Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce a bill to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our neediest students. Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of low-income students, from preschool to high school. It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since its inception in 1965. Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail. This lack of federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States scramble to comply with the Title I accountability standards established in ``No Child Left Behind.'' While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States as possible. In my view, as it relates to Title I, we have not lived up to our end of the bargain. During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill. Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds was inserted. In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures. What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small amount, no more than 13 percent, of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.'' Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration. Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report. You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide-- became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report. The report highlights two concerns that I have with the absence of universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds. The government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low-income students are being met. My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country. Current law on Title I is much too vague. It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.'' Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too nebulous. The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used. Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting. I believe we should give the Department, states and districts a clearer guidance in law. This legislation does the following: defines Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Sets a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensures that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of Title I funds received for indirect instructional services. By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I distribution. Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all states can apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide. Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school. Providing instructional services to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. Professional development. Developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments. Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs. Buying food. Paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development. My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that states must use their limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service. I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them. If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens. It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is only 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools. That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve. Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic achievement. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that important goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA. I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. In the seventeen years that the Plascencias have been here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country fifteen days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to fire their attorney for gross incompetence, secure competent counsel, and file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken. For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States. First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family and devotion to community. Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 13 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.'' Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, improved her skills and became a medical assistant. For four years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.'' The physicians themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions effectively.'' Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want to send their children to college and give them an even better life. This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community. Christina, 13, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student with a 3.0 grade-point average at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno. Erika, 9, and Alfredo, Jr., 7, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, last year, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Recently, Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.'' The Plascencia's youngest child is 2-year-old Daisy. Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be most tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to alter their lives dramatically. It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life. The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make. Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be the printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. Today, 144 million Americans utilize credit cards and charge more debt on those cards than ever before. In 1990, Americans charged $338 billion on credit cards. By 2003, that number had risen to $1.5 trillion. Many Americans now own multiple credit cards. In 2003, 841 million bank-issued credit cards were in circulation in the U.S. That number becomes nearly 1.4 billion credit cards, when cards issued by stores and oil companies are factored in. That's an average of 5 credit cards per person. The proliferation of credit cards can be traced, in part, to a dramatic increase in credit card solicitation. In 1993, credit card companies sent 1.52 billion solicitations to American homes; in 2001, they sent over 5 billion. As one would expect, the increase in credit cards has also yielded an increase in credit card debt. Individuals get 6, 7, or 8 different credit cards, pay only the minimum payment required, and many end up drowning in debt. That happens in case after case. Since 1990, the debt that Americans carry on credit cards has more than tripled, going from about $238 billion in 1990 to $755 billion in 2004. As a result, the average American household now has about $7,300 of credit card debt. As has been discussed much in this Congress, the number of personal bankruptcies has doubled since 1990. Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who utilize credit cards. These cards are enormously attractive. However, these individual credit card holders receive no information on the impact of compounding interest. They pay just the minimum payment. They pay it for 1 year, 2 years--they make additional purchases, they get another card, and another, and another. Unfortunately, these individuals making the minimum payment are witnessing the ugly side of the ``Miracle of Compound Interest.'' After 2 or 3 years, many find that the interest on the debt is such that they can never repay these cards, and do not know what to do about it. Statistics vary about the number of individuals who make only the minimum payments. One study determined that 35 million pay only the minimum on their credit cards. In a recent poll, 40 percent of respondents said that they pay the minimum or slightly more. What is certain is that many Americans pay only the minimum, and that paying only the minimum has harsh financial consequences. I suspect that most people would be surprised to know how I much interest can pile up when paying the minimum. Take the average household, with $7,300 of credit card debt, and the average credit card interest rate, which in April, before the most recent Federal Reserve Board increase of the prime rate, was 16.75 percent. If only the 2 percent minimum payment is made, it will take them 44 years and $23,373.90 to pay off the card. And that is if the family doesn't spend another cent on their credit cards--an unlikely assumption. In other words, the family will need to pay over $16,000 in interest to repay just $7,300 of principal. For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 16.75 percent interest rate will take 58 years and $65,415.28 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made. And 16.25 is percent only the average interest rate. The prime rate, despite recent increases, remains relatively low--at 6 percent. However, interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon. In fact, among the 10 banks that are the largest issuers of credit cards, the top interest rates on credit cards are between 23 and 31 percent--and that does not factor in various penalties and fees. When penalty interest rates are factored in, the highest rates are 41 percent. In 1990, the highest interest rate--even with penalties, was 22 percent, a little more than half of what they are today. Even if we assume only a 20 percent interest rate, a family that has the average debt of $7,300 at a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need an incredible 76 years and $41,884 to pay off that initial $7,300 of debt. That's $34,584 in interest payments-- more than 4 times the original debt. And these examples are far from extreme. Moreover, these are not merely statistics, but are reflective of very real situations for many people. On March 6, the Washington Post ran a headline story on its front page, entitled ``Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors.'' I would recommend this article to my colleagues, because it illustrates part of the problem--that credit card companies, aggressively marketing their products, end up charging outrageous interest and fees to their customers. I ask unanimous consent that the article be included in the Record. The article highlighted the following stories: Ohio resident, Ruth Owens tried for 6 years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28. Virginia resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill increased to $5,357 in 2 years, even though McCarthy has used the card for only $218.16 in purchases and has made monthly payments totaling $3,058. Special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini, from my state of California, worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt. Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time she filed for bankruptcy last June. Unfortunately, these stories are not unique. Part of the problem goes back to changes made in the credit card industry. For a long time, most banks required their customers to pay 5 percent of their credit card balance every month. That was before Andrew Kahr, a credit card industry consultant, got involved. Mr. Kahr realized that if customers were able to pay less, they would borrow more, and he convinced his clients that they should reduce the minimum payment to just 2 percent. The PBS program ``Frontline'', ran a program in November of last year titled ``The Secret History of the Credit Card'' that examined the rapid growth of the credit card industry and included an interview with Mr. Kahr. Mr. Kahr's innovation has been a windfall for the credit card industry. If consumers are paying a lower percentage of their balance as the minimum payment, the credit card companies will make more money over time. In fact, many in the industry refer to individuals who pay their credit card bills in full as ``deadbeats'', because they are less profitable than individuals who carry large balances, who are known as ``revolvers.'' And Mr. Kahr's own research showed that just making the minimum payment eased consumers' anxiety about carrying large amounts of credit card debt--they believe they are still being financially prudent. The bill I am proposing speaks directly to those types of consumers. There will always be people who cannot afford to pay more than their minimum payments. But, there are also a large number of consumers who can afford to pay more but feel comfortable paying the minimum payment because they don't realize the consequences of doing so. Now I am certainly not trying to demonize credit cards or the credit card industry. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life. However, I do think that people should understand the dangers of paying only their monthly minimums. In this way individuals will be able to act responsibly. It's not necessarily that people don't understand the basics of interest. Most of us just don't realize how fast it compounds or how important it is to do the math to find out what it means to pay a minimum requirement. The bottom line is that for many consumers, the 2 percent minimum payment is a financial trap. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information. The bill tracks the language of the amendment originally proposed to the Bankruptcy bill that was co-sponsored by Senator Kyl, Senator Brownback, and myself. Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do. It would require credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement: 1. A notice warning credit card holders that making only the minimum payment each month will increase the interest they pay and the amount of time it takes to repay their debt; and 2. Examples of the amount of time and money required to repay a credit card debt if only minimum payments are made; OR if the consumer makes only minimum payments for six-consecutive months, the amount of time and money required to repay the individual's specific credit card debt, under the terms of their credit card agreement. The bill would also require that a toll free number be included on statements that consumers can call to get an estimate of the time and money required to repay their balance, if only minimum payments are made. And, if the consumer makes only minimum payments for six consecutive months, they will receive a toll free number to an accredited credit counseling service. The disclosure requirements in this bill would only apply if the I consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card, or if their balance is greater than $500. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement. The language of this bill comes from a California law, the ``California Credit Card Payment Warning Act,'' passed in 2001. Unfortunately, in 2002, this California law was struck down in U.S. District Court as being preempted by the 1968 Truth in Lending Act. The Truth in Lending Act was enacted in part because Congress found that, ``The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost of thereof by consumers.'' Consequently, this bill would amend the Truth in Lending Act, and would also further its core purpose. These disclosures allow consumers to know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and only make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment. The disclosure required by this bill is straightforward how much it will cost to pay off the debt if only minimum payments are made, and how long it will take to do it. As for expense, my staff tells me that on the website Cardweb.com, there is a free interest calculator that does these calculations in under a second. Moreover, I am told that banks make these calculations internally to determine credit risk. The expense would be minimal. Percentage rates and balances are constantly changing and each month, the credit card companies are able to assess the minimum payment, late fees, over-the-limit fees and finance charges for millions of accounts. If the credit card companies can put in their bills what the minimum monthly payment is, they can certainly figure out how to disclose to their customers how much it might cost them if they stick to that minimum payment. The credit card industry is the most profitable sector of banking, and last year it made $30 billion in profits. MBNA's profits alone last year were one-and-a-half times that of McDonald's. Citibank was more profitable than Microsoft and Walmart. I don't think they should have any trouble implementing the requirements of this bill. I believe that this is extraordinarily important and that it will minimize bankruptcies. With companies charging very substantial interest rates, they have an obligation to let the credit card holder know what those minimum payments really mean. I have people close to me I have watched, with 6 or 7 credit cards, and it is impossible for them, over the next 10 or 15 years, to pay off the debt if they continue making just minimum payments. We now have a bankruptcy bill that has passed into law. I continue to believe that a bill requiring a limited but meaningful disclosure by credit cards companies is a necessary accompaniment. I think you will have people who are more cautious, which I believe is good for the bankruptcy courts in terms of reducing their caseloads, and also good for American consumers. The credit card debt problem facing our Nation is significant. I believe that this bill is an important step in providing individuals with the information needed to act responsibly, and it does so with a minimal burden on the industry. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA. I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. In the seventeen years that the Plascencias have been here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country fifteen days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to fire their attorney for gross incompetence, secure competent counsel, and file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken. For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States. First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family and devotion to community. Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 13 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.'' Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, improved her skills and became a medical assistant. For four years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.'' The physicians themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions effectively.'' Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want to send their children to college and give them an even better life. This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community. Christina, 13, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student with a 3.0 grade-point average at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno. Erika, 9, and Alfredo, Jr., 7, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, last year, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Recently, Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.'' The Plascencia's youngest child is 2-year-old Daisy. Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be most tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to alter their lives dramatically. It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life. The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make. Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be the printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. Today, 144 million Americans utilize credit cards and charge more debt on those cards than ever before. In 1990, Americans charged $338 billion on credit cards. By 2003, that number had risen to $1.5 trillion. Many Americans now own multiple credit cards. In 2003, 841 million bank-issued credit cards were in circulation in the U.S. That number becomes nearly 1.4 billion credit cards, when cards issued by stores and oil companies are factored in. That's an average of 5 credit cards per person. The proliferation of credit cards can be traced, in part, to a dramatic increase in credit card solicitation. In 1993, credit card companies sent 1.52 billion solicitations to American homes; in 2001, they sent over 5 billion. As one would expect, the increase in credit cards has also yielded an increase in credit card debt. Individuals get 6, 7, or 8 different credit cards, pay only the minimum payment required, and many end up drowning in debt. That happens in case after case. Since 1990, the debt that Americans carry on credit cards has more than tripled, going from about $238 billion in 1990 to $755 billion in 2004. As a result, the average American household now has about $7,300 of credit card debt. As has been discussed much in this Congress, the number of personal bankruptcies has doubled since 1990. Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who utilize credit cards. These cards are enormously attractive. However, these individual credit card holders receive no information on the impact of compounding interest. They pay just the minimum payment. They pay it for 1 year, 2 years--they make additional purchases, they get another card, and another, and another. Unfortunately, these individuals making the minimum payment are witnessing the ugly side of the ``Miracle of Compound Interest.'' After 2 or 3 years, many find that the interest on the debt is such that they can never repay these cards, and do not know what to do about it. Statistics vary about the number of individuals who make only the minimum payments. One study determined that 35 million pay only the minimum on their credit cards. In a recent poll, 40 percent of respondents said that they pay the minimum or slightly more. What is certain is that many Americans pay only the minimum, and that paying only the minimum has harsh financial consequences. I suspect that most people would be surprised to know how I much interest can pile up when paying the minimum. Take the average household, with $7,300 of credit card debt, and the average credit card interest rate, which in April, before the most recent Federal Reserve Board increase of the prime rate, was 16.75 percent. If only the 2 percent minimum payment is made, it will take them 44 years and $23,373.90 to pay off the card. And that is if the family doesn't spend another cent on their credit cards--an unlikely assumption. In other words, the family will need to pay over $16,000 in interest to repay just $7,300 of principal. For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 16.75 percent interest rate will take 58 years and $65,415.28 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made. And 16.25 is percent only the average interest rate. The prime rate, despite recent increases, remains relatively low--at 6 percent. However, interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon. In fact, among the 10 banks that are the largest issuers of credit cards, the top interest rates on credit cards are between 23 and 31 percent--and that does not factor in various penalties and fees. When penalty interest rates are factored in, the highest rates are 41 percent. In 1990, the highest interest rate--even with penalties, was 22 percent, a little more than half of what they are today. Even if we assume only a 20 percent interest rate, a family that has the average debt of $7,300 at a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need an incredible 76 years and $41,884 to pay off that initial $7,300 of debt. That's $34,584 in interest payments-- more than 4 times the original debt. And these examples are far from extreme. Moreover, these are not merely statistics, but are reflective of very real situations for many people. On March 6, the Washington Post ran a headline story on its front page, entitled ``Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors.'' I would recommend this article to my colleagues, because it illustrates part of the problem--that credit card companies, aggressively marketing their products, end up charging outrageous interest and fees to their customers. I ask unanimous consent that the article be included in the Record. The article highlighted the following stories: Ohio resident, Ruth Owens tried for 6 years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28. Virginia resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill increased to $5,357 in 2 years, even though McCarthy has used the card for only $218.16 in purchases and has made monthly payments totaling $3,058. Special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini, from my state of California, worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt. Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time she filed for bankruptcy last June. Unfortunately, these stories are not unique. Part of the problem goes back to changes made in the credit card industry. For a long time, most banks required their customers to pay 5 percent of their credit card balance every month. That was before Andrew Kahr, a credit card industry consultant, got involved. Mr. Kahr realized that if customers were able to pay less, they would borrow more, and he convinced his clients that they should reduce the minimum payment to just 2 percent. The PBS program ``Frontline'', ran a program in November of last year titled ``The Secret History of the Credit Card'' that examined the rapid growth of the credit card industry and included an interview with Mr. Kahr. Mr. Kahr's innovation has been a windfall for the credit card industry. If consumers are paying a lower percentage of their balance as the minimum payment, the credit card companies will make more money over time. In fact, many in the industry refer to individuals who pay their credit card bills in full as ``deadbeats'', because they are less profitable than individuals who carry large balances, who are known as ``revolvers.'' And Mr. Kahr's own research showed that just making the minimum payment eased consumers' anxiety about carrying large amounts of credit card debt--they believe they are still being financially prudent. The bill I am proposing speaks directly to those types of consumers. There will always be people who cannot afford to pay more than their minimum payments. But, there are also a large number of consumers who can afford to pay more but feel comfortable paying the minimum payment because they don't realize the consequences of doing so. Now I am certainly not trying to demonize credit cards or the credit card industry. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life. However, I do think that people should understand the dangers of paying only their monthly minimums. In this way individuals will be able to act responsibly. It's not necessarily that people don't understand the basics of interest. Most of us just don't realize how fast it compounds or how important it is to do the math to find out what it means to pay a minimum requirement. The bottom line is that for many consumers, the 2 percent minimum payment is a financial trap. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information. The bill tracks the language of the amendment originally proposed to the Bankruptcy bill that was co-sponsored by Senator Kyl, Senator Brownback, and myself. Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do. It would require credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement: 1. A notice warning credit card holders that making only the minimum payment each month will increase the interest they pay and the amount of time it takes to repay their debt; and 2. Examples of the amount of time and money required to repay a credit card debt if only minimum payments are made; OR if the consumer makes only minimum payments for six-consecutive months, the amount of time and money required to repay the individual's specific credit card debt, under the terms of their credit card agreement. The bill would also require that a toll free number be included on statements that consumers can call to get an estimate of the time and money required to repay their balance, if only minimum payments are made. And, if the consumer makes only minimum payments for six consecutive months, they will receive a toll free number to an accredited credit counseling service. The disclosure requirements in this bill would only apply if the I consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card, or if their balance is greater than $500. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement. The language of this bill comes from a California law, the ``California Credit Card Payment Warning Act,'' passed in 2001. Unfortunately, in 2002, this California law was struck down in U.S. District Court as being preempted by the 1968 Truth in Lending Act. The Truth in Lending Act was enacted in part because Congress found that, ``The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost of thereof by consumers.'' Consequently, this bill would amend the Truth in Lending Act, and would also further its core purpose. These disclosures allow consumers to know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and only make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment. The disclosure required by this bill is straightforward how much it will cost to pay off the debt if only minimum payments are made, and how long it will take to do it. As for expense, my staff tells me that on the website Cardweb.com, there is a free interest calculator that does these calculations in under a second. Moreover, I am told that banks make these calculations internally to determine credit risk. The expense would be minimal. Percentage rates and balances are constantly changing and each month, the credit card companies are able to assess the minimum payment, late fees, over-the-limit fees and finance charges for millions of accounts. If the credit card companies can put in their bills what the minimum monthly payment is, they can certainly figure out how to disclose to their customers how much it might cost them if they stick to that minimum payment. The credit card industry is the most profitable sector of banking, and last year it made $30 billion in profits. MBNA's profits alone last year were one-and-a-half times that of McDonald's. Citibank was more profitable than Microsoft and Walmart. I don't think they should have any trouble implementing the requirements of this bill. I believe that this is extraordinarily important and that it will minimize bankruptcies. With companies charging very substantial interest rates, they have an obligation to let the credit card holder know what those minimum payments really mean. I have people close to me I have watched, with 6 or 7 credit cards, and it is impossible for them, over the next 10 or 15 years, to pay off the debt if they continue making just minimum payments. We now have a bankruptcy bill that has passed into law. I continue to believe that a bill requiring a limited but meaningful disclosure by credit cards companies is a necessary accompaniment. I think you will have people who are more cautious, which I believe is good for the bankruptcy courts in terms of reducing their caseloads, and also good for American consumers. The credit card debt problem facing our Nation is significant. I believe that this bill is an important step in providing individuals with the information needed to act responsibly, and it does so with a minimal burden on the industry. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Corzine, Schumer, Clinton and Senator Nelson of Florida. It is time that Congress ensures that funding to bolster the security of our nation goes to where the threat is the greatest. Unfortunately, billions of dollars in homeland security funds to states and local communities--including $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2005--are now being distributed to areas that are not at the greatest risk of terrorist attack. To do this, we need to adopt risk-based analysis to determine where our homeland security funding goes, rather than continue with the present system of ad hoc determinations, ``small-state minimums'' and poorly understood decision-making, that leave some targets exposed to threats while sending resources to places where there is little chance of terrorist attack. This legislation will ensure that priorities are set according to analysis of risk and threat. Specifically it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate funding to homeland security grants based on risk analysis. This is the core of the bill, and I believe it is so important that I will quote in full the operative language, which appears in the very first substantive section of the legislation: ``The Secretary shall ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable.'' This direction covers the four major first-responder grant programs administered by Department of Homeland Security in addition to grants for seaport and airport security--called ``covered grants'' in the bill, including: 1. the State Homeland Security Grant Program; 2. the Urban Area Security Initiative; 3. the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and 4. the Citizens Corps Program. Reduces the ``small state minimum'' to 25 percent per State. Current practice requires each state to get .75 percent of much of the grant funding. That means 37.5 percent of the funds are marked for distribution before any risk analysis. Requires grants be designed to meet ``essential capabilities.'' Essential capabilities are what we get for the money spent--the ability to address the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and by diminishing the consequences of such an attack by effective response. Ensures that States quickly and effectively pass on Federal funds to where they are needed so that Federal funds are not held back. The bottom line is this: if Federal funds are going to be distributed to improve our national ability to ``prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks,'' those funds should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis. In this post-Cold War world of asymmetric threat there are two fundamental principles we should apply to efforts to make our nation more secure against a terrorist attack: the first is that understanding and predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis. It is an uncomfortable fact that, even with the best intelligence, we will never know exactly how, when and where terrorists will strike--the best we can do is try to assess risks and threats, and make predictions. The second principle is that our defense resources are finite. The total amount of money, time and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited. That means tough choices have to be made by both the Congress, and by Executive Branch officials at the Federal, State and Local level. Together these two principles define what we need to do for our Nation: accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist attacks; measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, and then allocate our resources based on that assessment. Three years ago, we created the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to create an institution that could perform this task. The core element of the new Department was to be the Information Assessment and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, which would ``merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings and take preventive and protective action.'' We are failing in this effort. The 9/11 Commission agreed, finding that ``nothing has been harder for officials--executive or legislative than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources.'' The Commission concluded, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' This bill does just that. The New York Times, an editorial published last month, titled ``Real Security, or Politics as Usual?'' agreed: Any terrorist who has followed how domestic security money is distributed in this country must be encouraged by the government's ineptness . . . The current formula is based in part on population, rather than risk, and contains state minimums, so even sparsely populated states that hardly have a plausible terrorism target are raking in money. This is the formula that gave Wyoming seven times more domestic security money per capita than New York . . . If there were a successful attack on Wall Street or the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, it would be a blow to the whole nation. Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is not parochialism; it is defending America. Despite these recommendations, we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security. For instance, Congress has established a ``small State minimum'' designed to ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability. As a result, in fiscal year 2004 Wyoming spent $37.52 per capita with homeland security grants, while California and Texas spent $8.75 and $6.93 respectively. The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's report found that in the critical area of port security, grants are ``not well coordinated with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.'' The result is the ``funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores.'' A recently issued report from the Center for Security Studies and the Heritage Foundation found that there is: no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and divorced from politics . . . [w]ith only limited resources available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting the entire United States . . . it is critical that we set priorities. This bill is a first step to reducing threats of terrorist attack, but Congress can not do it alone. The Department of Homeland Security must embrace not only the concept of risk-based allocation, but also the practical aspects of the discipline. That means improving the intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessment functions of the Department. We also need to follow through on last year's intelligence reform efforts, since the product of the Intelligence Community--analysis of the plans, intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups--is the key element in an effective risk analysis. This will not be easy. There are lots of vested interests who will oppose such efforts. But our nation's safety is at sake. It is time to put aside pork-barrel politics and a Cold War mentality and get to work. Last year Representatives Cox and Turner, the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the other body's Homeland Security Committee put forth similar legislation. That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the Intelligence Reform Bill, but was dropped at conference--that bill has been reintroduced, and is scheduled for consideration on the floor of the House this week. This bill is based on Chairman Cox's efforts, and with a few exceptions tracks it closely. However, unlike the House bill, this bill makes an across-the-board reduction of the small-State minimum to .25 percent--the House bill retains a sliding scale that I believe will have the effect of undercutting its risk-based approach. In this body, Senators Collins and Lieberman have been working to craft risk-based legislation, which was recently reported favorably by the Senate Homeland Security Committee. I hope that the bill introduced today will be accepted by Senators Collins and Lieberman in the spirit in which it was drafted--as a reasoned alternative to their approach, and as a starting point for further discussions. It is my hope that Congress will act quickly to pass this legislation. We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Corzine, Schumer, Clinton and Senator Nelson of Florida. It is time that Congress ensures that funding to bolster the security of our nation goes to where the threat is the greatest. Unfortunately, billions of dollars in homeland security funds to states and local communities--including $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2005--are now being distributed to areas that are not at the greatest risk of terrorist attack. To do this, we need to adopt risk-based analysis to determine where our homeland security funding goes, rather than continue with the present system of ad hoc determinations, ``small-state minimums'' and poorly understood decision-making, that leave some targets exposed to threats while sending resources to places where there is little chance of terrorist attack. This legislation will ensure that priorities are set according to analysis of risk and threat. Specifically it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate funding to homeland security grants based on risk analysis. This is the core of the bill, and I believe it is so important that I will quote in full the operative language, which appears in the very first substantive section of the legislation: ``The Secretary shall ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable.'' This direction covers the four major first-responder grant programs administered by Department of Homeland Security in addition to grants for seaport and airport security--called ``covered grants'' in the bill, including: 1. the State Homeland Security Grant Program; 2. the Urban Area Security Initiative; 3. the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and 4. the Citizens Corps Program. Reduces the ``small state minimum'' to 25 percent per State. Current practice requires each state to get .75 percent of much of the grant funding. That means 37.5 percent of the funds are marked for distribution before any risk analysis. Requires grants be designed to meet ``essential capabilities.'' Essential capabilities are what we get for the money spent--the ability to address the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and by diminishing the consequences of such an attack by effective response. Ensures that States quickly and effectively pass on Federal funds to where they are needed so that Federal funds are not held back. The bottom line is this: if Federal funds are going to be distributed to improve our national ability to ``prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks,'' those funds should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis. In this post-Cold War world of asymmetric threat there are two fundamental principles we should apply to efforts to make our nation more secure against a terrorist attack: the first is that understanding and predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis. It is an uncomfortable fact that, even with the best intelligence, we will never know exactly how, when and where terrorists will strike--the best we can do is try to assess risks and threats, and make predictions. The second principle is that our defense resources are finite. The total amount of money, time and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited. That means tough choices have to be made by both the Congress, and by Executive Branch officials at the Federal, State and Local level. Together these two principles define what we need to do for our Nation: accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist attacks; measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, and then allocate our resources based on that assessment. Three years ago, we created the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to create an institution that could perform this task. The core element of the new Department was to be the Information Assessment and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, which would ``merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings and take preventive and protective action.'' We are failing in this effort. The 9/11 Commission agreed, finding that ``nothing has been harder for officials--executive or legislative than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources.'' The Commission concluded, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' This bill does just that. The New York Times, an editorial published last month, titled ``Real Security, or Politics as Usual?'' agreed: Any terrorist who has followed how domestic security money is distributed in this country must be encouraged by the government's ineptness . . . The current formula is based in part on population, rather than risk, and contains state minimums, so even sparsely populated states that hardly have a plausible terrorism target are raking in money. This is the formula that gave Wyoming seven times more domestic security money per capita than New York . . . If there were a successful attack on Wall Street or the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, it would be a blow to the whole nation. Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is not parochialism; it is defending America. Despite these recommendations, we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security. For instance, Congress has established a ``small State minimum'' designed to ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability. As a result, in fiscal year 2004 Wyoming spent $37.52 per capita with homeland security grants, while California and Texas spent $8.75 and $6.93 respectively. The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's report found that in the critical area of port security, grants are ``not well coordinated with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.'' The result is the ``funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores.'' A recently issued report from the Center for Security Studies and the Heritage Foundation found that there is: no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and divorced from politics . . . [w]ith only limited resources available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting the entire United States . . . it is critical that we set priorities. This bill is a first step to reducing threats of terrorist attack, but Congress can not do it alone. The Department of Homeland Security must embrace not only the concept of risk-based allocation, but also the practical aspects of the discipline. That means improving the intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessment functions of the Department. We also need to follow through on last year's intelligence reform efforts, since the product of the Intelligence Community--analysis of the plans, intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups--is the key element in an effective risk analysis. This will not be easy. There are lots of vested interests who will oppose such efforts. But our nation's safety is at sake. It is time to put aside pork-barrel politics and a Cold War mentality and get to work. Last year Representatives Cox and Turner, the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the other body's Homeland Security Committee put forth similar legislation. That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the Intelligence Reform Bill, but was dropped at conference--that bill has been reintroduced, and is scheduled for consideration on the floor of the House this week. This bill is based on Chairman Cox's efforts, and with a few exceptions tracks it closely. However, unlike the House bill, this bill makes an across-the-board reduction of the small-State minimum to .25 percent--the House bill retains a sliding scale that I believe will have the effect of undercutting its risk-based approach. In this body, Senators Collins and Lieberman have been working to craft risk-based legislation, which was recently reported favorably by the Senate Homeland Security Committee. I hope that the bill introduced today will be accepted by Senators Collins and Lieberman in the spirit in which it was drafted--as a reasoned alternative to their approach, and as a starting point for further discussions. It is my hope that Congress will act quickly to pass this legislation. We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Hutchison, Durbin, Snowe, Leahy and Feingold to reintroduce the ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each year. We introduced this legislation last Congress, but it is just as needed today as it was then. Family abductions are the most common form of abduction, yet they receive little attention, and law enforcement often doesn't treat them as the serious crimes that they are. The Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005 would provide grants to States for costs associated with family abduction prevention. Specifically, it would assist States with: costs associated with the extradition of individuals suspected of committing the crime of family abduction; costs borne by State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate cases of missing children; training for local and State law enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions; outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions; and assistance to public schools to help with costs associated with ``flagging'' school records. Each year, over 200,000 children--78 percent of all abductions in the United States--are kidnapped by a family member, usually a non- custodial parent. More than half of abducting parents have a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record. Most State and local law enforcement agencies do not treat these abductions as serious crimes. Approximately 70 percent of law enforcement agencies do not have written guidelines on responding to family abduction and many are not informed about the Federal laws available to help in the search and recovery of an abducted child. Many people believe that a child is not in grave danger if the abductor is a family member. Unfortunately, this is not true, and this assumption can endanger a child's life. Research shows that the most common motive in family abduction cases is revenge against the other parent--not love for the child. The effects of family abduction on children are very traumatic. Abducted children suffer from severe separation anxiety. To break emotional ties with the left-behind parent, some family abductors will coach a child into falsely disclosing abuse by the other parent to perpetuate their control during or after abduction. The child is often told that the other parent is dead or did not really love them. As the child adapts to a fugitive's lifestyle, deception becomes a part of life. The child is taught to fear those that one would normally trust, such as police, doctors, teachers and counselors. Even after recovery, the child often has a difficult time growing into adulthood. Let me give an illustrative example about a girl named Rebekah. On Takeroot.org, a website devoted to victims of family abductions, Rebekah told the story of when her mother kidnapped her. Her mother was diagnosed as manic and was verbally abusive to her children and husband. Rebekah's father was awarded full custody of her and her brothers. However, one weekend, when Rebekah was 4-years-old, her mother took her to Texas. Her mother had all Rebekah's moles and distinguishing marks removed from her body and she had fake birth certificates made for Rebekah and herself. As Rebekah grew up, she was told that her father didn't love her and that her siblings didn't want to see her. When the FBI finally found Rebekah, she didn't remember her father and felt very alone. In addition, in many family abduction cases, children are given new identities at an age when they are still developing a sense of who they are. In extreme cases, the child's sexual identity is covered up to avoid detection. Abducting parents often deprive their children of education and much- needed medical attention to avoid the risk of being tracked via school or medical records. In some cases, the abducting parent leaves the child with strangers at an underground ``safe house'' where health, safety, and other basic needs are extremely compromised. For example, in Lafayette, CA, two girls were abducted by their mother and moved from house to house under the control of a convicted child molester. Kelli Nunez absconded with her daughters, 6-year-old Anna and 4-year-old Emily in violation of court custody orders. Nunez drove her daughters cross-country, and then returned by plane to San Francisco, where she handed the children to someone holding a coded sign at the airport. The person holding the sign belonged to an underground vigilante group called the California Family Law Center led by Florencio Maning, a convicted child molester. For six months, Maning orchestrated the concealment of the Nunez girls with help from other people. Luckily, police were able to track down the girls, and they were successfully reunited with their father. California has been the Nation's leader in fighting family abduction. In my State, we have a system that places the responsibility for the investigation and resolution of family abduction cases with the County District Attorney's Office. Each California County District Attorney's Office has an investigative unit that is focused on family abduction cases. These investigators only handle family abduction cases and become experts in the process. However, most States lack the training and resources to effectively recover children who are kidnapped by a family member. According to a study conducted by Plass, Finkelhor and Hotaling, 62 percent of parents surveyed said they were ``somewhat'' or ``very'' dissatisfied with police handling of their family abduction cases. The ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005'' would be an important first step in addressing this serious issue. I urge my colleagues to quickly act on this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Hutchison, Durbin, Snowe, Leahy and Feingold to reintroduce the ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each year. We introduced this legislation last Congress, but it is just as needed today as it was then. Family abductions are the most common form of abduction, yet they receive little attention, and law enforcement often doesn't treat them as the serious crimes that they are. The Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005 would provide grants to States for costs associated with family abduction prevention. Specifically, it would assist States with: costs associated with the extradition of individuals suspected of committing the crime of family abduction; costs borne by State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate cases of missing children; training for local and State law enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions; outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions; and assistance to public schools to help with costs associated with ``flagging'' school records. Each year, over 200,000 children--78 percent of all abductions in the United States--are kidnapped by a family member, usually a non- custodial parent. More than half of abducting parents have a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record. Most State and local law enforcement agencies do not treat these abductions as serious crimes. Approximately 70 percent of law enforcement agencies do not have written guidelines on responding to family abduction and many are not informed about the Federal laws available to help in the search and recovery of an abducted child. Many people believe that a child is not in grave danger if the abductor is a family member. Unfortunately, this is not true, and this assumption can endanger a child's life. Research shows that the most common motive in family abduction cases is revenge against the other parent--not love for the child. The effects of family abduction on children are very traumatic. Abducted children suffer from severe separation anxiety. To break emotional ties with the left-behind parent, some family abductors will coach a child into falsely disclosing abuse by the other parent to perpetuate their control during or after abduction. The child is often told that the other parent is dead or did not really love them. As the child adapts to a fugitive's lifestyle, deception becomes a part of life. The child is taught to fear those that one would normally trust, such as police, doctors, teachers and counselors. Even after recovery, the child often has a difficult time growing into adulthood. Let me give an illustrative example about a girl named Rebekah. On Takeroot.org, a website devoted to victims of family abductions, Rebekah told the story of when her mother kidnapped her. Her mother was diagnosed as manic and was verbally abusive to her children and husband. Rebekah's father was awarded full custody of her and her brothers. However, one weekend, when Rebekah was 4-years-old, her mother took her to Texas. Her mother had all Rebekah's moles and distinguishing marks removed from her body and she had fake birth certificates made for Rebekah and herself. As Rebekah grew up, she was told that her father didn't love her and that her siblings didn't want to see her. When the FBI finally found Rebekah, she didn't remember her father and felt very alone. In addition, in many family abduction cases, children are given new identities at an age when they are still developing a sense of who they are. In extreme cases, the child's sexual identity is covered up to avoid detection. Abducting parents often deprive their children of education and much- needed medical attention to avoid the risk of being tracked via school or medical records. In some cases, the abducting parent leaves the child with strangers at an underground ``safe house'' where health, safety, and other basic needs are extremely compromised. For example, in Lafayette, CA, two girls were abducted by their mother and moved from house to house under the control of a convicted child molester. Kelli Nunez absconded with her daughters, 6-year-old Anna and 4-year-old Emily in violation of court custody orders. Nunez drove her daughters cross-country, and then returned by plane to San Francisco, where she handed the children to someone holding a coded sign at the airport. The person holding the sign belonged to an underground vigilante group called the California Family Law Center led by Florencio Maning, a convicted child molester. For six months, Maning orchestrated the concealment of the Nunez girls with help from other people. Luckily, police were able to track down the girls, and they were successfully reunited with their father. California has been the Nation's leader in fighting family abduction. In my State, we have a system that places the responsibility for the investigation and resolution of family abduction cases with the County District Attorney's Office. Each California County District Attorney's Office has an investigative unit that is focused on family abduction cases. These investigators only handle family abduction cases and become experts in the process. However, most States lack the training and resources to effectively recover children who are kidnapped by a family member. According to a study conducted by Plass, Finkelhor and Hotaling, 62 percent of parents surveyed said they were ``somewhat'' or ``very'' dissatisfied with police handling of their family abduction cases. The ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005'' would be an important first step in addressing this serious issue. I urge my colleagues to quickly act on this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his graciousness. I am pleased to serve on that committee. He has been nothing but fair always. That is very much appreciated. I would like to indicate my support for the supplemental appropriations. I do have concerns about the inclusion of the REAL ID Act in this bill, largely because it is the Judiciary Committee that is the committee of jurisdiction, and this very complicated act has not had the opportunity of a hearing or discussions or markup by members of that committee. That having been said, it is my intent to vote for the emergency supplemental. I wish to speak during the remainder of my time on the so-called nuclear option and the majority leader's intention to remove the ability of the minority party to filibuster judicial nominations. Judicial Nominations Mr. President, I speak today as a member of the Judiciary Committee for the past 12 years. In this capacity, I have worked with Members from both sides of the aisle and on nominations from both Democratic and Republican Presidents. In all, I voted to confirm 573 judges and have voted no on the Senate floor on 5 and voted against cloture on 11. I evaluate each candidate on a case-by-case basis and thoroughly examine their writings, opinions, statements, temperament, and character. The fact that Federal judges are lifetime appointments weighs heavily. They do not come and go with an administration, as do Cabinet appointments. Rather, they cannot be removed from the bench except in extremely rare circumstances. In fact, in our Government's over 200-year history, only 11 Federal judges have been impeached, and of those, only 2 since 1936. Over the years, we have had heated debates and strong disagreements over judicial nominees; however, that debate is what ensures the Senate confirms the best qualified candidates. I am deeply troubled when our legitimate differences over an individual's qualifications to be given a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench become reduced to inflammatory rhetoric. I am even more concerned when rhetoric turns into open discussion about breaking Senate rules and turning the Senate into a body where might makes right. I am here today because some Members on the other side of the aisle have decided that despite a constitution that is renowned worldwide and used as a model for emergent democracies, despite a confirmation rate of 95 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees, and despite the other pressing priorities that the American people want us to address, that the time has come to unravel our Government's fundamental principle of checks and balances. The majority has decided the time has come to unravel the Senate's traditional role of debate and that the time has come