Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield the balance of my time to the Senator from Oregon.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield my 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am yielding my remaining 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we have all seen the HHS bill go down in the Senate. There is a message in this. That is that the people of America are only going to accept so many cuts in health care, in Medicaid, in Medicare, in transportation, and other vital areas. This amendment directly targets our budget deficit. If the budget is not in balance, tax rates for income, capital gains, and dividends will return to previous levels and deductions for taxpayers earning more than an adjusted gross income of $1 million a year. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center, this amendment could increase revenues by more than $100 billion over 5 years. It is a strong step, a first step in helping the budget deficit and also saying to people in this country that millionaires are prepared to forego tax cuts to benefit the very poor of our country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I present this amendment on behalf of Senators Sununu, Gregg, Wyden, Cantwell, Feingold, Burr, McCain, Kerry, Collins, Clinton, Schumer, Snowe, and myself. In April of this year, the President of the United States stated this: With oil at more than $50 a barrel, energy companies do not need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas. Before a joint Senate hearing last week, the big companies-- ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell--said they do not need these tax incentives. Each CEO said they did not need it. This amendment removes those tax incentives. I think the time has come to do that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Wyden would like to use some of this time. I would be happy to allot him--how much time does the Senator require?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Oregon. In essence, Mr. President, this is the biggest handout to the biggest corporations in America--as a matter of fact, in the world. We should not be giving them a tax break so they can do their job--to drill for oil--when they certainly do not need it. Again, let me be clear: this is a tax credit for the major oil companies only. It should not surprise anyone to learn that these same oil companies' effective tax rates were well below 35 percent. In 2001, their tax rate was 17.3 percent; in 2002, 5.6 percent; in 2003, 13.3 percent. This averages out to 13.3 percent over the 3-year period. By contrast, 14 industries have higher effective tax rates. The health care industry is 22.3 percent; the financial industry, 19.7 percent; pharmaceuticals pay 21.6 percent; the chemical industry, 20.8 percent; the computer industry, 16 percent; tobacco and food industries, 23.8 percent--and on and on and on, and yet the oil companies pay very little. So not only are these energy tax incentives taking money out of the Treasury, they are also allowing oil companies to lower their effective tax rate so that less money actually flows from them into the Treasury. That is unacceptable. They say they do not need it. The President says they do not need it. And this would essentially correct that situation. When this tax bill was considered, the Finance Committee recognized this fact and repealed the amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures for the major integrated oil companies. It also changed the way oil companies with gross receipts over $1 billion can account for their oil inventories. The amendment I offer today takes one more step in taking away unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. I thank the cosponsors. Amendment No. 2610 Now, Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment on the second amendment, which I call the millionaire's amendment, which is offered to my colleagues by Senator Kerry and me. I have never had a millionaire come to me and say: I need a tax break. I have had them come to me and say: Frankly, the $100,000 I get a year is de minimis to me. It doesn't make a difference to me. So I wonder, when we are cutting Medicaid, when we are cutting virtually every domestic program we can cut, why millionaires get $100,000 in tax breaks a year. It does not make sense. They do not ask for them. They do not need them. It does not really make a difference to them. Our amendment directly targets the budget deficit. It says if the budget is not in balance, tax rates for income, capital gains, and dividends will return to previous levels, and deduction limits, for taxpayers earning more than $1 million. So those taxes would be reinstated only for people earning more than $1 million. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center, this amendment could increase revenues by more than $100 billion over 5 years. When I came to the Senate in 1992, the debt was $4 trillion. In the 1990s, we put it down, and by 1998, we achieved the first budget surplus in 29 years. By 2001, the 10-year projected surplus was $5.6 trillion. Now, it has been said on this floor over and over again that projected surplus has been turned into a major projected long-term deficit. The Federal budget deficit will reach $515 billion this year when all trust funds are included. This means over half a trillion dollars will be added to our Nation's debt--a national debt that has already exceeded the $8 trillion mark. Yet millionaires get a $100,000 tax break a year, which they have told me they don't need, it doesn't make a difference. At the same time, this debt and deficit will fuel a rise in interest rates. There have already been a dozen hikes. It will eventually slow down the economy, and it will certainly limit job creation. In order to cover the costs of our debt, this Senate cut $10 billion in health care spending for the poorest Americans. To make matters worse, the temporary relief for physicians in the spending bill is borne on the backs of Medicare beneficiaries in the form of higher Part B premiums. The spending cuts will directly increase, by $2.90, the amount Medicare beneficiaries pay each month in premiums in 2007. That is a 33-percent increase in monthly premiums. While it is vital that Congress prevent future cuts in Medicare reimbursement to physicians, the spending cuts amounted to a $1.4 billion tax on seniors. This is simply unacceptable. I do not think it is a bad idea to say that millionaires might be willing to help people on Medicare. They might be willing to provide some support for Medicaid so that the poorest Americans could receive health care. So here is the bottom line: Realistically, there are very few millionaires in my State. There are about 28,000--28,000 out of 37 million people. The number of people on Medicare and Medicaid affected by these cuts is in the millions. That is the difference. So if you restore this tax for millionaires, it essentially covers the cuts on Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me ask this question. Did the Senator get the idea from all of the big oil companies that none of them wanted these tax incentives?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike a tax incentive from the books for the oil and gas companies that allows them to expense their exploration and development costs. This tax credit is unnecessary, not because I say that it is, but because the oil companies have said they do not need it. The President of the United States has said the oil companies do not need it, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this tax credit costs the Federal Treasury $2.4 billion over 5 years. I wish to make clear that this amendment only repeals the credit for the major integrated oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. This tax credit allows major oil companies, such as the ones I have just mentioned, to deduct 70 percent of their drilling costs up front, then the next 30 percent over the course of 5 years. Costs that can be deducted include workers' wages, fuel costs, drilling equipment, materials, and supplies, et cetera. Now, why should the oil and gas industry get special treatment? And why should they get tax breaks from the Federal Government when they are making record profits? In the third quarter of 2005 alone, the five biggest companies earned a staggering combined total of more than $30 billion. ExxonMobil's profits skyrocketed another 75 percent in the third quarter to almost $10 billion. Over the first 9 months of 2005, ExxonMobil made a profit of $25.42 billion. BP made 34 percent more, or $6.46 billion, in the third quarter of 2005. So far this year, BP has made $18.66 billion. Shell's profits soared 68 percent to $9 billion in the third quarter of 2005, while making $20.94 billion over the first 9 months of the year. Chevron's third-quarter profits were 12 percent higher, or $3.6 billion. So far this year, Chevron made $10 billion. ConocoPhillips saw an 89 percent increase or $3.8 billion in the third quarter, while making a profit of $9.85 billion over the first 9 months of the year. At the same time this is happening, the Federal budget deficit is the third largest in history, totaling $319 billion, and the national debt has surpassed the $8 trillion mark. In April of this year, President Bush stated: With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayers'-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas. At the joint Senate hearing last week, at which the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell testified, Senator Wyden asked them if, given the fact that oil prices are above $55 per barrel, they needed these Federal tax incentives. They all responded ``No.'' In fact, Lee Raymond of ExxonMobil stated this: ``No and I don't think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.'' Now, I see Senator Wyden is in the Chamber, and since I have quoted him, I would like to ask him if I have accurately reported what happened at this Senate joint hearing with the oil executives.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk. The first is an amendment, on behalf of myself, Senators Sununu, Gregg, Wyden, Cantwell, Feingold, Burr, McCain, Kerry, and Collins, ``To repeal certain tax benefits relating to oil and gas wells intangible drilling and development costs.'' The second amendment is an amendment, on behalf of Senator Kerry and myself, which would be a restatement for millionaires of 39.6 percent income tax rate, the pre-May 2003 rates of tax on capital gains and dividend rates and deduction limitations until the budget deficit is eliminated.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleagues. Lake Sakakawea Recreation Upgrades

