Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is this. It is very flexible. It is loaded with these chemicals. So you can see Max is a little bit older, chewing on a teether. Tests found that teether contained a high level of phthalates. In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys like this teether to a Chicago lab to test whether they contained phthalates. They did, in fact. The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate level of five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the amount of phthalates now permissible under California law. The face of a popular doll contained double California's new phthalates limits. Another study tested 20 popular plastic toys. The results were equally troubling. A Baby I'm Yours doll sold at Target contained nearly 32 percent of phthalates. A toy ball sold at Toys R Us was found to contain 47\1/2\ percent phthalates. Three types of squeeze toys--a penguin and two ducks--contained high levels of phthalates. They were also bought at Wal-Mart and Target. So I would like to, if I can, if I will be cleared to do it, send an amendment to the desk. The amendment would replicate what will be California law in 2008 and ban the use of the chemical phthalates in toys as California has done and eight States are continuing to do. The European Union banned phthalates in 2006. That is all these countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. They have all banned the use of these chemicals in children's toys. Fiji, Korea, and Mexico have also banned or restricted phthalates in children's products. Beginning next year, toys containing more than trace amounts of phthalates cannot be sold in California stores. My home State was the first State to ban phthalates in toys and other children's products. Governor Schwarzenegger signed the legislation, which, as I say, will become effective in January of 2009. Eight States are following California's lead. Legislation has been offered in Washington State, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York. Unfortunately, toys containing phthalates are still available to children across this country. I think it is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations because without action the United States risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate-laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. I think American children deserve better. Parents in every State should be able to enter any toy store, buy a present for their child, and know they are not placing their son's or daughter's health at risk. This amendment follows the same standards already set by the European Union and California. It bans the use of six types of phthalates in toys. Three of the phthalates are banned from all children's toys; three others are banned from toys children place in their mouths. The amendment clearly states these chemicals cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that can cause reproductive or developmental harm. Now the science. The science involving phthalates is still evolving; however, we know exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term effects. Some of the potential health effects and defects are highly personal and difficult to discuss. They are problems no parent would ever want a child to experience. I have two anthologies here which I will make available, a phthalates research summary and a paper which summarizes several of the works of science. Here are some of the effects: Pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with reproductive birth defects. That is a University of Rochester 2005 study. Phthalate exposure has also been linked to the premature onset of puberty in young girls as young as 8 years old. That is a 2000 study published in Environmental Health Perspective. A 2002 study linked phthalate exposure levels to decreased fertility capacity in men. And phthalates found in household dust have been linked to asthma symptoms in children. That is a Swedish study. The evidence that phthalates cause health problems continues to mount. Young children whose bodies are growing and developing and extraordinarily sensitive are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them. Now, many American toy retailers have already stepped up when it comes to phthalates. I am very grateful for this. Target has already eliminated phthalates from baby changing tables. Late last year, they announced that most toys they sell will be phthalate-free by fall of 2008. Wal-Mart and Toys R Us announced they will voluntarily comply with California's standard nationwide. These are two huge retailers that will voluntarily comply with the California standard. They informed toy producers that beginning in 2009, they will no longer sell toys that contain phthalates. These retailers should really be commended. I would like to do so. Thank you, Wal-Mart, thank you Toys R Us and thank you, Target. This action also underscores the emerging uneasiness about those chemicals, with toy retailers acknowledging that parents do not want to unwittingly provide their young children with toys that could prove hazardous to their health. The amendment I hope to enter levels the playing field in the toy industry, requiring every toy store and manufacturer to comply with the standards being voluntarily put in place. I do wish to underscore an important point: This voluntary action, while highly commendable, should not take the place of an official regulatory standard. Candidly, I can't imagine why we have waited this long. We always wait until the States take action. Some manufacturers have marketed products as phthalate free, but tests conducted by independent laboratories have found phthalates. Parents wishing to purchase phthalate-free toys must be able to know what it is they are buying. I firmly believe only a legal standard with the full weight of the law and potential legal consequences behind it will make that guarantee. I wish to read from a letter from the Breast Cancer Fund: On behalf of the Breast Cancer Fund and our 70,000 supporters across the nation, I am writing to express our strong support for your amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act . . . which would prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of children's toys and child care articles that contain phthalates. It goes on to describe phthalates. It is signed by Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., Executive Director. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Many organizations support the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to have a list of those printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. Out of deference to the Senator from Arkansas, I am happy to do so. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman and Menendez be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will retract that and not set aside the pending amendment. Amendment No. 4104 I would like to speak on an amendment I intend to submit at the appropriate time. There are six chemicals that are often included in plastic toys. What those chemicals do is essentially make the toy softer, more pliable-- ergo, more attractive to children. This is my communications director's young son. His name is Max Gerber. He is 8 months old in this picture. He is sucking on his favorite book. I ask unanimous consent that I might show you what that book looks like.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wish to address a question to the distinguished chairman of the committee who has done fine work on this bill. I would at some point like a vote on this amendment, if possible. I am happy to set it aside if that is helpful and not ask for the yeas and nays at this time, but I do want to vote. I believe children are at stake in this.