to break the rules and discard Senate precedent. I am very concerned about this strategy. It is important to remember that once done, once broken, it will be hard to limit and hard to reverse. In fact, just last month, Senator Coleman stated on CNN: The President has a right to make appointments. They are not to be filibustered. They deserve an up-or-down vote. That's true for any kind of appointee, whether it's Under Secretary of State or a judge. And this is exactly my point. First, the rules would be broken with regard to judicial nominees, then it is executive branch nominees, then it is legislation, and then the Senate has no rules at all and simply becomes a replication of the House of Representatives. Every Thursday morning, I have a constituent breakfast, and at that breakfast I describe the difference between the House and the Senate based on something George Washington once said, that the House moves rapidly, is controlled totally by the party in power, and is akin to a cup of coffee. You drink your coffee out of the cup, but if it is too hot, you pour it into the saucer to cool it. And that is the Senate, the greatest so-called deliberative body on Earth, a place that fosters debate, often unlimited, and is basically based on the fact that no legislation is better than bad legislation. So the Senate by design was created to be a very different house than is the House of Representatives. The strategy of a nuclear option will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken or changed at any time by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. As I said, this is not the Senate envisioned by our Founding Fathers, and it is not the Senate in which I have been proud to serve for the past 12 years. I think it is important to take a look at history, as others have done, to understand the context of where this debate is rooted. The Founding Fathers and our early Pilgrims were escaping a tyrannical government where the average man, the common man, often did not have a voice and was often left without any say in its laws that governed him and his family. In response, these men specifically embedded language in the Constitution to provide checks and balances so that inherent in our Government's design would be conflict and compromise, and it is precisely these checks and balances that have served to guarantee our freedoms for over 200 years. When you read the Federalist Papers, discussions at the Constitutional Convention, and about the experience of America's first President, it is clear the Senate was never intended to be a rubberstamp. While it is often difficult to discern the original intent of a constitutional provision, the records of the Convention address the role of the Senate in the selection of Federal judges with unusual clarity. Both the text of the appointments clause of the Constitution and the debates over its adoption strongly suggest that the Senate was expected to play an active and independent role in determining who should sit on the Nation's judiciary. Throughout its deliberations, the Convention contemplated that the National Legislature in some form or another would play a substantial role in the selection of Federal judges. As a matter of fact, on May 29, 1787, the Convention began its work on the Constitution by taking up the Virginia plan, which provided: That a National Judiciary be established . . . to be chosen by the National Legislature. Under this plan, the President was to have no role at all. One week later, James Madison modified the proposal so that the power of appointing judges would be given exclusively to the Senate rather than to the legislature as a whole. This motion was adopted without any objection. So the Senate had the entire authority. Then less than 2 weeks before the Convention's work was done, for the first time the committee's draft provided that the President should have a role in the selection of judges. However, giving the President the power to nominate judges was not seen as ousting the Senate from a central role. Governor Morris of Pennsylvania paraphrased the new provision as one giving the Senate the power to appoint judges nominated to them by the President. In other words, it was considered the Senate was the nomination body and the President simply recommended judges to the Senate. The Convention, having repeatedly and decisively rejected the idea that the President should have the exclusive power to select judges, could not possibly have intended to reduce the Senate to a rubber stamp, but rather it created a strong Senate role to protect the independence of the judiciary. In fact, Alexander Hamilton, considered the strongest defender of Presidential power, emphasized that the President would be required to have his choice for the bench submitted to an independent body for debate, a decision, and a vote, not simply an affirmation. He clarified the necessary involvement of the Senate in Federalist No. 77 by writing: . . . if by influencing the President be meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intended. Here is the emergence of a check, a balance, a leveling impact on the power of appointment, which is not to be unbridled. In 1776, John Adams also wrote on the specific need for an independent judiciary and checks and balances. He said: The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checked upon that . . . [The judges'] minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man or body of men. So it is clear, when examining the creation of our Constitution, that the Federal judiciary was specifically designed to be an independent, nonpartisan third branch, and the Senate was meant to play an active role in the selection process. In addition, the experience of President Washington in appointing judges illustrates that from the outset the Senate took an active role in evaluating judicial nominees. In 1795, President George Washington nominated John Rutledge to be Chief Justice. Soon after his nomination, Rutledge assailed the newly negotiated and popular Jay Treaty with Britain. Even as Rutledge functioned as Acting Chief Justice, the Senate debated his nomination for 5 months, and in December 1795 the body rejected him 14 to 10, illustrating from the first administration that the Senate has always enjoyed a strong prerogative to confirm or reject nominees. Now, use of procedural delays throughout history has prevented nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote. The claim that it is unprecedented to filibuster judicial nominations is simply untrue. In 1881, Republicans held a majority of seats in the Senate but were unable to end a filibuster to preclude a floor vote on President Rutherford B. Hayes's nomination of Senator Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court. Matthews was renominated by incoming President James Garfield, and after a bitter debate in the Senate, was confirmed by a vote of 24 to 23. This has been described as the first recorded instance in which the filibuster was clearly and unambiguously deployed to defeat a judicial nomination. Then, as has been stated on the Senate floor, there was the 1968 GOP- led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States. At the time, a page 1 Washington Post story declared: ``Fortas Debate Opens With a Filibuster.'' The article read: A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice. So here are two specific examples of Republican-led filibusters against judicial appointments. Last Congress, the Congressional Research Service reported that filibusters and cloture votes have been required to end debate on numerous judicial appointments. CRS reported that since 1980, cloture motions have been filed on 14 court of appeals and district court nominations. We all know a cloture vote is another kind of filibuster. It is the kind of filibuster where one does not have to stand up on the floor, but it takes the same 60 votes to close off debate. Moreover, cloture petitions were necessary in 2000 to obtain votes on the nominations of both Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit after Republican opponents repeatedly delayed action on them, for over 4 years in the case of Paez. In fact, at the time, Republican Senator Bob Smith openly declared he was leading a filibuster against Richard Paez and he described Senator Sessions as a member of his filibuster coalition. In addition to using the filibuster and other procedural delays, Republicans have publicly pronounced the importance of these rules and their own desire to delay or block the confirmation of judges. As recently as 1996, Senator Lott stated: The reason for the lack of action on the backlog of Clinton nominations was his steadily ringing office phone saying ``No more Clinton Federal judges.'' In 1996, Senator Craig said: There is a general feeling . . . that no more nominations should move. I think you'll see a progressive shutdown. In 1994, Senator Hatch stated that the filibuster is ``one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.'' How soon they forget. Recent Republican practices using anonymous holds allowing a single Senator, not 41, to prevent a hearing or a vote on a judicial nominee, in effect, has created a filibuster of one. All told, during the last administration, more than 60 judicial nominees suffered this fate. This practice was recently commented on in the Chicago Tribune which said: In addition, there are lots of congressional practices that defy majority rule. Under President Clinton, when Republicans controlled the Senate, they didn't have to use the filibuster to bottle up judicial nominations. The Judiciary Committee simply refused to send them to the floor for a vote. That is true. I know. I was there. Remembering this history is important, not to point fingers or justify a tit-for-tat policy; instead, it is important to recall that Senate rules have been used throughout our history by both parties to implement a strong Senate role and ensure that Presidents do not attempt to weaken the independence of the judiciary. The history is not new, and these examples have been cited by my colleagues in other contexts, and therefore, those on the other side have responded to the history. I believe it is important to address the differences that the other side is trying to draw. Some have argued that the nomination by President Hayes of Senator Matthews of Ohio was not a filibuster because there was no cloture vote. This is true, however, a procedural delay denying a nominee confirmation to a court still has the result blocking a nomination. Trying to make a distinction about the procedures used to deny a nominee confirmation is a distinction without a difference. As for the nomination of Abe Fortas--colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made various arguments including: that's only one isolated example; it was a Supreme Court, not a Circuit Court nominee; or Fortas' nomination was withdrawn after a failed cloture vote showed he did not have majority support and therefore its not the same situation. Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl both withdrew their nominations after failed cloture votes, however both were used as examples of filibusters by Democrats. Our colleagues have argued that the delays to the nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Bershon do not count because in the end they were confirmed. This ignores that it took over four years to confirm both nominees. In addition, if a party attempts to filibuster a nomination, or legislation, and it is eventually passed that does not mean it is not a filibuster. It simply means that the filibuster or refusal to grant cloture cannot be sustained. That has happened to both parties in a variety of situations. However, failure does not undo the effort. Finally, as to the other Clinton Administration nominees--the response given is that their nominations weren't defeated by a cloture vote on the floor. In essence the argument is because different procedural rules were used to defeat a nomination, it doesn't count. On its face, this argument doesn't hold water. To the nominee whether their confirmation failed because of a ``hold'' in Committee, or a failed cloture vote, the result is the same--they are not sitting on the bench. Dozens of Clinton's nominees were ``pocket filibustered'' by as little as one Senator who, in secret, prevented the nominees from receiving a hearing in Committee, or a mark-up, or a floor vote. One Senator without debate or reason has stopped many Clinton nominees. The question I have is whether the public interest is better served by one hidden filibuster without explanation, or 41 Senators debating publicly and refusing publicly to confirm the nominee. Clearly, it is the later. I would like to go over a few nominees from the last administration who have been filibustered by Republicans, and filibustered successfully on many occasions by as little a number as one Republican; filibustered in a way that it was secret; filibustered in a way that the individual never received a hearing or a markup in Judiciary or a vote on the Senate floor. Then I would like an answer to the question, which is better, a filibuster by 40 Members on the floor openly declared, publicly debating, discussing an individual's past speeches, an individual's temperament, character, opinions, or a filibuster in secret when one does not know who or why? I begin with Clarence Sundram. Clarence Sundram was the chairman of the New York Commission for the Mentally Disabled. He was nominated on September 29, 1995. He had hearings on July 31, 1996, and June 25, 1997. There was no committee vote. There was no floor vote. His nomination was simply killed in committee by a filibuster of one or two, or the chairman's decision not to bring the nomination to the floor. He was supported by both home State Senators Moynihan and D'Amato. On seven occasions, Senator Leahy spoke on the Senate floor urging that a vote be taken on Sundram, but no vote was ever taken. James A. Beaty, Jr., was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 22, 1995, and renominated on January 7, 1997. He did not receive a hearing and was not voted on in committee. His nomination languished for more than 1,000 days, almost 3 years without any action being taken. He was nominated by President Clinton to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. He was finally confirmed by the Senate in 1994. Before that, he spent 13 years as a judge in the North Carolina Superior Court. He was blocked by Senator Helms. On November 21, 1998, National Journal reported that Senator Helms wanted President Clinton to name to the Fourth Circuit one of the Senator's proteges, Terrence W. Boyle, whose nomination to that bench was killed when the Democrats ruled the Senate and George Bush was President, but the Clinton White House refused and Senator Helms made it clear that President Clinton would not get Beaty confirmed until he nominated Boyle. Then Senator Helms supported Beaty when he was nominated for his current position as a U.S. district court judge. But this shows how things worked, where one person could deny a nomination. Then there is Helene White from the State of Michigan. She was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on January 7, 1997, and renominated on January 26, 1999, and renominated for a third time on January 3, 2001. She did not receive a hearing or a committee vote during the pendency of her nomination. She had waited for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for 4 years, longer than any other judicial nominee in history, according to the Associated Press. She had been a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals. She served as a Wayne County circuit judge for nearly 10 years. She sat on the Common Pleas Court for the city of Detroit and served on the board of directors of the Michigan legal services. President Clinton thanked her for hanging in there through an ordeal that no one should have to endure. It is my understanding Senator Levin, one of the Michigan Senators, supported her. Senator Abraham waited 2 years before turning in his blue slip, and after turning in the blue slip did not endorse Ms. White. That, again, is how things worked. One person--not 41 people on the floor debating but 1 person--in secret holding up a nominee. That is just as much a filibuster, and even more effective a filibuster. Jorge Rangel was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 24, 1997. He did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee. He was a partner in Rangel & Chriss, a Corpus Christi law firm, and specialized in personal injury, libel, and general media litigation. He was presiding judge of the 347th District Court in Nueces County from October of 1983 to June of 1985, and a former assistant professor of law at the University of Houston. He was originally recommended to the White House by Senator Bob Krueger, but removed his name from consideration because, according to a July 25, 1997 Dallas Morning News article, he was then a member of the American Bar Association Panel that reviews federal court nominees, which made him ineligible. He was subsequently nominated after he was no longer on the ABA panel, at which time, Texas Monthly has reported, he was blocked by his two home state Senators. So, two persons there. Barry Goode was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1998, renominated January 26, 1999, and renominated a third time on January 3, 2001, just before President Clinton left office-- three tries. He waited for 2\1/2\ years without a hearing or a vote in committee. He was a partner at the time at the San Francisco law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen. He had practiced law since 1974. He was an adjunct professor of environmental law at the University of San Francisco and served 2 years as special assistant to Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III. The ABA rated him as qualified. He was supported by both myself and Senator Boxer. The reason for the block was an anonymous Republican who, to this day, is not known. Senator Leahy spoke at least eight times on the Senate floor, urging that Goode's nomination be considered, but a filibuster of one, hidden, in secret, nobody knowing who it was, essentially killed this nomination. Legrome Davis was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 30, 1998, and renominated on January 26, 1999. He did not receive a hearing or a vote from the Judiciary Committee during the nearly 2\1/2\ years his nomination was pending. President Bush renominated Davis to the same court at Senator Specter's request on January 23, 2002, and he was finally confirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate on April 18, 2002. But the point was he was stopped for nearly 2\1/2\ years by an unknown individual. Lynnette Norton was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 29, 1998, and renominated on January 26, 1999. She did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee during the more than 2\1/2\ years her nomination was pending. She died suddenly in March 2002 of a cerebral aneurysm. It is my understanding Senator Specter supported Norton. Senator Santorum, I believe, did not return the blue slip. According to a November 18, 1999 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, a hold was placed on Ms. Norton's nomination. H. Alston Johnson was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 22, 1999, and renominated on January 4, 2001. Despite waiting over a year and a half, he did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee. His nomination was withdrawn by President Bush on March 19, 2001. He was supported by both home State Senators, Senators Breaux and Landrieu. According to articles in the Baton Rouge Advocate on July 10, 2000, and January 8, 2001, it is my understanding an individual Senator blocked his nomination from proceeding, even though both Republicans and Democrats appeared willing to confirm him. James E. Duffy, Jr. was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 17, 1999, and renominated on January 3, 2001. He did not receive a hearing or vote in committee. He is from Honolulu, had been a litigator for his entire legal career, been a partner in the Honolulu law firm of Fujiyama, Duffy, and Fujiyama since 1975. He was former president of both the Hawaii State Bar and the Hawaii Trial Lawyers Association. He would have been the first active Hawaii member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 15 years, despite rules that at least 1 judge must sit in each of