Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Laura Miller, the mayor of Dallas, TX, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the League of California Cities be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the mayor of Long Beach, CA, Beverly O'Neill, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1215.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, and myself. It is identical to the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. That is S. 1013. I am very pleased to be joined not only by my colleague from Texas but, as well, by Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Kerry, Martinez, Schumer, Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Nelson of Florida. And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski to the list of cosponsors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, the chairman of the subcommittee. I will very shortly propose an amendment which will stand next to Senator Collins's amendment. The purpose of my amendment is simple. It provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security will ensure that Homeland Security grants are allocated based on the assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable. This amendment dovetails S. 1013 which Senator Cornyn and I submitted earlier. Cosponsors are Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Hutchison, Kerry, Martinez, Schumer, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy, and Dodd. Amendment No. 1215 to Amendment No. 1142 (Purpose: To improve the allocation of grants through the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes) I send this amendment to the desk and ask it be set aside until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there is a desire for back and forth. That is perfectly fine with me. I think the Senator from Arizona wanted to say something, and then if we could go to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is our understanding that the Agriculture Committee is considering a CFTC proposal to clarify that its antifraud authority in the Commodity Exchange Act clearly covers principal-to- principal off exchange transactions and a second CFTC proposal to clarify its existing authority to bring civil and administrative actions, including false reporting cases. We would also hope that the committee would add language to clarify that exempt energy transactions are subject to the CFTC's antimanipulation and false reporting authorities. It is our hope that the Agriculture Committee will include these proposals in legislation when reauthorizing the CFTC this year. However, should the committee report a mark that does not include similar provisions when placed on the Senate Calendar, we would like assurances from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that we will have the ability to offer an amendment to address these issues when this bill is considered by the full Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, there is only $4 million in this budget and there is $4.5 million in defense. It is a different strategy this year. The money was split. Last year the request was for $27.5 million and a 5-year projection of $486 million. That is fact. Now, their projection over 5 years is not this year in the budget so it is a little tricky because they have split it up and they have operated it into two budgets. The House removed all of the money. The House removed the authorization. Clearly, there are people on this Hill who believe it is a mistake. Last year, the money was removed. So this year is a slightly different approach by the administration. What we are saying is, it is a new weapon. If you do not have it today, and you might have it tomorrow, it is a new weapon. What we are saying is, there is not one physicist who will say that a casing can be built to drive a weapon deep enough into the Earth with enough explosive power that will take out a bunker and not spew radiation that can kill hundreds of thousands and, yes, even millions of people. We urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think we have had a good discussion. I was somewhat interested in the comment that: We have done this before, why should we do it again? Probably this is one of the most important issues we have to deal with because it will affect, I believe, my family's lifetime and my grandchildren's lifetime. I think if we have learned anything, it is that human nature is better off without nuclear weapons. In this case, I would like to sum up with one of the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences' recent reports. It is conclusion No. 3: 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. That is not my view. That is the view of the National Academy of Sciences. To my knowledge it has been backed up by everybody. So why does the administration persist? The one bright light in this is the House of Representatives. They have removed the money from all programs, from time to test readiness, increasing it from 3 years to 18 months; money for the 400 new plutonium pits; and money for the robust nuclear earth penetrator. This year the administration did not come back and request the so- called advanced weapons concepts, which is essentially low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. It has been stated here, and I believe it has been stated correctly, that you cannot have a policy which says, ``Do as we say but don't do as we do.'' I do not believe we can have a policy that puts at risk hundreds of thousands, and, yes, even millions of lives. And I do not believe we can develop a weapon and then say: Well, this is just to protect us. It will never be used. I do not believe that. I truly believe the documents coming out of this administration, from the Nuclear Posture Review to the National Security Directive No. 17, clearly indicate that it is the goal of this administration to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. For those of us who do not believe that is the way to go, they must vote. To those of us who are not on this side, I want to say we will be back, and back, and back. So get used to hearing from us because it is not going to end here. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for those comments. She put all of this in both a practical and fiscal perspective. I also thank the Senator from Michigan because he was right on. Do what we say, don't do what we do to every other nation. The nonproliferation treaty does not matter. It is just a terribly arrogant position for the United States to take and I think a morally wrong one. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Make it 5 and 5.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think Senator Clinton has asked for 5 minutes, and I yield that time to the Senator from New York.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Five and 5.