Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think I have the floor. I was waiting for the question.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For a nice question or a mean one?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to make a brief response, both to the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Idaho. One of the reasons why I think it is so difficult to look at a broken immigration system is because our immigration system is so big. America takes more immigrants in its regular immigration quota a year than other industrialized countries put together. If you take that and you take all of the other programs, H-1B, H-2B, the L visas, and all these other visas, it adds up to about 5.5 million people a year who come into our country under one visa or another. It is an enormous job to look over this whole breadth and scope of immigration programs and make the necessary changes. I think one logical change is if a quota of people coming from Mexico is perhaps too small, people have to wait too long; therefore, there is a huge illegal immigration problem. Nonetheless, we are a nation of laws. If we have the law, we should follow the law. So I am one who believes reform should be done, but in the name of reform I don't believe we should pass a bill quickly on an appropriation bill without going through the necessary steps to adjust it and amend it in the committee. Let me make a point in response to the Senator from Idaho, and I am pleased that he is a great expert on California agriculture. Since he is, he will know that the great bulk of the workforce is illegal. That workforce has been there for a very long time. I would accept a bill that provided for some adjustment of a workforce that had worked in agricultural labor for 3 years, that had been in California doing it, could show prior work documentation and be vouched for by employers. According to this bill that we are going to have on the floor--and I assume people feel it is going to sweep through--you only have to work for a hundred days--that is, 575 hours--in 12 months and you are eligible for your family coming, for a temporary green card; and then if you work another time, you get a permanent green card. Well, this is going--mark my words--to be a huge magnet. When I discuss this with people, they say: There is an eligible date. Look at it here. Do you think people across the border know the eligible date? All they know is they have to be here and work for a hundred days, so come on over. They come over and you cannot find them and they don't go home. What happens is the numbers build up, the people in southern California find people camping in their backyards, in their gullies, and in the parks; there is no housing, the schools are overcrowded, and then people go to the ballot with an initiative. That is what happened in 1994 when proposition 187, unconstitutional as it was, passed. Polls show that if put on the ballot today, it would most likely pass again. So I have tried to be constructive. I have proposed amendments that have been rejected by the authors in the House and the Senate. I am on the Immigration Subcommittee. Why do any of us serve on a subcommittee, then, if a bill of such enormous dimension--this could be the largest immigration program in history. It could bring millions of people into this country. The workers, their spouses, their minor children are all permitted. We should know what we do. Now, a hundred days of work, 575 hours of work--if I were on the other side, I would say I can sneak across and get a hundred hours of work, then I can bring in my family and I will have a green card. It is nirvana. For my State, it is perhaps different--Texas might be the next State, and then Arizona--in terms of sheer numbers and problems. When the President proposed his plan, let me tell you that apprehensions at the border in February went up 14.2 percent; the next month, March, 57.8 percent; April, 79.6 percent. So the call was out there, and people thought, aha, and they tried to come across the border to get into the country. The same thing will happen. That is why it is important that we figure a way to prevent that from happening. I will provide for an adjustment of status for people who have worked in agricultural labor for a long time, for a substantial period of time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for authoring this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I agree with all the comments he has made. I believe it is a huge mistake to bypass the Judiciary Committee, to bypass the Immigration Subcommittee on bills that are big in their ramifications on the United States of America. If we do that, we will get into a debate on the floor on the AgJOBS bill. I think very few people know, for example, that the way the bill is written you can have two misdemeanor convictions and essentially still get a temporary green card. That can be misdemeanor theft. That can be misdemeanor battery. That can be misdemeanor drugs. I will have an amendment to address that. I will take some time with it. Most people do not know you just have to have 100 hours of work in a 12-month period. I will have an amendment to address that, and there will be other amendments to address that. But this is a very controversial bill that can have a huge impact on the number of people coming across the border. At the very least, it should have a markup in Judiciary. We should have an opportunity to make amendments in Judiciary before it comes to the floor of the Senate as an amendment on an appropriations bill. There is also the REAL ID bill, which very well may come up. Senator Mikulski has an amendment on H-2B. I am concerned about it because it does not have a cap on the number, and the H-2B quota has been reached. I believe it is 66,000. Maryland has some problems, which are valid problems, I am sure. But just to open the bill, unless there is a specified number--I think we need to discuss it. I will bring up the State Criminal Alien Program for reauthorization. This is paying back the States for their costs of confinement of illegals who commit felonies and misdemeanors and go to county jails and State prisons. So it will open a long and complicated debate on the floor of the Senate. We should not do that. Please. I have sat as a member of the Immigration Subcommittee now for 12 years. I come from a big immigration State, the largest, no doubt about that, in America, a State with very deep concerns. I understand the agricultural labor needs of the States as well as anyone. And not to be able to have a markup, not to be able to make amendments in a committee and present a bill that has been scrubbed, amended, and is ready for prime time, I believe, is a huge mistake. So I am very pleased to support the Senator's amendment. I will have another amendment in due course in this area as well. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would object since I have been waiting.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following the Senator from Maryland for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. Additionally, this bill gives this special temporary green card to people with two misdemeanors on their record. I have discussed this with the authors in the House, and they do not want to amend it. My own view is there should be no misdemeanors. Why should somebody who broke a law coming here be able to break two more laws and get special consideration? We all know misdemeanor laws vary. We know there are misdemeanor drug laws, there are misdemeanor battery laws, misdemeanor theft laws, misdemeanor driving under the influence--there are all kinds of criminal misdemeanors. To say someone who broke the law who came here illegally, who was illegally employed, can have two misdemeanors on their record and have a special status is something I do not understand. Yet I have implored them for a substantial period of time, and they do not want to change. If we had a chance to discuss this in the Judiciary Committee in a markup, this would be brought out, and we could debate it back and forth. People could say why they want it, we could say why we do not think it should be included, and there would be a vote. At least a bill would have been vetted by a committee process.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This has been and is today a huge problem. Additionally, there is another problem on our southern border, if the Senator would give me a minute, and that is, other than Mexicans crossing the border being picked up illegally. I think it was up to 88,000 last year. So it is shooting up. And when you ask the Border Patrol about it, they say this is very difficult for them to sort it all out because there is such pressure on the border. The Senator, certainly, in Arizona knows that pressure on the border. The fraud of documents is well known. One can buy a driver's license, a Social Security card fraudulently in places that I know of and have seen it happening in southern California for $15 or $20. So that is not a big problem.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Amendment No. 387

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the clerk. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Alexander, Leahy, Clinton, and Boxer. As the clerk has read, it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It relates directly to the REAL ID Act. It is the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that attempts to bind the Senate conferees to oppose the REAL ID Act in the conference on this bill. I would like to take a minute to explain why. First of all, this was presented to the Senate in February. It has not yet been heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, once again, a very controversial bill will be considered in conference on this bill. It was put in the House bill in a preemptive way. It is there, and we have to deal with it. I want everyone to know this bill is major in scope in what it does to change immigration hearings and much to do with immigration. It very much tightens the standards for asylum and withholding of removal. It would give judges broad discretion to deny asylum claims based on the credibility of the applicant. And possibly one reason alone could mean a negative credibility finding. It changes the statutory requirement that an applicant must demonstrate to be granted asylum, making it much more difficult, and it eliminates judicial review by barring a court from reversing the decision of the judge or other adjudicator about the availability of corroborating evidence. It would give the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the ability to unilaterally waive all laws to construct the border fence, including possibly wage and hour laws, criminal laws, labor laws, civil rights, and so on. Now, the problem with this section--I happen to be for finishing this 3-mile stretch of California border with a border fence--is the wording in this is so broad that it appears to provide waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads not just to finish the fence in Southern California but anywhere in the United States. And it would allow for no review or appeal of the decisions of the Secretary of Homeland Security relating to this. In terms of judicial review of orders of removal, it would limit, if not eliminate, stays of removal while cases are pending. Most importantly, it would eliminate, for the first time in our Nation's history, any habeas corpus review of removal orders for both criminal and noncriminal immigrants. This is a major change. It would limit the ability of the courts of appeal to review mixed questions of law, even in cases of longtime, lawful permanent residents, if virtually any crime led to the deportation. Further, the restrictions on reviewing mixed questions of law would apply to asylum and claims under the Convention Against Torture. Now, here is a section that causes great concern. I believe it does to Republicans as well as Democrats. The REAL ID Act appears to essentially create bounty hunters. Let me tell you how it does that. It increases the authority of bail bondsmen to arrest and detain anyone they believe is illegal, including a financial incentive by leaving it up to a bondsman's opinion that an alien poses a flight risk which necessitates them being turned over to the Department of Homeland Security. If that is the case, the alien forfeits his or her bond premium under very broad circumstances. Illegal aliens turned over to the Department of Homeland Security must be detained. Now, this is at a time when immigration officials have not proven they can detain all of the aliens they apprehend today. What this does is, it says to the bail bondsman, if you think someone is illegal, you can go after them. You can maintain custody over them and you turn them in, and they have to be detained. This is on a bail bondsman's opinion of illegality. It also would provide bail bondsmen with unfettered access to information on illegal aliens and to influence Government processes with noncitizens subject to bonding. I don't know that we should be giving bail bondsmen this authority without any hearing in the Senate or any consequential discussion in the House on this point. It sets minimum bonds for aliens in removal proceedings at $10,000, and it prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from releasing anyone on their own recognizance who is in removal proceedings. We don't even know if we can hold everybody. This particular section, actually more than any other, causes me enormous concern, and obviously the cosponsors of this sense of the Senate. It does a number of other things. It holds spouses and children of an alien accountable for an alien's involvement in a terrorist organization or activity, even if they didn't know about it. I don't know that we should do that without understanding what we are doing. With respect to driver's licenses, it creates a large unfunded mandate on the States. The CBO did a cost estimate of the costs associated with implementing the driver's license provisions and estimated that DHS would spend $20 million over the 5-year period to reimburse States for the cost of complying with the legislation. But in addition, it would require States that participate in the driver's license agreement, which is an interstate database, to share driver information at a cost of $80 million over 3 years, to reimburse States for the cost to establish and maintain the database. The grand total is $100 million over 3 to 5 years. The just-passed intelligence reform law sets up a process whereby States, the Federal Government, and interested parties will make recommendations for establishing minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The REAL ID Act essentially countermands the rights of States in this process. Both the current law, pursuant to the intelligence reform bill, and the REAL ID Act require that States set certain minimum document requirements as well as minimum issuance standards. The difference is that the REAL ID Act eliminates the stakeholder process and proscribes a very complicated and burdensome set of requirements on States. It also has differences between the intelligence reform bill and the REAL ID Act on the issue of driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The intelligence bill gives States 2 years to comply with minimum standards. The REAL ID Act gives States 3 years in order for these documents to be accepted by a Federal agency for official purposes. Secondly, the intelligence reform bill requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation work together to establish minimum standards for driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The REAL ID Act imposes on States what must be done. I don't think we should do this. We passed an intelligence reform bill. We dealt with some standards in that bill. Here, without a hearing, without any committee consideration, this bill is put, by the House of Representatives, on to this supplemental and is in conference. I don't think we should do this. The sponsors agree with me. So we have proposed a sense of the Senate that would seek to bind conferees to eliminate the REAL ID Act from this bill. That doesn't mean it is eliminated for all time. I also believe the Judiciary Committee should promptly hear the bill. We should consider amendments. We should be able to compare it in this house with the intelligence reform bill just passed and, therefore, make a decision. This is what the Senate is set up for. We are meant to be a deliberative body. We are meant to consider major and controversial pieces of legislation and, if necessary, slow them down. This is added unilaterally on this supplemental bill with no consideration by this house whatsoever. It is going to resolve itself with a very few Members of this body dealing with an enormously complicated, controversial bill that conflicts with other legislation passed by this body. We don't do our work if we let this happen. We have proposed this sense of the Senate, and I am hopeful there will be enough votes in this body so that the conferees on the Senate side will simply not accept business being done this way. Who would have thought a major piece of immigration legislation would be placed, without hearing, on this emergency supplemental which deals with the war in Iraq and critical emergency matters? It is a big mistake. I ask for the yeas and nays, and I understand the vote will not be tonight, but this will be put in the order.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that the amendment be read.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want the Senator to know it is my intention to vote for her amendment. I obviously did not want it on this bill, but since it is, it is my intention to vote for it. Amendment No. 395 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 should not be included in the conference report)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling initiative to be part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. These water recycling projects will produce approximately 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States. The legislation would authorize two project components: the first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, IEUA and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District CVWD, will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually. Combined, approximately 100,000 acre feet of new water would be produced locally by 2010, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project. Significantly, the Federal cost share is only 10 percent of the upfront capital costs. We must continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the Western United States. The Inland Empire region is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. This legislation means that the Inland Empire will use less water from the Colorado River and northern California, and the bill will have other benefits like improved water quality, energy savings, and job creation. The development of recycled water has enormous capacity to produce significant amounts of water, and have it ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years. Today's Commissioner of Reclamation said it best when, in a speech to the WateReuse Association he declared that recycled water is ``the last river to tap.'' IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported water. As we look into the future, it is appropriate that we are guided by lessons from the recent past. In the late 1980's, California confronted a sustained, multi-year drought. It was so serious that some observed that our State had 6-year-old first graders who had never seen ``green grass.'' California faced a crisis and water agencies and water districts, particularly in Southern California found a solution-- recycled water. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. The Interior Secretary looked into the future and saw a day when California would get its allocation--4.4. million acre-feet, but no longer would it get up to 800,000 acre-feet of ``surplus flows.'' As is well known, that day has arrived. For any political leader, it's always a tremendous challenge to look into the future and design programs and solutions to a crisis. Secretary Lujan did exactly that. In August 1991, he launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions. In this endeavor, Secretary Lujan was assisted by then Commissioner of Reclamation Dennis Underwood. Last week, Mr. Underwood was selected by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD, board of directors as their new general manager and CEO. Congress saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation. The Lujan initiative, a year after it was first announced, became Title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland and other western metropolitan areas. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, through the Fontana Water Company, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga through the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Monte Vista Water District. This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD's Integrated Resource Plan, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, SAWPA's Integrated Watershed Plan, and the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Plan, Inland Empire Utility Agency's Feasibility Study, Cucamonga Valley Water District's ``Every Drop Counts'' Urban Water Reuse Management Strategy, the Bureau of Reclamation's Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study, the State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, the WateReuse Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Water 2025 Initiative. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support recycling projects. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these water recycling projects. These projects were authorized for feasibility study in Public Law 102-575, Title XVI, Section 1606, the Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study in 1992. The State of California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, SAWPA and others provided $3 million of the $6 million required for the regional feasibility study of which these projects were one part. Detailed Feasibility Studies and environmentally reports have been prepared and approved by both agencies and certified by the State of California. Congressman David Dreier introduced identical legislation in the House in the 108th Congress. The House Resources Committee and then the House of Representatives both passed the bill unanimously. His bill is cosponsored by Representatives Gary Miller, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert and Joe Baca. And these valuable recycling projects would never have progressed at all without the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, general manager of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 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 introduce legislation to authorize the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling initiative to be part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. These water recycling projects will produce approximately 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States. The legislation would authorize two project components: the first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, IEUA and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District CVWD, will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually. Combined, approximately 100,000 acre feet of new water would be produced locally by 2010, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project. Significantly, the Federal cost share is only 10 percent of the upfront capital costs. We must continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the Western United States. The Inland Empire region is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. This legislation means that the Inland Empire will use less water from the Colorado River and northern California, and the bill will have other benefits like improved water quality, energy savings, and job creation. The development of recycled water has enormous capacity to produce significant amounts of water, and have it ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years. Today's Commissioner of Reclamation said it best when, in a speech to the WateReuse Association he declared that recycled water is ``the last river to tap.'' IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported water. As we look into the future, it is appropriate that we are guided by lessons from the recent past. In the late 1980's, California confronted a sustained, multi-year drought. It was so serious that some observed that our State had 6-year-old first graders who had never seen ``green grass.'' California faced a crisis and water agencies and water districts, particularly in Southern California found a solution-- recycled water. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. The Interior Secretary looked into the future and saw a day when California would get its allocation--4.4. million acre-feet, but no longer would it get up to 800,000 acre-feet of ``surplus flows.'' As is well known, that day has arrived. For any political leader, it's always a tremendous challenge to look into the future and design programs and solutions to a crisis. Secretary Lujan did exactly that. In August 1991, he launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions. In this endeavor, Secretary Lujan was assisted by then Commissioner of Reclamation Dennis Underwood. Last week, Mr. Underwood was selected by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD, board of directors as their new general manager and CEO. Congress saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation. The Lujan initiative, a year after it was first announced, became Title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland and other western metropolitan areas. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, through the Fontana Water Company, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga through the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Monte Vista Water District. This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD's Integrated Resource Plan, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, SAWPA's Integrated Watershed Plan, and the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Plan, Inland Empire Utility Agency's Feasibility Study, Cucamonga Valley Water District's ``Every Drop Counts'' Urban Water Reuse Management Strategy, the Bureau of Reclamation's Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study, the State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, the WateReuse Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Water 2025 Initiative. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support recycling projects. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these water recycling projects. These projects were authorized for feasibility study in Public Law 102-575, Title XVI, Section 1606, the Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study in 1992. The State of California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, SAWPA and others provided $3 million of the $6 million required for the regional feasibility study of which these projects were one part. Detailed Feasibility Studies and environmentally reports have been prepared and approved by both agencies and certified by the State of California. Congressman David Dreier introduced identical legislation in the House in the 108th Congress. The House Resources Committee and then the House of Representatives both passed the bill unanimously. His bill is cosponsored by Representatives Gary Miller, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert and Joe Baca. And these valuable recycling projects would never have progressed at all without the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, general manager of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 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, on Saturday evening the world lost a voice for peace, justice, and human dignity. Born in Poland in 1920, Pope John Paul II grew up in the aftermath of World War I. As a young man, he witnessed the injustice of the Nazi occupation of his country, lived amid the horrendous crimes of the Holocaust, and survived decades of repression behind the Iron Curtain. Out of those experiences, he developed a hopeful view of the world that defined his 26 years as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and he shared that vision with Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide. As the first non-Italian Pope since 1523, Pope John Paul II was a truly groundbreaking figure. He redefined the papacy, coming out from behind the walls of the Vatican to travel to 129 countries and literally reach out to people wherever he went. Through his travel--more than any other Pope--he helped rejuvenate and expand Catholicism to areas far beyond its roots. During his 26 years as Pope, the Catholic Church grew from 750 million people to over 1 billion, with most of that growth coming from the third world. For those in developing countries who struggled merely to survive, the Pope was a strong advocate for economic justice. And for those who lived under repression, he was a powerful voice for freedom. His 1979 visit to his native Poland is viewed as the spark that ignited the labor movement which toppled communism in Poland and led to its demise throughout Eastern Europe a decade later. It was his powerful yet simple belief in the value of human life that brought him to challenge violence wherever he saw it. He chastised the brutal Communist governments of Eastern Europe. He criticized the military junta that governed Brazil in the early 1980s. He condemned nuclear war while meeting with survivors of the Hiroshima bombing. He called for an end to the violence in Northern Ireland. And he appealed for human rights in Cuba. The Pope consistently urged leaders and citizens alike to seek peace and respect human life. The Pope also sought to heal wounds. He apologized for the errors of Catholics over the last 2,000 years and for injustices against Jews, women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the poor. He acknowledged the failure of many Catholics to help Jews during the Holocaust. And more recently, he condemned the sexual abuse of children by priests in the United States. The Pope reached out to members of other faiths at a time of growing sectarian violence and religious strife. He was the first Pope to pray in a synagogue, the first to visit Auschwitz, and the first to make an official papal visit to the Holy Land--John Paul II made great strides in improving relations between Catholics and Jews. And just as he acknowledged the mistakes made by his Church and its members, he also demonstrated a willingness to forgive those who had done harm to him. In December 1983, he met with the man who had attempted to assassinate him 2\1/2\ half years earlier. During that meeting, the Pope forgave the man who had shot him three times. The Pope regularly visited the United States and met with five Presidents. He believed that the U.S. had a special responsibility to the world calling on our Nation to be ``for the world, an example of a genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society.'' In recent years, even as his health deteriorated, he refused to give up. And in this, he served as a model to millions of people throughout the world about how faith and willpower can overcome adversity. Indeed, I cannot remember a Pope who has been more warmly received and loved. I had the great honor to meet him at the Vatican in 1982 where I presented him with a cross sculpted from handguns melted down after being turned into police when they were banned in San Francisco. He received my gift warmly, giving me a rosary in return. The world has lost a strong voice for peace, justice, and human dignity. Pope John Paul II will be dearly missed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to know with whom this legislation has been shared? It certainly has not been shared with me, and I do not intend to just sit here while we change the nature of all of these things to put this in the political arena without a hearing. Amendment No. 207

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished Senator that essentially what he said is correct. I have no objection to an amendment in the program. My State is a big user of this program at $111 million last year. He is right, Texas, California, and the big immigrant States are the States that are most affected by this program. Moneys go to every single State. I have no objection to mandating the money must go directly into the State prison system or the county jail system, whatever that might be. I point out also to the Senator when I was mayor, we had a revenue- sharing program. We had a community block grant program, all of which looked as though they were going to go by the boards, certainly CDBG with this budget. This is a total Federal responsibility. For our Government not to take that responsibility and recompense those States that provide the incarceration--these people are not in Federal prison, they are in State prisons--is a huge mistake. I have objection, certainly, to mandating where the funds would go. If the managing Senator wishes to move this by unanimous consent, I certainly have no objections to that, either. Amendment No. 240

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan sense of the Senate. President Bush, when he was Governor, used this program. The Governor of my State, Governor Schwarzenegger, supports it. It is a huge item, as has been stated by Senators Kyl and Cornyn, for border States. This is a tremendous responsibility to the Federal Government. It is an unfunded mandate. It is a program that should not be allowed to lapse. We have come to the floor with this sense of the Senate to ask the Senate to pass this resolution so that those of us on the authorizing committee and on Appropriations can move to get this job done. As I mentioned, this is a 7-year reauthorization. The amounts requested for each year are spelled out in the resolution. This is a total Federal responsibility, and I am hopeful that the Senate will accept their responsibility. I yield the floor at this time and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today in support of Senator Sarbanes' amendment to the Budget resolution that would restore funding to the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program and 17 other community and economic development programs proposed to be eliminated. These programs are vital to our Nation's low and moderate income neighborhoods, as these are the communities who need these programs the most. Despite the proven results of the CDBG program and the other 17 community and economic development programs, the fiscal year 2006 budget proposes to consolidate these programs into a single Commerce Department program, resulting in a $1.89 billion cut. In fiscal year 2005, the total budget for all 18 community and economic development programs proposed to be consolidated, including CDBG, was $5.6 billion. The administration's proposal only provides $3.7 billion for all 18 programs, leading to a $1.89 billion cut in community development funds. This major reduction would have a devastating impact on our Nation's neediest communities and families who rely on these programs. The loss of funds would also impact our Nation's economy, affecting small businesses who receive loans to finance projects that lead to the creation and retention of jobs. The Sarbanes' amendment would restore the proposed $1.89 billion cuts to the CDBG program and 17 other community and economic development programs, such as the Community Development Loan Guarantees Program and Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; retain the administration of these important programs at their current agencies. For example, the CDBG program would remain at HUD and not be transferred to the Department of Commerce; accomplish this by closing tax loopholes that an overwhelming majority of Senators voted to close in the last Congress. While the vote to close tax loopholes was not enacted, it offers us a bipartisan way to save community and economic development programs. The Community Development Block Grant Program