Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution. It is my fundamental belief that the Constitution is not a document that denies rights. As a matter of fact, it is a document that protects those rights once earned. With all the problems in the world today, the Senate is spending valuable time debating a bill which we know does not have the votes for cloture, which is divisive and which I believe does not belong on the national agenda. The fact is, all family law has historically been relegated to the States; that is, marriage, divorce, adoption, custody, all aspects of family law and domestic relations have been the province of the States. That is what the Supreme Court has said in case after case from In Re Burrus in 1890 to Rose v. Rose in 1982. In that 1982 case, the court affirmed the holding of In Re Burrus that: [t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States. Similarly, in Sosna v. Illinois, in 1975 the Supreme Court wrote: Domestic relations [is] an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States. In 1982, then Associate Justice Rehnquist, dissenting in Santosky v. Kramer, wrote: The area of domestic relations . . . has been left to the States from time immemorial, and not without good reason. And just this past November, in a television interview, Justice Stephen Breyer stated very simply: Family law is State law. It is clear domestic relations have been the jurisdiction of States. That is where they should remain. I deeply believe this Senate should not be involved in putting amendments in the Constitution dealing with any aspect of marriage, of divorce, of families, of adoption, of any of those areas. The States reign supreme. Why is it when Republicans are all for reducing the Federal Government's impact on people's lives, until it comes to the stinging litmus test issues--from gay marriage or end of life--they suddenly want the Federal Government to intervene? For the life of me, I don't understand why this keeps coming before this Senate. It is extraordinarily difficult to pass a constitutional amendment. We all know that. Both Houses have to pass it by a two- thirds vote, and then over a 7-year period it goes out to the States where it has to be ratified by three-quarters of the States. The last constitutional amendment that went on to be ratified by the States was the Equal Rights Amendment, a simple 25-word amendment that said: Equal rights under the law shall not be abridged based on sex. Guess what. They were not able to get the necessary three-quarters of the States over a 7-year period. So I don't believe this constitutional amendment would be successful even if passed out of this Senate. I have not seen one passed in 13 years. It is extraordinarily difficult to get one ratified. Family law is, indeed, the purview of the States, so there is no need for a constitutional amendment. This proposed constitutional amendment strikes at the heart of States rights in the area of family law and, in doing so, it actually undermines our Constitution. Moreover, I believe Americans believe the States should deal with same-sex marriage as the States see fit. And so do I. Americans are especially concerned about amending this Constitution if it means closing the door on civil unions. Why do I say this? How do I know this? Mr. President, 53 percent of Americans polled recently would oppose a constitutional amendment that also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships such as we have established in California. Many legal experts believe this amendment would do just that. The language in the second sentence of the amendment is ambiguous. It is ambiguous, at best, stating that: Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. Now, some on the other side have argued that the amendment would still allow for legal unions passed by State legislatures, not just those instituted by the courts. However, when similar amendments were passed in States such as Michigan, Ohio, and Utah, domestic violence law and health care plans for couples, both gay and straight, were taken away. So we know it has an effect. I believe to put this on the Constitution, if it were to prevail, if it were to be ratified by three-quarters of the States, it is very likely all domestic partnerships and domestic unions of any civil kind would be wiped out, as well. That does not make any sense at all. States are well able to handle the issue of marriage on their own without the heavy hand of the Federal Government intervening in people's private lives. What is currently happening in States indicates to me they are, in fact, actively engaged on this issue. The numbers speak for themselves. To date, 45 States have acted to restrict marriage to only one man and one woman; 18 of those have done so by amending their State constitutions. So why are we doing this? This year, seven more states are poised to join them when they hold statewide votes on a constitutional same-sex marriage ban: Alabama in June, and Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin in November. In addition, at least nine other States may take up similar amendments in the not-so-distant future: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In fact, only one State, Massachusetts, recognizes same- sex marriage. One State, that is it. So why all the fuss? Why is the Senate devoting its time to this issue when one State has taken action? I say based on the laws of this land that is the prerogative of that State or any other State. So there is no need to be considering a Federal constitutional amendment, particularly when we have important global and national problems to address. We have an enormous deficit in this country. We do not spend much time on it. In Iraq, things are going from bad to worse. Just this morning we read about an unrelenting kidnapping campaign happening in the streets of Baghdad. Thousands of Iraqi citizens are being snatched from the streets, 56 just yesterday, all rounded up by gunmen dressed in Iraqi uniforms. North Korea has announced it possesses nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to become a nuclear power. Stem cell research, passed by the House a year ago, still is not on the floor of the Senate. Why, why, why, are we doing this now when we could be doing stem cell research, when we could possibly provide the hope for juvenile diabetes, for Alzheimer's victims, for cancer victims, for spinal cord severance victims? As to appropriations, the Senate has not taken up and approved any of the 12 appropriations bills that it must complete by the end of the session, and it is already June. I cannot understand why we are doing this. We have the defense authorization and intelligence authorization bills. These are critical bills at a time when our Nation continues to be fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war of terror, and we have not passed these bills. Gas prices. When I was in Los Angeles last week, it cost more than $3.50 a gallon to fill up a tank of gas. We have not taken steps to deal with that. There are dozens of critical issues, including the mandatory business of this Senate in 2 major authorization bills and 12 major appropriations bills that we have not addressed, and 45 States have taken action. Yet this Senate seems pressed to defend the Nation, to amend the Constitution, to provide something which is within the purview of the States and which the States are handling. To me, it makes no sense other than this is an election year. It makes no sense other than throwing red meat to a certain constituency. It certainly is not what the Constitution of the United States is all about. I hope we will vote no on cloture. I hope we will return to business that is important to the American people. I do not believe this issue merits the time of this Senate at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce legislation with Senator Specter to reaffirm the exclusivity of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act of 1978, FISA, and streamline the process by which it works. This measure brings the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program being conducted by the National Security Agency under the process required by FISA. The bill will enhance our national security and provide constitutional protections against government intrusion into the privacy of ordinary Americans. Specifically, the bill that we introduce today would: Restate, in no uncertain terms, that FISA is the exclusive means by which our Government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil for foreign intelligence purposes; Expressly state that there is no such thing as an ``implied'' repeal of our FISA laws. No future bill can be interpreted as authorizing an exception from FISA unless it expressly makes such exception; Increase flexibility under FISA by extending the period of emergency electronic surveillance from 72 hours to 7 days, which should cover all contingent needs; and Authorize designated supervisors at the NSA and the FBI to initiate emergency electronic surveillance, provided that the surveillance is reported to the Attorney General within 24 hours, and approved by the AG within 3 days and the FISA Court within 7 days. The purpose of this is to prevent bureaucratic delay in an emergency circumstance. In addition to these major provisions, the legislation we introduce today makes several additional changes to reinforce FISA's exclusivity and adapt existing FISA authorities and procedures. These changes are designed to allow applications to move faster from the field to the FISA Court, and to allow that Court to handle any increased caseload that will result from bringing the current NSA program into the FISA regime. These additional authorities, streamlined procedures, and additional resources respond directly to needs described by the Attorney General, current and former FISA Court judges, and outside experts. Specifically, the bill: Allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to approve applications going to the FISA Court to two other Senate-confirmed Justice Department officials; Takes FISA's current allowance for 15 days of warrantless electronic surveillance following a declaration of war and extend it to the 15 days: 1. Following a Congressional authorization to use military force, or 2. A major terrorist attack against our nation for the same period of time. Authorizes additional personnel at the NSA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the FISA Court, to reduce the time it takes to initiate, review, and file a FISA application. Allows for additional judges to the FISA Court as needed to manage the caseload; Facilitates a review of the FISA application process, culminating in a report designed to eliminate any unnecessary delay in the filings; and Mandates the creation of a secure, classified document management system to facilitate electronic filing. In addition to reaffirming FISA's exclusivity, as I mentioned before, the legislation: Prohibits the use of Federal funds for any future electronic surveillance of U.S. Persons that does not fully comply with the law; and Requires that the full Intelligence Committees be briefed on all electronic surveillance, and related, programs. We are in a war against terrorists, who seek to attack us in unpredictable and asymmetric ways. Intelligence is the key to our defense; we must know about the terrorists' intentions and capabilities to do us harm if we are to stop them. Electronic surveillance, including surveillance conducted within the United States on U.S. persons, is part of our defense. The men and women at the NSA and the FBI who do this work are careful, dedicated officials. But even in this war on terror, we should not sacrifice basic protections enshrined in the Constitution, including the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures. The FISA Court was created in 1978, following the Church Committee's investigation of some of our Government's worst civil rights violations--J. Edgar Hoover's spying on Martin Luther King, Jr., and Vietnam-era ``enemies lists,'' for example. These abuses were the result of domestic spying--electronic surveillance--under the guise of foreign intelligence. In response, Congress, working with both the Ford and Carter administrations, drafted and later enacted FISA in 1978 to be the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons. It created a special court--operating in secret--that has to approve a warrant for every domestic wiretap, and provides for careful congressional oversight. Over the years, this FISA court has rejected only a small handful of thousands of warrant requests, and has never had a significant leak. After the PATRIOT Act was passed in October 2001, for example, the Justice Department stated that FISA has worked efficiently and well. In the past 28 years, technology has changed, as have our enemies. And from time to time, when requested by various administrations, we have made technical changes to FISA. But the need to protect privacy rights by requiring individual warrants from a FISA judge, and the exclusivity of FISA, have remained constant. The domestic electronic surveillance that has been conducted since October 2001 operates, for the most part, outside of the law. In addition, the way the administration has moved forward with this program has brought us to the brink of a constitutional confrontation. The legislation that Senator Specter and I are introducing today brings the surveillance program under appropriate supervision and restores the checks and balances between the branches of government. As one who has been briefed on the details of the NSA surveillance program, I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued individualized warrants for all content collection of U.S. persons under the FISA process. Further, testimony and letters from the Attorney General, former Director of the NSA General Hayden, and other administration officials have provided no reason, other than that of timeliness, why the NSA program couldn't proceed under the FISA regime. This legislation would help transform the FISA process into one agile enough to meet the administration's need for timely action, while also preserving judicial oversight and our important constitutional privacy protections. In an April 6 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales openly suggested that warrants might have been obtainable for everything that the NSA is doing, and then testified that the main ``problem'' he saw with FISA was one of ``timing.'' After the Attorney General's testimony, I wrote to him asking him why these timing problems could not be addressed directly, so that we could return to the FISA process followed by all Presidents since Jimmy Carter. The Justice Department's response does not provide a reason why FISA's timing problems are incapable of being fixed. All it demonstrates is that this administration is not interested in trying to fix them. This bill addresses all of the concerns noted in the Attorney General's letter. The primary concern raised was that current law requires the Attorney General to determine that FISA's factual predicates have been met before authorizing the surveillance to begin. In other words, he suggests that there is important surveillance he might delay, or even avoid, if he must determine in advance that a court will grant approval. But this bill eliminates the requirement for Attorney General approval before surveillance begins. Under this bill, if the circumstances warrant, an Attorney General- designated supervisor of the NSA or FBI can begin emergency surveillance immediately. The designated officer would have to notify the Attorney General's office within 24 hours of starting, and then get approval from the AG within 72 hours. The Department of Justice would then need to obtain an emergency warrant from the FISA court within 7 days of the initiation of surveillance. The Attorney General's role would simply be to decide whether to stop the surveillance--not authorize it on the front end. And even on this decision to stop surveillance, the bill allows him to delegate that decision to two other Department of Justice officials. If the Court does not issue a warrant, the information cannot be used in any legal proceeding. This provision is respectful of the administration's needs. The 7-day emergency window in this bill more than doubles the existing 3-day period that exists for emergencies now. It also extends substantial additional resources to the Department of Justice and the intelligence agencies. And as I say, our bill expressly authorizes a designated agent to go ahead with necessary surveillance right away. The Attorney General's letter also asserts that FISA is unworkable because prompt action increases the chance that the target of surveillance may ultimately be notified if the FISA Court later turns down the warrant. The risk here is no different than the risk every prior Administration has faced. And it is also infinitesimal, since only a small handful of FISA applications--only 4 out of 18,747 from 1979- 2005, according to press reports--have ever been refused by the FISA Court. Even in the extremely rare case of where a FISA Court denies an emergency warrant, and therefore directs notification of the target of surveillance, the FISA law has a provision that exempts the Attorney General from notifying the target if he certifies that doing so would imperil national security. Despite the remote chances of national security being compromised, the legislation gives the Attorney General the benefit of the doubt, and provides that if the Attorney General or his designees stops the NSA or FBI surveillance within 72 hours, the target of surveillance will not be notified. Beyond the Attorney's General letter, the White House, the Department of Justice, and intelligence officials say that court review of the surveillance is not necessary for three reasons: First, they argue that the President has the constitutional authority to order the surveillance, regardless of statutory prohibitions. This is a question for the courts to decide. It is highly debatable whether the President has plenary article II constitutional power, but even if he does, he clearly does not have plenary authority to decide which of his powers are plenary. If he did, any Executive Branch official could open mail, or enter homes at any time without a warrant in the name of national security, and the doctrine of separation of powers as we know it would end. Secondly, the administration argues that the NSA electronic surveillance program is subject to numerous reviews and safeguards at both the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency, thus making outside oversight unnecessary. This argument flies in the face of our system of government. We have three separate branches of government, each with checks and balances on the other two. The framers of the Constitution did not vest the Executive Branch with the right to oversee itself; that is the responsibility of the Congress and the Courts. We have also recently seen how this arrangement of internal reviews, even if it were acceptable, simply does not work. Within the Department of Justice, the Office of Professional Responsibility was recently asked to review the legality of the activities of those involved in the surveillance program outside of FISA, but we have learned that OPR was denied the security clearances needed to do their work. Finally, as I noted before, the Executive Branch says that outside review by the Congress and the courts would hamstring their ability to prevent terrorist attacks. I do not believe that is true, based on the briefings I have received, but even if it were, the answer is to amend FISA, not to throw it out. The FISA law has been changed since September 11 through the PATRIOT Act and the renewal of the PATRIOT Act. It can be done again. In short, if the President sees problems with an existing law, the simple answer is that he should ask to change it--not refuse to follow the law. This war on terror will be a long war, and it will be mostly fought in the shadows. It is thus especially important that the Congress and the American people be assured that we are waging that war in a way that upholds our principles and follows the Constitution. I believe that our national security and core privacy interests can both be protected, given the right tools and authorities, if each branch of government will work together to fulfill their respective roles and obligations. Congress was able to do that more than 25 years ago when it first enacted FISA, and I am confident we can do it again today. I have been waiting for the NSA to submit views regarding metadata-- that is, information about communications that does not include content. It is my strong belief that any and all metadata collection programs should be approved by FISA on a program basis. I would hope to add such a provision to this bill at a later time or to introduce a new bill to cover this subject.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of GEN Michael Hayden to be the next Director of the CIA. I support his confirmation first because I think General Hayden's vision for the future of the CIA is right on point. He has pledged to make the collection of human intelligence a top priority--a necessary move in understanding our Nation's enemies and the threats we face. At the same time, General Hayden understands the failures of analysis prior to the Iraq war and is committed to making major changes. Only time will tell, but I am hopeful that General Hayden has what it takes to put the agency on the right path after recent collection and analytic failures. Secondly, I think General Hayden brings with him the overarching view of the entire intelligence community needed to carry out the vision and transition the CIA to deal with the new asymmetric threat posed by the terrorist world. I think this is critically important at this time. General Hayden served 6 years as the Director of the National Security Agency, the largest intelligence agency in the intelligence community. He ably led a transformation from a Cold War institution to a key component of our Nation's counterterrorism efforts. Additionally, he served as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence under Ambassador Negroponte for the past year. In this role, he oversaw the day-to-day operations of the Office of the DNI, and many of the DNI's accomplishments to date can be directly attributed to General Hayden's service. Third, I am pleased that General Hayden made a commitment to me to appoint experienced intelligence professionals to serve on his direct staff and in senior positions across the agency. I also support the administration's intention to name Stephen Kappes as the Deputy Director of the CIA. Mr. Kappes brings a wealth of experience in the clandestine service to the agency's senior leadership. Perhaps more importantly, his return to the agency has already gone a long way to assure operators that they are well represented in management and that their concerns will be met. General Hayden will come to the agency at a time of major personnel problems. But he has already taken steps to move the agency beyond the problems of the past and that is good news. There is no question that the concerns that have been raised about General Hayden are legitimate and important. Before my meeting with General Hayden and his appearance at the confirmation hearings, I was concerned that he will not be sufficiently independent of the Department of Defense. On this point, I have been reassured. General Hayden has shown his independence in the past, and has committed that if he finds his uniform to be a hindrance in any way, he will ``take it off.'' Similarly, the Intelligence Committee will need to pay close attention to intelligence activities of the Department of Defense, especially in the area of human intelligence. I have concerns that the Pentagon is going too far in this area, and I want to make sure that the CIA remains the leader and primary provider of this type of intelligence collection. My greatest concern about General Hayden is that he was not more forthcoming in his answers during the open confirmation hearing. Many members asked important questions on the NSA domestic surveillance program and on detention, interrogation and rendition policies. In my view, the public deserved more forthcoming answers than those provided by General Hayden. For example, I felt that General Hayden should have stated clearly, in full public view, whether he believes that certain interrogation techniques constitute torture. He could say yes or no without disclosing sources and methods. It is my hope that General Hayden will be more forthcoming once he is confirmed as Director of the CIA. The challenge ahead of General Hayden is daunting, but it is absolutely critical to our nation's security that he succeed. I believe General Hayden is the sound intelligence professional the CIA needs to regain its footing as the world's premier spy service and the hub of our nation's intelligence analysis and research and development capabilities. I look forward to working with him to protect the American people.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague Senator McConnell to introduce legislation to renew the ban on all imports from Burma for another year. Our legislation also amends the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to allow the sanctions to be renewed, one year at a time, for up to 6 years. It is critical that the Congress and the administration send a strong signal to the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, that our resolve has not weakened and we are still committed to a free and democratic Burma. Unless the SPDC makes ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards a true national dialogue on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 elections-- decisively won by the National League for Democracy--the import ban must remain in place. Let us review the facts. Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, remains under house arrest. 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. Senator McConnell and I coauthored the ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' which imposed a complete ban on all imports from Burma. It was overwhelmingly renewed in 2004 and 2005, and now Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize the sanctions for one more year. But the United States cannot act alone. The United Nations and the international community have a vital role to play. Along with Senator McConnell and others, we have repeatedly made the case that given the numerous human rights abuses, the spread of HIV/ AIDS, the illicit production and trafficking of narcotics, and the trafficking of human beings by the military junta, the situation in Burma should be referred to the United Nations Security Council for debate and appropriate action. 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 U.N. 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. It is time for the United Nations to act on this report and 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. Some may argue that because Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and the Burmese people lack basic human rights and a representative government, the sanctions have failed and it is time to lift the import ban. I could not disagree more. First, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continue to support a ban on all imports from Burma. If we lift this ban now, without any measure of progress towards democracy and human rights, we will turn our backs on them and give comfort to their oppressors. 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. Next week, United Nations Undersecretary for Political Affairs will brief members of the Security Council on his meeting with Suu Kyi, her first meeting with a foreigner since 2004. Why would we turn back now when the military junta is increasingly isolated and the plight of the Burmese people is on the agenda of the international community? Indeed, while we are far from our goal of a free and democratic Burma, we are making progress and we should stay the course. 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, non-punitive 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 United States Senate to renew the sanctions on Burma for another year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague Senator McConnell to introduce legislation to renew the ban on all imports from Burma for another year. Our legislation also amends the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to allow the sanctions to be renewed, one year at a time, for up to 6 years. It is critical that the Congress and the administration send a strong signal to the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, that our resolve has not weakened and we are still committed to a free and democratic Burma. Unless the SPDC makes ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards a true national dialogue on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 elections-- decisively won by the National League for Democracy--the import ban must remain in place. Let us review the facts. Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, remains under house arrest. 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. Senator McConnell and I coauthored the ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' which imposed a complete ban on all imports from Burma. It was overwhelmingly renewed in 2004 and 2005, and now Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize the sanctions for one more year. But the United States cannot act alone. The United Nations and the international community have a vital role to play. Along with Senator McConnell and others, we have repeatedly made the case that given the numerous human rights abuses, the spread of HIV/ AIDS, the illicit production and trafficking of narcotics, and the trafficking of human beings by the military junta, the situation in Burma should be referred to the United Nations Security Council for debate and appropriate action. 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 U.N. 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. It is time for the United Nations to act on this report and 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. Some may argue that because Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and the Burmese people lack basic human rights and a representative government, the sanctions have failed and it is time to lift the import ban. I could not disagree more. First, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continue to support a ban on all imports from Burma. If we lift this ban now, without any measure of progress towards democracy and human rights, we will turn our backs on them and give comfort to their oppressors. 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. Next week, United Nations Undersecretary for Political Affairs will brief members of the Security Council on his meeting with Suu Kyi, her first meeting with a foreigner since 2004. Why would we turn back now when the military junta is increasingly isolated and the plight of the Burmese people is on the agenda of the international community? Indeed, while we are far from our goal of a free and democratic Burma, we are making progress and we should stay the course. 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, non-punitive 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 United States Senate to renew the sanctions on Burma for another year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on amendment No. 4084, which was tabled yesterday. The Chambliss amendment would modify the eligibility requirements for blue card and green card status under AgJOBS, as drafted in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. The Chambliss amendment would make the AgJOBS earned legalization program unworkable by denying most farm workers access to it. Just yesterday, my staff received an e-mail from the California Canning Peach Association, which produces 80 percent of the peach volume in California. They said that the Chambliss amendment would eliminate at least 90 percent of their workers from pursuing earned adjustment under the current AgJOBS language. When I look at the Chambliss amendment, I find it to be counter to the language in AgJOBS. One reason I believe the Chambliss amendment is counter to providing American farmers with a legal work force is the work day requirement he proposes. Senator Chambliss' amendment would change the definition of ``workday'' to 8 hours per day. This change would essentially gut the bill because agricultural workers simply wouldn't be able to demonstrate 8-hour workdays. Under his amendment, in order to get a blue card, agricultural workers would have to prove that they worked at least 150 work days per year during the 24-month period ending on December 31, 2005. Anything short of an 8-hour day wouldn't count. This is just unworkable and impractical. There are many reasons why a farm worker might not be able to demonstrate 8-hour workdays, such as: Weather conditions--maybe it is raining or too cold, there's hail. For instance, oranges can't be picked wet nor can table grapes. So if it rains and workers have only worked 6 hours, they have to call it a day. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment. Transportation issues--workers may not be able to catch a ride one day, or their ride may leave after only 7 hours. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment. Market demands--workers can only pick what growers ask of them, and if the market only demands x number of oranges in 1 day and that only takes 6 hours, then that is all the work they will have in that day. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment. Sickness--a worker may have a cold or other ailment that might keep them from working for a few days. In agriculture, given the seasonal nature of work, a few days lost are precious to a worker. Labor shortages--one condition that growers tell me about are labor shortages and how they impact how many hours workers put in. For instance, a crew of workers might be in such demand that they only put in 7 hours each per day. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment. All of these are reasons why workers may not put in 8-hour workdays. And if they don't, then that doesn't count toward their eligibility and they remain here illegally. The average number of hours that California agricultural workers log daily is 5.97 hours per day. And that's for crops like citrus, vegetables, tree fruit. Many farm workers do not work 8 hours per day even when working full- time and 6 days a week. Frequently, agricultural workers work 3 to 7 hours per day. This amendment would deny workers credit for their farm work on such days, and deprive them of the chance to enter the program. Many jobs in agriculture result in fewer than 8 hours per day, particularly at times other than the peak of the harvest. Luawanna Hallstrom with Harry Singh & Sons, which is the largest single vine ripe tomato grower in the country, explained the following to my staff about the average hours worked in a season, and how they may vary in a typical year or season at their farm in San Diego, CA. She said that work hours and days can change from one year to the next because of reasons beyond their control--weather, production, changes to timing of harvest, fluctuation in number of employees available at any point in time, disease and more. Ms. Hallstrom noted that agriculture is extremely fluid and vulnerable and a typical work week for them can consist of anything from 0 to 10 hours. Another grower, Benny Jefferson, a large vegetable grower in Monterey, CA told my staff that his average worker works 6 hours per day and that 8-hour days would be a serious problem for him. By way of example, the following job offers were posted in America's Job Bank of the U.S. Department of Labor: Seeking farm worker for ``harvesting fruits such as blueberries, cherries, strawberries, grapes, oranges, and pecans'' in Georgia for ``full time'' work of 32 hours per week. Seeking Citrus Harvest Worker in Florida for a contract period from April 30, 2006, to June 30, 2006, Monday through Saturday. Hours: 36 hours per week, 6 hours per day. Florida employers seek nursery labor in West Virginia for 40 hours week, 7 hours per day Monday through Friday and 5 hours on Saturdays. What do these job postings show? That even ``full time'' work often means less than 8 hours per day. So I believe that the Chambliss amendment, if successful, would deprive most farm workers of the chance to enter the earned legalization program, or if they entered, the chance to earn a green card. The Chambliss amendment is an effort to destroy the AgJOBS compromise. It is not only unfair but counterproductive. One purpose of AgJOBS is to stabilize the workforce by encouraging undocumented workers to come forward and work in agriculture in return for the opportunity to earn a blue card and eventually, after additional hard work in the fields, a green card. By depriving many farm workers of this opportunity, the Chambliss amendment would perpetuate the unstable farm labor force that contains so many undocumented workers.