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I thought the remarks were excellent. I think they were really right on. The tragedy of this is that people do not listen. I hope, Senator Kennedy, your words were heard. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is right. I change that to a half-hour.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will take 15 minutes, Senator Kennedy 30 minutes, Senator Levin 15 minutes, and Senator Clinton 5 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kennedy, Feingold, Dorgan, Levin, Wyden, Clinton, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Boxer, Reed, Harkin, and Biden, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield myself another 5 minutes. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review places nuclear weapons as part of the strategic triad. Therefore, the aim is to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. This makes them easier to use. National Security Directive 17 indicates that the United States would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons--a historic statement in itself. We have never had a first-use policy. We have always had strategic ambiguity, but we have never before said we would ever countenance a first use of nuclear weapons. In Security Directive 17 it is said in response to a chemical or biological attack--and seven nations are actually named--we would consider a nuclear response. In essence, these policies encourage other nations, and they have encouraged North Korea and they have encouraged Iran--those are two of the nations suggested--to develop their own nuclear weapons, thereby putting American lives and our own national security interests at risk. We are telling the world, when it comes to nuclear weapons: Do as we say, not as we do. I object to that policy. It is hypocrisy. There are alternatives. I have just been 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 underground and deeply buried targets. This 30,000-pound weapon, 20 feet in length, with 6,000 pounds of high explosives, will be delivered from a B-2 or a B-52 bomber. It can burrow 60 meters into the ground through 5,000 psi 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. We should focus on conventional programs. The House has said this. The Senate should concur. We have a solemn obligation to spend our resources in the most effective manner and to make this country safer and more secure. That is why I am so concerned about this administration's decision to come back to Congress and request additional funds for new nuclear weapons. I would like to give my kudos and congratulations to the House of Representatives. They truly have their heads on straight. I am delighted that they have eliminated the authorization and the funding for this entire program in the 2006 appropriation. I urge us to do the same on just one part of this, which is the nuclear bunker buster, $4 million. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is the first trade agreement where the administration, perhaps because they have had to struggle for the votes, has been welcoming of suggestions; not only welcoming of suggestions, they made some changes. That is appreciated. One of the changes was $40 million earmarked for labor and environment capacity building for the CAFTA countries, from 2006 through 2009, and $3 million annually through 2009 for the International Labor Organization to monitor and verify progress in CAFTA countries in improving labor law enforcement and working conditions, with periodic reports that are transparent, every 6 months, on such projects. That is a first and I think it is important and I do believe it can make a difference. I do believe the comments of those who are concerned about impact on Central America's labor laws are right to be concerned. I join them in that concern. This $3 million can go a long way to seeing the kind of enforcement that is necessary to begin to bring those countries up to where it is an approximately level playing field. This is a significant commitment, and I thank Ambassador Portman for his willingness to engage with the Congress on this issue. I also look forward to providing assistance to workers in this country through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for those who have lost their jobs because of increased trade. This is where I think the rub really is. It is always hard to see whether the benefits of free trade do in fact outweigh the negatives. But we must recognize that some workers lose their jobs and they have to be helped to learn new skills. We have to find ways to keep manufacturing in this country. We have to find ways to limit research and development tax credits to the production of jobs in this country. Some of us were struck a mortal blow when we repatriated tax funds and there was an amendment on the floor of the Senate that said ``as long as those funds will be used for production of jobs in this country,'' and that amendment failed. That, for me, was a dark day because I believe that American corporations do have an obligation to this country, not only to the bottom line but an obligation to their workers. American workers are the best in productivity and the best in the world. We have to find ways to see that this country is competitive in education, in standards, to be attractive for manufacturing once again. Today, the Democrats in the Democratic Policy Committee heard a very interesting presentation which pointed out how necessary manufacturing jobs, production line jobs--not high-skilled jobs--were going to be to the future of this great country. I remember when I was mayor of San Francisco, Akio Morita, the chairman of Sony, at that time he was the head of The Keidanren, saying to me that when America loses its manufacturing edge, it is the first step to America becoming a second rate power. I believe that is correct. Yet a trade agreement which reduces tariffs on our exports is not bad; it is good. I think that is the benefit of that, and of this agreement. With that in mind, and because I believe virtually every industry in my State is in support of this agreement, I intend to vote aye. I thank the Chair for the extension of time, and I yield the floor. I appreciated the recent efforts the administration made to engage the sugar industry to work out an agreement. However, I am concerned that the two sides only recently came to the table to address this divisive issue. The trade agreement has been signed for nearly a year, but talks only began about 3 weeks ago. The problem should have been recognized and truly addressed earlier in the process. I am convinced that an agreement could have been reached. As it was, the sugar industry chose not to accept a short-term offer by the administration. The offer would have provided a remedy for the length of the farm