Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who dedicated himself to preserving the memory of the millions who perished in the Holocaust and to promoting human rights and preventing genocide. Simon Wiesenthal lived through unimaginable tragedy and horror as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. He survived the Holocaust and spent the next 60 years of his life tracking down the war criminals who had perpetrated terrible atrocities. During the course of World War II, Simon Wiesenthal spent 4 years in a series of 12 concentration camps. He was a prisoner in the Mauthausen camp when it was liberated by the U.S. Army on May 5, 1945. COL Richard Seibel who led the troops in liberating the camp described the horror that they found in a report to his superiors: Mauthausen did exist. Man's inhumanity to man did exist. The world must not be allowed to forget the depths to which mankind can sink, lest it should happen again. Mr. Wiesenthal and his wife Cyla had been separated by the war but were reunited shortly after it ended. Between the 2 of them, 89 family members were killed. They decided to start a family of their own and in 1946 had a daughter, Paulinka, who went on to have children and grandchildren of her own. Also following the war, Mr. Wiesenthal went to work for the War Crimes Office run by the Americans. This was just the start to a lifelong mission to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. He opened his own Historical Documentation Center to collect information on war criminals that was used to search them out and prosecute them for their heinous crimes. The evidence collected at the documentation center was used in prosecutions at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg in 1945 and 1946. Credited with hunting down 1,100 major and minor Nazi war criminals since the end of World War II, Mr. Wiesenthal is most renowned for his role in the capture of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann engineered Adolf Hitler's ``Final Solution of the Jewish Problem'' that led to the extermination of 6 million Jews as well as millions of non-Jews. Eichmann was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina in 1960. Observed at trial in 1961, Mr. Wiesenthal later described his impression of Eichmann: In my mind I had built up the image of a demonic superman. Instead I saw a frail, nondescript, shabby fellow in a glass cell between two Israeli policement; they looked more colorful and interesting than he did. There was nothing demonic about him; he looked like a bookkeeper who was afraid to ask for a raise. I am privileged to say that I did personally know Simon Wiesenthal. I received him in my home to raise money for the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. I also met with him in Vienna where I saw his small, cramped office and voluminous files. He was one of the most amazing people; he stayed the course, never gave up, and was the greatest Nazi hunter of our time. Dedicated in 1977 to all of the 11 million people of different nationalities, races, and creeds who died in the Holocaust, the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles promotes tolerance and understanding through community involvement, educational outreach and social action, and confronts important issues such as racism, anti-Semitism, terrorism, and genocide. The center's founder and dean, Rabbi Marvin Hier said the following about Simon Wiesenthal's legacy: I think he'll be remembered as the conscience of the Holocaust. In a way he became the permanent representative of the victims of the Holocaust, determined to bring the perpetrators of the greatest crime to justice. We have lost a leading voice for raising awareness and understanding of the Holocaust. It is imperative that his legacy and dedication to the millions who were killed because of their religion, race or nationality be remembered. We must do all that we can to ensure that human atrocities like this never happen again. Let me conclude with Mr. Wiesenthal's own words: When history looks back, I want people to know that the Nazis weren't able to kill millions of people and get away with it. . . . If we pardon this genocide, it will be repeated, and not only on Jews. If we don't learn this lesson, then millions died for nothing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Certainly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader. To give a couple of recent statistics, the General Accountability Office conducted a study of those criminal aliens incarcerated in Federal, State, and local prisons. They found the following regarding State jails: In fiscal year 2003, 47 States received reimbursement for incarcerating 74,000 criminal aliens. Four States alone spent a total of $1.6 billion in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to incarcerate criminal aliens. Yet they were only reimbursed $233 million through this program. That is only 15 percent of the total spent by these States. So the Federal Government is only reimbursing States 15 percent of what they actually spend on incarceration costs. That is local costs, that is State costs. I can go on, but I want my colleagues to understand that the diversion of dollars from agencies such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to house criminal aliens has real operational impact on their law enforcement activities--fighting drugs, street gangs, and other pressing law enforcement operations. On March 17 of this year, the Senate agreed to a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the budget resolution that SCAAP should be appropriated at a level of $750 million. While I recognize we cannot reach that number, the House bill does provide $405 million for this program. As this bill moves forward, I hope we will agree to the House funding level in conference. I ask the chairman and the ranking member to work with us on this issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science on funding for SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. I also understand my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, would also like to discuss the importance of this program to her State. I begin by thanking the chairman, Chairman Shelby, and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for including $200 million in funding for this program, with a carve-out of $30 million for the Southwest Border Prosecution Program. That is good. The problem is, it is not enough. With the rising costs associated with criminal alien incarceration, I had hoped the Senate would see fit to increase the funding for this program over last year's allocation of $305 million. Instead, it is down to $200 million, with $30 million reserved for the prosecutor's program. Immigration policy and control of our borders is an exclusively Federal responsibility. We all know this. Yet in our State prisons and our county jails, there is an incurrence of very heavy costs in incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for incarcerating illegal aliens convicted of criminal offenses who are in State and local jails. There is a growing belief among many in this country that the immigration situation is out of control. This year, the Pew Hispanic Center released a study which shows that between 2000 and 2004, approximately 3.1 million individuals entered the country without proper authorization. That is approximately 700,000 a year. Compare that to the fact that in 2003, Border Patrol agents apprehended somewhat over 1 million individuals seeking to enter the country illegally. It is said that for every one individual caught, three more enter illegally. If that is the case, nearly 3 million seek to enter the country illegally in a given year. These costs are borne by our local educators, our hospitals, and our law enforcement officials. Let me use California as an example. This is based on a comprehensive study conducted by the Department of Finance. They estimate--and this goes back to costs in 1994-1995--$400 million for corrections for 23,000 individuals; $400 million for 390,000 patients; and $1.7 billion for K-12 education. That is a total of $2.5 billion.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I also acknowledge as well Senator Kyl's work in this area. It seems to me those of us from the Southwest or whose borders are in the Southwest have been beating this drum year after year. Sometimes we make a little bit of progress, but very often we do not. This is a very bad year in terms of the amount and the need. So I thank the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee. I always appreciate working with her, and this is one more instance of that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have a very short time. We will wrap this up in 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today--heart- sick--to speak about the absolute devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This tragedy represents the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history. This hurricane spared nothing. Estimates of damage now run as high as $200 billion. The cost, in human lives and suffering, is just staggering. Tragically, it will take weeks and weeks to ascertain the true loss of life. As the recovery proceeds, I pledge to do all in my power to help those in need to rebuild cities, communities, and shattered lives and families across the Gulf Coast. My home State of California knows well the destruction possible from natural disasters. So many times the people of California have been saved by the generosity of the American people. I have no doubt that the people of my State will now rally to the aid of those in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Many already have. In addition to monetary contributions from residents throughout the State, over 1,500 California first responders are on the scene, as well as over 700 California National Guard personnel, 116 California Highway Patrol officers, eight swiftwater rescue teams, eight urban search and rescue task forces, and six disaster medical assistance teams. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that California had accepted a request from FEMA to provide housing and assistance for 1,000 storm victims left homeless by the hurricane. San Diego has made 600 beds available, San Francisco 300, and San Jose 100. And if FEMA asks for more, the State will be ready. Los Angeles has planned accommodations for 2,000 evacuees and Sacramento County is preparing for 300. Campuses of the University of California and California State University systems, as well as private colleges and universities from across the State, have opened their doors to college students who were displaced or had their educational plans interrupted by the hurricane. Hundreds of students have already taken advantage of these opportunities and will be starting classes this fall. My heart goes out to all those suffering from this catastrophe. I have seen the destruction caused by massive mudslides, major earthquakes, and torrential rains. I have seen the fear and hopelessness that comes when families lose everything except the shirts on their backs. My thoughts and prayers are with those Americans in the pitch dark with no electricity, in shelters with their homes swept away, and with a future that seems without hope. I commend all those who have worked literally around the clock in response to the disaster. The emergency responders--from the National Guard and Coast Guard to hospital workers to the local police and fire departments--have been nothing short of heroic. They are risking their lives and deserve our deep gratitude. The American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and many other charitable organizations and religious groups have mobilized thousands of volunteer workers to bring aid and shelter to victims of the devastation. The American people are already demonstrating their tremendous compassion and magnanimity--contributions exceed $500 million, with surely much more to come. Nations from around the world have also offered to help. I thank them as well. But despite the effort and concern of all these individuals, I am shocked at what has gone terribly wrong in preparation for Hurricane Katrina. What we saw in the days following the storm has been a massive failure of government on all levels to anticipate, prepare, and respond. Days before the storm FEMA knew it was coming. It was announced well in advance that Katrina had become a lethal category 5 storm as it made its way through the Gulf of Mexico. To see the horrific images of the dead lying in the street unattended, bodies floating aimlessly facedown in the water, and Americans with no choice but to relieve themselves on the field of the Superdome--it boggles the mind that such depraved conditions descended on one of America's great cities. It was a flat embarrassment to the country. Those who have lost loved ones deserved much better than these appalling conditions. Senators Collins and Lieberman have launched a Governmental Affairs Committee oversight investigation to ensure that the requisite support and resources go to those in need. They will also be examining the inadequate preparation and response to this disaster. Senator Clinton and others have called on President Bush to appoint an independent national commission to review Hurricane Katrina relief efforts modeled after the 9/11 Commission. I completely support these efforts, and would like to go on record with a few of the serious concerns that I have regarding what has taken place. These are all problems that we must grapple with if we are to truly protect our homeland from disasters of all kinds. Two days before the storm, a mandatory evacuation order went out for the residents of New Orleans. But didn't Federal, State, and local authorities know that tens of thousands of city residents lacked the funds and means to depart and, more fundamentally, had nowhere to go? As a result, the poor stayed put: stranded throughout the city and away from any safe and secure shelter. Clearly there is not an adequate mechanism for removing Americans out of harm's way in the face of a crisis. Warning systems and evacuation plans, prepositioning of transportation assets and emergency communications facilities, are all in dire need of an overhaul. As always in these situations, the first priority is to save lives. Once the storm had passed, emergency responders went to dramatic lengths to save those stranded in houses, in apartments, and on rooftops throughout the region. Through their tireless efforts, thousands have been saved. But what should have been an immediate and