voters than the Department of Justice's review actually does. Let me speak about section 203. Its requirement of language assistance in jurisdictions with a large number of citizens for whom English is a second language has enabled citizens to vote who otherwise, frankly, could not have. For example, a study found that in the 1990 general election, bilingual assistance was used by 18 percent of Latino voters in the State of California. Los Angeles is the largest and most diverse local election jurisdiction in our country. It provides assistance under the Voting Rights Act to voters in six languages other than English. According to a November 2000 exit survey of language minority voters in Los Angeles and Orange County in California, 54 percent of Asian- American voters and 46 percent of Latino voters reported that language assistance made them more likely to vote. That is actual documentation. In a hearing before the Judiciary Committee on the impact of section 203, Deborah Wright, acting assistant registrar and county clerk for Los Angeles County, testified that written translations are provided in Los Angeles County because of the complex nature of issues facing the voters in our State. I can tell you that California ballots are among the longest and most complicated in our Nation. She explained to our committee that California often presents voters with numerous, complex ballot initiatives and propositions. Such complicated ballots challenge all voters to be prepared and to have the information they need prior to casting their ballots. Often, a high level of English proficiency is needed even by native speakers of English to understand these ballot initiatives and to cast an informed ballot. I myself have trouble sometimes understanding the propositions. I believe the California experience is persuasive that appropriate targeted language assistance makes it much more likely that informed voters vote, and that is important. My mother was an immigrant from Russia. She came here when she was a small child. She had only a primary school education. Her family was very poor. Her parents never spoke English. She studied English and, as an adult, passed the language exam and became a naturalized citizen. Still, when it came time to vote, I helped her with her ballot. We would go over the propositions, I would read them in English, we would discuss them, otherwise she could never fully understand them because they were complicated and filled with legalese. As I said, California's ballots can be long, and despite ballot simplification, which is now a part of the California ballot, they can still be very confusing. Section 203 enables the full comprehension of a ballot, and I believe that is very important. We are reauthorizing this bill today. I don't believe we can permit these provisions to expire and leave the next generation of Americans without full protection of their voting rights. That is why I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. This legislation will reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years so that it can continue to be a kind of deterrent to any chicanery, any manipulation, anyone's ill intent to prevent any group of voters from exercising their right to the franchise under the Constitution of the United States. Under the guidance of Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy over the last 2 months, our committee, the Judiciary Committee, has held 10 hearings on reauthorizing this act--10 hearings. As a matter of fact, I can't remember any reauthorization in the 14 years I have been on the committee that has had 10 separate hearings. The exhaustive testimony from these hearings has confirmed both that these expiring provisions are still needed and that these provisions are constitutional. In response to this record, yesterday the Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. I was also pleased to see the House pass the reauthorization last week with broad, bipartisan support. Today, this full Senate now has the opportunity to offer its own resounding endorsement of this very important bill. Thomas Paine wrote over 200 years ago that: The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. I couldn't agree more. Today will be a historic occasion as we reauthorize this important bill for another 25 years. I am very proud to play a small role as a member of the Judiciary Committee in this vote. I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Snowe that will provide our Nation's migrant agricultural and forest workers with a safe ride to work. The Farm and Forestry Worker Transportation Safety Act would require a designated seat and seatbelt for each person riding in a vehicle used to transport these workers. Today, many migrant workers travel to their jobs in dangerous and unsafe conditions. It is not uncommon for these workers to ride in overcrowded vans and trucks while sitting on benches and buckets with no access to seatbelts. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 78 agricultural workers lost their lives and 440 were injured in transportation accidents in 2004. I would like to take a moment to share with you just a few of the accidents that have resulted from the lack of adequate safety regulations for these workers: In December of 2005, two Guatemalan forest workers were killed when their vehicle crashed driving off icy roads in Washington. Five Guatemalan forest workers were killed in the same manner the previous year. In June of 2004, 2 migrant workers were killed in Port St. Lucie, FL, when their overcrowded van carrying 11 people rolled over on Interstate 95. Two months later, 9 citrus workers were killed in Fort Pierce when their 15-passenger van rolled over and ejected all 19 passengers. In September 2002, 14 forestry workers were killed when their van transporting them to work toppled off a bridge in Maine. In August 1999, 13 tomato field workers were killed when their van slammed into a tractor-trailer in Fresno County, CA. Most of the victims were riding on three benches in the back of the van. As you can see, this issue does not just affect my home State of California. It is a problem that requires national attention. Congress needs to take action to ensure these workers safe travel to and from their jobs. My bill would seek to provide these workers with a designated seat and operating seatbelt. This legislation would also address the issue of converted vehicles. The bill would direct the Department of Transportation to develop interim seat and seatbelt safety standards for vehicles that have been converted for the purpose of transporting migrant workers. Owners and operators of these vehicles would have 7 years to make the necessary improvements so that their vehicles would meet the same safety standards as new vehicles. I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for the safety of our Nation's migrant workforce. Mr. President, I request that the text of this legislation appear immediately following this statement in the Congressional Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Snowe that will provide our Nation's migrant agricultural and forest workers with a safe ride to work. The Farm and Forestry Worker Transportation Safety Act would require a designated seat and seatbelt for each person riding in a vehicle used to transport these workers. Today, many migrant workers travel to their jobs in dangerous and unsafe conditions. It is not uncommon for these workers to ride in overcrowded vans and trucks while sitting on benches and buckets with no access to seatbelts. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 78 agricultural workers lost their lives and 440 were injured in transportation accidents in 2004. I would like to take a moment to share with you just a few of the accidents that have resulted from the lack of adequate safety regulations for these workers: In December of 2005, two Guatemalan forest workers were killed when their vehicle crashed driving off icy roads in Washington. Five Guatemalan forest workers were killed in the same manner the previous year. In June of 2004, 2 migrant workers were killed in Port St. Lucie, FL, when their overcrowded van carrying 11 people rolled over on Interstate 95. Two months later, 9 citrus workers were killed in Fort Pierce when their 15-passenger van rolled over and ejected all 19 passengers. In September 2002, 14 forestry workers were killed when their van transporting them to work toppled off a bridge in Maine. In August 1999, 13 tomato field workers were killed when their van slammed into a tractor-trailer in Fresno County, CA. Most of the victims were riding on three benches in the back of the van. As you can see, this issue does not just affect my home State of California. It is a problem that requires national attention. Congress needs to take action to ensure these workers safe travel to and from their jobs. My bill would seek to provide these workers with a designated seat and operating seatbelt. This legislation would also address the issue of converted vehicles. The bill would direct the Department of Transportation to develop interim seat and seatbelt safety standards for vehicles that have been converted for the purpose of transporting migrant workers. Owners and operators of these vehicles would have 7 years to make the necessary improvements so that their vehicles would meet the same safety standards as new vehicles. I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for the safety of our Nation's migrant workforce. Mr. President, I request that the text of this legislation appear immediately following this statement in the Congressional Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the students of Glendale High School on becoming the U.S. representative at the Junior G8 Summit. For the first time in 30 years, the annual G8 Summit will include an official exchange between children aged 13 to 17 and G8 leaders. Glendale High School beat out 14 other schools for this once-in-a- lifetime chance to represent the United States at the Summit. The Junior 8 Youth Forum will provide the participants from all over the world a platform from which they can express their opinions on issues such as infectious diseases, violence, corruption, education, energy, and security. The U.S. team and their international counterparts will meet in order to draft a communique which eight of them will present to the G8 leaders. These students could not have achieved this memorable accomplishment without tremendous support and encouragement from their dedicated teachers and parents. I would also recognize team members Shaunt Attarian, Rigo Benitez, Edgar Hernandez, Sergio Maciel, Viannca Montesino, Elaine Panlaqui, Diana Perez, and Kelly Velasquez for their poise and determination in working towards receiving this honor. All eight team members have spent time and energy for over 6 months preparing to represent the United States with respect and intelligence at this prestigious event. The Glendale High School Junior G8 team should be commended for their efforts and stand as an inspiration to us all. Once again, I would like to honor the entire Glendale High School Junior G8 Team on a well-deserved victory. Each of these students holds wonderful promise, and I applaud them for their many achievements. Their futures are bright, and their performance will continue to serve as a model for those who follow in their footsteps.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. In just a short hour or so, the Senate will finally vote on passage of this important stem cell act. This is a long time coming. I believe and hope that we are going to have a very strong vote in favor of this critical scientific research. I also hope that President Bush will reverse his earlier veto threat and sign this bill that holds such promise for so many Americans suffering from catastrophic illness. This issue, and this debate, is really about hope. It is about giving hope of a scientific breakthrough to millions of Americans suffering from chronic, debilitating, and devastating disease. We can't stand here on the Senate floor and pretend that we know which scientific advances will cure diabetes, ALS, or cancer. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have done just that. They have insisted that adult stem cells and cord blood cells are being successfully used to treat at least 65 illnesses. They argue that there is no reason to move forward with this bill, no reason to make new lines of stem cells available. However, adult stem cells present serious limitations and embryonic stem cell research offers unique promise. Embryonic cells derived from embryos are pluripotent, meaning they can become any type of cell. Adult stem cells cannot, and, therefore, their application is limited. These embryonic cells are easy to grow, isolate, and study. Adult stem cells are harder to grow in a lab. These embryonic cells can divide. They can renew themselves for long periods. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, exist only in small amounts. All these properties make these stem cells an excellent target for scientific exploration. Now, there have been heartrending stories of people suffering from diseases such as leukemia and other blood disorders who experience relief from adult stem cells or cord blood cells, and that is just great. This progress is encouraging and it should move forward. But these advances in treatments have not addressed the needs of patients suffering from other diseases. In juvenile diabetes, for example, scientists have discovered that adult stem cells in the pancreas do not play an effective role in insulin production. To cure the disease, doctors will need insulin- producing cells to inject into their diabetic patients. This is done now on a limited basis, but there aren't enough donor cells available. Stem cells could change this. They could provide an unlimited amount of cells that are compatible with the patient, making anti-rejection drugs simply unnecessary. Of course, if we don't let our scientists try, we will never know. Dr. Douglas Kerr of Johns Hopkins--and I used this yesterday on the floor--headed a team that used embryonic stem cells to treat 15 rats that had been paralyzed by an aggressive infection that had destroyed their cord nerve cells. Eleven of these rats experienced significant recovery. They regained enough strength to bear weight and take steps on their previously paralyzed hind quarters. A few years ago, no one thought this could be done. Dr. Kerr explains that this is, in essence, a cookbook recipe to restore lost nerve function, and that this procedure could some day be used to repair damage from ALS, multiple sclerosis, or spinal cord injuries. He says: With small adjustments keyed to differences in nervous system targets, the approach may also apply to patients with Parkinson's or Huntington's disease. The NIH Director, Dr. Zerhouni, called this a remarkable advance that can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great promise. What an advance this would be. Can you imagine if you could regenerate the spinal cord, once again, and if paraplegics and quadriplegics could again function? That is what this bright frontier is all about. That is what is so very important. All of this takes time. Scientists first isolated human embryonic stem cells only 8 years ago, and in that time they have learned a substantial amount about how these cells work and how they could one day be used in treatment. But there is also a lot we don't know. Some have suggested because there have been no miraculous cures