bill, this year and next year's sugar beet crop. As I stated before, sugar beet farmers in Wyoming have made long-term investments in their processing facilities. They need a long-term solution, not a short-term fix. This problem will not go away. As the administration continues to seek additional free-trade agreements with countries that desire to send their sugar to our markets, this issue will resurface. I recommend that the administration and the sugar industry continue creative discussions to identify a long-term solution beyond the next farm bill to ensure the viability of the sugar industry and the small family farmers that the industry supports in the United States. Beyond Wyoming sugar, Wyoming cattle producers have made it clear to me that they want mandatory country of origin labeling implemented before new trade agreements are signed that could bring in additional beef and meat products. I agree that consumers should have the opportunity to make an informed purchase regarding their meat's country of origin at their grocery store. U.S. beef is competitive, but it does not receive a chance to compete when it is not labeled as U.S. beef for consumers. With my vote against this bill, it would be easy for my opponents to cast me as a free-trade obstructionist. I remind them that until today, I have never voted against a free-trade agreement on the floor of the Senate. The principles of fair trade, which I support, generally bring about increased democracy, more transparency in Government and increased productivity. Along these lines, there are industries in Wyoming that communicated their support of CAFTA to me. I am pleased the agreement will improve market access for important industries, such as soda ash and oil and gas. I recognize the benefits this agreement will bring to many and applaud the administration for their hard work in bringing this agreement to fruition. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for the agreement today because the costs outweigh the benefits for my State as a whole.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Former President Jimmy Carter states: If the United States Congress were to turn its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and make it harder for them to cooperate with the United States. I do not think there has been any American President that has reached out more fully to the rest of the world with more humanitarian work and more concern about human rights and labor rights than Jimmy Carter. I understand several of my colleagues believe labor and environmental provisions of the agreement fall short of what is needed to protect workers' rights and the natural resources of the CAFTA countries. I think free-trade advocates often make the mistake of arguing that these agreements are a panacea for the ills of the developing world, including lax labor and environmental standards. I certainly do not believe that. The passage of the CAFTA alone will not bring labor and environmental standards and the capacity to enforce those standards up to United States levels. We have to admit that. But--and I say ``but''--combined with a robust assistance package to help the CAFTA countries identify shortcomings and improve the enforcement of their laws, this agreement will mark an important step in the right direction. This is not about sacrificing the rights of workers and the protection of the environment for open markets and increased trade. We can provide new opportunities for American and Central American goods and services and establish programs to help those countries raise their labor standards. What Senator Bingaman said when he came to the floor is very constructive. I give him a great deal of credit and credit to the administration. This is the first trade treaty I can remember when they have been open to change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent just 5 additional minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate upstairs on television. I thought I might come down and indicate the reasons I am going to vote for this Central American Free Trade Agreement. This agreement has sparked a great deal of debate about our trade agenda, the effects of trade agreements on labor rights and the environment, and the impact of increased imports on sensitive domestic industries. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, including members of my own party, who do not support this agreement. For me, I have always approached these agreements on a case-by-case basis. I have supported some, and I have opposed others. For example, I opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Singapore-Chile Free Trade Agreement. I opposed NAFTA because of the concerns about the impact of jobs and the environment, and I opposed the Chile-Singapore Free Trade Agreement because of the inclusion of immigration provisions. But in my view, this is an important opportunity for this Congress to go on record in support of economic growth and political stability in these countries and new markets and opportunities for our manufacturers and farmers. Bottom line, this agreement provides immediate benefits for American exports. It balances an uneven trading relationship. Some have said this, but I do not think it has sunk in: approximately 80 percent of goods manufactured in these countries and 99 percent of their agricultural products already enter the United States duty free. But America's exports into these countries face stiff tariffs on a number of key products. Let me give some examples. Wood products have an average tariff of 10 percent; motor vehicles and parts, an average of 11.1 percent; vegetables, fruits, and nuts, an average of 16.7 percent--that is today--dairy products, an average of 19.5 percent and up to 60 percent in some cases. In some cases, to send dairy products into these countries, they face a tariff of 60 percent; grains, an average tariff of 10.6 percent; beef, up to 30 percent; rice, up to 60 percent; and wine is as high as 35 percent. Upon enactment of this agreement, 80 percent of U.S. industrial exports will enter the CAFTA countries duty free, with the remaining tariffs eliminated over 10 years. That is good for us. That is good for our workers because in these industries it will produce more jobs. Fifty percent of agricultural exports become duty free immediately, with remaining tariffs eliminated over 15 and 20 years. A World Bank and University of Michigan study estimates that with the agreement, U.S. income will rise by $17 billion and the income of CAFTA countries by $5 billion. I think that is substantial. According to the American Farm Bureau, CAFTA would increase U.S. agricultural exports by $1.5 billion annually. Now let me just talk about my own State of California. It has often been said we are the fifth largest economic engine on Earth. We have a $1.4 