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It has been a long time since I had a small child, but I used glass nursing bottles, not fancy flexible bottles. I used cloth diapers. The toys were not as flexible as they are today. My daughter grew up fine. One of the real hazards of this society is chemicals and how chemicals are used, and we don't know how they are used. When it comes to children's toys, I didn't know you could make plastic that way, so soft, so flexible. The reason you can is because of all the chemicals added to it. When these chemicals have a toxic factor and you know these chemicals are going in a child's mouth and you know they leach out of the plastic into the child's system, it simply isn't right. We ought to stop it. People out there know that. People out there want this. I would have liked to have taken the time to have had a committee hearing on this. But candidly, this bill came up. And because this is already law in so many places--the European Union, 5 other nations, California, 8 other States ready to pass it--and you have retailers who understand and are willing to take voluntary action, it seemed to me the legal standard should be established. That is what this bill does. I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a part of National Peace Corps Week, I wish to join many of my colleagues in celebrating the 47th anniversary of the Peace Corps and honoring the important work of Peace Corps volunteers. During this week, Peace Corps volunteers from around the world who have served over the years will share their overseas experiences with schools and community groups around the United States. By giving presentations during Peace Corps Week, former Peace Corps volunteers will help Americans better understand the people and cultures they have experienced, and the many benefits of Peace Corps service. By making presentations in classrooms, former volunteers will help create greater global awareness among students. The Peace Corps is one of our most effective and successful foreign aid programs. Since the establishment of the Peace Corps by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, more than 190,000 U.S. citizens, including 25,000 from my home State of California, have served their country in the cause of peace by living and working in 139 developing countries. The world has changed since 1961--and the Peace Corps has succeeded in keeping up with these changes. While education and agriculture are still an important part of what a Peace Corp volunteer does, today's volunteers also work on HIV/AIDS awareness, information technology, and business development. Many volunteers work in orphanages with HIV-positive children, implement programs for at-risk youth, and create support groups for HIV-positive people. Business volunteers conduct seminars on subjects like marketing, strategic planning, and tourism development. They work with women and minority groups to strengthen their participation in the economic system. Agriculture volunteers may find themselves working with farmers to implement techniques to improve soil quality and conserve water--or on the business end conducting production cost-and-price analyses. The Peace Corps also assists countries in need by supplying Crisis Corps volunteers--former volunteers who return to the field on a short- term basis. In 2005, for the first time in its history, Peace Corps deployed 272 Crisis Corps volunteers domestically to assist in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts along the gulf coast. Also in 2005, Crisis Corps volunteers were deployed to Sri Lanka and Thailand to assist with rebuilding tsunami devastated areas, and to Guatemala following Hurricane Stan. As part of PEPFAR, Crisis Corps has deployed volunteers to Uganda, Kenya, Namibia and Zambia. Finally, Crisis Corps is working with Peace Corps posts in Central America and the Caribbean to address disaster preparedness in the region. Today's Peace Corps is more vital than ever, working in emerging and essential areas such as information technology and business development. They have made significant and lasting contributions around the world in agriculture, education, health, HIV/AIDS, and the environment. Peace Corps volunteers continue to help countless individuals who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their communities. At a time when the United States is seeking to reclaim the respect and admiration of the world and once again be seen as a champion and a leader of democracy, justice, and human rights, Peace Corps volunteers revitalize faith in this country. They are leaders and diplomats, and they serve as an inspiration not only to their fellow American citizens but to citizens all across the world. I urge all my colleagues to support the Peace Corps and celebrate National Peace Corps Week.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have reserved time, 15 minutes, to speak in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday was a big day before the Senate. We had the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill. Today is an even bigger day because the intelligence authorization bill is going to be before the Senate, and today we will grapple with something that I think should be major in our consciousness and major in our deliberations. It is central to who we are as a nation. The question is whether the United States should continue to go to the ``dark side,'' down the road of torture, and continue to allow the CIA and other intelligence agencies to practice or outsource state-sanctioned torture. To me, the answer is clear, and I hope it is to everyone. The answer should be no. Today we are living in a legal limbo, where the rules are shrouded by ambiguity. The time has come to change this once and for all. The way to do it is to support the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill, which would prohibit all interrogation techniques by the CIA and place the intelligence community under the uniform standard of the Army Field Manual. If that bill passes, and it has passed the House of Representatives, if it passes here today, we have a uniform standard for the entire American Government with respect to coercive interrogation techniques. The Army Field Manual, which looks like this, has 19 interrogation protocols. They are proven, they are flexible, and they are effective. The CIA interrogation program, on the other hand, I believe, is immoral, illegal, sometimes ineffective, and often counterproductive. I wish to simply read something which appeared in the newspapers, and what this says is: The book on interrogation has been written. We just need to follow it. And they refer to this book, Mr. President. Cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners under American control makes us less safe, violates our Nation's values, and damages America's reputation in the world. That is why, in 2004, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission called for humane treatment of those captured by the United States Government and our allies in the struggle against terrorism. Congress and the Pentagon responded with clear and comprehensive new rules for the military so that interrogation techniques practiced by the military today are both humane and effective. But not all United States agencies are following these rules. Congress should require the entire U.S. Government and those acting on its behalf to follow the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Doing so will make us safer while safeguarding our cherished values and our vital national interests. This was signed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, Slade Gorton, Lee Hamilton, Gary Hart, Rita Houser, Karla Hills, Thomas Kean, