Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. President, I would like to speak as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I think one of the things we really need to understand about this bill is that it is a very large bill. It is 640 pages long. It contains a multitude of programs. And it--through the visa programs, the nonimmigrant visas--brings in large numbers of people. I think when we were in Judiciary we did not realize the extent to which large numbers of people are brought in on some of these visas. We were working to a march. We had to get the bill done. And it is my understanding that studies of the bill now on the floor have shown that this bill could allow up to 193 million new legal immigrants. That is a number greater than 60 percent of the current U.S. population in the next 20 years. Now, that is a way-out figure--20 years--but I think we have to begin to look at each of the visa increases over at least the next 10-year period to determine how many people would come in, particularly the guest worker program. I am happy to cosponsor this amendment with Senator Bingaman. The amendment does two things: it lowers the annual numerical cap from 325,000 of H-2C guest worker visas--and there are a myriad of guest worker visas, but this one is H-2C--to 200,000, and it eliminates the annual escalator. In my view, all annual escalators in this bill should be eliminated because they bring in too many people over a relatively short period of time. This bill has the potential, as I said, to bring in millions of guest workers over the years. This means that over 6 years--the length of an alien's stay in the United States in this one temporary visa category--there could be 1.2 million workers in the United States. Under the current proposal, let's say you start at 325,000 guest workers in the first year, and you add the 10-percent escalator. The 10-percent escalator would yield, over 6 years, 2.7 million people. The 15-percent escalator would take it to, over 6 years, 3.2 million people. And if you had the 20-percent escalator, it would take it up to, over 6 years, 3,807,000 people. It is simply too many. So the current bill doubles and even triples the number of foreign guest workers who could enter the United States over the 6 years of our amendment. I hope this amendment will pass. I would hope that we could eliminate the escalators in these visa programs. The H-1B visa escalator would have a total of 3.67 million people over the next 10 years coming in under an H-1B visa. We increase the H-1B from 56,000 to 115,000, and then we put in a 20-percent escalator each year. If the number of visas reached the 115,000--and it will--therefore, the next year you add 20 percent. Then if that is reached, you add another 20 percent. And it compounds in this manner to the tune of a total of 3.6 million. I am very concerned about this. I hope the Bingaman amendment will be successful. Again, it does two things. It reduces the base amount from 325,000 to 200,000, and it eliminates the escalator. Two hundred thousand guest workers a year are ample because this is just one part of the bill. There are other visa programs. There is AgJOBS. There is earned adjustment. It all adds up to millions and millions of people. I strongly support the Bingaman amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a Californian to indicate my support for the confirmation of Milan Smith to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a fine occasion to be able to come here and represent that we have a very competent man to become an appellate court judge. Mr. Smith has a long and distinguished legal career in our State. The chairman of the committee pointed out some of this. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, Milan Smith moved to Los Angeles where he has been an important part of the legal community ever since. Mr. Smith founded the law firm known as Smith Crane Robinson & Parker in 1972, and over the last 34 years with Smith Crane Robinson & Parker he has engaged in a wide-ranging legal practice in business and real estate law. After reviewing his extensive record, a majority of the American Bar Association rated him ``well qualified'' to serve as a judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has demonstrated an impressive and enduring commitment to serving the public, from presiding over the Governing Board of the Los Angeles State Building Authority to acting as vice chairman of Ettie Lee Homes for Youth. As many of you know, Milan Smith is the older brother of our esteemed colleague, Senator Gordon Smith. I know the Senator from Idaho was just talking to Senator Smith and saying: Isn't it nice that California is getting a Californian. We are having a little tussle over another judge which the Senator from Idaho believes should be an Idaho judge, and the Senators from California believe should be a California judge. So that issue has not yet to be joined, but it certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know. Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road. The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children. Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status. I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred. I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer. Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card. Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now? It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter from Claudia and Jose Marquez Rico.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know. Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road. The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children. Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status. I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred. I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer. Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card. Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now? It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter from Claudia and Jose Marquez Rico.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my concern for the 6.6 million uninsured individuals in California and the impact the Enzi Small Business Health Insurance bill, S. 1955, will have on both the uninsured and the insured in my State. While the goal of this legislation is one I agree with--finding a solution to lower health insurance costs and greater access to health insurance for small business owners and their employees--I have serious concerns about the fundamental shift toward insurance deregulation and bare bones insurance coverage under the Enzi bill. It is my understanding that some changes have been made in the substitute amendment to the Enzi bill but that those changes do very little to change the fact that this bill will result in a loss of covered benefits and an increase in costs for older, sicker workers. While I respect the position of small businesses that support this legislation, I simply cannot support a proposal that I believe would result in higher costs for older, sicker workers and would result in a loss of covered benefits my State fought hard to guarantee. My concerns are shared by a wide range of people. It was also the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 41 State attorneys general including the attorney general of California, 13 Governors, the California State insurance commissioner, the California Public Employees' Retirement System and countless national organizations such as the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and many more. California has one of the most comprehensive set of required insurance benefits in the country. A partial list includes: Coverage of routine patient care costs of cancer clinical trials; coverage of breast, prostate, cervical, colorectal and other cancer screening; coverage of breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment, including prosthetic devices and reconstructive surgery; the right to a second opinion when requested by insured individual or health professional treating an insured individual; minimum maternity hospital stay; coverage of equipment, supplies, including prescriptions, and management of diabetes; coverage