Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, for those who might have gotten involved in this late, I would like to use the 5 minutes to say a few things. The first is that this is one of the most difficult areas in which to legislate because it is filled with so much emotion and so much difference of opinion. It is one of those great cultural problems that exists out there in our real world, as opposed to this world, where human lives are very much affected. On the one hand, you have the situation the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from South Carolina pointed out-- situations where you have women who have terrible things done to them. It is just so hard for us to realize how that can happen, that any man can be that callous to beat to death a woman who is 7, 8, or 9 months pregnant; can use a knife; can cut her fetus when you know that child is capable of life. I understand what drives this desire. What drives the desire is to see that there is equal punishment for the taking of that life, which I believe is a life because it can sustain life. Its pulmonary functions have cleared out in the last few weeks of pregnancy and those kinds of things. But basically it is a baby, and basically it is viable. I understand all of that. When you get down to definitions, and when you look at the statute itself, what concerns many of us and makes us understand we are dealing with something much more than just what I have said is the definition of a child in utero who is made by this bill a person, a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development as long as it is in the womb--that could be 3 days, I am now told, from conception--you are not only creating criminal law for the woman who can produce a child who can live and whose life is taken away but we are creating a sanction for an egg that is fertilized that may be 3 days old. That sanction can be murder and carry with it the full weight of murdering another human being. It is a very heavy sanction. You are giving rights to that newly conceived egg of a full person. There are many of us who say this is another way of doing this. That is just saying if you harm or end a pregnancy, these full charges will revert. The reason we do it that way is because it exists all around us. The fact that there is a reason for how this child in utero is defined and the reason is, as I have tried to elucidate--and there are many other cases--``In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person.'' Why do they want to do that? It is simple. They want to do it because if we legislate, and the Federal crime is that if a 3-day-old egg is a person and has rights, then abortion under this same context is murder or manslaughter or assault. Full rights of a person are given. I think that is a problem when you codify it in statute. This body is then saying: Yes, we agree. Therefore, a case can be brought against abortion of any kind at any time and also against embryonic stem-cell research that some of us believe is the new horizon of medicine, which is capable of finding cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and juvenile diabetes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think I have just a short time left. How much time do I have?

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield but I am reserving the remainder of my time. I may have something to say in a minute or so, and I may not. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I agree that the debate is concluding, and I thank the Senator from Ohio. This is a serious subject and it is a difficult subject and it is a controversial subject. I appreciate the manner in which the debate has been conducted, because I think it has been conducted in the best tradition of the Senate, with the exception of your not letting me modify my amendment. But I will only interpret that as caused by the fact that the other side is worried and doesn't want my amendment to get any better, so they refuse to let me modify it. We have two different bills here. I think we have expressed the differences. The underlying bill does recognize the unborn at any stage of development, as long as they are in the womb, as a human being, as a victim and with rights. My bill, rather than enter into where life begins, at what point in this gestation period life actually begins enough to say this is a person with rights--it doesn't get into that. It takes the penalties and does a double charge and says if the predicate crime is present, and you carry out the crime to harm or end the pregnancy, it is a double charge so you are charged accordingly. The hard part of this is that we all know there has been a march to turn back Roe v. Wade. Every Member of this Senate knows it. We have had vote after vote after vote. Since 1994, the pro-choice side has lost most of the votes. That is irrevocable fact. We know the march is on. So those of us who are pro-choice naturally are going to look at laws to see if those laws can constitute, in addition to what they are supposed to do, any kind of bulwark from which to attack Roe. Because of the definition of a child in utero being, at any stage of development, a member of the species Homo sapiens, we come to a conclusion. We asked the question, first, why do they use that definition? So many States have passed laws and many of them have used different definitions, why do they select that definition? Answer, because it accomplishes the purpose of determining that once a fertilized egg is in the womb, it becomes a human being. That, then, buttresses statements such as this one on the easel. This isn't the only statement. I can give another statement by another professor which I used in my opening remarks. It is a statement of a Republican strategist. Professor Charo is at the University of Wisconsin. She made the statement recently: If you can get enough of these bricks in place, [meaning laws] draw enough examples from different parts of life and law where embryos are treated as babies, then how can the Supreme Court say they are not? This is, without question, a conscious strategy. So if you believe it is without question a conscious strategy--and I, based on the history of how the erosion against Roe is being waged, piece by piece, bit by bit, law by law, action by action, I believe it is a conscious strategy. The hard part about it for me is that you feel this terrible empathy for women who have been the victims and who are 7, 8, 9 months pregnant. That has been every case that has been before us today, it has reached that stage of gestation, where you know your child can exist outside of the womb and some animal has taken the child away from you by beating you to the point where they have killed the child and in many of the same cases--the Senator from Kansas illustrated today--killed the mother as well. We want to throw the book at that perpetrator. And we do. We believe our bill is clear, and we believe our bill will stand the test of time. So we ask the Senate to support the substitute amendment and turn down the underlying bill. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Feingold and Senator Lincoln to introduce the ``Bring Our Children Home Act,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by family members and taken to a foreign country each year. Despite an increasingly high level of Congressional and public concern regarding international parental abduction and the wrongful retention of American children abroad, the situation facing American children and their left-behind parents in these cases has not improved and continues to be a serious problem. The Bring Our Children Home Act would help prevent both domestic and international family abductions. Specifically, the bill would: Establish a right of action in Federal court for resolution of child custody disputes; Give law enforcement the authority to detain any child who has been entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center's database under any category of the Missing Person File for 24 hours or until a disposition can be made; Amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require information on each country's efforts to prohibit international child abduction; Require federally-funded supervised visitation centers to provide services in child custody cases wherein a State court finds that there is a risk of abduction and orders supervised visitation as a preventive measure; and Most importantly, it would provide a national registry of custody orders which would allow law enforcement the confidence to intervene in situations and aid a custodial parent to be reunited with their child, or to stop an abduction in progress. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is aware of cases in which law enforcement felt unable to intervene because parents represented conflicting orders. Such conflict has lead to international abductions that could have been prevented. As of May 31, 2003, the U.S. Department of State's Office of Children's Issues was aware of 1060 international abduction cases, 904 open abduction cases and 156 access cases, initiated by U.S.-based parents seeking a child's return or access to a child currently in a foreign country. The actual number of children being kept abroad is higher than this, as these are open cases, not numbers of children. And new cases are reported every week. As international marriages have increased in recent decades, so have accusations of international child abduction according to Karolina Walkin, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman. In a 2001 Contra Costa Times article, parents complained that the Justice Department has little interest in their international abduction cases and the State Department was unwilling to disrupt diplomatic relations over abducted children. Written policy directs consular officers to remain neutral, no matter the circumstances. A 2000 General Accounting Office report noted that the FBI has made limited use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. Despite at least 1,000 international parental abductions from the United States annually, the Bureau has prosecuted only 62 cases in 7 years. The Bring Our Children Home Act requires the Department of Justice and Department of State to report to Congress on International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act warrants and extradition. We must make sure that we are utilizing the tools that we have available to recover abducted children. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the United States, that established civil procedures to follow when locating, accessing, or returning abducted children. This legislation would provide additional support for left-behind parents and it would ease their ability to bring resolution to their case and their children home. For countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, it is a case- and country-specific matter. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a wife or child of a Saudi man may not leave the country without his prior written permission. There have been many cases in which adult female American citizens have been unable to leave Saudi Arabia because they have not been able to obtain the written permission of their male guardian, regardless of their constitutionally guaranteed rights as a U.S. citizen. This legislation would require that the Department of State report to Congress on their progress in negotiating with countries who are not part of the Hague Convention, such as Saudi Arabia. The ``Bring Our Children Home Act'' would be an important step in helping these families reunite. It gives law enforcement the tools they need to identify children illegally abducted by family members and return them home. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Feingold and Senator Lincoln to introduce the ``Bring Our Children Home Act,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by family members and taken to a foreign country each year. Despite an increasingly high level of Congressional and public concern regarding international parental abduction and the wrongful retention of American children abroad, the situation facing American children and their left-behind parents in these cases has not improved and continues to be a serious problem. The Bring Our Children Home Act would help prevent both domestic and international family abductions. Specifically, the bill would: Establish a right of action in Federal court for resolution of child custody disputes; Give law enforcement the authority to detain any child who has been entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center's database under any category of the Missing Person File for 24 hours or until a disposition can be made; Amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require information on each country's efforts to prohibit international child abduction; Require federally-funded supervised visitation centers to provide services in child custody cases wherein a State court finds that there is a risk of abduction and orders supervised visitation as a preventive measure; and Most importantly, it would provide a national registry of custody orders which would allow law enforcement the confidence to intervene in situations and aid a custodial parent to be reunited with their child, or to stop an abduction in progress. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is aware of cases in which law enforcement felt unable to intervene because parents represented conflicting orders. Such conflict has lead to international abductions that could have been prevented. As of May 31, 2003, the U.S. Department of State's Office of Children's Issues was aware of 1060 international abduction cases, 904 open abduction cases and 156 access cases, initiated by U.S.-based parents seeking a child's return or access to a child currently in a foreign country. The actual number of children being kept abroad is higher than this, as these are open cases, not numbers of children. And new cases are reported every week. As international marriages have increased in recent decades, so have accusations of international child abduction according to Karolina Walkin, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman. In a 2001 Contra Costa Times article, parents complained that the Justice Department has little interest in their international abduction cases and the State Department was unwilling to disrupt diplomatic relations over abducted children. Written policy directs consular officers to remain neutral, no matter the circumstances. A 2000 General Accounting Office report noted that the FBI has made limited use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. Despite at least 1,000 international parental abductions from the United States annually, the Bureau has prosecuted only 62 cases in 7 years. The Bring Our Children Home Act requires the Department of Justice and Department of State to report to Congress on International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act warrants and extradition. We must make sure that we are utilizing the tools that we have available to recover abducted children. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the United States, that established civil procedures to follow when locating, accessing, or returning abducted children. This legislation would provide additional support for left-behind parents and it would ease their ability to bring resolution to their case and their children home. For countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, it is a case- and country-specific matter. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a wife or child of a Saudi man may not leave the country without his prior written permission. There have been many cases in which adult female American citizens have been unable to leave Saudi Arabia because they have not been able to obtain the written permission of their male guardian, regardless of their constitutionally guaranteed rights as a U.S. citizen. This legislation would require that the Department of State report to Congress on their progress in negotiating with countries who are not part of the Hague Convention, such as Saudi Arabia. The ``Bring Our Children Home Act'' would be an important step in helping these families reunite. It gives law enforcement the tools they need to identify children illegally abducted by family members and return them home. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the resolution submitted by Senator Dodd to express our condolences to the families of the victims of today's Madrid bombings and our strong solidarity with the Spanish people in the fight against terror. This is a sad and tragic day. This morning, nearly 200 innocent people were killed and 1,000 injured when 10 near-simultaneous explosions hit 3 separate trains at the height of the city's rush hour. Spanish police found and detonated 3 other bombs. One official described it as the worst terrorist attack in Spain's history. I condemn in the strongest possible terms this vicious and bloody terrorist attack. The Madrid bombings appear to be part of an ongoing terror campaign by the Basque separatist group ETA, a group designated by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. Americans know all too well the pain and destruction caused by terror and we stand shoulder to shoulder with our Spanish friends at this difficult hour just as they stood with us on September 11. We two peoples share the values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights. We have worked and we will continue to work together in the fight against terror and in bringing those responsible for this brutal attack to justice. Terrorists must know that we will not back down in the face of their crimes. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Federal budget deficit will reach a record $477 billion this year, according to figures released in February by the Congressional Budget Office. And, if you believe the President's own numbers, the budget deficit will come in at $521 billion this year. This is a stunning turnaround from 3 years ago, when the budget was in surplus. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the next 10 years, the deficit is projected to grow to $5.5 trillion--another record. Deficits do matter, and unless we face up to them, they could seriously harm our Nation's economy. Here is why: First, deficits mean increased spending on interest instead of priorities. In the short term, deficits can help stimulate the economy or pay for emergency spending. But in the long term, they limit our Nation's ability to fund much needed priorities. This means less money for education, less money for environmental protection, and less money for health care. The administration--largely because of the projected deficits--has pledged to limit spending on domestic programs this year to 1 percent growth. The budget before the Senate today reflects these constraints by: failing to reimburse state and local governments for the federal responsibilities in paying for the incarceration of illegal immigrants; reducing the effectiveness of our police officers by cutting almost $700 million from the COPS program; cutting almost $250 million from firefighter grants; underfunding No Child Left Behind by $8.9 billion; and underfunding Port Security by more than $550 million. These are not frivolous or unimportant programs: these are vital priorities that must be funded. Last year we spent $318 billion in interest on the national debt alone. Our total non-defense discretionary spending last year was only modestly larger, coming in at $421 billion. Every dollar of that $318 billion was money that could have been available for education, healthcare, defense, infrastructure, job development, homeland security--or to return to the American people as tax cuts, if we had paid down the debt. Second, deficits lead to interest rate increases. We have been fortunate in recent years; interest rates and inflation have remained low. But as the economy picks up, the downward pressure on interest rates will be relieved and the impact of deficits will be felt. This will add huge expenses to variable home mortgages and auto loans. An increase of just 1 percent would add $2,000 per year to the cost