Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have been in public office for 30 years. I have always supported schools. I supported every charter amendment, and every bond issue to be helpful to schools. I have supported every vote to increase dollars to schools. I voted to support charter schools, magnet schools, alternative schools. I have campaigned for increasing Title I moneys that go to schools that teach poor children to try to correct the formula so the money goes where the child goes. As a Mayor for 9 years, 3 of those years I bailed out the school district with $3 million a year so that teacher salary increases could be paid during those years. I have traveled to many cities to see what innovative public education programs have been put into play. I have never before supported a voucher program. I do so now with a great commitment to see if this program can succeed. I do so now because those of us who believe strongly in public education--and that is 100 Members of the Senate--have perhaps been too concerned with the structure of education, the rhetoric of education, and not concerned enough about what actually works on the streets and in the neighborhoods and communities of America. This was brought to my attention 3 years ago when the Mayor of Oakland, Jerry Brown, called me and said: My schools have deep troubles. There are so many failing youngsters. I want to try something new. I would like to try a military school, all voluntary, aimed to be geared for excellence, college preparatory. I want to have the poorest of the poor admitted to this school. I thought about it for a while. He said: I have been turned down by the local board of education. But that is not going to stop me. He went to the State and got a special charter from the State. He came back here and convinced Jerry Lewis in the House, me in the Senate, to put some money in a bill to allow him to begin. I spoke to Jerry Brown this morning. I said: Jerry, I want to give the Senate a brief progress report. How is it going in your military school? He said: We have our startup problems, but we are doing pretty well. We have 350 youngsters. Some drop out. We have discipline. We have uniforms. We have the National Guard participating. These youngsters, 3 years later, are testing to the equivalent of the second best middle school in Oakland. So it was a new model. It was refused by the educational establishment. But it is working for some youngsters. When I went to public school in San Francisco, there were 350 students in the school. The class sizes were under 20. There were no other languages other than English spoken. That is certainly not the case for the most part in public education today. It has changed dramatically. Schools have student populations in the hundreds. Classes are way up in numbers. Language has run up to 40 different languages in a school. The economic and social disparity of this great diverse society makes teaching in the elementary school grades much more difficult. I have come to believe that if I can make a difference to work for new models in education, I am going to do it. Education is primarily a local institution. Policy is set by local leaders. The Federal Government provides maybe 7 percent of educational dollars and most of those through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I strongly believe that Mayors should have an input. This Mayor has asked for dollars not to be taken from public schools but new dollars: new dollars to be put in public schools, $13 million; new dollars to be put in chartered schools, $13 million; and new dollars to try a scholarship program to try something different. What he has seen in the District of Columbia is too much failure. Despite the fact that each youngster receives $10,852 a year--the third highest in the United States,--despite the fact that of the amount of money that comes into education, test scores are dismal. Of fourth graders in the District of Columbia schools, only 10 percent read proficiently. Of eighth graders, only 12 percent read proficiently. Think about what that means. If you are in the eighth grade and you can't read, what good is high school? You can't read to learn. Reading is a predicate to learning, just as discipline is a predicate to learning. So these youngsters become doomed. This is not my assessment. This was a national assessment that was done in March of 2000. Of eighth graders, 77 percent are below the grade level in math. Twelve percent are proficient in reading. I am supporting this because the Mayor wants it. I am supporting it because it is not a precedent. It is a pilot. It is 5 years. The voucher is adequate. It is $7,500. There are 9,049 students in the District of Columbia in failing schools. This would cover 2,000 of those youngsters; 2,000 of those youngsters would have an opportunity to have some choice in where they go to school. Would they go to a religious school or a secular school? That is up to the parent; it depends on the cost. Some families would be able to put in some additional funds, if the private school tuition is above $7,500. But I know for a fact there are plenty of schools where the tuition is below the $7,500. As I said in the committee, I helped a youngster go to one of these parochial schools in the District. The tuition is $3,800 a year. I have watched her blossom. I have watched the discipline work for her. I have watched the small classes work for her. I have watched the additional time the teacher spends with her work. I see her reading way above grade now. I see her proud of her uniform that she wears, so there is no competition for clothes. It is just one model. The key thing that comes through to me, as somebody who listens to average people perhaps more than I do the policy wonks when it comes to education, is different models work for different children. We all know with our own children, what works for one child doesn't necessarily work for another. Therefore, what public education needs to do is stop worrying about structures and bureaucracies and bigness and worry about what is not working for these children. What