massive delivery of food, water, and medical supplies to evacuees came much too late. Thousands of hurricane victims went for days without anything to eat or drink. Babies went without formula. Diabetics went without insulin. People took refuge on freeways only to bake in the heat without relief or water and nowhere to go. I realize the unprecedented magnitude of this disaster. But the delay in response was simply inexcusable. It pains me to admit that people died because aid did not arrive fast enough to those in need. Downtown, New Orleans' Charity Hospital went unevacuated for days with no food, clean water, or basic medical supplies. These represent the sickest and neediest of the storm victims, and all efforts should have been made for their immediate evacuation--by boat to reach the hospital or at least helicopter airlifts from the roof if possible. Vigilant doctors, nurses, and other hospital workers performed courageously but did not have the support they needed. There seemed to be no plan in place for providing shelter once the storm was over. Ad hoc decisions appeared to cause widespread confusion as desperate evacuees did not know where to find basic needs. Rumors swirled of food here and fuel there, forcing victims to scavenge in search of the basic necessities of life. As regional evacuation centers filled there was no effective plan for long or even short-term shelter and care of displaced residents. With nowhere for storm victims to go, evacuation centers turned to squalor. Serious reports of abuse and assault have come out of these shelters. Other cities graciously volunteered to open facilities to evacuees. For that I offer them my sincere gratitude. But now even they have reached capacity--the Houston Astrodome, for example. We were just not prepared to handle an evacuation of this magnitude. We were quickly and brutally reminded that an effective response to this type of tragedy cannot happen until a reasonably safe situation exists on the ground. This is nothing new. It is a given in these types of situations. Yet days passed before adequate National Guard troops arrived. Meanwhile, thugs, miscreants, and ruthless pillagers terrorized the streets and thwarted rescue and aid. Command and control breakdowns have been rampant. Throughout the region, complaints abound that no one seems to be in charge. This is a recipe for chaos, which only works to hamper relief efforts and put innocent people in serious danger. Again, this points to the fact that we do not have adequate plans and mechanisms for dealing with serious disasters. Regrettably, I could go on, but the time for dealing with the faults in preparation and response has not yet come. Right now, the victims of Hurricane Katrina need our help. Entire communities have been destroyed. Families have been torn apart. Many are still missing. Tens of thousands remain homeless. We must find a way to help bring some stability and hope back into their lives. Congress has made a start by keeping FEMA operations running through an immediate $10.5 billion appropriation last week. And the President has asked for $51.8 billion more, which Congress will surely approve soon. But even this will not be enough--we have just begun the effort to rebuild these cities and communities. This is a process that will take years to accomplish and require a great deal of commitment on our part. I call on all Americans to do what they can to assist in the recovery efforts. There are countless opportunities and help is vitally needed. As we move forward together as a nation, we also need to focus on concrete solutions for improving our preparedness for calamities that engulf any part of the country. In close cooperation with State and Federal emergency agencies, each city in this country absolutely must have an effective emergency plan in place. These plans need to include professional and skilled emergency operations directors, clear lines of authority, practical evacuation strategies, and previously determined command centers that can be up and running on a moment's notice with satellite connections and powered by their own generators. Key department heads should carry two-way radios with extra battery packs at all times. The plans also must have mechanisms to immediately call for and facilitate the delivery of food, water, and medical supplies to areas in need. But it is not enough to just have a plan in place. These plans must be rehearsed and drilled until they become second nature for the public agencies, emergency responders, and communities involved. When disaster strikes, there can be no confusion as to what must happen. Unfortunately, even when effective and rehearsed plans exist, large- scale catastrophic events, such as Hurricane Katrina, can quickly overwhelm local jurisdictions. In these cases, we need 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. The U.S. Conference of Mayors should convene a national intercity effort to share information and assist in emergency preparation efforts. In emergency situations such as this, communications capabilities are essential. Emergency responders must have the equipment that will allow essential communications efforts to continue in case of the major damage to infrastructure we have seen in New Orleans. Clearly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to change. We need to look at whether the tasks charged to FEMA are too large to be included with 21 other agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. Let us seriously consider professionalizing FEMA from top to bottom-- some have called for the resignation of the current Director, Michael Brown, whose credentials as an emergency manager have been widely questioned. FEMA needs to be devoid of political appointees and employ only the highest trained professionals with expertise in transportation, emergency medical aid, communications, and providing Federal disaster assistance. Funds Congress appropriates for FEMA from this point forward ought to be prioritized for disaster preparation, and we need to intensively review programmatic appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security which, some critics point out, has received funds diverted from the levee project in New Orleans. We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but shouldn't we have a strategic food and water reserve too, that can, within hours, be airlifted into directly and brutally hit areas such as New Orleans? We need preplanned, carefully thought out means for moving National Guardsmen and other military forces and particularly assets, such as high-water vehicles and Chinook transport helicopters, swiftly into place to prevent urban areas from sinking into anarchy--as was so painfully evident at the convention center in New Orleans and throughout the city. The Army Corps of Engineers, the administration and Congress knew for years about New Orleans' vulnerable topography and the inherent weaknesses of the 350-mile city levee system but limited funding for flood control work nonetheless--why? The administration and Congress need to conduct a nationwide assessment to determine the other most vulnerable areas and have Federal disaster assistance resources pre-positioned if possible so no time is lost in the aftermath of another future tragedy. These are just a few ideas to consider. President Bush was conveniently understating the case last Thursday when he said that federal efforts were ``not acceptable''. Americans have an obligation to come together, now, with their resources, money, and can do spirit to save New Orleanians, their great city, and all those suffering down the Gulf Coast. Nothing less is acceptable.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. I understand that the Senate will shortly pass this legislation by unanimous consent, and I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for the efforts to move this bill forward in a careful, collegial and effective matter. I believe the bill we pass today strikes a good balance between our nations need to defend against terrorism, and maintaining our deeply held civil liberties. The USA PATRIOT Act is one of the most consequential laws that has ever been passed by Congress. It made wide ranging, and necessary changes to our intelligence and law-enforcement communities, giving them the tools they need to defeat this Nation's most dangerous and insidious enemies. When we passed the PATRIOT Act shortly after September 11, 2001, we recognized that this was very significant legislation, providing new authorities to the Government. That's why we committed ourselves to vigorous and in-depth oversight of the implementation of the Act. In fact, sixteen of the most controversial provisions came with ``sunset clauses,'' which would cause them to expire in December of this year. Since 2001, I have worked, along with my colleagues on both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to carry out that oversight. The result has been literally hundreds of hours of hearings, briefings, and document reviews. We asked tough questions, and got answers. We did extensive research, and consulted with a wide array of experts. As part of my effort to oversee the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act, I asked the ACLU, in a letter dated March 25, 2005, to provide an update of their October 2003 statement that they did not know of any abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. On April 4, 2005, the ACLU published a reply to my letter, in which they listed what they described as `abuses and misuses' of the Act. I carefully reviewed each of the examples provided in the letter. I also reviewed information provided to me by the Department of Justice about each of the examples. And while I understand the concerns raised by the ACLU, it does not appear that these charges rose to the level of `abuse' of the PATRIOT Act. This conclusion has been borne out by numerous inquiries, hearings and briefings. Simply put, there have been no sustainable allegations of serious abuse of the Act. That said, I believe that we can, and should, make some changes to the PATRIOT Act to ensure it is less likely to be abused in the future. Furthermore, I am confident that the expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions should be retained. The sixteen sunsetted provisions are generally working and should be reauthorized with some of the modifications reflected in the bill we take up today. The bottom line is that the Judiciary Committee was able to do its work, and reach appropriate compromises. This allowed the cmmittee to favorably report this bill by a vote of 18-0. This type of consensus and bipartisanship is welcome and bodes well for our continued work on these critical issues. This Nation faces difficult times. We know that there are those already in our country or trying to enter our country who would do us grievous injury and harm unless we can stop them--and to stop them, we must find them first--before they act, not after they act. Therefore, this bill is necessary and prudent. This legislation would permanently reauthorize 14 of the 16 provisions scheduled to sunset in December 2005 and extend two other provisions, multi-point, roving wiretaps, and the acquisition of business record, until December 2009. I believe it was important to extend, rather than eliminate, the sunsets on these two most controversial provisions--they warrant continued scrutiny. But this legislation does not merely extend the sunsets. It makes improvements to key portions of the act. The bill approved by Committee, and which take up today, went even further in strengthening the USA PATRIOT Act and protecting the civil liberties of Americans. It included the following modifications: Clarifying the rules governing multipoint wiretaps as well as regulating the acquisition of business records in the course of foreign intelligence investigations by requiring that a judge determine that the request is relevant to a national security intelligence investigation, and increases the amount of information that must be provided to Congress to ensure adequate and effective oversight. Changing Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act FISA Tangible Item Orders or the so-called ``library provision,'' tightening the requirement to make it clear that investigators must not only show relevance but also that the request pertains to a known or suspected agent of a foreign power or their associates. Changing Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act, Delayed Notification of Search Warrants or ``Sneak and Peak,'' to include a ``7-day default'' for delayed notice search warrants. Extension of this delay is permitted to dates certain, limited to 90 days or less unless the facts of the case justify a longer period of delay, but only upon showing of facts supporting that request. Changing Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act, so that electronic service provider, Verizon, Comcast, etc., are authorized to voluntarily, i.e., without a warrant, disclose customer records and the content of communications in an emergency situation--where delay could be harmful, but without a need to show ``immediacy.'' Changing Section 214 of the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA Pen Registers/Trap and Trace Devices, in a way that makes them consistent with those used in criminal cases. Changing Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, National Security Letter Protection, c1arifying that any person contesting an order to produce a tangible thing, can not only challenge the order, but also any gag- order accompanying it. Taken as a whole, these changes help ensure that these key provisions are used responsibly, in a focused and effective manner and against our Nation's enemies, not against ordinary Americans. They provide critical additional civil liberties protections, without sacrificing the safety of Americans. I strongly believe that Congress's responsibility does not end when it passes a law. We have an obligation to carry out vigorous oversight. We have an obligation to adjust and fine-tune laws to fit changing circumstances. We have an obligation to see that the law accomplishes its aims and remains balanced and appropriate. I believe the bill before us represents the result of fulfilling those obligations, strikes a careful balance and should be approved.