Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join my colleagues Senators Boxer and Ensign to introduce legislation to authorize the United States Mint to issue a commemorative coin that will honor the San Francisco Old Mint and help restore this historic building in downtown San Francisco. The San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historical landmark for San Francisco, the State of California, and the United States. Beginning its operations in 1854, the Old Mint Building was established to take advantage of the plentiful gold and silver mined in the West during the California Gold Rush. At one point, more than half of the money minted in the United States came from the San Francisco Mint, and it once held a third of the Nation's gold supply. The Old Mint Building, located in the heart of the city, has been standing for more than 125 years as the oldest stone building in San Francisco. The Greek-revivalist design of the Old Mint Building was created by architect Alfred B. Mullet, who also designed the U.S. Treasury Building and the Old Executive Office Building in Washington, DC. The San Francisco Old Mint building is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Aided by its magnificent stone structure, the Old Mint Building was able to survive the terrible San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. In fact, the Mint was the only financial institution that remained operable after the earthquake and the building was used as the treasury for the city's disaster relief funds. The San Francisco Old Mint Building minted coins until 1937 when the building became too small and its operations moved to a larger space elsewhere in San Francisco. In the years since then, the building has deteriorated. In 1994, the Bureau of the Mint closed the Old Mint because it could not afford the then-estimated $20 million seismic retrofit to bring the building up to code. Since 2003, the General Services Administration transferred ownership of the building to the City of San Francisco. The San Francisco Museum and Historical Society has proposed an exciting project to restore and rejuvenate the Old Mint Building in downtown San Francisco. A fine history museum supported by shops and a visitor's center will combine to make the building a striking and viable destination. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins emblematic of the San Francisco Old Mint Building and its importance to California and the United States. Proceeds generated from the sale of these commemorative coins will be paid to the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society for the restoration of the Old Mint Building. The San Francisco Old Mint is venerated by coin collectors, Californians, and millions of Americans as a national treasure and I believe it is worthy of a commemorative coin. I believe honoring and restoring the San Francisco Old Mint building is an important historic preservation project. Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the building's survival of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire. No other mint has been commemorated and because issuance of these coins would make a vital contribution to preserving this national treasure, the San Francisco Old Mint merits commemoration at this time. I hope my colleagues will join me to support this legislation to help preserve and restore this majestic building and honor the important role it played in rebuilding the great ``City by the Bay''. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join my colleagues Senators Boxer and Ensign to introduce legislation to authorize the United States Mint to issue a commemorative coin that will honor the San Francisco Old Mint and help restore this historic building in downtown San Francisco. The San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historical landmark for San Francisco, the State of California, and the United States. Beginning its operations in 1854, the Old Mint Building was established to take advantage of the plentiful gold and silver mined in the West during the California Gold Rush. At one point, more than half of the money minted in the United States came from the San Francisco Mint, and it once held a third of the Nation's gold supply. The Old Mint Building, located in the heart of the city, has been standing for more than 125 years as the oldest stone building in San Francisco. The Greek-revivalist design of the Old Mint Building was created by architect Alfred B. Mullet, who also designed the U.S. Treasury Building and the Old Executive Office Building in Washington, DC. The San Francisco Old Mint building is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Aided by its magnificent stone structure, the Old Mint Building was able to survive the terrible San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. In fact, the Mint was the only financial institution that remained operable after the earthquake and the building was used as the treasury for the city's disaster relief funds. The San Francisco Old Mint Building minted coins until 1937 when the building became too small and its operations moved to a larger space elsewhere in San Francisco. In the years since then, the building has deteriorated. In 1994, the Bureau of the Mint closed the Old Mint because it could not afford the then-estimated $20 million seismic retrofit to bring the building up to code. Since 2003, the General Services Administration transferred ownership of the building to the City of San Francisco. The San Francisco Museum and Historical Society has proposed an exciting project to restore and rejuvenate the Old Mint Building in downtown San Francisco. A fine history museum supported by shops and a visitor's center will combine to make the building a striking and viable destination. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins emblematic of the San Francisco Old Mint Building and its importance to California and the United States. Proceeds generated from the sale of these commemorative coins will be paid to the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society for the restoration of the Old Mint Building. The San Francisco Old Mint is venerated by coin collectors, Californians, and millions of Americans as a national treasure and I believe it is worthy of a commemorative coin. I believe honoring and restoring the San Francisco Old Mint building is an important historic preservation project. Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the building's survival of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire. No other mint has been commemorated and because issuance of these coins would make a vital contribution to preserving this national treasure, the San Francisco Old Mint merits commemoration at this time. I hope my colleagues will join me to support this legislation to help preserve and restore this majestic building and honor the important role it played in rebuilding the great ``City by the Bay''. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that clarifies the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute. This 200-year-old law has spawned dozens of legal cases involving U.S. multinational companies, human rights groups, foreign plaintiffs, the State Department, and millions of dollars in litigation costs. Numerous companies in California are in the midst of these lawsuits as defendants and it is my view that legislation can help refine and improve the law. Judges have grappled in interpreting and applying the statute for years now without a consensus view emerging. I think it would be fair to say that confusion reigns supreme when it comes to alien tort suits. Given this opaque legal picture, last summer the Supreme Court ruled on a case, Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, in an attempt to reconcile conflicting decisions from judges across the country. The Court's June 2004 ruling was notable, for embracing certain principles that will help guide the Judiciary branch on alien tort claim issues but for leaving many questions unanswered as well. It held that a substantive, legal basis exists for foreigners to sue U.S. individuals and corporations over alleged human rights violations occurring in overseas locations. The Court essentially affirmed that a limited, implicit sanction for courts exists to decide certain alien tort claims. At the same time, the opinion provided a wide berth for what the claims might actually be. The Court hedged on key issues, without clearly demarcating what suits ought to go forward under the statute and which ones should be summarily dismissed. In particular the ruling did not address: which international law claims by foreigners should be heard in a U.S. district court, and the standard of liability for U.S. companies facing these human rights charges. To clarify these areas, the Justices wrote that they would welcome ``any congressional guidance'' on the breadth of the statute. During oral arguments a number of the Justices appeared to concur that a legislative approach would make sense. One Justice even commented that ``I just wonder if it isn't wise to . . . let Congress have a look at this thing.'' Those views were echoed by a Washington Post editorial that followed soon after. The paper stated that the alien tort law has ``formed the basis for litigation against U.S. companies involved with nefarious regimes abroad. And while horrid conduct by an American company ought to be, where proven, grounds for action in American courts, the parameters of such litigation are surely a legislative question, not one for the freewheeling discretion of judges. . . . But the court left open the possibility that at least some of these suits can proceed in the absence of further congressional action.'' The Court's perspective, along with the Post commentary, indicates, at least to me, a sense of caution