of alcoholism and drug abuse treatment; coverage of blood lead screening; coverage of contraceptives approved by the FDA; coverage of services related to diagnosis, treatment and appropriate management of osteoporosis; coverage of domestic partners and coverage of infertility treatment. The legislation before us sets a ceiling, not a floor for insurance coverage of vital services. Amendments that have been discussed such as creating a 26-State benefit mandate threshold are a ceiling, not a floor. The reality is that any attempt to ``harmonize'' State benefit mandates will likely result in harm to Californians. Just like legislation passed by the House last March called the National Uniformity for Food Act which I strongly oppose, this legislation preempts States rights. California voters and elected officials have determined what they think is best for the State and this legislation override the will of Californians whether they work for a small business or large one. I am also concerned about the impact this bill will have on premiums for small business employees. California has rules to protect premium adjustments from increasing year to year beyond 10 percent. And in California, insurance companies may set premium rates for employees based on only three risk factors: age, family composition, and geographic region. Under this bill, not only will employees be subject to rating based on additional factors such as the size of business, gender and type of business, but California's age and geographic region limitations are preempted. The new rating factors in the bill disadvantage certain small businesses and they disadvantage businesses with a high proportion of women of child-bearing age. I find it deeply troubling that Senators on both sides of the aisle have been denied the opportunity to vote on amendments to address the problems with this legislation. I would like to address another healthcare issue that I have been deeply concerned about and that is stem cells. The Senate has spent a week dedicated to health care and yet, the majority leader has not scheduled a vote on embryonic stem cell legislation. It has been 8 years--1998--since I introduced one of the first bills dealing with the ethical issues around stem cell research. It is almost one year--May 24--since the House passed the Castle- DeGette bill. It has been 9 months--July 29--since the majority leader shocked the Senate and announced his support for stem cell legislation. But no bill has been passed by the Senate. What we have learned over that period is that the more than seventy lines the President said were available when he set his policy in August 2001 are down to just over twenty. Those approximately twenty lines are contaminated with mouse feeder lines and they are old. They are of no therapeutic value. We need more lines if we are going to untie the hands of researchers so they can do the research needed to learn about the biology of diseases, the restoration and repair of damaged tissue, and the development of treatment therapies. Time and time again researchers say they need more embryonic stem cell lines. But, the leadership of the Senate and White House won't listen. They would rather obstruct the work of scientists who want to work with embryonic stem cells. The result is scientists moving to other countries to do their work. The time to act is now. The price of inaction goes up every day. Since this fight began, we have lost Christopher Reeve on October 10, 2004, Dana Reeve on March 6, 2006, 4 million Americans to cancer, 1.8 million Americans to diabetes, and 144,000 Americans to Parkinson's. I have heard opponents of embryonic stem cell research talk about the promise of adult stem cell research. No one I know is arguing that we shouldn't pursue adult stem cell research. That's why the Senate passed the cord blood bill unanimously last year. But, we must not fund this research to the exclusion of embryonic stem cells. There is no question that this country needs an effective stem cell policy--both to provide Federal funding for viable stem cell lines and to provide Federal ethical guidelines. It is simply appalling that here we have a week dedicated to a debate on health care and the leadership of the Senate has not scheduled a vote on the Castle-DeGette, embryonic stem cell bill. I personally believe this week should be renamed the ``week of missed opportunities'' instead of ``health week''. Instead of addressing problems associated with the Medicare drug benefit such as the amendment I filed to the pending legislation to protect seniors from insurance plans who may decide to end coverage of drugs they said they'd cover when the senior enrolled in the plan, we are doing nothing. Instead of allowing the Federal Government to use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate with drug companies to provide lower prices for seniors, we are doing nothing. Instead of addressing the fact that millions of confused seniors will face a penalty in Medicare forever if they are eligible and don't sign up for the drug program by this Monday, we are doing nothing. And yet we will have a cloture vote on a bill that will leave millions of Californians without a guaranteed access to cancer screenings and treatment, diabetes coverage, the right to a second medical opinion if they request it, among many others. All of those protections will be lost, and Senators will have been denied without the opportunity to vote on any amendments to address the problems associated with this legislation. It is a shame that the leadership of the Senate has allowed this week to become one of missed opportunities when we have bills such as the Castle-DeGette embryonic stem cell bill that have passed the House and are sitting at the President's desk waiting to be taken up and passed by the Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, could I ask a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I am recognized for 15 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I don't think any single bill or issue more delineates the difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties today than this bill and the issues it contains. I would like to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire. He talked about how good this was for job creation. Under the Clinton administration, 23 million new jobs were created. So far, 2.6 million jobs have been created under President Bush. Take a look at the difference between the two in jobs and also in debt. These are the early years of Clinton, up to 1997. Look at the blue. That is all surplus: $69 billion, $126 billion, $236 billion, $128 billion. These are the years under George Bush, the deficit: $158 billion, $378 billion, $412 billion, $318 billion, and $350 billion. So far, the tax cuts have cost $1.9 trillion. I believe this conference report reflects misplaced priorities. It exacerbates an already serious deficit. It certainly exacerbates the national debt. And most importantly, it is certainly not equitable. At a time when most American families are struggling to meet the rising cost of living, we should be taking constructive steps to provide targeted tax relief to those who need it most. We are not doing that. You would think this package of tax cuts might take steps to alleviate some of the financial strain. Instead, the bill offers no benefit to middle-class and low-income households. These provisions have been removed in favor of billions of dollars of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Unfortunately, this conference report does not resemble the bill that left the Senate earlier. Today, Americans deal with record gas prices. It is $3.40 a gallon in some areas in California. The conference committee chose not to require more from big oil companies, even as corporate profits hit a record $1.35 trillion last year, now accounting for the largest share of national income in 40 years. The conferees decided not to do anything to affect the oil companies, the special incentives and tax breaks they get. Instead, middle-class families were left to bear the brunt of these decisions. Rather than providing millions of Americans with the necessary extended relief, the lion's share of this bill--$50 billion over the