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for insisting upon a more open, bipartisan conference than we have seen in a number of other important bills. Chairman Domenici deserves great credit for making sure that this conference report does not include some of the most egregious House provisions, particularly retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers and broad Clean Air Act exemptions. However, I am extremely concerned that this bill does nothing to address global warming and fuel economy standards. I believe that climate change is the most urgent energy-related problem of my lifetime. This bill refuses to accept responsibility or chart a course to deal with the United States' profligate use of emissions-producing energy sources. The United States is the largest consumer of energy, yet this bill does nothing to reduce our energy consumption. This bill deletes a very modest oil savings provision that would have required us to save 1 million barrels of oil per day in 2015. Nor does it include a renewable portfolio standard that I would have required that 10 percent of the nation's electricity come from renewable resources by 2020. California will achieve a renewable portfolio standard of 20 percent by 2017. It is doable nationally. Climate change is the most important energy and environmental issue facing us today. The earth's temperatures are expected to rise between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. During the same time period, the American Southwest could see a rise of 14 degrees or more. Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and water supplies in the West are at severe risk. By not acting to aggressively reduce our emissions, we are putting California's water supplies at severe risk. California depends on the Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest source of water. It is estimated that by the end of this century, the shrinking of the snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people--equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin. We must act now. Carbon dioxide emissions accumulate in the atmosphere--the more we emit, the worse the impacts on our environment. If we curb our emissions now, we may have a chance to limit the damage we are causing to our fragile ecosystem. Yet this bill does not include the Sense of the Senate on climate change that recognizes that climate change is being caused by man-made emissions, and that Congress must pass legislation that establishes a mandatory cap on emissions. The lack of action on climate change and fuel economy is an enormous deficit of the bill. Increasing fuel economy standards is the single most important step we can take to reduce our dependence on oil. We have the technology now to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles. GM, DaimlerChrysler and Honda have already developed something known as cylinder cut-off technology that provides the fuel efficiency similar to a vehicle with a smaller engine, but with all the power of a big engine. The auto manufacturers could use a more fuel efficient design, using lighter materials that increase fuel economy without sacrificing safety. The list goes on and on, yet the auto manufacturers will not act unless Congress forces them to. We are missing a huge opportunity to address the real problem that consumers are facing--rising gas prices. Those gas prices are not going to fall until or unless we reduce our demand for oil by increasing our fuel economy. I am also concerned about the following provisions in the bill: Ethanol--the bill has an egregious 7.5 billion gallon mandate for ethanol. My State does not need the fuel additive to meet clean air standards. I thank the conferees for retaining an amendment I offered to protect California's air quality. It waives the requirement that California use ethanol in the summer months when it can end up polluting the air more than protecting it. However, I believe that this mandate will raise gas prices for Californians. So far, ethanol in California's gasoline has increased the cost of our gasoline by 4 to 8 cents per gallon. Further, the ethanol mandate maintains the 54 cent-per-gallon import duty that prevents oil producers from buying ethanol on the global market, or wherever it is cheapest. Moreover, ethanol receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. A 7.5 billion gallon mandate means an almost $2 billion loss to the U.S. Treasury over today's receipts. I believe this mandate is an unnecessary giveaway. In addition, increasing the use of ethanol will not decrease our use of oil. When this mandate is fully implemented in 2012 it will only reduce U.S. oil consumption by less than one-half of one percent. I believe this is bad public policy and that it is an unnecessary, costly mandate that should not be in the energy bill. LNG Siting--this bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals. There are three projects proposed in California. It seems to me that the location of these projects should be left up to the State, not to the Federal Government. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should ensure that the technicalities of natural gas delivery are taken care of, not where these facilities are located on the coastlines of our states. Outer Continental Shelf--this bill provides for an inventory of the resources off our shores. This is not necessary unless we plan on drilling, to which I remain very much opposed. I strongly oppose lifting the moratoria on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and my State is unified in its opposition as well. Our coast is too important to California's economy and to our quality of life. Environmental Rollbacks--the bill exempts the underground injection of chemicals during oil and gas development from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and waives the storm water runoff Clean Water Act regulations for oil and gas construction sites. These are unnecessary environmental rollbacks that should not have been included in the Energy bill conference report. I reluctantly voted for the Energy bill when it was considered on the Senate floor. The reason I voted for it was because it included strong consumer protections, and great energy efficiency tax incentives that Senator Snowe and I have been pushing for the past several years. While I am pleased that the strong consumer protections are still included in the bill, I am extremely disappointed with the energy efficiency tax incentives. The tax incentives for energy efficiency in the Senate bill were the cornerstone of a sensible energy policy to address high natural gas prices, peak power reliability, and global warming. It would have saved over 180 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually in the year 2025--some 10 percent of U.S. emissions for all purposes, while saving consumers over $100 billion annually. But the Energy bill conference report cut these incentives back by over two-thirds, leaving the Nation with only the skeleton of an effective energy efficiency tax program. While it is possible that this hobbled program could still work, it is so under-funded that it could also fail. The Senate bill provides performance-based incentives of up to $2,000 for retrofits made to homes that would achieve a 50 percent energy savings, and applied to all types of homes, whether owner-occupied or renter-occupied, whether owned by families or by businesses, and whether the tenant or the landlord performs the retrofit. The conference report gutted this program--providing cost-based incentives limited to 10 percent of the cost of the retrofit, or a maximum of $500. This is problematic because nearly identical cost- based tax incentives for home retrofits were tried in 1978. They cost the Treasury over $5 billion and not a single study has found that they produced any energy savings. The Senate bill also provided 4 years of eligibility for high technology air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. The conference report cut this eligibility back to 2 years. This is a big problem because an equipment manufacturer has to make a large investment to mass-produce the efficient equipment. If that investment must be fully amortized over two years of incentivized sales, manufacturers may be unwilling or unable to make it. A 4-year amortization period would cause much more manufacturer interest and spur the energy efficiency that we want to promote with these tax credits. In other words, these energy efficiency tax credits may be meaningless when it comes time to implement them. That would be a terrible shame--energy efficiency has been a huge success in reducing California's demand for energy. In California, efficiency programs have kept electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years, in contrast to the rest of the United States, where consumption increased 50 percent. During the Western energy crisis, California faced energy shortages and rolling blackouts, but it could have been much worse. Ultimately, the State was able to escape further blackouts because Californians made a major effort to conserve energy. This reduced demand for electricity and helped ease the crisis. Unfortunately, the conference report dramatically reduced the effectiveness of the most important step this nation could take to reduce our energy usage--incentivizing energy efficiency. By not including the oil savings amendment, the renewable portfolio standard, the Sense of the Senate on climate change, and by gutting the energy efficiency tax incentives, this bill preserves the status quo and does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil or on other fossil fuels. This bill will not solve our Nation's energy problems, lower gas prices, or reduce emissions. And while I thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for the fair, open process by which they brought us this bill, I will cast my vote against the conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to establish ``Endangered Species Day'' on March 8, 2006. I am submitting this resolution with Senators Chafee, Clinton, and Crapo whose co- sponsorship I greatly appreciate. Additionally, I want to commend my constituent Mr. David Robinson for suggesting the establishment of an ``Endangered Species Day.'' I have appreciated his hard work and dedication. Individuals like Mr. Robinson do make a difference. The designation of an ``Endangered Species Day'' provides a multitude of opportunities for young people, students, and the general public to learn more about endangered species in both our country and abroad. It is my hope that establishing an ``Endangered Species Day'' encourages schools, civic organizations, agencies, and businesses to educate the general public about the threats to and our efforts to restore these precious species in our midst. I believe that ``Endangered Species Day'' will foster increased communication and awareness about many of the most endangered species by encouraging such activities as school field trips to the zoo or attending a lecture at the local library. With the recent discovery of the once thought to be extinct Ivory- billed Woodpecker in Arkansas and the Mount Diablo Buckwheat in California, I think this is an opportune moment to highlight the success of many of our conservation efforts. For example, in my home State of California, I am especially proud of the conservation and management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations of California condor, winter run chinook salmon, the least Bell's vireo songbird, and the California gray whale. Despite these success stories, we need to be aware that more needs to be done. At this time, we have more than 1,000 species in the U.S. and abroad, which are designated as ``at risk'' for extinction. One small step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the public about these species. I am introducing this bill with the hope that ``Endangered Species Day'' can spark the wonder and interest in our youth to continue the conservation efforts we have begun but still are far from finishing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the unanimous consent request offered today by Senator Reid. The Senator has asked unanimous consent for the Senate to take up H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and S. 1317, the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act. Both of these bills have been passed by the House and are sitting at the desk waiting to be passed by the Senate and sent to the President for his signature. The month of July has come and is nearly gone. Yet these two House- passed bills, with strong bipartisan support, sit and wait at the desk. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act has 41 sponsors--Republicans and Democrats alike. This legislation is the result of many years of bipartisan cooperation in both the House and Senate. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Arlen Specter, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Ted Kennedy, and Gordon Smith, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of patients and their families across this Nation to see that embryonic stem cell research moves forward. This legislation is proof positive that Senators from many different points of view, be they liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro- choice, can work together on legislation that will help speed the pace of cures and treatments for more than 110 million Americans. Identical legislation passed the House on May 24 by a vote of 238 to 194. Congressman Mike Castle, Republican, Delaware, and Diana DeGette, Democrat, Colorado, are to be commended for their tireless work in getting this bill passed in the House. It is essential that the Senate move quickly to pass this bill. The clock is ticking. August 9 marks the fourth anniversary of President Bush's policy limiting Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. At the time it was thought there were 78 stem cell lines available to researchers, today that number is 22. And all 22 of the lines available are contaminated by mouse feeder cells and not usable for research in humans. So why has the Senate still not acted? The simple unanimous consent request put forth by Senator Reid would allow the Senate to vote on this bill as early as today. We could send it to the President for his signature tonight. What is going on here is an attempt to obscure what is a very simple issue. What is going on here is an attempt to allow votes on other bills in order to pull votes away from H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I think it is appropriate for the Senate to debate other related issues at a later time. In fact, yesterday I introduced S. 1520, the Human Cloning Ban Act--with 25 bipartisan cosponsors--which would prohibit once and for all the immoral and unethical act of human reproductive cloning. I believe strongly that Congress must pass a prohibition on human cloning or attempts to clone human beings. But first we must act on the unanimous consent request offered today by Senator Reid, and I hope that request will be one of the first issues the Senate deals with after the August recess. Embryonic stem cell research is the bright new frontier of medicine. We owe it to the 110 million Americans suffering daily with debilitating and catastrophic diseases to pass H.R. 810.