about imposing by judicial fiat action that is better left to consideration and refinement by the Congress. The Court's hesitation to legislate from the bench shifts the responsibility to this body, I believe, to pass legislation that settles on a reasonable legal means that plaintiffs and defendants alike can rely on to litigate their differences. I believe the measure we are introducing today accomplishes this basic and important goal. Right now, courts are essentially adrift in terms of being able to pinpoint the underlying meaning, scope and intent of this 200-year-old statute. In its entirety, it reads: ``The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.'' The economy of words makes the law abstruse and subject to varying interpretation. And complex, lengthy and unnecessary litigation has burdened the courts as a result. This new bill will establish a fair, legal basis for filing suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). And it will have the added benefit of explicating the law's dual jurisdictional and substantive nature. The measure: specifies a legal standard convicting defendants of wrongdoing if they directly participate with specific intent to commit the alleged tort; codifies international claims under the Alien Tort law to include genocide, torture, slavery and slave trade, extrajudicial killing, and piracy; expands on existing statutory law, the Torture Victim Protection Act; states that Federal courts shall not proceed with tort claims when the President adequately certifies that such exercise of jurisdiction will have a negative impact on the foreign policy interests of the U.S.; maintains that every effort should be made to try these cases in the country of origin before granting jurisdiction in U.S. courts; invokes a 10-year statute of limitations on ATS charges filed against U.S. multinational companies; and disallows contingency fee arrangements for legal representatives of plaintiffs or defendants. The Supreme Court's delineation that the Alien Tort law is jurisdictional in one sense, but recognizes a restricted category of substantive claims encompassed by the law of nations, leaves many unresolved questions. The historical origins of the ATS, passed by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, suggest that certain offenses relevant to that period in American history--piracy, infringing the rights of ambassadors, and prevention of safe travel abroad--were meant to be prosecutable. But Justice Souter's Alvarez-Machain opinion notes that a slim legislative history of the statute makes it difficult to surmise the law's true intent. At the same time, Justice Souter opined: ``Still, the history does tend to support two propositions. First, there is every reason to suppose that the First Congress did not pass the ATS as a jurisdictional convenience to be placed on the shelf for use by a future Congress or state legislature that might, some day, authorize the creation of causes of action or itself decide to make some element of the law of nations actionable for the benefit of foreigners. The anxieties of the preconstitutional period cannot be ignored easily enough to think that the statute was not meant to have a practical effect. . . . The second inference to be drawn from the history is that Congress intended the ATS to furnish jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations.'' The opinion ranges further, that, such a ``modest set of actions'' indeed applies to current times, not merely offenses grounded in law two hundred years ago. The critical portion reads: ``Accordingly, we think courts should require any claim based on the present-day law of nations to rest on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with specificity comparable to the features of the 18th century paradigms we have recognized.'' I am uncomfortable with such a nebulous, open-ended legal approach permitting courts to entertain suits based on a ``norm of international character'' and ``specificity'' consistent with crimes of early American history. Adjudicating cases based on these broad historical and legal precepts is admirable. In practical terms it remains very difficult. The Congress ought to weigh in and play a constructive role. Without legislation, judges will continue to reach markedly different conclusions under the law, based on arbitrary interpretations of case- specific facts and other considerations. Let's take the legal mystery out of the statute and what qualifies as an alien tort and replace it with something that is concrete and appropriate for the times. At the heart of this legislation is codifying a class of violations of international law that will discourage defendant companies from consorting with human rights violators in any respect. They will be held liable if they do so by a specific standard that judges whether they intentionally and directly caused certain violations of human rights. A plaintiff victim will be able to vindicate their rights by filing an express statutory cause of action based on a half dozen egregious wrongs. Regardless of the foreign policy and trade implications, defendant U.S. companies will be held fully accountable under the bill for bad corporate behavior in their overseas business operations. That is as it should be. Certain alien torts in violation of the law of nations ought to be cognizable and this legislation ensures that result. Moreover, the fact that specific crimes are made actionable and enforceable will aid human rights organizations in their fight to strengthen the deterrent effect of the law for potential violators. Regarding the defendant perspective, in one friend of the court brief submitted in the Alvarez Machain case, the argument was made that ``. . . companies face enormous uncertainty regarding the scope of potential claims under the statute. . . . Because ATS cases are based upon an implied cause of action without any clear standards of liability, there may be little companies can do to protect themselves against potential claims, short of simply ceasing to do business in the many nations whose human rights practices come up short against evolving Western ideals.'' The business community ought to embrace this legislation precisely because it wipes away this uncertainty. The best way to encourage U.S. multinationals to invest abroad is: 1. by specifying a universe of the most egregious human rights violations that they may be held liable for and 2. offering a clear, understandable legal standard that judges their actions accordingly. This legislative measure tackles both issues head on. There are estimates that dozens of existing alien tort suits claim damages--collectively--in excess of $200 billion dollars. That's an extraordinary sum that rightly concerns the U.S. business community, particularly given numerous inconsistent federal courts verdicts handed down in the past two decades. This legislation deters private plaintiffs from filing sweeping and specious claims simply because a corporation has a U.S. legal nexus and deep pockets. Yet, it expands the basis for foreign plaintiffs pursuing certain international law causes of action in federal court by codifying their rights in a judicious way. While some in the U.S. business community would prefer that the Alien Tort statute be deleted from the U.S. Code altogether, I would respectfully disagree. A fair compromise that balances the interests of U.S. companies and human rights organizations is what this legislation seeks to accomplish. The Congress has waded into this debate before, passing the Torture Victim Protection Act in 1991, and this new legislation contains many similar elements: a statute of limitations, a statutory exhaustion provision, and specifying torture and extrajudicial killing as within the adjudicatory discretion of a district court. There is precedent, then, for the Legislative branch acting to provide civil redress for victims of torture. Asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction under the ATS, for torture and other jus cogen violations, has a firm footing in American jurisprudence. The legislative history of the TVPA is important because it spells out the constitutional grounds justifying that statutory law and this new legislation as well. The Senate Judiciary Committee report on the TVPA states as follows: ``Under article III of the Constitution, the Federal judiciary has the power to adjudicate cases `arising under' the `law of the United States.' The Supreme Court has held that the law of the United States includes international law. . . . Congress's ability to enact this legislation also derives from article I, section 8 of the Constitution which authorizes Congress `to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.' '' Existing case law confirms the point that Congress has given the federal courts the power to interpret and apply international human rights law. The notable Paquete Habana decision states, in part, that ``international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. . . Congress, however, has not only expressed no disagreement with our view of the proper exercise of the judicial power, but has responded to its most notable instance by enacting legislation [the Torture Victim Protection Act] supplementing the judicial determination in some detail.'' The view expressed in the Alvarez Machain case last year was much the same, that no development in the last two centuries has ``categorically precluded federal courts from recognizing a claim under the law of nations as an element of common law.'' Different precedent, Tel Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, also posits that civil liability should ensue from certain violations of international law, suggesting that the ``limits of section 1350's [the ATS] reach'' be defined by ``a handful of heinous actions--each of which violates definable, universal