in this 8-year period, there will never be useful treatments that come from this technology. But none of the great feats of scientific inquiry have been simple. That is for sure. Scientific progress takes time and investment. Our researchers today have made discoveries, many in mice, that could prove just as revolutionary as the introduction of penicillin in the 1940s. These preliminary discoveries will amount to nothing unless researchers have access to Federal funding and viable stem cell lines to move forward. In the last 2 days we have heard a great deal about the hope that the passage of Castle-DeGette would bring to patients and their families. I would like to say a final word about hope. I simply cannot believe that President Bush would select this legislation as his first veto as President of the United States. I know that he has issued a veto threat, but think about it. Think about the millions of people. Think about the fact that if you are really pro-life, these embryos--which will never become human life, which are discarded, which will not be used, which are the product of in vitro fertilization--these embryos are never going to be babies, as the opposition would have us believe. Think of the lives that these embryos might save some day. People paralyzed, people with juvenile diabetes, young people with Parkinson's disease who can't move and who have trouble speaking--think about what this can mean in terms of being for life. That is why I think if the President thinks about this, we all have the hope on this side of the question that he will not veto this legislation. The President himself recognized the promise of stem cell research back in 2001 when he attempted to find a middle ground. But 5 years later, it is apparent, there is no middle ground. We need embryonic stem cell research, and this is the way to do it. I am hopeful that this body will vote aye. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Passage of this legislation will finally allow scientists to fully pursue the promise of stem cell research. It will offer hope to millions of our people. Mr. President, we have waited a long time for this day. Earlier, Senator Harkin spoke to the fact that it was in 1998 when he and Senator Specter introduced the first bill dealing with stem cell research. I recall that year I introduced one of the first bills dealing with ethical standards surrounding stem cell research. So it has been 8 years. Now, finally, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation. In the intervening time, we have all heard from patients, survivors, and scientists who are desperate to pursue this research that one day could lead to treatments and cures for diabetes, cancer and, yes, even spinal cord injury. Forty Nobel laureates have weighed in with their support, as did former First Lady Nancy Reagan. While we were waiting, we lost Christopher and Dana Reeve, tireless advocates of stem cell research, and an inspiration for all of us. Millions more American families experienced firsthand the devastation wrought by catastrophic illnesses. My colleagues and I, Senators Specter, Harkin, Kennedy, Hatch, and Smith, worked tirelessly to bring this to a vote. We pushed privately, we wrote letters, we gave speeches, and we held press conferences to highlight the plight of patients who are living with illnesses day in and day out. Finally, after all of this pleading and delay, the Senate is acting. I thank my colleagues for their longstanding leadership on this issue, and I am also very grateful to the majority leader, Senator Frist, for his support for stem cell research and his work with his caucus to reach this agreement that has made this debate possible. For all of the controversy that it is generating, the Castle-DeGette Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is remarkably simple. It reverses the failed policy announced by President Bush in 2001 when he restricted Federal funding to stem cell lines already in existence. At the time, the President himself recognized the great promise of stem cell research. He sought to find middle ground, announcing a policy that provided Federal funding for more than 60 preexisting genetically diverse stem cell lines. This was morally acceptable, he said, because the life-or-death decision for these stem cell lines had already been made. Unfortunately, the policy did not work out as promised. These available lines are all contaminated with mouse feeder cells and, therefore, are useless for human research purposes. They don't have the diverse genetic makeup that may be necessary to find cures to benefit all Americans. Researchers cannot use them to examine rare and deadly genetic diseases. Castle-DeGette states that embryos to be discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics may be used in federally funded stem cell research no matter when they were created. While opponents have suggested that this bill will lead us down a slippery slope, the parameters created by the bill are actually numerous and they are very strict: The embryos must be left over following fertility treatment. It must be clear that the embryos will be discarded. The people donating the embryos must provide written consent. These donors may not be compensated for their donation. These restrictions mean that over 400,000 embryos could become available, all while ensuring that researchers meet the highest of ethical standards. Let us be clear. We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact that these embryos have no future. We should not confuse the research permitted under this bill with the activities described under the two other bills currently before us. I am going to support these bills. Yet it is important to realize that their passage will do nothing to change the status quo. The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act bans activities that occur in horror movies, not in our research labs. We should not allow these farfetched and frightening techniques, which no respected scientist anywhere endorses, to distract from the plight of millions of Americans seeking cures from devastating diseases. This debate is also not about the myriad research approaches envisioned in the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, as introduced by my colleagues, Senators Specter and Santorum. This research can already be funded with Federal dollars. Respected scientists are examining a variety of ways to create these multipurpose cells and, of course, this work should continue. We simply don't know which research approaches will prove fruitful and which will fail. Alternative techniques may lead eventually to cures for serious afflictions, or they may not. Scientists, not Senators, should determine what research to pursue. Supporting only the Specter-Santorum alternative is not an endorsement of stem cell research. It is an affirmation of a policy that is leaving American researchers far behind in one of the most important fields of scientific discovery, and I want to spend a moment on that. Because of President Bush's restrictions, some of our best and brightest scientists are leaving the United States to work overseas in countries that have embraced the promise of comprehensive stem cell research. This brain drain has hit my State particularly hard. Let me give you a few examples. Roger Peterson, a renowned scientist, left the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco in 2001, citing the unfriendly research climate in the United States. He is now conducting human stem cell research at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. He and his UK team are exploring the biology behind pluripotent, or multipurpose stem cells, and are looking for ways to use them for treatment. He would not have had Federal funding to do this work in