Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized when the tributes to Senator Corzine have concluded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I am to be recognized by unanimous consent directly following the tributes to Senator Corzine. I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to the Senator from New Jersey. He has been indeed a good Senator. His tenure here has distinguished him. That is clearly recognized by people of New Jersey. I believe he is going to be a great Governor for that great State.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Certainly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a 12-year member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 5-year member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do so indeed with a very heavy heart. I have had, until now, great confidence in America's intelligence activities. I have assured people time and time again that what happens at home has always been conducted in accordance with the law. I played a role in the PATRIOT Act. I moved one of the critical amendments having to do with the wall and the FISA court. Today's allegations as written in the New York Times really question whether this is in fact true. I read it with a heavy heart, yet without knowing the full story. Let me be clear. Domestic intelligence collection is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. This law sets out a careful set of checks and balances that are designed to ensure that domestic intelligence collection is conducted in accordance with the Constitution, under the supervision of judges and with accountability to the Congress of the United States. Specifically, FISA allows the Government to wiretap phones or to open packages, but only with a showing to a special court--the FISA court-- and after meeting a legal standard that requires that the effort is based on probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power. Let me cite two sources. The first is a 1978 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In the report is a comment by the then-chairman of that committee, Senator Birch Bayh. He is talking about the FISA bill that had just come to the floor in 1978: The bill requires a court order for electronic surveillance, defined therein, conducted for foreign intelligence purposes within the United States or targeted against the international communications of particular United States persons who are in the United States. The bill establishes the exclusive means by which such surveillance may be conducted. That is the bill, FISA, which was passed in 1978. Second, in late 2001 this subject came up again on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Senate Intelligence Committee discussed this subject and amended at that time in its authorization bill National Security Act section 502, which is the reporting of intelligence activities other than covert action. Section 502 states: To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities shall: (1) keep the congressional intelligence committees-- It doesn't say only the chairman and the vice chairman-- fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities other than a covert action (as defined in section 503(e)), which are not the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure. And (2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities, other than covert actions, which is within their custody or control, and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities. At that time, we had this discussion about just the chairman and the vice chairman receiving certain information, and this act was amended, and section (b) was added to the National Security Act, called ``form and contents of certain reports.'' It was to clarify what the form and content of the reporting to the committee would be. And the wording is as follows: Any report relating to a significant anticipated intelligence activity or a significant intelligence failure that is submitted to the congressional intelligence committees for the purposes of subsection (a)(1) shall be in writing and shall contain the following: (1) a concise statement of any fact pertinent to such report; (2) an explanation of the significance of the intelligence activity or intelligence failure covered by such report. And then section (c) was added, ``standards and procedures for certain reports,'' that those standards and procedures would hereby be established. What has happened is that it has become increasingly used just to notify a very few people. There are 535 Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States. If the President of the United States is not going to follow the law and he simply alerts eight Members, that doesn't mean he doesn't violate a law. I repeat, that doesn't mean he doesn't violate a law. FISA is the exclusive law in this area, unless there is something I missed, and please, someone, if there is, bring it to my attention. Section 105(f) of FISA allows for emergency applications where time is of the essence. But even in these cases, a judge makes the final decision as to whether someone inside the United States of America, a citizen or a noncitizen, is going to have their communications wiretapped or intercepted. The New York Times reports that in 2004, over 1,700 warrants for this kind of wiretapping activity were approved by the FISA Court. The fact of the matter is, FISA can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours and even minutes, if necessary. In times of war, FISA section 111 states this: Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. I would argue the resolution authorizing use of force was not a declaration of war. I read it this morning carefully. It does not authorize the President of the United States to do anything other than use force. It doesn't say he can wiretap people in the United States of America. And apparently, perhaps with some change, but apparently this activity has been going on unbeknownst to most of us in this body and in the other body now since 2002. The newspaper, the New York Times, states that the President unilaterally decided to ignore this law and ordered subordinates to monitor communications outside of this legal authority. In the absence of authority under FISA, Americans up till this point have been confident--and we have assured them--that such surveillance was prohibited. This is made