Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Schumer and I have 15 minutes between us by unanimous consent agreement, and I ask that I be alerted when 8 minutes has passed. Expiration of Assault Weapons Ban Ten years ago, I introduced an amendment to the crime bill which banned the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. Senator Schumer, then a Member of the House, a member of the Judiciary Committee, introduced the same amendment in the Judiciary Committee. We were both successful. It passed the Senate, passed the House, was signed into law by President Clinton. Over the past 10 years, gun traces to semiautomatic military-style assault weapons have decreased by two-thirds. The ban has worked. But 2 months from today, the Federal ban will expire. Once again, new guns such as the Tec-DC9 will flood our streets. If you don't know what a Tec-DC9 is, I am going to show you. This is Gian Luigi Ferri, who walked into 101 California Street and killed six people, wounding eight. And this is the Tec-DC-9 he was carrying with a 30-round clip. He had 250 rounds in additional clips with him. He is dead here, shot on the floor, but not until after he had either killed or wounded 14 people. The ban will expire despite overwhelming public support to renew it. Seventy-one percent of all Americans support renewing the ban. So do 64 percent of people in homes with a gun. The ban is going to expire despite overwhelming support from law enforcement and civic organizations. As you can see, nearly every major law enforcement and civic organization in our country supports renewal: the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chiefs of Police, the United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and on and on. The ban will expire despite the stated public support of President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft. As you can see from this letter, the administration has reiterated its official support for renewing the ban time and time again. From the Department of Justice: As the President has stated on several occasions, he supports the reauthorization of the current ban . . . And the ban will expire despite the support of a majority of Senators, 52. Despite all of this, it looks more and more likely that the National Rifle Association will win. The ban will expire, and the American people will once again be made less safe. Although President Bush has said he supports the ban, the White House has refused to lift a finger to help us pass the renewal. They are instead playing political hot potato with the Republican leaders in Congress. The Hill newspaper, on May 12, said that ``an aide to [the Speaker] has said privately that if the President pushes for it, the ban will probably be reauthorized. But if he doesn't, the chances . . . are remote.'' The Boston Globe reports that a White House spokesman said ``Bush still supports the ban but is waiting for the House to act.'' So the House will act only if the President asks them, and the President will act only if the House passes it. It is a classic catch- 22. One month ago, June 14, three former Presidents wrote to President Bush. Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton took the extraordinary step of writing a joint letter to President Bush asking him to work to renew the ban and offering their assistance to do so. Let me read just part of it: We are pleased that you support reauthorization of the . . . Assault Weapons Act, which is scheduled to expire in September. Each of us, along with President Reagan, worked hard in support of this vital law, and it would be a grave mistake if it were allowed to sunset. It goes on and expresses what this law means. I could not agree more. We cannot go back to those days. We know these guns are used by gangs, by criminals, by grievance killers, by troubled children to kill their schoolmates. We also know from al-Qaida training manuals that al-Qaida has recommended that its members travel to the United States to buy assault weapons at gun shows. Why? Because it is so easy to do so. As the threat of terrorism around the world increases, how can we let the ban expire and make it that much easier for terrorists to arm themselves with military-style weaponry? And make no mistake, gun manufacturers and sellers are keeping a close watch. In mid-April, Italian customs seized more than 8,000 AK-47 assault rifles on their way from the Romanian Port of Constanta to New York and then to Georgia. These guns had a value of more than $7 million. Of course, shipping assembled AK-47s would be illegal under the ban and under a 1989 Executive order of the first President Bush that banned certain guns from importation. But according to ATF, importing these guns so they can be disassembled, sold for parts, and then reassembled would not be illegal, and now purchasers will be allowed to reassemble these guns into their banned form. This shipment was not an isolated example. Here is an advertisement from Armalite, a company that makes post-ban rifles. As we can see from this advertisement, they are offering a coupon for a free flash suppressor for anyone who buys one of these guns so that on September 14, once the ban is expired, the gun can be modified to its pre-ban configuration. What do you need a flash suppressor for? If you have a flash suppressor on a gun and a 30-round clip in it and you are shooting at night at the police or at neighbors, you can't see where the gun flashes. The flash is suppressed. So if you are a criminal, you may need one. If you are a legitimate citizen, you don't. This is the kind of thing we can expect, just 2 months from now: Companies gearing up to once again produce the deadly assault weapons, the high-capacity clips which are now banned, clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets, and dangerous accessories we worked so hard to stop 10 years ago. I hope that, before September 13, the President and the Congress can find the courage to stand up to the NRA, to listen to law enforcement all across the Nation who know that to ban these guns makes sense and saves lives. Listen to the studies that show that crime with assault weapons of all kinds has decreased as much as 66 percent. The bottom line is that everyone knows this ban should remain law, but time is running out. We have 14 legislative days. Will the House of Representatives step up to the plate and find an opportunity to give the House an opportunity to vote to renew the military-style assault weapons legislation? I ask unanimous consent to print the following editorials in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to make an argument directly contrary to the arguments just presented by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I do not consider myself an expert on marriage. I have been married for a long time. I have one daughter, three stepdaughters, and five grandchildren. I celebrate marriage. I understand the difficulties in working to keep it together. But I believe this is a waste of time. The votes are not present to submit this amendment to the States. The timing is just a few months before an election, and family law has always been relegated to the States. This essentially would be the first departure from that. My argument today is based on my understanding of the law. My understanding of what is happening in the States indicates to me that the States are well able to handle the issue of marriage on their own. The tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Marriage is not once mentioned in the Constitution. Most authorities believe it to be a power reserved to the States. As early as 1890, that is 114 years ago, in In Re Burrus, the United States Supreme Court, in a child custody dispute, stated: The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States. Later, in a 1979 Supreme Court decision, Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, the Court stated in dicta: Insofar as marriage is within temporal control, the States lay on the guiding hand. Furthermore, the courts have long held that no State can be forced to recognize a marriage that offends a deeply held public policy of that State. States, as a result, have frequently and constitutionally refused to recognize marriages from other States that differ from their public policy. Polygamous marriages, for example, even if sanctioned by another State, have consistently been rejected. Marriages between immediate family members have also been rejected by States, even if those marriages are accepted in other parts of the country. In no case that I know of has the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution been used to require a State to recognize a type of marriage that would violate its own strong public policy. So States have been on their own with respect to family law, including marriage. Even as we consider the Federal Marriage Amendment, we see that the States are taking their right and powers as they relate to family law and marriage very seriously. Thirty-three States have passed their own Defense of Marriage Acts, banning same-sex marriages, and five have passed ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriages. My own State, California, passed a Defense of Marriage Act in the year 2000. Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of Californians, 61 percent. The California Family Code now states that: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. That is the law of my State. That policy statement trumps all local and other law. Earlier this year, the mayor of my city, Gavin Newsom, of San Francisco, decided this law was unconstitutional and ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These actions did not go unnoticed, and the California State Supreme Court subsequently enjoined the county clerk from issuing any further marriage licenses, and the county complied. Oral arguments were heard on the cases on May 25, and the State Supreme Court will issue its decision within 90 days. However, I want to make clear, crystal clear, that the Court is not deciding on the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which said that marriage shall be between a man and a woman. Rather, the Court issued orders to show cause in Lewis v. Alfaro and Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, limited to the following issue: Were the officials of the city and county of San Francisco exceeding or acting outside the scope of their authority in refusing to enforce the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that those statutory provisions are unconstitutional? In other words, acting in defiance of the statewide referendum? The orders to show cause are specifically limited to this legal question, and they do not include the substantive constitutional challenge to the California marriage statutes themselves. The marriage statute, therefore, is not in jeopardy of being overturned. When we look around, we see that California is not the only State where people are speaking out about same-sex marriage. In fact, a lively debate is taking place throughout the country. On July 6, the Washington Times ran an article entitled, ``Marriage Gets a Boost in Michigan.'' The article notes that the supporters of traditional marriage in Michigan recently turned in approximately 475,000 signatures to put a State constitutional amendment before the voters this November. An organizer of the effort was quoted to say: The people responded. . . . They're tired of politicians and activist judges making changes without having a voice. This gives them a voice. The article goes on to say: Michigan's achievement marks a four-for-four victory for those who want marriage amendments on the November ballot. Montana, Oregon and Arkansas will place similar measures on their ballots this November. Mr. President, your own State will have one on the ballot. North Dakota and Ohio are collecting signatures necessary for ballot measures. As you can see, the States have taken up the just powers accorded to them by the Constitution of the United States and are responding to this issue, and that is as it should be. The Family Research Council reported in a press release on July 9: [A]n unprecedented nine States already have State constitutional amendments on the ballot this fall and that number is expected to increase to at least 14 States. Thirty- eight States have previously gone on record stating marriage is between one man and one woman. The people are making their voices heard in their States but unfortunately that is not enough. Yet in the words of the Family Research Council, these actions by States are ``unprecedented'' and show that a process is, indeed, taking place throughout the country and that the people are active participants. Through that process, the people do have a voice and they are being heard. I believe interference from Washington in this political process is premature, unnecessary, and not in the context of the Constitution of the United States. In light of this, it appears that proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment disregard the debate occurring in the States and point only to Massachusetts and the fact that marriage licenses are being issued legally to same-sex couples there. They argue that the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, the first State to allow such marriages, are what is driving the need to enshrine in the Constitution language that marriage is between a man and a woman. I disagree. Even in Massachusetts, the State legislature has begun work on a State constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages but allow civil unions. This amendment is certainly not guaranteed to pass, but it is clear that the people of Massachusetts are dealing themselves with the issue as was intended and, again, it would seem without the need of assistance from Washington. Because several dozen States have already passed a prohibition on same-sex marriage, it seems clear that in those States an argument could be made that strong public policy would lead to a refusal to recognize out-of-State same-sex marriages. So it is not a problem demanding an immediate solution. There is a process taking place in the States throughout the country as was envisioned by the Constitution. For us to act now is not only premature but it isn't going to work because the votes are not here. So why are we doing this? Why are we doing this when we have only passed one appropriations bill? Why are we doing this when last week we just had a briefing on the impact of terrorism on this Nation and we haven't passed a Homeland Security bill? Why are we doing this when the Constitution has reserved family law to the States and when States by the dozens have already taken up the issue and passed, either by legislature or by vote of the people, marriage amendments? Why are we doing this? The only answer I can come up with is because this is political. It is to drive a division into the voters of America, into the people of America, one more wedge issue at a very difficult time to be used politically in elections. Everybody in this body knows they are nowhere close to 67 votes. If there were a motion to proceed, there might not even be enough votes for a motion to proceed. Why are we doing this? Why are we stirring up the Nation? I probably have 53,000 pieces of mail on this subject alone. People do not understand that the Constitution relegates family law to the States, and has relegated the issue of adoption, marriages, and everything having to do with family law to the States. My daughter happens to be the supervising judge of the family court in San Francisco. You can talk to any judge and see just that. The States have responded. It is not as if the States have ignored those issues. More than 36 States--more than three dozen States--have passed legislation, and 8 are moving shortly. For the life of me, I don't understand what honest motive there is in putting this in front of this body to philosophically debate marriage on a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen, and which is enormously divisive in all of our communities. I hope my colleagues will exercise prudence and tread carefully with our Constitution. I don't think we want to put out an amendment--I don't think we can, but let us say with some change and there were 67 votes, as the Senator from Pennsylvania correctly said, it then has to go to a vote of three-quarters of the State legislatures. When three- quarters of the States have already taken action, why would they ratify this? I think it is a useless exercise. I have been on the Judiciary Committee long enough now to be able to take an issue and see if it is properly before us. I don't believe a constitutional amendment reserving the right of marriage to a man and a woman is properly before us because I believe that is an area clearly relegated to the States, and the States are exercising that right. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer into the Record my statement of support of S. 2548, private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 22-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA. I have decided to offer private relief legislation on his behalf because I believe that Shigeru Yamada represents a model American citizen for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties. Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since the, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother. The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Shigeru Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status here. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependents. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. Tragically, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage. Mr. Yamada has exhausted his options under our current immigration system of the United States. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of becoming a citizen. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation. For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be removed from the United States and sent to Japan. First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors form Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, Mr. Yamada earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John Inumerable, describes him as being ``responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role as the vice president of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in junior varsity baseball and football, as well as, varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.'' Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, Mr. Yamada helped freshmen find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. Since graduating from high school, he has volunteered his time as the coach of the Eastlake High School girl's softball team. The head coach, Mr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a ``team player.'' His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Mr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Mr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his status, he can be formally hired to continue coaching the team. Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of gaining American citizenship. His older sister has married a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt. Since all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read Japanese. As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an ``upstanding `All-American' young man''. Until being picked up during a routine check of his immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance. Currently, Mr. Yamada is a sophomore at Southwestern Community College, where he is working on finishing his general education so that he can go on to earn his BA in criminal justice from San Diego State University. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own individual fortitude, he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life. In the future, Mr. Yamada is interested in pursuing a career in criminal law enforcement by serving as a police officer or an FBI agent. With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada permanent status so that he can continue towards his bright future. I ask unanimous consent three letters of recommendation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the bill, but I also wish to say that I very much hope some accommodation can be reached so this bill can come to a vote. It is an important bill. It is a bill that deals with a very real problem, and I would like to challenge every Member of this august body to read this bill. I have read it twice. It is easily understood. It is in very plain English. It essentially provides a guide to consumers as to the protocols and regulations that govern what has been a murky area of class action lawsuits. It is legislation that is long overdue. I very much appreciate the position of my leader, Senator Daschle, in wanting to protect our minority rights, in wanting to have an opportunity to have a debate on bills that Members on this side think are extraordinarily important, as do Members on the other side. In the past, a fair way has been found, so I hope that will be the case. As I said, I believe the way class actions are conducted is, in fact, a real problem. I have spent a considerable amount of time on the issue through Judiciary hearings, many personal meetings with those on both sides of the issues, plaintiffs and defendants, and a lot of time and energy on research and analysis. I eventually came to the conclusion that the supporters of this bill have clearly identified this problem and have come up with a reasoned solution. More than identifying the problem, the supporters of this bill-- Senator Kohl, Senator Grassley, Senator Carper, and others--have worked diligently over the course of the last few years to answer criticisms and concerns, to address real issues, and even to make significant changes in the original legislation, changes that made this bill better at every single turn. The bill before us, then, is the result of many changes and compromises, both in the Judiciary Committee and more recently changes made after further negotiations with Senator Schumer and others pending floor action. Simply put, the legislation in its current form is more moderate, more reasoned, and will be more effective than past versions of the bill. I thank Senators Hatch, Grassley, and Kohl for so diligently working with me and others throughout this process to correct a number of potential problems or areas of confusion that were within the original bill. I know they have many forces pulling on them from all sides, and I appreciate the time they spent in addressing these concerns. Let me talk a little bit about the legislation and what it does and how I became involved in it. I will never forget a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee 2 years ago. At that hearing, we heard from a woman by the name of Hilda Bankston. She owned a small pharmacy with her late husband, in Mississippi. Since that time, Mrs. Bankston sent a letter to us, and she summed up her testimony before the committee. I want to read it to you. My name is Hilda Bankston and I live in Fayette, Mississippi. I am a former small business owner who was victimized by lawyers looking to strike it rich in Jefferson County and I write to you today to tell you that our legal system is broken and that the Class Action Fairness Act will help fix it. Over the next few days, et cetera, et cetera, we will be debating this legislation. This is the important part, this is what she said in committee, and this is the overarching need to stop forum shopping: For thirty years, my husband, Navy Seaman Fourth Class Mitchell Bankston, and I lived our dream, owning and operating Bankston Drugstore in Fayette, Mississippi. We worked hard and my husband built a solid reputation as a caring, honest pharmacist. But our world and our dreams were shaken to their foundation in 1999, when Bankston Drugstore was named as a defendant in a national class action lawsuit brought in Jefferson County against one of the nation's largest drug companies, the manufacturer of Fen-Phen, an FDA-approved drug for weight loss. Here is where it gets difficult, and now I am speaking, not quoting Mrs. Bankston. Fen-Phen certainly had problems. The reason for litigation can be very clear. However, the rationale for forum shopping and, more importantly, how forum shopping is conducted, is what this letter and what Hilda Bankston's story is all about. Though Mississippi law does not allow for class action lawsuits, it does allow for consolidation of lawsuits or mass actions as long as the case involves a plaintiff or defendant from Mississippi. Here it is: Since ours was the only drugstore in Jefferson County and had filled a prescription for Fen-Phen, a drug whose manufacturer is headquartered in New Jersey, the plaintiffs' attorney named us in their lawsuits so they could keep the case in a place already known for its lawsuit-friendly environment. They could use our records as a virtual database of potential clients. So not only was she not involved, they just happened to fill a prescription and they became a source for litigation. Mitch had always taken the utmost care and caution with his patients. As the Fen-Phen case drew more attention, he became increasingly concerned about what our customers would think. His integrity, honor, and reputation were on the line. Overnight, our life's work had gone from serving the public's health to becoming a means to an end for some trial lawyers to cash in on lucrative class action lawsuits. Three weeks after being named in the lawsuit, Mitch, who was 58 years old and in good health, died suddenly of a massive heart attack. In the midst of my grief, I was called to testify in the first Fen-Phen trial. I sold the pharmacy in 2000, but have spent many years since retrieving records for plaintiffs and getting dragged into court again and again to testify in hundreds of national lawsuits brought in Jefferson County against the pharmacy and out-of-state manufacturers of other drugs. Class action attorneys have caused me to spend countless hours retrieving information for potential plaintiffs. I've searched record after record and made copy after copy for use against me. At times, the bookwork has been so extensive that I have lost track of the specific cases. I had to hire personnel to watch the store while I was dragged into court on numerous occasions to testify. I endured the whispers and questions of my customers and neighbors wondering what we did to end up in court so often. And, I spent many sleepless nights wondering if my business would survive the tidal wave of lawsuits cresting over it. Today, even though I no longer own the drugstore, I still get named as a defendant time and again. This lawsuit frenzy has hurt my family and my community. Businesses will no longer locate in Jefferson County because of fear of litigation. The county's reputation has driven liability insurance rates through the roof. No small business should have to endure the nightmares I have experienced. I'm not a lawyer, but to me, something is wrong with our legal system when innocent bystanders are little more than pawns for lawyers seeking to win the ``jackpot'' in Jefferson County--or any other county in the United States where lawsuits are ``big business.'' This is really the point. I heard the distinguished Senator from Illinois make a very important point about the different kinds of cases that are involved. But what we are talking about is forum shopping. It is specifically setting up a class action to be able to get that case into a specific place, a friendly county. The Bankstons were actually sued more than 100 times for doing nothing other than filling legal prescriptions. The pharmacy had done nothing wrong. They were the only drugstore in the county, a county that was so plaintiff friendly, I am told, that there are actually more plaintiffs than residents. Because of the arcane and problematic rules now governing class actions in U.S. courts, the plaintiffs' lawyers shopping for a friendly court just needed to name a local business in order to file their national lawsuit in that county. That is all it took. Before they knew it, the Bankstons were defendants in dozens of essentially frivolous suits against their small pharmacy. This was a family torn apart by litigation. I use this case because, of all the hearings that have been held in the Judiciary Committee in 12 years, this woman made a profound impression on me as I sat there hour after hour and listened to the testimony. Let me hasten to say that this abuse comes from just some class action lawyers--not all of them but some--who forum shop national class action lawsuits and file them in States and counties where they know the court will approve settlements favorable to them without concern for class members. What does this bill do? The amended Class Action Fairness Act goes a long way toward stopping forum shopping by allowing Federal courts to hear national class action lawsuits that involve plaintiffs and defendants from different States and which involve more than 5 million in claims. I think the original bill was 2 million. We amended it in committee to make it even bigger so we could be sure as to the kinds of cases that would be affected. The Framers of the Constitution wanted Federal courts to settle disputes between citizens of different States. They wanted Federal courts to settle disputes between different citizens of different States. The Constitution itself states that the Federal judicial power ``shall extend . . . to controversies between citizens of different States.'' Historically, this meant that when one person sues another person who lives in another State, or sues a company headquartered in another State, the suit can be moved to Federal court with some limitations. Class actions involve more citizens in more States, more money, and more interstate commerce ramifications than any other type of civil litigation. It only stands to reason that many of these cases should be heard in Federal courts. Yet an anomaly in our current law has resulted in a disparity wherein class actions are treated differently than regular cases and often stay in State court. The current rules of procedure have not kept up with the times, and the result is a broken system that has strayed far from the Framers' intent. This bill does a number of things. First, the bill contains a ``consumer class action bill of rights''--and it is important, and you will really see it is understandable--to provide greater information and greater oversight of settlements that might unfairly benefit attorneys at the expense of truly injured parties. Let me give you some examples. The bill ensures that judges review the fairness of proposed settlements if those settlements provide only coupons to the plaintiffs. What is wrong with that? Coupons are a real problem. They are a way by which a plaintiff actually receives very little or something that is very difficult to recover. Second, it bans settlements that actually impose net costs on class members. I could read letters from individuals where they actually came out the losers in these suits. Third, it requires that all settlements be written in plain English so all class members can understand their rights. How can anybody fault that? Write it so people who read them can understand what they say. The bill also provides that State attorneys general can review settlements