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations conference report. One of the most important things about this conference report is a program that it does not fund. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator-- also known as the ``bunker buster''--is not funded in this bill. I am proud that Congress--for the second year in a row--has stated clearly and unambiguously that we should not spend taxpayer dollars on this program. I hope the administration gets the message and does not request funding for developing this new generation of nuclear weapons next year. This conference report includes $327 million for the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This funding means that construction of the National Ignition Facility, NIF, can continue. When it is completed in a few years, the NIF will help keep the United States nuclear weapons stockpile reliable, without facing the dangers of underground nuclear testing. A completed NIF is a key component of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of our Nation's nuclear stockpile. There are also many California-specific needs met in this bill. city I am pleased that the conference report provides $37 million for the Federal-State partnership for California Bay-Delta Restoration, CalFed. The CalFed reauthorization took considerable effort on the part of many in Congress, but that effort has paid off, in this, the first authorized CalFed appropriations in 5 years. I am grateful to Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for providing $2 million over the President's Budget request for this program in the Senate bill and I am pleased that this allocation was maintained in conference with the House. These funds will contribute to the much needed improvement of California's water supply infrastructure and protection of aquatic ecosystems. Among the elements of a balanced CalFed program that are in progress are feasibility studies on the enlargement of several reservoirs, improved water conveyance, ecosystem restoration, and water quality projects. The improvements we make to California's water infrastructure now will head off a supply crisis with water, similar to the one we faced with energy a few years ago. This conference report inc1udes funding for specific flood control priorities in California. My State faces a number of significant flood threats. The city of Sacramento, the surrounding areas like Marysville and Rancho Cordova, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta face some of the greatest flood danger in the Nation. Currently, much of Sacramento is below 100-year flood protection. This legislation allocates $39 million to improve flood control in Sacramento and provides funding to ensure that other regional flood control projects are ready to go to construction next year. While the funds in this bill are a good start, I will continue to seek additional funding to protect the Sacramento metropolitan area from catastrophic flooding. The conference report also includes $5 million for Upper Newport Bay Restoration. Upper Newport Bay is the largest functioning full tidal wetland in southern California. However, the bay's ability to sustain wildlife is threatened due to decades of increasing sedimentation related to rapid urbanization of the watershed. As a result, open water areas are disappearing in the bay, tidal circulation has diminished, and shoaling is occurring within Federal and local navigation channels and slips. This project will restore degraded habitat and reestablish wetland and wildlife habitat areas. I am also pleased that the conference report includes $61.65 million, $11.65 million above the President's Budget request, for the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project. These funds will construct flood control improvements to protect over 3 million people in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. One issue that concerns me in this conference report is a requirement for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a special report to update the analysis of costs and associated benefits of the Auburn Dam on the American River. I am concerned that the reporting requirements do not include an updated assessment of the risks of an earthquake, risks that are serious enough to have caused the termination of earlier work on the Auburn Dam in 1975. I again want to express my congratulations to Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid and want to thank them for the level of support given to California in this conference report. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address a provision in the Energy and Water appropriations conference report, which requires the Bureau of Reclamation to produce a special report analyzing costs and benefits associated with constructing an Auburn Dam. As part of that report, I believe it is critical that the Secretary of the Interior should utilize the expertise of U.S. Geological Survey to produce an up-to-date assessment of the seismic hazards associated with Auburn Dam. I would also like to make it clear that this Auburn study cannot become a distraction from the vital work that needs to be done right away to protect Sacramento from a tragic flood. I am deeply concerned with the lack of adequate flood protection for Sacramento. Sacramento is the only major United States city without 100-year flood protection. The Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed six other major flood-prone cities: New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, and Tacoma. All of these cities have at least 200-year flood protection. Our top priority has to be to quickly shore up levees and improve Folsom Dam to protect Sacramento from a 200-year flood. Until this is complete, 300,000 people are at risk from catastrophic flood. With respect to the conference provision, there are other issues involved with Auburn Dam, such as who would pay for the project, and the potential environmental effects of flooding 50 miles of the American River. But today I would like to focus on the seismic risk issue. This is not the first time that building an Auburn Dam has been proposed. In the late 1960s construction began on an Auburn Dam. Construction continued, and $200 million was spent, until 1975, when an earthquake occurred nearby on a previously unknown fault. This earthquake forced a reexamination of the risks involved. According to a 1980 Bureau of Reclamation report, if an earthquake caused the Auburn Dam to fail, Folsom Dam would be overtopped by a water surge only minutes later. Most of the Sacramento area, an area inhabited by 750,000 people, would be flooded in a matter of hours, making evacuation difficult. Floodwater would be fast-moving and as deep as 40 feet, destroying houses and lowering chances of rooftop survival. The risk of earthquake and its effects, which stopped construction back then, has not gone away. That's why it is so critical that Congress know what the risks are, and take this into consideration when deciding whether to go forward with this dam. It has now been 30 years since work at the proposed site was halted, and as a result, the seismic risk assessments are out-of-date. The most recent comprehensive study of seismic hazard issues associated with the dam project was produced by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1996, nearly 10 years ago. Even when this report was written, the science of seismic hazard assessment had already progressed considerably since most of the data on the dam project were collected in the 1970s. The report called for additional study and analysis, much of which was never undertaken. This need for study and analysis still exists. The Auburn Dam, if constructed, would sit on part of the Foothills fault system. The faults in the area of the proposed dam site are currently considered inactive, but were active in the past. The U.S. Geological Survey should use the best science available