next 10 years--is devoted to extending reduced rates for capital gains and dividend tax breaks. I have never had anyone in the business community come up to me and say: You have to lower capital gains. What they have said to me is that it doesn't make much difference, certainly not dividend tax breaks. Unlike the AMT fix, these rates were not scheduled to expire this year or even the next. Why are we doing it now? We are doing it now only to make the future bleaker. More than 75 percent of the capital gains and dividend tax breaks have served Americans earning more than $200,000. The Senator from New Hampshire says how great these are for the average person. No, they aren't. They are good for the very wealthy, for the individual who makes more than $200,000 a year. That is 75 percent of the benefit. The average millionaire will receive a $42,000 tax cut from capital gains and dividends alone in 2005. Meanwhile, the average taxpayer, earning less than $75,000--that is three quarters of the taxpayers--receives only $13. So three quarters of the tax-paying population of America receives only $13, while the individual earning over $200,000 has a huge tax break. This is unfair. It is irresponsible. It is not without consequences. The Federal budget deficit will be at least $300 billion this year. The national debt is soaring. We have fewer resources available for critical domestic priorities. Under President Clinton, we had 4 years of budget surplus. When he left office, we had a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. What is interesting to me is, the two parties have switched. The Republicans are not the deficit hawks; the Democrats have become the deficit hawks. The Republicans have become the big spenders, and this bill clearly identifies that. The economic policies of the last 5 years have produced a catastrophic turnaround. Record budget surpluses have given way to record deficits projected at $1.6 trillion over the next decade. The full impact of this administration's fiscal policies remains clouded. This President has broken with his predecessors by submitting only 5- year budgets. Why? Think about it, especially after we were presented with the traditional 10-year numbers during the President's first year in office. I will tell you why I think he is doing it, and that is to hide the fact that these tax cuts explode in the out years. They create enormous problems for the future. The result is a wall of debt. Over the next 10 years, the debt is projected to reach $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 at 66 percent of our gross domestic product. I heard someone make a speech the other day and say it was 2 percent of GDP, ``don't worry about it.'' So we went and got the CBO figures. It is 66 percent of GDP; worry about it. The total debt equates to roughly $30,000 owned by every man, woman, and child in America. This is really troubling to anyone who runs a household or runs a business. You would have your house repossessed if you ran your books this way. You would lose your business if you ran your books this way. When all costs are included, the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans will cost almost $2 trillion over the next decade. When you combine the cost of the tax cuts with spending on the war in Iraq-- currently totaling $370 billion--the inevitable result is the programs that matter most are squeezed. Let me explain that. This chart takes 2 years, 2005 and 2015. It looks at everything the Federal Government spends. It is deceptive to look just at the budget. The budget does not reflect what we spend in entirety. The fact is, entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits--are 53.5 percent of what the Federal Government spent in 2005. Interest on the debt alone was $184 billion. That is 7.4 percent. So 60.4 percent of everything the Federal Government spent in 2005 was not budgeted and cannot be controlled. What is left? Forty percent of total spending. There is 20.1 percent for defense--not likely to be cut much in view of the circumstances of the war on terror--and non-defense discretionary, which is everything else, at 18.9 percent of what the Federal Government spent in 2005. That is a fact. So because the only thing you can cut is discretionary defense and other discretionary spending, these tax policies mean the only thing you can do is cut every program that matters to the American people. Fewer cops on the street, down 15,000. Every nutrition and supplemental aid to seniors is cut. Less for highways, interior, and agriculture. That is what you have to cut. That is it. And that is what these tax cuts, when they explode exponentially at the end of the 10-year period, will do. They will create an enormous problem for the future. If you add interest on the debt and go to the year 2015, 70 percent of everything the Federal Government spends will not be controllable-- it will increase 10 percent from 2005 to 70 percent in 2015. Defense discretionary will be reduced to 15 percent and non-defense discretionary to 13.7 percent. That is the projected inevitable trend of what we are doing here today. Let me talk about some of the cuts: Food stamps for poor people, $272 million; COPS Program, $407 billion or 15,000 fewer officers nationwide; job training, $55 million. Education, the President's signature program, No Child Left Behind, will be underfunded this year by more than $12 billion, and $39 billion since it was enacted. That is the impact forced by passing a bill like this. No wonder people look at No Child Left Behind and say: ``Yes, we like the standards, yes, we want to strive for excellence, but you have to provide the money that was assured when the bill was signed.'' The fact is, it is $39 billion underfunded since that bill was signed. So we are shortchanging our Nation, and it isn't worth the tax cut for millionaires. I have never had a millionaire--and I would defy any Member of this body to identify one--come before me and say: ``You know, I really need a tax cut. I really need that additional $140,000 a year these tax cuts provide for me.'' I challenge anyone to bring a name forward of someone who said that because I don't believe they need it at all. I have supported tax cuts in the proper context. Let me tell what you that context is. It is a balanced budget and a projected surplus. That is the time to cut taxes for people, when you can say: ``We have balanced the budget and we are in surplus.'' That was true when the first tax cut went through. The budget was in surplus. The projected surplus was $5.6 trillion over 10 years. That is when the first tax cut was made. This is the difference between the two parties. The Republicans cut taxes even when the red ink is great. Cut out the revenues, force the squeezing of Government. That means you have to cut transportation, and agriculture, and cops, and aid to seniors and virtually every other program, because you cannot cut entitlements. You cannot cut interest on the debt. We are in a war and unlikely to cut defense. So you have to cut everything else. That is where we are going and it is only going to get worse in the future. The fact of the matter is that we don't have to make these tax cuts permanent at this time. There is only one reason they are in this bill. I don't believe it is for jobs. Clinton balanced the budget and produced 23 million jobs. This administration produced 2.6 million jobs. That is a pittance in comparison, and it is tax cut after tax cut. And when we finish here, we will be faced with an estate tax cut that will take hundreds of billions of dollars out of this revenue stream. So if there are any cops left, you can be sure they will be gone. If there are any food stamps left, they will have to be cut. Those are the choices this forces. It is wrong, it is immoral and, I think, long term, it is a disaster for this Nation. Bottom line: I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the first day designated to the conservation of the world's endangered species. I would like to take a moment to thank my Senate colleagues for unanimously designating this special day, and especially to my Senate cosponsors for helping to make this day possible. Let me also commend my constituent Mr. David Robinson