do we do to provide a different environment? Do we divide up our campuses in a number of smaller schools? Do we build schools in office buildings--small schools, maybe with a hundred youngsters--so children can be closer to their families? What do we do? What new models do we look at? All this Mayor is saying is these are failing schools. Why should the poor child not have the same access as the wealthy child does? That is all he is asking for. He is saying let's try it for 5 years, and then let's compare progress and let's see if this model can work for these District youngsters. Interestingly enough, I am looking at the list of failing schools, and I see four are elementary, four are middle/junior high; and then it jumps to eight for senior high. What is the lesson in that one statistic? The lesson in that one statistic is if you have four elementary schools failing, you are going to add to that in high school; you are going to have more high schools failing and more difficulty in high school. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill, my colleague from Ohio. I appreciate his sentiments. Once in a while, by something we do, we can make a tangible and immediate difference in the lives of others. This is one such instance. In this case, what I hope to do is send an amendment to the desk, have Senator DeWine's second degree, and then I would like to speak to the underpinnings of this scholarship program, which some people call a voucher program, and my rationale as to why I think this Mayor's request to try a pilot small voucher program in the District of Columbia should be granted. I begin by sending the amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator's concern. If the Senator from Ohio agrees, I am very happy to have my amendment modified to provide that the voucher recipients and the students in the control group be given the same test that all District public schools students are given. With respect to this being done in the education committee, I probably agree, except it would probably get bogged down one way. The reason it is in the appropriations bill is because the Mayor has come to us and asked us for the additional money. The additional money is what brought this on. Once the additional money was in the bill, then the terms of the money came to bear and the bill had to be written. It is not easy. There are powerful forces against it. People do not want to try it. I do. I hope a majority want to try it. We have tried to do the best we can. Even more importantly, what has been developed here is a relationship between the city and Members of this Senate with this Mayor. I happen to respect this Mayor. I am a taxpaying citizen of this District. I have been so for 10 years. I used to go down the street where there was a pothole so big somebody plugged it up with a mattress. I am very pleased to say, Mr. Mayor, that pothole is gone now. The District is in much better shape. People are coming back to the District. He wants this. The question was also raised, it is easy to do it here. I am not in my own jurisdiction. I tried to point out, the mayor of Oakland came to me in my own jurisdiction to do something that was a new model; I agreed to it. I am going to look at new models and try to support them where I can, also support teachers, also support Title I, and also support public education. Amendment No. 1787 to amendment No. 1783, As Modified I ask the Member from Ohio if he would be in agreement that we submit a modification and ask our amendment be modified to reflect that the test be given annually?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I modify the amendment on page 2, line 3, strike ``that are used for school year 2003-2004.'' I send that modification to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As I understand it, the Stanford 9 is a nationally norm-referenced test. It can certainly be given every year, and I believe the Mayor will agree to that. If your question is, Are you saying the students will be tested every other year instead of every year, what I am saying is we can use it every year. If you are saying we want the test to change in the middle of the test period, I am being told that will mess up any fair evaluation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What you have just stated and what I have been told is that in order to have a fair test evaluation and compare apples to apples, the same test has to be used, which in the District is the Stanford 9, for the 5-year period. So that is the test now being given. If the District changes--I think it is called a criterion-based test-- and I gather the District is considering changing them, this control group would still have to take the Stanford 9 to see if they have progressed. Now I am told if somebody says, I am happy to change it, I am told you cannot get a fair test if we change it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. I yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have joined with Senators Biden, Kerry and Corzine to introduce legislation that will provide us with the necessary financial footing to appropriately execute our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1998, following nearly 30 years of deficits and a 17-fold increase in Federal debt from $365.8 billion to $6.4 trillion, bipartisan cooperation brought the budget back into balance once again. For the first time in more than a generation, some of the funds which would have gone to pay interest on the debt were instead spent actually paying down the debt. Now, deficits and interest costs are growing once again. Net interest payments on the Federal debt will increase sharply, from approximately $170 billion in 2003 to more than $300 billion by 2012. We face a host of new challenges, particularly the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the threat of North Korea. This has necessarily led to a shift in government spending toward improving our defense and homeland security capabilities. Yet many of the challenges predating September 11 are still with us: improving education, updating infrastructure, and