the United States, so he left. Dr. Judith Swain, from the University of California San Diego, will leave for Singapore in September, where she will work at Singapore's state-funded research institute called Biopolis. Her husband, Dr. Edward Holmes, also of the University of California at San Diego, is a ranking official in California's stem cell agency. He is also leaving for Singapore. NIH researchers, Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, turned down offers to join Stanford University's stem cell department. They, too, are moving to Singapore. Copeland has said that he selected Singapore because of its ``unfettered support of human embryonic stem cell research.'' These are but a few examples of the costs of this President's policy. Researchers are attracted by the federal funding provided in at least 10 other nations--Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, China, and Australia. These investments total hundreds of millions of dollars that are already producing tangible progress. Sweden funds, with federal funds, 400 researchers today. South Korea and China are each funding an additional 300. Australia has pledged $90 million through 2011. This investment has already paid off, as Australian researchers have discovered a way to manipulate stem cells into lung cells. This technology could one day be used to treat cystic fibrosis. Scientists from around the world have come to Singapore's Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology. There, they are using stem cells to produce artificial kidneys. This could one day free people from the burden of kidney dialysis. Researchers in other countries now author an increasing proportion of stem cell papers than those in the United States. Foreign researchers have derived almost three-quarters of the world's new stem cell lines, moving quickly ahead of our country, the United States. Other nations have the money, the researchers, the facilities, and the new stem cell lines they need to move forward. They are learning more about stem cells every day and laying the foundation for groundbreaking cures. American scientists, on the other hand, cannot obtain Federal funding to do this work. These Federal funding restrictions have a real world impact on ongoing research. American scientists are making great strides with work on mouse stem cells. They are showing what could be possible if there is Federal funding to extend this work into humans. Researchers at Stanford University have recently turned cells derived from mouse embryos into one of the building blocks of blood vessels. This advance means they may eventually be able to grow entirely new blood vessels, offering great promise to patients suffering from heart disease. But without Federal funds, it is unlikely they can get the stem cell lines to be able to do the human research. A research team at Johns Hopkins used cells from mouse embryos to regenerate nerves in paralyzed rats. After treatment, many of the rats regained enough strength to walk and bear weight on their previously paralyzed hind legs. Mr. President, do you know what this means? This means it might--just might--be possible to do something science said could never be done, and that is to regenerate a severed spinal column, to regenerate the nerves which scientists always thought never again could be regenerated. We would never have thought discoveries such as this were possible even a few years ago. So think of what it means for every paraplegic or quadriplegic to know that there is hope out there, that the first rat tests have shown it works? The next step is the human stem cell lines, to be able to carry out that research on humans, and that is exactly what we are talking about today. Scientists now must work to translate these promising advances into cures for humans. Such a feat will almost certainly require access to viable lines of human stem cells, and unless we pass Castle-DeGette and unless the President signs Castle-DeGette, these lines will not be available in the United States to regenerate a severed spinal column, to regenerate blood vessels, or to do anything else. Mike Armstrong, an old friend and chairman of the Johns Hopkins board of trustees, made this very point in a letter he wrote stating news of this advance. Here is what he said: Treatments not only for paralysis, but for ALS, for multiple sclerosis, and similar diseases of the brain now seem possible. The exact timeframe is impossible to predict, but it will almost certainly depend on the availability of Federal funding. It will depend on the availability of Federal funding, and that is what is at stake in this debate. He goes on to say: The level of funding that will ultimately be required to advance this field of science to human trials, however, suggests that Federal funding will be necessary. Yet, under current Federal policy, the only stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding were created using mouse feeder cells and could never be used in clinical trials with humans. Could never be used in clinical trials for humans. I am particularly proud of the commitment demonstrated by California scientists and activists in the face of these restrictions. In 2004, California voters approved a proposition, proposition 71. That proposition created and funded the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. It funded it with $3 billion of taxpayers' dollars over 10 years, and it supported promising research conducted in my State. This work will be done with careful ethical oversight. It also bans human reproductive cloning, something we all agree is immoral and unethical. This investment, hopefully, once it gets past the court tests, will make California a leader in this industry and in finding cures that will change the lives of suffering patients. Other States are making similar investments. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and others are considering after 5 years of delay because of the restriction on Federal funding--they are taking steps to move this important work forward on a State basis. But--and here is the but--a patchwork, State-by-State approach is no way to run science policy. States have many other responsibilities, such as funding education, building infrastructure, and so on, and we shouldn't expect them to solely carry the burden of funding one of the most promising fields of science. There is a reason we invest so much in the National Institutes of Health and the biomedical research they conduct. The NIH can then set national standards and ensure that research is not being duplicated and to see that it is carried out under ethical standards. This is something everyone should want. You should want that Federal oversight of NIH over all research funding that is funded with Federal dollars. It is also important to remember that this debate is about real people whose lives are impacted by illness every single day, day in, day out. I have heard from so many Californians who have been personally impacted by diseases that could one day be cured with stem cell research. I want to tell a few of those stories. Leslie Bishop Franco from Oakland, CA, wrote to me to say she supports stem cell research because her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at the age of 57. Her mother quickly became unable to work and then unable to care for herself. Leslie and her sisters and brothers cared not only for their own young children but also for their mother. This is something many families know all too well. Leslie writes that even if stem cell research does not ``lead to a cure for Alzheimer's as it has the potential in other diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes, it will provide crucial insights into the disease and the usefulness of new drugs.'' Mark Siegel from Los