involving plaintiffs from their States so the consumers get an extra level of protection from someone elected to serve--not just plaintiffs' attorneys who may be trying to get the best settlement for their own interests. Second, and of greater impact, the legislation creates a new set of rules for when a class action may be ``removed'' to Federal court. These new rules are diversity requirements modified in committee and again since then make it clear that cases which are truly national in scope should be removed to Federal court. But equally important, the rules preserve truly State actions so those confined to one State remain in State courts. Since I have offered this amendment in committee, the so-called diversity amendment, I believe it made it much better, more narrowly tailored. I think my amendment went right to the heart of the bill and its purpose. So I would like to spend a few minutes to talk about these amendments, how it changed the original bill and the ways in which I believe it is more clear, more fair, and more workable. I offered one amendment, cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Kohl, and Grassley, that was meant to do two things. First, it simplifies the diversity jurisdiction section of the bill. Second, it narrows the scope of the bill by reducing the number of cases that automatically go to Federal court. This will allow Federal courts to focus on the cases that are truly national in scope rather than cases that really belong in State courts. This amendment only addressed the jurisdiction issues. It did nothing to change the rest of the bill which contains very important protections for consumers, and it makes the whole settlement process much more fair. Let me explain it. The original class action bill essentially moved all class actions of a certain size--I think more than 2 million--to Federal court unless ``a substantial majority of the members of the proposed class and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.'' The case will be governed primarily by the laws of that State. The original bill says that all class actions where a substantial majority of the members of the class and the defendants are citizens of the State would be moved to the Federal court. We changed that. The standard was vague and it was prone to moving some truly State class actions into Federal court. My amendment, which was accepted by the committee, changed the law in this section to split the jurisdiction into thirds. Now there is less ambiguity about where a case will end up, and more cases remain in State court. Let me explain that. If more than two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendant, the case automatically stays in State court--it is clear; it is defined in the bill--even if both parties ask for it to be removed to Federal court. It is very different from the original bill. If we have two-thirds of the plaintiffs and the defendant company in a State, the case stays in the State. If fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendant, the case may automatically be removed to Federal court. Remember, this happens if one of the parties asks for removal. Otherwise, these cases, too, stay in State court. This may have escaped a lot of people. So even when there are fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs from the same State as the primary defendant, the case remains in State court unless one of the parties asks to remove it. Now we are talking about the middle third in this diversity. We have a third, a third in the middle, a third on the end. In the middle third of cases, where between one-third and two-thirds of plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendant, the amendment gives the Federal judge discretion to accept removal or remand the case back to the State based on a number of factors. In determining whether one of these middle third cases would go to Federal or State court, the amendment directed the Federal judge to consider these facts: First, the judge must examine whether the case represents primarily a State issue or whether it is of national impact. There are strong arguments to be made that State judges should not be making national law. This provision is meant to reach into that issue. Second, the judge must consider whether the number of plaintiffs from the defendant's home State is much larger than the number of plaintiffs from any other State. In other words, there may be a case where 40 percent of the plaintiffs from California and no other State has more than a couple percent of the class. California law would apply. So even though the California plaintiffs do not make up an absolute majority of a class, they would clearly be the predominant portion of the class. If it is a State issue, such a case would remain in State court. The Federal judge would also look at whether the case was filed in State court simply because the plaintiffs are trying to game the system, perhaps by forum shopping for the best court, even when the case would better be tried elsewhere. Finally, the judge is directed to look at whether this is the only class action likely to be filed on the same subject--this is important--or whether there are likely to be others with the same facts at issue. This factor has been even further refined to provide that a judge need not consider whether similar class actions may be filed but only whether similar class actions have actually been filed in the last 3 years. In order to avoid duplication, the judge would look at whether there were other like actions filed in the last 3 years. Considering duplicative class actions is important because the Federal courts have a system in place to consolidate multidistrict litigation. It may therefore be better to have all duplicative class action cases move to Federal court simply to save time and make the process more efficient. If a case stays in State court it cannot be consolidated with similar cases out of State. Therefore, we might end up with 50 State judges deciding 50 cases involving exactly the same defendant and exactly the same fact pattern. That does not make much sense. It is something that the judicial conference has recommended we fix. And we do. The amendment also raised the minimum amount of money that needs to be at issue before a class action can make it to Federal court. The original bill set that amount at $2 million. My amendment raised it to $5 million to further limit the number of cases that move to Federal court and to assure that it is only truly big national cases that do. The effect of this amendment, I hope, will be to make the system more transparent so that plaintiffs and defendants know where a case will go when it is filed, and it will force truly State cases to stay in State court while allowing truly national cases to go to Federal court. Under current law, an attorney can avoid Federal court simply by making sure that at least one plaintiff is from the same State as at least one defendant. This allows for cases to be shopped to whatever forum may have the most sympathetic juries, no matter where the case should truly be heard. Under this modified bill, this forum shopping would be eliminated. The second amendment I offered in committee, which was also accepted and has been only slightly modified, was designed to deal with a provision that was added to the original class action bill apparently to specifically target a California law. That law allows individuals in California to sue on behalf of the general public in lieu of the attorney general. Other States have or are considering similar legislation, but California is on the forefront of this issue, so it was California law, more than the law of any other State, that was targeted by this provision in the original bill. The so-called private attorney general actions allow groups such as the Sierra Club, local district attorneys, government officials, or even individual consumers, to sue large corporations on behalf of the people of the State. In California, these suits are generally to recover illegally gained profits or to enforce State law against companies that do business there. These are not true class actions. The original bill essentially deemed these suits to be class actions and therefore would have moved many of them to Federal court even if all the plaintiffs were in California. This was a concern to me and to many in California who are concerned these citizen suits would be so dramatically affected by a bill that was supposed to be about class actions, not private attorney general suits. My amendment and subsequent clarifications of that amendment worked out between myself, Senators Hatch, Grassley, and Specter, simply clarify that in any case in which an individual pursues one of these private attorney general suits on behalf of members of the general public, or members of an organization, unless those suits are actually filed as class actions, the bill does not apply. I want to make that clear. If, for instance, a California consumer sued Enron on behalf of the general public in an attempt to force Enron to disgorge ill-gotten profits and return this money to the Government of California, this bill would not change anything. The case would stay in California court. I know there will probably be several amendments, and I have comments about some of those comments, but I would like to hold that until the amendment is actually presented. Let me sum up and then yield the floor. Again, a simple reading of this bill is very demonstrative because it is easily understood. Unlike most bills, it is written in simple English. Probably the most complicated part is what I just went over, the diversity issue. One- third, one-third, one-third, with the Federal judge having specific areas where that judge must make a judgment regarding the middle third as to whether this is truly a case national in scope and belongs in Federal court or whether it should remain in State court, offers a viable way of settling what has been a process that has been grossly criticized, and that is forum shopping, and I think with some considerable justification. A lot of people have worked very hard on this bill. I am hopeful we will be able to pass it. I believe the bill in itself provides a remedy to what is wrong with the present class action law, and I support it with great pride. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I was going to speak in favor of the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, it is not. The definition of a motion picture exhibition facility includes the concept that the exhibition has to be ``open to the public or is made to an assembled group of viewers outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.'' This definition makes clear that someone recording from a television in his home does not meet that definition. It is important to emphasize that the clause ``open to the public'' applies specifically to the exhibition, not to the facility. An exhibition in a place open to the public that is itself not made to the public is not the subject of this bill. Thus, for example, a university film lab may be ``open to the public.'' However, a student who is watching a film in that lab for his or her own study or research would not be engaging in an exhibition that is ``open to the public.'' Thus, if that student copied an excerpt from such an exhibition, he or she would not be subject to liability under the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Of course not. The statute covers only a person who ``knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under Title 17, or any part thereof. . . .'' In other words, the defendant would have to be making, or attempting to make, a copy that is itself an audiovisual work, or make, or attempt to make, a transmission embodying an audiovisual work, as that term is defined in Section 101 of Title 17. As such, the Act would not reach the conduct of a person who uses a hearing aid, a still camera, or a picture phone to capture an image or mere sound from the movie.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely, on all points.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is a criminal provision under Title 18, not a copyright provision under Title 17. Accordingly, there is no fair use exception included. However, Federal prosecutors should use their discretion not to bring criminal prosecutions against activities within movie theaters that would constitute fair use under the copyright laws. The object of this legislation is to prevent the copying and distribution of motion pictures in a manner that causes serious commercial harm. This legislation is not intended to chill legitimate free speech.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to share my views on this nominee to the Federal district court. I heard our distinguished chairman, a man who I greatly respect and admire, mention he was recommended as well qualified by the American Bar Association, and that he in fact could distance himself from his personal beliefs; that he is a deeply religious man, and the chairman believed he would be able to truly distance himself. I have a very hard time believing that. If I look at his personal beliefs, they are extraordinary and they are way out of line with the mainstream of American thinking. I want to comment a little bit about them. They are not only outside the mainstream of American thinking, but they are outside the mainstream of American judicial thought as well. Mr. Holmes has no real judicial experience. That is what makes it difficult, because there is no way we know whether he can distance himself from many of the comments he has made over many years. He is a native of Arkansas. He is a practicing lawyer at a law firm. He has done some teaching at the University of Arkansas and at the Thomas Aquinas College in my State: California. With the exception of two instances where he served as a special judge on the Arkansas Supreme Court, he has no judicial experience. But that is not my main objection. My main objection is over the past 24 years he has put forward in word and writing philosophies that are far from U.S. mainstream opinion on a whole series of subjects, from women's rights, to choice, to race, and to the separation of church and state. These statements make him a very troubling nominee, and I have never--again, never--before voted ``no'' on a nominee to the district court. This is my first ``no'' vote in the 12 years I have been on the Judiciary Committee. Let me give you a few examples. Let me take a subject, women's rights. Seven years ago--it is not too long ago--seven years ago he wrote: ``The wife is to subordinate herself to her husband,'' and that ``the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man.'' This belief, if sustained, clearly places this nominee in a place apart. But this is not merely my own view, it is the view of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which I would hope any Federal judge would uphold. It is also the view of numerous Federal civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for which the Nation celebrated its 40th anniversary on July 2. How can I or any other American believe that one who truly believes a woman is subordinate to her spouse can interpret the Constitution fairly? When women are parties to claims of job discrimination, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and a host of other issues involving the role of women in society, how can I be assured they can get a fair hearing from Leon Holmes? What will a plaintiff think when she finds out the judge hearing her case thinks women should subordinate themselves to men? That is a fairly crisp view. It is a view I have not seen presented, certainly in the last 20 years, in any serious way. Let's take a woman's right to choose. Again and again over decades, Mr. Holmes has made comments that show he is solidly opposed to a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape. Let me give an example. In a letter that he wrote to the Moline Daily Dispatch--this is a letter he writes to a newspaper--Mr. Holmes called rape victims who become pregnant ``trivialities.'' How is a rape victim ever a triviality? He wrote in that same letter that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.'' That might be a cute phrase but, in fact, it is grossly incorrect. Snow falls in Miami about once every 100 years, but, according to the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, each year in America over 30,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. This is hardly a trivial matter. Mr. Holmes' letter wasn't a one-time comment. I can excuse a lot of one-time comments. I understand how they happen. I understand how they can be taken out of context. But he has also been an opponent of a woman's right to choose for decades. Other comments he has made on the very sensitive issue of abortion are equally insensitive. For example, he said: I think the abortion issue is the simplest issue this country has faced since slavery was made unconstitutional, and it deserves the same response. In other words, end it. It is a very precise point of view. Mr. Holmes has stated: The pro-abortionists counsel us to respond to these problems by abandoning what little morality our society still recognizes. This was attempted by one highly sophisticated, historically Christian nation in our history--Nazi Germany. In a 1987 article written to the Arkansas Democrat, Mr. Holmes wrote: [T]he basic purpose of government is to prevent the killing of innocent people, so the government has an obligation to stop abortion. Seven years later, in a 1995 interview, with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Mr. Holmes stated: I would like to appear before the Supreme Court of the United States, and I would like to have argued Roe v. Wade. In response to Senator Durbin's written question asking what Supreme Court cases Mr. Holmes disagrees with, he answered: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Buck v. Bell, and Roe v. Wade. Dred Scott held that blacks were not people under the Constitution. As you know, Buck v. Bell held that a woman could be sterilized against her will. Those cases were abominations. To include Roe v. Wade with these two decisions clearly indicates that he holds Roe as a decision to be abolished. This is simply not a mainstream perspective. These comments don't sound as if they come from a man with an open mind about a most sensitive issue. Rather, they sound as if they come from a man with an agenda to eliminate the constitutional rights of American women to choose. That is a problem for me because I don't believe someone who has these views can fairly hand out justice. I don't believe such a person should be a Federal judge for the rest of his life. Mr. Holmes is not merely opposed to a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. He has also lashed out at contraception, against women generally, and against the rights of gays and lesbians. He wrote in 1997: It is not coincidental that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow. That is emotion-laden language. It is offensive to a whole host of a number of people. It is extraordinary language. It certainly is not a line of thinking with which I can agree. These are all areas where the Federal courts play a vital role. He has also made some shocking statements about race in America. Specifically, in a 1981 article, he wrote for a journal called Christianity Today about Booker T. Washington. This is what he wrote: He taught that God had placed the Negro in America so it could teach the white race by example what it means to be Christlike. Moreover, he believed that God could use the Negroes' situation to uplift the white race spiritually. Mr. Holmes first wrote those words 23 years ago. But he still stands by them. In April of last year, Leon Holmes wrote to Senator Lincoln: My article combines [Washington's] view of providence--that God brings good out of evil--with his view that we are all called to love one another. This teaching can be criticized only if it is misunderstood. Are these the words of a man who should be confirmed to interpret the equal protection clause of our Constitution without prejudice, to interpret the due process clause, to interpret Federal civil rights statutes? In my view, Mr. Holmes' statements also indicate that he can't separate his own religious views from the Federal law he will be charged with interpreting. This is a trait that is particularly dangerous, given the strong views he has taken. On religion, in a speech he delivered 2 years ago in Anne Arbor, MI, he stated: Christianity, unlike the pagan religions, transcends the political order. That is really food for thought. He continues: Christianity, in principle, cannot accept subordination to the political authorities, for the end to which it directs men is higher than the end of the political order; the source of its authority is higher than the political authority. I guess one could say that all depends on what he means by the political order. The political order produces the law and the court interprets the law. If he is saying the political order which produces the law is subservient to Christianity, how can we feel this is going to be an open-minded judge? He also stated in the same speech that he was ``left with some unease about this notion that Christianity and the political order should be assigned to separate spheres, in part because it seems unavoidably ambiguous.'' I have no desire to cause Mr. Holmes any additional ``unease.'' But if he is confirmed today, that is what he will have, whenever a question about the separation of church and state comes before him. The First Amendment in reality is not ``ambiguous.'' It clearly states that there shall be ``no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' My concerns go further than First Amendment cases. If Mr. Holmes becomes a U.S. district court judge, how can we be sure he will separate his faith from the law? How will the parties before him know he is basing his rulings on the U.S. Constitution rather than on his spiritual faith? This is not a statement on belief. I respect Mr. Holmes' right to his own faith, and I generally believe that a strong and abiding faith is a positive, not a negative, factor in reviewing an individual for public service. But here, where a nominee has himself said that faith must trump the law, it would be troubling at best to grant that nominee a lifetime seat on a Federal bench where law must trump all else, if our system of justice is to work. Mr. Holmes' disconcerting views about the Constitution go beyond what he thinks about a particular area of law. He has expressed support for the concept of natural law, which holds there are laws that trump the law of the Constitution. Natural law, simply put, holds that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. Rather, those who believe in natural law would subordinate the Constitution to some higher law. This concept is starkly at odds with the role of a Federal judge, who must swear to uphold the Constitution. But Mr. Holmes says that natural law trumps, as I understand it, the Constitution which he takes an oath to uphold. In an article three years ago, in 2001, he wrote: [T]he Constitution was intended to reflect the principles of natural law. In response to a written question from Senator Durbin, Mr. Holmes wrote: [M]y view of natural rights derives from the Declaration of Independence. Now the Declaration of Independence, which all Americans joyfully celebrated this past weekend, is the source of our Nation's liberation. The Constitution is the source of our Government and our laws. So they are separate and distinct from one another. This is a critical distinction, and I am not sure Mr. Holmes appreciates that. If he reads natural law into the Constitution, then he is not reading the same Constitution as the rest of America. There is one final issue I would like to address. At the end of last month, on June 24, we confirmed six judges in a single day. Since the accommodation of the White House, the Senate has confirmed 24 of the 25 judges to which we agreed to proceed to floor votes. We have confirmed 28 nominations this year alone, including 5 circuit court nominations. And the Senate has confirmed 197 judges since President Bush was elected as our President. I have always maintained my own counsel when it comes to the confirmation of judicial nominees. I do not use my blue slip. I do not make a decision until after the individual has a hearing and generally until after he or she has answered the written questions. I have always tried to see the potential for good in the nominees who come to us. When the President nominates a person to the Senate, it is my feeling we should do everything we can to respect the President's choices, while still taking with the utmost seriousness our own constitutional obligation to advise and consent. To that end, as I said before, I have never before opposed a nominee to a U.S. district court. I have also supported nominees to the Court of Federal Claims--Susan Braden, Charles Lettow, and Victor Wolski-- whom other Democrats opposed. Even at the level of the U.S. Court of Appeals, I have supported nominees whom others have opposed. I supported the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit, and I was the only Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to do so. I supported the nomination of John Roberts to the DC Circuit, even though three Democrats on the Judiciary Committee opposed him. I supported the nomination of Deborah Cook, also to the Sixth Circuit, when many of my colleagues voted against her. In all of these instances, I had confidence the nominees would interpret the Constitution and the Nation's laws fairly and without bias. And that is all I ask. I would expect these nominees to be conservative, and that is not a problem, as long as their views are not contrary to what a majority of Americans believe and the judicial thinking of a majority of mainstream judges. But I do not feel that way about Mr. Holmes. I have no doubt he is a man of deep and sincere beliefs, and in this great Nation he is entitled to those beliefs. I commend him for his faith. But how can I entrust protection of separation of church and state, protection of the civil rights laws, protection of a woman's right to choose--all of the major values which come before a Federal court judge--with the comments he has made? Because these comments are robustly extraordinary. I would never dream of these comments being made by someone who aspires to be on a Federal court of law. And if you have no judicial experience by which to evaluate whether he can in fact separate himself from his views, it is a very difficult nomination to swallow. As a woman, how can I possibly vote for someone to go on to a Federal district court who believes women should be subordinate to men, when that judge is going to have to look at employment discrimination, sexual harassment cases, who in the modern day and age, as a practical tenet of public thinking, believes--and believes strongly enough to write about it and say it to the world--that women should be subordinate to men and a wife should be subordinate to her husband, and expect any woman who comes before that judge is going to have fair and even treatment? For over 20 years, Mr. Holmes has been making extremist statements on women, on race, on abortion, on the role of religion in society. His statements in each individual area, as I have said, are startling. Taken together, he has given us more than enough reason to fear he will continue to make radical statements when his words have the force of law. And that is a risk I, for one, do not want to take. So I urge my colleagues today to join me in opposing this confirmation and voting no. It will be my first one in 12 years. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I beg the indulgence of the Chair. If I may, on rollcall No. 148, I voted ``aye''. It was my intention to vote ``nay''. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in support of the joint resolution renewing the sanctions against Burma. The House has overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner passed this resolution, and I urge the Senate to do likewise. Last year, following the brazen attack against the motorcade of Nobel Peace Prize winner and National League of Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the United States took a firm stand on the side of human rights and democracy for the Burmese people by passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act and imposing a complete ban on Burmese imports. One year later, Suu Ky remains under house arrest and the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has failed to make ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards a true dialogue on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 parliamentary elections, decisively won by the NLD. As a result, the Senate has no choice but to support renewing the sanctions for another year. Let me be clear. I do not believe sanctions are a panacea for every foreign policy dispute we have with another country. I have long supported the reform of our sanctions policy, and, in my view, Congress should have the opportunity to revisit sanctions imposed on other countries on a case-by-case basis and in a timely fashion. I am cosponsor of Senator Baucus's legislation to allow Congress to vote up or down on the sanctions imposed on Cuba for that very reason. It seems clear to me that 40 years later, those sanctions have not achieved our foreign policy goals. Yet, under different circumstances and conditions, sanctions can be effective. Burma, in my view, is such a case. One year is not a sufficient period of time to judge the effectiveness of the sanctions, and there is reason to believe that the international community is coming together to put additional pressure on the military regime. I was disappointed that the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) did not follow the United States' lead last year and impose tough sanctions on the military junta. Nevertheless, the EU, for one, is beginning to realize that engagement with Rangoon has failed to achieve the desired results. Last week, the EU refused to include Burma in two lower-level meetings with ASEAN representatives and, in response to ASEAN's demand that all of its members be allowed to attend, the EU canceled the meetings. Supporters of freedom and democracy in Burma should welcome this move and continue to urge our allies to put additional pressure on the military regime. There is also some positive movement within ASEAN itself, including Malaysia, the country that sponsored Burma's entry into the Association and has supported ``non-interference'' in domestic affairs of other members. Earlier this month, a group of Malaysian parliamentarians--from the government and the opposition--formed a committee to press for democracy in Burma. The group called on the SPDC to immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners and restore democratic government. The parliamentary group stated: ``The caucus also calls upon the (Burma) government to respect ASEAN and international opinion and return to the mainstream of responsible international norms and behavior.'' Of course, we would all like to see ASEAN, the EU, and others to take additional steps to put pressure on Rangoon to respect human rights and restore democracy. But we must continue to take the lead. I believe that by passing this