Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Would the Senator like me to hold on the yeas and nays?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg. I know Senator Kyl is going to come to the floor and speak on the amendment as well. I do not see him at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment criminalizes the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless disregard which permits construction of a border tunnel that is a tunnel between American land and another country's land; namely, Canada or Mexico or any subterranean passageway along international borders. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kyl, Boxer, Talent, Cantwell, Salazar, Hutchison, and Bingaman. This amendment was part of the immigration bill. It was unanimously added to the immigration bill by the Judiciary Committee. I have tried to hotline this amendment. It was cleared on the Democratic side, and it was cleared on the Republican side with the exception of one Senator. I believe it is an important amendment. That is why I am offering it today as an amendment to this bill. Believe it or not, today the act of constructing, financing, or using a tunnel between borders is not a Federal crime. This amendment changes that. In addition to criminalizing the unauthorized construction, financing, or use of a border tunnel on one's land, this amendment also doubles the criminal penalties for individuals caught using a tunnel to unlawfully smuggle aliens, goods, drugs, weapons of mass destruction, or terrorists. The amendment also allows for assets involved in the offense or any property traceable to the offense to be subject to forfeiture. Finally, the amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate or amend Federal sentencing guidelines to provide for criminal penalties for persons convicted pursuant to the language of the amendment and to take into account the gravity of this crime when considering base offense levels. One might ask: Why is this important? I will answer that. Since September 11, 43 tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United States have been discovered--26 tunnels along the California-Mexican border, 16 tunnels along the Arizona-Mexican border, and 1 tunnel along the Washington-Canadian border. The risk to national security that is raised by the use of these tunnels is one this body is already aware of. In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee included report language on this topic, which reads: Policy on tunnels along the border: The Committee is concerned with the Department's lack of a clear policy regarding which agency is responsible for securing, closing, and ultimately filling tunnels which are discovered crossing under our land borders. It appears decisions regarding the handling of tunnels are made on an ad hoc basis, depending on which agency discovers the tunnel and has the resources to fill it. With nearly four dozen known tunnels along our borders, it is imperative a policy regarding tunnels be developed. And it goes on. It asks that this policy be developed not later than February 8. This report language in the appropriations bill is a good first step, but it is just that. The cosponsors of this amendment and I believe that we send a further message that border tunnels are a problem and they must be dealt with. As I mentioned, 43 border tunnels have been discovered in the United States. These tunnels range in complexity from simple gopher holes a few feet long at the border to massive drug- cartel-built megatunnels costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to construct. I recently visited a border tunnel on the Mexican-San Diego border. Let me tell you what I found. I found a tunnel that was extraordinarily sophisticated. It was six football fields long. It went under other buildings. It went under the border. The American side was a large warehouse, brand new, huge warehouse, half a long square block, kept empty, small rooms inside the warehouse. Inside one room, which I will show you in a minute, was a hatch. Down the hatch was a tunnel, a concrete floor, ventilation, a pump to drain it, and electricity, as we can see. This was the tunnel interior. This is a picture of the interior. We can see the concrete. At one end of the tunnel was 2,000 pounds of marijuana, and at the other end was 300 pounds of marijuana. This was the hatch in a room, and it looked very benign. You simply lifted up two floor tiles, and under those floor tiles, you descended about 10 feet and there was this huge apparatus which clearly had been functioning for a substantial period of time. I found it just amazing. The building, interestingly enough, was sold about a year ago to an individual who never leased it out. I have always wondered: Why wouldn't you lease out a warehouse? That question still has not been answered to my satisfaction. I also learned there is no law against it. There is no law that says you have to do due diligence on your property if it is on the border to see that somebody doesn't come along and dig a tunnel such as this and smuggle aliens, smuggle drugs, possibly smuggle terrorists, possibly smuggle weapons. This is a way to do it. Therefore, I believe this amendment belongs in this bill. My hope, given the importance of criminalizing this action, is that this amendment will be included in the managers' amendment. We will still be delighted if that is the case. I am not sure that is possible. I believe to allow another period of time to go by with no law that says it is illegal to build a border tunnel unless you are authorized to do so, and has some sanctions to it, is really long overdue. It would be terrible if we found out one day that a group of 15 or 16 terrorists came in from Mexico or came in from Canada to the State of Washington through a border tunnel and we had done nothing about it. This amendment also says that the owner of property along the border must be reasonably aware, must do their due diligence to see that their property is maintained and a border tunnel is prevented. I am hopeful this amendment will be accepted and, if not, I will certainly ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for those comments. Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask that the amendment be set aside.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4556 be called up.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Cucamonga Valley Water District, the Western Municipal Water District, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and the City of Corona Water Utility. These projects will produce approximately 161,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project. This legislation is intended to be the companion to two House of Representatives bills: H.R. 802, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller; and H.R. 1008, sponsored by Ken Calvert, Jerry Lewis, Joe Baca and Darrell Issa. H.R. 802 and H.R. 1008 have each passed the House of Representatives twice, in both this Congress and the previous Congress. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support the water recycling and groundwater remediation projects in this bill. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these projects. I would like to describe the projects in this bill: The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative would authorize two project components. The first will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency--IEUA--and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District--CVWD--will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana--through the Fontana Water Company--Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga-- through the Cucamonga Valley Water District--and the Monte Vista Water District. The next project is Western Municipal Water District's Riverside- Corona Feeder. Western provides supplemental water to a 510 square mile area of growing western Riverside County and serves a population of more than one-half million people. As a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--MWD--Western provides supplemental water to the cities of Corona, Norco, and Riverside and the water agencies of Elsinore Valley and Rancho California. Western also serves customers in the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante, Eagle Valley, Temescal Creek, Woodcrest, Lake Mathews, and March Air Reserve Base. The purpose of the Riverside--Corona Feeder water supply project is to capture and store new water in wet years in order to increase firm water supplies, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is about 40,000 acre- feet. The project would allow locally stored water to replace imported water from Colorado River and the State project sources in times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve western Riverside County. There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of the project. Up to half of the wells could be placed within plumes of VOCs and perchlorate. These wells would remediate about 20,000 acre- feet of currently contaminated water per year. Next, the city of Corona Water Recycling and Reuse Project will consist of three reservoirs and two pump stations along with retrofitted user irrigation systems. Additionally, 27 miles of pipelines will separate recycled water from drinking water. The reclamation system will enable the city of Corona to provide recycled water to parks, landscape maintenance districts, schools, landscaped freeway frontages and any other project that does not require potable water. It will also reduce the need for increased water imports and construction of additional drinking water infrastructure. Finally, the Yucaipa Valley Water Supply Renewal Project will maximize the various water resources in the Yucaipa Valley. Federal funds would be used to provide federal assistance for planning, designing, and constructing the new Yucaipa Valley Regional Water Filtration Facility that is part of the renewal project. The new facility will contain a reverse osmosis system and a brine pipeline to remove salinity, contaminants, and organic compounds from the water supply in the Yucaipa Valley. The brine pipeline will extend nearly 20 miles to the existing Santa Ana Regional Interceptor brine pipeline. This project will minimize the amount of water imported from northern California, maximize the use of higher quality water, reduce withdrawals from ground water supplies, and provide a long-term, drought-proof water supply. The full project is expected to reduce demands on the California State Water Project by over 4 billion gallons per year, which is a sufficient quantity of water for 27,000 families. I want to say a few words about the importance of water recycling projects. The development of recycled water can bring significant amounts of water ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre- feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years. Water recycling is also a bipartisan initiative in California, as witnessed by the many Republican and Democratic House cosponsors of the House versions of the bill I introduce today. It also has a long history. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California would need an alternative water supply source because it was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. In a bold and farsighted maneuver, in August 1991, Secretary Lujan launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions. Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Lujan's proposal, a year after it was first announced, became title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is the essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland, and other western metropolitan areas. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River. 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 legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Cucamonga Valley Water District, the Western Municipal Water District, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and the City of Corona Water Utility. These projects will produce approximately 161,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project. This legislation is intended to be the companion to two House of Representatives bills: H.R. 802, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller; and H.R. 1008, sponsored by Ken Calvert, Jerry Lewis, Joe Baca and Darrell Issa. H.R. 802 and H.R. 1008 have each passed the House of Representatives twice, in both this Congress and the previous Congress. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support the water recycling and groundwater remediation projects in this bill. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these projects. I would like to describe the projects in this bill: The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative would authorize two project components. The first will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency--IEUA--and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District--CVWD--will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana--through the Fontana Water Company--Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga-- through the Cucamonga Valley Water District--and the Monte Vista Water District. The next project is Western Municipal Water District's Riverside- Corona Feeder. Western provides supplemental water to a 510 square mile area of growing western Riverside County and serves a population of more than one-half million people. As a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--MWD--Western provides supplemental water to the cities of Corona, Norco, and Riverside and the water agencies of Elsinore Valley and Rancho California. Western also serves customers in the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante, Eagle Valley, Temescal Creek, Woodcrest, Lake Mathews, and March Air Reserve Base. The purpose of the Riverside--Corona Feeder water supply project is to capture and store new water in wet years in order to increase firm water supplies, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is about 40,000 acre- feet. The project would allow locally stored water to replace imported water from Colorado River and the State project sources in times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve western Riverside County. There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of the project. Up to half of the wells could be placed within plumes of VOCs and perchlorate. These wells would remediate about 20,000 acre- feet of currently contaminated water per year. Next, the city of Corona Water Recycling and Reuse Project will consist of three reservoirs and two pump stations along with retrofitted user irrigation systems. Additionally, 27 miles of pipelines will separate recycled water from drinking water. The reclamation system will enable the city of Corona to provide recycled water to parks, landscape maintenance districts, schools, landscaped freeway frontages and any other project that does not require potable water. It will also reduce the need for increased water imports and construction of additional drinking water infrastructure. Finally, the Yucaipa Valley Water Supply Renewal Project will maximize the various water resources in the Yucaipa Valley. Federal funds would be used to provide federal assistance for planning, designing, and constructing the new Yucaipa Valley Regional Water Filtration Facility that is part of the renewal project. The new facility will contain a reverse osmosis system and a brine pipeline to remove salinity, contaminants, and organic compounds from the water supply in the Yucaipa Valley. The brine pipeline will extend nearly 20 miles to the existing Santa Ana Regional Interceptor brine pipeline. This project will minimize the amount of water imported from northern California, maximize the use of higher quality water, reduce withdrawals from ground water supplies, and provide a long-term, drought-proof water supply. The full project is expected to reduce demands on the California State Water Project by over 4 billion gallons per year, which is a sufficient quantity of water for 27,000 families. I want to say a few words about the importance of water recycling projects. The development of recycled water can bring significant amounts of water ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre- feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years. Water recycling is also a bipartisan initiative in California, as witnessed by the many Republican and Democratic House cosponsors of the House versions of the bill I introduce today. It also has a long history. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California would need an alternative water supply source because it was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. In a bold and farsighted maneuver, in August 1991, Secretary Lujan launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions. Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Lujan's proposal, a year after it was first announced, became title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is the essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland, and other western metropolitan areas. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her remarks. I don't think anyone speaks more eloquently about the needs of American families than Blanche Lincoln. It is always real and it is always practical. I am just delighted to be a colleague of hers. I rise today to say why stem cell research should be part of this Democratic Women's Checklist for Change. The reason is very simple, and that is because stem cell research offers the promise of historic advances in the treatment of catastrophic disease. It is that simple. The potential for this research was in the news again last week, as scientists at Johns Hopkins announced that they used embryonic stem cells to regenerate damaged nerves in paralyzed rats. That is something that no one ever thought could be done. After being treated with cells harvested from mouse embryos, most of the rats regained enough strength to walk and bear weight on their previously paralyzed hind legs. Just imagine what this discovery could one day mean for patients with spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis or ALS. It could be revolutionary because one thing science believed was that the spinal cord, once severed, could never be regenerated. Now, for the first time in history, we see there may be a solution to that and it rests with stem cell research. Translating this discovery into treatment of human patients will likely take several years, and it will likely not see fruition without Federal research dollars. Here is the rub. Our researchers face a major roadblock imposed by the President in August of 2001, when he limited Federal funding to 22 lines of stem cells. All of these available lines are now contaminated with mouse feeder cells, so virtually there is no Federal ongoing research. Thirteen months ago, the House approved a bipartisan bill by Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, a bill that would remove this roadblock. It would permit promising research to go forward. It would offer new hope to millions of Americans suffering from disability, diseases, and spinal cord injuries. The Castle-DeGette bill essentially says that it would be possible to use embryos that are rejected in IVF clinics; that is, in vitro fertilization clinics. All of us know that tens of thousands, if not millions, of these embryos are rejected and they are destroyed. Those embryos could be taken to form new stem cell lines under this bill. The votes are here to pass this bill today, but the President has vowed a veto, and the Republican leadership refuses to bring it to the floor. In the year that we have waited for Senate action, millions more are now waiting for cures that one day could come from stem cell research. In the last year, consider this: 1.4 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer; 60,000 Americans were diagnosed with Parkinson's disease; 11,000 Americans suffered spinal cord injuries; and 1.5 million adults were diagnosed with diabetes. These are just new diagnoses. Think of all the Americans who continue to suffer cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and catastrophic diseases which could potentially be helped by embryonic stem cell research. The administration's policies have left our researchers far behind the rest of the world. In fact, other countries are, today, laying the foundation for groundbreaking cures, while U.S. scientists are not able to gain Federal funding for research. Evidence that the United States is no longer the world leader in embryonic stem cell research is mounting. Scientists around the world have created 128 new embryonic stem cell lines since President Bush announced his policy. Only 34 of these new lines were created in our country. The proportion of embryonic stem cell papers published by U.S. research groups has fallen dramatically in the past 2 years. At least 10 other nations--Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, China, Australia--are investing substantial sums of government money in embryonic stem cell research. That is totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Other nations are constructing facilities, they are attracting our American researchers who should be here at home doing this research, and they are learning more every day. The United States, on the other hand, remains at the starting line. I don't think we can afford to watch other nations move ahead. Eight years ago, I introduced one of the first bills addressing stem cell research, so we have waited this long--8 years--for action. Time and time again, we have pressed for action on the floor of the Senate. We pressed for it privately. We pressed for it by letter. We pressed for it by press conference with groups of sufferers of catastrophic diseases. All of this has been to no avail. I can't believe it. I can't believe this kind of recalcitrance. And all of this is despite the fact that every poll shows a dominant majority of Americans support stem cell research. It is time the Senate place the health of Americans ahead of the views of a limited number of people whose views are apart from the mainstream of America. We owe it to the 110 million Americans suffering daily from debilitating and catastrophic disease. Every day that we wait, more people develop diseases that could one day be cured. Every day we wait, other nations move further ahead. I urge the Republican leadership to bring the Castle-DeGette stem cell bill to the floor and allow Federal research to move forward. A Democratic Senate would listen to the American people. A Democratic Senate would make the promotion of this promising research a reality. This Senate is in Republican control. The Republican-controlled House has passed this bill. A dominant majority of the American people say enact this bill. Yet this Senate, Republican controlled, becomes the roadblock. I urge the Republican leadership to reconsider and bring the Castle- DeGette bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Mr. President, I would like to yield for my colleague, the distinguished Senator from the great State that harbors the great city of New Orleans, LA. She will speak about making Americans upwardly economically mobile in the American workplace.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. But that it would be acceptable for me to speak on the pending business, which is the flag amendment.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise as the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment. I have given this a lot of thought for a long time. I believe what we have before us is language that is essentially content neutral. It is on conduct--not speech. I will make that argument later on in my remarks, but I begin my remarks with how I came to believe that the American flag is something very special. For those of us who are westerners, the Pacific battles of World War II had very special significance. Reporters were not embedded, there was no television coverage, and the war in the Pacific was terrible--island battle after island battle--the death march at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and onward. On the morning of February 24, 1945, I was a 12-year-old. I picked up a copy of the San Francisco Chronicle. There on the cover was the now iconic photograph done by a Chronicle photographer by the name of Joe Rosenthal, and it was a photograph of U.S. marines struggling to raise Old Glory on a promontory, a rocky promontory above Iwo Jima. For me--at that time as a 12-year-old--and for the Nation, the photo was a bolt of electricity that boosted morale amidst the brutal suffering of the Pacific campaign. The war was based on such solid ground and victory was so hard- pressed that when the flag unfurled on the rocky promontory on Iwo Jima, its symbolism of everything courageous about my country was etched into my mind for all time. This photo cemented my views of the flag for all time. In a sense, our flag is the physical fabric of our society, knitting together disparate peoples from distant lands, uniting us in a common bond, not just of individual liberty but also of responsibility to one another. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter called the flag ``The symbol of our national life.'' I, too, have always looked at the flag as the symbol of our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice, our remembrance to those who have sacrificed to defend these principles. For our veterans, the flag represents the democracy and freedom they fought so hard to protect. Today there are almost 300,000 troops serving overseas, putting their lives on the line every day to fight for the fundamental principles that our flag symbolizes. The flag's design carries our history. My proudest possession is a 13-star flag. When you look at this flag, now faded and worn, you see the detail of the 200-year-old hand stitching--and the significance of every star and stripe. The colors were chosen at the Second Continental Congress in 1777. We all know them well: Red for heartiness and courage; white for purity and innocence; blue for vigilance, perseverance, and justice. Even the number of stripes has meaning--13 for 13 colonies. Our flag is unique not only in the hearts and minds of Americans, but in our laws and customs as well. No other emblem or symbol in our Nation carries with it such a specific code of conduct and protocol in its display and handling. For example, Federal law specifically directs that the flag should never be displayed with its union down, except as a signal of dire distress or in instances of extreme danger to life or property. The U.S. flag should never touch anything beneath it: neither ground, floor, water, or merchandise. The flag must be lit at night. It should never be dipped to any person or thing. And the flag should never be carried horizontally but should always be carried aloft and free. The flag flies over our government buildings throughout the country. It flies over our embassies abroad, a silent but strong reminder that when in those buildings, one is on American soil and afforded all the protections and liberties enjoyed back home. Last December, I traveled to Iraq and met with some of the brave men and women in the armed forces that are serving there. We flew out of Baghdad on a C-130 that we shared with a flag-draped coffin accompanied by a military escort. The young man or woman in that coffin gave their life under the banner of this flag. In 1974, Justice Byron White wrote that: It is well within the powers of Congress to adopt and prescribe a national flag and to protect the unity of that flag. . . . [T]he flag is an important symbol of nationhood and unity, created by the Nation and endowed with certain attributes. Justice White continued: [T]here would seem to be little question about the power of Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or to prevent overlaying it with words or other objects. The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection. I echo the opinion of Justice White: ``The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection.'' The American flag is our monument in cloth. The flag flying over our Capitol building today, the flag flying over my home here and in San Francisco, each of these flags, separated by distance but not symbolic value, is its own monument to everything America represents. And it should be protected as such. There is a sturdy historical and legal foundation for special protection for the flag. Constitutional scholars as diverse as Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren and Associate Justices Stevens and Hugo Black have vouched for the unique status of the national flag. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed the first Flag Act: Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation. Historically, the flag has been protected by statute. In 1989, 48 of our 50 States had statutes restricting flag desecration. However, that protection ended in 1989. That year the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, struck down a Texas State law prohibiting the desecration of American flags in a manner that would be offensive to others in the Texas v. Johnson case. Although the Court held that the government has ``a legitimate interest in making efforts to `preserv[e] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country,' '' it nevertheless concluded that burning the flag constituted speech under the first amendment, and that the Texas statute outlawing flag desecration was an impermissible regulation of the content of a person's speech. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent in Johnson that the flag is: a symbol of our freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations. I agree with Justice Stevens. In response to the Johnson case, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which sought to ban flag desecration in a ``content- neutral'' way that would be permitted by the courts. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court struck down that Federal statute as well. In that case, United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court, by another 5-to-4 vote, held that although the Federal statute prohibiting flag desecration did not limit speech based on content, which had been found unconstitutional in Johnson, the statute still violated the first amendment because Congress's intent in passing the statute was ``related to the suppression of free expression.'' The Supreme Court has spoken, and I do not wish to quarrel with its decisions. However, the Johnson and Eichman decisions make it clear that without a constitutional amendment no Federal statute protecting the flag will survive judicial review. Consequently, the only avenue available for restoring protection to the flag is to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, any legislation passed by Congress or State legislatures will simply be struck down. The Constitution itself prescribes instructions for its amendment when nepessary for the good of the Nation. And the Constitution is, after all, a living text that has been amended 27 times since its creation. I do not take amending the Constitution lightly. It is a serious business and we need to tread carefully. However, the change we seek to make is narrow, it is limited, and it is necessary. Some critics say we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the first amendment. I strongly disagree. The freedom of speech enshrined in the first amendment is a cornerstone of our great Nation. However, there is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. While I might disagree with those who protest, I defend their right to do so. Protecting the flag will not prevent anyone from expressing his or her point of view, regardless of what that point of view may be. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized many instances in which speech is not protected, such as obscenity and ``fighting words.'' I believe that desecrating an American flag falls into the same category. Limiting this very specific conduct will leave both the flag and speech safe. Amending the Constitution for this narrow and necessary purpose is an implicit recognition of the depth and breadth of the first amendment. What could more clearly signal the scope and strength of our freedom of speech than the fact that even protecting our Nation's symbol from desecration requires a constitutional amendment? I would like to assure those with reservations about amending the Constitution that the path we are taking is no slippery slope. There will be no stampede of constitutional amendments that could erode our freedom of speech. There will be no litany of restrictions. There has been much confusion surrounding this amendment. It does not prohibit flag burning, as is so often stated. This amendment would, quite simply, enable the Congress--you and I and our 98 other Members, Mr. President, as well as the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, and the President of the United States--to set the protocols governing our flag and protecting it as it has been protected throughout most of this Nation's history. In other words, we will hold hearings. We will devise legislation. We will debate that legislation on the floor of both bodies. The purpose is to enable this body and the other body to establish a protocol for the handling of the American flag. No more, no less. It is content neutral. It does not ban desecration, burning, defiling, or anything else. Let me read the text of the amendment: The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Just as 48 States debated this prior to 1989, and just as 48 States made a decision and passed legislation, the Congress of the United States would now have the power. That is it. No more. No less. The resolution--if passed by three-quarters of the 50 State legislatures--would merely return to Congress its historical power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. The amendment will enable Congress to have a full and fair debate on the appropriate protections for the flag. As President Woodrow Wilson, who proclaimed the first Flag Day in 1916, said: This flag, which we honor and under which we serve, is the emblem of our unity, our power, our thought and purpose as a nation. It has no other character than that which we give it from generation to generation. . . . Though silent, it speaks to us--speaks to us of the past, of the men and women who went before us, and of the records they wrote upon it. In honor of this emblem of America, I ask that this body permit us to give the American people the opportunity to decide if the Constitution should be amended. It is time to let the people decide. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Theo Farge be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the Levin amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I respond to that?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Boxer and Bingaman in introducing an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act concerning the Park Service's management of Santa Rosa Island within the Channel Islands National Park. I remain deeply concerned about a provision in the House version of the Defense authorization bill regarding the future use of Santa Rosa Island. Under a binding court settlement, non-native deer and elk must be removed from the island by 2011. The House language would prohibit the Park Service from eliminating this non-native herd by providing for a 4-year period of intensive hunting beginning in 2008. The Park Service is firmly opposed to the House provision. Nor, to my understanding, did the Department of Defense ask for the language. I am particularly concerned that the House provision would waste taxpayer dollars and deny public access. The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access. In addition to the $30 million, the previous owners agreed to what would seem to be a fair deal: they were permitted to keep hunting and grazing on the land through 2011. A court settlement in the late 1990s removed the cattle immediately but reaffirmed that the non-native deer and elk would have to be removed by 2011. Now, under the House provision, the prior owners will be able to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips. Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, they would get to keep essentially everything they had before and that is simply not in the public interest. As I said earlier, I strongly oppose the loss of public access to the island. This is the public's land. It is a national park, and the public should be able to visit it. But these privately operated hunting trips require the closure of 90 percent of the island to the public for 4 to 5 months of the year, even sometimes during peak season. Now while the House language doesn't specifically say this, I understand one of its purposes was to provide hunting opportunities for disabled veterans. Yet it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already nine military installations that permit hunting five that can accommodate disabled service members. Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base, are adjacent to the Channel Islands National Park, and allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals including deer, waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote. All together there are over 100 U.S. military installations where hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to disabled servicemembers and veterans. Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public. It is simply unfair to the taxpayers to allow a provision in the House version of the Defense authorization bill to impede on the public's right to access the island.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would respond just for a brief moment. I believe the total cost of World War II was $210 billion in real dollars. The cost thus far of just Iraq has been $320 billion; and if we include Afghanistan, my understanding is it is about $370 billion. So I did not mean it in terms of lives lost; I meant it in terms of dollars spent.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as has been said, more than 2,500 brave men and women of America's fighting forces have now been killed in Iraq. Another 18,500 have been wounded. The victims of this violence include two American soldiers captured in an ambush at a checkpoint south of Baghdad who were brutally tortured, killed, and left surrounded by roadside bombs. I join with all of my colleagues in offering our deepest sympathies. Yet with American troops now caught in the middle of raging sectarian violence, it is all too likely that such heinous acts will go on and on. This war, originally projected to last but a few months, has gone on for 39 months with no end in sight. Our Nation is spending $2.5 billion a week on the conflict, and the violence has worsened. Iraqis have suffered greatly. More than 30,000 civilians have been killed, including 4,000 in the past 3 months alone. And another 90,000 Iraqis have had to flee their homes and their country to avoid the bloodshed. In the past 5 days alone, according to news reports, nearly 100 civilians have been murdered in car bombings, shootings and other attacks, despite a new security crackdown by Iraqi and American forces. For example, on Friday, 16 people were killed and 28 wounded when a shoe bomber blew himself up inside the Buratha mosque during religious services. Saturday, one of the bloodiest days yet in recent months, over 40 civilians died in a series of car bombs and mortar attacks around Baghdad. Day after day and month after month, we see that an open-ended commitment of United States forces neither controls nor abates the insurgency but, rather, it appears to inflame it. What is becoming very apparent is that the murderous conflicts that bloody Baghdad and other cities daily can only be reduced by Iraqis-- Iraqis who are willing and able to come together and stop this brutal and ruthless violence. So I rise today to say that the time has come for the United States to recognize that United States troops cannot abate this kind of sectarian violence; only Iraqis can. Late last year, Congress approved and President Bush signed into law an amendment that was in this very Defense authorization bill. That amendment pointed out that: Calendar year 2006-- That this year-- should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. Mr. President, 79 Senators from both sides of the aisle voted for this amendment, and I believe the amendment presented today that we are debating right now is the right way to follow up on this earlier Senate initiative. It is not cut-and-run by any stretch of the imagination. When President Bush staged his brief visit to Baghdad last week, he told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that he came to look him ``in the eye.'' Now it is time for the President of the United States to look the American people in the eye. As a nation, we have had enough repetition of slogans and reassurances that have become increasingly hollow in the continuing blast of roadside bombs and the rattle of automatic gunfire. No longer will ``we stand down when they stand up'' suffice for policy. No, Mr. President, we want you to recognize this. Three years ago, the United States may have been misguided into war in Iraq, but now most certainly the country must not be misguided about the realities in Iraq today and the need to change our mission. What is victory in a land torn by its own warring factions? Is it quite possibly allowing Iraqis to solve Iraqi problems and to remove the shibboleth of an ongoing occupying army making decisions that should be left to Iraqis? Despite what may have been said these past few days, our amendment is not about cutting and running. Rather, our amendment acknowledges that staying the course is a strategy that shows no promise of success, and it is time to change that strategy. There