for suggesting the establishment of Endangered Species Day. I appreciate his hard work and dedication. Today's designation shows that individuals like Mr. Robinson do make a difference. I am encouraged to learn that today many fine institutions across our country will use the opportunity of Endangered Species Day to bolster public awareness about the threats facing endangered species worldwide. From lectures at local zoos to birding trips with regional Audubon chapters, events are being held nationwide to commemorate this day. My hope is that Endangered Species Day will spark the wonder and interest among young people, students, and the general public about how they can become more involved in these conservation efforts. In fact, I am proud to note that in my State of California, conservation and management efforts have helped significantly to restore California condor, winter run chinook salmon, and California gray whale populations. It is remarkable that even species once believed to have been extinct, such as the mount diablo buckwheat and the ventura marsh milk vetch, have been newly found in our State. The dedicated conservation efforts of volunteers, organizations, businesses, private landowners, and government agencies have proved effective in rehabilitating many endangered species populations. We can be encouraged by these developments. These instances demonstrate that with responsible management we can halt endangered species from continuing down the path towards extinction. Such success stories also show that more needs to be done to ensure the survival of these species. There are more than 1,000 species in the U.S. and abroad that are designated as ``at risk'' of extinction. With awareness comes responsibility, and it is my hope that Endangered Species Day will inspire continued action in response to the precarious circumstances of endangered species. Mr. President, I hope that communities across the country take advantage of this special day to discuss ways that they can participate in conservation efforts for endangered species in their State, throughout the country, and around the world.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2006. This legislation would convey upon the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, one of Congress' most prestigious awards for his advocacy of peace, tolerance, human rights, non-violence, and compassion throughout the globe. I am deeply honored to be joined today by my colleague, Senator Thomas, and wish to express my appreciation to him for his willingness to be the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation. Senator Thomas has long been an advocate for addressing the plight of the Tibetan people, and in 2001 joined with me in introducing the Tibetan Policy Act, the first piece of legislation outlining U.S. policy toward Tibet and its people. He was truly instrumental in helping to advance its passage in the Congress. In fact, one of my proudest days as a U.S. Senator was on September 30, 2002, when President George W. Bush signed the Tibetan Policy Act into law. Both Senator Thomas and I are also grateful that 73 of our Senate colleagues have agreed to be original cosponsors of this legislation honoring the Dalai Lama. Under the rules, Congressional Gold Medals need the support of at least two-thirds, or 67 Senators, in order for the Senate Banking Committee to consider such authorizing legislation. I look forward to working closely with Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes to ensure that the Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act can be taken up and passed out of the Banking Committee in a timely and efficient manner. In my view, there is no international figure more deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal than His Holiness the Dalai Lama. This is a man who has dedicated his life to the betterment of humanity as a whole. As one of the most respected religious figures in the world today, the Dalai Lama's teachings on peace, non-violence and ecumenical openness have been embraced by millions. One of his greatest contributions has been his promotion of harmony and respect among the different religious faiths of the world. In his own words: ``I always believe that it is much better to have a variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather than one single religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the different mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion has certain unique ideas or techniques, and learning about them can only enrich one's faith.'' As the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, he has worked arduously for nearly 50 years to increase understanding between China and the people of Tibet. He has also dedicated his life to the preservation of the Tibetan culture, religion, and language. The Dalai Lama's story is a fascinating one. In 1959, as a teenager, he fled his Tibetan homeland for neighboring India, where he established a government-in-exile that eventually settled at Dharmasala--in the Himalayan foothills. While he admittedly once espoused independence for Tibet-- particularly in the face of the heavy-handed oppression of the Tibetan people by the Chinese Communists--the Dalai Lama foreswore this position nearly two decades ago. Alternatively, he began to pursue a reasonable and flexible ``Middle Way Approach'' that would provide for cultural and religious autonomy for Tibetans, within the People's Republic of China. In 1989, the Dalai Lama was the recipient of the Noble Peace Prize for his consistent and unfailing advocacy for the rights of the Tibetan people, along with his promotion of non-violence and peace throughout the globe. In their recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote: The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people. In April 1991 , when the Congress welcomed the Dalai Lama in a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda that was attended by the entire Congressional leadership, he offered a moving anecdote about receiving a small gift from President Franklin Roosevelt when he was a young boy. That gift--a gold watch showing phases of the moon and the days of the week--became very special to him. ``I marveled at the distant land which could make such a practical object so beautiful,'' he said. ``But what truly inspired me were your ideas of freedom and democracy. I felt that your principles were identical to my own, the Buddhist beliefs in fundamental human rights freedom, equality, tolerance and compassion for all.'' I have been blessed to be able to call the Dalai Lama a friend for almost three decades. I first met him through my husband Richard during a trip to India and Nepal in the fall of 1978. Incidentally, our first stop was in Dharmasala, where we met with His Holiness and invited him to visit San Francisco where I was mayor. The Dalai Lama was grateful for the invitation. At that time, he had never even been to the United States. For political reasons, the Chinese objected to his visiting the United States, and our government, which at that time was in the process of normalizing relations with the People's Republic of China, was sensitive to these concerns. While the trip was postponed temporarily, as mayor I was delighted to receive the Dalai Lama and present him with a key to the city upon his arrival in San Francisco in September 1979. During our many conversations over the years, His Holiness has often reiterated that, at its core, Buddhism espouses reaching out to help others, particularly the less fortunate. And it encourages us all to be more kind and compassionate. The Dalai Lama's persona exudes these qualities. He has a great sense of humor, responds quite spontaneously, and his philosophies cross all religions, cultures, and ethnic lines. I have visited with him many times since 1978, and while his principled beliefs have never wavered, his teachings have become more expansive. His message has never been more relevant in our troubled world. At the same time, I also had the opportunity as mayor of San Francisco to become acquainted with several of China's future leaders through the San Francisco-Shanghai Sister City Relationship that I started with Mayor Wang Daohan in 