the States within the Ninth Circuit. He was unanimously rated as well qualified. He was supported by both Hawaii Senators. There has been no explanation forthcoming of who blocked his progress. Again, a secret hold, one person. Two home State Senators supporting this individual and the individual does not go forward. That is as much a filibuster as anything going on on the floor at this time. Elena Kagan was nominated to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on June 17, 1999. She did not receive a vote or a hearing in committee. She is currently the dean of Harvard Law School. She was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, former domestic adviser to President Bill Clinton when she was nominated. She was special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She served as Associate Counsel to the President from 1995 to 1996, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council from 1997 to 1999. Prior to that she was professor of law at the University of Chicago, tenured. She worked at the Washington, DC, law firm of Williams and Connolly, and she clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. A substantial majority of the ABA rated her qualified. A minority rated her well qualified. It is my understanding three Senators argued that the DC Circuit did not need any more judges, an argument that had been used to delay the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland between 1995 and 1997. See, this was another thing that was happening during that time. Let me just say it like it was. Vacancies on the DC Circuit--a critical and important circuit because it reviews all of the administrative appeals--were purposely kept open, preventing President Clinton from filling that circuit, to have more openings for the next President. Here three Senators kept this very qualified and very distinguished nominee from receiving a vote or a hearing on the committee. Again, a secret, hidden filibuster. And, nevertheless, Senate Republicans supported the nomination by President Bush of Miguel Estrada to the same circuit court in 2002. James Wynn was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 5, 1999, and renominated on January 3, 2001. As you can see, President Clinton made one last try before he left office. He did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee. President Bush withdrew Judge Wynn's nomination on March 19, 2001. He was a judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and had previously served on the North Carolina Supreme Court. When nominated, he was a Navy reservist in the JAG corps of the U.S. Navy with the rank of captain. He served as the ABA's first African-American chair of the Appellate Judges Conference whose membership includes over 600 Federal and State appellate judges. He was on the board of governors of the American Judicature Society and was a vice president of the North Carolina Bar Association. He was an executive board member of the Uniform State Laws Commission and a drafter of the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, Uniform Tort Apportionment Act, and proposed Genetic Discrimination Act. He was rated qualified by the ABA screening committee. Senator Edwards supported him. The Associated Press, on December 29, 2000, reported that Senator Helms blocked Judge Wynn. One person blocks a distinguished jurist, a filibuster of one, and not a word said. Kathleen McCree-Lewis was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court on September 16, 1999, and renominated on January 3, 2001. She did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee during the more than a year her nomination was pending. She was a distinguished appellate attorney with Dykema Gossett, one of the largest law firms in Michigan. She had been active in the Michigan bar from 1996 to 1999. She chaired the rules advisory committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. From 1992 to 1995, she cochaired the appellate practice committee of the ABA section of litigation. From 1987 to 1998, she was editor of the Sixth Circuit section of the Appellate Practice Journal and is a life member of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference. She was president of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. She would have been the first African- American woman to serve on the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. She was rated by the ABA as well qualified. On March 21, 2001, the Detroit Free Press reported that she was blocked by one of her home State Senators, namely Senator Abraham. Let me quote the Detroit Free Press. McCree-Lewis never ``got a hearing in the Senate, thanks to Abraham's epic obstructionism.'' Now on January 8, 2001, the Detroit Free Press reported: The Senate has been obscenely obstructionist in blocking President Bill Clinton's judicial nominations. Former Senator Spencer Abraham did nothing to help shepherd Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White and Detroit attorney Kathleen McCree Lewis through the system. Again, filibuster of one, in secret, with no floor debate. Enrique Moreno was nominated to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 16, 1999, and renominated January 3, 2001. He did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee. At the time of his nomination, Moreno had a longstanding and diverse legal practice in El Paso, working on both civil and criminal law. In the civil area, he represented both plaintiffs and defendants, representing both large business clients and also individuals, advocating their civil rights. In a survey of State judges, he was rated as one of the top trial attorneys in El Paso. A native of Chihuahua, he came to El Paso as a small child, son of a retired carpenter and a seamstress. The ABA committee unanimously rated him as well qualified. In November of 2000, Texas Monthly reported that he was blocked by both home State Senators, again without a hearing or a vote in the Judiciary Committee. Allen Snyder was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on September 22, 1999. He did receive a committee hearing on May 10, 2000. His nomination, though, was not voted on by the committee. At the time of his nomination, he was a longtime partner and chairman of litigation practice at the DC law firm Hogan & Hartson. At Hogan & Hartson, he represented Netscape Communications Corporation in the landmark Microsoft antitrust case. He was a former law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The ABA unanimously rated him well qualified. He served as chair of the Committee on Admissions and Grievances of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as secretary and executive committee member of the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar, and on the board of the Washington Council of Lawyers. It is my understanding his nomination was blocked by two Judiciary Committee Senators. No reason was given. Kent Markus was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 9, 2000. He did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee. He was the director of the Dave Thomas Center for Adoption Law and visiting professor at Capital University Law School at the time of his nomination. He served in numerous high-level legal positions within the Department of Justice, including counselor to the Attorney General, Deputy Chief of Staff for the Office of the Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs. He also served as first assistant attorney general and chief of staff for the Ohio Attorney General's Office. His nomination was supported by 14 past presidents of the Ohio State Bar Association, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; more than 80 Ohio law school deans; prominent Ohio Republicans; the National District Attorneys Association; and the National Fraternal Order of Police. The ABA unanimously rated him as qualified. Both Senators DeWine and Voinovich returned blue slips. He was blocked by one Senator--a filibuster of one, all hidden, all quiet. Bonnie Campbell was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on March 2, 2000, and renominated on January 3, 2001. Her hearing was on May 25, 2000. The nomination was never voted on by the Judiciary Committee. She served for 4 years as Iowa's Attorney General. She is the only woman to have held that office in her State, and she wrote what became a model statute on antistalking for States around the country. She was selected by President Clinton in 1995 to head the Justice Department's newly created Violence Against Women Office. She emerged as a national leader for her work to bring victims' rights reforms to the country's criminal justice system. In 1997, Time magazine named her one of the 25 most influential people in America. Praising her for bringing ``rock-solid credibility'' to her job, Time called Campbell the ``force behind a grass-roots shift in the way Americans view the victims--and perhaps more important, the perpetrators--of crimes against women.'' She oversaw a $1.6 billion program to provide resources to communities for training judges, prosecutors, and police. She was chosen to serve on the President's Interagency Council on Women, chaired by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. She also headed the Justice Department's Working Group on Trafficking. According to a statement given by Senator Leahy to the Judiciary Committee on January 22, 2004, she was blocked by a secret Republican hold from ever getting committee or Senate consideration. Apparently, just one Senator. She had a hearing, as I said, but she never had a vote. Roger Gregory was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on June 30, 2000, and was renominated on January 3, 2001. He was a recess appointee of President Clinton at the end of the 106th Congress. He did not receive a hearing or a vote. On March 19, 2001, President Bush withdrew his nomination. He was subsequently renominated by President Bush on May 9, 2001, and confirmed July 20, 2001, by a 93-to-1 vote. According to former Senator Chuck Robb, on October 3, 2000: Despite the well-documented need for another judge on this court, and despite Mr. Gregory's stellar qualifications, the Judiciary Committee has stubbornly refused to even grant Mr. Gregory the courtesy of a hearing. I know Senator Warner supported this judge. Again, this just goes to show that we are having a major flap because 41 people feel strongly, are willing to come to the floor, and willing to debate a nominee, and all of a sudden the world is going to come to an end, when for years and years and years one or two or three Members of the Senate could prevent a hearing or a markup in the Judiciary Committee or an individual even being brought to the floor. Which would the public prefer? I would hope it would be a discussion on the floor of the Senate. I would hope it would be laying out the case against the individual, as has been done with every one of the ten--only ten; in all of President Bush's terms, only ten--when in President Clinton's term there were 60, and one or two, in secret, kept that individual from being brought to the floor of the Senate and voted on. Well, let me continue. John Bingler was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 21, 1995, and renominated on July 31, 1997. He did not receive a hearing or a vote either time he was nominated. After waiting more than 2 years without any action on his nomination, he withdrew on February 12, 1998. Since 1971, he has practiced law with the Pittsburgh firm of Thorp, Reed & Armstrong. He served for 6 years as chair of the firm's litigation department. From 1970 to 1971, he was the public safety director for the city of Pittsburgh. He served for 3 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh where he prosecuted Federal criminal cases, and for 2 years he was an attorney for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He served a 3-year tour of duty in the U.S. Navy. He was rated unanimously as well qualified by the ABA. On October 16, 1997, the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette reported that one of the two home State Senators held up his nomination for 2 years, allowing neither a hearing nor a vote, and I do not believe it was the chairman of the committee. Bruce Greer was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 1, 1995. He did not receive a hearing and he was never voted on by the committee. His nomination was withdrawn on May 13, 1996. At the time of his nomination, he was the president of the Miami law firm of Greer, Homer & Bonner, where he has a civil litigation practice. Senator Bob Graham supported him. Senator Connie Mack's position is not known. It is my understanding the Wall Street Journal published a lengthy editorial on July 17, 1996, that made no direct allegations against Greer, but made a case for guilt by association implying that, because Mr. Greer represented unsavory defendants, he was soft on crime. The Columbia Journalism Review reported that the day after the editorial appeared, the chairman came to the floor to denounce judges who are soft on crime and, shortly afterward, Mr. Greer received word that he would not be receiving a hearing. So Bruce Greer was denied even a hearing to see if the allegations were true. That is what has happened, ladies and gentlemen. Leland Shurin was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 4, 1995. He did not receive a hearing and was never voted on in committee. His nomination was withdrawn at his request, because of inaction, on September 5, 1995. He was an executive committee member and partner at the law firm of McDowell, Rice & Smith, in Kansas City, where he maintained a general practice doing plaintiff and defense litigation. He was very active in the community. He was rated as qualified by the ABA committee. He told the Kansas City Star: I had the sense that my confirmation is being delayed. No one could give me a clear date when anything could be done. I've sat around for two years. I can't keep doing it. One has to come to grips with whether this was a fair process, whether this was even as fair as what is happening today. I believe no way, no how was this a fair process. I have been one who has believed that the blue slip should be done away with, that there should be no anonymous holds, and that every appointee should be given a hearing and a vote in the committee. That does not mean that we should change the rules of the Senate to prevent, in extreme cases, the ability of the minority to register a strong point of view, when the minority of one has historically been allowed to register a strong point of view secretly and, in fact, kill a nominee. Sue Ellen Myerscough was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on October 11, 1995. She did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee. She was an Illinois State circuit court judge. She was an associate circuit court judge. She worked in law firms in Springfield. She formerly clerked for U.S. District Judge Harold Baker. A substantial majority of the ABA committee rated her as well qualified, while a minority rated her as qualified. She was supported by both Senator Paul Simon and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun at the time. In 1997, Senator Dick Durbin stated in the State Journal-Register that he believed ``Judge Myerscough was caught up in a Federal stall.'' On September 27, 1996, the State Journal-Register reported that Senator Simon said he believed the reason was a matter of partisanship, not because of any controversy or problems with her qualifications. Senator Simon said he escorted Myerscough for individual meetings with Senator Hatch and other members of the panel but had ``not had a single member of the committee tell me he or she couldn't vote for her.'' This is what has happened. So I have a hard time understanding why we are where we are today. Charles Stack was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on October 27, 1995. He received a hearing before the committee on February 28, 1996, but did not receive a vote in committee. According to the May 11, 1996, Miami Herald, he came under intense attack from then-Presidential candidate Bob Dole, and he withdrew his nomination on May 13, 1996. Cheryl Wattley, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on December 12, 1995, did not receive a hearing or vote in committee. The Dallas Morning News reported in 1996 that she was supported by both home State Senators. Again, no reason--probably filibustered because one or two or three didn't like her for one reason or another. Michael Schattman, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, December 19, 1995, and renominated on March 21, 1997, did not receive a hearing, was not voted on in committee. His nomination at his request was withdrawn on July 1998 after 2\1/2\ years of inaction by the committee. This man was a Texas State district court judge in Fort Worth. He had previously been a county court judge. And to add insult to injury, because of the lengthy delay in the nomination process, the February 11, 1998 edition of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer reported that he lost his State court judgeship. He was unanimously rated as qualified. Again, this is the hidden filibuster of this body. J. Rich Leonard, was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on December 22, 1995, did not receive a hearing or a vote in committee. Subsequently, he was nominated to the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 24, 1999. Again, he did not receive a hearing or a vote. In total, this gentleman waited over 2.5 years before the committee for the two nominations without ever receiving a hearing or a vote. He was a judge on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at the time of his nomination by President Clinton. He was rated as well qualified. Again, my information is that one Senator blocked both of his nominations. I see there are others waiting. I will be brief. But let me list some of the others. Robert Freedberg was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, April 23, 1998. He never received a hearing. He was a judge on Northampton County's Court of Common Pleas. He is a former prosecutor. The January 28, 1999 Allentown Morning Call reported that he was blocked by one Senator. Robert Raymar, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, did not receive a hearing. His nomination expired at the end of the session. Former deputy attorney general for the State of New Jersey, member of the New Jersey Executive Commission on Ethical Standards. He was rated as qualified. He was supported by both State Senators. One person filibustered this individual in committee. He didn't receive a hearing or a vote. James Lyons, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, did not receive a hearing or a vote, and withdrew after it became clear he would not receive a hearing or a vote. He was a longtime senior trial partner at the Denver law firm of Rothberger, Johnson & Lyons, special advisor to the President of the United States and the Secretary of State for economic initiatives in Ireland and Northern Ireland. He couldn't get a hearing. He was adjudged well qualified by the ABA. I don't see where anybody is concerned about these injustices, and that is what they were--real injustices. John Snodgrass was nominated to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, September 22, 1994, renominated January 11, 1995. He did not receive a hearing or a committee vote. His nomination was withdrawn on September 5, 1995. Anabelle Rodriguez was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, January 26, 1996, renominated March 21, 1997. A committee hearing was held on October 1 of 1998, but a vote was never held on her nomination during the nearly 3 years her nomination was pending. What were the reasons for this block? On October 8, 1998, the Associated Press reported that her supporters said she was opposed by Puerto Rico's prostatehood Governor and congressional representative because she is a backer of the island's current status as a U.S. commonwealth, and there was apparently some overwhelming bipartisan opposition. Why not vote? If what is being said now has been true and par for the course, why not vote? Lynne Lasry was nominated for the Southern District of California but did not receive a hearing or a vote. After one year of inaction, the nomination was withdrawn in 1998. James Klein was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 27, 1998, renominated March 25, 1999, and did not receive