remains a thunderstorm of conflicting forces over much of Iraq. Questing for dominance are al-Qaida, nationalistic Baathists left over from the days of Saddam's tyranny, and an array of rival religious armies. The battle lines are as uncertain and diverse as are the competing objectives of the various combatants. True, there have been some other positive developments. Iraq finally put a constitutional government in place last month, 5 months after the December 15 election. After extensive deliberation and debate, the Iraqi Government is finally functioning, but much work remains to be done by the Iraqi people and their elected leaders, for only they can ultimately defeat the forces that have left the Iraqi nation on the brink of civil war. There are now over 260,000 Iraqi military and police personnel who have been trained and equipped, well over three-quarters of the way to reaching the Pentagon's stated goal of establishing an Iraqi force of 325,000 troops. Of the 102 operational Iraqi Army combat battalions, 69 are either in the lead or operating independently. That is over 60,000 soldiers. Now that Iraqis have assumed the reins of control, it is critical that the United States not be caught in the middle of the ongoing carnage, sectarian violence, and civil strife. I believe strongly that our mission in Iraq needs to change--train police and military, provide necessary infrastructure assistance, advise when asked--but now that the entire Iraqi leadership is in place, it is time for the phased redeployment promised last year in this bill to begin. Our amendment calls on the administration to prepare and present to Congress and the American people by the end of this year a plan outlining the steps needed to proceed with the redeployment of our troops, either back to the United States or to other critical areas of potential terrorist conflict around the globe. This amendment would place the Senate on record asking that the President expedite the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a limited presence and confine the mission to training and providing logistical support to Iraqi security forces. We request the President to begin the phased redeployment of forces this year. It would ask that the President submit a plan to the Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated--estimated--days for the continued phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Is this too much to ask 3 years and 3 months into the most costly conflict the United States has yet entered into? It would also ask the President to convene an international conference to bring together the international community to discuss and implement a strategy to assisting Iraq's development and infrastructure. This amendment also calls on the Iraqi Government to, one, achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement within its own groups of people; two, share political power and economic resources among all Iraqi groups; three, develop a unifying constitution; and, four, disarm the militias and remove members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the new government is in doubt. Moreover, and most importantly, it is increasingly clear that the Iraqis themselves wish to see a structured downsizing of American troops in their country. Why don't we listen? Senator Clinton eloquently pointed this out, and it bears repeating. The new Iraqi National Security Adviser first said a week ago, and then more recently in a Washington Post op-ed just yesterday, that the Iraqi Government hopes that by year's end, United States troop levels will be under 100,000, and that most of the remaining troops will return home by the end of 2007. We don't make accusations of the Iraqi National Security Adviser. I have a hard time understanding why the opposite side makes accusations of us when we simply say we agree with the Iraqis, whose business it is to know this, chart this, advise this, and carry this out. He states unequivocally that Iraq's ambition is to have full control of his country by the end of 2008. He says: The removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see our troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. Members, this is the Iraqi National Security Adviser saying that the Iraqi people now see our troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were once meant to be. This is a point worthy of serious consideration by this body. Al-Rubaie goes on to suggest that such a drawdown: ``Will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people'' and ``strengthen it to last the full 4 years it is supposed to.'' A drawdown, he says, will legitimize Iraq's Government in the eyes of its people and strengthen it to last the 4 years it is supposed to. Why don't we listen? And he concludes yesterday's op-ed by stating--and I find this eloquent: Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need it. This is exactly what this legislation would do. If the Iraqi National Security Adviser is willing to put forward goals and timetables for the downsizing of the American troop presence in Iraq, why shouldn't the President of the United States? I hope this body will join together in a bipartisan fashion, as we did last year, and call for the redeployment and transition of the United States mission in Iraq beginning this year. Three years and 3 months. This hasn't been 30 days, it hasn't been 60 days or 90 days. It has been 3 years and 3 months with ``stay the course,'' and things get worse and worse. Now we have the National Security Adviser in Iraq saying essentially exactly what the amendment before us today says. Are we going to listen to him or do we think we know better? I believe this is the right thing to do for our troops who have sacrificed so much. It is the right thing to do for their families who wait anxiously for them to return home. It is the right thing to do for the overwhelming majority of the American people who have stated clearly their desire for a change of course in Iraq. I believe it is the right thing to do for the Iraqi people. They are prepared to stand up. They are prepared to handle their own destiny. I believe Iraq should be for Iraqis. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, Inouye, Collins, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Boxer, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Lieberman to introduce a bill to increase CAFE standards by 10 miles in 10 years. This is a commonsense, bipartisan approach to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers at the pump. We have the technology available today to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles. We just need the political will--which is why we are here today. Specifically, our bill would raise the average fuel economy of all cars and SUVs to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2017. This would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2025. That is the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This bill would also save consumers dollars at the pump. At $3 per gallon, Americans driving 15,000 miles per year are, on average, using 600 gallons of gasoline and spending $1,800 per year on gas. By raising CAFE standards to 35 miles per gallon, consumers would only use 429 gallons of gas per year, costing $1,287 per year for gas. That is a savings of $513 per year at the pump. Assuming the consumer keeps the vehicle for at least 5 years, that is a savings of more than $2,500--more than enough to recoup the cost of more efficient vehicles. Raising CAFE standards is also good for the environment. The two largest culprits of climate change are coal-fired powerplants and automobiles. Coal powerplants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide--producing 2.5 billion tons every year. But the automobile isn't very far behind--producing nearly 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. In fact, every gallon of gasoline burned emits 20 pounds of harmful CO2 into the atmosphere. That means that each car is responsible for about 12,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions every year. This legislation would take a good first step at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. By 2025, an average fuel economy standard of 35mpg would eliminate 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions--the equivalent of taking 90 million cars--or 75 million cars and light trucks--off the road in 1 year. Our daily driving habits are costing consumers at the pump, threatening our national security, and potentially causing irrevocable harm to our environment. We have the technology available today to make significant increases in fuel economy standards. In fact, David Greene of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a leading expert on fuel economy, says that a 35 mpg standard by model year 2017 is cost effective and can be achieved without reducing the size, weight, or horsepower of vehicles. And 78 percent of U.S. drivers have said they are willing to pay for better fuel economy. The longer we delay, the harder it will be to kick our addiction to oil. We must act today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances the innocent spouse equitable relief provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Through only minor legislative modifications, this bill clarifies the statute's original intent, affording innocent spouses the necessary recourse to ensure their cases and circumstances are given a fair hearing. According to section 6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS may relieve an innocent spouse of liability for unpaid taxes generated through the filing of a joint tax return if ``taking into account all the facts and circumstances'' it would be inequitable to hold the spouse responsible. Little recourse exists, however, to prevent the IRS from seizing assets or garnishing wages if a petition for innocent spouse equitable relief is not approved. Recent decisions of the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have denied the Tax Court jurisdiction over petitions for equitable relief under the Innocent Spouse Statute. Consequently, there is no mechanism for review or appeal of these IRS decisions. The story of one of my constituents provides a stunning example of the problem. The IRS seized all of her husband's income to pay a tax liability incurred 20 years earlier, before they were married. Because the IRS seized the entirety of the income, the taxes on the income remained unpaid. When her husband died, the IRS pursued the innocent spouse for the taxes on her husband's income. She was forced to sell her family home and all property owned jointly with her husband. My constituent is employed, but due to financial hardship she must live with friends. Even so, the IRS may have her wages garnished along with funds set aside for her in trust by a probate court. Because the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to review claims for innocent spouse equitable relief, my constituent can do little to prevent the IRS from seizing what remains. The aim of this legislation is to provide an avenue through which innocent spouse equitable relief decisions may be appealed, if originally denied by the IRS. This bill: expressly provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f); and suspends IRS collection activity while a request for relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f) is pending. I believe that my proposal would provide a straightforward and uncontroversial solution to the unfair treatment of innocent spouses under current law. Moreover, without this bill, an increasing number of innocent spouse equitable relief appeals will remain in limbo--pending, with no method for consideration. When this body enhanced innocent spouse protections--through passage of the 1998 Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act--the goal was to modernize, simplify, and streamline the cumbersome process of seeking relief from liabilities of tax, interest, and related penalties. Unfortunately, the conference report on the 1998 act included vague language, which ultimately has left innocent spouses with no avenue for appeal. It is worth noting that the IRS grants fewer than three in 10 requests for innocent spouse relief. This bill in no way guarantees relief, but rather fixes the broken appeals process for these IRS decisions. I urge my colleagues to support this small change that will have a profound effect on the lives of many innocent spouses--mostly women-- who deserve their day in court. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances the innocent spouse equitable relief provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Through only minor legislative modifications, this bill clarifies the statute's original intent, affording innocent spouses the necessary recourse to ensure their cases and circumstances are given a fair hearing. According to section 6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS may relieve an innocent spouse of liability for unpaid taxes generated through the filing of a joint tax return if ``taking into account all the facts and circumstances'' it would be inequitable to hold the spouse responsible. Little recourse exists, however, to prevent the IRS from seizing assets or garnishing wages if a petition for innocent spouse equitable relief is not approved. Recent decisions of the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have denied the Tax Court jurisdiction over petitions for equitable relief under the Innocent Spouse Statute. Consequently, there is no mechanism for review or appeal of these IRS decisions. The story of one of my constituents provides a stunning example of the problem. The IRS seized all of her husband's income to pay a tax liability incurred 20 years earlier, before they were married. Because the IRS seized the entirety of the income, the taxes on the income remained unpaid. When her husband died, the IRS pursued the innocent spouse for the taxes on her husband's income. She was forced to sell her family home and all property owned jointly with her husband. My constituent is employed, but due to financial hardship she must live with friends. Even so, the IRS may have her wages garnished along with funds set aside for her in trust by a probate court. Because the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to review claims for innocent spouse equitable relief, my constituent can do little to prevent the IRS from seizing what remains. The aim of this legislation is to provide an avenue through which innocent spouse equitable relief decisions may be appealed, if originally denied by the IRS. This bill: expressly provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f); and suspends IRS collection activity while a request for relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f) is pending. I believe that my proposal would provide a straightforward and uncontroversial solution to the unfair treatment of innocent spouses under current law. Moreover, without this bill, an increasing number of innocent spouse equitable relief appeals will remain in limbo--pending, with no method for consideration. When this body enhanced innocent spouse protections--through passage of the 1998 Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act--the goal was to modernize, simplify, and streamline the cumbersome process of seeking relief from liabilities of tax, interest, and related penalties. Unfortunately, the conference report on the 1998 act included vague language, which ultimately has left innocent spouses with no avenue for appeal. It is worth noting that the IRS grants fewer than three in 10 requests for innocent spouse relief. This bill in no way guarantees relief, but rather fixes the broken appeals process for these IRS decisions. I urge my colleagues to support this small change that will have a profound effect on the lives of many innocent spouses--mostly women-- who deserve their day in court. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to offer my sincere congratulations, commendation, and gratitude to Ms. Jean Picker Firstenberg, who announced last week that she will be stepping down as chief executive officer of the American Film Institute after 26 years of dedicated and exceptional leadership. During a tenure lasting nearly three decades, Jean's vision and leadership has placed AFI at the forefront of national recognition with respect to the history of film in this country. Her efforts dramatically widened the scope and magnitude of AFI's activities, and she has proven instrumental in moving the organization through times of tremendous change at AFI and in the film world as well. Founded in 1967, AFI was established to educate the next generation of American filmmakers and preserve the Nation's film heritage. Jean not only fulfilled this vital need but worked to greatly expand AFI's mission. Thanks to her efforts, AFI now stands as the largest nonprofit film exhibitor in the country, represents a preeminent voice celebrating excellence in American film and television, and has proudly championed new film and television media. Perhaps Jean's greatest challenge came when the National Endowment for the Arts funding which had been AFI's primary source of financial support since the organization's inception disappeared virtually over night. But thanks to Jean's firm dedication to our Nation's film heritage and her boundless energy, she transformed AFI into the self- sufficient entrepreneurial organization it is today with a strong and diverse financial foundation. Beyond placing AFI on firm financial grounding, Jean's tenure has also seen myriad accomplishments that will forever cement her legacy at AFI and in the film and television world. Under her direction, AFI acquired the beautiful campus in Los Angeles it calls home, greatly expanded its educational opportunities, and opened the Silver Theater and Cultural Center in nearby Silver Spring, MD. Jean Firstenberg is an American treasure, and her presence as head of AFI will be sorely missed. It is truly a pleasure to honor and thank her for all she has done for film in America, and I am deeply proud to call her my friend. She plans to spend more time now traveling and writing, but she will always be the strongest of advocates for America's rich artistic heritage.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to oppose this bill. With an $8.4 trillion national debt, a budget deficit that will exceed $300 billion this year, a looming entitlement crisis, and a mounting alternative minimum tax problem, full repeal of the estate tax at this time is simply not responsible. We have until 2010 to make decisions about the estate tax. In doing so, time will afford us the opportunity to make more informed choices, with a more complete picture of our Nation's fiscal health. We are talking about eliminating nearly $1 trillion in Federal revenues here, during a time of war. Now is not the time to place the interests of a small number of millionaires ahead of millions of working families. The estate tax is already being gradually phased down under current law. By 2009, only estates valued at more than $7 million per couple-- $3.5 million per individual--will owe any estate tax at all. This means that only 3 of every 1,000 people who die would have an estate large enough to owe any Federal estate taxes. Permanently eliminating the estate tax would cost $402 billion over the next 10 years, 2007 to 2016, though it is important to note that this figure only captures the cost of 5 years of full repeal, from 2011 to 2016. When all costs are included, nearly a trillion dollars will be lost in the first decade following repeal, from 2012 to 2021. Included in this staggering figure is $213 billion in increased interest payments on the national debt. Federal revenues are already insufficient to fund our Nation's most critical domestic priorities. I wish things were different, allowing a vote in support of reforming the estate tax to be cast today in good conscience. Let me be clear. I am no fan of the estate tax. I understand how hard families work to provide opportunities and a better future for their children. Transferring assets from generation to generation motivates families to work even harder. It is unfair to place unreasonable burdens on small businesses and families seeking to provide for future generations. I am deeply concerned about California's families who own farms and small businesses. Like many of my colleagues, I worry that they may be forced to sell a primary residence just to pay the estate tax. Our laws should not create even more hardship at a time when someone has lost a loved one. Yet, as we consider estate tax repeal today, our Nation's fiscal outlook and the potential impact of this administration's policies are uncertain. This President has broken with his predecessors by submitting only 5-year budgets. Why, you might ask? Especially after we were presented with the traditional 10-year numbers during this President's first year in office. The answer is that these tax cuts explode the debt and deficit in the outyears--the end of the 10-year window. The President's tax cuts have already cost more than $1 trillion, and those enacted will be more than $3 trillion over the next decade. Republicans just passed another round, with the lion's share once again going to the very wealthy--$50 billion to extend capital gains and dividends tax breaks over 10 years. The Federal budget deficit will be at least $300 billion this year. The national debt is soaring. And we are at war. Never before have such expansive tax cuts been enacted or continued during a time of war. Over the next 10 years, the debt is projected to reach nearly $12 trillion. In this year alone, our national debt is slated to increase by $654 billion. More startling is the fact that the national debt is currently more than 66 percent of our gross domestic product, GDP. The total debt equates to roughly $30,000 owed by every American citizen. When you combine the cost of the tax cuts with spending for the war in Iraq--currently totaling $370 billion--the inevitable result is that the domestic programs that matter most are squeezed. For example, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget makes significant cuts to programs such as food stamps, cut by $272 million; food assistance for seniors and children, cut by $111 million; COPS, which put over 118,000 police on the streets nationwide, is being cut by more than $407 million, or 15,000 officers nationwide; first responders--within Department of Homeland Security--by $573 million or 25 percent; firefighters--firefighter grant program, within Department of Homeland Security--by $355 million; Job Corps--an education and job training program for youth--by $55 million, resulting in 1,000 fewer at-risk youth being served; mass transit, by $100 million; safe and drug-free schools State grants, by $346 million; and education--the President's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, would be underfunded this year by more than $15 billion and $55.7 billion since it was enacted. Let me explain. Most of the money the Federal Government outlays in a given year is currently not controllable. It is spent on what are called entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits. If you are entitled to these benefits, you get them. And if you add interest on the debt--nearly $400 billion in 2006-- that is about 60 percent of everything spent in a given year. So that leaves 40 percent, half of which is the defense budget and half is everything else. There is a war going on, so it is very difficult to cut defense spending. So while a select few are benefiting from massive tax breaks, budget cuts must be made--to the programs many Americans rely upon--to prevent uncontainable deficits. There is a fundamental shift taking place. Republicans have become the profligate spenders, while Democrats have become the deficit hawks. Americans deserve more responsible leadership. Leadership is about planning for the future and making the difficult decisions that ensure economic stability for our children and their grandchildren. With the threatening fiscal demands of baby boomers retiring and the pending insolvency of Medicare in less than two decades, repealing the estate tax today would be inconceivably shortsighted. I urge my colleagues to employ sensible leadership and understand the responsibilities we have to uphold. We have a responsibility to working families, veterans, senior citizens, children, and low-income communities. No one will deny that this issue needs to be revisited in the coming years. We must adopt a balanced estate tax compromise, while holding the line on spending in order to restore a program of fiscal sanity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect small businesses and family farms, without unreasonably jeopardizing our Nation's financial well-being and our ability to help those who need Congress most. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to do what they know is right: encourage a more responsible fiscal course and stand in opposition to full repeal of the estate tax at this time. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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