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. It is a time to recognize the immeasurable contributions in service, commerce, and cultural diversity made by Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent who continue to strengthen our great Nation's character and influence. I believe that the United States draws its strength from a proud history of immigration. The Asian Pacific American community is an essential part of that tradition and it boasts an extremely vibrant and diverse population. Places such as Chinatown, Korea Town, Little Tokyo, Little Saigon, and Filipino Town only enhance the richness of the American urban landscape. Today, more than 14 million Asian Pacific Americans live in the United States. I am proud to come from the State that has the highest population of Asian Pacific Americans, nearly 5 million. In particular, Los Angeles County is home to the country's single largest Asian community, with 1.4 million individuals. California owes a great deal to the tradition of Asian Pacific Americans who have made their home in the Golden State since the 1800s. To help honor that legacy, last year, Congress authorized the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act. Known as the ``Ellis Island of the West,'' over 1 million immigrants, including 175,000 Chinese immigrants, passed through its gateways to establish new lives on the west coast. Now, this location can continue to provide us with a vital link to our Nation's history and culture. Let me take a moment to pay tribute to the visionaries who helped to create the Asian Pacific Heritage Month: Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta; U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye; Former U.S. Senator Spark Masunaga; and Former Congressman Frank Horton. Thanks to the leadership of these fine individuals, a joint resolution established Asian Pacific American Heritage Week in 1978, initially designating the first 10 days of May as the annual time of recognition. That was later expanded to a month-long celebration in 1992. The month of May holds special significance for the Asian Pacific American community. It coincides with two important milestones: The arrival in the United States of the first Japanese immigrants on May 7, 1843; and the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10, 1869 thanks in large part to the contributions of thousands of Chinese workers. This year, the theme chosen to represent this year's Heritage Month is ``Dreams and Challenges of Asian Pacific Americans.'' It is designed to recognize the struggle of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who continue to stand firm against adversity in the pursuit of the American dream. Sadly, the Asian Pacific American community understands all too well this struggle. Their story has been entangled with several dark chapters of America's history. It began in the 1800s, when people of Asian Pacific ancestry were prohibited from owning property, voting, testifying in court, or attending school. This story of persecution regrettably continued throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries: the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which prohibited the immigration of Chinese to the United States; a 1913 California law, which prohibited immigrant aliens from owning land; the repatriation of Filipino immigrants in 1935; and the mandatory internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This particular story remains a blight on the conscience of this great Nation. Nevertheless, the Asian Pacific American community found a way to endure and persevere over these injustices and indignities. In so doing, they to create a tradition of triumph over adversity that personifies the best of this Nation's character. But our Nation cannot afford to overlook their sacrifice and struggle. For this reason, I am proud that in the 109th Congress, Tule Lake-- the largest internment camp of the 10 that existed--was designated as a National Historic Landmark. This will help future generations acknowledge and understand the painful legacy of the Japanese Americans who endured the shame of the forced internment camps used during the bleak days of World War II. I would also like to take a moment to commend the 300,000 Asian Pacific American veterans who established the practice of military service for the thousands of Asian Pacific American men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces. One such individual is my distinguished colleague, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Even though his loyalties to our Nation and that of many other Japanese Americans--were falsely and wrongly questioned during World War II, Senator Inouye proudly participated in our Nation's most highly decorated unit, the Army's 442nd ``Go for Broke'' regiment combat team. Since then, Senator Inouye has continued to serve this country as a devoted public servant and exemplary citizen. His story of boldness and aspiration is not unique. Throughout the decades, countless numbers of Asian Pacific Americans have worked tirelessly to build better lives for themselves and their families. But although many Asian Americans have achieved success, we cannot forget the hardships of the Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander communities that were forced out of their homelands and who are now struggling to prosper here in America. According to the 2000 Census, Southeast Asian Americans have the lowest percentage of education, with most possessing less than a high school education. They also have the lowest proficiency of English and one of the highest rates of receiving public assistance. We cannot allow these individuals to be ignored or overlooked. I will do everything I can to help this community prosper. In closing, as we reflect on many individual stories of achievement and success during this month of May, we are steadily inspired by the standards Asian Pacific Americans set in our schools, in the business world, and our neighborhoods. I am confident that their dynamic initiative and entrepreneurship will only continue to inspire us to greatness in the years to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will restore authority to the Forest Service to retain marina permit revenue for local expenditure. Within some National Forests, the Forest Service has partnered with local small business owners, allowing them to operate