a hearing or committee vote during the 3 years that he was pending. Patricia Coan was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, May 27, 1999. She did not receive a hearing or committee vote in the year and a half that her nomination was pending. The May 21, 2000 Denver Post reported that one Senator blocked her nomination. Dolly Gee was nominated to the District Court for the Central District of California, May 22, 1999. She did not receive a hearing or committee vote in the year and a half that her nomination was pending. Fred Woocher was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, received a hearing on November 10, 1999, but was not voted on by the committee despite waiting for a year after his hearing. Steven Bell was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio but did not receive a hearing or vote in committee for more than a year that his nomination was pending. Rhonda Fields was nominated to District Court for the District of Columbia on November 17, 1999, no hearing, no vote. Robert Cindrich was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, February 9, 2000, no hearing, no vote. David Fineman was nominated to the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 9, 2000, no hearing, no vote. Linda Riegle was nominated to the U.S. District for the District of Nevada on April 25, 2000, no hearing, no vote in committee. Ricardo Morado was nominated to the U.S. District for the Southern District of Texas on May 11, 2000, no hearing, no vote. Stephen Orlofsky was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, May 25, 2000, no hearing, no vote. Gary Sebelius was nominated to the U.S. District for the District of Kansas on June 6, 2000, no hearing, no vote. Kenneth Simon was nominated to the U.S. District for the Northern District of Alabama on June 6, 2000, no hearing, no vote. John S.W. Lim was nominated to the U.S. District for the District of Hawaii on June 8, 2000, no hearing, no vote. And there are those, you might say, that came under the Thurmond rule. There is sort of an informal practice that in the last few months of a President's tenure, the hearings do not go forward. Again, that is not a rule; it is a practice. Christine Arguello, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, on July 27, 2000. Andre Davis, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, on October 6, 2000. Elizabeth Gibson, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, on October 26, 2000. David Cercone, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 27, 2000. Harry Litman, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 27, 2000. Valerie Couch, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 7, 2000. Marian Johnston, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on September 7, 2000. Steve Achelpohl, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on September 12, 2000. Richard Anderson nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on September 13, 2000. Stephen Lieberman, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 14, 2000. And, Melvin Hall, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on October 3, 2000. What I have tried to show today is that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in what is going on today. The opposition cannot have any concern about one Clinton nominee or dozens of Clinton nominees who received no hearing, no markup, no floor vote, but suddenly they are upset because 41 of us in public, eight of us in committee, vote no and believe that our views are strong enough and substantive enough to warrant a debate on the floor of the Senate in the true tradition of the Senate. And bingo, we are going to have a change in the rules to prevent that from happening. Nobody is talking about changing the rules so one person can't filibuster; one person can't, on a pique or because they don't like the individual, condemn that individual. I can tell you, because I have been on this committee for 12 years, I have had people call me and say: Look, I have three children. I have to know what is going to happen to me. I try to get information, can't get that information. I ask the majority of this body, is that fair? Do you not feel aggrieved? Or is that OK because it was a different President of a different party? I don't think so. I think what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I pointed out two uses of filibusters for judicial appointments by Republicans, one in 1881 and one in 1968.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator's forbearance. He is a true gentleman. Out of respect for him and for the institution, I will conclude my remarks. During the reorganization of the Senate in 2000, Senators Daschle and Leahy worked to make the nominations process more fair and public. This refining forced Senators opposed to a nomination to be held accountable for their positions. They could not hide behind a cloak of secrecy. This step also wiped out many of the procedural hurdles that have been used to defeat nominations. So many of the tools used by Republicans in the past, and referred to as a way to draw distinctions with a public cloture vote are no longer available. This historical record is important, yet it is too often lost in our debates. I also believe it is useful to examine the current state of judicial nominations, and what has actually occurred in this body during President Bush's tenure: 208 judges confirmed out of 218; 95 percent of President Bush's judges have been confirmed; the Senate has confirmed 35 circuit court nominees; recently, the Judiciary Committee reported out 2 District Court and 1 Circuit Court nominees; today, there are only 4 judicial nominations on the Senate calendar waiting for a vote; and there are only 45 total vacancies, both district and circuit courts, and 29 do not have nominations submitted. What do these numbers mean? There are more judges today sitting on the federal bench than in any previous presidency. The Senate has confirmed more judges for President Bush than in President Reagan's first term, his father's only term, or President Clinton's second term. The Senate confirmed more circuit court judicial nominees than in Reagan's or Clinton's first term. When Democrats were in the majority in 2001, there were 110 vacancies and by the end of the 108th Congress and President Bush's first term, the number had plummeted to 27--the lowest level of vacancies since the Reagan era. Of the 8 nominees reported out of committee this year, four have already been confirmed. One, Thomas Griffith, is waiting a vote, and the remaining three are controversial nominees who were defeated last Congress: William Myers, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown. In addition, President Bush has sent the Senate but one new judicial nomination this year. Brian Sandoval of Nevada is the only new judicial nomination sent to the Senate in the first five months of this year. He has bipartisan support from his home State Senators and appears to be a consensus nominee. Again, what do these numbers mean? They mean there is no crisis on the federal bench that justifies the so-called nuclear option as some of my Republican colleagues contend. To me, the record I just described and the reasons for opposing these limited number of nominees doesn't lead to the conclusion that the Senate should be discussing breaking our own institutional rules and unraveling the checks and balances established by our Constitution. Some have described this debate as a strategy to change the rules. Changing the rules is not only unacceptable, but in this case it is inaccurate as well. The nuclear option is a strategy to break the rules. This isn't just my assessment; it's the conclusion drawn by the Senate Parliamentarian and the Congressional Research Service. Last week, press reports reiterated that Senator Reid had been assured by the Parliamentarian that if the Republicans go through with this strategy they would ``have to overrule him, because what they are doing is wrong.'' The Congressional Research Service concluded in a recent report that to employ these tactics the Senate would have to ``overturn previous precedent.'' ``Proceedings of this kind, it is argued, would both break old precedent and establish new Senate precedents. Eventually such a plan might even result in changes in Senate rules, while circumventing the procedures prescribed by Senate rules.'' So, shortly, the Senate will likely be faced with a preemptive strike to break the rules. The term preemptive strike seems appropriate when there are only three controversial judges waiting for a vote--judges who were previously defeated last Congress and have drawn strong opposition. This is a move to wipe out 200 years of precedent when this Senate has only been in session for just over 4 months, when this President has had over 200 judges confirmed, and when the Judiciary Committee reported favorably a controversial circuit court judge who was not voted on last Congress, but was renominated. This appears to me to be an escalation that is unwarranted in the reality of what has actually occurred and is happening in this session. I find it ironic that while our country fights abroad to establish democracy, to promote checks and balances, and institute wide representation of all people in government; here at home our leadership is attempting to erode those very protections in our own government. What kind of message are we sending? ``Do as I say, not as I do''? This debate over judicial nominees is a debate about privacy, women's rights, civil rights, clean environment, access to healthcare and education; retirement security--we may not all agree, but the beauty of our country is the freedom to disagree, to debate, and to require compromise because no one party has the corner on the market of good ideas and solutions--and no party has the corner on the market of political power. Democrats held the House majority for over 50 years, and now Republicans have been in the majority for over a decade. Democrats held the White House for eight years, now the Republicans will have occupied the White House for eight years. Neither party will always be right when it comes to the best policies for our country, and neither party will always be in power. There are many urgent problems the Senate needs to be focused on and Americans' want us to focus on: the war in Iraq; protecting our homeland; addressing the high cost of prescription drugs; alleviating rising gas prices; ensuring our social security system is stable and working; and reducing the federal deficit. I am troubled that instead today we are spending much of our time on political posturing gone too far--on a strategy to unravel our constitutional checks and balances. Cold War commentator Walter Lippman once said, ``In making the great experiment of governing people by consent rather than by coercion, it is not sufficient that the party in power should have a majority. It is just as necessary that the party in power should never outrage the minority.'' And today, we are outraged. I would hope that the majority would not choose to unravel that foundation over a small handful of nominees. I would hope we would continue to honor the tradition of our democracy. I would hope the President will urge others in his party to walk away from this nuclear strategy. And I know if the shoe was on the other foot, I would not advocate breaking Senate rules and precedent. Regardless of how this debate continues to unfold, I remain committed to evaluating each candidate on a case by case basis, and I will continue to ensure that judicial nominees are treated fairly and even- handedly, but I will not fail to raise concerns or objections when there are legitimate issues that need to be discussed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For such time as I may consume.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, it will not be forever.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Probably a half hour.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee had indicated that I would be able to speak as in morning business, that he would not object. My concern is, with the time, if I will, in fact, have the time to complete my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will vote to support the conference report on H.R. 1268, the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental Appropriations bill, although I have serious reservations about the process that was used to attach the REAL ID Act to legislation urgently needed to ensure our troops are adequately funded. I am voting for this legislation because it provides needed support to our troops in combat, additional border patrol agents to secure our porous frontiers, vital relief to areas affected by the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean, and important disaster relief here at home. My colleagues have noted that this legislation funds important needs for our military, from additional up-armored humvees to increased death benefits for those who have lost their lives in service to our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with my colleagues that it is vital that we get these resources to our men and women in uniform without delay. However, I have serious concerns about the process by which controversial immigration provisions were attached to the bill. And I want to again express my opposition to the inclusion of the REAL ID Act--despite the negotiated changes during conference--because an emergency supplemental is not the place for the Congress to enact substantive immigration provisions. The REAL ID provisions included in this legislation will bring about significant legal and policy changes in the areas of asylum law, judicial review, deportation of individuals alleged links to terrorist activities, driver's licenses and the border fence. And while I recognize that there were modifications to the REAL ID Act during conference--including provisions relating to bounty hunters--we are still talking major changes to our immigration laws and I don't believe the Senate was given adequate opportunity to review, consider, debate and amend these issues. Any voices of opposition to the REAL ID Act were all but silenced. I was a member of the conference committee, but I was not able to see the final language until the bill was ready to be filed and it was too late to do anything. Essentially, the minority was shut out of the conference negotiations on this bill. The REAL ID Act wasn't the only immigration language added to this bill in which the Democrats were shut out. For instance, the Republican leadership added language at the eleventh hour, postcloture, which creates a new temporary worker program for 10,500 Australian workers. So each year now we will see an influx of 10,500 Australian workers, along with their families. Assuming that each of these professional workers brings their spouse and child, in reality we could be seeing an increase of 31,500 individuals each year--in addition to the other categories of professional workers, such as H-1B and L-1 workers. At what point do we stop creating special carve outs for different groups of people or different countries? And after Australia, what country is going to come to us and ask for special exceptions to our immigration laws? I am pleased that the conference committee came to a reasonable compromise on the issue of funding additional Border Patrol agents. The conference report makes available $635 million to address understaffing at our borders. While this is a reduction from the amount provided by the Senate, it will provide for 500 new Border Patrol agents, 50 additional Immigration and Customs enforcement investigators, 168 detentions officers, as well as needed support staff and construction of additional detention space. This is a good start toward meeting the goals of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which authorizes the hiring of 2,000 new Border Patrol agents. That goal was developed in concert with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that next year we continue to hire additional agents to secure our borders. Unfortunately, President Bush's budget for fiscal year 2006 only provides for 210 additional agents, which is simply not enough. I would like to briefly comment on the military construction portion of this legislation. The House and Senate conferees included $1.128 billion to support military construction projects worldwide. This includes $250 million for projects requested by the Army in Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, New York, North Carolina, and Texas, to support Army modernization. The bill also includes $647 million for the Army to support the global war on terror--$38.5 million for projects in Afghanistan, $40.4 million for a prison and security fence in Cuba, $479 million for projects in Iraq, and an additional $39 million for the design of these projects. In addition, there is $140 million included in the bill to support the Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group to alleviate the overall stress on the Marine Corps produced by deployments related to the global war on terrorism. These projects are located in California, North Carolina, and Djibouti. The bill includes $141 million to support Air Force projects in Central Command--$31 million for Afghanistan, $58 million for projects in Iraq, $1.4 million for the United Arab Emirates, $42.5 million for Uzbekistan, and an additional $8 million for the design of these projects. Let me turn to an issue that is of particular importance to me and to my State--and that is preventing and fighting wildfires that have struck the West with increasing regularity and intensity in recent years. As many of my colleagues know, southern California was hit this winter with unusually heavy rain storms that caused severe flooding--at this point it is the second wettest winter in Los Angeles since records have been kept. These storms dumped 70 to 90 inches of rain in parts of southern California that include several national forests, causing flooding, debris flows, and mudslides which destroyed or damaged more than 90 percent of the roads in four National Forests: Angeles National Forest; Cleveland National Forest; Los Padres National Forest; and San Bernardino National Forest. The conference report provides $24.39 million in capital improvement and maintenance funding to the Forest Service to repair those roads. This funding will make it possible to repair roads that are vital to firefighting efforts for thousands of acres in these forests. We all know about the disastrous wildfires that burned in southern California in 2003. Fires burned 739,597 acres, destroyed 3,631 homes, and killed 24 people, according to the California Department of Forestry. San Bernardino Forest Supervisor Gene Zimmerman told my staff that he has never seen the grass grow as high as it has this year, and it is starting to turn brown--which means it could burn later this year. Here is the biggest difference from 2003: right now, firefighters cannot get in to the forests to contain fires. The Forest Service estimates that 2.3 million acres of National Forest System lands are inaccessible to ground-based fire vehicles. The Forest Service tells me that they need to begin work immediately on roads to allow access for the 2005 fire season. They already have contractors working and will add to their contracts as funding is available. They have done the necessary damage assessments to enable immediate start up of work. With the $24 million in this conference report, the Forest Service can open the majority of roads to accommodate fire apparatus by July and August, which is still the early part of this year's fire season. I thank Chairman Cochran, Senator Byrd, Interior Subcommittee Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan, as well as their able staffs for helping to secure this funding in the Senate bill. I also thank House Chairman Lewis for working with us in the conference committee on an issue that is crucial to preventing a repeat of the devastating fires our State suffered in 2003. I want to briefly highlight one last issue that is important to me, and I believe to the prospects for peace in the Middle East. This conference report includes a provision that I offered to provide legal authority for a Federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, to receive $10 million to help bolster economic and infrastructure development in the Gaza Strip. OPIC is combining forces with private organizations to build a $250 million loan fund that would be aimed at microfinance, small business, corporate and mortgage lending to deserving businesses, firms and entities in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. A meeting is being held this coming week in London among the various loan fund participants to continue sorting out appropriate financial and legal mechanisms for distributing these funds. As the group moves forward, this $10 million subsidy will play a crucial role in extending OPIC political risk guarantees for loans to deserving Palestinian business recipients and I was pleased to assist in this process. On a larger scale, as we begin the process of Gaza disengagement, we need to help provide the Palestinians with real economic hope--not continued frustration about the lack of jobs and exports. The lack of agreed mechanisms to coordinate disengagement, developing an agreed concept on how Palestinian security forces will take over areas evacuated by Israeli defense forces, and permitting greater freedom of movement, between Gaza and the West Bank, to assist with rehabilitation efforts are just a few areas of concern. I hope the $150 million provided by this conference report will contribute to framing key security and economic arrangements that allow Gaza disengagement to occur peacefully and not violently. Although I am troubled by the inclusion of the REAL ID Act in this bill, the bottom line is that it provides necessary funding to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as relief to countries struck by the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean and disasters here at home. It may not be perfect, but it gives vital financial support to those who badly need it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution introduced by myself, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, Senator McCain, Senator Brownback, and Senator Obama to renew the sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Last year, in response to the failure by the military junta--the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC--to take any meaningful steps towards restoring democracy and releasing Nobel Peace Prize winner and National League for Democracy, NLD, leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Congress overwhelmingly renewed a complete ban on all imports from Burma for another year. One year later, it is clear that Rangoon has once again failed to make ``substantial and measurable progress'' toward putting Burma on a irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy. Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. On her 60th birthday on June 19, 2005, she will have spent a total of 2,523 days in detention. NLD Vice Chairman Tin Oo has also remained in custody since May 2003. And 1,400 political prisoners are still in jail. The military junta's ``road map'' to democracy and national convention to draft a new constitution has produced no timetable for restoring democracy and shut out the participation of Suu Kyi and the NLD, the legitimate winners of the 1990 elections. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution last month highlighting continued human rights abuses by Rangoon including ``extrajudicial killings,'' rape, torture, sex trafficking and forced labor. And let us not forget that Congress passed the original ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' in response to a brutal coordinated assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on Suu Kyi and other members of the NLD. Is anyone surprised that no one has been brought to justice for these crimes? The generals who run the country have shown a remarkable ability to ignore the demands of their own people and the international community. The simple truth is that as long as the SPDC remains in power the democratic hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people will continue to be denied. Now is not the time to let the sanctions expire and try to ``engage'' the military junta. Doing so without any meaningful steps toward democracy taken by Rangoon would only serve to bolster the regime's campaign against democratic government, the rule of law, and basic human rights. I point out that the democratic movement in Burma continues to support sanctions against the SPDC. We must give them more time to effect change in Burma. Let us not fall into the trap of thinking true representative democracy cannot come to Burma and the Burmese people. I agree with Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick when he said recently: What we see throughout the world, even in places where people don't expect it, like the Middle East, is a process of openness and democracy. There's no reason it can't happen in Burma as well. As champions of freedom and respect for human rights, we must stand in solidarity with Suu Kyi, the people of Burma, and the international community in once again calling on the SPDC to release Suu Kyi, relinquish power, and respect the 1990 elections. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has rightly said: As long as [Suu Kyi] remains under house arrest, none of us is truly free. In the face of human rights abuses and terror, approximately 300,000 Burmese citizens have already defied the military junta and signed their names on a petition calling for true democratic change in Burma. We must back their courage. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators McConnell and Feinstein for their efforts to renew again the sanctions contained in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to join along with Senators Leahy, Brownback, and Obama as sponsors of this resolution. As we take action to renew this legislation, the situation inside Burma grows ever dimmer. The military junta in that country controls the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain imprisoned, including elected members of parliament, and Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Aung San Suu Kyi's courageous and steadfastness in the face of tyranny inspires me and, I believe, every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run the country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work. We must continue to press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve no less. And I see encouraging signs that the world is no longer content to sit on the sidelines. The U.S. Congress has been in the forefront, and we stepped up our pressure significantly in 2003 with the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country. Now the Europeans and the countries of Southeast Asia are finally stepping up their own pressure. While they can and should do more, the signs are encouraging. I have recently seen a report that 78 Thai senators have sponsored a motion opposing Burma's chairmanship of ASEAN, scheduled for next year. Similar moves by governments of other Southeast Asian nations suggest that opposition to Burma's rotation is becoming widespread, as it should--ASEAN's credibility would crumble under Burmese leadership. A unified message from all ASEAN countries that Burma's behavior is simply unacceptable would make clear to its leaders that they cannot practice repression forever. For our part, I support today the joint resolution that will renew the import restrictions--sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities. The picture today in Burma is tragically clear. So long as a band of thugs rules Burma, its people will never be free. They will remain mired in poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward. With our action today, we will support this spirit.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution introduced by myself, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, Senator McCain, Senator Brownback, and Senator Obama to renew the sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Last year, in response to the failure by the military junta--the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC--to take any meaningful steps towards restoring democracy and releasing Nobel Peace Prize winner and National League for Democracy, NLD, leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Congress overwhelmingly renewed a complete ban on all imports from Burma for another year. One year later, it is clear that Rangoon has once again failed to make ``substantial and measurable progress'' toward putting Burma on a irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy. Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. On her 60th birthday on June 19, 2005, she will have spent a total of 2,523 days in detention. NLD Vice Chairman Tin Oo has also remained in custody since May 2003. And 1,400 political prisoners are still in jail. The military junta's ``road map'' to democracy and national convention to draft a new constitution has produced no timetable for restoring democracy and shut out the participation of Suu Kyi and the NLD, the legitimate winners of the 1990 elections. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution last month highlighting continued human rights abuses by Rangoon including ``extrajudicial killings,'' rape, torture, sex trafficking and forced labor. And let us not forget that Congress passed the original ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' in response to a brutal coordinated assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on Suu Kyi and other members of the NLD. Is anyone surprised that no one has been brought to justice for these crimes? The generals who run the country have shown a remarkable ability to ignore the demands of their own people and the international community. The simple truth is that as long as the SPDC remains in power the democratic hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people will continue to be denied. Now is not the time to let the sanctions expire and try to ``engage'' the military junta. Doing so without any meaningful steps toward democracy taken by Rangoon would only serve to bolster the regime's campaign against democratic government, the rule of law, and basic human rights. I point out that the democratic movement in Burma continues to support sanctions against the SPDC. We must give them more time to effect change in Burma. Let us not fall into the trap of thinking true representative democracy cannot come to Burma and the Burmese people. I agree with Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick when he said recently: What we see throughout the world, even in places where people don't expect it, like the Middle East, is a process of openness and democracy. There's no reason it can't happen in Burma as well. As champions of freedom and respect for human rights, we must stand in solidarity with Suu Kyi, the people of Burma, and the international community in once again calling on the SPDC to release Suu Kyi, relinquish power, and respect the 1990 elections. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has rightly said: As long as [Suu Kyi] remains under house arrest, none of us is truly free. In the face of human rights abuses and terror, approximately 300,000 Burmese citizens have already defied the military junta and signed their names on a petition calling for true democratic change in Burma. We must back their courage. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators McConnell and Feinstein for their efforts to renew again the sanctions contained in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to join along with Senators Leahy, Brownback, and Obama as sponsors of this resolution. As we take action to renew this legislation, the situation inside Burma grows ever dimmer. The military junta in that country controls the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain imprisoned, including elected members of parliament, and Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Aung San Suu Kyi's courageous and steadfastness in the face of tyranny inspires me and, I believe, every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run the country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work. We must continue to press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve no less. And I see encouraging signs that the world is no longer content to sit on the sidelines. The U.S. Congress has been in the forefront, and we stepped up our pressure significantly in 2003 with the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country. Now the Europeans and the countries of Southeast Asia are finally stepping up their own pressure. While they can and should do more, the signs are encouraging. I have recently seen a report that 78 Thai senators have sponsored a motion opposing Burma's chairmanship of ASEAN, scheduled for next year. Similar moves by governments of other Southeast Asian nations suggest that opposition to Burma's rotation is becoming widespread, as it should--ASEAN's credibility would crumble under Burmese leadership. A unified message from all ASEAN countries that Burma's behavior is simply unacceptable would make clear to its leaders that they cannot practice repression forever. For our part, I support today the joint resolution that will renew the import restrictions--sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities. The picture today in Burma is tragically clear. So long as a band of thugs rules Burma, its people will never be free. They will remain mired in poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward. With our action today, we will support this spirit.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the week of May 9, 2005 as National Hepatitis B Awareness Week. I thank Senator Santorum, who introduced this resolution with me, as well as Senators Specter, Stabenow, Inouye, and Durbin who cosponsored it. In the United States today, more than 1.25 million Americans are infected with hepatitis B. Chronic hepatitis B is often called a ``silent disease'' because more than two-thirds of patients infected with the disease have no symptoms or their symptoms go unrecognized. Chronic hepatitis B infection is a potentially life threatening disease that may lead to cirrhosis of the liver, liver failure and liver cancer. More than half a million people worldwide die each year from primary liver cancer, and up to 80 percent of primary liver cancers are caused by chronic hepatitis B. In the United States, more than one million people have developed chronic hepatitis B infection and more than 5,000 Americans die from hepatitis B and hepatitis B- related liver complications each year. Despite these alarming statistics, however, it is estimated that only a small percentage of chronic hepatitis B patients are currently receiving treatment for their disease. Approximately 15 to 40 percent of chronically infected hepatitis B patients will develop liver disease due to long-term exposure. Of chronic hepatitis B patients who develop cirrhosis, almost half of them may die within five years because of the high risk of liver cancer associated with the progression of the disease. Upon closer examination of hepatitis B, researchers have found alarmingly disproportionate rates of infection among Asian Pacific Islanders and African Americans. In the U.S., as many as one out of ten Asian Pacific Islanders Americans are chronically infected with the hepatitis B virus. California has initiated a number of programs to ensure that we are working to stop the transmission of Hepatitis B through vaccine programs and disease management programs intended to make living with the disease more comfortable. I recognize the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, AAPCHO, which is based in Oakland, CA, and the partners across the country with whom they are working to demystify and educate citizens about hepatitis B. During National Hepatitis B Awareness Week, the ``AIM for the B: Awareness, Involvement and Mobilization for Chronic Hepatitis B'' campaign will consist of a series of local awareness forums and educational roundtables featuring doctors, patients and families and patient advocates. Two will be held in California--one in San Francisco and one in San Jose--in addition to various other sites around the country to raise awareness and open the dialogue about chronic hepatitis B, prevention, disease management, and future advances. It is my hope that National Hepatitis B Awareness Week will raise the profile of hepatitis B, facilitate open dialogue about what we can do in our families and communities to stop the transmission of this disease and arm ourselves with the knowledge to fight back against hepatitis B. We possess the weapons to combat hepatitis B, including vaccination and treatment. For those infected, treatment options exist that are designed to stop the progression of liver disease and reduce liver damage. As we recognize National Hepatitis B Awareness Week, I encourage Americans who may be at risk for chronic hepatitis B to get tested for the disease, and physicians and patients to understand there is a large group of patients who do need treatment right now. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the great strides made in hepatitis B awareness and treatment and acknowledge the ongoing battle during National Hepatitis B Awareness Week.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and fellow Californian Miguel Contreras, secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO who died suddenly of a heart attack on Friday, May 6 at the age of 52. Working families and the Latino community lost a great champion with the passing of Miguel Contreras. As the son of migrant farmworkers Miguel also labored in the agriculture fields of California. Yet through his passion to ensure equity and fairness for workers, Miguel advanced to become one of the premier leaders in the local, State, and national labor movement. As a young man Miguel worked with Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers Union to organize farm workers to secure improved working conditions and better wages. In 1996, Miguel became the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Under his leadership the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor grew to become a powerful voice for working men and women of Los Angeles County. Miguel was the driving force behind the transformation of an organization that went from a union of 125,000 members to a multi- ethnic coalition of union workers now nearly 800,000 strong. Through his leadership Miguel led a union-sponsored grass roots political drive that played a significant role in deciding the outcome of five Los Angeles congressional seats and countless state and local races. Miguel tirelessly spent his life working to empower others, no matter their station in life. While Miguel Contreras may be remembered most for his tenacity as a labor leader and role model for the Latino community, his efforts to secure a better future for American workers everywhere will live on. My deepest sympathy goes out to his wife Maria Elena Durazo and their two sons, Michael and Mario.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the Transportation reauthorization bill before us and why I believe it is necessary to pass a transportation bill before the authorization ends on May 31, 2005. The Transportation reauthorization bill is a jobs bill. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new infrastructure investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 of these are directly related to construction, engineering, contracting, and other on-site employees, and 21,000 are indirect jobs resulting from the spending associated with the investment. Improving our transportation infrastructure is one of the critical things we can do to create jobs. My State, California, needs a robust transportation bill to help clean the air, ease congestion on the roads, and create jobs. However, I do have some concerns about this bill. As a representative of a donor State, I am extremely disappointed that so many States are still being asked to give more than they receive in Federal transportation dollars. I believe that this bill does not adequately address the problems of donor States like my State of California. California currently has a 90.5 percent rate of return. In other words, for every dollar California sends to Washington, it gets back only 90 \1/2\ cents for maintenance and improvement of our highways. Transportation is the backbone of California's economy. Our seaports handle about half of all cargo that comes into the United States, and the State is also home to two of the nation's busiest ports--Los Angeles/Long Beach and Oakland. Three-quarters of all goods shipped from California's ports are now transported by truck along California's roads. We need our roads to be equipped to handle the flow of these goods and the truck traffic that comes with it. Regrettably, these roads are in desperate need of repair. More than 70 percent of California's major local and State road miles are rated in poor or mediocre condition-compared with a national average of 28 percent--and 38 percent of the State's overpasses and bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. As a result, California's 21 million motorists pay an average of $555 each, or a total of $12 billion, in extra vehicle operating costs annually. These costs include wasted fuel, pothole damage, and shortened vehicle lifespan. At the same time, travel on California's roads nearly doubled between 1980 and 2000, while the population increased only 42 percent. We are all familiar with pictures of California's gridlock--cars sitting on our freeways, moving at a snail's pace. The facts bear out the images. Out of the top five congested urban areas in the Nation, California has three. Los Angeles is the most congested, followed by San Francisco-Oakland. San Diego is the fifth most congested area in the country. In LA County, 85 percent of freeway lane miles are congested, and Los Angeles motorists waste 177 hours a year per driver. Traffic congestion in California costs motorists $20.7 billion annually in lost time and fuel. And with rising fuel costs, that total is only going to increase. I am also concerned with the Senate bill's changes to the Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program, or CMAQ. The CMAQ formula currently apportions funds to states based on the severity of ozone and carbon monoxide pollution. The Senate bill proposes to change the formula so that CMAQ awards to areas with ozone pollution, regardless of the severity of that pollution. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority--LAMTA--estimates that this ``one-size fits all'' approach could cost California as much as $160 million in CMAQ grants over 4 years. This change is a huge problem for California. California has six non- attainment areas for air quality, and 70 percent of the State in the reformulated gasoline program because our air is so dirty. In addition, according to a study by the American Lung Association in 2004, nine of the twenty smoggiest cities in the United States are located in my home State, California. California needs the CMAQ funds to pay for highway enhancements to ease the flow of traffic and reduce the amount of time trucks and cars are idling and spewing pollution into the air. California also relies heavily on public transportation, and the bill needs to adequately fund mass transit programs. California has some of the largest regional transportation systems in the country including Bay Area Rapid Transit--BART, CalTrain--the rail service between San Francisco and San Jose, and Metrolink--Southern California's regional transit system. These programs help reduce the number of cars on the road, which in turn, reduces air pollution, and decreases the amount of time my constituents have to spend commuting every day. Californians are facing a serious dilemma. Without adequate Federal highway dollars, local communities will not be able to eliminate bottlenecks on highways and make necessary air quality improvements. As a result, they will remain out of conformity with Federal air quality regulations, and will lose even more Federal highway dollars. This is a never-ending cycle and has failed to make any strides in helping reduce our air pollution. That is why I support toll roads as an option to provide the needed revenue to make improvements to our roads. I am pleased that the Senate bill includes a toll road pilot program and hope that the program is flexible enough to allow the State to use the tolls to meet its goods movement infrastructure needs. I would also ask the Environment and Public Works Committee to consider an amendment that would allow tolling revenue in extreme non- attainment areas to be used to mitigate air quality impacts that are imposed upon those communities by heavy duty trucks moving goods from California's ports to areas throughout the country. I am also pleased that the bill will allow hybrid vehicles access to high occupancy vehicle--HOV--lanes. Without this authorization, California and other States, such as Arizona, Virginia, Colorado, and Georgia will lose their Federal highway dollars by implementing their own State laws to allow hybrids to access these lanes. This provision would increase traffic mobility and also serves as an important incentive to get more hybrids on the road, an innovative solution to reduce our dependence on oil. I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for including language in the bill that would require the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of predatory towing practices. Tow truck companies act without any local, State or Federal regulation. While most are good actors, there are a few that have taken advantage of the lack of regulation to prey on consumers. This has become a huge problem throughout California, and in other areas including Virginia and Arizona. This study will determine the impact of predatory towing practices and propose potential remedies to dealing with them. While I have concerns about the fairness of the funding formulas, I also realize that without a transportation bill, California's communities will lack the money they need to plan major infrastructure projects. As a result, I plan to support this bill and hope that the conferees will keep in mind the needs of the donor States such as California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005. I am joined by Senators Corzine and Durbin. This bill would add the .50-caliber sniper rifle to the list of ``firearms'' governed by the National Firearms Act. This means that this weapon would be subject to the tax and registration rules imposed by the Internal Revenue Service under that Act. The practical effect would be that a transfer of such a weapon, by sale or by gift, would require registration pursuant to IRS regulations. The bill would not ban any guns, and existing .50 caliber owners would be unaffected by this law until, and unless, they sell or give away their weapon. I believe this is a reasonable compromise, respecting the rights of those who have followed the law, but making future changes in the law to regulate new .50-caliber guns. .50-caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of companies, are deadly, military weapons, designed for combat with wartime enemies. They are capable of piercing light armor at more than four miles. The guns are designed to enable a single soldier to destroy enemy aircraft, HumVees, bunkers, fuel stations, and communication centers, as well as target and kill enemy personnel. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly. This is a weapon designed to kill people efficiently, or destroy machinery, at a great distance. But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world, and the potential for much worse. These weapons are deadly accurate up to 6,000 feet. This means that a shooter using a .50-caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. To further illustrate what this means, a shooter standing on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial can kill a person standing on the White House lawn, or shoot down the President's helicopter. And the gun is effective at more than four miles. Although it may be hard to aim at this distance, the gun will still have its desired destructive effect. That means a shooter in Arlington Cemetery can send a bullet crashing into this building. This is, of course, is using ordinary ammunition. I had one of my staff members obtain a blank .50-caliber bullet. I was amazed to see what was brought back. Senate rules forbid me from bringing the bullet to the floor, so I will describe it for my colleagues. The casing for this bullet is about five inches in length, and three- quarters-of-an-inch in diameter. The entire round is almost as big as my hand. But don't just take my word for it. Each one of my colleagues should examine these bullets for themselves. Take a look at the projectile these weapons fire. This is not a recreational gun that can be used for hunting. This gun can be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the gun promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars'' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars worth of cartridges.'' A recent CNN news report powerfully illustrates this issue. In one on-camera demonstration, a .50 caliber bullet is fired through the door of a commercial jetliner--it continues to blast through a steel plate. A marksman on the steps of the Capitol could bring down a plane coming into National Airport. This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover General Accountability Office investigators, ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50-calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns. A study by the GAO revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals. According to a special agent at ATF's Atlanta Field Division, the Barrett .50-caliber rifle is ``a tremendous threat'' for ``those most shocking and horrifying crimes, assassinations, murders, assaults on law enforcement officers.'' But these fears are not hypothetical. Recently we have learned that Al Qaeda has received .50-caliber sniper rifles--rifles that were manufactured right here in the United States. Nearly two years ago today, Essam al Ridi, an Al Qaeda associate, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. We have no way of knowing whether Al Qaeda has obtained more or who has supplied them with these weapons, but we can be sure that any .50-caliber weapon in the hands of Al Qaeda will likely be used against Americans. In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate then-Governor Engler, Federal judges, and our colleague, Senator Levin. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns. One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased ten of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide. The U.S. Air Force has studied the scenario of a potential terrorist attack with a .50-caliber weapon. According to a November 2001 article in the Air Force's official magazine, Airman, an anti-sniper assessment claimed that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase are as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters. The Air Force has addressed the issue and the effectiveness of specially-trained countersnipers to respond to a .50-caliber weapon attack on aircraft, fuel tanks, control towers, and personnel. I am glad to know our military has given some consideration to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons, but I have real concerns over the threats posed to civilian aviation. Our Nation's airports in no way match the security measure at Air Force bases. These commercial facilities handle millions of passengers and tons of cargo each day and are especially vulnerable to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons. Experts have agreed that .50-caliber weapons aimed at a plane while stationary, or taking off or arriving, could be just as disastrous as a hit from a missile launcher. Gal Luff, Co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, has described .50-caliber weapons as ``lethal to slow moving planes.'' For further illustration of the potential destruction of these weapons, simply listen to the manufacturers themselves. According to a Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Model 82A1 .50-caliber sniper rifle brochure: ``The cost effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than ten U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.'' The Nordic Ammunition Company is the developer of the Raufoss multipurpose ammunition for .50-caliber weapons that combines armor- piercing, incendiary, and explosive features and was used by U.S. forces during the Gulf War. According to the company, the ammunition can ignite military jet fuel and has ``the equivalent firing power of a 20mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircrafts, light armor vehicles, ships, and light fortifications.'' Ammunition for these guns is also readily available in stores and on the Internet. This is perfectly legal. Even those categories which are illegal, such as the ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact can, according to a recent ``60 Minutes'' news report, be purchased online. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to shoot down a helicopter. Current law classifies .50-caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. In other words, the law makes no distinction between the .22-caliber target rifle, a .30-06 caliber hunter's weapon, and this large-caliber combat weapon. Simply, I believe the law is wrong and needs to be changed. This weapon is not in the same class as other rifles. Its power and range are of an order of magnitude higher. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly- regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many States allow possession of .50-caliber guns by those as young as 14-years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales. Just this past year, the RAND Corporation released a report which identified eleven potential terrorist scenarios at Los Angeles International Airport. In one scenario, ``a sniper, using a .50 caliber rifle, fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.'' The report concludes: ``we were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions'' for such an attack. Last June, a Department of Homeland Security representative told the Dallas Morning News that ``we remain concerned about any weapon of choice that could potentially be used by a terrorist, including a .50- caliber rifle.'' I think the Department's concerns are well founded. The bottom line is that the .50-caliber sniper weapon represents a national security threat requiring action by Congress. This is a weapon which should not be available to terrorists and criminals, and should be responsibly controlled through carefully crafted regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fiscal year 2006 budget, a budget which does not represent our Nation's priorities. In addition, this budget piles debt upon debt and then passes it on to our children and grandchildren who will have to pay for this irresponsibility. Perhaps more disturbing, this budget puts tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans ahead of the interests of working families. Some of my colleagues have consistently talked about the need to curb and cut social programs in healthcare, job training, and community development. However, I want to highlight what these cuts actually mean to people. We should not hide behind titles and statistics. We ought to truly understand how this budget affects the lives of those who have trusted Congress with their well-being. First and most importantly, this budget resolution cuts Medicaid by $10 billion. Medicaid provides a critical safety net for 53 million Americans including more than 6 million in California. It provides health and long-term care coverage for more individuals than any other program. For most individuals, it is the health insurer of last resort. I find it ironic that next week is ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' a week devoted to calling attention to the 45 million uninsured Americans, 20 percent of whom are children, and millions more who are under-insured. Because of this budget resolution, the number of uninsured Americans will increase. To give a sense of the magnitude of the Medicaid program, consider that Medicaid now provides health care for 1 in every 5 children. It pays for one-third of all births in this country, almost 40 percent of all long-term care expenses, a sixth of all drug costs, and half of the States' mental health services. It also is the largest payer of services for AIDS patients. And who is at risk in California under this budget resolution? Children, pregnant mothers, poor elderly, blind and disabled communities, military families, our parents and grandparents in nursing homes, employees working in long-term care facilities, community hospitals, and community clinics and health centers. And, that is not all. The community hospital structure in the State of California operates based on a delicate balance of funding streams. $10 billion in Medicaid cuts threatens that delicate balance and it will have a ripple effect on many sectors, not just community hospitals. Public hospitals in California rely on Medicaid as their primary source of funding--sixty-five percent of their patients are either insured through Medicaid or have no health insurance. Medicaid allows patients to access the health care services they need to stay healthy by providing chronic care management, immunizations, cancer screenings, and outpatient care. These are necessary to keep people from getting their health care in hospital emergency rooms where costs are exponentially higher. This is coming at a time when our health care system has already faced major reductions. Seven emergency room departments in California have closed over the past 18 months. Six of the seven were in Los Angeles County. This is in large part due to the low Medicaid reimbursement rates and the high number of uninsured and uncompensated care costs. Last February, the L.A. Times reported that UCLA Healthcare, the largest medical complex in the University of California system, would soon be eliminating about 400 full-time positions, and again, this is due to low Medicaid reimbursement rates and an unexpected increase in the number of indigent patients seeking care at UCLA hospitals. I fear this situation will only worsen under this budget resolution. California already ranks dead last among States for Medicaid spending per recipient and I am told it would take more than $1 billion to lift California out of that position. To make matters worse, California's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, is at 50 percent. That is the lowest allowable percentage under Federal law. This budget resolution does not only affect healthcare. In community development, which I personally understand from my experience as a mayor, this budget drastically cuts the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program. This program is vital for low-income families and individuals in more than 1,100 entitlement communities, urban counties and States, and more than 3,000 rural communities. In the last budget, my home state of California received over $526 million in CDBG funds, accounting for 12.8 percent of the total $4.1 billion grant program. Over the past 5 years, the diverse use of CDBG funds have allowed Los Angeles County to develop almost 9,000 affordable housing units, to create and preserve over 2,000 jobs, to remove over 32 million square feet of graffiti, and to provide loans and technical assistance to over 5,000 businesses among other programs. This budget is risking over 90,000 jobs and reducing much-needed training for 80,000 people. Basically, it is cutting employment opportunities to motivated people who seek training and want to work. These people are asking for our help and we are shutting the door to their future. In terms of small businesses, this budget resolution cuts financial assistance to small businesses, the engine of our economic future, which comprises over 90 percent of all businesses in California. In housing, only half of the 80,000 promised vouchers for low-income families and individuals will be restored under the Section 8 voucher program. These housing vouchers are essential to providing approximately 2 million low-income families, senior citizens and people with disabilities with a safe and affordable place to live. In sum, this budget asks those communities who are in desperate need of medical services, housing, economic development, and job training, to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, to pay for the war, and to take the brunt of our budget cuts. This budget resolution will disproportionately affect children, poor working families, the elderly and many others in California. I must object to a budget that protects $70 billion in tax cuts and mandates more than $10 million in needed services. I cannot in good conscience support a budget that continues to ask even more from those who are less able to give.