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This letter of opposition details the case that Senator Kennedy mentioned, involving two law enforcement officers from Orange, NJ, and points out that that case would have been thrown out of court. It is signed by numerous chiefs of police and major law enforcement entities. The American Bar Association states in their letter of opposition: S. 397 would preempt State substantive legal standards for most negligence and product liability actions for this one industry, abrogating State law in cases in which the defendant is a gun manufacturer, gun seller, or gun trade association, and would insulate this new class of protected defendants from almost all ordinary civil liability actions. It goes on to say: There is no evidence that Federal legislation is needed or justified. There is no hearing record in Congress or other evidence to contradict the fact that the State courts are handling their responsibilities competently in this area of the law. So all those people who believe in States rights are taking States rights away for the National Rifle Association. The American Bar Association also says: There is no data of any kind to support claims made by the industry that it is incurring extraordinary costs due to litigation, that it faces a significant number of suits, or that current State law is in any way inadequate. The Senate has not examined the underlying claims of the industry about State tort cases, choosing not to hold a single hearing on S. 397 or its predecessor bills in the two previous Congresses. That is amazing to me. It continues: Proponents of this legislation cannot, in fact, point to a single court decision, final judgment, or award that has been paid out that supports their claims of a crisis. All evidence points to the conclusion that State legislatures and State courts have been and are actively exercising their responsibilities in this area of law with little apparent difficulty. This letter goes on and again concludes this is going to be the only industry in the United States with this kind of immunity. There is no crisis that merits this. There is no hearing record that documents the need. This really worries me. Maybe I am biased because I have been a mayor, because I have seen what happens on the streets. I have seen how guns are misused. I have seen the threats that criminals with a firearm can be. I have watched, over the years, as firearms have grown much more sophisticated. Their killing power is greatly enhanced. The copycat, or the civilian version, of the 16--the .50 caliber weapon now that is out there--can send a bullet as large as my hand from Arlington Cemetery into the Capitol. Don't you think how those weapons are sold and distributed should prevent negligence? I do. I guess in all my years in this body I have never been more disillusioned about how we proceed or why we proceed. We have the PATRIOT Act that is ready to come to the floor, and we are doing this. We have an asbestos bill that is ready to come to the floor, and we are doing this. I am ranking on Military Construction appropriations. We have passed out a military construction bill with $70 billion in it for veterans benefits, and we are doing this. There are a number of other appropriations bills that are ready for floor action. The conference on the Energy bill just concluded, and we are doing this. The Calendar of Business contains 100 items ready for Senate floor action, and we are doing this. There is no hearing record for the previous two Congresses. More than 50 law professors point out this is a giveaway to one special industry that no other industry enjoys in the United States of America, and 30,000 people a year are killed with firearms in this country. I find it extraordinarily disillusioning. I know we are going to lose on the motion to proceed. The latest is that we are not even going to have a vote. It will be voice-voted because it is so ironclad that this bill is going to swim through. And then we will watch them try to stop us from putting any amendments on the bill. It is a sad day in the Senate. It is a regretful day. It is an extraordinarily disillusioning day. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to the motion to proceed on the gun liability bill. Before I begin, I want to say I find it incongruous that we had the Defense Authorization bill up, an important bill--we were about to consider some amendments affecting enemy combatants and detainees, I think very important amendments, by Senator McCain, Senator Warner, and Senator Graham. The bill was up for an unprecedented short time, and had to have cloture, according to the Republican side. Well, some of us wanted to hear what Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham had to say. So, we voted against cloture. Then, the leader took down the bill, and now we are on a bill for a real special interest in this country, the National Rifle Association. Mr. President, I have carefully reviewed this bill, and in my assessment is it is mistitled. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has nothing to do with protecting lawful commerce; rather, it protects one segment of industry against the lawful interests of our States in remedying and deterring negligent conduct. The bill pretends to be part of the long-ranging and important debate about gun regulation. Its proponents argue that lawsuits need to be stopped in order to defend their view of the second amendment. But that is pretense. This bill is a simple giveaway to one industry--the gun lobby. It is a special-interest windfall. I, for one, do not believe we should be giving the gun industry sweeping and unprecedented protection from the type of lawsuits that are available to every individual involving every other industry anywhere in America. We have to recognize that guns in America are responsible for the deaths of 30,000 Americans a year. If we remove this one avenue for enforcing responsibility, individuals will have no recourse. Gun owners and gun victims alike will be left virtually powerless against an industry that is already immune from so many other consumer protections. So we find ourselves today on the cusp of yet another NRA victory. Simply put, we are considering legislation that would ensure that it is not in the financial interests of gun manufacturers or sellers to take reasonable care in administering their business. We are removing the incentives of the tort system to encourage responsible behavior. No longer will those incentives to responsible behavior be present. Let me be clear, if this bill is approved, it will not be a victory for law-abiding gun owners who might someday benefit from the ability to sue a manufacturer or dealer for their negligent conduct. No, this will be a victory for those who have turned the NRA into a political powerhouse, unconcerned with the rights of a majority of Americans who want prudent controls over firearms and who want to maintain their basic legal right in our civil law system. Now, I do not support meritless lawsuits against the gun industry. I do not think anybody does. It is my belief gun manufacturers and dealers should be held accountable for irresponsible marketing and distribution practices, as anyone else would be, particularly when these practices may cause guns to fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles or mentally ill people. This legislation has one simple purpose: to prevent lawsuits from those harmed by gun violence as a result of the wrongful conduct of others. These include lawsuits filed by cities and counties responding to crimes often committed using guns that flood the illegal market, with the full knowledge of the distributors that the legal market could not possibly be absorbing so many of these weapons-- that is why so many mayors have written strongly against this legislation--and lawsuits filed by organizations on behalf of their members and victims of violent crimes and their families who are injured or killed as a result of gun violence facilitated by the negligence of gun manufacturers or sellers. This issue is not an abstract one. The bill is going to hurt real people--victims not only of criminal misuse by a well-designed firearm, but victims of guns that have been marketed in ways which, quite frankly, should be illegal. Essentially, this bill prohibits any civil liability lawsuit from being filed against the gun industry for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a gun by a third party, with a number of narrow exceptions. In doing so, the bill effectively rewrites traditional principles of liability law which generally hold that persons and companies may be liable for their negligence, even if others are liable as well. This bill would essentially give the gun industry blanket immunity from civil liability cases of this type, an immunity no other industry in America has today. This is truly a remarkable aspect of the legislation. It is a radical approach to our Nation's laws and the principles of federalism. The bill does allow certain cases to move forward, as its supporters have pointed out, but these cases can proceed only on the narrowest of circumstances. Countless experts have now said that this bill would stop virtually all of the suits against gun dealers and manufacturers filed to date which are based on distribution practice, many of which are vital to changing industry practice and compensating victims who have been horribly injured through the clear negligence or even borderline criminal conduct of some gun dealers and manufacturers. With any other business or product, in every other industry, a seller or manufacturer can be liable if that seller or manufacturer is negligent, but not here. Since money, rather than life or liberty, is at stake in a civil case, the standard of proof is lower. There need not be a criminal violation to recover damages. In the overwhelming majority of civil cases, there is no criminal violation. But here, contrary to general negligence law covering almost every other product, the bill allows negligent gun dealers and manufacturers to get off the hook unless they violated a criminal law. This is dreadful. It is despicable. This bill would create a special area of law for gun manufacturers and says that unless they violate a law, they can be careless in how they stock, secure, and sell dangerous weapons. The judge in Washington State, presiding over the case brought by the DC area sniper victims--the case where a sniper lay in the trunk of a car with a hole punched through the trunk, went to different gasoline stations, schools, parks, and stores, and simply fired at people, indiscriminately killing them--has ruled twice that the dealer of the weapon used in the shooting, Bull's Eye Shooters Supply, and its manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, may be liable in negligence for enabling the snipers to obtain their weapon. But even with the new modifications of this bill, the sniper victims' cases will likely be thrown out of court under this legislation. So guess whose side this Senate is coming down on. Not the side of the victims of the DC sniper but the side of Bull's Eye Shooters Supply and the manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms. Let's make that clear. This is the most notorious sniper case in America. There is negligence on the part of the gun dealer who sold that gun. He didn't report it until very late. He allowed the snipers to get the gun. Now we are passing a law to prevent the victims from suing under civil liability. Nowhere else in the law does this concept exist in this form. It is a special carve-out for the DC sniper gun manufacturer and gun seller. In another case, a Massachusetts court has ruled that gun manufacturer Kahr Arms may be liable for negligently hiring drug- addicted criminals and enabling them to stroll out the plant door with unmarked guns to be sold to criminals. But with these proposed changes, the case against Kahr Arms would be dismissed. A case would be dismissed where a gun manufacturer negligently hired drug-addicted criminals and let them go out the plant door with unmarked guns to be sold to criminals. That is what this does. This conduct, though outrageous, violated no law--negligent, yes; criminal, no. Contrary to current law which allows judges and juries to apportion blame and damages, this bill would bar any damages against a manufacturer if another party was liable due to a criminal act. Why should firearms get special treatment? In our society, we hold manufacturers liable for the damage their negligence causes. We do this across the board for every industry, such as the automobile industry if they build a faulty gas tank or if they are negligent putting it together. Lawsuits filed against the gun industry provide a way for those harmed to seek justice from the damages and destruction caused by firearms. Just as important, they create incentives to reform practices proven to be dangerous. I will bet Kahr Arms will make every effort not to hire drug addicts to sell guns to criminals. If that case is dismissed, they can hire them. They can sell to criminals. That is not going to make a difference. When this bill was introduced in the last Congress and again in this Congress, its supporters spoke about the need to protect the industry from frivolous lawsuits and the need to protect the industry from the potential loss of jobs brought on by future lawsuits. These claims are unfounded. This bill is simply the latest attempt of the gun lobby to evade industry accountability. The suits against the gun industry come in varying forms, but they all have one goal in common--forcing the firearms industry to become more responsible. What is wrong with that? Under the principles of common law, all individuals and industries have a duty to act responsibly. What is special about the gun industry that they should be exempt from this most basic of civil responsibilities? Answer: Nothing. This is an industry that is less accountable under law than any other in America right now. The only avenue of accountability left is the courtroom. This bill attempts to slam the courtroom door