Angeles has suffered from Parkinson's for 8 years. For over half the time he has been ill, the President's policies have slowed stem cell research. Mark was diagnosed when he was 36 years old. One of my sons-in-law was just diagnosed, and he is 44 years old. What happens is Parkinson's slowly erodes one's motor control. Mark Siegel's condition had forced him to change jobs, and he is afraid we are losing the race against time to find a cure and save his life. Jennifer Heumann from Huntington Beach, CA, has been living with juvenile diabetes since she was 2 years old, and she is now 16. She says diabetes hasn't stopped her from playing varsity tennis or going to high school dances, but she knows her disease can cause serious complications. Without a cure, she has a 65-percent chance of dying from heart disease or stroke and a 60-percent chance of developing nervous system damage. Jennifer writes: These are the cold, hard facts, but I am not content to admit they are my destiny. I believe that a cure is in sight, and that embryonic stem cell research may be the key to finding this cure. If this is the case, how can we justify passing up this opportunity? We all should ask that question. This impressive young woman is hard to argue with. She makes a very eloquent point, and until we know what kinds of research could lead to cures for these catastrophic diseases, we should support scientists and we should push ahead every possible lead. These patients and family members represent only a few of the tens of thousands of Californians I have heard from who support stem cell research. As a matter of fact, by the latest poll, 72 percent of Americans support stem cell research. We don't want to spread false hope. There is still much we don't understand about stem cells. Some of the cures may never come to fruition, but unless we allow our scientists to continue their work, we will never, ever know. How can any of us tell a patient suffering from juvenile diabetes, a cancer victim, or a young man with heart disease, that the Senate decided not to allow researchers to pursue all the scientific leads that may one day offer them a cure? How can we say that? How can we say we know better? How can we say because of a small proportion of people's beliefs we are going to stop all Federal research in the United States of America? Last week, Karl Rove declared that the President is emphatic about vetoing this legislation. I hope not. The President himself acknowledged the great promise of stem cells back in 2001, and with the health of millions of Americans at stake, it is my hope that if and when this bill tomorrow afternoon passes the Senate and if and when it goes to the President of the United States, he will reconsider his veto threat. Too many lives depend upon the advances which may well be possible. Either you are for stem cell research or you are not. It is that simple. True support for stem cells means lifting the restrictions from hampering some of the most promising research, and only Castle-DeGette, only H.R. 810 will do that. No matter what the President decides on other legislation we are considering today, rejecting H.R. 810 is a rejection of science. It is a rejection of the hopes of millions of patients. This vote and the President's reaction to it should not be about assuaging a small but vocal minority with views far from the mainstream of 72 percent of the American people. Patients and their families deserve more than the President's first veto. How would you like it if you were President of the United States and the first veto of your political career were a veto of the one thing that offers hope for millions of Americans suffering from catastrophic disease? The one thing out there. I want to assure these patients that my colleagues and I will not stop fighting for this. We will continue to push in every way possible. Patients suffering from these catastrophic illnesses have already waited too long. American scientists have already fallen behind their international counterparts, and the time has come to finally pass Castle-DeGette on a sweeping bipartisan basis, just as the House of Representatives did 13 months ago. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to introduce legislation to strengthen our international HIV prevention efforts for youth and empower the people on the ground who are fighting this disease to design the most effective and appropriate HIV prevention program. Our legislation does three things. First, it expresses the sense of the Senate that sexually active youth who live in a country where HIV infection is spreading through the general population should be considered at high risk of contracting HIV and provided with information on the complete range of tools to prevent the spread of HIV. To date, the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator has focused prevention programs for youth on abstinence only and ignored other prevention techniques such as the use of condoms. Second, it defines ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs as those programs that place the highest, rather than exclusive, priority on encouraging individuals who have not yet married to abstain from sexual activity. And finally, it reserves at least one-third of funds for prevention of the sexual transmission of HIV--rather than one-third of all prevention programs--for abstinence-until marriage programs. This recognizes that HIV prevention includes many types of activities and those that target the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS, such as abstinence-until-marriage programs, are only a subset. In 2003, I was proud to join my colleagues in passing the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003, a historic piece of legislation that expressed our resolve to see the United States take a leadership role in the fight against the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. The bill recognized that prevention--along with care and treatment-- is an essential component of that fight and demands a multipronged approach. It endorsed the ``ABC'' model for prevention of the sexual transmission of HIV: Abstain, Be Faithful, use Condoms. That bill also contained a provision that mandated that at least one- third of global HIV/AIDS prevention funds be set aside for ``abstinence-until-marriage programs.'' Three years later, we still face an uphill battle against the HIV/ AIDS pandemic. Worldwide, 40 million people are infected with HIV. Each day, approximately 13,400 people are newly infected with HIV. In 2005, there were 5 million new HIV infections around the world, 3.2 million in Sub-Saharan Africa alone. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to almost two- thirds of the estimated 40 million people currently living with HIV. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence rate for the general population is 8 percent; 2.4 million adults and children died of AIDS in 2005. Despite these devastating numbers, according to UNAIDS, less than one in five people at risk for infection of HIV have access to basic prevention services. Studies have shown that two-thirds of new HIV infections could be averted with effective prevention programs. Clearly, we still have a long ways to go to rein in this disease. During the debate on the global HIV/AIDS bill, I expressed concern that we were placing politics over science by requiring that at least one-third of prevention funds go to ``abstinence only'' programs. I argued that such an artificial earmark--which, by the way, was not based on any scientific study or conclusive evidence--would tie the hands of HIV/AIDS workers and doctors on the ground and severely inhibit the ability of the administration to fund the most effective HIV prevention programs. It would mean less money for funds to prevent mother-to-child transmission; less money to promote a comprehensive prevention message to high risk groups such as sexually active youth; and fewer funds to protect the blood supply. Unfortunately, the evidence clearly shows that the one-third earmark has had a negative impact on our prevention efforts and inhibited the ability of local communities to design a multipronged HIV prevention program that works best for them. Last month, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report that found ``significant challenges'' associated with meeting the abstinence-until-marriage programs. The report concluded that: The 33 percent abstinence spending requirement is squeezing out available funding for other key HIV prevention programs such as mother- to-child transmission and maintaining a healthy blood supply. Country teams that are not exempted from the one-third earmark have to spend more than 33 percent of prevention funds on abstinence-until-marriage activities, sometimes at the expense of other programs. The spending requirement limited or reduced funding for programs directed to high- risk groups, such as sexually active youth and; the majority of country teams on the ground reported that meeting the spending requirement ``challenges their ability to develop interventions that are responsive to local epidemiology and social norms.'' Clearly, we are placing constraints on our ability to protect high- risk populations around the world from HIV transmission and fund the wide range of prevention programs, such as mother-to-child transmission. Our bill seeks to address the problems highlighted in the GAO report and provide local communities the necessary flexibility to achieve the goal we all share: stopping the spread of HIV, especially among young people. Let me be clear: our bill does not strike the 33 percent earmark for ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs. In fact, our legislation is pro-abstinence. It maintains abstinence as a critical part our prevention efforts and places no limits on programs that lead to this result. It even allows the administration to spend more than one third of funds for the prevention of HIV on ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs if the administration decides that is the best use of those funds. Simply put, our bill balances congressional priorities with public health needs. Under our legislation, country teams can take into account country needs including cultural differences, epidemiology, population age groups and the stage of the epidemic in designing the most effective prevention program. One size does not fit all. A prevention program in one country may look a lot different than a prevention program in another country. A May 2003 report from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Henry J. Kaiser Foundation highlights that proven prevention programs include: behavior change programs, including delay in the initiation of sexual activity, faithfulness and correct and consistent condom use; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; promoting voluntary counseling and testing; harm reduction programs for IV drug users; preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to child; increasing blood safety; empowering women and girls; controlling infection in health care settings, and; devising programs geared towards people living with HIV. For example, studies have shown that combining drugs with counseling and instruction on use of such drugs reduces mother-to-child transmission by 50 percent. Such cost effective programs are not related to abstinence and should not be constrained by the 33 percent earmark on funds for prevention. I understand the importance of teaching abstinence. It is and will remain a key part of our strategy in preventing the spread of HIV. But let us listen to the words of someone with first hand experience about the challenges sub-Saharan African countries face in combating HIV/AIDS and the constraints the ``abstinence-until-marriage'' earmark places on those efforts. In an August 19, 2005 op-ed in the New York Times, Babatunde Osotimehin, chairman of the National Action Committee on AIDS in Nigeria, wrote: Abstinence is one critical prevention strategy, but it cannot be the only one. Focusing on abstinence assumes young people can choose whether to have sex. For adolescent girls in Nigeria and in many other countries, this is an inaccurate assumption. Many girls fall prey to sexual violence and coercion ..When dealing with AIDS, we must address the realities and use a multipronged approach to improving education and health systems, one that can reach all of our people. He concludes: National governments must have the freedom to employ the very best strategies at our disposal to help our people. I could not agree more. If we want to help the girls of Nigeria and the youth of sub-Saharan Africa, we cannot limit the information they receive about keeping them safe from acquiring HIV. Mr. President, I have been heartened to witness Republicans and Democrats coming together to support a robust U.S. assistance package to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic. We all share the same goal of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to prevent 7 million new HIV infections by 2010. This bill is about helping us achieve that goal. When we put our faith in the people on the front lines of this fight and allow them to use all the tools and strategies at their disposal, we are one step closer to making that goal a reality. We do not have time to lose. I urge my colleagues to support our legislation and support a pro-abstinence, multi-pronged approach to preventing the spread of HIV. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Murkowski, chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing legislation to provide new authority and streamlined review criteria for the Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI Water Recycling Program. I first want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership in this area. I deeply appreciate her willingness to work with me on this issue. I also want to thank my California colleague and friend, Representative Grace Napolitano, ranking member on the Water and Power Subcommittee, who is introducing identical companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. This legislation is an outgrowth of subcommittee oversight hearings last February and is the product of more than 2 years of discussion, evaluation, and consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation as well as numerous water agencies and communities. Today, the West faces two daunting challenges simultaneously. The first is drought and the impacts of continued climate gyration--wild swings in previously established weather patterns. The second is the unprecedented growth throughout California and the Western States. Population continues to not just grow but surge throughout this region. The title XVI, Water Recycling Program enables water users in the West to stretch existing supplies through the application of reclamation, reuse, recycling and desalination technologies. Title XVI was initially authorized in 1992, following a severe multiyear drought in California and other Western States. A drought of equal severity reduced the mighty Colorado River to record lows only a few years ago. We must find ways to expand our water supplies, and do so without generating regional or environmental conflict. Reusing our existing supplies and stretching those supplies is a significant part of the solution. The title XVI program provides the authority and framework to accomplish these water resource development objectives to meet the needs of our cities and urban areas, our farms and ranches and our diverse environment. This legislation