preparing for the retirement of the baby-boom generation, which will severely strain the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 will top $500 billion. A portion of every dollar we spend from this day forward until the end of September 2004 will be borrowed money--money that our children and grandchildren will have to repay. It is no secret that if citizens wish to receive services or undertake activities as a Nation, they have the right to levy a tax upon themselves to achieve those ends. We have somehow lost this sense of obligation and have concluded that providing for our national defense or for the education of children requires no more than charging the costs to a government credit card. This must stop. We are spending our way into economic oblivion. The President has decided that the best way to reelection is to cut taxes and leave spending alone. He refuses to make the tough decisions. So, with my colleagues in the Senate, I will help him. If the President wishes to engage our troops in Iraq, a decision that I agreed with and continue to support, then he must agree to pay for it. By seeking a modest increase in the tax rate that affects those making more than $310,000 in taxable income we can pay for the President's most recent supplemental request. This bill generates precisely $87 billion--enough to cover a portion of the cost of the war in Iraq and an even smaller part of our obligation in Afghanistan. This bill is a first step toward putting our fiscal house in order. It would pay for the President's supplemental spending request and it does not revoke the 2001 reduction in the top income tax rate. Nor would it affect any other element of the 2001 tax package. It would merely temporarily raise the marginal income tax rate on the richest in our society. These individuals would continue to benefit from the other aspects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, many of which predominantly accrued to them. Nearly a decade ago, thanks to the commitment of Senators from both parties and all ideological persuasions, we were able to put in motion a successful plan to balance the Federal budget, and laid the groundwork for an unprecedented period of economic growth and prosperity. I believe this bill moves us back to this path and represents our understanding that we have an obligation as a society to raise money from time to time to pay for those activities we deem important to our national well-being.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have concluded within the 10 minutes. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I come to the floor because I have just learned of a decision made by an Oklahoma district judge that the National Do-Not-Call registry is invalid. This is amazing to me. This is the result, apparently, of a lawsuit filed by the Direct Marketing Association, U.S. Security, Chartered Benefit Services, Global Contact Services, and in InfoCision Management Corporation challenging the Federal Trade Commission's authority to implement the wishes of millions of Americans who have gone on the Federal Trade Commission's web site and signed up to say to telemarketers they don't want to be called. I would like to read into the Record a statement of FTC Chairman Timothy Muris. He said: Late last year, the Federal Commission issued rules creating the National Do Not Call Registry under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act. On February 13, 2003 the Congress passed the Do Not Call Implementation Act, which authorized the FTC to collect fees from sellers and telmarketers to ``implement and enforce the provisions relating to the `do-not-call' registry.'' The President signed this bill on March 11, 2003. Moreover, on February 20, 2003, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which authorizes the FTC to ``implement and enforce the do-not-call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.'' Despite this clear legislative direction, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has ruled that the FTC exceeded its authority in creating the National Do Not Call Registry. This decision is clearly incorrect. We will seek every recourse to give American consumers a choice to stop unwanted telemarketing calls. This registry is due to go into effect in a week. A Federal judge has essentially prevented it from going into effect. In a week, tens of millions of Americans who have registered their names not to be called by telemarketers are going to find out that it is all a myth. They are going to get called in any event. I think they are going to be very angry. I also believe this decision strikes a blow against the basic privacy interests of millions of Americans. Presently, these people are subjected to unwanted marketing calls to their homes at all times of the day, including the dinner hour. The FTC's Registry will give Americans who want to avoid these unsolicited sales pitches an option to stop their telephone from ringing. As I mentioned, tens of millions of Americans have registered more than 50 million phone numbers for this program. Ultimately, the Federal Trade Commission expects 60 percent of the Nation's households with approximately 60 million home phone lines to sign on to the registry. This registry is crucial because it puts consumers in charge of the number of telemarketing calls they receive. Telemarketers who disregard the Registry could be fined up to $11,000 per call. The district court today ruled that the Do Not Call Registry is ``invalid''--that is the word the judge used in his decision--because it was created without congressional authority. This conclusion I find surprising since Congress passed H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act on February 13th of this year. The legislation clearly authorizes the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to collect fees sufficient to implement the Registry. And the Appropriations Committee granted $18 million for the program. I also note that the FTC's rule came after the most extensive deliberations. The FTC announced its plan to proceed with the Registry on December 18, 2002, after receiving 64,000 comments. The overwhelming majority of these comments favored the creation of the Registry. Millions of Americans were promised protection from annoying, unwanted telemarketing calls starting October 1. They are truly going to be outraged by this. There are two ways of going about this. The first is to let the FTC appeal the case, which they have just said they are going to be in the process of doing. The other is to perhaps unanimously adopt and pass legislation which clearly authorizes, specifically authorizes--and in bold letters authorizes so that no Federal judge can misunderstand it-- and get this done as quickly as we can. I have asked my Judiciary counsel to prepare this legislation. We will be submitting it before the end of the day. I would like to invite all of my colleagues to join as cosponsors. Then, hopefully, we will be able to move this through very quickly, particularly in view of the fact that we believed we did authorize it earlier, the President did sign it earlier this year, and we believed it was a concluded issue. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the judgment of the Western District Court of Oklahoma which finds that the portion of the final amended rule that pertains to the National Do Not Call Registry is invalid.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would partially repeal language from the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000; language that circumvents the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's common-sense protections and regulatory safeguards against the inappropriate siting of Nevada-style casinos. In 2000, a one-paragraph provision was attached to the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act taking land into trust for a single Indian tribe, the Lytton, with the aim of allowing the tribe to expedite plans to establish a large gaming complex in San Pablo, CA. The site which is not part of, nor adjacent to, any land traditionally held by the Lytton is, in fact, a 10-acre property which includes a card club and parking lot, and is located in a major urban area just outside of San Francisco. The process to bring this land into trust and sidestep gaming oversight was done without regard for Federal laws currently in place to regulate the siting of such a casino. Today California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes. 64 tribes have gaming compacts with the State and there are 54 tribal casinos. With more than 50 tribes seeking Federal recognition and approximately 25 recognized tribes seeking gaming compacts from the Governor, revenues from California's tribal gaming industry are expected to be the highest of any State's by the end of the decade. I have serious reservations about the expansion of Nevada-style gaming--with its slot machines and in-house banking--into urban areas, and I am particularly concerned about off-reservation gambling and ``reservation shopping''. Off-reservation casinos often cause counties additional costs in public and local services, intrude on residential areas, and are responsible for an increase of traffic and crime within local communities. That said, under proper regulation, gaming in California has the potential to yield much needed benefits for tribal members in terms of healthcare, education and general welfare, as Congress and California voters intended. However, the question is not whether gaming should be permitted, but rather how and where. Those questions have been appropriately addressed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Without this legislation, the Lytton will be able to take a former card club and the adjacent parking lot as their reservation and turn it into a large gambling complex outside the regulations set up by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where tribal gaming is permitted. The changes I seek today are extremely limited. This legislation would not reverse restoration of the tribe. It would not infringe on Native American sovereignty. It does not even block the casino proposal. It only seeks to give the State and the local communities a voice in the process and ensure that gaming continues to be organized within the framework of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Circumventing the processes for Federal recognition of tribal governments and for granting land into trust presents a variety of serious and critical multi-jurisdictional issues--issues which can negatively affect the lives of ordinary citizens and deprive local governments of their political power to protect their communities. That is why I believe it is important to seek a remedy which would restore the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's oversight over the matter. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has provided this Nation with a fair and balanced approach to Indian gaming by facilitating tribal plans for economic recovery without compromising a multitude of factors that should be taken into account when deciding on the siting of casinos. This law works. It is a fair process that should continue to be followed. It is simply not asking too much to require that Lytton be subject to the regulatory and approval processes applicable to newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs Committee to pass this legislation quickly. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would partially repeal language from the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000; language that circumvents the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's common-sense protections and regulatory safeguards against the inappropriate siting of Nevada-style casinos. In 2000, a one-paragraph provision was attached to the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act taking land into trust for a single Indian tribe, the Lytton, with the aim of allowing the tribe to expedite plans to establish a large gaming complex in San Pablo, CA. The site which is not part of, nor adjacent to, any land traditionally held by the Lytton is, in fact, a 10-acre property which includes a card club and parking lot, and is located in a major urban area just outside of San Francisco. The process to bring this land into trust and sidestep gaming oversight was done without regard for Federal laws currently in place to regulate the siting of such a casino. Today California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes. 64 tribes have gaming compacts with the State and there are 54 tribal casinos. With more than 50 tribes seeking Federal recognition and approximately 25 recognized tribes seeking gaming compacts from the Governor, revenues from California's tribal gaming industry are expected to be the highest of any State's by the end of the decade. I have serious reservations about the expansion of Nevada-style gaming--with its slot machines and in-house banking--into urban areas, and I am particularly concerned about off-reservation gambling and ``reservation shopping''. Off-reservation casinos often cause counties additional costs in public and local services, intrude on residential areas, and are responsible for an increase of traffic and crime within local communities. That said, under proper regulation, gaming in California has the potential to yield much needed benefits for tribal members in terms of healthcare, education and general welfare, as Congress and California voters intended. However, the question is not whether gaming should be permitted, but rather how and where. Those questions have been appropriately addressed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Without this legislation, the Lytton will be able to take a former card club and the adjacent parking lot as their reservation and turn it into a large gambling complex outside the regulations set up by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where tribal gaming is permitted. The changes I seek today are extremely limited. This legislation would not reverse restoration of the tribe. It would not infringe on Native American sovereignty. It does not even block the casino proposal. It only seeks to give the State and the local communities a voice in the process and ensure that gaming continues to be organized within the framework of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Circumventing the processes for Federal recognition of tribal governments and for granting land into trust presents a variety of serious and critical multi-jurisdictional issues--issues which can negatively affect the lives of ordinary citizens and deprive local governments of their political power to protect their communities. That is why I believe it is important to seek a remedy which would restore the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's oversight over the matter. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has provided this Nation with a fair and balanced approach to Indian gaming by facilitating tribal plans for economic recovery without compromising a multitude of factors that should be taken into account when deciding on the siting of casinos. This law works. It is a fair process that should continue to be followed. It is simply not asking too much to require that Lytton be subject to the regulatory and approval processes applicable to newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs Committee to pass this legislation quickly. 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 motion to disagree with the House message accompanying S. 3, the late-term abortion bill, and to speak today about a very important Supreme Court decision: Roe vs. Wade. A provision was included in the late-term abortion bill that passed the Senate in March recognizing the importance of Roe v. Wade in securing the constitutional right to choose and stating that this decision should not be overturned. This provision was a simple Sense of the Senate resolution. Let me read its exact language: (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and (2) such decision should not be overturned. I am pleased that this amendment was added on a strong bipartisan vote of 52 to 46. Unfortunately, though, the similar House-passed late-term abortion bill lacks this language. Indeed, the House refused to agree to it. While I oppose both the House and Senate late-birth abortion bills because I believe that they are too broadly written, lack an exception for women's health, and are flagrantly unconstitutional, I strongly support the Roe v. Wade language we added to the Senate-passed bill. That is why I plan to vote for the motion to disagree today. The past 30 years, since the Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to choose, have brought a great deal of change for women in America. Some of that has been good, while some has not been so good. But now, in 2003, the right to choose is under attack--and more so, I believe, than any other time during the last 30 years. It's easy to take the right to choose for granted. For many women, it is all they have ever known. The option has always been available. I lived during a time, however, when an estimated 1.2 million women each year resorted to illegal, back-alley abortions despite the possibility of infection and death. I remember that time very vividly. In college during the 1950s, I knew young women who found themselves pregnant with no options. I even knew a woman who committed suicide because she was pregnant and abortion was illegal in the U.S. I also remember the passing of a collection plate in my college dormitory so that another friend could go to Mexico for an abortion. Later, in the 1960s, I spent 8 days a year for 5 years sentencing women to California prisons. I even sentenced individuals who performed abortions because, at that time, abortion was still illegal in my State. I remember these cases particularly well. I remember the crude instruments used. I remember women who were horribly damaged by illegal abortions. In fact, the only way a case really came to the attention of the authorities was if the woman getting the abortion died or was severely injured. I will never forget one woman whom I sentenced to 10 years--the maximum sentence because she had been in and out of State