Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me just finish. I am just getting wound up. Let me just finish this windup. Here, in the dead of night--this is not poorly thought out. This is very carefully thought out. Whoever did this knew exactly what they were doing, and they got it through one House. Please, don't shuffle this under our desks with a resolution. This bill should be defeated. It should go back. The House of Representatives, which passed it, should at least have to come back to Washington and correct their error. This is the way I feel. I think the American people would be just appalled if they knew this was in the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will yield, certainly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely not, because twice on line 14 and lines 19 and 20, it reinforces that it is a tax return or return information. It broadens it from tax return.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. Absolutely. I can even see it being used to go after some district attorney in Texas. I find this an egregious abuse of power. I think we ought to spend some time on it. We ought to talk about what it means. I do not think any Member of this body ought to accept the fact. And if some staff does have the power to simply put something in that is so widespread, have the House of Representatives already pass it--and a bright staffer of Senator Conrad's found this. What if we had passed this bill? Senator McCain is absolutely right. This place is broken. And it starts by having one party left out of conference, which has become more and more an accepted trait. That is how this place is broken. You are going to have one party where one person can insert things in the dead of night, in huge bills, which come to this Chamber. It has already passed 345 Members of the House of Representatives.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think there certainly ought to be an investigation. I cannot conceive of a staffer doing this without authorization. I cannot conceive of a staffer--if this is so staff can go and look at tax loopholes, in the first place, the Appropriations Committee does not need this. The Finance Committee can do that. Why does the Appropriations Committee need this authority? It does not make any sense. Not only that, if you are going to copy the legislation that relates to the chairman of the Finance Committee, there is a sanction there, a very heavy sanction for misuse of that information.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If you are going to copy it, why not copy that part of it? This is not a copy job. This is somebody's innovative thinking of how they could get their minions access to the tax returns of individuals who might be political opponents or who might come up against them in some way or for general resource information to use against an individual, against a company, against a member of the press, at any given time. Everything we have tried to do, with Social Security numbers, with privacy, is to protect individuals' rights to their own privacy. Every stricture of the IRS is to protect an individual's right to privacy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It gives them free access to every IRS facility anywhere in America, to go and rummage through and do whatever dirty work they want to do.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I worked on privacy legislation, and this absolutely does not have any protection for an individual.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may make a comment--and then I will defer to a question by the Senator from Idaho. I think this is so Machiavellian--to realize this power is being given to just one Member of the House and one Member of the Senate, and it is a power that I think is broader than that which now exists with sanctions for the Chairman of the Finance Committee. It is not just a staffer, it is an agent that can go. You can hire an investigator. You can have your campaign chairman designated to go in writing. That is the broad fashion in which this phrase or this section is written. It is a very frightening thing. As I say, I don't often get exercised or upset about things, but the more I read, the more I saw that it was very carefully put together. It is extraordinarily dangerous and a real abuse of power. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the comments of the Senator. Mr. President, I will wrap this up. I commend my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for her indefatigable effort and perseverance on the Weldon amendment. I want to say how strongly I agree with her. I will submit for the Record a letter I circulated, signed by Senators Boxer, Snowe, Clinton, Lincoln, Mikulski, Stabenow, Murray, Cantwell and Collins. I think if I could probably sum it up for everybody, this is just one more step in removing a woman's right to choose. It is a terrible step because it also subjects a woman without resources to a situation where she cannot find help, particularly in a rural area. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, I did not say that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I was present in the caucus when the Senator from North Dakota raised this issue and read the language, and I think I have listened to all of the commentary. I very much respect the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I have served on that committee for 10 years now. I have a very hard time accepting that this is just an inadvertent staff submission, and I wanted to say why. Because this section 222, if you read it in its entirety, is really an egregious abuse of power. If you go down to line 17, it says: ``allow agents.'' We are not talking-- this is not even staff. This is anyone the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would designate, in written form, would have ``access [to all] Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information'' such as legal information, cases brought. I cannot believe that some staffer, for some technical reason, wanted to insert this in the bill. I think this is an egregious overreach of power. I think we ought to do the right thing by it, and the right thing, for me, is to vote down this bill, call the House back, have them reconference the bill, and do it the right way. I do not think this language should be active for 1 minute, let alone 1 day. It is just a terrible, egregious abuse of power. I do not tend to be suspicious. But I see the Senator from Idaho there, and I see the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee here. Does anyone believe, really, that some staffer, without any permission, thought up a scheme by which a chairman's ``agent'' could have access to every IRS facility anywhere in this Nation, and every single IRS filing of every citizen of this Nation? I mean, you know, we were not born yesterday. We did not come down with the first snow. I think that is asking for an impossibility. How can we believe that? I think to just shuffle this off----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In working through the bill, the Forest Service stressed a need to develop a plan to restore the late successional reserve LSR forest of the Sanhedrin wilderness area. We agreed that wilderness designation could be fully compatible with such restoration treatments. I agree with the Forest Service observation that this area has been altered by human influences, including the suppression of natural burning. As the Forest Service develops its plan in accordance with this act and with the goal of LSR restoration, I believe the old growth characteristics of the LSR are a primary value of the wilderness. I also believe that the Forest Service can achieve its goal of LSR restoration in accordance with this act and the Forest Service manual direction on wilderness. The relevant portion of the manual, FSM 2323.35a states: Manipulation of Wildlife Habitat. The objective of all projects must be to perpetuate the wilderness resource; projects must be necessary to sustain a primary value of a given wilderness or to perpetuate a federally listed threatened or endangered species. To qualify for approval by the Chief, habitat manipulation projects must satisfy the following criteria: The condition needing change is a result of abnormal human influence. The project can be accomplished with assurance that there will be no serious or lasting damage to wilderness values. There is reasonable assurances that the project will accomplish the desired objectives. Do my colleagues share my views that treatments to promote old growth in the Sanhedrin LSR are fully consistent with this act?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The first issue I would like to address concerns horsepacking into wilderness. I want to make sure horsepackers can keep using these wilderness areas. I recognize that the wilderness areas created by this act are currently enjoyed by hikers, people on horseback, hunters and anglers. In addition, many visitors are serviced by commercial outfitters using horses as pack animals. I believe horsepacking is an important use of wilderness, and I know it is a use that was well established in wilderness prior to the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964. Unlike some other units of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the areas designated by this act are not heavily used by horses at this time. While fully recognizing the responsibilities of the land managers to monitor visitor use and respond appropriately to any resource damage that may result from overuse, I believe that current levels of horsepacking use in these areas are consistent with wilderness designation. Do my colleagues agree?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to raise one other issue. Since the enactment of the King Range Act in 1970, property owners Linda Smith Franklin and Mary Smith Etter have been granted access to their land by the Bureau of Land Management via the Smith-Etter Road. This legislation has designated the Smith-Etter Road as providing access to private property owners and their invitees. It is my understanding that nothing in this act should in any way alter the access currently granted to Franklin and Etter under existing policies. I believe that Franklin and Etter should continue to receive the access that they currently enjoy. On the subject of fire suppression in this same area, I note that this act provides the land management agencies with the necessary flexibility to conduct fire suppression activities to protect human life and property. For example, in the King Range Honeydew fire in 2003, which resulted in 14,000 acres of fire damage in the King Range Conservation Area, the Bureau of Land Management authorized a fire truck and a 3-member crew to be stationed at the bottom of Telegraph Ridge, within a four mile range of the Franklin property in order to allow easy, quick access to the Franklin property in the event that fire suppression activities were warranted. As a result, firefighters were able to fend off the fire and prevent damage to the Franklin property. It is my understanding that nothing in this Act would prevent BLM from continuing this practice when so warranted by fire danger. Do my colleagues share my understanding of these access and fire suppression issues in the King Range?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleagues.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Some people have voiced concerns about hunting and fishing in wilderness areas. I want to make perfectly clear that nothing in this bill alters the fact that the State of California retains jurisdiction of wildlife management in these wilderness areas which includes the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief. For many of us who knew Tom Daschle and know Tom Daschle, we never thought this day would come. We never thought Tom would really be defeated in an election. I thought a lot about that. Why? I mean, this man is such a good man. He is such a good friend. He is a good leader. I do not know anyone who cares more about their State and who has worked harder. He talked about the State's energy sufficiency, and it was Tom Daschle's sheer will of support to develop an ethanol industry for the State. I know because I tangled with him year after year because from a California perspective this was not such a good idea; from a South Dakota perspective, it was. For Tom, his State always came first. I thought he was unbeatable. He is for the little people. I remember being in the State. I remember hearing him talk about the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the state of the people in Pine Ridge and how deeply he felt. When he feels very deeply, his voice gets that quaver and it drops low. This is a very hard day for many of us. As I went down the aisle to embrace Tom, two people said this really is a tough business. And, in fact, it is a tough business. I also want to say that Tom Daschle was a great leader for our caucus. Many of us on many days watched him convince, cajole, push, and bring us together when we had to be together. We watched him on the Senate floor in the middle of the night, early in the morning, late in the day, always gracious, always patient, always articulate. We never had to worry about Tom Daschle's integrity or his credibility. I still wonder, how could he be beat? This is such a good man, such a good leader, such a good State representative. For me and my husband he was a personal friend. When Dick was in Washington, early in the morning he would run with Tom and they would talk about all kinds of things. The run was always a good one and my husband would come home and always say what a great guy Tom Daschle is. I think for all of us we wish him all the best. For me, I do not believe this man has reached his potential yet. I think he still has enormous gifts to give to this Nation, to his State, and I believe he will, perhaps in a different way. Perhaps we will see him come back in a different form. For Tom Daschle, these 10 years were very special years and for us we were so privileged because we had an opportunity to be led by a good man, by a great friend, and by a great leader.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Miscellaneous Tariff bill, in particular a provision granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Armenia. Armenia is a critical U.S. ally in the Caucus region and PNTR will significantly strengthen bilateral relations and spur economic growth and prosperity in Armenia. It allows Armenian products continued access to the U.S. market at low tariff rates and will go a long ways towards offsetting the impact of Turkish and Azeri blockades that cost Armenia as much as $720 million annually. Simply put, this means jobs and rising living standards for Armenians who want to stay in their country and create a better tomorrow for their children. Armenians have worked so hard to overcome the horrors of the past to build a country based on values Americans and Armenians both share: freedom, democracy, open markets, respect for human rights and the rule of law. We should stand behind those efforts. I am proud to represent over a half million Armenian Americans in California. They are a strong, vibrant community who have enriched the culture of our State and participated in every aspect of its civic life. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting PNTR for Armenia.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience support this request to raise the national debt limit to $8.1 trillion. Rather than raising the debt limit by $800 billion, we should be taking concrete steps to lower our budget deficit and reduce our national debt. If today's increase is adopted, President Bush will have raised the Nation's debt limit by more than $2 trillion. In other words, just 4 years into the job he has raised the debt limit more than any President in U.S. history. The Federal budget deficit reached a record $422 billion for fiscal year 2004, according to the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. Over the next 10 years the President's budget will create $2.3 trillion in additional debt for our Nation. This is a stunning turnaround from 4 years ago, when the budget showed: a $127 billion budget surplus, and a projected 10-year surplus of $5.7 trillion. This is a mind-numbing $8.0 trillion turnaround in just 4 years. Given these numbers, it is not surprising that the debt limit has been raised twice in the past 2 years--by $450 billion in 2002 and by $984 billion in 2003. At the same time he is raising the debt limit, President Bush is promising to ``cut the deficit in half over the next five years.'' But his numbers don't add up and he has provided no clear path to achieve this goal. In contrast, in 1998, following nearly 30 years of deficits and a 17- fold increase in Federal debt from $365.8 billion to $6.4 trillion, we paid off $448 billion of the Nation's publicly held debt. For the first time in more than a generation, some of the funds which would have gone to pay interest on the debt were instead spent actually paying down the debt. I see no similar path being offered by President Bush and now deficits and interest costs are growing once again. Net interest payments on the Federal debt will increase sharply, from $159 billion in 2004 to nearly $350 billion by 2014. Not surprisingly, when this Nation runs a budget deficit, the government must borrow money from other sources to balance its books. What would surprise many, however, is that we largely borrow this money from foreign countries--like China and South Korea. And the degree