clarifies and makes permanent the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI water reuse/ reclamation/recycling grant authority for the development of new sources of water. In so doing, this proposed legislation will help State and local governments and water departments and agencies develop new water and reliable water supplies. The bill amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, 1992, to provide new standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects by the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, the legislation sets forth specific criteria to assist Congress in the evaluation and selection of projects for Federal funding. In the recent past, the Bureau of Reclamation was not able to review and report on proposed projects in a timely fashion. This legislation establishes firm deadlines, a clear process, and very specific criteria by which project reviews are to be conducted. This program, unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation project funding, provides a grant, not to exceed 20 percent of the capital costs or $20 million making this the most leveraged and most cost- shared Federal water resources program. In setting the 20 percent cap, this legislation reduces the overall percentage Federal participation to 20 percent from the 1992 standard of 25 percent to enable more projects to receive Federal cost-share support. Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act is designed to accomplish one major objective--development of new water supplies responsibly--and in a timely manner. From a California perspective, this legislation compliments and is fully consistent with the recently published California Water Plan Update 2005--published in 2006--by California Department of Water Resources and the 2002 State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, Water Recycling 2030. Both reports conclude that a significant portion of new water to be developed in California will come from water recycling. Throughout the Nation's more than 200-year history, water conflicts in the West have ``erupted'' periodically. This program is designed to reduce conflict through sound planning, improved management, expanding existing supplies, leveraged financing and meaningful partnerships. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will hold a hearing on this proposed legislation later this month. At that time, the subcommittee will also hear testimony on three proposed projects, one each in Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. I have carefully reviewed these projects. They are designed to produce approximately 300,000 acre-feet of new water annually. These projects simultaneously reduce pressure on the Bay Delta--and other Federal and State water users dependent on the water from the delta--as well as the Colorado River. They will help drought-proof their water service areas. Not too long ago, in a speech delivered at a WateReuse Association conference, John Keys, the recently retired Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, called recycled water The Last River to Tap. Commissioner Keys was right. I would like to provide some additional detail on the legislation. The legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the Interior to review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project proposals, pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review. New standards would include providing sufficient evidence to the Secretary of Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and (2) has a financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have 180 days to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the project's technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction based on several specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from items related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project would help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes transition procedures. This program is vital to the West's future. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski and my colleagues on the Energy Committee. I want to also thank Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and the committee's ranking member, Senator Jeff Bingaman for their support and assistance in the preparation of this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is this the second-degree amendment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We can't hear, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2006. The act would authorize an innovative program to protect the environment while meeting the future water needs of urban and agricultural water users in the North Bay region of California for years to come. As regulations continue to tighten restrictions on wastewater discharges into the San Francisco Bay, communities are faced with major financial challenges as they determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater. At the same time, agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing serious water shortages resulting from a serious overdraft of groundwater. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will solve both problems together. When completed, the North Bay Water Reuse Program will provide for the collection and conveyance of treated urban wastewater to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery. In the off-season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for restoration of wetland habitat in the former Cargill Salt Ponds. This reclaimed water that would be applied productively to vineyards, fields and wetlands is now being discharged as treated wastewater into the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will benefit the ecosystem of the bay by providing a cost-effective, environmentally sound alternative for the disposal of urban wastewater. The legislation I am introducing today allows for the Federal participation of the first phase of this long-term regional project. This cost-shared water reclamation and reuse program is the first of its kind in Northern California, and the first to provide water primarily for agricultural and environmental uses. It is supported by the local governments in three counties--Napa, Sonoma and Marin--that have joined together to undertake the project. Agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, and the North Bay Agriculture Alliance, support the program. And environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute, likewise endorse the program. The North Bay Water Reuse Program brings together stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another and provides an ideal solution to guarantee water to the environment and agricultural producers, and simultaneously providing regulatory relief to wastewater agencies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2006. The act would authorize an innovative program to protect the environment while meeting the future water needs of urban and agricultural water users in the North Bay region of California for years to come. As regulations continue to tighten restrictions on wastewater discharges into the San Francisco Bay, communities are faced with major financial challenges as they determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater. At the same time, agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing serious water shortages resulting from a serious overdraft of groundwater. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will solve both problems together. When completed, the North Bay Water Reuse Program will provide for the collection and conveyance of treated urban wastewater to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery. In the off-season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for restoration of wetland habitat in the former Cargill Salt Ponds. This reclaimed water that would be applied productively to vineyards, fields and wetlands is now being discharged as treated wastewater into the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will benefit the ecosystem of the bay by providing a cost-effective, environmentally sound alternative for the disposal of urban wastewater. The legislation I am introducing today allows for the Federal participation of the first phase of this long-term regional project. This cost-shared water reclamation and reuse program is the first of its kind in Northern California, and the first to provide water primarily for agricultural and environmental uses. It is supported by the local governments in three counties--Napa, Sonoma and Marin--that have joined together to undertake the project. Agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, and the North Bay Agriculture Alliance, support the program. And environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute, likewise endorse the program. The North Bay Water Reuse Program brings together stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another and provides an ideal solution to guarantee water to the environment and agricultural producers, and simultaneously providing regulatory relief to wastewater agencies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Murkowski, chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing legislation to provide new authority and streamlined review criteria for the Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI Water Recycling Program. I first want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership in this area. I deeply appreciate her willingness to work with me on this issue. I also want to thank my California colleague and friend, Representative Grace Napolitano, ranking member on the Water and Power Subcommittee, who is introducing identical companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. This legislation is an outgrowth of subcommittee oversight hearings last February and is the product of more than 2 years of discussion, evaluation, and consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation as well as numerous water agencies and communities. Today, the West faces two daunting challenges simultaneously. The first is drought and the impacts of continued climate gyration--wild swings in previously established weather patterns. The second is the unprecedented growth throughout California and the Western States. Population continues to not just grow but surge throughout this region. The title XVI, Water Recycling Program enables water users in the West to stretch existing supplies through the application of reclamation, reuse, recycling and desalination technologies. Title XVI was initially authorized in 1992, following a severe multiyear drought in California and other Western States. A drought of equal severity reduced the mighty Colorado River to record lows only a few years ago. We must find ways to expand our water supplies, and do so without generating regional or environmental conflict. Reusing our existing supplies and stretching those supplies is a significant part of the solution. The title XVI program provides the authority and framework to accomplish these water resource development objectives to meet the needs of our cities and urban areas, our farms and ranches and our diverse environment. This legislation clarifies and makes permanent the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI water reuse/ reclamation/recycling grant authority for the development of new sources of water. In so doing, this proposed legislation will help State and local governments and water departments and agencies develop new water and reliable water supplies. The bill amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, 1992, to provide new standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects by the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, the legislation sets forth specific criteria to assist Congress in the evaluation and selection of projects for Federal funding. In the recent past, the Bureau of Reclamation was not able to review and report on proposed projects in a timely fashion. This legislation establishes firm deadlines, a clear process, and very specific criteria by which project reviews are to be conducted. This program, unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation project funding, provides a grant, not to exceed 20 percent of the capital costs or $20 million making this the most leveraged and most cost- shared Federal water resources program. In setting the 20 percent cap, this legislation reduces the overall percentage Federal participation to 20 percent from the 1992 standard of 25 percent to enable more projects to receive Federal cost-share support. Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act is designed to accomplish one major objective--development of new water supplies responsibly--and in a timely manner. From a California perspective, this legislation compliments and is fully consistent with the recently published California Water Plan Update 2005--published in 2006--by California Department of Water Resources and the 2002 State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, Water Recycling 2030. Both reports conclude that a significant portion of new water to be developed in California will come from water recycling. Throughout the Nation's more than 200-year history, water conflicts in the West have ``erupted'' periodically. This program is designed to reduce conflict through sound planning, improved management, expanding existing supplies, leveraged financing and meaningful partnerships. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will hold a hearing on this proposed legislation later this month. At that time, the subcommittee will also hear testimony on three proposed projects, one each in Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. I have carefully reviewed these projects. They are designed to produce approximately 300,000 acre-feet of new water annually. These projects simultaneously reduce pressure on the Bay Delta--and other Federal and State water users dependent on the water from the delta--as well as the Colorado River. They will help drought-proof their water service areas. Not too long ago, in a speech delivered at a WateReuse Association conference, John Keys, the recently retired Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, called recycled water The Last River to Tap. Commissioner Keys was right. I would like to provide some additional detail on the legislation. The legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the Interior to review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project proposals, pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review. New standards would include providing sufficient evidence to the Secretary of Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and (2) has a financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have 180 days to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the project's technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction based on several specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from items related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project would help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes transition procedures. This program is vital to the West's future. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski and my colleagues on the Energy Committee. I want to also thank Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and the committee's ranking member, Senator Jeff Bingaman for their support and assistance in the preparation of this legislation.