explicit in chapter 119 of title 18 of the criminal code which makes it a crime for any person without authorization to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. As a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, I have been repeatedly assured by this administration that their efforts to combat terrorism were being conducted within the law, specifically within the parameters of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which, as I have just read, makes no exception other than 15 days following a declaration of war. We have changed aspects of that law at the request of the administration in the USA PATRIOT Act to allow for a more aggressive but still lawful defense against terror. So there have been amendments. But if this article is accurate, it calls into question the integrity and credibility of our Nation's commitment to the rule of law. I refreshed myself this morning on the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. Here is what it says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Clearly an intercept, a wiretap, is a search. It is a common interpretation. A wiretap is a search. You are looking for something. It is a search. It falls under the fourth amendment. Again, the New York Times states that a small number of Senators, as I said, were informed of this decision by the President. That doesn't diminish the import of this issue, and that certainly doesn't mean that the action was within the law or legal. What is concerning me, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, is if eight people, rather than 535 people, can know there is going to be an illegal act and they were told this under an intelligence umbrella-- and therefore, their lips are sealed--does that make the act any less culpable? I don't think so. The resolution passed after September 11 gave the President specific authority to use force, including powers to prevent further terrorist acts in the form of force. I would like to read it. I read Public Law 107-40, 107th Congress: Sec. 1. Short title. This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''. Sec. 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces. (A) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons. Then it goes on to say: Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. This is use of force. It is not use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance of American citizens or those without citizenship within the confines of the United States. That is the jurisdiction of the FISA Court. There is a procedure, and it is timely. As a matter of fact, we got into this rather seriously in the Judiciary Committee. At the time we wrote the PATRIOT Act, I offered an amendment to change what is called ``the wall'' between domestic intelligence-gathering agencies and foreign intelligence-gathering agencies from a ``primary purpose'' for the collection of foreign intelligence to a ``significant purpose.'' We had a major discussion in the committee, as is the American way. We were making public policy. We discussed what primary purpose meant. We discussed in legal terms what significant purpose meant. So this was a conscious loosening of a standard in the FISA law to permit the communication of one element of Government with the other and transfer foreign intelligence information from one element of the Government to the other. That is the way this is done, by law. We are a government of law. The Congress was never asked to give the President the kind of unilateral authority that appears to have been exercised.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I was heartened when Senator Specter also said that he believed that if the New York Times report is true--and the fact that they have withheld the story for a year leads me to believe it is true, and I have heard no denunciation of it by the administration-- then it is inappropriate, it is a violation of the law. How can I go out, how can any Member of this body go out, and say that under the PATRIOT Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the President is not going to be bound by the law, which is the FISA court? And there are no exceptions to the FISA court. So Senator Specter, this morning, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, announced that he would hold hearings on this matter the first thing next year. I truly believe this is the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years. I am so proud of this Government because we are governed by the rule of law, and so few countries can really claim that. I am so proud that nobody can be picked up in the middle of the night and thrown into jail without due process, and that they have due process. That is what makes us different. That is why our Government is so special, and that is why this Constitution is so special. That is why the fourth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights--to state clearly that searches and seizures must be carried out under the parameter of law, not on the direction of a President unilaterally. So I believe the door has been opened to a very major investigation and set of circumstances. I think people who know me in this body know I am not led toward hyperbole, but I cannot stress what happened when I read this story. And everything I hold dear about this country, everything I pledge my allegiance to in that flag, is this kind of protection as provided by the Constitution of the United States and the laws we labor to discuss, argue, debate, enact, then pressure the other body to pass, and then urge the President to sign. That is our process. If the President wanted this authority, he should have come to the Intelligence Committee for an amendment to FISA, and he did not. The fact that this has been going on since 2002--it is now the end of 2005. Maybe 8 people in these 2 bodies in some way, shape, or form may have known something about it, but the rest of us on the Intelligence Committees did not. That is simply unacceptable. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the fiscal year 2006 Labor, HHS, Education and related agencies conference report. As my colleagues know, this is the second conference report to come out of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee this year. This bill, which passed the House yesterday by two votes, represents a failure by the leadership of this Congress to adequately fund health, education, and workforce programs. The first conference report--the one defeated by the House--contained drastic cuts to existing programs like the title VII health professions programs and No Child Left Behind. So what is different between the bill before us today and the one that failed? Does the second conference report restore the harmful cuts to health and education that were supported by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate? Does the bill contain even one dollar more than the bill that was defeated by the House? The answer to those questions is no. The first conference report included $201 million worth of cuts to rural health programs identified by the National Rural Health Association. The bill before us restores a few of these programs but it still retains $137 million, or 68 percent, worth of those cuts. The bill before us restores a provision costing $90 million that would have prohibited Medicare and Medicaid from covering prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction. And how does this bill pay for these provisions? It is not with new money but, rather, with $120 million that was designated for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund for pandemic flu preparedness and $60 million that was supposed to go to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' administrative account for implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. At a time when seniors are struggling to understand and sign up for the new Medicare drug benefit, this bill cuts the account needed to run Medicare's 1-800 help line, run its Website Medicare.gov, conduct outreach and provide technical assistance to millions confused seniors. And at a time when public health experts across the globe are warning countries to act now to prepare for a pandemic influenza, this bill cuts $120 million in pandemic flu preparedness funding. In total, this bill cuts health funding by $466 million. That includes a cut of $185 million for the Bureau of Health Professions title VII programs, making it harder to recruit and retain qualified health professionals, and the elimination of nine vital health programs including trauma care, rural emergency medical services, the geriatric education centers, health education training centers, and the health community access program. In California, the elimination of the geriatric education program will eliminate funding for the Northern California Geriatric Education Center at the University of California San Francisco, the only source of Federal funding for geriatric education from the Bay Area to Oregon. It provides a less than 1 percent increase in funding the National Institutes of Health, the smallest percentage increase to NIH since 1970. This bill cuts the number of new research grants that NIH can fund by 355, from 9,612 to 9,257. Last September, 91 of my colleagues joined me in sending a letter to President Bush supporting the administration's goal of eliminating cancer death and suffering by 2015. The wholly inadequate funding for NIH in this bill dims the hope of reaching this 2015 goal. The conference report harms all working American families. First, the conference report slashes the Office of Disability Employment Policy to $20 million, close to half of the funding in fiscal year 2005. The disabled community will no longer have the training, employment, and education needed to earn a decent wage. This is a community that already faces a 68 percent unemployment rate. Second, reducing job training programs, dislocated worker assistance, and employment services by $530 million will make it close to impossible for dislocated workers to re-enter the workforce. This is particularly appalling given the recent bankruptcy and layoff announcements by Delta, Northwest, and General Motors, just to name a few. Lastly, the reduction in trade adjustment assistance will leave workers to fend for themselves when industries change and jobs shift oversees. This is vital to the Nation's economic stability. The fast- moving pace of innovation requires that we have a flexible workforce provided with the training needed to transition to the next opportunity. Reducing this type of program will leave American workers behind. The ability to work is the path to financial independence, economic stability, and the key to earning a better life. This conference report shamefully denies that opportunity to dislocated and disabled workers wanting to earn a better life. And finally, this bill hurts our Nation's schools, educators, and students. It cuts total Federal education funding by $59 million for the first time in over a decade. Within education, No Child Left Behind is significantly cut by $779 million or 3 percent that will ultimately result in an estimated $3 million loss for California schools. Furthermore, this bill shortchanges the authorized funding level for No Child Left Behind programs by $13.1 billion. This major cut and underfunding is being done when the required math and reading performance levels under the law are increasing for school districts and schools are struggling to find the funds necessary to meet the law's requirements. This bill also fails to provide any increase to the Pell grant student aid award of $4,050 for the fourth year in a row, even though a $100 increase was promised in the budget resolution. Federal Pell grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education. Pell grants help over 5.3 million low- and middle-income students attend college, over 500,000 of them in California. There could not be a worse time for freezing student's financial grant aid as the costs of attending a 4-year public college or private college have dramatically increased both nationwide and in California. According to the College Board, the average cost nationwide of attending a public university for 1 year has increased 66 percent to $5,132 within the last 10 years, and yet Pell grant aid continues to remain stagnant. This bill also drastically cuts other important education programs, such as Even Start literacy programs that help disadvantaged children and their parents increase their English skills are cut by 56 percent, from $200 million to $100 million; education technology State grants are cut by 45 percent, from $496 million to $275 million; and State grants for keeping schools safe and drug free are cut by 20 percent, from $437 million to $350 