1980. Mayor Wang's immediate successors, Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, were both later promoted to high-level positions in the Chinese Communist Party and Central Government after leaving Shanghai. Consequently, since 1990, my husband and I have had many discussions with Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji, and other Chinese officials about the status of the Dalai Lama and the plight of the Tibetans in and outside of Tibet. On three separate occasions over the past 15 years, I have hand- delivered letters from His Holiness to the Chinese leadership, asking for direct talks and reiterating that he does not seek independence for Tibet. I know that at the same time President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush, and many others in the U.S. Government have also encouraged a meaningful dialogue. For the most part, these efforts have had little success. If His Holiness the Dalai Lama were to return to Tibet, his wish is, as he says, to be a simple monk and to be involved only in religious and cultural matters. China will be a better nation when it embraces the aspirations of the Tibetan people. Through the passage of this legislation, the United States Senate would recognize the Dalai Lama's worldwide contributions to peace and religious understanding. Among past recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal are fellow moral and religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa, and fellow Nobel Peace Laureates, such as Elie Wiesel and Nelson Mandela. By definition, a Congressional Gold Medal is reserved for the most heroic, courageous and outstanding--those who we wish to emulate in our life's actions. I strongly believe that the Dalai Lama is such an individual. I am proud that the U.S. Congress has a long record of showing support for the Dalai Lama's message of peace and compassion, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in recognizing him with this distinguished award.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Sununu to introduce a bill to strike the ethanol import tariff. With record high gas prices and demand for ethanol growing faster than expected, I believe we need to act now to ease the ethanol supply crunch. As many of my colleagues know, I have been strongly opposed to the ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill enacted last August. Today, more than ever, I believe that the time has come to end unwarranted subsidies to ethanol producers. They include: $4.5 billion in agricultural subsidies in 2004 alone that benefit corn farmers (Environmental Working Group); a 51 cent per gallon tax credit for ethanol producers; and a 7.5 billion gallon ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill. The current 51 cent per gallon subsidy is costing American taxpayers $2 billion per year, and will cost even more after 2012--almost $4 billion per year--when the use of ethanol is mandated to nearly double. Now that the ethanol mandate is law, it is time for the subsidies to cease. I believe we need to start by striking the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff. Ethanol imports are extremely limited, even though production costs for ethanol in foreign countries are significantly lower than in the United States. For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, Brazilian productions costs are 40 to 50 percent lower than in the United States. Yet the tariff raises the cost of ethanol enough to pose a significant barrier to imports. It is egregious to put such a high tariff on ethanol importation. It makes it impossible for U.S. consumers to purchase the lowest-cost ethanol. And with the refineries choosing to phase-out MTBE this year, the demand for ethanol is even greater than was expected. It is not clear if the domestic supply will be able to meet that growing demand. Any ethanol supply disruption will hurt drivers on the east and west coasts the most. Right now, ethanol is produced in the Midwest and must be trucked or railed to the coasts. According to news reports, ethanol delivery from the Midwest is currently being hindered by strong demand for limited rail time and a shortage of trucks and drivers. If we strike the tariff, refineries can have more economic and efficient access to ethanol. So, it's time to eliminate this 54 cent tariff and give consumers a break at the pump. And we are not alone in this effort. Just last week, the President asked that Congress consider eliminating the tariff. If they are going to be forced to use ethanol, our refineries should have the ability to buy it from the cheapest seller. They should not be constrained by artificial protectionist tariffs. I hope my colleagues will join with me to strike this tariff.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Sununu to introduce a bill to strike the ethanol import tariff. With record high gas prices and demand for ethanol growing faster than expected, I believe we need to act now to ease the ethanol supply crunch. As many of my colleagues know, I have been strongly opposed to the ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill enacted last August. Today, more than ever, I believe that the time has come to end unwarranted subsidies to ethanol producers. They include: $4.5 billion in agricultural subsidies in 2004 alone that benefit corn farmers (Environmental Working Group); a 51 cent per gallon tax credit for ethanol producers; and a 7.5 billion gallon ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill. The current 51 cent per gallon subsidy is costing American taxpayers $2 billion per year, and will cost even more after 2012--almost $4 billion per year--when the use of ethanol is mandated to nearly double. Now that the ethanol mandate is law, it is time for the subsidies to cease. I believe we need to start by striking the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff. Ethanol imports are extremely limited, even though production costs for ethanol in foreign countries are significantly lower than in the United States. For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, Brazilian productions costs are 40 to 50 percent lower than in the United States. Yet the tariff raises the cost of ethanol enough to pose a significant barrier to imports. It is egregious to put such a high tariff on ethanol importation. It makes it impossible for U.S. consumers to purchase the lowest-cost ethanol. And with the refineries choosing to phase-out MTBE this year, the demand for ethanol is even greater than was expected. It is not clear if the domestic supply will be able to meet that growing demand. Any ethanol supply disruption will hurt drivers on the east and west coasts the most. Right now, ethanol is produced in the Midwest and must be trucked or railed to the coasts. According to news reports, ethanol delivery from the Midwest is currently being hindered by strong demand for limited rail time and a shortage of trucks and drivers. If we strike the tariff, refineries can have more economic and efficient access to ethanol. So, it's time to eliminate this 54 cent tariff and give consumers a break at the pump. And we are not alone in this effort. Just last week, the President asked that Congress consider eliminating the tariff. If they are going to be forced to use ethanol, our refineries should have the ability to buy it from the cheapest seller. They should not be constrained by artificial protectionist tariffs. I hope my colleagues will join with me to strike this tariff.