and obligatory norms.'' This legislation fills that legal vessel with the most egregious crimes: genocide, torture, slavery and slave trading, extrajudicial killing, and piracy. These jus cogen offenses are singled out through 1. stare decisis, 2. the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, 3. academic writings, 4. official annual human rights assessments from the State Department and 5. among the writings and publications of many human rights and international law advocacy groups. Congress is in the best position to make the determination of what falls within the ambit of the statute, not judges across America who lack expertise, time, and resources to assess what constitutes definable, specific, universal, and obligatory norms of international law. The bill, I would submit, represents a good faith effort in permitting these tortious acts, all firmly established and well defined in international law norms, to be prosecuted in U.S. district courts. I was interested to read the views last year of the head of the National Foreign Trade Council, William Reinsch, that ``these cases are going to end up in the Supreme Court . . . and the Court will over time end up defining what in its judgment constitutes the law of nations and what does not. But that seems to us a fairly circuitous way of doing things.'' I would concur, particularly since the Supreme Court's decision last year in the Alvarez Machain case did not clear up the inherent vagaries in the law. A significant provision in this legislation creates a standard of liability that requires plaintiffs to show that a defendant directly participated with specific intent in carrying out the alleged tort. In my view, we need to deter legal fishing expeditions, whereby plaintiffs come to the bar with flinty facts backing weak charges. Their real intent, it seems, is to rely on an extensive legal discovery process to uncover matters that embarrass companies and delay their business plans. In the groundbreaking 1980 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case, for example, the threshold requirement laid out was that the offense needed to be ``clear and unambiguous'' to be viable under the statute. Succeeding cases have affirmed a standard essentially requiring proof of a defendant aiding and abetting the worst human rights violations. This bill replaces the current aiding and liability standard for good reason: these foreign-based claims demand a particularity of facts that is both strong and specific. I would submit that the existing ambiguous grant of jurisdiction needs more refinement to provide judges legal bright lines for deciding these cases. My bill offers precise, and fair, treatment for which cases get standing in a U.S. court. A common theme in dozens of cases alien tort cases is whether the facts and law combine to present a nonjusticiable political question. Each cause of action is obviously different, and whether the matter ought to be under the province of a different branch of government requires careful analysis. I would certainly agree that certain prudential doctrines, act of state, political question, foreign sovereign immunity, forum non conveniens, and considerations of comity among nations, at times can be appropriately invoked to limit jurisdiction. Part of that consideration can usefully come from statements of interest and certifications submitted by the Executive branch; for that reason, the legislation I'm offering preserves a suitable role for the Executive branch to weigh in. If a judge determines that a certification offered by the State Department adequately justifies that harm will come to U.S. foreign policy interests if an alien tort suit proceeds, then dismissal is warranted. In regards to restricting the statute of limitations to ten years, equitable tolling considerations should be explicitly considered in interpreting provisions in the legislation. There are numerous factors that give rise to equitable tolling and long-established judge-made doctrine in this area is not inconsistent with the goals of my bill. Complementary legislation which I raised earlier, the Torture Victim Protection Act, upholds the principle of equitable tolling. The Judiciary Committee report on that measure notes some common examples: ``The statute of limitation should be tolled during the time the defendant was absent from the United States or from any jurisdiction in which the same or a similar action arising from the same facts may be maintained by the plaintiff, provided that the remedy in that jurisdiction is adequate and available. Excluded also from calculation of the statute of limitations would be the period when a defendant has immunity from suit. The statute of limitations should also be tolled for the period of time in which the plaintiff is imprisoned or otherwise incapacitated.'' I would submit that all of these listed circumstances, and others, are sufficient to suspend the running of the time under my legislation. Let me conclude by referring back to one of the Supreme Court's foundational points in the Alvarez-Machain case that ``despite considerable scholarly attention, it is fair to say that a consensus understanding of what Congress intended has proven elusive.'' The 33 words contained in the law remain a ``legal Lohengrin'' since ``no one seems to know whence it came'' added a judge hearing a different case some years ago. As a result, costly, complex litigation proceeds forward across the country. Courts deserve guidance from Congress about how to treat and interpret the statute, particularly in light of the growing importance of international trade and commerce. In a major address Supreme Court Justice O'Connor recently observed that ``international law has emerged in ways that affect all courts, both here and abroad. The reason is globalization. Its importance should not be underestimated. Thirty percent or more of our gross domestic product is internationally derived.'' Yet these particular suits, brought by foreigners for massive monetary damages, threaten the international economic activities that are important to sustaining the American economy. The suits should be able to go forward, but judges need better legal tools to make heads or tails of the cases that come before them hence the motivation for introducing the Alien Tort Statute Reform Act. With full understanding of the Supreme Court's admonition to act with judicial caution in framing the alien tort statute, I believe it is time for Congress to bring clarity to the law and this proposed legislation does so. I look forward to working with colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, through the hearing process and other means, to give this matter serious consideration by the Legislative branch. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will clarify certain National Park Service authorities for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. I also want to thank Congresswoman Pelosi for introducing a similar bill in the house. As a San Francisco native and a former mayor, I know these parks are extremely popular tourist sites and I believe this bill will allow the National Park Service to restore and renovate these parks in order to maintain their status as top tourist destinations. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is one of the largest urban national parks in the world--home to such renowned sites as the Presidio of San Francisco and Alcatraz Island. Additionally, the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, located at the west end of San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf, includes a fleet of landmark vessels and a maritime museum. Presently, the revenue collected by these parks must be spent in the same fiscal year in which it is collected. Otherwise, any revenue that is not spent is deposited in the National Treasury. This current policy makes it difficult for these two parks to pursue long term, major restoration projects. This bill makes the necessary changes to allow these parks to undertake needed substantive restoration as opposed to smaller, less significant projects allowed under the current revenue system. The bill also calls for a modest boundary adjustment between the two adjacent parks in order to be consistent with the current administration of San Francisco's Municipal Pier. I am introducing this bill with the hope that it will allow these two parks to retain the revenue necessary for maintenance in order to continue to attract visitors from around the world to these historic sites of California. 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 a bill which will clarify certain National Park Service authorities for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. I also want to thank Congresswoman Pelosi for introducing a similar bill in the house. As a San Francisco native and a former mayor, I know these parks are extremely popular tourist sites and I believe this bill will allow the National Park Service to restore and renovate these parks in order to maintain their status as top tourist destinations. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is one of the largest urban national parks in the world--home to such renowned sites as the Presidio of San Francisco and Alcatraz Island. Additionally, the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, located at the west end of San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf, includes a fleet of landmark vessels and a maritime museum. Presently, the revenue collected by these parks must be spent in the same fiscal year in which it is collected. Otherwise, any revenue that is not spent is deposited in the National Treasury. This current policy makes it difficult for these two parks to pursue long term, major restoration projects. This bill makes the necessary changes to allow these parks to undertake needed substantive restoration as opposed to smaller, less significant projects allowed under the current revenue system. The bill also calls for a modest boundary adjustment between the two adjacent parks in order to be consistent with the current administration of San Francisco's Municipal Pier. I am introducing this bill with the hope that it will allow these two parks to retain the revenue necessary for maintenance in order to continue to attract visitors from around the world to these historic sites of California. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that clarifies the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute. This 200-year-old law has spawned dozens of legal cases involving U.S. multinational companies, human rights groups, foreign plaintiffs, the State Department, and millions of dollars in litigation costs. Numerous companies in California are in the midst of these lawsuits as defendants and it is my view that legislation can help refine and improve the law. Judges have grappled in interpreting and applying the statute for years now without a consensus view emerging. I think it would be fair to say that confusion reigns supreme when it comes to alien tort suits. Given this opaque legal picture, last summer the Supreme Court ruled on a case, Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, in an attempt to reconcile conflicting decisions from judges across the country. The Court's June 2004 ruling was notable, for embracing certain principles that will help guide the Judiciary branch on alien tort claim issues but for leaving many questions unanswered as well. It held that a substantive, legal basis exists for foreigners to sue U.S. individuals and corporations over alleged human rights violations occurring in overseas locations. The Court essentially affirmed that a limited, implicit sanction for courts exists to decide certain alien tort claims. At the same time, the opinion provided a wide berth for what the claims might actually be. The Court hedged on key issues, without clearly demarcating what suits ought to go forward under the statute and which ones should be summarily dismissed. In particular the ruling did not address: which international law claims by foreigners should be heard in a U.S. district court, and the standard of liability for U.S. companies facing these human rights charges. To clarify these areas, the Justices wrote that they would welcome ``any congressional guidance'' on the breadth of the statute. During oral arguments a number of the Justices appeared to concur that a legislative approach would make sense. One Justice even commented that ``I just wonder if it isn't wise to . . . let Congress have a look at this thing.'' Those views were echoed by a Washington Post editorial that followed soon after. The paper stated that the alien tort law has ``formed the basis for litigation against U.S. companies involved with nefarious regimes abroad. And while horrid conduct by an American company ought to be, where proven, grounds for action in American courts, the parameters of such litigation are surely a legislative question, not one for the freewheeling discretion of judges. . . . But the court left open the possibility that at least some of these suits can proceed in the absence of further congressional action.'' The Court's perspective, along with the Post commentary, indicates, at least to me, a sense of caution about imposing by judicial fiat action that is better left to consideration and refinement by the Congress. The Court's hesitation to legislate from the bench shifts the responsibility to this body, I believe, to pass legislation that settles on a reasonable legal means that plaintiffs and defendants alike can rely on to litigate their differences. I believe the measure we are introducing today accomplishes this basic and important goal. Right now, courts are essentially adrift in terms of being able to pinpoint the underlying meaning, scope and intent of this 200-year-old statute. In its entirety, it reads: ``The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.'' The economy of words makes the law abstruse and subject to varying interpretation. And complex, lengthy and unnecessary litigation has burdened the courts as a result. This new bill will establish a fair, legal basis for filing suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). And it will have the added benefit of explicating the law's dual jurisdictional and substantive nature. The measure: specifies a legal standard convicting defendants of wrongdoing if they directly participate with specific intent to commit the alleged tort; codifies international claims under the Alien Tort law to include genocide, torture, slavery and slave trade, extrajudicial killing, and piracy; expands on existing statutory law, the Torture Victim Protection Act; states that Federal courts shall not proceed with tort claims when the President adequately certifies that such exercise of jurisdiction will have a negative impact on the foreign policy interests of the U.S.; maintains that every effort should be made to try these cases in the country of origin before granting jurisdiction in U.S. courts; invokes a 10-year statute of limitations on ATS charges filed against U.S. multinational companies; and disallows contingency fee arrangements for legal representatives of plaintiffs or defendants. The Supreme Court's delineation that the Alien Tort law is jurisdictional in one sense, but recognizes a restricted category of substantive claims encompassed by the law of nations, leaves many unresolved questions. The historical origins of the ATS, passed by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, suggest that certain offenses relevant to that period in American history--piracy, infringing the rights of ambassadors, and prevention of safe travel abroad--were meant to be prosecutable. But Justice Souter's Alvarez-Machain opinion notes that a slim legislative history of the statute makes it difficult to surmise the law's true intent. At the same time, Justice Souter opined: ``Still, the history does tend to support two propositions. First, there is every reason to suppose that the First Congress did not pass the ATS as a jurisdictional convenience to be placed on the shelf for use by a future Congress or state legislature that might, some day, authorize the creation of causes of action or itself decide to make some element of the law of nations actionable for the benefit of foreigners. The anxieties of the preconstitutional period cannot be ignored easily enough to think that the statute was not meant to have a practical effect. . . . The second inference to be drawn from the history is that Congress intended the ATS to furnish jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations.'' The opinion ranges further, that, such a ``modest set of actions'' indeed applies to current times, not merely offenses grounded in law two hundred years ago. The critical portion reads: ``Accordingly, we think courts should require any claim based on the present-day law of nations to rest on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with specificity comparable to the features of the 18th century paradigms we have recognized.'' I am uncomfortable with such a nebulous, open-ended legal approach permitting courts to entertain suits based on a ``norm of international character'' and ``specificity'' consistent with crimes of early American history. Adjudicating cases based on these broad historical and legal precepts is admirable. In practical terms it remains very difficult. The Congress ought to weigh in and play a constructive role. Without legislation, judges will continue to reach markedly different conclusions under the law, based on arbitrary interpretations of case- specific facts and other considerations. Let's take the legal mystery out of the statute and what qualifies as an alien tort and replace it with something that is concrete and appropriate for the times. At the heart of this legislation is codifying a class of violations of international law that will discourage defendant companies from consorting with human rights violators in any respect. They will be held liable if they do so by a specific standard that judges whether they intentionally and directly caused certain violations of human rights. A plaintiff victim will be able to vindicate their rights by filing an express statutory cause of action based on a half dozen egregious wrongs. Regardless of the foreign policy and trade implications, defendant U.S. companies will be held fully accountable under the bill for bad corporate behavior in their overseas business operations. That is as it should be. Certain alien torts in violation of the law of nations ought to be cognizable and this legislation ensures that result. Moreover, the fact that specific crimes are made actionable and enforceable will aid human rights organizations in their fight to strengthen the deterrent effect of the law for potential violators. Regarding the defendant perspective, in one friend of the court brief submitted in the Alvarez Machain case, the argument was made that ``. . . companies face enormous uncertainty regarding the scope of potential claims under the statute. . . . Because ATS cases are based upon an implied cause of action without any clear standards of liability, there may be little companies can do to protect themselves against potential claims, short of simply ceasing to do business in the many nations whose human rights practices come up short against evolving Western ideals.'' The business community ought to embrace this legislation precisely because it wipes away this uncertainty. The best way to encourage U.S. multinationals to invest abroad is: 1. by specifying a universe of the most egregious human rights violations that they may be held liable for and 2. offering a