million. The bill before us shortchanges American families, and I believe America can do better. The cuts in this bill for vital health, education, and workforce programs are a direct result of the agenda of this administration and the leadership in Congress: to pass tax cuts and reconciliation bills that actually worsen the deficit, all the while doing nothing to address the long-term fiscal picture of entitlement spending. As an appropriator, I recognize that tough decisions have to be made. However, the policy choices of this administration have put Members of this body in the position of having to vote on the elimination of health programs for the poorest and sickest of Americans and for cuts to education programs for low-income students. I reject that choice and believe we must rebalance our priorities. The choice we should be making today is to improve our healthcare safety net, to fully fund our schools, and to help American workers find the path to financial independence and economic stability. This conference report fails Americans on all those fronts, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member very much. I would like to make a brief statement. I am not sure I can do it in 5 minutes. I may have to ask unanimous consent for a little additional time. Today the Senate is taking up the conference report to accompany the PATRIOT Act. I am the original Democratic cosponsor of the unanimously passed Senate bill, as well as cosponsor of the Combat Meth Epidemic Act and the Port Security Crimes Act, both of which are incorporated in the conference report. Thus, it is only after careful consideration that I have determined to vote against cloture tomorrow, and I would like to take a moment to explain why. I fear that it is going to be a very divisive and partisan vote tomorrow. The USA PATRIOT Act has been a valuable tool in our effort to combat terror, but it has also become a divisive point of contention between Democrats and Republicans and, as a result, doesn't have the broad support of the American people. Thus, it is extremely important that every effort be made to reach an accommodation before debate becomes contentious and even more partisan. Outside the beltway, the USA PATRIOT Act has come to be terribly misunderstood. Many believe it is related to Guantanamo Bay and the detention of prisoners. Others believe it authorizes torture or the secret arrest of Americans. It does none of these things. At the same time, some have irresponsibly sought to characterize anyone who seeks to improve or criticize the law as somehow playing into the hands of the terrorists. They have implied that the USA PATRIOT Act will expire in its entirety on December 31, and we will be left with no defense against terrorist acts. This, too, is untrue. What is true is that when it comes to national security, it is so important to build consensus. Our efforts to combat terror in general, and the authorities in the PATRIOT Act specifically, are diminished in effectiveness if they are not seen by most Americans as the product of bipartisan effort in Washington. I believe our Nation's safety requires this body to reach compromise on this bill. That is why, when Senator Specter asked me to join him in introducing the Senate bill, I agreed. I want to say something. Senator Specter has been a wonderful chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He listens, he is open, he is smart, he is legally pristine, and he has been a fine leader for the committee. I believed Senator Specter, working with Senator Leahy and the members of the Judiciary Committee, would be able to build consensus, to reach compromise, and deliver legislation that the American people could be confident represented bipartisan agreement, not politics. My confidence in Senators Specter and Leahy and my colleagues on the committee was well placed. In July, the committee unanimously reported the bill favorably, and shortly thereafter the Senate, again unanimously, passed the bill. Having a USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, supported by Senators Cornyn and Schumer, Kyl and Feingold, Hatch, Kennedy, and every single Member of this body gave me great comfort, and I believe was an important step toward healing the divisive partisanship that has come to be associated with the bill. Unfortunately, that spirit seems to have ended. The conference report process, instead of bringing unity, appears to have had the opposite result: dividing my colleagues by failing to adequately take into account differing views on elements of the bill. The simple result is that in the next day we are likely to divide into two camps. In the end, of course, we will extend the PATRIOT Act's expiring provisions in some form because despite the rhetoric, nobody doubts that the provisions will be extended. What is at issue is whether and to what extent modifications are made. What will be lost is the much needed sense that the PATRIOT Act represents a broad consensus. That may be more important than the specific details of provisions and issues. I believe it is. The bottom line is that having a consensus bill is of paramount importance. So I rise today because I still believe----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wonder, Mr. President, if you will allow me a brief response to the chairman and manager of the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is the national security letters and section 215.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I very much appreciate the conversation we had last night, where I tried to share this view. I thank the Senator for listening. It seems to me, and Senator Leahy will certainly correct me if I am wrong, that the crux of the problem revolves around two sections of the bill. It seems to me there is more than one way to solve that problem. I just think if the two of you got together, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House, that there might be consensus reached. I believe the rest of the bill certainly can go into play. I do not see any problems with those, on my part. But I think Senator Leahy, who has participated in this--let me say another thing. I believe there is a real problem in these conferences where people get shut out at certain points. It is counterproductive. I would urge that not happen in the future because when it does, I believe it conditions, negatively, the entire remainder of the conference.