houseboat marinas. In exchange, the Forest Service collects occupancy fees from these marina operators. A portion of these fees had, until recently, been kept in the Forest for local recreation and safety enhancement projects. My legislation allows the Forest Service to once again use these fees in the Forest where they were generated, and where their impact will be most direct. Several units of the National Forest system will benefit from this legislation, but the unit most affected is the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California. Under the 1996 Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, the Shasta-Trinity Forest developed a recreation enhancement program at Shasta and Trinity Lakes. Forest Service officials used a portion of the revenue from this program for projects like dock repair, improved handicapped access, safety markers for boaters, law enforcement, and campground construction. Over $4 million was invested in the Forest through this program. However, the program was inadvertently repealed when the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was passed. My legislation will correct this oversight by amending the Forest Service's Special Use Permit program, returning this recreation and safety project authority to the agency. Recreation on Federal lands is important to quality of life in my state and throughout the nation. In many rural areas, it also provides a boost to the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a simple bill correcting an oversight in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Nonetheless, it has important implications both for recreation enhancement and for the local economies around the affected National Forests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2006. This legislation seeks to implement prior congressional action taken in 1988 to require the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. It is an absolutely essential step if the Redwood County is to obtain a firm and reliable water supply. In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project to supply water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, in Northern California. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million partially financed this project. Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The initial use projections developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau were seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise funds was restricted when a moratorium on new hook-ups was imposed; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's water allotment by 15 percent. As a result of this situation, in 1998 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 that indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This loan renegotiation has never taken place and now the District finds its water supply highly uncertain. The Bureau of Reclamation acknowledged in a 2000 report that the District needs a reliable water supply in order to solve its current financial dilemma. The District has recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could supply a firm and reliable source. No government funds will be sought for these projects, and the District will rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to repayment of the new loans. This legislation requires the District to repay the United States the currently suspended loans once the new loans have been repaid. The new water project will provide enough revenue to allow the District to repay both its private loan and the United States government. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, the legislation creates a win-win solution for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Redwood Valley County Water District. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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 will restore authority to the Forest Service to retain marina permit revenue for local expenditure. Within some National Forests, the Forest Service has partnered with local small business owners, allowing them to operate houseboat marinas. In exchange, the Forest Service collects occupancy fees from these marina operators. A portion of these fees had, until recently, been kept in the Forest for local recreation and safety enhancement projects. My legislation allows the Forest Service to once again use these fees in the Forest where they were generated, and where their impact will be most direct. Several units of the National Forest system will benefit from this legislation, but the unit most affected is the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California. Under the 1996 Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, the Shasta-Trinity Forest developed a recreation enhancement program at Shasta and Trinity Lakes. Forest Service officials used a portion of the revenue from this program for projects like dock repair, improved handicapped access, safety markers for boaters, law enforcement, and campground construction. Over $4 million was invested in the Forest through this program. However, the program was inadvertently repealed when the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was passed. My legislation will correct this oversight by amending the Forest Service's Special Use Permit program, returning this recreation and safety project authority to the agency. Recreation on Federal lands is important to quality of life in my state and throughout the nation. In many rural areas, it also provides a boost to the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a simple bill correcting an oversight in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Nonetheless, it has important implications both for recreation enhancement and for the local economies around the affected National Forests. 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 Redwood Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2006. This legislation seeks to implement prior congressional action taken in 1988 to require the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. It is an absolutely essential step if the Redwood County is to obtain a firm and reliable water supply. In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project to supply water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, in Northern California. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million partially financed this project. Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The initial use projections developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau were seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise funds was restricted when a moratorium on new hook-ups was imposed; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's water allotment by 15 percent. As a result of this situation, in 1998 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 that indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This loan renegotiation has never taken place and now the District finds its water supply highly uncertain. The Bureau of Reclamation acknowledged in a 2000 report that the District needs a reliable water supply in order to solve its current financial dilemma. The District has recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could supply a firm and reliable source. No government funds will be sought for these projects, and the District will rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to repayment of the new loans. This legislation requires the District to repay the United States the currently suspended loans once the new loans have been repaid. The new water project will provide enough revenue to allow the District to repay both its private loan and the United States government. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, the legislation creates a win-win solution for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Redwood Valley County Water District. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to say one other thing. A lot of people come to me in desperate circumstances for private bills. I have tried to meet some of the families. What I have seen in these families is truly amazing. I have seen a legacy of work over a period of time that is amazing for any human being. I have actually seen families whose children are valedictorians of their high school class. I have seen them hide, but they pay their taxes, and they own a home. Some are even supervisors of companies. If you look around America, the meatpacking industry, the chicken- processing industry, virtually all of the manufacturing and production, you will see these people as a dominant part of that workforce. I look at the great bread basket that is California, the largest agricultural State in the Union, and I know at least 600,000 of our workforce are undocumented and illegal. I know they come here because of the absence of any hope or opportunity or ability to make a decent living where they were living before. I think this whole dialog we are having puts an enormous obligation on Mexico to begin to understand the needs of their people and do something to help them become economically more upwardly mobile because this is certainly the main problem that leads to the cross-border immigration that is illegal into our country. So we have tried to solve this with a comprehensive bill. I think it makes sense. It says to everybody that you have to earn this legalization. You have to get out there and work for at least 6 more years. You have to report in, but you have a card which identifies that you are in an adjusted status, you are not subject to deportation. You can raise your children. You can volunteer for community activities. You can become a constructive member of society. I believe that is worth a lot. Enabling people to live to their fullest is worth a lot. I hazard a guess that there is not one person who is going to go home because of what we do in a bill. They are going to stay, they are going to continue, but the lifestyle is going to be clandestine, and they are never going to be able to reach their full potential. This amendment allows them to do so. I urge the Senate to vote yes. I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of comments. I very much appreciate my service and Senator Cornyn's service on the same committee and have great respect for him and also for Senator Martinez who has introduced the Hagel-Martinez plan with the best of motives. Senator Cornyn said we shouldn't throw up our hands. I am not throwing up my hands. I want strong borders. I voted for a fence. I believe we should put National Guard on the borders. We provide 12,500 additional Border Patrol, 2,500 border inspectors, over $1 billion of equipment for the border. We should have our border enforced. We should get the help of Mexico to enforce it. Secondly, with this plan, there is no jumping in line ahead of anyone waiting legally for a green card. The line begins for the orange card recipients, if such should ever be, when that line is expunged. What we do is recognize the reality, learn from the streets, understand what happens, and then try to build a comprehensive solution to deal with the real world--border control, increase practical numbers of visas, as well as providing a path for earned legalization for those people who are here now. That path has several hurdles. It will weed out those who should not receive an orange card from those who should. It is an electronic process. It is doable, and it is practical. It recognizes that if you leave 4.4 million undocumented immigrants subject to deportation, whether it is this year or 4 years down the pike, you create another illegal pool of workers in this country, which I think destroys the comprehensive approach. Therefore, I just want to say that this orange card has specific requirements that have to be met over a 6-year period of work, of learning to speak English, of paying a fine, of paying taxes, of work history. That has to be met on an annual basis, submitting work history receipts on an annual basis. The program financially takes care of itself with the fines and fees. I believe it is a practical, humane way to go which can, in fact, with the other components of the bill, create a comprehensive solution to immigration reform which has a chance to stop illegal immigration into our country. I am concerned that should Hagel-Martinez become the law, we are back where we started with a huge group of people subject to deportation at one point or another. We know that creates the underground labor pool, which then creates the incentive for an addition to that underground labor pool. I believe the orange card proposal we have before the Senate now does not do that. But the devil is in the details of all of this. We will see. How much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the names of Senators Durbin and Obama as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I appreciate it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I be clear as to what I just asked unanimous consent for: that the Presiding Officer allows the time against the amendment to run, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time. But I would like to also thank the Senator from Iowa. I think he showed, particularly speaking from the heartland of our country--a much smaller State than California--how much a local economy depends on this workforce. I think that is really important to understand. I remember speaking--and I would like the Senator to know this--with Doris Meissner. She was the head of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and I think a very good commissioner. She said: Whatever you do, make it simple. Make it enforceable. That is the key where we go astray with this because you cannot enforce it, basically. Good luck finding all of these people subject to immediate deportation. It is impossible. You cannot deport 1.6 million people. And then to expect the other 2.8 million are going to go home and touchback within 3 years is an unrealistic expectation. So I hope somehow people will actually read the bill and understand the devil is in details of the language as to whether it can be carried out. I think the Senator from Iowa said it very eloquently, and I thank him for that. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time begin to run on the other side.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of organizations across the country that support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My understanding is Senator Kennedy has 10 minutes. Would the Senator like to use that time now?