in the face of those who would hold the industry responsible for its negligent actions. We ought to hold the industry responsible for taking the proper precautions to ensure law-abiding citizens are able to obtain the guns they choose while criminals and other prohibited individuals are not. Let me read from a letter that was sent by more than 50 full professors from law schools all across this Nation, from the University of Michigan School of Law, UCLA Law School, the University of Oregon School of Law, Indiana University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Syracuse University College of Law, Brooklyn Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, Lewis and Clark Law School, Roger Williams University School of Law, Northwestern School of Law, University of Chicago Law School, William Mitchell College of Law, University of Colorado School of Law, Duke Law School, Albany Law School, University of California Hastings College of Law, Houston Law Center, Widener University School of Law, Rutgers, Tulane, Boston, Albany, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cornell Law School, Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University, NYU School of Law, The George Washington University Law School, Boston College Law School, Tulane University Law School, Columbia Law School, New York Law School, University of Alabama School of Law, Emory University School of Law, University of California Boalt School of Law, and on and on. Let me tell you what they say. I will read parts of it. They have reviewed this bill, S. 397. No other industry enjoys or has ever enjoyed such a blanket freedom from responsibility for the foreseeable and preventable consequences of negligent conduct. S. 397 . . . would abrogate this firmly established principle of tort law. Under this bill, the firearms industry would be the one and only business in which actors would be free utterly to disregard the risk, no matter how high or foreseeable, that their conduct might be creating or exacerbating a potentially preventable risk of third party misconduct. Gun and ammunition makers, distributors, importers, and sellers would, unlike any other business or individual, be free to take no precautions against even the most foreseeable and easily preventable harms resulting from the illegal actions of third parties. And they could engage in this negligent conduct persistently, even with the specific intent of profiting from the sales of guns that are foreseeably headed to criminal hands. They could engage in the conduct in an unlimited way and profit from the sales of guns that are foreseeably headed for criminal hands. Under this bill, a firearms dealer, distributor, or manufacturer could park an unguarded open pickup truck full of loaded assault weapons on a city street corner, leave it there for a week, and yet be free from any negligence liability if and when the guns were stolen and used to do harm. Mr. President, this is what we are doing. This isn't just my view, this is the view of more than 50 professors of law at major law schools all across the Nation. We are facilitating criminal conduct by providing this protection against liability. It goes on to say: A firearms dealer, in most states, could sell 100 guns to the same individual every day, even after the dealer is informed that these guns are being used in crime--even, say, by the same violent street gang. That is a direct quote. So you are facilitating a situation where somebody could sell a hundred guns a day to a street gang and have no liability for that action. That is what I think is really despicable-- all because of the power of one lobby. Again, it goes on to say: It might appear from the face of the bill that S. 397 and H.R. 800 would leave open the possibility of tort liability for truly egregious misconduct, by virtue of several exceptions set forth in Section 4(5)(I). Those exceptions, however, are in fact quite narrow and would give those in the firearm industry little incentive to attend to the risks of foreseeable third party misconduct. One exception, for example, would purport to permit certain actions for ``negligent entrustment.'' The bill goes on, however, to define ``negligent entrustment'' extremely narrowly. The exception applies only to sellers, for example, and would not apply to distributors or manufacturers, no matter how egregious their conduct. So when somebody comes to the floor and argues this bill provide for negligent entrustment, don't believe it. It is so limited that it doesn't cover the whole field of those who handle firearms. And then it goes on to say: Even as the sellers, the exception would apply only where the particular person to whom a seller supplies a firearm is one whom the seller knows or ought to know will use it to cause harm. The ``negligent entrustment'' exception would, therefore, not permit any action based on reckless distribution practices, negligent sales to gun traffickers who supply criminals-- That is the pickup that is parked on the street corner containing loaded assault weapons and sold to anybody who comes by. The negligent entrustment exception would, therefore, not permit any action based on reckless distribution practices, negligent sales to gun traffickers who supply criminals, careless handling of firearms, lack of security, or any of a myriad of potentially negligent acts. Another exception would leave open the possibility of liability for certain statutory violations, variously defined, including those described under the heading of negligence per se. Statutory violations, however, represent just a narrow special case of negligence liability. No jurisdiction attempts to legislate standards of care as to every detail of life, even in a regulated industry; and there is no need. Why is there no need? Because general principles of tort law make clear that the mere absence of a specific statutory prohibition is not carte blanche for unreasonable or dangerous behavior. S. 397 and H.R. 800 would turn this traditional framework on its head, and free those in the firearms industry to behave as carelessly as they would like, so long as the conduct has not been specifically prohibited. If there is no statute against leaving an open truckload of assault weapons on a street corner, or against selling hundreds of guns to the same individual, under this bill there could be no tort liability. That is what this bill is opening up. Again, this represents a radical departure from traditional tort principles. Again, this isn't just me saying this; this is more than 50 law professors from almost 50 different law schools. As currently drafted, this bill would not simply protect against the expansion of tort liability, as has been suggested, but would in fact dramatically limit the application of longstanding and otherwise universally applicable tort principles. It provides to firearm makers and distributors a literally unprecedented form of tort immunity not enjoyed, or even dreamed of, by any other industry. Mr. President, I know the motion to proceed will pass. I also know that what is being engaged upon is the most stringent test of germaneness I have ever seen take place in this body to prevent amendments from being offered once cloture is invoked, which is going to happen. This Senate is going to do the people it represents an enormous harm. They are going to protect the most powerful lobby in the United States and open millions of Americans to egregious injury from negligent practices by distributors and sellers of firearms in this country. That is not what we were elected to do. No one in this body was elected to be the Senator from the National Rifle Association. Although they have a point of view, and although this point of view is popular in many places, the question is, do we still protect the public welfare? I say to you we do not protect the public welfare, as more than 50 professors of law have pointed out. Additionally, I will put into the Record a letter of opposition from law enforcement. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow from my office, Julie Caruthers, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to the fiscal year 06 National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1042, 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 a 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 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. I would therefore ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to consider this amendment, and that the amendment be agreed to. I would also ask that this statement and the relevant amendment be placed together in the Congressional Record. Amendment No. 1406

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join with my colleagues, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, and Senators Boxer and Harkin in support of an amendment to the FY06 National Defense Authorization Act that would transfer one of our Nation's greatest battleships, the USS Iowa to the State of California for permanent donation status. I understand the affection that many Iowans have for this important ship and that a model of the USS Iowa can be viewed in the Rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol. Therefore, I truly appreciate the support of Senators Grassley and Harkin for helping to ensure that the USS Iowa will have a permanent home in California. I was privileged to have the opportunity to introduce legislation in 1998 and 1999 to assist in transporting the USS Iowa from Newport, RI, to Suisun Bay in San Francisco, where it now sits as part of the Navy's Reserve Fleet. Through its transfer from reserve to donation status, any port community in California will have the opportunity to competitively bid for the battleship. While I am sure a number of communities in California will be interested, I understand that the Port of Stockton has already begun making preparations and raising money to bid on this project. Having the USS Iowa as a permanent floating museum in California will be an honor for my State and a tremendous memorial to the thousands of sailors who served aboard this battleship over the past 6 decades. The USS Iowa, nicknamed the ``big stick,'' was first launched in August 1942 and commissioned in February 1943 under the command of Capt. John L. McCrea. In August 1943 it was mobilized for the first time along the Atlantic coast to protect against the threat of German battleships believed to be operating in Norwegian waters. In one of the more memorable moments of the battleship's history, the USS Iowa carried President. Franklin D. Roosevelt to Casablanca on his way to the Teheran Conference in November 1943, and afterwards provided the President transportation back to the United States. The USS Iowa engaged in combat for the first time after it was deployed to the Pacific theater as the flagship of Battleship Division 7. During the early months of 1943, as part of the battle for the Marshall Islands, the USS Iowa supported U.S. aircraft carrier strikes and helped support numerous air strikes near Micronesia and neighboring islands. It was next deployed to assist U.S. forces in combat in the South Pacific near New Guinea and joined the Marianas campaign in June 1943. During the Battle of the Philippines, the Iowa ably drove back and neutralized a series of air raids attempted by the Japanese middle fleet. Throughout the winter of 1944, the USS Iowa continued to engage in action off the Philippine coast until it was directed to return to the U.S. for maintenance in January 1945. From January 1945 through March 1945, the Battleship Iowa received a full overhaul in the Port of San Francisco before steaming off for Okinawa to take part in combat operations near Japan. Arriving in April, the Iowa supported U.S. air strikes against Japan and the surrounding islands until the Japanese surrender in August 1945. The ship was honored to be one of the few American battleships to sail into Tokyo Bay with the occupation forces and take part in the surrender ceremonies. After returning to the West Coast following the war, the USS Iowa operated in reserve status until it was decommissioned for the first time in March 1949. In August 1951, after hostilities broke out in Korea, the USS Iowa was recommissioned and mobilized to that region. In March 1952, the battleship was deployed to the war zone as the flagship of VADM Robert Briscoe, the Commander of the 7th Fleet. For the next 7 months, the Iowa was fully engaged in support of the U.N. troops, bombarding strategic targets throughout North Korea. Following the cessation of combat, the USS Iowa was sent to Norfolk, VA, to receive an overhaul in October 1952. For the next 5 years, the Iowa was engaged in training maneuvers in Northern Europe, including NATO exercises, and in the Mediterranean Sea. In 1958, it was decommissioned for the second time and made part of the Atlantic Reserve Fleet based at Philadelphia. Despite being decommissioned twice, the USS Iowa was renovated and upgraded in April 1984, and was recommissioned for the third time as part of President Reagan's plan to expand the Navy to 600 ships. Throughout the 1980s, the battleship spent the majority of its deployment in the waters off the European coast while also taking tours of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. Despite surviving two wars and numerous combat engagements over its long history, the USS Iowa suffered its worst catastrophe in April 1989 when one of its 16-inch gun turrets blew up, causing the death of 47 sailors. The source of the explosion was never conclusively identified, in spite of a thorough investigation of the incident by the Navy. Even with its damaged turret, the Iowa went on to further assignments in the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea until it was decommissioned for the final time at Norfolk, VA, on October 26, 1990. In early 1998, I was contacted by city officials in San Francisco requesting help with bringing the USS Iowa out to the west coast. Together with Senator Boxer, we introduced legislation in October 1998, as part of the FY99 Defense Authorization Act, to provide for the transfer of the USS Iowa to San Francisco. The next year I worked with colleagues in the California congressional delegation to secure $3 million to pay for the transport of the battleship from Rhode Island to California. On April 20, 2001, the USS Iowa finally arrived in San Francisco and has been berthed at Suisun Bay since that time. This amendment ensures that this amazing battleship, which earned nine battle stars for its World War II service and two battle stars in the Korean war, will be memorialized permanently as a floating museum in California. Once again, I thank Senators Grassley, Boxer, and Harkin for their support on this important provision. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the Record next to the relevant amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me point out, House Armed Services Committee member Sylvester Raiz stated that the House committee took the ``N'' or nuclear out of the robust nuclear earth penetrator program. Remember, last year, in this strong statement I have just told you about--in the deletion of funding of the $27.5 million for the earth penetrator and the $9 million for advanced concepts that at the time included a study for the development of the low-yield nuclear weapons-- Republicans and Democrats, authorizers and appropriators alike, joined together to send a clear signal to the administration that the House and Senate would not support moving forward with the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. If you consider this, along with the facts I have just revealed, based on a polling of the American people, you have to wonder why the administration comes back with a new request this year. In April of this year, a group of experts of the National Academies of Sciences confirmed what we have long argued--that according to the laws of physics, it is simply not possible for a missile casing on a nuclear warhead to survive a thrust into the earth deep enough to take out a hard and deeply buried military target without spewing millions of tons of radiation into the atmosphere. That is where we are--funding a study that the law of physics says will not work. It is folly to me. And the repercussions are enormous. The National Academies of Sciences study, commissioned by Congress to study the anticipated health and environmental effects of the nuclear earth penetrator, found the following: that current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth-penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion. It also found that in order to destroy hard and deeply buried targets at 200 meters, or 656 feet, you would need a 300- kiloton weapon. And in order to destroy a hard and deeply buried target at 300 meters--that is 984 feet--you would need a 1-megaton weapon. The point is, the deeper the bunker, the larger the nuclear blast must be, and the greater the amount of nuclear fallout will be. The number of casualties, they find, from an earth-penetrator weapon detonated at a few meters' depth, which is all that can be achieved for all practical purposes, is equal to that of a surface burst of the same nuclear weapon. Do you know what we are contemplating here, what that surface burst would be? It would be the largest spewing of radioactivity in the history of the world. Enormous. If it were used in North Korea, it would spread to South Korea and Japan. It is unthinkable. For attacks near or in densely populated areas using nuclear earth- penetrator weapons on hard and deeply buried targets, the number of casualties would range from thousands to more than a million, depending primarily on weapon yield. So once again, the bottom line is that a bunker buster cannot penetrate into the earth deep enough to avoid massive casualties, and there would be the spewing of millions of cubic feet of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. This would result in the deaths of up to a million people or more if used in densely populated areas. So why are we doing this? What kind of Machiavellian thinking is behind this reopening of the nuclear door? Ambassador Linton Brooks of the National Security Administration agrees with these findings. Earlier, in a congressional hearing, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher asked him how deep he thought a bunker buster could go. Here is his answer from the transcript of the House hearing. I quote: . . . a couple of tens of meters maybe. I mean certainly--I really must apologize for my lack of precision if we in the administration have suggested that it was possible to have a bomb that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. I don't believe that--I don't believe the laws of physics will ever let that be true. And remember, we are talking about a 1-megaton bomb, 71 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima--71 times bigger than the 15- kiloton bomb. The devastation from using such a weapon will be catastrophic. The National Academies of Sciences study is the strongest evidence to date that we should not move forward with this study and that we should put a stop to it once and for all. Again, the Senate should listen to the experts and follow the House's lead. So what is the main argument from opponents of this amendment, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Their argument is: This is just a study. Nothing is going to happen. Nobody is going to get the idea: Oh, my goodness, the United States is moving in this direction; we better move. North Korea: They are coming after us; we better get there first. India, worried about Pakistan: Let's begin to develop it. Pakistan, worried about India: Let's do the same thing. I do not believe for a second this is just a study. This is the beginning of a major effort to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, and nobody should think it is anything else but that. This year, the request is $8.5 million. In fiscal year 2007, the request will increase to $17.5 million, including $14 million for the Department of Energy and $3.5 million for the Pentagon. And while the administration is silent this year on how much it plans to spend on the program in future years, we should not forget that last year's budget request called for spending $486 million on the robust nuclear earth penetrator over 5 years. So that part of the plan was revealed. This 5- year figure was omitted this year, and that is deceiving, I believe. But even if you accept the argument that this is just a study, that does not justify moving forward with this program. First, a study on the development of new nuclear weapons will still greatly undermine our nuclear nonproliferation efforts by telling the rest of the world that when it comes to nuclear weapons, do as we say and not as we do. That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. How does that make us safer from the prospect of nuclear terror? Answer: It does not. In a letter to committee members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Reverend John H. Ricard, bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee and chairman of the Committee on International Policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated: Nations that see the U.S. expanding and diversifying our nuclear arsenal are encouraged to seek or maintain nuclear deterrents of their own and ignore nonproliferation obligations. I could not agree more. How will a study of new nuclear weapons help compel North Korea to abandon its nuclear program? It will not. It will do exactly the opposite. How will a study of new nuclear weapons help convince the Iranians to respond and give up their own nuclear weapons? Answer: It will not. Just as calling these nations part of the ``axis of evil'' has done nothing but instill in them the desire to develop their own nuclear weapons programs. That, in fact, has been exactly the case. In both cases, a study to develop new nuclear weapons, especially when we already have a robust nuclear arsenal, only makes those weapons more important to those who do not yet have them, such as Iran, or who refuse to give them up, such as North Korea. And the proliferation of nuclear weapons only increases the chances of them falling into the hands of terrorists who will not be deterred by a nuclear bunker buster. Secondly, a study will not change the conclusions of the National Academies of Sciences report: It is not possible to develop a nuclear bunker buster that can burrow deep enough into the earth to contain massive amounts of radioactivity fallout. The inevitable result will be the deaths of up to a million people. So why do we do it? Physics says it cannot be done, and somebody in the Pentagon who does not know word one about physics says it can be. Who do I trust? I do not trust the Pentagon, I do trust the Academies of Sciences, on this point. This study will not change that simple fact. And as Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists points out: Any nation that can dig under a hundred meters of hard rock can dig under a kilometer of hard rock. Our adversaries will only have to build a bunker deeper than 400 meters to avoid the effects of a 1-megaton bomb that is 71 times bigger than Hiroshima. It makes no sense. Finally, a study will not change the fact that we need to improve our intelligence capabilities in relation to underground targets. Why aren't we putting that money into intelligence on underground targets, where the vent shafts are, where the aromas come up, where ingress, egress, and access is, to pinpoint locations? What use is a nuclear bunker buster if we cannot locate and identify an underground target which, ladies and gentlemen, is today the case? What would have been the consequences if we had used a nuclear bunker buster in Iraq to take out bunkers filled with chemical and biological weapons--that did not exist? The fact is, we can improve our intelligence capabilities and locate and identify targets. We can use conventional weapons with specialized delivery systems to seal off their vulnerable points, such as air ducts and entrances for personnel and equipment. We can also look at conventional bunker busters. Last month, I was briefed by Northrop Grumman on a program they are working on with Boeing to develop a conventional bunker buster--the Massive Ordnance Penetrator--which is designed to go deeper than any nuclear bunker buster and take out 25 percent of the underground and deeply buried targets. This is a 30,000-pound weapon, 20 feet in length, with 6,000 pounds of high explosives. It will be delivered in a B-2 or B-52 bomber. It can burrow 60 meters in the ground through 5,000 PSI--pounds per square inch--of reinforced concrete. It will burrow 8 meters into the ground through 10,000 PSI reinforced concrete. We have already spent $6 million on this program, and design and ground testing are scheduled to be completed next year. Why are we doing this nuclear bunker buster that cannot be done according to the law of physics? We should focus on practical programs such as the Northrop Grumman-Boeing program that will put these underground targets at risk without reopening the nuclear door. Let me look once again at the policies underlying this request. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, which is a white paper put out by the administration--singularly overlooked by this body but read widely by the rest of the world--places nuclear weapons as part of the strategic triad, therefore blurring the distinction between the conventional and nuclear use. Why do this? One reason: It makes them easier to use. It also discussed, for the first time, seven countries that could be targets of U.S. nuclear weapons: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria. I did not write this. This is in the Nuclear Posture Review. Other nations have seen this. This is foolish. Secondly, National Security Directive-17, which came a few months later, indicates that the United States will engage in a first use of nuclear weapons--a historic statement in itself. We have never said we would not engage in a first use. We have never said we would engage in a first use. And here we say we would engage in a first use to respond to a chemical or biological attack. We could have done that in Iraq. What would have happened had we done this? Would a nuclear bunker buster have been used in Iraq? I wonder. Fortunately, we will never know. My point is, these policies encourage other nations to develop similar weapons, thereby putting American lives at risk and our national security interests at risk. This isn't the example we should set for the rest of the world. Indeed, I believe the United States can take several actions to make better use of our resources and demonstrate our commitment to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands. First, we should work to strengthen the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Senator Hagel and I have introduced a sense of the Senate amendment to this bill that calls on parties to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to insist on strict compliance with the nonproliferation obligations of the treaty and to undertake effective enforcement actions against states that are in violation of their obligations; to agree to establish more effective controls on sensitive technologies that can be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons; to accelerate programs to safeguard and eliminate nuclear weapons usable material to the highest standards to prevent access by terrorists or other states; to agree that no state may withdraw from the treaty and escape responsibility for prior violations of the treaty or retain access to controlled materials and equipment acquired for peaceful purposes; and to accelerate implementation of the NPT-related disarmament obligations and commitments that would, in particular, reduce the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material. I urge my colleagues and the managers of this bill to support our amendment. Second, we should expand and accelerate Nunn-Lugar threat reduction programs and provide the necessary resources to improve security and take the rest of the Soviet era nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons arsenals and infrastructure out of circulation. Third, we should strengthen and expand the ability of the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative to secure and remove nuclear weapons-usable materials from vulnerable sites around the world. Last year, Senator Domenici and I sponsored an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act that authorized the Secretary of Energy to lead an accelerated, comprehensive, worldwide effort to secure, remove, and eliminate the threat by these materials. Finally, as I noted previously, we should improve our intelligence capabilities to locate and identify underground targets. There is a lot of improvement needed. In August, we will commemorate the 60th anniversaries of the two uses of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, 140,000 people died. In Nagasaki, 100,000 people lost their lives. Two bombs, 240,000 people dead. The 1-megaton bomb of the robust nuclear earth penetrator study is 71 times bigger than the bomb at Hiroshima. That is what we are looking at. For shame. What message do we send to the survivors of those attacks and to the friends and families of the victims by moving forward with a study to develop a nuclear bunker buster of 1 megaton? Let us acknowledge these anniversaries and pay tribute to the victims by putting a stop to this program once and for all. Let us work together on commonsense programs that will make our country safer without reopening the nuclear door. I urge my colleagues to follow the House lead, support this amendment and kill this program. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I wish to speak on the bill. There is probably no one in the Senate I have greater respect for than the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. He certainly does know his material. He certainly has put in the years. He certainly has done the work. I very profoundly disagree with what he has said with respect to the robust nuclear earth penetrator. We have heard this is only a study, that it is minor in scope, that we have debated this before. It is certainly true, we have debated this before. We debated it before because we feel strongly about this issue. We have debated it before because the Congress eliminated the money last year. We have debated it before because we have a strong passion and belief that this is the wrong way for our Nation to go. The fact that we have debated this issue before--Senator Kennedy, Senator Reed, Senator Levin, myself-- does not in any way, shape, or form downgrade or demean our arguments. Let me discuss this program which is only ``a study.'' Let me discuss for a moment the way this program started out. It started with appropriations for the study of a robust nuclear earth penetrator with a 5-year budget projection of $486 million. That is how it started. It also coincided with a program called ``advanced concepts initiatives'' which is not in this authorization but which last year envisioned the development of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons of under 5 kilotons, or battlefield nuclear weapons. That is about a third the force that was used at Hiroshima, a 15-kiloton weapon. That is not, as I say, in this bill. It started out with a plan to build a Modern Pit Facility which could produce up to 450 new plutonium pits--the pit being the trigger that detonates a nuclear weapon. If you take a good look, you know you do not need up to 450 plutonium pits for replenishment of the existing nuclear arsenal. You may need 40 to 60. So if you put forward up to 450 plutonium pits, to me it is an indicator that there is a broader program afoot. Part of this is also an increase of the time to test readiness from 3 years to 18 months. What that says is: Beware, something is going on. We want to be able to resume testing and we do not want to resume testing within the normal 3-year delay, we want to move that up to 18 months. So, something is cooking. The fact is, no one should doubt this authorization enables the reopening of the nuclear door to the creation of a new generation of nuclear weapons, in this case, a robust nuclear earth penetrator of 1 megaton. This is a major effort. It is true, we fenced it, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out. Before it goes beyond the engineering stage, it must come back to this Senate for approval. But that does not signify that there is not a new generation of nuclear weapons being studied, researched, advanced, and authorized in this bill, specifically the $4 million for the robust nuclear earth penetrator. Our intention is being signaled to the rest of the world. The Department has been clever in not revealing its hand. No longer does it provide the 5-year cost of this study as it did last year. No longer does it mention this effort in its statement of administration policy. The statement of administration policies on the House Defense Authorization and House Energy and Water Appropriations bills do not mention a robust nuclear earth penetrator. Rather, the attempt was to cloak the study in some kind of obfuscation, to divide it between two budgets--Energy and Defense--half, $4 million here, the other $4.5 million in the other budget, with the hope that if one fails, the other will get through. But nonetheless, this is not minor in scope. The Modern Pit Facility which could produce up to 450 new plutonium pits is not even being discussed. There is supposed to be a study that will come back and indicate how many pits are necessary to replenish the present nuclear arsenal. That is not before the Senate. That is in this bill. There is no study to indicate we need 450 pits today to refresh the existing arsenal, particularly when that arsenal is being diminished in size. The intention is clear. Obviously, the way you begin a new nuclear weapon program is with a study, research, and engineering. So it is true we are trying to catch it at the beginning. That is not a bad thing. That is a very good thing. The money, as was stated accurately, would go to the DC National Guard to enable it to prepare for possible terrorist attacks in the Nation's Capital. Many think this is a much more realistic use of this money than a robust nuclear earth penetrator, especially when the laws of physics say it is impossible to drive a missile deep enough in the Earth to prevent the spewing of hundreds of millions of cubic yards of radioactive waste and cause the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. It is true, we had this debate 3 weeks ago on the Energy and Water appropriations bill. That was the other half of this request. We were not successful with that vote. We said we would be back to debate this issue. And we will be back again and again and again until we are able to defeat this effort. It is morally wrong and I believe it jeopardizes the national security of our country. The House has had the good sense to decisively eliminate funding for the robust nuclear earth penetrator, first under the leadership of Representative David Hobson, the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. That bill eliminated the $4 million for the Department of Energy portion of the robust nuclear earth penetrator. Second, the House fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill limits research for a bunker buster to a conventional program. Finally, during its mark of the 2006 Defense authorization bill--that is the companion to the bill we are talking about this morning--the House Armed Services Committee eliminated all of the Department of Energy funding for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and transferred the $4 million to the Air Force budget for work on a conventional nonnuclear version. So there is a growing body of thought in three specific efforts successfully concluded by the House of Representatives that says we should not proceed with this program. Let me recap: The House Energy and Water appropriations bill eliminates $4 million. The House 2006 Defense appropriations bill limits research to a conventional program. And finally, the House Armed Services Committee eliminated all of the Department of Energy funding for the nuclear earth penetrator and transferred it to work on a conventional nonnuclear version. It will be a very hot conference committee on these items. But the House has taken the action in three ways rather completely. We are not out on a limb. This is not some whim of a small faction of Members of the Senate. We represent a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives. I believe we represent a majority of thinking of the American people. Polls have been done which clearly show a bulk of the American people are, in fact, not in support of commencing this research, of doing this study. Let me give a fact sheet of a 2004 poll brought to my attention by the Union of Concerned Scientists. It found most Americans do not support the development of new nuclear weapons by the United States. A substantial majority of Americans would oppose funding for the nuclear bunker buster. Sixty-five percent of Americans say there is no need for the United States to develop new types of nuclear weapons. They know what the Senator from Rhode Island pointed out, that there are conventional bunker busters that should be developed. They know the key to this is good intelligence as to vent holes, ingress, egress areas, intelligence which can lead us to ferret out a nuclear bunker buster. Sixty-three percent found convincing the argument that the United States would be setting a bad example by starting to develop new types of nuclear weapons, and a large majority opposes using nuclear weapons for anything other than a deterrent to prevent other countries from using nuclear weapons. Eighty-one percent oppose the Bush administration's revelation that they would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons. Eighty-four percent oppose the United States using threats of nuclear retaliation to attempt a deterrent attack on the United States with chemical or biological weapons. And 57 percent support the United States reaffirming a commitment to not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons as a way of encouraging those countries not to acquire or build nuclear weapons. Americans have a clear preference for a much smaller nuclear arsenal. Based on this poll, a substantial majority of Americans opposes the study into the nuclear bunker buster. These findings also show substantial distaste for nuclear weapons in general, with a clear preference for a small nuclear arsenal designed only as a deterrent to prevent other countries from using nuclear weapons. I ask unanimous consent this fact sheet from the Union of Concerned Scientists be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the City of Chico as they celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Bidwell Park, which is a significant part of Chico's identity and its crown jewel. Bidwell Park was established in July of 1905 when Annie Bidwell, wife of Chico's founding father, John Bidwell, gave the City 1,902 acres of their ranch, Rancho del Arroyo Chico. Since that time, the City has purchased additional land enlarging the park to its present day size of 3,670 acres, making it the largest municipal park per capita in the United States. Bidwell Park has a long history with the people of Chico and surrounding areas in Northern California. Some of America's classic movies such as the Adventures of Robin Hood, starring Errol Flynn, Gone with the Wind and Red Badge of Courage were filmed in Bidwell Park using the Park's natural setting and wild landscape as a backdrop. Today, the City of Chico estimates that there are between 150,000 and 200,000 visits to Bidwell Park every year. Citizens who visit the Park can take advantage of wide-ranging recreational opportunities such as cooling off in one of the countless swimming holes or making the most of approximately 72 miles of trails for hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking. Bidwell Park also serves as an ideal venue for numerous community events such as Chico's 4th of July Community Celebration held at the One-Mile Recreation Area and the Annual Shakespeare in the Park Series as well as the hundreds of family gatherings, weddings and company picnics. I would like to especially recognize the work done by the Bidwell Park Centennial Committee and their Co-Chairs Tom Barrett and Chico City Councilmember Ann Schwab for their tireless efforts organizing the scores of events commemorating Bidwell Park's 100th birthday. I would be remiss if I did not mention the contributions of the Bidwell Park Centennial Supporters and volunteers, especially the Chico Creek Nature Center, for all of their time and resources that illustrate the possibilities that can be realized when public and private interests come together for the benefit of the community. Again let me say congratulations to the City of Chico and all of the people participating in events celebrating Bidwell Park's centennial year. You should feel proud of all that you are doing and I wish you the very best in the future.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the achievements of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and to celebrate the organization's 50th anniversary. CASA has provided the State of California with clean, safe, and reliable drinking water since its founding in 1955. Not only has CASA worked hard to ensure the well-being of Californians, but it has also championed a multitude of environmental issues related to clean water and water infrastructure that have been vital to California's long-term economic and social stability. I want to recognize CASA's proactive leadership in promoting partnerships with a variety of organizations to create a sound public health and environmental agenda. For the past 50 years CASA has been the voice of the public wastewater agencies and served to assist and monitor a variety of water quality, and related policy issues. CASA has fought hard on behalf of California's sanitation agencies and played an active role in numerous legislative struggles. Among CASA's legislative achievements include sponsoring legislation that gives publicly owned treatment works the authority to levy civil and administrative penalties against industrial dischargers for violations of local wastewater ordinances. Additionally, CASA has worked in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop and implement effective water rules for air toxics, sewer overflows, and biosolids management. CASA has acted as a valuable resource by helping its member agencies understand and comply with varying Federal and State water quality standards. CASA also has provided the legal, legislative, and administrative support for the publicly owned treatment work community and helped set the precedent for ensuring clean and safe water for all Californians. Over the years, I have come to value CASA's insight and suggestions for improving our Nation's water quality. Today I celebrate 50 years of CASA's devoted service and contributions to our Nation, and call upon CASA to continue to lead the way in its innovative and cooperative stewardship of our Nation's complex and growing waterways. Water quality is imperative to the development and welfare of my State and the Nation, and I thank CASA for its continued effort and contributions to the cause.