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Yesterday, I urged Majority Leader Frist to work as hard as he can to bring people back to the table before the vote. The day before, I urged Attorney General Gonzales to work with Senators Leahy and Specter toward the same end. I have said the same thing to Senators Specter and Leahy personally, and today I renew this request. Press reports today quote insiders saying that efforts to reach compromise have been abandoned. Some seem to believe that a filibuster fight would be an opportunity to force Democrats into bad votes, thus securing partisan advantage in upcoming elections. Others seem to believe that the American people can be tricked into thinking that Members such as Senators Craig, Sununu, Murkowski, Hagel, Obama, Durbin, Feingold, Salazar, and Kerry, all of whom signed a moving letter yesterday explaining why they would vote against cloture, are somehow helping terrorists. Still others, counting the votes, think the opportunity to embarrass the administration is too good to miss. I reject these positions. Instead, I ask respectfully that we get back to work. I strongly urge my colleagues to carefully read the letter sent by this group of Senators. While I do not agree with every one of their points, the key issues they raise have merit and should be addressed. The most important of the issues they raise involve section 215--the so-called library provision--and provisions governing judicial review, particularly of national security letters. I believe on these two issues, as well as some of the others, continued good-faith negotiation will result in solving the problems in a way that will be acceptable to a vast majority of this body and will not in any way diminish the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence organizations to do their job. Congress has a long and honorable tradition of putting aside party politics when it comes to national security. We were able to do that in the Senate with this bill. So it is critical that this approach be carried forward to the end. I believe the unanimously passed Senate bill represents that compromise. And while I understand that some accommodations must be made to the House, these cannot be so great as to destroy the consensus in the Senate that we have built. I know that Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have worked long and hard. I also know that Senator Leahy made some compromises to vote for the Senate bill that passed this body unanimously. I asked Senator Specter and Senator Leahy to please try once again to achieve the compromise that we had when the Senate bill passed this body unanimously. I believe national security deserves no less, and I believe the distinguished leadership of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, can achieve this if given the opportunity and if the leadership puts its clout behind bringing the House on board as well. Absent that, I will vote for the Sununu legislation to provide an element of time. I also ask that the meth bill, as well as the port security bill, be added to his legislation. I thank the ranking member and the chairman and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I don't want to take Senator Leahy's time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I have 5 minutes more, please.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Santa Ana River Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation authorizes Federal assistance through Title XVI for projects developed by local communities to reduce their dependence on water from the Colorado River. It helps California develop safer and more reliable water supplies. Congressman Gary Miller along with Congressmen Calvert, Dreier, Royce, Cox and Rohrabacher introduced similar legislation in the House. Their bill passed the House in October. The projects in this bill will increase the region's water supply by 200,000 acre-feet annually and are prototypes for providing water supplies to new communities throughout the arid Western States. The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System is an innovative approach to reuse water resources within one of the most populated counties in the Nation. Seventy-two thousand acre feet of reclaimed water will be produced annually for indirect potable use. This is enough water to meet the needs of more than 300,000 people each year. This bill authorizes $51.8 million for the groundwater replenishment system, just 10 percent of the actual cost of the project. Another project in the bill expands desalination facilities in the Chino Basin, providing a fourfold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This legislation also authorizes $40 million to construct regional brine sewer lines that will enable our communities to safely dispose of the brine generated from the ``desalted'' groundwater supplies. In order to naturally treat the regions water and remove contamination from the Santa Anna River, I am also seeking Federal support for the construction of wetlands. This concept holds the promise of efficiently improving the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies. The creation of a Center for Technological Advancement of Membrane Technology will foster research efforts to improve membrane design and testing. Research conducted at this facility will help develop technologies to increase the stability of our water supply. I believe the ever-growing demand for water throughout Southern California can be satisfied through local supplies. Regional watershed plans, coordinating water use throughout multiple jurisdictions, are a critical tool to reach this goal. All of the projects in this legislation were developed on a regional basis and the Federal cost share of each project is less than 20 percent. I am pleased to introduce this legislation as it holds the key to providing a roadmap for other communities' efforts to meet the challenges posed by a scarce potable water supply. 