resolution and renewing the sanctions on imports from Burma for another year, we will enhance our leadership in this area and rally the international community to our cause. Now is not the time to weaken our resolve. Some may argue that the sanctions do no harm to the members of the military junta and instead place additional hardships on the Burmese people. The military junta itself cynically suggested that the reason why human trafficking is a rampant problem in Burma--as cited in the latest State Department report--is due to the desperate economic conditions caused by the sanctions imposed by the United States. Let us not forget that for over 15 years the military junta has brutalized its won citizens, engaged in numerous human rights abuses including rape, forced labor, and human trafficking of young boys and girls, and run the Burmese economy into the ground. And the consequences of the regime's repressive rule extend far beyond its borders. As Senator McConnell and I pointed out in an op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the spread of narcotics, HIV/ AIDS, and refugees across the region can be traced back to Rangoon. As South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu stated earlier this year: ``To dismantle apartheid [in South Africa] took not only commitment, faith, and hard work, but also intense international pressure and sanctions. In Burma, the regime has ravaged the country, and the people, to fund its illegal rule. Governments and international institutions must move past symbolic gestures and cut the lifelines to Burma's military regime through well-implemented sanctions.'' We cannot say for certain these sanctions will work. But we can be certain that if we do nothing and allow these sanctions to expire, the military junta will strengthen its grip on power and the day of Suu Kyi's release from house arrest and the re-birth of democracy in Burma will be put off further into the future. We simply cannot afford to make that mistake and turn our backs on those who are looking to us for hope and inspiration. I urge my colleagues to renew their support for freedom and democracy, Suu Kyi and the Burmese people and support this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the amendment introduced by Senator DeWine to provide humanitarian assistance for the refugees in Darfur, Sudan. Of all the places on Earth, where killing and deaths are rampant, Darfur, Sudan leads the list. The DeWine amendment will provide $95 million to respond to the crisis, including $70 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance and $25 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance. In response to attacks by rebel groups in the Western region of Darfur, Arab militias, known as Jangaweed, armed and aided by the government of Sudan, launched a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Arab residents, including murder, rape, forced displacement, and looting. Over 30,000 have been killed and more than 2 million displaced. The situation is dire. While the United Nations Security Council recently endorsed the peace process to end Africa's longest running civil war, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios estimated that 300,000 refugees from Darfur may perish due to a lack of basic food and medicine. He added that that number could reach as high as one million. Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that the Administration is currently studying whether or not the rampage in Darfur can legally be defined as ``genocide''. Whatever the legal conclusion--and in this Senator's mind the killings most certainly can be characterized as genocide--the United States and the international community have a moral obligation to provide assistance to the refugees and compel the government of Sudan to put a stop to the death squads. It is past time for the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution authorizing a robust monitoring and peacekeeping force and demanding that the government of Sudan disarm the Jangaweed and allow humanitarian assistance to reach the refugees. Sadly, it appears that debate over such a resolution could take weeks and put countless lives at risk. Inaction will also threaten the peace process that so many people, including the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, have worked so long to put in place. While the Security Council waits, the U.S. Senate can act now. Earlier this month, Mr. Natsios pledged an additional $188.5 million in emergency assistance to address the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. While this amendment does not match that amount, it is a start and it will give the refugees some hope. Ten years ago the world remained silent and stood by as the genocide unfolded in Rwanda. In the wake of hundreds of thousands of deaths, we committed ourselves to not make the same mistake twice. The situation in Darfur is now testing the United States and the international community's will to fulfill that pledge. We must not fail those who are now facing displacement, starvation, and death. We must rise to the occasion.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce companion legislation to H.R. 3638, a bill introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson in November 2003. This bill will adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California to include the addition of the Mill Creek property. In 2002, the California Department of Parks and Recreation acquired from the Save-the-Redwoods League 25,500 acres of forest land known as the Mill Creek property in Del Norte County, which is contiguous with the Redwood National and State parks boundary. This bill would include within the park boundary the Mill Creek acquisition and about 900 acres of land acquired and added to the State redwood parks since the 1978 expansion of the Redwood National Park boundary. There would be no Federal costs for land acquisition or development resulting from this legislation. These lands will be managed by the same cooperative management agreement between the National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This partnership is viewed as a model of interagency cooperative management efforts and will provide for more efficient and cost-effective management of an ecologically significant resource. This bill enjoys strong support from local and Federal officials, including Del Norte County and the Department of the Interior. Given this support and lack of controversy, I believe introducing companion legislation to be of great importance to ensure that our Redwood National Park is further protected. I have long held a deep interest in protecting California's magnificent Redwoods. The Headwaters Agreement that was negotiated in part in my offices in 1996 protected approximately 7,500 acres of old growth redwoods, which was the largest grove of redwoods held in private ownership at the time. I applaud Congressman Mike Thompson's commitment to this issue and hope that this bill receives strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of Senator Leahy's second-degree amendment which seeks to compel, by law, the Executive Branch to provide certain important documents to Congress. I wish to focus on one particular issue that has been raised by those who oppose this effort--that provision of these documents will endanger our national security by informing our enemies of the details of our interrogation tactics. I believe this objection is misplaced and the danger of compromising national security can be easily and simply eliminated. I am a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and as my colleagues know, that committee regularly receives information of the highest classification involving our Intelligence community. Similarly, the Armed Services Committee receives information about the most sensitive of our military secrets. The Judiciary Committee receives information about extremely sensitive law enforcement matters. In short, the Congress and its committees are regularly provided the most sensitive of our Nation's secrets. In the present case I accept that some of the documents we have sought from the Department of Justice and Department of Defense about the law, policy and procedures governing interrogations may be properly classified. In other words, I quote from the governing executive order, Executive Order 12958, which describes ``top secret'' as being information ``the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.'' But the question of classification is unrelated to the question of whether the Congress should have access to information which is needed. We have procedures, administered by the Office of Senate Security, which ensures that such information is handled properly, safely, and securely. simply put, providing information to the Congress is not the same as making it public, or providing it to terrorists. As some of my colleagues know, I asked the Attorney General directly whether any of the material which he was refusing to provide to the Congress was classified. He did not answer my question, but if the answer is yes, then the Congress has the ability to receive such information. It is important to focus on the issue at hand, which is what information should, and must, be provided to Congress so it can perform its constitutional role to legislate and conduct oversight. The issue is not what information to provide to the terrorists.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live in the San Bruno area of California. 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. The Plascencias have worked for years to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in anyway. 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 15 days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken. The Plascencias' current date of removal from the United States is set for June 23rd. 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 packaging operation and several employees. The president of the market, 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 and improved her skills to become a medical assistant. Until her work permit expired last week, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Those who have written to me in support of Mrs. Plascencia, of which there are several, 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.'' Mrs. 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.'' 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 legislation 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 Plascencias' 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 Plascencias' youngest child is 2 year-old Daisy. Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be 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 dramatically alter their lives. It would be especially tragic for the Plascencias' 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 legislation, and asked 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 six of more than 50 letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Biden in support of this amendment to pay for the President's request for an additional $25 billion to fund the war in Iraq. This amendment will temporarily roll back the acceleration of the President's May 2003 tax cuts for those making more than $319,000 per year by raising the income tax rate from 35 percent to 36 percent for 5 years, 2005-2009. Assuming passage of this supplemental funding request, the Iraq war will have cost the American people more than $175 billion. And without this amendment, every penny of this $25 billion supplemental request will be borrowed, becoming another debt we will leave to our children and grandchildren. This amendment, however, offers a very reasonable way to pay for this stage of the war on terror. By rolling back the acceleration of the May 2003 tax cut just enough to fund the $25 billion request before us, we will reduce the already serious debt burden on our Nation. We are offering this amendment because it is essential that we begin paying for the programs that we propose. It is important for the public to know that they--along with our soldiers--must also sacrifice during this war on terror. Except to tell us that we should visit our shopping malls more frequently, the President has shown little leadership in asking citizens to give to this war effort. This amendment sends a different message--one that says that it is important that those who have the capacity to pay for this war effort must step forward. It is time for sacrifice. Deficits, interest costs and the debt are growing again. Net interest payments on Federal debt are set to increase sharply from approximately $170 billion in 2003 to more than $300 billion by 2012. And we are facing these daunting fiscal realities as we try to meet a host of new challenges: the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the threat of North Korea, and, of course, securing our homeland. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 will top $470 billion--the largest deficit in our history. A portion of every dollar we spend from this day until the end of September 2004, will be borrowed money--money our children and grandchildren will have to repay. After this year's deficit, it is estimated that we will accumulate almost $1.5 trillion in debt during the next 5 years and a total of $2 trillion during the next decade To help us understand the fiscal track we are on, one must understand that this year's deficit is larger than the amount the President requested for defense in his Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, 447 billion, and larger than the combined non-defense discretionary budget for this year, 459 billion. Further, the budget projections we are now using do not include the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So add another $25 billion to $80 billion to the deficit. Nor do they include long-term costs associated with correcting a growing problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. This will cost $660 billion over the next 10 years. The current budget picture also hides the full impact of extending the President's tax cuts to just the next 5 years. Beyond this 5-year window, the costs escalate dramatically. The total 10-year cost of those cost: $1.6 trillion. And the budget uses $1.1 trillion of revenue from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 5 years. Overall, our Federal debt is expected to rise from $6.8 trillion today to $15.1 trillion in 2014. Why do Deficits Matter? They matter, as the Brookings Institution points out, because they slow economic growth. By 2014, the average family's income will be an estimated $1,800 lower because of the slower income growth that results when government competes with the private sector for a limited pool of savings or borrows more from abroad. They increase household borrowing costs by driving up interest rates: A family with a $250,000, 30-year-mortgage, for example, will pay an additional $2,500 in interest for a one-percent hike in interest rates. They increase indebtedness to foreign creditors. Japan holds $526 billion of our debt. China holds $144 billion. The United Kingdom holds $112 billion. Caribbean Banking Centers hold $62 billion. They require that a growing proportion of revenues be devoted to paying interest on the national debt: By 2014, this increased borrowing will cost the average household $3,000 in added interest on debt alone. They impose enormous burdens on future generations. Today's young people will have to pay more because our generation has increased the debt so tremendously. And there will be added pressure to cut spending on health care, education, and other critical services. Additionally, deficits will prevent us from addressing looming crises in both Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire. In 2003, we spent $1.2 trillion on these programs and other entitlements--54 percent of the Federal budget. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation. By 2009, we will be spending $1.6 trillion for these entitlements--57 percent of the Federal budget. By 2014, we will be spending $2.1 trillion--59 percent of the budget. These programs are in serious danger if we continue down this path of deficit spending. In January of last year during his State of the Union Address, the President said the following: This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents, and to other generations. We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage. Well, this is one challenge we are passing on to other Congresses and to other generations. Today we have a chance to meet this challenge and demonstrate fiscal responsibility by temporarily rolling back a small portion of the accelerated tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Everyone who is affected by this amendment makes more than $319,000 a year in taxable income, which typically means that they are making more than $430,000 a year in gross income. This amendment does not revoke the 2001 or 2003 reductions in the top income tax rate, nor would it affect any other element of the 2001 or 2003 tax packages. It would merely temporarily raise the marginal income tax rate on the richest in our society. By scaling back a small portion of the accelerated cut in the May 2003 tax package, we will be taking a first step toward putting our fiscal house in order and asking citizens to sacrifice for the war on terror. Passing this amendment is the responsible thing to do. I urge your support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very happy to join with Senator Kennedy in support of this amendment. I come at this from a passionate, moral point of view so my arguments are going to reflect that. We have been hearing for 2 years now that this is just a study. Yet the Congressional Research Service has shown in its reports that, in fact, it is much more than a study. This is the reopening of the nuclear door and the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. We, the strongest and most technologically proficient military on Earth now see fit to reopen that door and begin to study and develop a new generation of nuclear weapons: One, the robust nuclear earth penetrator, a 100-kiloton bunker buster, which at present cannot be developed to drive deeply enough into the ground to prevent the spewing of massive amounts of radioactive debris; two, something called advanced concepts initiative, which is the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, under 5 kilotons, to be used as strategic battlefield nuclear weapons; and three, the development of a plutonium pit facility with enough capacity to create up to 450 plutonium pits per year, which are the trigger devices in a nuclear weapon. I strongly believe that to proceed on this path is folly because by doing so we are encouraging the very nuclear proliferation we are seeking to prevent. In other words, we are telling other countries, don't do what we do, do what we say. We are practicing the ultimate hypocrisy. And there is now emerging evidence that others are going to follow this course. When I stood on the floor last week, I mentioned the report that India is beginning the development of battlefield nuclear weapons. You can be sure Pakistan will follow. We also know Brazil is looking at that opportunity as well. In April of this year, Brazil refused to allow IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors to examine a uranium enrichment facility under construction. They insisted that the facility will only produce low-enriched uranium, which is legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so long as it is safeguarded. They also refused to fully cooperate with the IAEA's investigation into the nuclear black market operated by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Kahn. These are all the signs. We saw them in North Korea as well. Brazil appears to be rebelling against what it perceives to be a double standard in the global nuclear proliferation regime. It views President Bush's proposals, which significantly curtail the sharing of potentially peaceful nuclear technology, as a radical departure from the standards agreed to under the NPT. I am quoting from a statement issued by the former Foreign Minister of Great Britain, Robin Cook, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in a document entitled ``A Nuclear Nonproliferation Strategy for the 21st Century.'' We know that other countries follow the example of the United States. Why are we doing this? There is good news. Last week the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water eliminated all funding for these programs, everything--for the pit facility, for the advanced weapons concepts, and for the nuclear bunker buster. That was a wise decision. I believe the action of the House is a reflection of the growing bipartisan concerns that I know many of my colleagues share about this administration's nuclear weapons programs. That is why the Senator from Massachusetts and I and the Senator from Michigan and others have offered our amendment to eliminate funds for programs to develop new nuclear weapons capabilities, including the robust nuclear earth penetrator. This administration continues to argue that no new weapons production is currently planned. But again, the facts belie this statement. Ambassador Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, stated in a recent interview that it is important, in his view, to maintain a manufacturing and scientific base so that the United States can meet the goal of ``being able to design, develop, and begin production of a new warhead within 3 to 4 years of a decision to enter engineering development.'' That is the ball game--the development of a new warhead. It is not just a study; it is development. I mentioned the Congressional Research Service report. I was staggered when I saw that it concluded that the administration's long- term budget plans, including $485 million for the robust nuclear earth penetrator between 2005 and 2009, casts doubt on the contention that the studies of a new nuclear weapon are, in fact, just studies. Why would the administration be including $485 million in future funds in its long-term budget for a robust nuclear earth penetrator if it was just a study? The fact is, they would not. The study doesn't cost $485 million. The answer is that they are planning to go into the engineering and the development phases. What I find most troubling with the administration's approach is the suggestion that we can make nuclear weapons more usable. I strongly believe it must be a central tenet of the U.S. national security policy to do everything at our disposal to make nuclear weapons less desirable, less available, and less likely to be used. According to press reports, the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review cited the need to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and suggested a ``new triad'' which blurred the lines between conventional and nuclear forces. I keep mentioning that because this paper is often postulated as a throwaway--don't pay attention to it--but it is a very important statement of administration policy. As early as 2001, this administration was creating a new triad of strategic forces, and one part of that would be the nuclear triad--in other words, the creation of new weapons that could be used along with conventional weapons. This document also names seven countries--not all of them possessing nuclear weapons--against which we would consider launching a nuclear first strike. So this new triad, with its emphasis on the offensive capability of these weapons--even in first-strike scenarios--represents a radical and dangerous departure from the idea that our strategic nuclear forces are primarily intended for deterrence. This is significant. We have always looked at our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent arsenal. This is now changing to an offensive arsenal. If you think about how the robust nuclear earth penetrator would be used, how low-yield nuclear weapons would be used, they would not be used in a defensive posture; they would be used as part of an offensive thrust. A recent report of the Pentagon's Defense Sciences Board argues that ``nuclear weapons are needed that produce much lower collateral damage,'' precisely so these weapons can be more ``usable'' and integrated into war-fighting plans. Now, the problem in all of this is that there is no such thing as a ``clean'' or usable nuclear bomb. A lot of studies have been done. A leader in this effort is Dr. Sidney Drell, a physics professor at Stanford University. He points out how the effects of a small bomb would be dramatic. A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. The depth of penetration of the robust nuclear earth penetrator is limited by the strength of the missile casing. The deepest our current earth penetrator can burrow is 20 to 35 feet of dry earth. Casing made of even the strongest material cannot withstand the physical force of burrowing through 100 feet of granite to reach a hard or deeply buried target--much less the 800 feet needed to contain the nuclear blast. So if a nuclear bunker buster were able to burrow into the earth to reach its maximum feasible penetration depth of 35 feet, it would not be able to be deep enough to contain even a bomb with an explosive yield of only 0.2 kilotons, let alone a 100-kiloton bomb like the robust nuclear earth penetrator. So given the insurmountable physics problems associated with burrowing a warhead deep into the earth, destroying a target hidden beneath 1,000 feet into rock will require a nuclear weapon of at least 100 kilotons. So anything short of 800 feet will not contain a fallout. A fireball will break through the surface, scattering enormous amounts of radioactive debris--1.5 million tons for a 100-kiloton bomb--into the atmosphere. Is that what we want to be doing as a Nation? The 1962 Sedan nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site illustrates the enormous destructive effects of a 100-kiloton nuclear blast detonated 635 feet below the surface of the Earth--far deeper than any robust nuclear earth penetrator can be engineered to go. The radioactive cloud it produced continued to rise as debris settled back to Earth, and the base surge of the explosion rolled over the desert. Even at 635 feet below the ground, the blast could not be contained. On the floor of the Senate last week, my friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, argued that because conventional earth- penetrating munitions failed to knock out Saddam Hussein in his underground bunker on the eve of the Iraq war, ``only nuclear weapons can address the deeply buried targets that are protected by manmade, or even hard geology.'' I usually, on security matters, agree with my friend. But consider the implications of this statement. If we had used a nuclear earth penetrator, we might have killed Saddam Hussein--that is, assuming we had the right location in the first place, and clearly our intelligence was not right--but at the same time the United States would have used a nuclear weapon against a nonnuclear weapon state, detonating it in the middle of a city of 5 million people. Would leveling Baghdad have been the right way to liberate an oppressed people from a brutal dictator? Of course not. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Grassley- Feinstein amendment, which calls upon the President to make the decimation of the Afghanistan heroin trade one of his highest national security priorities, asked the Defense Department to devote more time, energy and resources to anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, and asks for a study into whether profits from the illegal drug trade continue to fund terrorists and others who upset the stability of that nation. Afghanistan has long been the world's major supplier of heroin, providing the global market as much as 80% of all the heroin consumed each year. This is a grave problem--not just because heroin is a bad thing in and of itself, but because profits from the heroin trade in Afghanistan have historically been funneled, in large part, to terrorists bent on doing America harm or those that aid and protect those terrorists. Indeed, it has been estimated that millions of dollars--even hundreds of millions of dollars--in drug profits have been funneled to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. Those organizations, in turn, can use the money to run terrorist training camps; to buy guns, bombs and other supplies; to recruit; and to fund terrorist operations throughout the world. Needless to say, this is a major problem. If we continue to allow terrorist organizations to rake in hundreds of millions of untraceable dollars, the war on terror is going to go quite poorly for us indeed. This is not the first time I have raised these concerns. Last May, for instance, I expressed concern that this administration had made a decision to allow warlords and others in Afghanistan to continue to grow poppy and to produce opium, in the hopes of maintaining relationships and alliances with those who were trafficking in drugs. In other words, the administration was essentially turning a blind eye to drug production, in order to work more closely with those who were profiting from it. This was not acceptable then, and it remains unacceptable now. The very reason we went to Afghanistan--to remove al-Qaida's means of support--will be lost if we continue to allow these drug lords to fund al-Qaida and those that hide them, protect them, fund them and help them in other ways. More than two years after we went into Afghanistan, we don't have bin Laden. We have not stopped the terrorist attacks. We do not control the countryside in Afghanistan. And now we are standing by while the drug trade flourishes beyond levels experienced even before 9/11. I know this is not an easy problem to solve. Farmers in Afghanistan, like in many other nation's involved in illegal drug production, often find that growing poppy is far more profitable than the country's other staples--cereals, wheat, barley, rice, and so on. So combined with Afghanistan's foreboding terrain and chaotic political and security situation, it is not a simple matter to eliminate drug production. Many farmers survive either solely on poppy production or by growing a mix of legal, and illegal crops. There is hope--poppy production represents only about 8% of Afghanistan's crop production (in volume). So many farmers do grow alternate crops, and they make a living doing it. But we need to make better efforts to provide farmers good alternatives; to deter production; and, most importantly, to eradicate the crops on the ground. Eradicating poppy is not easy--particularly in a nation where the central government has so little control over its distant--and even not-so-distant--provinces. Only with military assistance can anti-drug operatives go into an area and take out the poppy fields. Some of these warlords have virtual armies at their disposal--helicopters, rocket launchers, you name it. This is not your local marijuana field in someone's backyard. This, truly, is akin to war. The war in Iraq has certainly hindered the Defense Department's ability to assist in these operations--there is only so much manpower and equipment to go around. This is one reason why so many questioned the advisability of going into Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished. But tough as it may be to solve, this issue is simply too important to ignore, and we cannot wait any longer. Recent estimates put Afghanistan's poppy production this year at more than 5,000 metric tons--more than 50 percent higher than last year. Even if the most aggressive current efforts at eradication succeed in every respect, only 25 percent of the crop this year will be destroyed. This means that no matter what, more heroin will be produced this year than last. The value of that heroin could easily exceed three billion dollars. Farmers only get about a penny on the dollar. Where is the rest of the money going? Best estimates are that much of it goes to terrorists or their protectors. This simply cannot continue if we hope to win the war on terror. This amendment calls upon the Defense Department to better assist in protecting drug eradication efforts and to work to disrupt and destroy those who aid terrorist activity through the drug trade. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on Saturday, our Nation lost a strong leader and the State of California lost an adopted son. As a citizen, Ronald Wilson Reagan embodied the American dream. He personified the image of California--can-do, risk-taking, cutting-edge. Ronald Reagan was all of those things. As a President, he unified a country and helped bring an end to the cold war, the premier struggle of his time in public life. My fondest memory of President Reagan took place while I was mayor of San Francisco at a March 1983 dinner the President and First Lady hosted for Queen Elizabeth II in San Francisco. The Queen was thrilled to visit California for the first time and especially pleased to be welcomed by a President from California. During that trip the Queen quipped at one point that she knew England had exported many traditions to the United States, but she hadn't realized the weather was one of them. San Francisco's London-like weather aside, as Mayor I was enormously proud of the wonderful welcome we had provided for the Queen of England. Growing up in small-town central Illinois in the years leading up to the Great Depression, President Reagan was instilled with the values that would guide him as a person and as a leader. There he learned the importance of hard work and optimism as the key ingredients for success. It was this optimism combined with his ever-present sense of humor that characterized him best, enabling him to both ``fill the screen'' and make a stellar entrance wherever he went. After 4 years at Eureka College, where he was known as a gritty, though undersized tackle on the football team, he began searching for a job in broadcasting. In 1932, at the height of the Depression, he headed into the job market confident that a job would be his soon. After several years as a broadcaster covering University of Iowa football games and later recreating Chicago Cubs' games based on telegraph reports, a young Ronald Reagan traveled to California to cover the Cubs' spring training. It was his first trip west of Kansas City and it nurtured his fascination with Hollywood. While he was there, he used his considerable charm to convince a movie agent to arrange a screen test for him at Warner Brothers Studios. Before long, he returned to the Midwest, packed his bags and started the quintessential American journey westward in search of opportunity. Of course, he found it as a movie star. He won many fans through his on-screen charisma. The optimism he inspired was exemplified by his role as Notre Dame football player George Gipp in the film ``Knute Rockne--All-American.'' Years after Gipp's death, Coach Rockne gave a pep talk to his team urging them to ``win one for the Gipper'' one of the more memorable lines in American sports history. But President Reagan's greatest impact on the world was as a politician. As a labor leader with the Screen Actors Guild, his roots as an activist were shaped significantly by a deep concern about communism. Yet despite his strongly anti-communist views, he condemned the unfair smearing of many liberals by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. He refused to reveal names publicly, but exposed some people to the FBI privately. As Governor of California he had a strong record of environmental protection: adding 145,000 acres to the State's park system, protecting Lake Tahoe from rampant development, blocking the construction of dams on the Dos Rios and Eel rivers, and stopping the paving of a federal highway through the Sierra Nevada Mountains that would have cut through the John Muir Trail. He also signed legislation to protect rivers on California's north coast and approved strict car emissions standards that forced the Nation's automakers to manufacture cleaner-burning cars. But he lobbied against the Coastal Protection Act approved by voters in 1972 and resisted air pollution controls imposed by the federal government. Despite his personal opposition to abortion, Governor Reagan loosened an 1872 statute to allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, when a mother's health was at stake, or when there was a high risk that a baby would be born with birth defects. Many States followed Governor Reagan's lead on this important issue. However, his move to close down mental health facilities in California resulted in widespread homelessness in urban areas. Though he sought to steer the mentally ill into community-based mental health facilities the end result was a spike in homelessness, a problem that we continue to deal with to this day. While in Sacramento, he generally approached fiscal policy as a moderate, first presiding over a $1-billion tax increase to balance the State budget and another subsequent increase. He eventually lowered taxes, but in his two terms as Governor, State spending doubled overall and the State's workforce grew by 34,000. As President, he was a unifier and an optimist. His infectious, upbeat attitude rallied people to his goals. He was extremely successful in passing legislation by joining that optimism with a willingness to compromise with a Democratic Congress. In his dealings, he was tough, but ready to negotiate. There is no better example of this than his relationship with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. He often used harsh rhetoric in challenging the actions of our cold war adversary, but it was always backed by his core beliefs. Once, as he prepared for his first summit with the Soviet leader, he met with a room full of foreign policy advisors, each offering their suggestions about what he should say. After a half-hour of discussion, President Reagan turned to his advisors and said, ``Gentlemen, I've been thinking about what I'm going to say to this man my whole life. And I know exactly what I'm going to say.'' Gorbachev described Reagan as ``a great President, with whom the Soviet leadership was able to launch a very difficult but important dialogue.'' His tough negotiating stance yielded some important accomplishments including signing treaties reducing intermediate-range nuclear missiles and limiting strategic arms. These acts of diplomacy combined with his relentless advocacy for freedom played a major role in bringing about an end to the cold war. At the same time, Reagan had a tendency to overreach in the area of foreign policy. The invasion of Grenada, the intervention in Lebanon that left American soldiers uncertain of their role and vulnerable to attack, and, above all, the Iran-Contra scandal--were all cases in which the Reagan Administration went too far in seeking to reshape the world. At home, President Reagan sought to limit the size of government and tap the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. And though he was famous for cutting taxes, he approved two tax increases during his first term in the White House. Unfortunately, the tax cuts were coupled with sharp increases in defense spending that resulted in massive deficits. The Federal budget finally recovered from those years of deficit-spending during the late 1990s, but the surpluses that were generated disappeared in the blink of an eye under the current administration's fiscal policies. President Reagan's cuts to public housing, job training, and the broader social safety net were another serious blow domestically. And, as cities and mayors across the country were reeling from the advent of AIDS--no place suffered more than San Francisco--President Reagan failed to act. He would not even publicly comment on the AIDS crisis. Though people did not always agree with his policies, it cannot be denied that President Reagan redefined politics through his tremendous skills as a communicator. In particular, his ability to define clear goals and persuade others to support those goals earned him the admiration of many Americans. As we all know, President Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's Disease during the last decade of his life. As we honor his memory in the days and weeks to come, it is my hope that we will consider what we can do here in Congress to battle this terrible disease. A good first step would be to approve legislation that supports embryonic stem cell research. This research offers tremendous hope, not only to those who suffer from Alzheimer's, but also the millions of people with cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injuries. What a fitting tribute passage of this bill would be to President Reagan. In closing, there probably is no American who has more fully lived the American dream from actor to Governor to President than Ronald Reagan. Today, we mourn his loss, but recognize that his was a full life. Thank you for your service to this country, President Reagan.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the Allied invasion of Western Europe. Sixty years ago yesterday, Allied troops landed on the beaches and parachuted into the fields of Normandy in an effort that would lead to the eventual destruction of the German Army and the liberation of the European continent. On the early morning of June 6, 1944, after years of logistical coordination and deceptive intelligence operations, U.S. troops and their counterparts from Britain, France, Canada, and Poland brought to bear their enormous power and tremendous bravery on Hitler's military. On that momentous day, over 150,000 Allied servicemen, including 73,000 Americans, 5,000 ships, and more than 1,000 planes started to beat back the German Army. The attack began just after midnight when more than 13,000 paratroopers carrying between 70 and 90 pounds of equipment jumped down into German-occupied territory. As these men fell through enemy fire to the fields and farmland of Normandy, the largest armada ever assembled steamed across the English Channel toward the French coast. At 6:30 a.m., the first wave of troops arrived on the beaches, unloading tens of thousands of soldiers in the face of mortar, artillery, and machine gun fire from the cliffs above the Normandy beaches. A second wave of Allied Forces landed at 7 a.m., charging up hills and scaling cliffs through continued firepower. The fighting continued throughout the day, and at day's end, the Allied casualties numbered nearly 10,000, of which 2,500 had died, including more than 1,400 Americans. But more than 100,000 Allied soldiers had made it ashore and secured French coastal towns. On D-Day Plus Five, June 11, over 325,000 Allied troops, 54,000 vehicles, and 104,000 tons of supplies had arrived in Normandy. The D-Day invasion was one of the most daring military operations in history and it succeeded because of the courage of Allied soldiers and the careful planning of Allied military leaders. These brave troops and their leaders knew that this attack would determine the fate of Europe and much of the world for many years to come. With success on the coast of Normandy, the Allies advanced across France, liberating village after village on the path to Berlin. The massive landing and subsequent arrival of troops had allowed for a relentless advance and cleared the way to a conclusion of the war. The Americans who survived that day and that war are no longer young. Indeed, there are fewer D-Day veterans this year than last, and there will be fewer still next year. Yet the men who fought on that day 60 years ago, and the Americans who supported their efforts at home and abroad, have created a legacy of peace and prosperity that continues to reign across Europe today. Europe is united, not by force of arms or tyranny, but by economic strength and cooperation. Last month, 10 new countries joined the European Union. Former battlefield adversaries now enjoy freedom of movement, a single currency, and a secure future for themselves and their children. The legacy of those D-Day veterans is also apparent in our Nation today. Just last week, thousands of veterans came to Washington, DC, to celebrate the opening of the World War II Memorial. These veterans reminded us that the prosperity we have enjoyed for most of the past 60 years came at a price--the 400,000 American lives that were lost during World War II. The remarkable advancements in our Nation and the world during the past 60 years would not have been possible without the extraordinary effort undertaken by this generation of Americans and our allies who shared our commitment to freedom. Today, courageous soldiers, sailors, marines, and pilots continue to serve and sacrifice for this country. As we remember the brave individuals who served in Normandy and across the globe during World War II, we must also honor the men and women of today's military who are in harm's way. As of June 3, 126 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan and another 818 have died in Iraq. Thousands more have been injured. These men and women, along with their families, have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Today, I honor them and the approximately 140,000 soldiers who continue to serve in the Middle East. June 6, 1944, was a crucial day in the history of this Nation and the history of the world. Today we recognize the contribution of those who served our Nation on that day and thank them for staring down tyranny and liberating Europe. They continue to serve our nation through the undiminished memory of a battle fought far from home for the good of all people.