clear, understandable legal standard that judges their actions accordingly. This legislative measure tackles both issues head on. There are estimates that dozens of existing alien tort suits claim damages--collectively--in excess of $200 billion dollars. That's an extraordinary sum that rightly concerns the U.S. business community, particularly given numerous inconsistent federal courts verdicts handed down in the past two decades. This legislation deters private plaintiffs from filing sweeping and specious claims simply because a corporation has a U.S. legal nexus and deep pockets. Yet, it expands the basis for foreign plaintiffs pursuing certain international law causes of action in federal court by codifying their rights in a judicious way. While some in the U.S. business community would prefer that the Alien Tort statute be deleted from the U.S. Code altogether, I would respectfully disagree. A fair compromise that balances the interests of U.S. companies and human rights organizations is what this legislation seeks to accomplish. The Congress has waded into this debate before, passing the Torture Victim Protection Act in 1991, and this new legislation contains many similar elements: a statute of limitations, a statutory exhaustion provision, and specifying torture and extrajudicial killing as within the adjudicatory discretion of a district court. There is precedent, then, for the Legislative branch acting to provide civil redress for victims of torture. Asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction under the ATS, for torture and other jus cogen violations, has a firm footing in American jurisprudence. The legislative history of the TVPA is important because it spells out the constitutional grounds justifying that statutory law and this new legislation as well. The Senate Judiciary Committee report on the TVPA states as follows: ``Under article III of the Constitution, the Federal judiciary has the power to adjudicate cases `arising under' the `law of the United States.' The Supreme Court has held that the law of the United States includes international law. . . . Congress's ability to enact this legislation also derives from article I, section 8 of the Constitution which authorizes Congress `to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.' '' Existing case law confirms the point that Congress has given the federal courts the power to interpret and apply international human rights law. The notable Paquete Habana decision states, in part, that ``international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. . . Congress, however, has not only expressed no disagreement with our view of the proper exercise of the judicial power, but has responded to its most notable instance by enacting legislation [the Torture Victim Protection Act] supplementing the judicial determination in some detail.'' The view expressed in the Alvarez Machain case last year was much the same, that no development in the last two centuries has ``categorically precluded federal courts from recognizing a claim under the law of nations as an element of common law.'' Different precedent, Tel Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, also posits that civil liability should ensue from certain violations of international law, suggesting that the ``limits of section 1350's [the ATS] reach'' be defined by ``a handful of heinous actions--each of which violates definable, universal and obligatory norms.'' This legislation fills that legal vessel with the most egregious crimes: genocide, torture, slavery and slave trading, extrajudicial killing, and piracy. These jus cogen offenses are singled out through 1. stare decisis, 2. the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, 3. academic writings, 4. official annual human rights assessments from the State Department and 5. among the writings and publications of many human rights and international law advocacy groups. Congress is in the best position to make the determination of what falls within the ambit of the statute, not judges across America who lack expertise, time, and resources to assess what constitutes definable, specific, universal, and obligatory norms of international law. The bill, I would submit, represents a good faith effort in permitting these tortious acts, all firmly established and well defined in international law norms, to be prosecuted in U.S. district courts. I was interested to read the views last year of the head of the National Foreign Trade Council, William Reinsch, that ``these cases are going to end up in the Supreme Court . . . and the Court will over time end up defining what in its judgment constitutes the law of nations and what does not. But that seems to us a fairly circuitous way of doing things.'' I would concur, particularly since the Supreme Court's decision last year in the Alvarez Machain case did not clear up the inherent vagaries in the law. A significant provision in this legislation creates a standard of liability that requires plaintiffs to show that a defendant directly participated with specific intent in carrying out the alleged tort. In my view, we need to deter legal fishing expeditions, whereby plaintiffs come to the bar with flinty facts backing weak charges. Their real intent, it seems, is to rely on an extensive legal discovery process to uncover matters that embarrass companies and delay their business plans. In the groundbreaking 1980 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case, for example, the threshold requirement laid out was that the offense needed to be ``clear and unambiguous'' to be viable under the statute. Succeeding cases have affirmed a standard essentially requiring proof of a defendant aiding and abetting the worst human rights violations. This bill replaces the current aiding and liability standard for good reason: these foreign-based claims demand a particularity of facts that is both strong and specific. I would submit that the existing ambiguous grant of jurisdiction needs more refinement to provide judges legal bright lines for deciding these cases. My bill offers precise, and fair, treatment for which cases get standing in a U.S. court. A common theme in dozens of cases alien tort cases is whether the facts and law combine to present a nonjusticiable political question. Each cause of action is obviously different, and whether the matter ought to be under the province of a different branch of government requires careful analysis. I would certainly agree that certain prudential doctrines, act of state, political question, foreign sovereign immunity, forum non conveniens, and considerations of comity among nations, at times can be appropriately invoked to limit jurisdiction. Part of that consideration can usefully come from statements of interest and certifications submitted by the Executive branch; for that reason, the legislation I'm offering preserves a suitable role for the Executive branch to weigh in. If a judge determines that a certification offered by the State Department adequately justifies that harm will come to U.S. foreign policy interests if an alien tort suit proceeds, then dismissal is warranted. In regards to restricting the statute of limitations to ten years, equitable tolling considerations should be explicitly considered in interpreting provisions in the legislation. There are numerous factors that give rise to equitable tolling and long-established judge-made doctrine in this area is not inconsistent with the goals of my bill. Complementary legislation which I raised earlier, the Torture Victim Protection Act, upholds the principle of equitable tolling. The Judiciary Committee report on that measure notes some common examples: ``The statute of limitation should be tolled during the time the defendant was absent from the United States or from any jurisdiction in which the same or a similar action arising from the same facts may be maintained by the plaintiff, provided that the remedy in that jurisdiction is adequate and available. Excluded also from calculation of the statute of limitations would be the period when a defendant has immunity from suit. The statute of limitations should also be tolled for the period of time in which the plaintiff is imprisoned or otherwise incapacitated.'' I would submit that all of these listed circumstances, and others, are sufficient to suspend the running of the time under my legislation. Let me conclude by referring back to one of the Supreme Court's foundational points in the Alvarez-Machain case that ``despite considerable scholarly attention, it is fair to say that a consensus understanding of what Congress intended has proven elusive.'' The 33 words contained in the law remain a ``legal Lohengrin'' since ``no one seems to know whence it came'' added a judge hearing a different case some years ago. As a result, costly, complex litigation proceeds forward across the country. Courts deserve guidance from Congress about how to treat and interpret the statute, particularly in light of the growing importance of international trade and commerce. In a major address Supreme Court Justice O'Connor recently observed that ``international law has emerged in ways that affect all courts, both here and abroad. The reason is globalization. Its importance should not be underestimated. Thirty percent or more of our gross domestic product is internationally derived.'' Yet these particular suits, brought by foreigners for massive monetary damages, threaten the international economic activities that are important to sustaining the American economy. The suits should be able to go forward, but judges need better legal tools to make heads or tails of the cases that come before them hence the motivation for introducing the Alien Tort Statute Reform Act. With full understanding of the Supreme Court's admonition to act with judicial caution in framing the alien tort statute, I believe it is time for Congress to bring clarity to the law and this proposed legislation does so. I look forward to working with colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, through the hearing process and other means, to give this matter serious consideration by the Legislative branch. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was pleased to join with the distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, in offering an amendment that has been accepted as part of the managers' package in the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense appropriations bill. Specifically, this amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget, along with the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, to conduct a study on ``improving the response of the Federal Government to disasters.'' I believe this study is essential as it is clear to me that there were breakdowns at every level in our response to Hurricane Katrina. Moreover, it is critical that the Federal Government improve its response to future disasters. The study required by this amendment would: review the Federal Government's ability to coordinate and expedite its response efforts; evaluate the role of our military in responding to disasters; consider establishing criteria for ``automatically triggering'' the military's participation in emergency response efforts; and look at increasing the role of the U.S. Geological Survey in preparing and responding to future disasters. In addition, the amendment requires that the Office of Management and Budget prepare a report based on the study that includes: recommendations for improving the Federal Government's response in future disasters with a focus on the military; and proposals for legislation or regulations to implement these recommendations. Lastly, I would like to express my disappointment that the amendment does not direct the study to analyze the role of the National Guard in responding to disasters. While I wholly join those colleagues of mine who have commended the untiring and dedicated work of the National Guard in responding to the recent hurricanes, I believe that including an assessment of the National Guard's capabilities is critical to understanding the broader implications of our government's emergency response mechanisms. As the principal resource available to States to assist in disaster response efforts, it would seem vital to consider the Guard's capabilities under both State and Federal control, and the mechanisms currently established for mobilizing out-of-State Guard units to assist in any response. Part of such a review would certainly have included a proper evaluation of whether the National Guard currently has the necessary resources and equipment to respond adequately to disasters. The study required by this amendment is not about placing blame or pointing fingers; there is plenty of fault to go around. Rather, it is about assessing our capabilities to respond to future disasters, and addressing our weaknesses. As I have said in the past, we need to ensure that we have a system in place that allows the Federal Government to come in immediately with the full force of its resources and assume primary responsibility for response and relief. Now is the time to prepare for future disasters. The study and report required by this amendment will provide us a roadmap for enacting the necessary reforms within our Government to make sure we never again have to observe the failures like we experienced during Hurricane Katrina.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1977, offered by my colleague, Senator McCain. This amendment would bring much-needed clarity to the rules governing how Americans treat captured prisoners and detainees. It will make clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to all people held in the custody of the Department of Defense. It provides a workable definition of ``cruel and inhumane,'' based on the rules which govern how we treat criminals in the United States, and based firmly in the constitutional prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment. Most importantly, it sets rules that are clear, simple and in accord with basic American values. First, let me make clear my view that in this modern world of asymmetric warfare, non-state actors, and unconventional threat, there is an absolute necessity to have a program to securely hold prisoners and effectively interrogate them to provide timely intelligence. But in my judgment, the current system is not working. Over the course of the past 4 years, there has been a great deal of confusion over the policies and practices of the United States towards individuals the Government has taken into custody. This confusion has been evident at the highest levels of decisionmaking at the Pentagon, with memoranda authorizing this technique or that technique being issued and rescinded within weeks of one another. The confusion has been noted here in the Senate. I sit on two committees with jurisdiction, and have sat through hours and hours of hearings and briefings--our Nation's policy with respect to detainees and prisoners of war is still unclear to me. Frankly, the administration's repeated statements about ``wherever possible adhering to law'' are confusing and unhelpful. And the confusion has filtered down to the front lines. Seventeen months ago, enlisted members of the 82nd Airborne Infantry Division--honorable men risking their lives in Iraq--asked their commanding officer what the rules were for the treatment of prisoners. For 17 months, their commander, CPT Ian Fishback, diligently searched for the answer up and down his chain of command. Here is what he has found, and I quote: 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. Captain Fishback and his men have a right to clear guidance. Their sacrifices entitle them to be allowed to do their job. An infantryman should not need to be a graduate of a law school to know what to do with a prisoner. What this amendment does is to provide clarity. It is incumbent on Congress to provide this clarity. In fact, we have a constitutional mandate to do it. Article VII, section 8 of the Constitution 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.'' Our men and women in combat badly need this legislation. But there is more at stake here than immediate military necessity. Our soldiers and our Nation have a long and honorable tradition of ethical behavior. For more than 200 years we have prided ourselves on being different than our adversaries in war. Simply put, there are some things that Americans do not do, not because it is illegal, or some lawyer says we cannot, but because it is wrong. The laws of war, codified in the Geneva Conventions, represent a bare minimum of acceptable behavior toward captives. The United States has consistently championed the Geneva Conventions for over a century, knowing that our behavior is a beacon to the world, and that our adherence to principle--as well as projecting American values--saves American lives. I am not naive. I do not expect our current enemy to respect the Geneva Conventions. Our captured troops cannot expect humane treatment at the hands of al-Qaida. But make no mistake--the eyes of the world are still on us, and our policies have real consequences. Even now, millions of young Muslims around the world are evaluating the United States. They are deciding whether to take up arms against us, or whether to work with us towards a peaceful resolution with liberty and justice for all. We must show them, clearly, emphatically, that the rhetoric of democracy and freedom is not empty. We must show them that we are a government of laws, clearly written, openly promulgated and fairly enforced. Captures and interrogations are part of war and, no less than other tools of war, must be wielded intelligently, humanely, and within a set of rules for warfare that govern all who serve in uniform--whether privates or generals, seamen or admirals. Our men and women in uniform, serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to clear, direct and lawful leadership. This amendment is good policy, is just, and is long overdue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a resolution to honor the contributions of Chinese art and culture and recognize the landmark Festival of China taking place this October at the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts in Washington, DC. I commend the joint efforts of the Kennedy Center and the Chinese Ministry of Culture in organizing this celebration and congratulate the hundreds of individuals who have contributed to its success. With over 800 artists and 50 scheduled events, the Festival of China will truly be one of the largest celebrations of Chinese performance arts in American history. Starting with Beijing Cultural Week, the Festival will feature Chinese dance, theater, and opera, and musical performances, along with film and art exhibitions. I am also privileged to be joined today in offering this resolution by two of my colleagues, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, both of whom play significant roles in fostering our relationship with China. Senator Stevens, as the Senate Pro Tempore, chairs the U.S.