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 Santa Ana River Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation authorizes Federal assistance through Title XVI for projects developed by local communities to reduce their dependence on water from the Colorado River. It helps California develop safer and more reliable water supplies. Congressman Gary Miller along with Congressmen Calvert, Dreier, Royce, Cox and Rohrabacher introduced similar legislation in the House. Their bill passed the House in October. The projects in this bill will increase the region's water supply by 200,000 acre-feet annually and are prototypes for providing water supplies to new communities throughout the arid Western States. The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System is an innovative approach to reuse water resources within one of the most populated counties in the Nation. Seventy-two thousand acre feet of reclaimed water will be produced annually for indirect potable use. This is enough water to meet the needs of more than 300,000 people each year. This bill authorizes $51.8 million for the groundwater replenishment system, just 10 percent of the actual cost of the project. Another project in the bill expands desalination facilities in the Chino Basin, providing a fourfold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This legislation also authorizes $40 million to construct regional brine sewer lines that will enable our communities to safely dispose of the brine generated from the ``desalted'' groundwater supplies. In order to naturally treat the regions water and remove contamination from the Santa Anna River, I am also seeking Federal support for the construction of wetlands. This concept holds the promise of efficiently improving the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies. The creation of a Center for Technological Advancement of Membrane Technology will foster research efforts to improve membrane design and testing. Research conducted at this facility will help develop technologies to increase the stability of our water supply. I believe the ever-growing demand for water throughout Southern California can be satisfied through local supplies. Regional watershed plans, coordinating water use throughout multiple jurisdictions, are a critical tool to reach this goal. All of the projects in this legislation were developed on a regional basis and the Federal cost share of each project is less than 20 percent. I am pleased to introduce this legislation as it holds the key to providing a roadmap for other communities' efforts to meet the challenges posed by a scarce potable water supply. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, on World AIDS Day, to remember the 20 million people who have died as a result of the largest pandemic in human history and with the hope that the 40 million people worldwide who are currently living in the shadow of this devastating illness will not be added to the list of lives lost. The human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is a certain and silent killer, decimating entire generations, crippling continents, and orphaning as many children as the populations of Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City combined. While scientific advances promise new hope for so many, we are still far from winning the war on this deadly virus much more must be done. AIDS was first identified in the United States in Los Angeles in 1981. In that year, as mayor of San Francisco, I allocated $180,000 for the treatment of this disease. By the time I left the mayor's office in 1988, funds allocated for AIDS programs in San Francisco had grown to over $20 million, more than that of the Federal Government. At that time, the crisis had exploded. AIDS cases reported in the United States had ballooned exponentially from 189 in 1981 to a staggering 32,311. Today, there are over 1 million Americans living with HIV, and the damage this disease continues to inflict across the globe is shocking. Worldwide, some 40 million people are living with HIV; 95 percent of those 40 million reside in developing nations. Tragically, only 12 percent of those infected are able to access the antiretroviral drugs needed to significantly extend and improve the quality of their lives. It costs an estimated $300 per person per year to purchase the drugs to treat someone with HIV in the developing world, which is less than one dollar per day. As Americans, it is imperative that we acknowledge the AIDS crisis and its causes both globally and locally but our current efforts are simply not enough. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, accounts for only 10 percent of the global population but is home to 60 to 70 percent of the worlds reported cases of HIV. Those infected in the region comprise some 25 million of the 40 million people worldwide stricken with the disease. In Botswana, a staggering 39 percent of the entire population is HIV positive, and the average life expectancy for a baby born in 2010 will be 27 years a figure not seen since the end of the 19th century. Although some countries have been remarkably proactive in preventing the spread of the virus, HIV remains rampant in others. In most countries, women are disproportionately affected by HIV, in some African nations outnumbering men by more than a 3 to 1 margin. Sadly, our plight in America continues as well. New advances in antiretroviral drugs show promise in helping many, but AIDS remains an incurable, fatal disease. Especially disconcerting in this country are the disproportionate numbers of minorities and gay men contracting HIV. African-American women comprise some 72 percent all women diagnosed with HIV in the United States. While African Americans make up only 12 percent of the American population, they account for about 40 percent of AIDS cases diagnosed since the pandemic began. Perhaps most disturbing, a recent study revealed that 46 percent of Black gay men tested were HIV positive, and of those tested, two-thirds were unaware of their status. In my home State of California, 45 percent of Los Angeles nursing homes reported that they would not provide treatment for an HIV- positive patient, and one-third of the city's OBGYNs would refuse to treat a mother with HIV. As a Senator representing the State with the second-highest cumulative number of persons living with AIDS in the United States, I have taken a proactive approach to securing funding for those who so desperately need help battling this disease by consistently supporting increased funding and reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act. I have been a cosponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act since the 107th Congress, legislation that would ensure low-income HIV patients receive access to