to which this administration has borrowed from foreign nations is shocking. Over the past 4 years, the U.S. has increased its borrowing from Japan to the tune of $700 billion; by $167 billion from China, $130 billion from Great Britain, and $60 billion from South Korea. When President Bush came to office we owed $1 trillion to foreign countries. We now owe more than $1.8 trillion. We are ceding control of our Nation's destiny for a quick payoff to wealthy taxpayers and this debt limit increase bill simply enables that disturbing behavior. The Committee for Economic Development, an independent, nonpartisan organization of 250 business and education leaders, estimates that if we stay on our current course, the deficit will rise from 3.5 percent of GDP today to: 6.2 percent of GDP in 2020, and 21.1 percent of GDP in 2040. Deficit growth of this nature would absolutely crush any hope this Nation has of addressing so many of our pressing problems, like better homeland security, shoring up Social Security, and fully funding No Child Left Behind. Deficits do matter, and unless we face up to them, they could seriously harm our Nation's economy. Here is why first, deficits mean increased spending on interest instead of priorities. In the short term, deficits can help stimulate the economy or pay for emergency spending. But in the long term, they limit our Nation's ability to fund much needed priorities. This means less money for education, less money for environmental protection, and less money for health care. Second, deficits lead to interest rate increases. We have been fortunate in recent years: interest rates and inflation have remained low. But as we have seen in the past few months, as the economy picks up, the downward pressure on interest rates are being relieved and the impact of deficits are starting to be felt. This is adding huge expenses to variable home mortgages and auto loans. An increase of just 1 percent adds $2,000 per year to the cost of a $200,000 home mortgage. This is more than the majority of American taxpayers received from the President's latest tax cut. Third, deficits prevent us from addressing the looming Social Security and Medicare crises. This is an issue that we can not continue to avoid. The retirement of the baby boomers will place a tremendous strain on our social safety net. In fact, if we do not address the problem, the Medicare trust fund will go broke by the year 2019, and the Social Security trust fund by 2052. Our Nation was poised to deal with these crises at the end of the Clinton administration. Not only have we failed to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but we are also tapping the Social Security trust fund to pay our bills--to the tune of $164 billion last year alone. So what do we do? One possibility is to simply continue along our current path and pass our problems on to our children and grandchildren. In fact, the debt limit increase that we are debating today enables the President to borrow from future generations and sends the message that we are unable to muster the political will necessary to pay today's obligations today. So I strongly believe that the time has come to chart a different course, and make the tough choices that the President and this budget resolution avoid making. We must adopt a balanced approach to both taxes and spending and return to a program of fiscal sanity. This is what we did when I first came to the Senate over a decade ago. At that time, a small, bipartisan group of Senators came together to get our fiscal house in order: Democrats worked to bring spending under control; and Republicans pledged not to push for additional tax cuts. Today, we must come together again to address the deficit and restore our Nation's economic security. On taxes, I believe that we must move to make our Tax Code more equitable, not make the President's tax cuts permanent. To make the President's cuts permanent at a time when the Nation is running historically high budget deficits represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The Tax Policy Institute estimates the cost of making these tax cuts permanent would cost $1.8 trillion over 10 years--$1.8 trillion at just the time that baby boomers will start retiring and Social Security and Medicare need to be stabilized. The tragedy of our current circumstance is that, given the surpluses he inherited, President Bush should have the resources available to devote additional spending to healthcare, education, and the environment. But the wrong policies, at the wrong time, combined with the war on terror, escalating the 2001 tax cuts, and then extending many of them, have contributed toward the largest budget deficit and largest national debt in the country's history. And now, the fact of the matter is that we are going to need to tighten our belts and bring spending under control. I have no problem holding the line on spending, but believe that it must be done in the context of a more responsible approach to tax policy. Finally, we need to take a good, hard look at Social Security and Medicare, and start addressing some of the deeper structural problems with these programs now--before they fall into crisis. These are not easy answers. But holding off on additional tax cuts, bringing spending under control, and dealing with Social Security and Medicare is the only path to long term fiscal order, a balanced budget, and a healthy and vibrant economy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today that the Senate will accept by voice vote the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report. The conference report includes important funding for the reconstruction efforts in States affected by recent hurricanes and assistance for agricultural producers suffering from drought and other natural disasters. First let me address the military construction portion of the agreement. While the