-China Interparliamentary Group, which facilitates annual exchanges between Members of the Senate and their counterparts in the Chinese National People's Congress. A hero in both the United States and China, his long history with the Chinese people and their culture goes back to World War II, when as a pilot he flew missions in support of the Flying Tigers over the ``Hump'' between Burma and China. Because of his dedicated service to the people of China, he was later decorated with the Yuan Hai Medal by the Chinese government. Since he first arrived in the Senate 36 years ago, Senator Stevens has worked tirelessly to improve the bilateral relationship between the United States and China, and promote exchanges and cooperation between the two sides. While Senator Murkowski's tenure in the Senate may be shorter than that of her senior colleague from Alaska, she nevertheless is already playing a key part in shaping our relationship with China. As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, she has the unique responsibility of overseeing our relationship with China and its many neighbors in the region. My own relationship with China first started in 1979 when I had the chance to visit as the Mayor of San Francisco. In 1980, I joined my counterpart, Mayor Wang Daohan, in signing an agreement to establish the first Sister City relationship of its kind between San Francisco and Shanghai. Since that time, I have traveled regularly to China and had the opportunity to get to know many of its leaders. I can tell you that, in my view, no nation on Earth has changed more positively in the past three decades than China. That is why I consider it truly an honor to join with my colleagues in introducing this resolution to recognize the Festival of China. I hope that during the month of October 2005 more Americans will have the chance to understand China and its unique contributions to art and culture during the past 5,000 years.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank very much all of my colleagues for their support in extending the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 2 years. This bill has the strong bipartisan support of Senator Hutchison and 68 other Senators from both sides of the aisle. Without congressional action, this extraordinary stamp is set to expire on December 31 of this year. During the past 7 years, the U.S. Postal Service has sold over 650 million semipostal breast cancer stamps--raising $47.4 million for breast cancer research. These dollars allow the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Department of Defense, DOD, to conduct new and innovative breast cancer research. So far the NIH has received approximately $31 million and the DOD about $13 million for breast cancer research--helping more people become cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. In addition to raising much needed funds, this wonderful stamp has also focused public awareness on this devastating disease and provided hope to breast cancer survivors to help find a cure. The breast cancer research stamp is the first stamp of its kind dedicated to raising funds for a special cause and remains just as necessary today as ever. For example: breast cancer is considered the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in every major ethnic group in this country; over 2 million women in the U.S. are living with breast cancer, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed; this year, approximately 211,240 women in this country will get breast cancer and about 40,410 women will die from this dreadful disease; and about 1,300 men in America are diagnosed with breast cancer each year though much less common. Extending the life of this remarkable stamp is crucial so that we can continue to reach out to our women and men who do not know of their cancer and to those who are living with it. This bill would permit the sale of the breast cancer research stamp for 2 more years--until December 31, 2007. The stamp would continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp. Surplus revenues would continue to go to breast cancer research programs at the National Institutes of Health, 70 percent of proceeds, and the Department of Defense, 30 percent of proceeds. This bill does not affect any other semipostal proposals under consideration by the Postal Service. With this stamp every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives until a cure is found. Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this important legislation to extend the breast cancer research stamp for 2 more years.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Armenian American community in welcoming the upcoming Pontifical visit of His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia. The Pontiff will be visiting the State of California this October at the invitation of His Eminence, Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America. His Holiness is one of the most prominent Christian leaders in the Middle East and a spiritual leader for hundreds of thousands of Armenians around the world. The Pontiff presently serves as the Moderator for the World Council of Churches which is comprised of more than 340 churches from different cultures and countries around the world representing over 400 million Christians. Currently serving his second term, His Holiness is the first Orthodox and the youngest person to be elevated to Moderator. The theme of the Pontiff's visit is ``Towards the Light of Knowledge.'' This theme reflects the Pontiff's faith that only with greater education and dialogue can the world's conflicts be addressed properly. I take this opportunity to not only thank The Pontiff for his time and worthy endeavors in California, but also thank the sizable Armenian community which has been actively contributing to the California culture and economy since 1878. California cities of Los Angeles and Glendale are home to the second and third largest populations of Armenians outside of Armenia and are important members of their communities serving as business leaders and city council members.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1865

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. Amendment No. 1864

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Mr. President, I very much concur with what my chairman has just said. In watching on television, one of the things that has come through to me is the enormous sensitivity of our military toward people's plights. What is coming back from people is: Oh, they are treating us so well. They really care. I believe that is a real commendation for the American military, thrown into a situation for which they are not necessarily trained. After all, they are trained for war fighting. They have done amazingly. I think from the top, when General Honore went down--no nonsense, ``move that gun down''--there was no doubt who was in command. It was a true command presence and followed down through the ranks in an amazing way. So I just want to say thank you very much to each man and woman who is down there helping people go through some of the worst days of their lives.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We have watched with great pride the heroic actions of our Nation's active and reserve military personnel as they have rushed to respond to devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. We have watched these same troops courageously carry out their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We ask so much of our military and we all recognize we can never adequately repay our debt of gratitude to them. That said, we as Senators have both the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure programs important to our military forces and our veterans are adequately funded. As Senator Hutchison has said, the bill before the Senate today is a bipartisan effort to provide a portion of that funding for the infrastructure needs of our military and the health care and other needs of our veterans. I want to emphasize the bipartisan nature of this bill and to especially commend the chairman, Senator Hutchison, for her skill and her determination--and she can be very determined--in addressing the budgetary complications posed by merging the massive and troubled budget of the VA into the military construction appropriations bill. In that respect, when we had hearings, it was interesting to see that Senator Craig came, Senator Akaka came, Senator Murray came, the former authorizers, as well as appropriators when the VA was in another budget. I hope veterans all over the United States recognize how deeply this Senate does care that the VA budget is adequately funded. It was a struggle, but we got there and we got there together. That was thanks to the authorizers and the appropriators and the former appropriators, including my friend Senator Mikulski, for working closely with us. This bill is notable in several regards. First, under the leadership of Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd, we were able to provide $1.977 billion in emergency funding to address the projected shortfall in veterans health care. This was originally disputed, but the authorizers found that the percentage of increase in the planning model was wrong. Therefore, additional moneys were, in fact, needed. That was in addition to the $1.5 billion in the 2005 supplemental funding we were able to add to the 2006 Interior appropriations bill to make up the current shortfall in veterans health care funding. So it was a double effort because money was also added on the Interior bill as well as on our bill. At a time of tight budget constraints and many competing needs, the Senate Committee on Appropriations demonstrated it stands united in support of our veterans. I very much hope the full Senate and the House will stand by our committee's recommendation. The bill before the Senate today totals $82.98 billion, of which $44 billion is discretionary. For military construction, the bill equals the budget request of $12.116 billion, although we have rearranged some of the funding within that request. For the VA, the total amount appropriated in this bill is $70.7 billion, including $34.1 billion in discretionary spending and $36.6 billion in mandatory spending. This is $3.2 billion above the President's original budget proposal. Even before we learned of the terrible shortfalls in the VA budget, Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd provided an additional $1.26 billion to the subcommittee to cover shortcomings in the President's budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Senator Hutchison and I used that additional funding to restore proposed cuts to programs and to make up all the savings assumed in the budget submission for proposed enrollment fees and increased pharmaceutical copayments, as the chairman mentioned. The Senate Committee on Appropriations unanimously rejected levying these fees on our veterans and provided funding to ensure that the VA could continue to provide service to all eligible veterans. The bill also provides essential funding for military construction, military family housing, and base realignment and closure costs. Once again, Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated the vital mission of the Guard and Reserve forces to respond to disasters at home and the important backup role played by components of our Active-Duty Forces. As any experienced military member will state, infrastructure is the key to readiness. Our troops can't train or deploy effectively without the infrastructure necessary to support their mission. This bill provides important funding for military infrastructure needs, including family housing. As the chairman mentioned in the privatization of a number of new projects, those needs will only increase as a result of the impact of Hurricane Katrina on a number of facilities and installations in Mississippi and Louisiana. We must be prepared to meet those emerging requirements and others we may yet face, without slowing down the progress we are making toward addressing the backlog of military construction requirements nationwide. I suggest that a necessary place for some of this will be the next emergency supplemental rather than, hopefully, amendments to this bill. Finally, this bill includes necessary funding to implement the 2005 base realignment and closure process and to continue the environmental cleanup from the previous BRAC rounds. This is very important to me. I thank the chairman for going along with it because the environmental cleanup needs are far beyond those envisioned or those budgeted. Much of the remaining environmental cleanup requirements is in my home State of California. I am particularly mindful of the need to finish this job. Senator Hutchison has strongly supported me in this effort. I appreciate her concern that we fully fund environmental cleanup of military installations closed under the BRAC process. Again, I thank Chairman Hutchison for her steadfast leadership on this bill, and Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd for their unstinting support of our Nation's military members and veterans. I also thank, because we have a great staff, Tammy Cameron, Sean Knowles, and Dennis Balkam on the majority, and Christina Evans, B.G. Wright, and Chad Schulken of my staff for their professionalism and their excellent work. This is a good bill. I encourage all of my colleagues on the Democratic side, in particular, to support it and to move expeditiously to pass it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my chairman, Senator Hutchison, in recommending the 2006 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies appropriations bill to the Senate. I thank Senators Cochran and Byrd for their leadership and assistance in guiding this bill through the committee and to the floor. I very much appreciate the support of our leaders in allowing us to take up this bill at this time before we have completed action on the Defense authorization or appropriations bills. I recognize this is not the normal order of business. With the clock running and a large amount of unfinished business facing the Senate, it is imperative we press on with these bills as quickly as possible. With one disastrous hurricane behind us and another bearing down on Texas, we all recognize there is no time to dawdle. We face enormous challenges with these hurricanes. Both Senator Hutchison and I hope and pray it will not bring another measure of devastation on our coastal States. My heart goes out to my chairman, Senator Hutchison, to her people, our people, in the State of Texas. I hope we can move this bill quickly so she can return to Texas later today to help her constituents prepare for the onslaught of the storm. I want the Senator to know all on this side wish you and your people Godspeed. I hope it does not hit as hard as it looks like it might.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1859

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1860

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1863

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1861

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I propose that for the moment we set aside the Akaka amendment, that Senator Craig and I make our 2-minute ending comments, and we then have the vote on the Akaka amendment, and then final passage so there are consecutive votes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this bill is notable in several regards: First, under the leadership of Senator Akaka and Senator Byrd, we were able to provide $1.977 billion in emergency funding in this bill to address the projected shortfall in veterans health care funding for 2006. This is in addition to the $1.5 billion in the 2005 supplemental funding we were able to add to the 2006 Interior appropriations bill to make up the current shortfall in veterans health care. The bill before the Senate now totals $82.98 billion, of which $44 billion is discretionary spending. For military construction, the bill equals the budget request of $12.116 billion. Although we have rearranged some of the funding within that request for the VA, the total amount appropriated in this bill is $70.7 billion, including $34.1 billion in discretionary and $36.6 billion in mandatory spending. This is $3.2 billion above the President's original budget request. I commend and thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Hutchison of Texas. We have worked very well together in producing a very good bill. I am delighted we were able to finish it with quick speed. I thank the staff on both sides. We have great professional staff. They have done a fine job. I would like to turn it over to the chairman of the committee, my friend, Senator Hutchison.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Hispanic community. As we commemorate Hispanic Heritage Month, I want to recognize the contributions made by millions of Hispanics to our Nation. The greatness of California is that it is truly a multicultural State and I am honored to represent California's Hispanic community in the U.S. Senate. This month we celebrate a community that believes in the American goals of freedom, opportunity, and a chance to build a better life. In pursuing these aspirations, Hispanics have made enormous contributions to life in the United States through business, politics, science, culture, sports, and entertainment. Hispanics have served in the armed services with bravery and courage and many have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives for the common good of our country. Through their service, they have brought honor to America and their Hispanic heritage--a rich heritage from which all of America benefits. Today, I rise to honor the sacrifices that these brave Americans and their families have made. I also want to honor Hispanic heroes and heroines, such as the late Cesar Chavez. Indeed, Hispanics are changing the way America looks at itself. Today there are 31 million Hispanics in the U.S. By 2050, our Nation's Hispanic population is projected to reach 96 million--an increase of more than 200 percent. Hispanics are making their mark; between 1984 and 1998 Hispanic voting increased nationwide in midterm elections by 27 percent, even as overall voter turnout declined by 13 percent. In my own State of California, where nearly 11.5 million Hispanics comprise over 32 percent of the population, Hispanics are participating and contributing to civic life in important ways. Two of the California State legislature's three highest offices are occupied by Hispanics: Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez. On the local level, the people of Los Angeles elected Antonio Villaraigosa as the first Hispanic mayor in over a century, and 20 percent of Los Angeles' city council seats are held by Hispanics. The Hispanic community has provided great leadership for California, and will provide important leadership for our country. Hispanics are visibly successful in other areas as well. From Sammy Sosa in sports to Jennifer Lopez, Andy Garcia, and Salma Hayek in the entertainment industry, Hispanics have added greatly to the fabric of our Nation. We must not forget the critical contributions Hispanics have made to education and science. The 1995 Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry, Dr. Mario Molina, joined the University of California, San Diego last year, and Dr. Eduardo Macagno is the founding dean of the Division of Biological Sciences at the same University. A democratic and prosperous society should not step back from a national commitment to provide assistance to those who strive to achieve the American dream, despite the odds. In particular, I want to emphasize the importance of quality education for the success of Hispanic children. The University of California system alone enrolled nearly 25,000 Hispanic undergraduate and graduate students last year. Hispanic youths are a great source of strength and hope for the future of this Nation and they should be able to participate fully in the American experience; that is the primary reason why I have been a strong supporter of the DREAM Act. Mr. President, I am proud to honor California's Hispanic community and to have the opportunity to ensure that Hispanic contributions and sacrifices do not go unnoticed.