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the students of the Taft High School Academic Decathlon Team on becoming this year's 2006 National Champions. Each year, the U.S. Academic Decathlon tests our Nation's best and brightest in a host of subjects including calculus, writing, impromptu speaking, music, and art history. The competition is consistently among the most rigorous in the country. Amassing an outstanding 51,659 points out of a possible 60,000, Taft High School earned one of the most sweeping and significant victories in recent decathlon history. As one decathlon official noted, ``I've never seen anything like this.'' These students could not have achieved this memorable accomplishment without the tremendous support and encouragement from their dedicated teachers and parents. I commend the team coach Dr. Arthur Berchin and Taft High School faculty and administrators for their invaluable guidance, and I applaud the participants' parents for their unwavering dedication and commitment to helping these students reach their full potential. I would also like to recognize team members Zachary Ellington, Michael Farrell, Farhan Khan, David Lopez, David Novgorodsky, Julia Rebrova, Atish Sawant, Dean Schaffer, and Monica Schettler for their tremendous poise and determination. I encourage them to continue the hard work and perseverance that have brought them this victory. They are wonderful examples of true scholarship, and have made Taft High School, the county of Los Angeles, and the State of California very proud. What is more extraordinary is that each Taft High School team member placed first, second, or third in all ten of their individual events, totaling 43 medals and capturing 7 of the top 9 awards for individual performance. Equally important, the Taft High School Academic Decathlon Team is one strengthened by diversity, including students from Russia and Bangladesh. Good schools, like good societies and good families, celebrate and cherish diversity. Many of these students have decided to take their scholastic successes to the next level, and will attend a myriad of prestigious colleges and universities in the fall. All participants have already taken undergraduate-level courses, and their passionate pursuit of academic excellence is indeed noteworthy. Once again, I would like to honor the entire Taft High School Academic Decathlon Team on a well-deserved victory. Each of these students holds wonderful promise and I applaud them for their many achievements. Their futures are bright and their performance will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution concerning Channel Islands National Park, with Senator Boxer as an original cosponsor. We firmly believe that Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, should continue to be administered by the National Park Service in accordance with the laws, regulations, and policies of the National Park Service, including the National Park Service Organic Act. Channel Islands National Monument was designated in 1938 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the authority of the Antiquities Act. The monument was expanded to include additional islands and redesignated as Channel Islands National Park in 1980 in order to protect the nationally significant natural, scenic, wildlife, marine, ecological, archaeological, cultural, and scientific values of the Channel Islands in California. Santa Rosa Island was acquired by the United States in 1986 for approximately $30 million for the purpose of restoring its native ecology and making the island available to the public for recreational uses. The previous owners of the Island retained only an agreement for the non-commercial use and occupancy of a 7.6-acre parcel of land through 2011. The non-native elk and deer population are to be removed from the park by 2011 under a court-approved settlement and the Island restored to management consistent with other national parks. We introduce this resolution to express our concern with a provision that the House Armed Services Committee has included in the House version of the Defense authorization bill. The provision would prohibit the Park Service from carrying out the court-approved settlement's direction to remove the population of non- native deer and elk. To the contrary, we believe that Congress should not direct the National Park Service to manage Santa Rosa Island in a manner that would result in the public being denied access to significant portions of the Island for any substantial period of time. If the Park Service is unable to manage the non-native deer and elk population, the population will likely be managed through the present practice of privately organized hunting editions that currently require the closure of about 90 percent of the Island to the general public for 4-5 months out of the year. The national parks belong to the American people, and the parks should remain freely open to the people. We also believe that Congressional direction for Santa Rosa Island should not be inconsistent with the requirement to protect and enhance native park resources, including threatened and endangered species. There are 11 endangered or threatened plant and animal species on the Island, many of which would be harmed by the proposal. In particular, the bald eagle is at risk from eating carcasses containing lead bullets used by the hunters; the Santa Rosa Island fox is preyed upon by golden eagles attracted by fawns and other deer; and the Island's endangered plants are threatened by the deer and elk. In addition, there are substantial archaeological resources on the Island which could be at risk, including potentially the oldest discovered human remains in North America, 13,000 years old, and remains of the rare pygmy mammoth. In summary, we believe that the National Park Service should manage Santa Rosa Island to ensure that the Island's natural, scenic, and cultural resources are properly protected, restored, and interpreted for the public, and that park visitors are provided with a safe and enjoyable park experience. I urge my colleagues to support this Senate resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. Because I am told the declaration of emergency by the State and the contingent emergency by the President, which he said he would declare this morning, effectively clears that for this particular work on these particular high-priority sites.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, of course it does. Of course it concerns me. But we learn in this business. And I think Katrina was a big learning lesson for all of us. And we have not done right by our infrastructure. One of the problems is, as we have to cut discretionary spending that is nondefense, not entitlements, the only thing we are cutting--we are cutting 18 percent of what we spend every year. These are Federal levees. They are owned by the Federal Government. There is a responsibility to protect the people behind them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Of course.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, I have not looked at this. I was at the Napa River, where we have a big flood project, and there is a problem there. The corps there told me they could not transfer funds above a certain amount. And I believe there was some provision in a prior supplemental to prevent the transferring of that money. Let me say this to the Senator. Do I believe this is a life emergency? Yes. Do I believe that any day these 100,000 people and 33,000 homes could be flooded? Yes. Why? Because I know they are 20 feet below the water level. I know the water level is the highest it has ever been. I know the levees are eroded. I know what they call ``boils'' are popping up all over. I know it could happen. And when it happens, it happens so fast because there is so much water. So because I know it, and now you know it, we have an obligation to do something about it. And that is what the Government is here for: to save lives in the event of an emergency. We also know that earthquake probabilities are way up, and this could be devastating. So this work has to be done. We are asking for money in the Energy and Water bill. We will have additional money there. We are going through the regular channels. But this high priority work should be done now. And we should get the money there as fast as we possibly can. It could happen tomorrow, it could happen the next day, the next week. I could not live with myself if it happened, and, respectfully, you could not live with yourself if it happened because you now know it can happen.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am joined in the Senate by my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer. We are joined at the hip in opposition to this. If there ever was a disaster waiting to happen, it is the levee situation in the State of California. I will take a few minutes to explain why. Let me begin with this fact. We have a comparison of flood protection levels for major river cities. Sacramento is the only city in the Nation with 85-year protection. All comparable cities--New Orleans, 250-year flood protection; Omaha, 250 years; Dallas, 500 years; Kansas City, St. Louis, Tacoma, 500 years. The problem is, much of this area is 20 feet or more below the river, below the flood basins. I stood in a home in Sacramento on Saturday. It was 20 feet below the level of the river. That is the problem. The sedimentary base of soils there is peat, and it is easily crumbled. What you have are 2,600 miles of levees--some owned by the Federal Government, some by the State, some by private owners. These levees become eroded. And because of the heavy rain--the heaviest rainfall, I believe, that I can remember in California--there is deep concern about these levees. Let me show you the specific area we are talking about. Shown in this picture is the Sacramento Pocket Area. The Governor, Mr. Pombo of the House, and a number of other public officials were right in this area-- standing right here--a short time ago. We flew over the area. These are homes, all 20 feet below the river area. There are several places in this area that are priority needs for restoration immediately. The Governor has declared a state of emergency. The Governor has advanced State moneys. The Governor has said this is of urgent priority. The fact of the matter is, at any time, places along this levee could go. You would flood 100,000 people in 20 feet of water. Many would be unable to evacuate. You would have real catastrophe. The Army Corps of Engineers, through Colonel Light, the commander of the Sacramento District, came back. We sat down with Senator Cochran, the chairman of the committee, Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici, and Senator Reid. It was all explained that there is an emergency. Earthquake probabilities, for a major earthquake equal to 1906 in San Francisco or higher, are 62 percent by 2030. If there is an earthquake equal to what took place in California, the likelihood is that this entire area would be flooded and hundreds of thousands of people could be involved. Now, this bill provides $23 million in contingent emergency funding. This particular division is $11.3 million. Funding would become available only if the President requests the money and certifies that it is an emergency. As I say, on February 24, the Governor proclaimed this state of emergency. He cited 24 critical erosion sites. That has been changed to 29 because of ongoing erosions due to the current high water level. Today, there are 400 people from Sacramento who were worried enough about it that they have come to the Capitol to lobby for these funds. The money can become available as soon as the President signs the bill and certifies the contingent emergency. The Sacramento River Bank Protection Project is the Federal project that repairs these critical erosion sites. This additional funding will ensure that these sites are repaired in this construction season. Both the State, Senator Boxer, and I have looked very carefully: Is this money that could be used this fiscal year, before the end of September, on these sites? The answer is clearly, yes. Today, President Bush announced he is expediting environmental review to allow construction work on the sites to proceed as quickly as possible. So President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger, and the Senate Appropriations Committee all recognize how important it is to repair the weakened levees along the Sacramento River. Mr. President, 174 actively eroding sites on levee banks have been identified. The highest priority is 29 of these sites. That is what we are trying to repair as soon as possible to prevent subdivisions, such as this one shown in this picture, from being inundated with 20 feet of water. I stood there. I saw it. I saw the difference in height. And that is a phenomenon on the levee. Some might say housing should have never been built there, but the fact is it was. The critical sites we are asking money for stretch along 137 miles of the Sacramento River. They include areas of the river in the city of Sacramento, and that is this pocket area. Now, these homes sit virtually in the shadow of the levee system, and modeling by Sacramento show that a breached levee would result in the area flooding to depths of 17 to 20 feet. This area is called the ``Pocket'' because the homes sit in a pocket by a broad curve in the river. Mr. President, 33,000 homes are here; 100,000 people live right here. Colonel Light, the commander of the Sacramento District of the Corps, has indicated to me, to Senator Cochran, to Senator Byrd, to Senator Domenici, to Senator Reid, that this money can be utilized by the Corps now. The reason they cannot transfer funds is because prior legislation of this body and the other body prohibits the transfer of funds above a certain amount in a timely and effective manner. The repairs consist largely of armoring the levees with rock. Of the 29 sites, repairs for 5 have been designed already, and the remainder will be designed in the next few months. I do not need to tell you what a major flood would do. I do not need to tell you that these rivers are at historic highs right now. And it is as the river begins to decline that they worry most because the fear is the water subsiding will take with it portions of this levee. The work has to be done. It is kind of interesting. I often tell a story of when I was mayor, and the director of Public Works came to me and said: Madam Mayor, I think if there was an earthquake, the rim of Candlestick Park would come down. And I thought: What is the likelihood of that? I said: How much does it cost? He told me. And then I thought: I now know this. I have an obligation to do something about it. We found the money. We repaired the rim. And who would have thought that the Giants would have been in the second game of the World Series, at 5 o'clock, when the Loma Prieta earthquake hit, and the rim of Candlestick Park--had it come down--would have killed 20,000 people sitting directly below it. I am telling you that these levee banks could breach. I am telling you that 100,000 people and 33,000 homes--as shown right here--could lose their lives and their homes. And the evacuation difficulty is enormous. It seems to me that once we know this as public officials, we have an absolute obligation to do something about it. The Appropriations Committee has agreed. The money can be used this fiscal year. And both my colleague and I believe very strongly we should vote ``no'' on this amendment. I would like to yield the floor to my colleague. I know she is here somewhere.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, it is interesting. City and county budgets have to be balanced. The only budgets that do not have to be balanced are the State budget, at least in California, and the Federal budget. But we had to balance our budget, so, yes, I did have to find the money by taking it from other places. That is true.