to evaluate past earthquakes, as well as the potential for future earthquakes, in the vicinity of the proposed dam. One potential risk comes from a ``reservoir triggered earthquake.'' Filling a reservoir is well-established as a potential trigger for seismic activity. Even inactive faults may experience seismic events after reservoirs are built on top of them. The weight and pressure of the water in the reservoir increases stress and weakens the effective strength of the rock. Water seeps into fissures and pores in the rock, and may lubricate faults, allowing movement even in some cases where friction would have held dry rock in place. It has been suggested that the Oroville earthquake, a Richter scale magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred in 1975, may have been caused by filling the reservoir behind the Oroville Dam. The Auburn Dam, if constructed, would be built along the same fault system as the Oroville Dam. Many other instances of these ``reservoir triggered earthquakes'' have been studied around the world. Recent global reviews list nearly 100 sites where filling reservoirs may have triggered seismic activity. These studies show that the increased risk of earthquakes may last for years after a reservoir is filled. Both flood-control-only and permanent-waterstorage dams entail some risk. The 1996 U.S. Geological Survey report for Auburn took this possibility very seriously. The report devoted a lengthy section to its consideration, and called for additional study. The new report must address this issue. This is essential information that will influence Congress's decision on whether to proceed beyond preliminary feasibility studies. Do my colleagues agree?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the veterans of our armed services. As combat operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, Veterans Day provides an important opportunity to honor those men and women who have made such great sacrifices for our Nation, both young and old. Veterans Day is a time to reflect upon and celebrate the extraordinary contributions of all those who have served our country in uniform. Veterans Day originated on November 11, 1918, as Armistice Day, commemorating the end of World War I. Although Veterans Day originally marked the end of a conflict, it now is an important reminder that our responsibility to veterans extends far beyond the close of hostilities. First, I believe it is important that we pause and pay tribute to the approximately 160,000 troops still fighting in the regions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, more than 2,000 soldiers have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Numerous others have experienced serious injury and harm. With thousands and thousands of veterans coming home from this war, we must prepare for their return and ensure that they receive the care and benefits they deserve. Today, there are 24.5 million living veterans in the United States. And I am proud that California is home to the most veterans in the country--over 2.3 million. As California's senior Senator, I am honored to serve as the ranking member of the Military Construction and Veteran Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. In July of this year, the Senate approved a spending package that provides over $70.7 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, over $1 billion more than the administration's request. The appropriated funds contain $23.3 billion for medical services, including nearly $2 billion in emergency funding to address the fiscal year 2006 shortfall. The Senate and House are currently in conference to reconcile differences between the two Chambers' respective bills. It is my hope that we will finish conference on a final version of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill and send it to the President for his signature over the next several days. In addition to medical services and research, the Senate bill also allocates $104 million for extended care facilities for our veterans. With 9.5 million Veterans over the age of 65, the need for properly funded long-term care is more important than ever. To date, a quarter of a million veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have been discharged from Active Duty. Of these, 49,000 have sought care from the Veterans Administration. As a nation we must fully meet our responsibilities to the veterans of this country. Advances in medicine have thankfully spared many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan from death, but roadside explosives and other weapons have left many of our troops maimed and disabled. To better serve wounded veterans, the Senate recently allocated $412 million for medical and prosthetics research. There should not be any doubt that these brave men and women have given their all to protect freedom and our way of life. It is estimated that 500,000 veterans spent all or part of this past year homeless. But tragically, the VA only has the capabilities to assist one-fifth of all homeless veterans. We must continue to push for the development of an effective and expansive therapeutic housing program to help these thousands of veterans. The new funding will bring us closer to guaranteeing the health, safety, and comfort of all veterans. The San Diego VA Medical Center alone will be able to provide care for 2,000 additional patients. It is also our responsibility to ensure that prescription drugs are affordable. We must also ensure that health care is accessible and that veterans' hospitals are provided with the proper tools and support they need. This is why I have consistently voted for increased funding for VA health care. Just this year I supported an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act, which extends military health care benefits beyond retirement. Noble sacrifices of past generations deserve to be remembered and cherished. Congress has consistently supported the construction of new cemeteries where the memories of our esteemed veterans can be honored and their legacies celebrated. As a nation I believe we should also resist attempts to sell out land and facilities earmarked for veterans to commercial interests. In west Los Angeles, pressure is increasing on the VA to develop some of the last open space left in the Los Angeles Basin. Land donated to honor the service of veterans should be kept in the hands of veterans. We cannot allow our responsibility to former servicemembers to be subordinated to economic interests. To truly honor veterans, our country needs to preserve the memory of their courage. I worked with my colleagues from Iowa and California to make the battleship USS Iowa a permanent floating museum. The legendary ship's service in World War II and the Korean war will serve as a proper tribute to the veterans who served aboard this great fighting ship. I look forward to continuing to work in service of our Nation's veterans. I hope you all will think of these courageous patriots beyond this special day and honor our veterans and the sacrifices they made in order for us to remain a free, self-governing people. To our veterans, I extend a heartfelt thank you for your service to our country. May God bless each of you and your families.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern over apparent discrepancies between the administration's rhetoric with respect to our treatment of detainees, and the clear reality of the situation. We all agree, I hope, that individuals in the custody of the United States must be treated humanely. We certainly agree that under no circumstances must American military and government personnel engage in torture. That is why we ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1994. And that is why Senator McCain's provision prohibiting the use of ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment'', and adopting the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation procedures passed the Senate as part of the Defense appropriations bill by a 90 to 9 vote on October 5. It was also unanimously adopted to be included in this Defense authorization bill. Senator McCain's amendment simply makes it clear that the Convention Against Torture applies without geographical limitation. It states that conduct that is unacceptable on U.S. soil is also unacceptable in Guantanamo Bay, in Abu Ghraib, or anywhere else the United States government may be holding detainees. President Bush has repeatedly stated that captives are to be treated humanely, and just this week he reiterated his policy that: In this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We don't torture. And yet, the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, has been making a great effort to lobby Members of Congress to alter the McCain provision by exempting the CIA and members of the intelligence community from its prohibition on torture. According to Human Rights Watch, the language he circulated on October 20th proposes that: ``Subsection (a)''--that is, the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment --``shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by and element of the United States Government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the President determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.'' Why? The President has stated that it is not his policy to torture. We all know the catastrophic effects that even the appearance of impropriety in this area has on the image of the United States abroad. We know the irreparable harm that reports of abuse and secret detention centers do to our war effort. And, we know that torture does not produce good and effective intelligence. So why fuel that fire by enacting a specific exemption to our long-standing policy of humane treatment? Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that the CIA has been ``hiding and interrogating'' its most valuable prisoners at so- called ``black sites'' at several locations in Eastern Europe and Asia. If this is true, it would allow the intelligence community to engage in ``unconventional'' interrogation procedures at secret locations outside of Congressional oversight or military directives on the treatment of prisoners. Earlier this week, I wrote a letter to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting that the committee conduct hearings into these allegations that the CIA is holding prisoners in ``black sites'' around the world. The Senate Intelligence Committee has jurisdiction over the entire intelligence community. And therefore, it is critical that it have access to all information and material related to these disturbing allegations. Moreover, I believe that the committee must do a better job with its oversight responsibilities, particularly as they relate to detention, interrogation, and rendition activities by our intelligence agencies. The fact is that our policy to date with respect to detainees has been confused, and that that confusion has led to disturbing allegations of abuse and even torture. The Senate has already acted to clarify the rules by passing the McCain amendment. I have heard it argued that this will somehow ``tie the hands'' of the President in his prosecution of the war, but I strongly disagree. In the first place, the President himself insists that detainees should be treated humanely. We are simply acting to codify his policy. Secondly, the Constitution is perfectly clear with regard to the authority for regulating the United States military: that authority lies with the Congress. Some claim that the Founding Fathers intended the executive branch to have a free hand in prosecuting this Nation's wars. But their consideration and deliberation on this issue resulted in Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to ``make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,'' and also ``To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'' It is clear that this administration has been inconsistent and mistake-prone in regulating the Armed Forces with respect to the treatment of detainees. There is the case of Captain Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne Division, who attempted for 17 months to determine what regulations were in force. He determined that, years after President Bush had declared that all prisoners, regardless of their Geneva status, were to be treated ``humanely,'' the definition of what constituted humane treatment was still being left to individual commanders. He reports: We've got people with different views of what ``humane'' means and there's no Army statement that says ``this is the standard for humane treatment for prisoners to Army officers.'' Army officers are left to come up with their own definition of humane treatment. The results of this lapse are well documented. Even the Pentagon's own reports are highly critical: The Taguba Report found ``numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses,'' which the report described as ``systemic.'' Along the same lines, the Mikolashek Report examined 94 cases of confirmed abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and found that ``ambiguous guidance from command on the treatment of detainees'' was a contributing factor. Further, the Fay-Jones Report implicated 35 soldiers, including the top two military intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib prison, in 44 cases of abuse. So the problem goes far beyond a ``few, isolated bad apples.'' Decent, hardworking American soldiers simply do not know how they may or may not treat their captives. I note that on Tuesday, the Department of Defense released a new directive banning the use of unmuzzled dogs in interrogations, or to harass or intimidate prisoners. I welcome this directive, but it is too little, too late. The ban comes after dozens of confirmed reports of soldiers using dogs to intimidate inmates of Abu Ghraib, and it is limited in scope and details. The McCain amendment would give a clear baseline standard of human rights, which all Americans will always recognize--the rights which our Founders believed were inalienable rights; the rights they chose to enshrine in our Constitution. It is not for the Vice President, or anyone else for that matter, to circumvent those rights in the name of fighting terrorism. This week the White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, tried to justify the exemption, saying, ``You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.'' I agree that these are terrible men, but we must also consider men like Mr. Dilawar, an innocent taxi driver who was beaten to death in Afghanistan. We are talking about thousands of innocent Iraqis rounded up in sweeping neighborhood raids and systematically abused. And we are talking about their friends and families, and an entire generation of young people around the world who are watching and judging the actions of the United States. If we fail, in their eyes, to live up to our ideals, if the promise of America is reduced to self-serving hypocrisy, then I fear we will breed more terrorists than we can ever stop. In fact, the scale of the problem is such that the narrowly-focused Pentagon reports do not provide us an adequate picture. In conclusion, let me state this--it is essential that we answer these three fundamental questions: Is our current policy legal? Is it moral? And does it work? From my work on this issue in the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee, I fear the answer to all three is ``No.'' I believe that Congress did not intend to permit torture abroad when it ratified the Convention Against Torture. The overwhelming support enjoyed by Mr. McCain's amendment is evidence of that. Furthermore, I do not believe that violating fundamental human rights is ever justified. There are some absolutes in this world, and some activities that the United States simply cannot condone. I am convinced that our detainee policy has been a costly failure. Far from making us safer, the aggressive interrogation of terror suspects has served to breed more terrorists, and to make us more vulnerable to attack. Should Congress refuse to statutorily codify the legal and humane treatment of prisoners, we risk endangering those Americans who become prisoners themselves. We must set an honorable example for the entire international community; to do otherwise would be a betrayal of the values we hold dear. American values, such as the humane treatment of detainees, are truly at the very core of this debate. We must not fail--America's future will rest on it. Amendment No. 2519 Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment introduced by Senator Levin and several colleagues that formulates our military strategy and foreign policy in Iraq. We need clear, defined benchmarks that lay out how and when we can begin a structured downsizing of the 160,000 Americans currently serving in Iraq. Increasingly, Americans are demanding answers about how we intend to transition sovereign control of Iraq to the newly elected government. If we do not heed the call of the American people, popular support for this war will continue to wane. We must have a well-reasoned approach that will allow our Armed Forces to remove themselves from the constant crossfire between Sunnis and Shia. As we look forward, I believe the parliamentary election on Dec. 15 represents one such opportunity. For the first time in history, the Iraqi people will have democratically elected their permanent leaders to serve full 4-year terms. Their constitution, problematic as it may be, has been adopted, and it is time for Iraqis to take greater control. A growing perception is that U.S. military forces buttress the Shiites. As a result, we pay a high cost, in lives lost and casualties. We need to change course to remove ourselves from being the literal and figurative target of Sunni enmity. Frankly, this battle cannot be won militarily by American forces. A structured downsizing of our presence in Iraq will not only take our service men and women out of harm's way, but it will also force Iraq's religious and political leaders to confront the insurgency and find a balance of power acceptable to Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The first and primary impetus for transitioning our forces will be a better trained Iraqi Security Force. Ultimately, the Iraqis will have to defend themselves and confront the insurgency, both militarily and politically. The question is when. Training of the Iraqi Security Forces has been too slow, and the administration has been less than forthright about the capabilities of the Iraqi troops on the ground. In the interim period ahead, U.S. forces may continue to have