of a $200,000 home mortgage. This is more than the majority of American taxpayers will receive from the President's latest tax cut. Third, deficits prevent us from addressing the looming Social Security and Medicare crises. This is an issue that is not addressed in this budget resolution. We can not continue to avoid it forever. The retirement of the baby boomers will place a tremendous strain on our social safety net. In fact, if we do not address the problem, the Medicare trust fund will go broke by the year 2030, and the Social Security trust fund by 2040. Our Nation was poised to deal with these crises at the end of the Clinton administration. In 1998, the 30-year trend of deficit spending had been reversed, and we paid off $448 billion of the Nation's publicly held debt. This opportunity, however, has been lost. Not only have we failed to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but we are also tapping the Social Security trust fund to pay our bills--to the tune of $164 billion this year alone. So what do we do? One possibility is to simply continue along our current path and pass our problems on to our children and grandchildren. In fact, the budget resolution we are dealing with today raises the federal debt ceiling by $644 billion--essentially borrowing from future generations because we are unable to muster the political will necessary to pay today's obligations today. So I strongly believe that the time has come to chart a different course, and make the tough choices that the President and this budget resolution avoid making. We must adopt a balanced approach to both taxes and spending and return to a program of fiscal sanity. This is what we did when I first came to the Senate over a decade ago. At that time, a small, bipartisan group of Senators came together to get our fiscal house in order. Democrats worked to bring spending under control. And Republicans pledged not to push for additional tax cuts. Today, we must come together again to address the deficit and restore our Nation's economic security. On taxes, I believe that we must consider rolling back the tax cut on the wealthiest in the Nation, to bring the income tax rate from its current 35 percent back up to 38.6 percent--what it was just last year. This will affect those who earn more than $312,000 per year. And, will impact less than one percent of American taxpayers, but will save nearly $130 billion over the next decade. Making the President's tax cuts permanent, as he called for in his State of the Union Address, represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, the Tax Policy Institute estimates the cost of making these tax cuts permanent would cost $1.8 trillion over ten years--$1.8 trillion at just the time that baby boomers will start retiring and Social Security and Medicare need to be stabilized. The tragedy of our current circumstance is that, given the surpluses he inherited, President Bush should have the resources available to devote additional spending to healthcare, education, and the environment. But the wrong policies, at the wrong time, combined with the war on terror, escalating the 2001 tax cuts, and now moving to make them permanent, plus the recession, have contributed toward the largest budget deficit in history. And now, the fact of the matter is that we are going to need to tighten our belts and bring spending under control. I have no problem holding the line on spending, but believe that it must be done in the context of a more responsible approach to tax policy. Finally, we need to take a good, hard look at Social Security and Medicare, and start addressing some of the deeper structural problems with these programs now--before they fall into crisis. These are not easy answers. But holding off on additional tax cuts, bringing spending under control, and dealing with Social Security and Medicare is the only path to long term fiscal order, a balanced budget, and a healthy and vibrant economy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by Senator Lugar and myself to restore the International Affairs function 150 account to the President's requested funding level and add additional resources to the fight against global HIV/AIDS. Now is not the time to take a step backwards in our commitment to ensuring that the international affairs budget remains a vital tool of American foreign policy in the fight against terror and global poverty. Our amendment adds $1.4 billion in funding for the international affairs budget to exceed the President's request of $31.5 billion for fiscal year 2005 by $300 million. Last year, the Senate accepted a Lugar-Feinstein amendment that restored $1.15 billion to the fiscal year 2004 international budget. As I stated last year, I strongly believe the United States should devote additional resources to the international affairs budget above this amendment. Nevertheless, in this difficult fiscal environment, I fully understand that this amendment is the best opportunity to maintain the momentum of increasing the international affairs budget and demonstrating the importance of our foreign aid programs. I also understand that the offset used in this amendment--the function 920 account--is not ideal, but the Lugar/Feinstein amendment is the best vehicle we have at this time to restore the President's request, provide additional assistance to the fight against global HIV/ AIDS and help the United States sustain a leadership role in bringing hope to the developing world and fighting global terror. The statistics about our international affairs budget are well known to some of my colleagues but they are worth repeating to underscore the importance of acting now to provide additional funds. The United States spends approximately one percent of our budget on foreign aid, barely one-tenth of one percent of GDP. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States in recent years ranks next to last among 21 industrialized donor countries in per capita foreign assistance. We can do better and I am pleased that over the past few years the administration, Congress, and the American people have come together to push for greater commitments to our international affairs budget. In the simplest terms, foreign aid programs provide assistance to those in need. They help countries combat diseases such as HIV/AIDS, build schools to fight illiteracy, train doctors to provide care for mothers and their newborn children, and help indigenous peoples prevent environmental degradation. In addition, foreign aid programs protect our embassies and foreign service personnel, built export markets for our goods and services, and spread America's message of freedom and democracy around the world. In the post September 11 world, however, the international affairs budget has taken on an increased significance. It has become increasingly clear that we cannot rely on our military might alone to protect our citizens and advance the U.S. foreign policy agenda. As Richard Sokolsky and Joseph McMillan of the National Defense University have written: The events of September 11th have a direct impact on American national security . . . A robust and focused foreign assistance program is one of the weapons we must have to prevail. Our troops have performed magnificently in overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan while combating al-Qaeda around the globe. Nevertheless, the costs in terms of lives and resources have been substantial and we can expect additional costs for many years to come. Increasing the foreign aid budget allows us to attack the conditions that foster terror and autocratic governments--poverty, illness, disease, illiteracy--at a far lower cost and with less bloodshed than military interventions in the future. We should not wait until a nation hits rock bottom to build schools, open hospitals, and provide food to those in the developing world who so desperately need it. As Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated: We have to make sure that, as we fight terrorism using military means and legal means and law enforcement and intelligence means and going after the financial infrastructure of terrorist organizations, we also have to put hope back in the hearts of people. By acting sooner rather than later, we not only have a better opportunity to promote stability, economic prosperity, and vibrant democratic institutions, but we also protect our own national interests and the lives of all Americans. Sometimes our values and intentions are misconstrued and misrepresented around the world. I am increasingly concerned about the negative perceptions of the United States and Americans that abound in the Middle East and other parts of the developing world. We are a generous people and foreign aid represents the best of our values and demonstrates our commitment to seeing other peoples rise from the ashes of poverty. When we succeed in this endeavor, we change hearts and minds and protect our own. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is amendment No. 2753, on behalf of Senators Hollings, Breaux, Dodd, Corzine, Schumer, Biden, Mikulski, Murray, Graham of Florida, and Collins. This amendment does not cost. It is a sense of the Senate, and it essentially would allow large ports that need to produce security to do this through multiyear contracting or letters of intent. There is a real problem in going year by year with budget funds for port security. The port of Los Angeles-Long Beach is 15 miles long. They are the second and third largest ports in the Nation. It simply cannot do what is necessary to be done to secure the port unless there is some form of multiyear funding agreement. This amendment would allow that to take place, at least in terms of voicing the Senate's view. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For the record, it is my understanding that the amendment had been presented to your staff yesterday. We have sought time. I recognize this amendment may not be one of your priorities. It is a huge amendment for many States that have very high costs, and I have presented it in the past. It has been unanimously adopted by this body in the budget bill. I offered a separate amendment which was an authorization for $850 million, which passed the Senate and is now in the House. There is no number from the President in the budget. That is why I am submitting it at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment from myself and Senators Kyl, Bingaman, Hutchison, Kennedy, Cornyn, Boxer, Domenici, Clinton, McCain, Schumer, Graham, Lautenberg, Cantwell, Corzine, Feingold, and Edwards. It has to do with the State criminal assistance program for illegal aliens. We have tried to get floor time and have been unable to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object. Is the Senator saying I have no right to introduce my amendment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on this issue, and I join him wholeheartedly. Funding for public health programs has never been more critical. The President's budget, for the first time in 10 years, includes a decrease in Function 550. This is the portion of the budget that covers cancer research, AIDS treatments and new discoveries, potential health threats, including anthrax or other biological or chemical attacks--all through the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Indian Health Service, and others. If we do not adopt this amendment, all of those programs are threatened with cuts. Let me speak about how this amendment works. It increases the budget for discretionary public health programs for fiscal year 2005 by $6 billion. That is a 12-percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 level. Now, a 12-percent increase in Function 550 is supported by more than 400 health groups. And, this increase is also paid for. It is paid for by a 61-cent increase in the federal tax on tobacco, which will bring in about $8 billion per year. Mr. President, $6 billion of the $8 billion covers the cost of increasing funding for public health, and the remaining $2 billion goes for deficit reduction. It is a prudent step to take at this point in time. Now, you might say, why? We know tobacco kills. And we know that prevention saves lives. For the first time in my State--California--we have had a drop in lung cancer incidences and death among women because of the tobacco prevention programs that are taking place. So I think an increase in the tobacco tax is an appropriate means to support a 12- percent increase in cancer research. Let me speak to that for just a moment. We now have seen the mapping of the human genome. This holds tremendous promise for finding cures for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and cancer, by attacking their genetic roots. We have seen advances in genomics, in molecular biology, which have made the development of new, targeted cancer therapies such as Gleevec, for chronic myeloid leukemia; Herceptin, for breast cancer; and, most recently, Avastin, for colon cancer. We now have drugs that are so advanced that they can target just the bad cancer cells and not harm the good cells. These drugs are amazingly effective and are less toxic for the patient. I have been vice chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer, now called C-Change, for 4 years, and co-chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition for even longer than that. If there ever is a time to continue the march to solve major health problems before this Nation, this is that time. This amendment allows that to be done, with a 12-percent increase for public health programs. And it is fully offset. It would be funded from an increase in the tobacco tax, a tax that I think is an appropriate measure--about $2 billion for deficit reduction and $6 billion to fund this amendment. I urge the Senate's approval of this increase in basic health functions across the board. Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Tibetan Uprising of 1959. I sincerely hope that Chinese and Tibetan leaders will take this opportunity to work together in a spirit of cooperation and dialogue to overcome differences that have plagued relations between China and Tibet for too long. After the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1949-1950, China and the Tibet Government signed the ``Seventeen Points Agreement'' to make Tibet an autonomous region in the People's Republic of China and grant the Tibetan people the right of autonomy in determining the shape of their religious, cultural, and social institutions. Nevertheless, in the ensuing years the Chinese Government did not fulfill its commitments, leading to the 1959 Lhasa Uprising and the flight of the Dalai Lama. Forty-five years later, tens of thousands of Tibetan refugees have been forced to flee their homeland in the face of repeated oppression and human rights abuses and those that remain are still unable to practice their religion freely and preserve their cultural autonomy. Despite this tragedy, the Dalai Lama has consistently stated that his goal is not independence for Tibet but rather cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people and negotiations within the framework enunciated by Deng Xiaoping in 1979. Last year, in his speech to commemorate the Lhasa Rebellion, the Dalai Lama said: As far back as the early seventies in consultation with senior Tibetan officials I made a decision to seek a solution to the Tibetan problem through a ``Middle Way Approach.'' This framework does not call for independence and separation of Tibet. At the same time, it provides genuine autonomy for the six million men and women who consider themselves Tibetans, to preserve their distinctive identity, to promote their religious and cultural heritage that is based on a centuries-old philosophy which is a benefit even in the 21st century, and to protect the delicate environment of the Tibetan plateau. This approach will contribute to the overall stability and unity of the People's Republic of China. I have worked on behalf of Tibet and the Tibetan people for over 20 years and I have done everything in my power to bring China and Tibet together to settle their differences peacefully at the negotiating table. I have personally carried messages from the Dalai Lama to China on these issues and there is no doubt in my mind that he is fully prepared to negotiate with China to achieve a just and lasting peace for the Tibetan people. It is disappointing that another year has gone by and more progress has not been achieved in settling these issues. The road ahead of us is long but we must persevere to ensure that the Tibetan people will one day achieve the freedom and autonomy to shape their own society. It is my sincere hope that China will cooperate with the Dalai Lama in resolving their differences on Tibet.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on May 1-3, 2004, more than a 1,000 students from across the United States will converge on Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program has a primary goal of promoting civic competence and responsibility among our Nation's elementary and secondary school students. It is the most extensive educational program in the country designed to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and since its inception in 1987, more than 26 million students and 86,000 educators have participated. I am very proud to announce that Amador Valley High School in Pleasanton will represent the State of California in this year's We the People national final. Four years ago I had the honor of recognizing Amador Valley for winning California's contest, and am proud to be able to do so again today. On February 6, this year's class from Amador Valley placed first in California's statewide contest. The school has a rich tradition of excelling in this program, having won California's competition five times from 1992-2000, and even winning the national championship in 1995. During the national final, the class from Amador Valley will again have to testify as experts before a panel of judges on a wide variety of historical and contemporary constitutional issues. They will also be quizzed by the judges in an effort to illustrate depth of constitutional understanding, and ability to apply that knowledge. The competition is designed to resemble what hearings would be like in the U.S. Congress. I congratulate the civics class at Amador Valley High School for winning this year's California We the People competition, and wish them best of luck as they conduct research and prepare for the national finals.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, on International Women's Day, to recognize the contributions that women have made to our world. Today, we commemorate the lives of women, the work that women have done, the sacrifices that women have made, and the progress that women have achieved. The past year was a very important one for advancing the rights of women. In Iraq, American women in the armed services played an integral part to the war effort and Iraqi women have now been given a much greater role in governing their country. In Afghanistan, women have rights and liberties not experienced for years. Women and girls are returning to schools and colleges and rejoining the workforce. Unfortunately, for many women around the world, the past year has not improved their ability to control their own lives. In many countries around the world, women earn less than men for performing the same tasks. In some countries, women are prohibited from owning property or from receiving the same education as men. And many women do not have the same access to health care that men have. On this day, we must reaffirm our dedication to women's rights; we must strive to ensure that all women and girls have every opportunity to improve their lives and to make their own choices. On this day, I would like to recognize the accomplishments of one woman in particular. In December of 2003, Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian defense lawyer, became the first Muslim woman to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. She received this honor for her dedication to democracy and human rights. In 1975, Mrs. Ebadi was the first woman appointed to be a judge in Iran. After the Iranian revolution, she was forced to resign her post on the court. Since that time, she has fought for an interpretation of Islamic law that reflects the importance of human rights and democracy, not just for men, but for all Iranians. I wish to recognize Mrs. Ebadi's work on behalf of human rights and I wish to congratulate her on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. She is truly a great woman and a great human being. I would also like to take some time today to focus on a number of areas where women have made recent progress and some areas that still require significant change. The liberation of Iraq has been a great step forward for Iraqi women. Today, the Iraqi Governing Council has agreed on an interim constitution. The constitution, also known as the Transitional Administrative Law, has a number of provisions that protect women's rights. For example, the Transitional Administrative Law requires that no less than 25 percent of the members elected to the Transitional National Assembly be women. The new consititution also states that Iraqis are equal without regard to sex, sect or religion. To ensure that the rights of women in Iraq are not violated, the Coalition Provisional Authority and USAID worked together to establish a women's rights center. This is the first of five centers that will be established throughout Iraq. The center is open to all women and offers a range of opportunities including literacy classes and English- language training, nutrition and health classes, computer skills training, and courses on living in a democracy. The center will also provide assistance for widowed or impoverished women. While there has been progress, we must remain vigilant in our defense of women's rights in Iraq. Since President Bush declared major combat operations over, extremist Muslims have tried to suppress women's rights. In December, a group of Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council passed Resolution 137, a resolution that would have required the use of Sharia, or Islamic law that limits the rights and opportunities of women. Fortunately, the Iraqi Governing Council cancelled Resolution 137 on February 27, 2004. With the fall of the Taliban, many people felt that the situation for women in Afghanistan would improve. While Afghanistan's new constitution contains human rights provisions and mandates better political representation of women, new rules on female education in the Afghan province of Herat prevent men from teaching women or girls. The rules also uphold strict gender segregation in all schools. Repression of women is still commonplace in Afghanistan. Let me quote from a recent report issued by Human Rights Watch. The report says: . . . one year after the Taliban's fall, women and girls in Afghanistan still face severe restrictions and violations of their human rights, for in many areas Taliban officials have been replaced by warlords, police officers, and local officials with similar attitudes toward women. In some parts of the country, the same officials who administered the anti- women policies of the Taliban remain in their positions. This has meant the reimposition of extremely repressive social codes that typically have a devastating impact on women.' So much more needs to be done on behalf of women in Afghanistan. Another year has gone by and the United States still has not yet ratified the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As Americans, we can no longer afford to ignore this important document and put in jeopardy our status as a leader in advancing human rights for women and girls. Given that it has been over 20 years since President Carter signed the Convention, one might think that the delay in ratification is due to the fact we are dealing with a treaty that requires years of study and consideration. Yet the Convention simply requires that participating states take all appropriate steps to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life, law, education, employment, health care, commercial transactions, and domestic relations. The United States is one of the only leading democracies in the world that has yet to ratify this important treaty. In fact, our partners outside the Convention include Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. Are these countries with whom we share the values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights? Are those the countries we can count on in the international arena? Women and girls around the world who turn to the United States for leadership in advancing their rights are mystified that we do not take the simple step of ratifying the Convention. When we do, the sky will not fall, the sun will rise in the morning, and the Constitution will still be the law of the land. By ratifying the Convention, the United States will reclaim its leadership status as a champion of the rights of women and girls and send a strong signal to those states who abuse those rights. On International Women's Day, I call on my colleagues in the Senate to move forward and ratify the Convention. While women have made great strides internationally in recent years, abuse of women remains a global problem. Worldwide, it is estimated that 1 in 3 women is abused or sexually assaulted in her lifetime. And anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of women worldwide have experienced some type of domestic violence. These numbers are astounding. Even in the United States, certainly a leader in promoting women's rights, a woman is battered every 15 seconds and battering is the leading cause of injury to women between ages 15 and 44. On average, 3 women are murdered by their husbands every day in the United States. And as many as 750,000 women and children have been trafficked into the United States over the last decade. Certainly, we must do more at home to protect women from domestic and sexual abuse. On International Women's Day, the United States must also reaffirm its commitment to combating HIV/AIDS, an epidemic that has had devastating effects on women and girls. Transmission of HIV from men to women is twice as likely as transmission from women to men and the International Center for Research on Women has shown that there is a high correlation between violence against women and HIV infection. The impact that this disease has had on the lives of women is shocking. In 2002, 2 million women were infected with HIV and 1.2 million women died from AIDS-related illnesses. Young women, ages 15- 24, represent 66 percent of people with HIV in the 14 most-afflicted countries designated in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Teenage women in Sub-Saharan Africa are five or six times more likely to contract HIV than teenage males. This is truly a women's issue that must be addressed. Mr. President, on this day, we honor women. On International Women's Day, the United States and the international community must take a strong stand and issue a clear warning to those who attempt to rob women of basic rights--the world's governments will no longer ignore these important issues.