institutions several times. I asked her why she continued to perform abortions. She said, Because women are in such trouble and they have no other place to go, so they came to me because they know I would take care of them. Not a year has gone by since I became U.S. Senator that some legislator hasn't proposed legislation that would compromise this right--that would return us to the days of the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. But, fortunately, we have been able to beat back many of these attempts, either in Congress or in the courts. What concerns me the most about the debate we are having today about Roe v. Wade is that it is the beginning of a long march to take women back 35 years, back to the passing of the plate at Stanford, back to the back-alley abortions and trips to Mexico, and back to the time when women could not control their own bodies. What we are hearing today is that some Senators are so uncomfortable with the right to choose that they want to strip out language that recognizes the importance of Roe v. Wade and that States, consistent with current Supreme Court jurisprudence and settled caselaw, that the decision should not be overturned. But it is because of Roe--and only because of Roe--that women have been able to decide over the past 30 years, in consultation with their doctors, about whether to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester without interference from the state or federal government. Let me talk a little about this landmark opinion. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court also established a trimester system to govern abortions. In that system, in the first 12 to 15 weeks of a pregnancy--when 95.5 percent of all abortions occur and the procedure is medically the safest--the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the woman and her doctor. In the second trimester, when the procedure in some situations poses a greater health risk, States may regulate abortion, but only to protect the health of the mother. This might mean, for example, requiring that an abortion be performed in a hospital or performed by a licensed physician. In the later stages of pregnancy, at the point the fetus becomes viable and is able to live independently from the mother, the state has a strong interest in protecting potential human life. States may, if they choose, regulate and even prohibit abortion except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court specifically reaffirmed Roe's standard for evaluating restrictions on abortion after viability but eliminated Roe's trimester framework by explicitly extending the state's interest in protecting potential life and maternal health to apply throughout the pregnancy. Thus, under Casey, regulations that affect a woman's abortion decision that further these state interests are valid unless they have the ``purpose or effect'' of ``imposing a substantial obstacle'' in the woman's path. However, the bottom line is that in Casey the Court retained the ``central holding'' of Roe v. Wade. As a result, women in all 50 States still enjoy the constitutional right to choose. The challenge for American men and women who support a pro-choice agenda will be to continue to make their voices heard in an environment that appears focused on nullifying all reproductive rights and trying to overturn Roe after 30 years. Roe v. Wade secured an important constitutional right--a right I strongly support. I am deeply concerned about passing a late-term birth abortion bill that doesn't include language recognizing the importance of Roe. That is why I believe that we should disagree with the House message accompanying S. 3. I urge my colleagues to vote to support the language in the Senate- passed version of S. 3 regarding the importance of Roe v. Wade. We cannot--we must not--go back to a time without choice. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dorgan resolution, and in the hope that the FCC will take a careful, second look at the changes it made to media ownership rules. Not everything the FCC did was something I would oppose. For instance, I support what the FCC did in terms of allowing companies to own a combination of television, radio, and newspapers in the largest of media markets, like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York or San Francisco. But on the whole, the new FCC rules raise some very real concerns that one or two national companies may begin to dominate too much of the news and other content delivered to American homes. The American experiment has been one of free press, diversity of voices, fair competition, and the ability to hear, and to be heard. That experiment, in my opinion, has been a resounding success. Of course, the world has changed, and will continue to do so. As a result, it is sensible for our regulatory agencies to revisit outdated rules and modify them to better suit changing technologies and the changing realities of a more crowded, more advanced nation. Nevertheless, it is possible to go too far in trying to address these changing realities, and I believe that the FCC has gone too far in crafting some of these new media ownership rules. For instance, in allowing a broadcast network to own and operate local broadcast stations that reach, in total, up to forty-five percent of U.S. television households, instead of thirty-five percent under the old rules, the FCC has opened the door to vast conglomerates of news stations all feeding the same content to almost half the people in the country. We don't know how or even whether this would happen, but the potential for eliminating local content and reducing the diversity of opinions presented on television is simply too great. Likewise, the cross-ownership rules--the rules that determine whether a company can own both television and newspapers in the same market, or television and radio, and so on--raise some concerns for markets with just four of five television stations. In those small- to medium-sized markets, with between four and eight television stations, combinations are limited to one of the following: One daily newspaper, one television station, and up to half of the radio station limit under the local radio ownership rule for that market; one daily newspaper, and up to the radio station limit under the local radio ownership rule for that market, but no television stations; or two television stations, if permissible under the local television ownership rule, and up to the radio station limit under the local radio ownership rule for that market, but no daily newspapers. The old rule prohibited common ownership of a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper within the same city. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, when it adopted the rule in 1975, the commission not only prohibited future combinations between newspapers and broadcast stations, but also required existing combinations in highly concentrated markets to divest holdings to come into compliance within 5 years. But under this new rule, one company could own the largest television station in town, the only newspaper, and half the radio stations. It is easy to see how, in these mid-sized markets, the amount of diverse content would rapidly diminish. On the other hand, I am not as concerned with the new rules pertaining to larger markets like Los Angeles. In a market with more than two dozen television stations and countless radio stations and newspapers, it is far less likely that one or two companies could come to control enough of the media market to truly stifle diversity of opinion or competition among content sources. So it is my hope that the FCC will go back and reexamine these new rules, keeping in mind the concerns of Congress and the American people, who have spoken out loud and clear about this issue. Fix what needs to be fixed, keep what is not broken. But come up with a new set of rules that makes sense for all Americans.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators Johnson, Murray, Clinton, and Rockefeller be added to our amendment as cosponsors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Kennedy and I came to the floor and we spent some time arguing on behalf of an amendment to this bill which contained language similar to what was recently past by a large majority in the House of Representatives. The bill passed by the House of Representatives struck the language that appropriates funds to begin a new generation of nuclear weapons. Now, there are some on the other side who say, and continue to say, this is just a study; there is no development. I believe that is not the case. Let me connect the dots for you. In January of 2002, the administration put forward a Nuclear Posture Review which advocates the development of new types of nuclear weapons. Later that year, the President signed National Security Directive 17, indicating that the United States might use nuclear weapons first to respond to a chemical or biological attack. Earlier this year, a decade-old prohibition on the development of low-yield nuclear weapons was rescinded in the Defense authorization bill. For 10 years, this kind of thing was prohibited. That prohibition, known as the Spratt-Furse amendment, was repealed earlier this year. This spring a statement of administration policy for the Defense authorization bill clearly included support for the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. In this bill the Senate is being asked to provide the dollars to begin this effort--$15 million for the study of a robust nuclear earth penetrator. We are talking in excess of 100 kilotons; $6 million for advanced concepts research, including low-yield weapons; funding for enhanced test site readiness; and a huge new $4 billion plutonium pit facility--all of this when we are already spending $2.3 billion for a Los Alamos facility that can provide replacement for the U.S. nuclear stockpile. We are strongly opposed to America beginning a new generation of nuclear weapons. We are opposed to it for two reasons: No. 1, the low- yield nuclear weapon--under 5 kilotons--essentially begins to blur the use between conventional and nuclear weapons, therefore making it easier to use. And, No. 2, because the world will watch this and the world will respond. The way in which they will respond is with a new nuclear arms race. If the United States begins to develop tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons, how long will it take for two indigenous nuclear powers, namely India and Pakistan, arch enemies, to say we should do the same thing. How long will it take for North Korea or Iran or any other nation that so seeks to begin such a similar program? As many internationally have said: America preaches nonproliferation, and then it goes ahead and develops new nuclear weapons. I think that is hypocritical. I do not think this country should be in that position. So we strike these items; we fence two, we place the rest of the money in deficit reduction. I want to say a few words about the nuclear pits because I think there is some misunderstanding. Although current production capacity may be limited, it is simply not true, as some have asserted, that the United States lacks the capacity to manufacture replacement pits. According to the Department of Energy's own Web site: The first pit that could be certified for use in the stockpile was manufactured in April 2003 as a first step to establish an interim--10 to 20 pits per year--production capability at Los Alamos in 2007. And the Los Alamos facility can be modified to produce 150 pits a year. Although the exact number is classified, reputable open sources estimate that there are between 5,000 and 12,000 extra pits in reserve at Pantex, beyond the 10,600 current intact warheads. The average age of the plutonium pits in the U.S. stockpile is 19 years, and the Department of Energy estimates a pit minimum life to be between 45 and 60 years, with no life-limiting factors. This is the beginning. This money will go to field a new generation of nuclear weapons. We should not do this. The House had the good sense to eliminate this language. The Senate should follow. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the remaining time.