a significant role to play, especially in the areas of training and rebuilding infrastructure. But this requires a change of focus for American troops from leading combat missions to buttressing and backing Iraqis as they seek to quell the insurgency and growing violence. For starters, we need to increase the number of U.S. military personnel providing initial training to the Iraqi forces from the current 1,200. This number is frankly inadequate, and raises questions about our military's priorities in Iraq. This does not necessarily mean that all Iraqi forces will be trained to the level of U.S. forces--that is unlikely--but the real benchmark is for Iraqi units to have a basic level of training and equipment to safeguard their towns, cities and communities. The Pentagon recently estimated that an additional 125,000 Iraqi security personnel will be needed to bring total endstrength to 325,000. If it is going to take a force of 325,000 Iraqis, then it is incumbent upon the U.S. military to prioritize this training and put enhanced efforts into recruiting qualified individuals to serve. It is only fair to our service men and women, and to their families, if we put every effort into properly training Iraqis so that American troops can come home as soon as possible. America needs to change course, reassess its mission in light of this escalating insurgency, place more responsibility on Iraq for a negotiated settlement, and begin a structured drawdown of American forces. This structured drawdown must come in the form of a consistent, planned strategy. This amendment uses the word ``redeployment,'' which I frankly believe is confusing. Our military leaders must establish a framework for a careful, cautious removal of our troops from Iraq, in conjunction with the rising number of trained Iraqis. This might mean the removal of 10,000 American troops for every 20,000 trained Iraqis, or a similar but concrete formula. Certainly, we should prioritize what troops are most needed in the training process and begin to drawdown our endstrength in other areas. This amendment rightly requires the President to report regularly on American policy in regards to Iraq and our military operations there. The administration needs to define and lay out an endgame. The Levin provision ensures that Congress will be receiving regular updates on the administration's strategy in Iraq, and as it must be unclassified, will provide the American people the opportunity to see whether there truly is a plan for success. Again, I believe it is time to reevaluate our policy and strategies in Iraq. We have lost over 2,000 American troops, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Americans are tired of hearing daily about the chaos and violence that has beset Iraq. With American soldiers and scores of Iraqi civilians dying every day, there has to be a better course. In my view, it is clear that now is the time to consider a comprehensive plan for the structured downsizing of our mission, while we greatly increase the emphasis on training Iraqis to protect themselves.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment to the FY06 National Defense Authorization Act that authorizes the Navy to convey approximately 230 acres of open space land along the eastern boundary of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar to the County of San Diego in order to provide access to the historic Stowe Trail. The Stowe Trail at one time functioned as the primary road leading to the historic town of Stowe, and now links the Goodan Ranch and Sycamore Canyon Preserves in the north with the Mission Trails Regional Park and Santee Lakes Regional Recreation Area further south. According to county records, up until the 1930s when access to this portion became restricted for military use, the Stowe Trail had served for some 80 years as the principle thoroughfare between the towns of Santee and Poway. The 230 acres of land that would be conveyed by the Navy under this provision include diverse plant and animal life and environmentally- sensitive habitats and would provide a natural wildlife corridor between the two preserves, as well as with the Santee Lakes Recreation Area. Under the control of the County of San Diego, this land will become part of an extensive open space trail system that will not only increase recreational opportunities in the region, but will also provide buffer zone that will mitigate against potential encroachment that could impact the essential military missions at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. It is important to point out that this proposed land conveyance is the fruition of a process set in motion jointly by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in 2002. Both sides have worked together closely since that time to ensure that the result will be a win-win situation for both the County and the Marines. For example, as part of the land conveyance process, the County of San Diego has fully committed to compensate the Navy by paying the full fair market value for this property. Amendment No. 2424

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for amendment No. 2371 offered by Senators Snowe and Wyden, which I am pleased to cosponsor. The amendment ensures that the Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary has an active role in managing the costs of the newly-created Medicare prescription drug program, part D, by striking language in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that prohibits the HHS Secretary from using the bulk purchasing power of the Federal Government to obtain prescription drugs at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. On the eve of the vote on the final Medicare bill, my colleague Senator Wyden and I agreed that this prohibition language, also referred to as ``the noninterference clause,'' was a major flaw in the overall bill. Although we both voted in favor of the bill because it afforded seniors and the disabled the first-ever opportunity to voluntarily sign up for a drug benefit in Medicare, we agreed to work to repeal this prohibition language in the bill. I have been pleased to join with Senators Snowe and Wyden on legislation the past two Congresses to do just that. Since casting my vote on the final Medicare bill which, at the time, I believed was for a $400 billion bill, we have all learned that more accurate estimates of the cost of the overall bill were withheld from Congress and that the true cost of the bill will now exceed $720 billion over the next 10 years. Now, more than ever, Congress must do everything it can to ensure that the government and taxpayer dollars are getting the best deal out there on the cost of drugs covered by Medicare. That is what this amendment will do. The amendment strikes the so- called ``noninterference'' clause, gives the HHS Secretary authority to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, and requires that the HHS Secretary do so for covered part D drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan--plans where the Federal Government is assuming the risk--and upon the request of an approved prescription drug plan or a medicare advantage prescription drug plan. What the amendment does not do is require the Secretary to set drug prices or formularies. I have heard the argument that this amendment will result in price controls. That argument has been made time and time again by drug companies who would rather profit from the Federal Government paying too much for drugs than allow the Federal Government to use its purchasing power to negotiate for the best deals on drug prices. The reality is that this amendment specifically states that the Secretary may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs. I have also heard the argument that the Secretary won't be able to negotiate better drug prices than private plans currently do. I come from a State with the largest purchasing power in the country for drugs in its Medicaid program and it is clear that the size of California's market has helped California's ability to negotiate more competitive drug prices in Medicaid. But don't take my word for it. In 2004, CBO stated, ``giving the Secretary an additional tool--the authority to negotiate prices with manufacturers of such drugs--would put greater pressure on those manufacturers and could produce some additional savings.'' With respect to sole source drugs, CBO went on to say, ``there is potential for some savings if the Secretary were to have the authority to negotiate prices with manufacturers of single-source drugs that do not face competition from therapeutic alternatives.'' Prescription drug prices for existing drugs--these are not new drugs, but old ones--have been rising at two to three times the inflation rates, according to the Government Accountability Office. So I ask the question: Why are we not doing everything in our power to ensure the Federal Government is getting the lowest prices for drugs? The Snowe-Wyden amendment ensures fiscal responsibility in an entitlement program whose escalating costs pose a very serious problem for future generations. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today truly alarmed about the administration's fiscal irresponsibility. In the past 5 years, the President's policies have turned record surpluses into record deficits. Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Treasury announced that this year's budget deficit is the third largest in history at $319 billion. But, that is not where the bad story ends. By sleight of hand, the administration continues to use other resources to finance debt, including foreign lenders and Social Security. The real deficit is a staggering $551 billion, 4.5 percent of GDP. Administration officials are nonchalant about the fiscal disarray. I am deeply worried. We all should be. On October 18, the national debt passed the $8 trillion mark. Even more disturbing, the national debt is being financed by Chinese, Japanese, and other overseas lenders. To put this into perspective, in absolute dollars, the country is borrowing more than ever in its history, close to $2 trillion from foreign nations. We owe over $680 billion to Japan, $390 billion to the European Union, $240 billion to China, and $57 billion to OPEC nations, to name a few. It is beyond me how this administration can turn a blind eye to these numbers, or how Congress can approve legislation that exacerbates these fiscal problems. Instead of facing up to the fiscal truth, President Bush ignores the mountain of debt that will burden generations to come. First, this President shortened the budget timeline from 10 years to 5 years. Relying on this kind of gimmickry covers up for the President's destructive fiscal decisions, especially as they relate to tax cuts for the rich. Second, this Republican Congress voted against a system to keep the budget in balance. I am referring to the pay-go rule endorsed by Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin. Pay-go would have required an offset for any decrease in revenue. The method would have ensured a balanced approach to tax cuts. Unfortunately, Republican congressional leaders opted for shunting aside integrity in budgeting. They back pay-go in name, but not in practice. By any standard, the decisions to ignore a 10 year budget timeline and disregard balancing methods have caused massive red ink and send the country precisely in the wrong direction. In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan put it this way: The federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years . . . Unless this trend is reversed, at some point these deficits will cause the economy to stagnate or worse. I fear this reconciliation package, coupled with the administration's tax cuts, will lead us to even worse times. Reconciliation is simply asking too much of middle income families who are facing cost increases for basic needs. For instance, energy costs to heat one's home have increased 20 percent from last year. Education costs for public universities have increased 7.1 percent. Interest rates that impact college loan payments have doubled over the last 10 months. And, gas prices have increased 19 percent over the last 4 months. Instead of assisting families with these increased costs, raising the standard of living for the poor, or improving the opportunities to attain a college education, this package adds to financial pressures. For health care alone, premiums have climbed higher than $10,000 for families, and this bill will do nothing to reduce out-of-pocket health care spending. More perniciously, what the bill does do is cut $10 billion in health care spending for the poorest Americans. While the bill provides a 1-year temporary relief to physicians, a 1 percent increase in Medicare reimbursements is not enough. This is a Band-Aid fix, at best. When expenses to practice are increasing at a rate of 3 to 5 percent annually, a 1-year 1 percent increase in reimbursements is insufficient. In my State, where the cost of living is beyond the reach of many Californians, doctors are simply choosing not to see any new Medicare patients or are retiring early due to low reimbursement levels. To make matters worse, the temporary relief for physicians in the bill is borne on the back of Medicare beneficiaries in the form of higher Part B premiums. This provision will directly increase the amount Medicare beneficiaries pay each month in premiums by $2.90 in 2007. That is a 33-percent increase in monthly premiums. While it is vital that Congress prevent future cuts in Medicare reimbursement to physicians, the provision in this bill amounts to a $1.4 billion tax on seniors. That is unacceptable. Further, it is no secret that increased debt puts pressure on inflation. In just this past year, the Federal Reserve enacted 11 consecutive interest rate increases. This means the American people will have to make higher mortgage payments, pay higher interest, and for those who own debt, it will take even longer to pay off their credit cards. For some, this bill will put a college education out of reach. Middle-income families, who have no choice but to borrow money for college, will struggle even more to pay tuition bills. Due to increasing costs of basic needs, there are 1 million more Americans living in poverty this year than there were last year. Not only does this budget reconciliation do nothing to reduce that number, it puts many more Americans at risk of poverty due to higher health care costs and reduced access to social services and education. As for the environment, this reconciliation blatantly undermines the natural wonders of our country. Shamefully, it opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling to already profit-soaked oil companies. And, if that is not enough, this administration's fiscal policy forces our children to pay it all back--not only to the Social Security Trust Fund, but to foreign nations. At any point, foreign countries can stop investing in the dollar, and any small movement could have a significant and immediate impact on the fiscal stability of our Nation's currency. Does this Congress believe it is good foreign policy to put our economic interests and security in the hands of China, Japan, and the European Union? Let me be clear, this budget reconciliation is asking Americans to: pay more in interest payments, pay more in health care premiums without improving benefits, borrow more from foreign lenders, further damage our habitat and environment, and leave an even larger bill for future generations to pay. We should be talking about helping American families, not punishing them with new financial burdens. And, for what good reason? None whatsoever. The Bush administration's Pavlovian response to everything that ills the economy is: tax cuts--not to middle- and low-income families, who need it most, but, instead, to the wealthiest Americans. The wealthiest Americans have received tax cuts that are 140 times the size of the average tax cut for middle-income families. That means millionaires have received an average tax break of $100,000 a year while middle-income families have received a mere $742. Let me be frank, the President's tax cuts do not help working Americans. In fact, the after-inflation wages of the average American earners have dropped for the first time in a decade. Meanwhile, the President's tax cuts account for 57 percent of the deficit increase. In fact, President Bush's tax cuts are more expensive than all spending increases combined, including new spending for homeland security, the war in Iraq, operations in Afghanistan, expanded antiterrorism efforts, and all domestic spending increases. It is a fiscal record of excess and recklessness. And without batting an eye, this President goes right along, reiterating his intention of making tax cuts permanent--at a cost of $11 trillion over 75 years--making it clear that even in the wake of hurricanes, rising gas prices, increasing interest rates, and higher health care costs, this administration will continue to push for lining the pockets of the wealthy. I believe we can do better. I believe we can bring fiscal responsibility back to the budget process and help middle-income families. We have done it in the past. We can do it now. In 1982, Ronald Reagan agreed to undo a significant share of tax cuts to combat substantial budget deficits. Ten years later, President George H.W. Bush changed his position on taxes and signed a bipartisan deficit-reduction package. More recently, in the late 1990s, after inheriting a national deficit totaling 4.7 percent of GDP, the Clinton administration turned deficits into our first budget surpluses since 1969. Today, with the national deficit including trust fund accounts reaching 4.5 percent of GDP, it is time to do the same. In the words of Former Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin: We are at a critical juncture with respect to the longer- term future of our economy, and the outcome at this juncture will be enormously affected--for good or for ill--by the policy action we take in response to the great issues we face. It is time to have the courage to act responsibly. This so called deficit reduction package is not what it claims to be. Yes, it will cut spending by more than $30 billion, but in a few weeks these savings will be spent on tax breaks for the rich. In the end, this reconciliation package titled ``Deficit Reduction'' will actually increase the deficit by $36 billion. This fiscal strategy edges us closer to fiscal insanity and leaves our children and their children impoverished and riddled with debt. The first step to doing better is voting no on this