antiretroviral drugs from Medicaid before their immune systems are crippled by the disease. Additionally, I have been a cosponsor of the Microbicide Development Act since the 107th Congress, a bill to expand, intensify, and coordinate research and development of microbicides to prevent the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Today's prevention options such as condoms and mutual monogamy are not feasible for millions of people around the world, especially women. Many women lack the social or economic power to insist their partners use condoms. Microbicides are user-controlled products in the form of gels, creams, or films that kill or inactivate the bacteria and viruses that cause HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and their use empowers women to protect themselves from contracting this disease. To combat AIDS in the developing world, I cosponsored the Kennedy- Feinstein-Feingold Amendment to Help Fight HIV/AIDS, urging developing countries to use compulsory licensing to greatly increase the amount of safe, generic drugs made available to HIV/AIDS patients. I also authored an amendment to strike language requiring that one- third of funding from the President's Global HIV/AIDs initiative go to ``abstinence until marriage'' programs to ensure that our prevention dollars use the comprehensive ``ABC'' approach, Abstinence, Be Faithful, use Condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. In the 24 years since AIDS was first diagnosed, America and the world have made tremendous strides in battling HIV. The average life expectancy of someone infected with HIV has risen dramatically since the disease was first identified. Despite our best efforts, the war on AIDS is still not won. Even the most optimistic estimates predict a vaccine may be another 10 years away. As Americans, we must do everything in our power to expedite the defeat of this disease. I urge my fellow senators and the Bush administration to do everything in their power to find a cure for the AIDS pandemic and adequately fund research and treatment of HIV/AIDS. While our efforts have been great, the toll AIDS has taken on the world has been far greater. It is my hope that our unwavering dedication to helping the countless victims of HIV/AIDS will continue well beyond World AIDS Day. It should be our goal to band together to work to find the cure for this deadly illness which transcends gender, race, and nationality. On this day, I encourage people around the world to take time to ponder the vast scope of the AIDS pandemic, and remember those we have lost. But let us not remember them in sorrow but, rather, let their memory inspire our efforts to prevent any further devastation from this virus. Amidst our many domestic and international problems, let us remember that AIDS has cruelly cut short tens of millions of lives, more than that of any warlord, dictator, or natural disaster in human history. This disease has ravaged a continent, orphaned innumerable children, and torn apart entire communities. Millions more will die of AIDS this year, and millions more, including newborn infants, will become infected. Until the day when this virus no longer threatens the lives of millions of innocent people, we all must pledge to keep this fight alive. It is our responsibility as representatives of the people to take action now to eradicate this deadly disease. Each day we wait is another day when someone's loved one will fall victim to this virus. Silence is approval, and it is our duty to raise our voices for those whose voices have been silenced. It is our duty to further the strides taken since the first case was diagnosed in 1981, so our generation can celebrate the day when the last case is cured. As I have said before, ``I was there in the beginning, and I plan to be there in the end.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a pioneering scientist and mathematician--Dr. John V. Wehausen. Considered one of the world's leading researchers in the field of hydrodynamics, Professor Wehausen passed away on October 6 of this year. I wish to send my sincerest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues. A professor emeritus of engineering science at the University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Wehausen left behind a monumental body of work and vast pioneering contributions to a number of academic fields. Some of his work, now decades old, still remains an important resource for scholars and students. Professor Wehausen was born in Duluth, MN, and grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. He matriculated at the University of Michigan where he earned B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mathematics as well as an M.S. in physics. He left Ann Arbor for Brown University in Rhode Island where he not only began a long and prestigious teaching career, but also met his wife, Mary Katherine Wertime. Ms. Wehausen preceded her husband in death in 2001 after 62 years of marriage. After Brown, Professor Wehausen spent teaching stints at Columbia University and the University of Missouri before working for the U.S. Navy during World War II in operations analysis and research and development. In 1956, Professor Wehausen accepted a position at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught until 1984 and where he remained an active researcher thereafter. Shortly after arriving at UC-Berkeley, Professor Wehausen helped form the Department of Naval Architecture, one of the first programs of its kind in the Nation. During the decades he spent at UC-Berkeley, Professor Wehausen not only produced volumes of influential scholarship but also garnered a reputation as a faculty member who respected and cared for his students. A respect reciprocated by his many students. More than a prodigious researcher and instructor, Professor Wehausen held a great love for languages, music, and literature. He gained proficiency in a number of languages and also was an accomplished musician. Professor Wehausen has left behind a great legacy of scholarship. His many awards testify to his abilities and his determination. Among his many honors were the Davidson Medal from the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, an honorary doctorate degree from the Joseph Fourier University in France, and the International Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. His four children all