trillion economy. We are a leader in U.S. and global markets, with products ranging from high tech to agriculture. Our workers, our farmers, and our businesses need access to new and expanding markets to sustain that leadership position. In 2004, my State exports to the CAFTA countries totaled $660 million. That was the sixth largest of the 50 States. Manufactured goods accounted for 89 percent of the total, including computers and electronic equipment, fabric mill products, and coal products. CAFTA will provide significant opportunities for several California export industries. Let me go over them. Let us take dairy, for example. California's producers represent a $4 billion dairy industry. We know it is the largest in the Nation. Their exports face duties as high as 60 percent today. Each country in this agreement establishes tariff rate quotas for certain dairy products totaling 10,000 metric tons across the six CAFTA countries. Access will increase by 5 percent a year for the Central American countries and 10 percent a year for the Dominican Republic, and all duties will be eliminated over 20 years. Beef: Current duties on beef are as high as 30 percent. Duties on prime and choice cuts will be eliminated immediately in the Central American countries. Duties on other beef products will be phased out over 5 to 10 years. Wine: Current duties on American wine are as high as 35 percent. Duties on standard size U.S. bottled wine will be eliminated immediately. All others will be phased out over 15 years. Rice: Currently, U.S. rice exports face tariffs of up to 60 percent. Under the agreement, each country will establish a tariff rate quota for milled rice and rough rice, except for the Dominican Republic, which will have a tariff rate quota for brown rice. In the first year, 400,000 metric tons will be imported duty free, growing as the tariff is eventually eliminated. Fruits: Duties of up to 20 percent on U.S. grapes, raisins, fresh and canned peaches, and fresh and canned pears will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of the agreement. Tree nuts: Duties of up to 20 percent on U.S. walnuts, almonds, and pistachios will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of the agreement. Services: The agreement provides broad market access and regulatory transparency for telecommunications, insurance, financial services, distribution services, computer and business technology services, and tourism, among others. U.S. financial service suppliers will have full rights to establish subsidiaries, joint ventures or branches for banks and insurance companies. High tech: The agreement eliminates distribution barriers for information technology products. It requires countries to eliminate information technology tariffs by signing the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement, and it opens up information technology services. All exports of products covered by the Information Technology Agreement, including computer equipment and communications equipment, will receive immediate duty-free treatment. Entertainment: California is a big entertainment State, and this is very important. The agreement provides for increased market access for U.S. films and television programs through cable, satellite, and the Internet. Currently, movies face tariffs ranging from 5 to 20 percent. Compact discs and DVDs face tariffs of up to 10 percent. The agreement provides for zero tariffs on movies, music, consumer products, software, books and magazines, and nondiscriminatory treatment for digital products such as U.S. software, music, text, and videos. It also includes protections for U.S. trademarks, copyrighted works, patents, trade secrets, and penalties for piracy and counterfeiting. As a matter of fact, Peter Chernin, the CEO and president of the Fox Group, said this: This agreement sets a template for what agreements should look like. Textiles: Apparel from garment factories in Central America supporting 400,000 jobs will be duty free and quota free in the United States if they contain U.S. fabric and yarn, thus benefiting U.S. fabric and yarn exports. The CAFTA countries are the largest market for U.S. apparel and yarn exports. That is $2.2 billion in 2003. Tariffs on U.S. textile exports are currently 18 percent, and they will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of the agreement. Now, these are all win-win-win for my State and I believe for the United States. Perhaps because of the NAFTA agreement, which was a very different agreement, people look at this agreement as they looked at NAFTA. In fact, CAFTA countries now export most of their products into the United States at no tariff, and most of our products face tariffs which would either be eliminated immediately or eliminated over a period of time under CAFTA. So I do not think it should come as any surprise that there is very wide support among California businesses, farmers, and agricultural organizations: the Farm Bureau, the Wine Institute, the United Dairymen, the Rice Commission, the Cattlemen's Association, the Pork Producers, the Table Grape Commission. In high tech, virtually every company: Cisco, Intel, National Semiconductor, Apple, Oracle, Hewlett- Packard, Qualcomm, IBM, Kodak, and the Telecommunications Industry of America. This is opening markets for our products. Entertainment: the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of America, the Independent Film and Television Alliance, and the Entertainment Software Association. As the New York Times stated in an editorial: Denying poor people in Central America the benefits of better access to the American market is certainly not the way to lift them out of poverty. That is the flip side of this, that by creating an agreement that reduces these tariffs on American products, a more competitive and higher quality marketplace is produced for citizens of these countries, and that is not bad. Denying these countries access to the U.S. market is certainly not the way to reward them for advances made in the area of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Twenty years ago, these countries were marred by constant warfare, human rights abuses, poverty, and political instability. Since then, they have all made enormous strides, and passage of CAFTA will not only promote economic development and rising standards of living by allowing their products to compete in the U.S. market, it will also lock in economic reforms, respect for the rule of law, and solidify democratic institutions. Each country now has a democratically elected leader, and I think we should reward those allies and not turn our backs on them. I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from former President Jimmy Carter printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes and that the time be charged under the control of Senator Grassley.