is one of the most effective Federal domestic programs to revitalize urban and rural communities. Over the past 30 years, cities, counties, and States have used more than $105 billion in CDBG funds. Over 95 percent of CDBG funds have gone to projects and activities principally benefiting low- and moderate-income individuals and families such as housing development, recreation centers, clinics, day- care facilities, and job creation and training. According to HUD's ``Highlights of Fiscal Year 2004 CDBG Accomplishments,'' CDBG funding led to the creation and retention of more than 90,000 jobs and 85,000 individuals received employment training nationwide in the last year alone. In 2004, CDBG funds also helped with the rehabilitation of over 130,000 rental units and single family homes, and allowed more than 11,000 Americans to achieve the American Dream and become homeowners. Additionally, nearly 700 crime prevention and awareness programs were funded and child care services were provided to 100,065 children in 205 communities across the country. In my State of California, CDBG grants are critical to both urban and rural cities who rely on these funds to serve many low-income neighborhoods. In fiscal year 2005, California received over $526 million in CDBG funds, accounting for 12.8 percent of the total $4.1 billion grant program. Of these funds, for example, California cities and counties received $82.8 million to the city of Los Angeles and $34.6 million to Los Angeles County; $24.6 million to the city of San Francisco; $11.5 million to Riverside County; $8.4 million to San Bernardino County; and $5.5 million to Fresno County. 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. Cuts to the CDBG program would greatly hurt Los Angeles County's low income residents, the primary beneficiaries of CDBG-funded services. According to 2000 Census data, 17.9 percent of Los Angeles County residents had incomes below the poverty level, a far higher poverty rate than the 12.4 percent national average. CDBG funds have not only benefited large urban counties like Los Angeles, but rural counties and cities in California as well. Here are a few examples: The city of Porterville in the Central Valley, which has a population of over 39,000 and an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, has utilized CDBG funds to rehabilitate over 50 homes and assist more than 200 first time homebuyers purchase their first home. Many of these first time homebuyers are farm worker families. The city of Victorville, located in San Bernardino County, served over 2,900 senior citizens, youth, homeless, disabled, victims of domestic violence, and low-income families in 2004 with CDGB funds. Over $551,550 in CDBG grants were provided to low-income senior and disabled homeowners to rehabilitate their homes, ensuring that Victorville citizens have a safe place to live. As you can see, CDBG funds are crucial to closing the disparity between rich and poor in so many communities in California and throughout the country. As a former mayor, I know that CDBG resources are the most flexible dollars within city government, making them extremely valuable to the economic vitality of local communities. We cannot allow these funds to be cut. To do so would send the wrong message to our country's neediest communities and families who rely on these funds the most. Although CDBG is one of the main community development programs slated for consolidation and cuts in the fiscal year 2006 budget, there are 17 other important programs that would be impacted as well. Specifically, I would like to touch on a few of the following programs that have had a substantial benefit to counties and cities: Community Development Loan Guarantees, section 108 loan program, funded at $7 million in fiscal year 2005, is used often with CDBG funds to finance the construction of new facilities and economic development activities such as business loans. Through the section 108 Loan Program, the city of San Francisco has been able to construct 13 new childcare facilities which created 599 new slots for children of low-income families, and created 200 new jobs through 8 business start ups and expansions. Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, which received $24 million in fiscal year 2005, used with the section 108 loan program, helps finance the redevelopment of seriously contaminated sites. Cities throughout California and the Nation have received assistance through these funds to conduct environmental engineering assessments for site cleanup activities. This amendment would also restore funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions, CDFI, which provides private sector investors with tax credits to raise money for hard to finance development projects in low-income areas, as well as other economic development programs. CDFI received $55 million in funding this year. These community and economic development programs proposed to be cut in the fiscal year 2006 budget put Federal dollars where they are needed most by funding projects that are unique to the problems they address. The proposed cuts to the CDBG program and 17 other programs would result in higher unemployment, diminish business creation and retention, increase the number of blighted buildings, and the number of homeless people who cannot find affordable housing. The loss of these dedicated funds would profoundly affect our country's low and moderate income communities and residents. We must not allow this to happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Sarbanes amendment to restore funding for CDBG and the 17 other community and economic development programs proposed to be eliminated.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I very much thank the Senators from Texas and Arizona for their support on this matter. I know Senator Kennedy has an urgent matter he would like to be able to present. I will not yield my time, but I would be hopeful that the President would give him time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield my portion of the time to the Senator from Texas.