live in my home State of California, and I send them my deepest condolences at the passing of their father. Professor Wehausen made monumental contributions to the fields of math and science, and the influence of his life's work will surely live on for many generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do, as well, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my chairman, Senator Hutchison, in recommending this 2006 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations conference report to the Senate. This is the first year that MILCON has added dramatically to its portfolio, and I want to compliment the chairman of our committee, and I want to compliment her staff for what has been, I think--on what could have been a very difficult bill--a very bipartisan, constructive, team-like, problem-solving effort. I only wish we had more of it in the Senate. But I want the chairman to know how much I am grateful to her for her leadership, and I want her staff to know that as well. I also thank Chairman Cochran--what Senator Hutchison said was right about the amount of money--and also Senator Byrd for their leadership and diligence in getting this bill through conference and to the Senate floor. As the chairman said, the conference report before us today is a first. It provides for the infrastructure needs of our military and the health care and other needs of our veterans. The bill is a big one. It is an $82.57 billion bill. It includes $12.167 billion for MILCON, family housing, environmental cleanup; $70.25 billion for veterans' benefits and health care--that is the big addition--and $157.6 million for several related agencies. Of the many vital programs the Senator elucidated as funded in this conference report, none is more important than the funding we provide to meet the medical needs of our Nation's veterans. As a Senator from a State with the largest population of veterans in the Nation, I cannot overstate the importance of this issue. We have to support our veterans to the fullest extent possible. The conference report before us today provides $22.547 billion for veterans medical services. Included in that level is $1.225 billion in contingent emergency funding to make up the projected shortfall in the President's original budget request. The Senate had sought a higher level of funding, and it was my sincere hope that the House, which had zero emergency funding for veterans in its version of the bill, would have agreed to our position and accepted the full amount provided in the Senate bill. That did not happen. But given the huge disparity between the House and Senate funding proposals, the level of funding provided in the conference report is a good start. I commend, again, the chairman for her hard work--for the cooperation of Senator Cochran, chairman of the Appropriations Committee--in bridging the enormous gap between the two bills and ensuring that the conference report did not shortchange our veterans. I do not believe it does shortchange our veterans. The proposed funding for VA medical services is equal to the level of funding the administration has said it needs for fiscal year 2006. That is clearly a good start. But it offers--and it has to be pointed out-- no safety net to our veterans, should the VA's budget once again prove to be wrong. This is a worrisome prospect. Hopefully, the administration got it right this time and the funding will be sufficient, but everyone should know that we will be watching. Additionally, there is much talk floating around the Capitol of an across-the-board cut to discretionary programs. I would like to be clear to everyone, any across-the-board cut to VA medical services will mean cuts in health care for veterans. There is no other way around it. We can't allow it to happen. As I noted earlier, the medical services proposal includes the $1.225 billion in contingent emergency funding. This means the administration will have to designate the funding as an emergency before it is apportioned to the VA. I want to send this message loud and clear to the administration: Do not sit on this funding and force the VA to have to begin rationing health care. We will not stand for that. The MILCON portion of the report provides $12.17 billion to fund state-of-the-art facilities. The Senator has mentioned some of them-- barracks, housing for military families, and other vital infrastructure for servicemembers around the world. Army projects were increased by 19 percent; Air Force, by 18 percent; and the Navy, by nearly 8 percent. When enacted, this bill will fund Active-component MILCON at $5.1 billion. We were also able to provide significant increases in funding for Reserve-component MILCON. This is important at a time when our Reserve Forces are being asked to do more than ever before and, in many cases, are being deployed to combat zones overseas multiple times. Ensuring that these troops have adequate facilities in which to train and maintain their equipment is crucial to the success of their mission. To that end, the conferees agreed to increase funding for Army Guard projects by 60 percent, a substantial amount; for Air Guard projects by 83 percent over the President's budget request. In fact, overall funding for Reserve components was increased by 52 percent over the President's budget request, dedicating $1.1 billion for new facilities for our Reserve bases. That is important, and it means that this committee has done an excellent job in recognizing the need. In summary, I once again thank my chairman, Senator Hutchison. I not only enjoy her collegiality but her friendship as well. I want her to know that that means a great deal to me. I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd for their leadership. And I would like to thank our staffs who really worked in what I like to believe is a hallmark, sometimes, of this great body, which is bipartisanship. They have shown an unfailing spirit of cooperation. So thank you, Tammy Cameron, Sean Knowles, and Dennis Balkham for Senator Hutchison, and Christine Evans, B. G. Wright, Chad Schulken, and Chris Thompson of my staff. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We have 15 minutes; I have two amendments.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, it is 30 minutes in opposition.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have two amendments. I will not require more than 15 minutes.