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee. I caught the tail end of his remarks, and what I heard I agree with. I rise today with my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in support of the resolution renewing import sanctions against Burma. The House overwhelmingly passed this resolution in a 423-to-2 vote. I believe it is time for the Senate to follow suit. Almost a month ago, Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of Burma's democracy movement Aung San Suu Kyi celebrated her 60th birthday under house arrest. She has spent the better part of the past 15 years imprisoned under house arrest. The brutal military regime, the State Peace and Development Council, has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy from assuming their rightful place as leaders of the Burmese state. It is worth repeating that the NLD decisively won their parliamentary elections in 1990, results that were soon nullified by the military junta. Two years ago, Congress passed the original sanctions legislation, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, following a brutal attack by progovernment thugs on a motorcade carrying Suu Kyi and several of her NLD colleagues. That bill imposed a complete ban on all imports from Burma for 1 year and allowed those sanctions to be renewed 1 year at a time for up to 3 years. Last year, in response to the failure of the SPDC to make ``substantial and measurable progress'' toward a true national dialog on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 elections, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a renewal of the import sanctions for another year. One year later, it is clear the military junta has taken no steps toward restoring democracy, releasing Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, and respecting human rights and the rule of law and, therefore, we believe we have no choice but to renew the sanctions again for another year. Some may argue that since we are no closer to a free and democratic Burma since Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act 2 years ago, we should let the import ban expire and attempt to ``engage'' Rangoon. I disagree. I urge my colleagues to stay the course for this additional year. I ask them to remember that the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003--a 1-year ban on Burmese imports--allowed those sanctions to be renewed twice for 1 year at a time if Burma failed to make ``substantial and measurable'' progress toward restoring democracy. We have almost completed 2 years of the import ban and, if we pass this joint resolution, we will renew the sanctions for a third year. If Congress does not renew the import ban when the military junta has so clearly failed to meet the conditions set out in the original legislation for having the sanctions lifted, we will reward the SPDC for its inaction and for their continued suppression of the entire Burmese people and we will send a clear message to Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy that the United States does not stand with them. Brutal regimes around the world would know that if you simply wait for the United States to give in, they will do so. The damage to our reputation as leader for freedom and human rights will be devastated and will take years to repair. We simply cannot afford to make that mistake. Let me be clear, I don't support sanctions as a panacea for every foreign policy dispute we have with another country. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits and needs to have substantive debate. Congress needs the opportunity to revisit sanctions on other countries in a timely fashion. Indeed, next year, when the import ban contained in our original bill of 2003 expires, we will have the opportunity to judge any progress made by Rangoon over the next year towards restoring democracy and possibly debate new sanctions legislation, or let the legislation expire. We know in some cases sanctions can be effective. I think South Africa is the one case where that has proved to be the case. While Burma's military regime has totally failed to respect democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, world opinion is coming together to put additional pressure on Rangoon. In fact, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, called ASEAN, from Malaysia to Singapore and Indonesia, have expressed concerns about Burma assuming chairmanship of the organization next year and have pushed Burma to make progress on democratic reform. I, frankly, believe ASEAN's prestige and effectiveness would be substantially undermined and reduced if Burma assumed a leadership position in ASEAN. More fundamentally, it would signal that ASEAN has been totally ineffective in moving this military junta toward elections in Burma, or any reconciliation, for that matter, with the duly elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi. The way Senator Bill Cohen and I began this many years ago was to give a period of 6 months for ASEAN to exert its influence on Burma, and then we gave the Secretary of State--who was then Madeleine Albright--the ability to trigger these sanctions. In fact, ASEAN was unable to achieve any change in Burmese military behavior. So Secretary Albright, at the time, triggered the sanctions. In a recent op-ed in The Nation, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, president of the ASEAN Caucus on Burma, called on the members of ASEAN to defer Burma's chairmanship for 1 year and condition its assuming the chairmanship at a later date on progress toward democracy and national reconciliation. This is important. I hope the ASEAN nations defer the chairmanship. I hope they insist on progress. I hope they say the time has come to release Aung San Suu Kyi and to effect a democratic reconciliation to this impasse. Mr. Ibrahim added: A mere facade of political reform will not lead to stability and progress in Burma and will not alleviate the impact throughout the region. ASEAN stands ready to assist Burma, but ASEAN's good will must be met with the Burmese government's political will. I strongly agree. I hope this will be ASEAN's posture. I hope it will be strong, formidable and, to the extent it can, unrelenting. Of course, I would like to see ASEAN take additional measures to put pressure on Burma, particularly since the spread of narcotics, HIV/ AIDS, and refugees across the region can all be traced back to Rangoon. Denied the most basic of human rights by the repressive regime-- including education and health care--the Burmese people endure forced labor, rape, and conscription. Those who dare speak out against the SPDC and its abuses are harassed, imprisoned, or killed. Few realize there are between 600,000 and 1 million internally displaced persons in Burma today, with up to 1,300 political prisoners. The people of Burma also face a severe epidemic of HIV infection. Measures of the HIV burden are always difficult to assess, but estimates suggest that Burma is believed to have one of the largest HIV rates in Asia, with up to 1 percent of its population infected. That amounts to a half million people. After initial and outgoing outbreaks among injecting drug users, HIV rates have rapidly risen among heterosexual men, blood donors, and are now rapidly rising among women and infants. I believe the United States can gain additional international support for change in Burma by continuing to take a leadership role on sanctions against this military regime. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the very brave Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma who voted for democracy in 1990. Let's finish what we started with the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to support a free and democratic Burma and support the joint resolution renewing import sanctions for another year. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I always regret having to oppose an amendment proposed by my friend and colleague from California, but I am afraid I must. I have a very hard time understanding this amendment and understanding why we would even do it. I believe, if this amendment is adopted, it is a free gift to the French, the Russians, and other European contractors who would have been provided a majoring advantage over their U.S. counterparts. Secondly, it will only lead to a further increase of greenhouse gases in China. Thirdly, it will result in the initial loss of American jobs and potentially many thousands in the future. Finally, it would mean a lost opportunity to address our rising trade deficit with China and to cooperate in finding efficient sources of energy. I have been going to China for over 30 years now. I try to go every year. As mayor, I started a relationship with Shanghai. I traveled east, west, north, and south in China. China needs energy. All anybody has to do is be in China in the middle of the summer or the winter and see the effect of this coal-burning country. Do you remember when they wanted to build hydroelectric power and build the Three Gorges Dam and people in this country objected to it? They said: It is too big. And the Three Gorges Dam, the largest hydroelectric dam in the world, will only handle 5 percent of the energy needs of China. So China has to go somewhere. China has to find a source of clean power. This provision, I believe, would essentially shut out U.S. firms from being able to compete with their counterparts in Europe and, for all practical purposes, cede billions of dollars worth of contracts to non- American companies. No matter what our personal views on nuclear power and the construction of nuclear powerplants in the United States--that is our business--it is clear that China intends to proceed with at least 30 nuclear powerplants, the most advanced and the cleanest yet known to man, over the next decade. This is China's decision, and it is their right to make this decision. China, as its economy continues to expand by over 9 percent annually, is deeply concerned about an energy shortfall. As the world's No. 2 consumer of energy, China currently imports 40 percent of its oil supplies. As its economy continues to grow--and it will--China will need to find additional and greater sources of energy. We do not want them to rival us as we look for those sources of energy. Let me give you an example. The International Energy Agency, in its 2004 annual report, predicts that China's oil imports will increase by some 500 percent by 2030. Despite the negative impacts on its citizens' health and its contribution to greenhouse gases, China remains the world's largest producer and consumer of coal. Coal continues to make up two-thirds of energy consumption in China, and it is predicted that coal consumption will only double over the next two decades. Currently, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases--behind us--China is expected to surpass the United States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2025. In an attempt to increase its reliance on cleaner, more efficient energy sources, China has been working to develop natural gas, hydroelectric power, and nuclear energy. Now, while nuclear energy is not a panacea for all of China's energy needs, it offers one of the most efficient and cleaner sources of energy. And it is certainly superior to coal. In the next 20 years, China is expected to top the world in nuclear power development. So I ask, what is the point of this amendment? Why would we want to pass legislation that would hurt American companies and try to tell China what sort of energy it can develop? I could understand if this was sensitive nuclear technology and had national security implications. But it has been vetted, and that is simply not the case. The administration--and, in particular, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy--has reviewed this technology and has offered its unequivocal support for American firms bidding or subcontracting on these projects. In the first project that would involve American technology, a multinational consortium, including the American Shaw group, is looking to design and construct four AP1000 pressurized water reactors on two sites in central and southern China. This AP1000 advanced nuclear powerplant will be the new standard for nuclear power throughout the globe and lead to thousands of high-tech jobs for Americans for many years to come. In February 2005, the Ex-Im Bank gave a preliminary commitment to provide $5 billion of assistance to this consortium. Should this amendment pass today, it would mean the loss of at least 5,000 high- tech jobs throughout the Nation and could well set a precedent that precludes any American company from bidding on nuclear powerplant projects in China. By passing this amendment, we essentially hand the contract to either the French or the Russians, who have the full support and backing of their respective governments. With our trade deficit with China nearing $200 billion, I simply cannot understand why we would not want to provide American firms the best opportunity to successfully bid on these projects in China. For those, like myself, who have raised concerns with Chinese leaders about this unacceptable trade imbalance, it would seem counterproductive to support such an amendment. Some have raised concerns about the decision by the Ex-Im Bank to provide financial assistance to a multinational consortium that includes non-American companies, suggesting that the bank is going beyond its mandate. But the fact is, the Ex-Im Bank's primary responsibility is to assist in creating American jobs and export growth for the U.S. economy. With this mission in mind, since 1987, the Ex-Im Bank has financially supported equipment and services for several overseas nuclear power projects, providing these loans at fee-for-service. Despite what you may hear, American taxpayers do not subsidize these Ex-Im Bank loans to other countries and are not at credit risk. Even in cases where the primary contractor may not be an American- owned company, these projects will spawn millions of dollars' worth of business for American subcontractors. The fact is, China already has extensive nuclear power production. This is China's choice to pursue the construction of nuclear powerplants. We should not be telling China, which needs an increasing number of energy options, what to do. Energy sufficiency has increasingly become a central component of China's long-term economic growth and development, and could have deep security implications as well. I believe it is vital for the United States and China to cooperate in order to avoid future tensions and conflicts over securing energy resources. If this amendment passes, you can be sure there will be these conflicts. Therefore, in my view, working with China is important. I oppose this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.