reconciliation bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I rise today to speak in support of the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I would particularly like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee, Senators Bennett and Kohl, for including $7 million in the bill for specialty crop funding. Americans tend to forget that California is the largest agricultural producing State in the Nation. Of the top 10 agricultural producing counties nationwide, 8 are located in California. We export more crops than any other State, and I am proud to say that 97 percent of our farms are family owned. As a result, I supported the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act, legislation to boost the marketing of highly nutritious fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops to American consumers and international markets. The legislation provided, for the first time, a dedicated source of funding to promote the marketing of specialty crop products. Specialty crops are fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops, including floriculture. Farms in the Golden State produce more than half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts from just 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. While California accounts for about 13 percent of national cash receipts from agriculture, it receives only about 3 percent of direct government payments to agriculture. These funds, while open to all 50 States, will help California specialty crop farmers. As the globalization of markets continues, it is becoming increasingly difficult for United States producers to compete against heavily subsidized foreign producers in both the domestic and foreign markets. United States specialty crop producers also continue to face serious tariff and nontariff trade barriers in many export markets. The funding for specialty crops will promote the marketing of specialty crops and improve access to foreign markets and competitiveness. I am extremely pleased that we were able to include $7 million for crops that are so vital to our Nation's food supply. In addition, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for including other projects that will benefit California. They include: $1.35 million for the California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program. These funds will help California counties increase high-risk pest exclusion inspection activities of new shipments of plants, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and animals. Pest exclusion is critical to a successful agricultural industry because it is more effective and less costly to prevent the introduction and establishment of potentially harmful exotic pests from the local environment than it is to eliminate them; $24.25 million for the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter/Pierce's Disease Control Program. The glassy-winged sharpshooter is an invasive pest that spreads bacteria that kills grapes, almonds and tree fruits. This funding will be used to develop the resources to eliminate the spread of the disease; $200 million for the Market Access Program. This nationwide program provides funding to promote the export of American agricultural products; $1.929 million for Exotic Pest Disease Research at the University of California. The Exotic Pest and Disease Research Program funds research to combat a wide variety of exotic organisms that have invaded or could invade California. Recent successes in the program include determining the origin of avocado thrips found in Ventura and Orange counties-- causing an $8.7 million annual loss to growers--and identifying natural enemies to control the thrips and replace pesticides previously in use. A similar approach is being developed for the Avocado Lace Bug. In addition, the program has funded work on such organisms as Sudden Oak Death, red imported fire ant, and Mediterranean fruitfly; $20 million for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. The program provides nutritional information and supplements as well as healthcare referrals to low-income mothers and pregnant women. The Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides coupons to participants to use to buy produce from small farmers, and nutrition information is provided through the local Farmers Market Nutrition Program agency; $3.076 million for the Sudden Oak Death Control Program. Funding will be used to continue researching Sudden Oak Death Disease, which infects and destroys oak and tanoak trees; $401,000 for Ozone Air Quality Research by the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency. A multi-year, intensive air quality study is needed to meet the requirements of Regional Haze State Implementation Plans anticipated after 2008. This study would build upon the Central California Ozone Study and the California Regional Air Quality Study. These new studies will include an ozone filed study, data analysis, modeling performance evaluations, air quality and meteorological modeling improvements, and a retrospective look at previous State Implementation Plan modeling. This bill is extremely important to ensuring a safe and secure domestic food supply. I would like to again thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of their hard work on this bill. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant journal clerk called the roll.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Cantwell's motion to strike the provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, for drilling from the Budget Reconciliation Act. Let me be clear: I am opposed to drilling in the Arctic. I am also opposed to attaching this provision to the budget reconciliation bill. ANWR is a prominent national issue, arousing the deep passions of people on both sides. Regardless of one's view on the issue, the question of whether to open the refuge to drilling warrants an independent debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The refuge's coastal plain, which is what would be opened up for drilling, is the ecological heart of the refuge, the center of wildlife activity, and the home to nearly 200 wildlife species, including polar bears, musk oxen, and caribou. Today, the Senate is going to vote to open ANWR in the most environmentally harmful way. Rather than protecting this unique habitat, the legislation before us directs the Secretary of Interior to open the Refuge for drilling based upon an environmental analysis conducted 18 years ago, in 1987. This environmental analysis was controversial when it was originally published. It was then challenged in court in the early 1990s. However, the claims were dismissed because at the time, Congress was not actively considering legislation to drill the Arctic Refuge. As a result, this legislation would bypass the environmental process that all drilling projects must undergo. It would also waive the normal judicial review requirements. In other words, the Senate is going to authorize opening the Refuge, and is going to make sure that there are absolutely no impediments to drilling, including the normal course of environmental and legal review. This is simply unacceptable. And why are we destroying this refuge? The Department of Energy estimates that opening the Refuge would lower gasoline prices one cent per gallon 20 years from now. Let's not fool ourselves. Opening the Arctic Refuge will not lower energy prices. If we were serious about helping people with rising energy costs, we would be talking about helping low-income Americans pay their heating bills this winter. Yet the Senate continues to vote down fully funding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. If we truly wanted to bring down gasoline costs, we would be talking about increasing fuel economy standards in our heaviest, most polluting vehicles. Yet, instead, we are talking about opening one of our Nation's last pristine environments. This giveaway comes at a time of record profits for the oil industry. Late last week, the oil companies reported their third quarter profits. The top five oil companies reported huge profit increases in the third quarter of 2005: ExxonMobil reported third quarter profits of $9.92 billion, an increase of 75 percent from the third quarter in 2004; ConocoPhillips reported third quarter profits of $3.8 billion, an increase of 89 percent from the third quarter of 2004; Shell reported third quarter profits of up $9.03 billion, an increase of 68 percent from the third quarter of 2004; ChevronTexaco reported third quarter profits of $3.6 billion, an increase of 12 percent from the third quarter in 2004; and BP reported third quarter profits of $6.53 billion, an increase of 34 percent from the third quarter in 2004. If Congress is truly serious about addressing the issue of high gasoline prices, then we need to take a look at why oil companies continue to make increasingly high profits and how they can reinvest those profits into improving our Nation's energy infrastructure. Gas prices will not be lowered by opening the Refuge. At its peak, oil production from the Refuge would only be about 1 percent of world oil production. It is not worth damaging the Nation's only Refuge for less than 1 percent of the world's oil output. This Refuge encompasses a complete range of arctic ecosystems and that provides