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to support the Bunning-Stabenow-Feinstein amendment which will immediately implement a manufacturing tax deduction that offers much needed assistance to our ever diminishing manufacturing base in this Nation. I applaud the leadership of Senators Bunning and Stabenow in reaching out to a bipartisan group of Senators and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Simply, this amendment would adjust the underlying bill to require an immediate implementation of the new manufacturing deduction and would result in an immediate benefit to our Nation's manufacturers by beginning the process of cutting their tax rate by 3 percentage points. So if you produce manufactured goods in the United States, you will see a phased-in reduction of your tax rate from 35 percent to 32 percent by 2009. This provides a competitive incentive for manufacturers to produce jobs by reducing their tax burden immediately. Critically, this amendment not only includes heavy manufacturing, which is so important to our State and national economies, but also the production of software, film, video, and sound recordings. I do not have to tell anyone in this Chamber how important this is for California and the Nation. The movie, television and home video industries, which are based in California, are a tremendous economic engine of growth. The industry accounts for nearly 5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and is one of the largest employers in the country, having doubled its workforce over the last 25 years to a total workforce today of over 4.7 million workers. I am working with Senators Grassley and Baucus to make sure that these industries are able to take full advantage of the tax benefits that we are proposing here and I am confident that we will come to an agreement to do that. But why single out manufacturing? Why not offer a tax cut to all businesses equally? The answer is clear. We have seen a dramatic decrease in our Nation's manufacturing base and a stimulus directed at this sector of our economy is long overdue. Since January 2001 this Nation has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. My home State of California, has lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs over that same period. That is a 16 percent decrease in California's manufacturing employment base in just 3 years. It is time to stop the bleeding and this amendment will give manufacturers important tax relief so they may grow jobs here at home. As has been pointed out by the National Association of Manufacturing: manufacturing accounts for nearly one fifth of the Nation's GDP; provides 15 million high paying jobs; supports another eight million jobs in other sectors; and is the seedbed of innovation in our economy, accounting for 62 percent of all research and development. It is far and away our pacesetter in productivity gains, and accounts for the bulk of U.S. exports. Manufacturing in the State of California contributed more than 26 percent to our State's domestic product--more than one quarter of my State's economic base. But, the overhead costs of taxes, health and pension benefits, and rising energy prices add 22 percent to the price of U.S. production relative to our foreign competitors. The erosion of high paying manufacturing jobs has continued unabated for years and we now see the phenomenon exacerbated by so many other factors, including outsourcing. This amendment will help on both counts. It will reduce taxes on manufacturers and foster an environment for job growth in this important sector. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and bring an immediate pro-growth stimulus to an important part of our economy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2637

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his leadership on this issue. We are delighted he is a major sponsor of this bill. Mr. President, inadvertently the name of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, was left off the bill as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent it be added.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of Senators Warner, Schumer, DeWine, Levin, Chafee, Dodd, Jeffords, Boxer, Clinton, Reed, Lautenberg, and Mikulski. This is an ad from this morning's Washington Post. It says: Senators, if police officers sat in your seats today, do you think they'd vote to put Uzi's and AK-47's back on the streets? That clearly is the question before the Senate this morning. It is going to be a very close vote. However, that is the issue. That will be the result, if this legislation is not reauthorized for another 10 years. The legislation has the support of 77 percent of the American people, and 66 percent of gun owners. It does not remove a legal gun owner from his weapon, and it has reduced traces of assault weapons to crimes by two-thirds in the last 10 years. I stand by those figures. We believe the assault weapons legislation should be reauthorized. It was enacted in 1994 for 10 years. That 10 years is up on September 13. There is a broad coalition of organizations including every single law enforcement organization in this country supporting it, from the International Chiefs of Police to the Fraternal Order of Police, to virtually every civic group supporting reauthorization of this legislation. I very much hope the votes are present in the Senate this morning. Another interesting note is that on the one hand we are accused, well, it is just cosmetic; it doesn't work. If it is just cosmetic and it doesn't work, then why this enormous effort to prevent the bill from being reauthorized? Additionally, the legislation contains a written exemption by name for 670 weapons. So no one in the United States who legally possessed one of these assault weapons has had those assault weapons taken away. But what we believe is the legislation which stops the manufacture and the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons has been effective. It also stops the domestic manufacture of clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets. No hunter needs more than 10 bullets. No person for defense needs more. I am very hopeful this morning we will in a sense look to the law enforcement community and sustain a vote to reauthorize the assault weapons legislation for another 10 years. I now yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. John Warner.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.