President's budget request was $9.55 billion, only 2.5 percent over last year's enacted level, the conference report provides $10 billion for military construction and family housing programs for fiscal year 2005. These new facilities are crucial to the well being of our troops, especially at a time when our active and reserve forces are, along with their families, being asked to make enormous sacrifices for our country. The conference report also provides $11.6 billion in disaster assistance, including $8.8 billion for hurricane-related relief which is designated as emergency spending and $2.8 billion in assistance for agricultural producers suffering through drought and other natural disasters, which is offset by a cap on spending for the Conservation Security Program. I think we all recognize the importance of this assistance package, but I am disappointed that the majority insisted on treating emergencies in different parts of the Nation unequally. Drought relief for farmers in the Midwest and across the Nation is no less important than hurricane relief in the Southeast and should not have required an offset from the Conservation Security Program. Offsetting this funding hobbles the effectiveness of one of the most important environmental programs in the Department of Agriculture. I was also concerned that the package requested by the President leapfrogged Federal Highway Administration assistance for damage done by the hurricanes ahead of the backlog of projects required to repair damage from past disasters. However, this concern was by an agreement to fully fund the backlogged emergency relief program in the pending omnibus bill. Chairman Hutchison indicated at the conference that Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist have committed to fully fund the States that need this assistance, and I appreciate their help on this issue. There are currently $752 million in projects that have not been funded, even though they have already qualified for emergency relief. California alone has over $240 million in projects that have not been funded. I appreciate Chairman Young's willingness to rectify this situation and look forward to the emergency relief funding program being funded in the omnibus. The conference agreement also includes Senator Stevens' provision on the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline. Senator Stevens has worked for the past few years to authorize funding for this pipeline, and I am pleased that we could get this done for the senior Senator from Alaska. The provision authorizes the construction of a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, AK, to the lower 48, with a dedicated supply of natural gas to California. The provision provides Federal loan guarantees to whatever entity decides to build the pipeline, as Senator Stevens requested. The demand for natural gas in this country is growing exponentially, particularly in my State of California. Natural gas prices have risen dramatically over the past several years, from $2 per thousand cubic feet in 1998 to over $7 just this week. We need more natural gas, and I hope that Senator Stevens' provision to bring Alaska natural gas down to the lower 48 States and particularly California will help meet that demand. While I would have preferred to pass the Military Construction conference report without the contentious issues surrounding this disaster assistance package, I support this conference report and I am pleased that my colleagues have agreed to accept it. Finally, I thank Senator Hutchison for the manner in which she handled this process. I have long admired her integrity and her leadership in reaching this agreement was outstanding. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conferees on the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations bill have reached agreement, and I would like to say a few words about the bill. The conference report includes important funding for the reconstruction efforts in States affected by recent hurricanes and assistance for agricultural producers suffering from drought and other natural disasters. First, let me address the military construction portion of the agreement. While the President's budget request was $9.55 billion, only 2.5 percent over last year's enacted level, the conference report provides $10 billion for military construction and family housing programs for fiscal year 2005. These new facilities are crucial to the well being of our troops, especially at a time when our active and Reserve forces are, along with their families, being asked to make enormous sacrifices for our country. The conference report also provides $11.6 billion in disaster assistance, including $8.8 billion for hurricane-related relief which is designated as emergency spending and $2.8 billion in assistance for agricultural producers suffering through drought and other natural disasters, which is offset by a cap on spending for the Conservation Security Program. I think we all recognize the importance of this assistance package, but I am disappointed that the majority insisted on treating emergencies in different part of the Nation unequally. Drought relief for farmers in the Midwest and across the Nation is no less important than hurricane relief in the Southeast and should not have required an offset from the Conservation Security Program. Offsetting this funding hobbles the effectiveness of one of the most important environmental programs in the Department of Agriculture. I was also concerned that the package requested by the President leapfrogged Federal Highway Administration assistance for damage done by the hurricanes ahead of the backlog of projects required to repair damage from past disasters. However, this concern was addressed by an agreement to fully fund the backlogged emergency relief program in the pending omnibus bill. Chairman Hutchison indicated at the conference that Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist have committed to fully fund the States that need this assistance, and I appreciate their help on this issue. There are currently $752 million in projects that have not been funded, even though they have already qualified for emergency relief. California alone has over $240 million in projects that have not been funded. I appreciate Chairman Young's willingness to rectify this situation and look forward to the emergency relief funding program being funded in the omnibus. The conference agreement also includes Senator Stevens' provision on the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline. Senator Stevens has worked for the past few years to authorize funding for this pipeline, and I am pleased that we could get this done for the senior Senator from Alaska. The provision authorizes the construction of a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, AK, to the lower 48, with a dedicated supply of natural gas to California. The provision provides Federal loan guarantees to whatever entity builds/ decides to build the pipeline, as Senator Stevens requested. The demand for natural gas in this country is growing exponentially, particularly in my State of California. Natural gas prices have risen dramatically over the past several years, from $2 per thousand cubic feet in 1998 to over $7 just this week. We need more natural gas, and I hope that Senator Stevens' provision to bring Alaska natural gas down to the lower 48 states and particularly California will help meet that demand. Mr. President, while I would have preferred to pass the Military Construction bill without the contentious issues surrounding this disaster assistance package, I support this conference report and hope my colleagues will do the same. Finally, I want to thank Senator Hutchison for the manner in which she handled this process. I have long admired her integrity and her leadership in reaching this agreement was outstanding. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It has had some hiccups along the way. One of them, of course, was the House put in the disaster relief package and had the signatures and would have eventually rolled us in conference. However, Senator Hutchison said that we would have another conference, that she would not do this, and she kept her word. That is a very big thing in this body, that if you give your word, keep your word, and she did. I am very grateful for that. Because of this conference we were able to receive an amendment from the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, on drought relief. It was defeated, but then we were able to pass the bill without rancor and without a sense that in the dark of night the Democratic side had been done in. I am very proud to say that I think it is a good bill. I want to give Senator Hutchison credit for that. She kept her word. That is a very big item. I thank Senator Hutchison, and I appreciate the time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his very eloquent presentation. I agree with him 100 percent. I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his presentation. As the senior Senator from California, a lifelong Californian, I will make a few remarks about Chris Reeve. I remember when I saw Chris Reeve in ``Superman.'' He was 25 years old. He was amazing. We now learn he did some of his own stunts. And then what followed was the ``5th of July,'' and I remember ``Somewhere in Time.'' We saw this tall, handsome actor, seemingly invulnerable. I remember the film footage when he went over that jump on a horse. We learned that he had severed a vertebra high in his neck which canceled out all speech and rendered him quadriplegic for the rest of his life. As many know, it is rare that an individual survives more than 2 years with this form of injury. Yet he survived for 9 years. I remember listening to a CNN interview with Paula Zahn over stem cells. He said: When somebody lies still and doesn't move anything for a matter of days, cannot even scratch their nose, let them talk to me about stem cell research. In fact, this is a catastrophic injury presenting him with a catastrophic problem. So many people suffer from many of these injuries and from catastrophic disease, all of which may well be helped if we go eagerly, enthusiastically, and scientifically into stem cell research. That is the challenge. Parkinson, diabetes, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries all can be helped. Yet Christopher Reeve, who could not move, made amazing progress--not a recovery but progress--and would appear here before hearings and hold press conferences and urge us to move forward with a stem cell bill. I had the pleasure of introducing the first stem cell bill in this Senate. There are five Members--the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch; the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy; the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter; the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin--who are cosponsors of the major stem cell bill. We will be back. We will reintroduce it as one of our first bills in January in this new session. I will be asking my colleagues to rename this bill the Christopher Reeve National Stem Cell Act. I want all of America, through this bill, to know Chris Reeve's last 9 years on Earth were not, in fact, in vain, that we will produce a bill that will, in fact, put America on the scientific horizons of research for catastrophic and disabling diseases and injuries. If we do not, I believe other States will follow with what California is doing. California has on the ballot a proposition. It is known as proposition 71. It would produce $3 billion in bond funds to allow California to plunge ahead to produce stem cell research. Now, other States will follow if we do not move with a national bill. So I hope we will.