essential habitat for many species. It is clear to me that drilling would not give us energy security and would, in fact, carry huge environmental costs. And this country does not even need this source of oil in order to reduce gas prices. The most effective way to reduce gas prices is to increase fuel economy standards. In a 2001 report, the Congressional Research Service wrote, according to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel Equivalents to Potential Oil Production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR: The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that a technology-driven projection for cars and light trucks could increase fuel economy by 3.6 miles-per gallon by 2020. The fuel economy improvement through the first 20 years would generate average daily oil savings equivalent to four times the low case and three-fourths of the high case projected for ANWR oil production. Extended through 50 years, the fuel economy savings would range from 10 times the low case to more than double the high case for ANWR. And that is an extremely modest assumption for the technology that exists today to increase fuel economy standards. Imagine if we implemented a 30 percent increase in fuel economy standards, which is technologically feasible, according to BusinessWeek, September 26, 2005. If this Congress were serious about increasing our energy security, reducing our dependence on oil, and lowering gas prices, we would be working on legislation that would increase fuel economy standards, not trying to drill our way out of the problem as we are doing today. We need to find real solutions to the problems of high energy prices, energy security, and global warming. We should be encouraging energy efficiency, promoting the development of new and alternative fuels, and supporting the invention and commercialization of new vehicle technologies. This provision accomplishes not even one of these goals. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Senator Cantwell's motion to strike the provision to open ANWR to drilling.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the truly legendary and enduring figure of the 20th century, Rosa Parks, who dedicated herself to fighting for equality and justice. Rosa Parks, the matriarch of our Nation's civil rights movement, died last Monday at the age of 92. An American icon who changed the course of the 20th Century, Rosa Parks believed that men and women, regardless of color, should not be treated as second class citizens. Sixty years after the name Rosa Parks first made headlines, her courageous acts continue to symbolize the cause of freedom in America. As we mourn the passing of Rosa Parks, we are reminded of the power and integrity of her spirit. Her quiet dignity and fearless strength shaped and inspired the civil rights movement in the United States over the last half-century. Most historians date the beginning of the modern civil rights movement in the United States to December 1, 1955. Tired and weary not only from a long day of work, but from years of discrimination and racial inequality, an unknown seamstress in Montgomery, AL, refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger. On that momentous day in history, Rosa Parks was arrested for violating a city ordinance, but her lonely act of defiance sparked a movement that ended legal segregation in America. The subsequent bus boycott by African Americans created a national sensation. Led by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., the Montgomery bus boycott lasted nearly 13 months and inspired the Nation's civil rights movement. The boycott led to the Supreme Court questioning the legality of the Jim Crow law that mandated the discrimination of African-Americans on the public bus system. And on November 13, 1956, in the landmark case Browder v. Gayle, the Supreme Court banned segregation on buses. A tremendous victory for the cause of freedom and equality. Throughout her long life, Rosa Parks possessed an innate ability to lead. Her quiet acts of courage illuminated for Americans the disgrace and moral injustice of segregation. She continued to inspire non- violent protests in the name of civil rights throughout the 20th century and changed the face of America forever. Rosa Parks was born in Tuskegee, AL, in 1913, a time when black and white America seemed destined to remain perpetually divided. In 1932, she married civil rights activist Raymond Parks. Together, they worked for the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP, where she worked as a secretary for the Montgomery branch and as its youth leader. In the summer of 1955, while working for the NAACP, Rosa Parks attended an interracial leadership conference. She later said that it was at this conference where she ``gained strength to persevere in my work for freedom, not just for blacks but for all oppressed people.'' Rosa Parks had a distinguished career of public and community service. In 1965, Rosa Parks began to work as a receptionist and office assistant for Congressman John Conyers in his Detroit office, where she continued to work until 1988. Later, she established the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development. Its ongoing mission is to motivate and direct youth to achieve their highest potential. Rosa Parks once remarked that she wanted to be remembered ``as a person who wanted to be free and wanted others to be free.'' She lived each day by this mantra and inspired countless individuals in America and throughout the world to take up the mantle of freedom. But although our country has come a long way since the days of the Jim Crow laws, it doesn't mean that we still don't have even more to accomplish. We must protect the advances made by America's minorities, and also further those advances in the years ahead. Today, we honor the life and legacy of Rosa Parks, a great champion of freedom, equality and justice, and prosperity for all people. I believe that it was especially fitting that she was given the distinct tribute of lying in honor in our Nation's Capitol. An icon who changed America, there is no doubt that Rosa Parks will remain etched forever in our memories.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great American, former Congressman Edward Roybal, who passed away on October 24, 2005, at the age of 89. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to his family, especially to his daughter, my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard. As his friends and family gather to pay tribute and celebrate Ed's remarkable life, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to the memory of this outstanding public servant. Ed Roybal devoted over 50 years of his life to public service, 30 of those years as a Member of the House of Representatives from 1962 to 1992. During that time, Ed was a steadfast advocate on behalf of those without a voice. His long and distinguished career in public service began in 1942. Having returned to Los Angeles, upon completion of military service, he became a director of health education for the Los Angeles County Tuberculosis and Health Association. In 1949, he established the Community Service Organization to advocate for the rights of minorities in the areas of housing, employment, and education. That same year, he was elected to the Los Angeles City Council where he served until 1962. When Ed was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1962, he was the first Hispanic from California to serve in Congress since the 1879 election of Romualdo Pacheco. During his three decades of service in the House, Ed worked tirelessly to protect the rights of minorities, the elderly, and the physically challenged. Together with Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas, he championed the 1968 Bilingual Education Act to assist the Nation's schools in meeting the educational needs of children who come from non-English speaking homes. Later, he worked to establish a Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish- speaking people. Ed Roybal was a national leader for the Latino Community. In 1976, he became one of the founding members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and served as its first chairman. Ed also played an important role in the passing of legislation to outlaw age discrimination, and he worked for numerous benefits and opportunities for those with handicaps. Ed also continued to champion healthcare issues throughout his career in Congress. He led efforts to fund America's first AIDS research and treatment programs and was instrumental in renewing legislation to provide medical service to people with Alzheimer's disease. In recognition of his leadership on health care issues, the county of Los Angeles opened the Edward R. Roybal Clinic in East Los Angeles in 1976. Over the course of his life, Ed cofounded several other organizations to increase civic participation of Hispanics, including the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Mexican American Political Association. Ed Roybal was a true leader and pioneer for the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, and for the national Latino community. I feel very lucky to have known him. I know my colleagues join me in extending to his family our deepest sympathy and condolences. He will be greatly missed.