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce today legislation to require the White House to notify Congress when it declassifies information. This bill will both enhance Congress's oversight abilities and ensure that intelligence is not used for political gain. This legislation recognizes that as the head of the executive branch, the President has the authority to declassify any information he so chooses. It does not place any conditions or procedures on that declassification process, it only requires that the Congress be provided with notice so that it can meet its own constitutional responsibilities. Information is usually declassified because the public's need to know outweighs the security risks to intelligence sources and methods. In such cases, it is important for the Congress to be informed so that Senators and Representatives can discuss the issues with the American people. And if the President declassifies information so that his subordinates can discuss intelligence with reporters, Congress should be alerted so that the intelligence committees can ensure that national secrets are not being used for political purposes. According to court filings and media reports, the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, acting on the direction and authorization of the President and Vice President, disclosed information in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to select journalists. This was not done to provide the American people with a fuller understanding of the pre-Iraq war intelligence; the Estimate was fully and publicly declassified shortly afterwards in a more appropriate manner. Rather, the selective declassification and leak was intended to stem a tide of bad press and discredit an administration critic through a subtle campaign of media manipulation. According to the prosecutor in Mr. Libby's case, Libby provided information on Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The Niger claim was not a ``key judgment'' of the NIE, meaning that it was not deemed by the intelligence community to be a priority. It was included in the body of the report ``for completeness,'' according to the primary author. At the time, the Department of State's intelligence office found the Niger uranium claim to be ``highly dubious,'' and the intelligence community downplayed the Niger connection afterwards: The CIA had deleted a reference to Niger from the President's October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati; Two senior intelligence officials had downplayed the assessment in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee; The International Atomic Energy Agency had denounced the claim as being based on forged documents; and The intelligence community had retracted the intelligence. Let me say that again: the intelligence community had retracted this piece of intelligence. None of this additional information, apparently, was provided by Mr. Libby. Had the Senate and House intelligence committees been informed of this declassification, as would be required by this legislation, Members could have corrected the public record. I would hope that with this reporting requirement, administrations of both political parties will be deterred from improper use of intelligence. In addition to stemming the politicization of intelligence, the bill I introduce today also notes the importance of keeping the full intelligence community informed of declassifications. If the President chooses, for whatever reason, to declassify information, the intelligence agency that had been responsible for those secrets has to take steps to protect intelligence sources and methods. Similarly, the National Archives are to be informed upon a Presidential declassification so the Nation's records can be appropriately maintained. As has been highlighted again today with the release of the Archives audit over the reclassification of intelligence, the Archives play an important role in providing declassified intelligence to the public. To do so, it must be informed when information enters the public domain. It should be made clear that there are more traditional procedures by which individual intelligence agencies declassify information on a regular basis, when the release of that information is seen as no longer damaging the national security. This is done thousands of times a week throughout the intelligence community. It is important that the public have access to as much information on its government's activities as possible. To that end, I look forward, through this legislation and otherwise, to working with my colleagues and the executive branch to ensure that declassification is done as extensively and as quickly as possible without risking our national security.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce today legislation to require the White House to notify Congress when it declassifies information. This bill will both enhance Congress's oversight abilities and ensure that intelligence is not used for political gain. This legislation recognizes that as the head of the executive branch, the President has the authority to declassify any information he so chooses. It does not place any conditions or procedures on that declassification process, it only requires that the Congress be provided with notice so that it can meet its own constitutional responsibilities. Information is usually declassified because the public's need to know outweighs the security risks to intelligence sources and methods. In such cases, it is important for the Congress to be informed so that Senators and Representatives can discuss the issues with the American people. And if the President declassifies information so that his subordinates can discuss intelligence with reporters, Congress should be alerted so that the intelligence committees can ensure that national secrets are not being used for political purposes. According to court filings and media reports, the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, acting on the direction and authorization of the President and Vice President, disclosed information in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to select journalists. This was not done to provide the American people with a fuller understanding of the pre-Iraq war intelligence; the Estimate was fully and publicly declassified shortly afterwards in a more appropriate manner. Rather, the selective declassification and leak was intended to stem a tide of bad press and discredit an administration critic through a subtle campaign of media manipulation. According to the prosecutor in Mr. Libby's case, Libby provided information on Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The Niger claim was not a ``key judgment'' of the NIE, meaning that it was not deemed by the intelligence community to be a priority. It was included in the body of the report ``for completeness,'' according to the primary author. At the time, the Department of State's intelligence office found the Niger uranium claim to be ``highly dubious,'' and the intelligence community downplayed the Niger connection afterwards: The CIA had deleted a reference to Niger from the President's October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati; Two senior intelligence officials had downplayed the assessment in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee; The International Atomic Energy Agency had denounced the claim as being based on forged documents; and The intelligence community had retracted the intelligence. Let me say that again: the intelligence community had retracted this piece of intelligence. None of this additional information, apparently, was provided by Mr. Libby. Had the Senate and House intelligence committees been informed of this declassification, as would be required by this legislation, Members could have corrected the public record. I would hope that with this reporting requirement, administrations of both political parties will be deterred from improper use of intelligence. In addition to stemming the politicization of intelligence, the bill I introduce today also notes the importance of keeping the full intelligence community informed of declassifications. If the President chooses, for whatever reason, to declassify information, the intelligence agency that had been responsible for those secrets has to take steps to protect intelligence sources and methods. Similarly, the National Archives are to be informed upon a Presidential declassification so the Nation's records can be appropriately maintained. As has been highlighted again today with the release of the Archives audit over the reclassification of intelligence, the Archives play an important role in providing declassified intelligence to the public. To do so, it must be informed when information enters the public domain. It should be made clear that there are more traditional procedures by which individual intelligence agencies declassify information on a regular basis, when the release of that information is seen as no longer damaging the national security. This is done thousands of times a week throughout the intelligence community. It is important that the public have access to as much information on its government's activities as possible. To that end, I look forward, through this legislation and otherwise, to working with my colleagues and the executive branch to ensure that declassification is done as extensively and as quickly as possible without risking our national security.