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the callous attitudes of Enron employees that were brought to light recently in transcripts released by the Snohomish County Public Utility District in Washington and broadcast on CBS News. These tapes provide concrete evidence of the manipulation and fraud that was perpetrated by energy companies in the 2000-2001 energy crisis in California. This manipulation resulted in the cost of energy in California increasing from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and 2001, respectively. This type of price gouging and market manipulation can and will happen again if the energy market is not restructured. I urge the California State Legislature to take action on Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez's bill--AB 2006, the Reliable Electric Service Act. This bill would re-regulate the energy market and protect small consumers served by utilities from this type of unethical behavior. In more than a dozen taped conversations, the Enron power traders show complete disdain for consumers throughout the West, and particularly those in California. While I cannot read the transcripts verbatim due to the coarse language used by the traders, I would like to read to you some excerpts: One trader sang: ``Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing.'' This was in reference to a wildfire that shut down a major transmission line, decreasing power supplies and raising energy prices. Another trader said: ``Just cut 'em off. They're so [expletive]. They should just bring back . . . horses and carriages, . . . lamps, . . . kerosene lamps.'' (Expletives Deleted) To have traders say these things shows a complete disregard for the health and safety of Californians. And this was not an isolated trader--this was a mentality apparently endemic to Enron employees. The only thing these traders cared about was how much money they could bleed from the California marketplace. Let me read you a second excerpt: One trader complained: ``They're [expletive] taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?'' A second responded: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man.'' The first responded: ``Yeah, now she wants her [expletive] money back for all the power you've charged right up, [expletive phrase], for [expletive] $250 a megawatt hour.'' To thumb your nose at a grandmother on a fixed income is completely reprehensible, but it was how these traders operated--with no compassion for those suffering from their behavior--that galls me the most. When I heard these tapes, I knew that we could not expect any ethical conduct from traders in this energy market. Let me read you another excerpt, this one illustrating the lengths these traders would go to manipulate the market: Tom: The headline before that is ``California Grid Operators Call Stage 2 Power Emergency as Reserves Drop.'' Matt: Yeah. They're on the ropes today. I exported like a [expletive] 400 megs. Tom: Wow. Matt: I bought it all. I'll see you guys--I'm takin' mine to the desert. Tom: [Expletive] 'em, right? Matt: I think those gamblers in Las Vegas need the power more than you. Matt goes on to say that he and Enron were getting rich off of exporting power out of California when Californians needed it most. The transcripts prove that Enron intentionally congested transmission lines and used its influence to delay wholesale price caps in order to maximize its profits. Other transcripts also prove that Enron traders made secret deals with power producers, deliberately driving up prices by ordering power plants shut down. But Enron did not act alone in manipulating the California energy market. In fact, this type of manipulation was pervasive among many energy companies operating in California. Here are several more examples. Reliant, for instance, decided to game the market by deliberately holding back power generation for two days at its facility near Barstow in late June 2000. This is when the State needed power the most. Worse, these decisions were made from the top. The vice-president of power trading at Reliant directed traders to manipulate the market in this manner. At one point, Reliant charged the State of California $1,900 per megawatt-hour for electricity, or approximately 6300 percent more than the historic standard of $30 per megawatt-hour. Yet the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission only fined Reliant $13.8 million and the company did not have to admit any guilt or wrongdoing. Dynegy also demonstrated manipulative behavior such as load shifting, false reporting, and double selling. The company deliberately reported false gas market data to publications and created bogus trades to drive up the price of electricity. Dynegy was only concerned with its bottom line in the first quarter of 2001, the company posted a recurring net income of $137.5 million, a 73 percent increase in net income from the $79.4 million it reported in 2000 and a 102 percent increase from the company's reported first quarter income in 1999. For this manipulative behavior, FERC levied a fine of only $3 million, and, again, Dynegy did not have to admit any guilt. In yet another instance, El Paso Merchant Energy and its affiliates inflated the price of natural gas by reducing deliveries to the State. In fact, El Paso withheld capacity from at least 21 percent of its pipelines that delivered natural gas to the California border. It is estimated that El Paso's price manipulation cost California's consumers $3.7 billion. FERC settled with El Paso, letting them walk away, again, without admitting any wrongdoing, for a $1.5 billion fine. That is only a fraction of the cost that California consumers were forced to bear due to El Paso's misdeeds. These companies used many deliberate strategies to manipulate the market, which included: Death Star, Get Shorty, Fat Boy, Load Shift, Black Widow, and Red Congo. California is still suffering from this unethical conduct. Californians are forced to pay higher prices for electricity because of long-term contracts that were signed when wholesale prices were artificially inflated by price manipulation. And Californians still have not gotten the $9 billion in refunds they deserve, which were overcharges as a result of Enron and other companies' manipulation of the energy markets. These tapes provide concrete evidence that there was intentional manipulation and fraud perpetrated by energy companies during the 2000- 2001 energy crisis in California. That is why I have joined my colleague, Senator Boxer, in calling upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to immediately refund California the $9 billion that it is owed and to order a renegotiation of the long-term contracts that were made under manipulated prices. These transcripts further prove that the rates Californians paid for electricity were not ``just and reasonable.'' Consumers are not served well by a deregulated marketplace where traders from companies including Enron, Dynegy, Reliant, Mirant, Williams, AES, CMS, El Paso Merchant Energy, and Duke can manipulate the market in the grossest way. Absent strong action, I have no doubt that this unethical, immoral and illegal behavior will continue. That is why I support re-regulating California's energy markets. Speaker Nunez's bill would create a regulatory framework that will put California back in charge of its energy future. The bill would attempt to ensure reliable electricity at stable and affordable rates for small customers; require California's utilities to meet a renewable portfolio standard of 20 percent by 2010; and require utilities to have enough generation capacity to meet the demands of their consumers and have a significant reserve on hand in case of an emergency. This bill will provide Californians the protection they need from exorbitant energy prices and energy traders with no ethical standards. California was the first to experiment with de-regulation. Sadly, the 1996 deregulation was a total failure for consumers in California. We learned the hard way that energy is not a commodity like pork bellies or frozen orange juice, but is a public good. California needs to put in place a new framework to take regulate the energy market in order to ensure reliability and reasonable prices for consumers. In other words, consumers should be protected from price spikes, market manipulation, and blackouts. In closing, I cannot express how disgusted I am by the newest Enron transcripts. I wish we could have prevented the manipulative behavior in the first place. Congress still has not acted to pass bills that would prevent this kind of unethical and immoral manipulative behavior in the energy markets, such as those that were offered by me, Senator Cantwell and others. As a result, I feel that California must act on its own to control its own energy supplies in order to prevent further manipulation of our markets and keep our lights on. CBS News is to be commended for bringing these tapes to light. It is imperative that we learn as much as we can about Enron's behavior--so that we know its impact on the western energy markets and so that this type of fraud and manipulation can be prevented from ever happening again.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I particularly thank him for being the main sponsor of this amendment. This amendment is something about which I feel passion, and the reason I do is because the country, of which I am a part, in this bill authorizes the opening of a nuclear door to the development of new nuclear weapons. One of the things I realized is Americans forget what a nuclear weapon does. Both Senator Kennedy and I were very young teenagers when the first nuclear bomb was dropped. The first nuclear bomb that was dropped was 15 kilotons, and it was dropped on Hiroshima. This is what Hiroshima looked like when that bomb was dropped. Let me show you what a 21-kiloton nuclear bomb did, because that was the second bomb that was dropped, and that was on Nagasaki. In the course of a year, between the two cities, 200,000 people died-- 200,000--many of them in the most horrible of ways from radiation sickness. Radiation is a major problem whenever you look at a new nuclear weapon--where it can be contained, how it can be contained, and where it cannot be contained. In this bill, there is authorization for a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster. In this bill, there is a request for authorization of $9 million for advanced nuclear weapons concepts which translates into strategic battlefield nuclear weapons under 5 kilotons--battlefield nuclear weapons. Let me show you the depth to which a bomb has to penetrate to prevent nuclear fallout. If it is two-tenths of a kiloton, it has to go down 70 feet, to 120 feet, and then it throws off 25,000 tons of radioactive fallout. If it is 1 kiloton, at 80 feet, it throws up 60,000 tons of radioactive fallout and would have to go down to 220 feet not to throw out any radioactive fallout. Five kilotons, if it goes down 320 feet, it will not throw off radioactive fallout, but at 130 feet, it throws out 220,000 tons of radioactive fallout. At 100 kilotons, it would have to go down to 800 to 1,000 feet not to throw off any radioactive fallout. That is what we are talking about. That is what is authorized in this bill: a nuclear bunker buster of 100 kilotons, and there is no known way to drive a bomb 800 to 1,000 feet into the earth because there is no known casing strong enough to drive that bomb down to that depth. So I ask the question: Why are we doing this? Why are we spending what over 5 years will be $500 million on this program? And why are we doing it when it is going to encourage the very proliferation everything about us wants to prevent? We now know through newspaper articles that India may be looking at what is called a boutique nuclear weapon, a battlefield nuclear weapon. We lead the way. We do not want other nations to go ahead and develop this, and this country has the most sophisticated conventional military in the world. I support this amendment which essentially would eliminate the authorization for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and the advanced nuclear weapon concept. I want to point out when this administration came into office, they put out a document called the Nuclear Posture Review in 2002. This Nuclear Posture Review, according to press reports, actually stated the United States would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances. This document named seven countries against whom we would consider launching a nuclear first strike. Those seven countries as listed in 2002 were North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, China, and Russia. It also proposed a new triad in which nuclear and conventional weapons coexist along the same continuum. This effectively blurs the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and suggests that they could be used as an offensive weapon. In addition, the Nuclear Posture Review said we need to develop new types of weapons so we can use them in a wider variety of circumstances and against a wider range of targets, such as hard and deeply buried targets, or to defeat chemical or biological agents. I have now asked Secretary Rumsfeld, as a member of the Defense Appropriations Committee 2 years running, about this. The first year he said this is just a study; that is all. This year a week ago when I asked him, he said clearly, with the amount of underground activity that exists in the world, and it is pervasive in country after country that people have tunneled underground--North Korea is a perfect example; certainly Iran is--we have found this in country after country, and the question is, If that is a problem, what might be done about it. Your first choice would be to find some obviously conventional way to do it. They have looked and looked and looked, and this additional way is at least, in my view, worth studying. In addition, the Congressional Research Service says the fiscal year 2005 budget request seems to cast serious doubt on the assertions that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is only a study because budget projections over the next 5 years is nearly $500 million for this program. So it is more than a study. It is a real program that is underway. I think it is a huge mistake. I indicated that there is no way today to sink a nuclear weapon deeply enough into the earth to prevent radioactive fallout. Let me show what that fallout would do. This is the predicted radioactive fallout from a 300-kiloton explosion in west Pyongyang, North Korea, using historical weather data for the month of May. We see what the fallout would be. This makes no sense. We are not going to use a weapon either on a battlefield or as a bunker buster that spews out radioactive nuclear fallout. Why reopen the nuclear door? Why have other nations look at America and say, America is going to do this; maybe we should do it? India, Pakistan, historic enemies, both nuclear capable countries, rumors are that one now is going to develop a tactical battlefield nuclear weapon. They see us doing it; therefore, it is all right for them to do it. According to press reports, in a Nuclear Posture Review, one of the countries we might consider a first use, North Korea. We then find North Korea breaks the agreed formula. North Korea is producing a nuclear capability. It makes no sense for the strongest military on Earth, the most sophisticated conventional military on Earth, to say, once again, we must reopen the nuclear door, and we must begin a new generation of nuclear weapons. The people of California do not want this. I do not think the people of any State want that. So I believe very strongly in this amendment. I hope to discuss it more on Tuesday. I will do everything in my power to fight every way I can the reopening of this nuclear door. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and Advanced Concepts Initiative are only part of a movement to expand the development of new nuclear weapons. There are also plans to develop a modern pit facility, and that modern pit facility would provide the capacity to create up to 450 more plutonium pits per year. The plutonium pit is the shell which is effectively the trigger of a nuclear device which compresses and therefore detonates. That is not necessary to maintain the current nuclear numbers that we have. It is only necessary if you are going to build new nuclear. In addition, last year the Administration urged Congress to eliminate the Spratt-Furse provision which for the past 10 years provided that there could be no research, no development, no study of low-yield nuclear weapons. So the evidence is there that this administration is proceeding along the lines to reopen the nuclear door to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons while at the same time preaching to the world, thou shalt not; we are opposed to nuclear proliferation. Yet we are willing to open that door and proliferate ourselves. In my view, this is hypocrisy. In my view, this is not good public policy. In my view, this is immoral and unethical. I represent a constituency that does not think we need a new generation of nuclear weapons. So this amendment would remove that authorization from the Defense authorization bill, and I stand in support of it. I yield the floor.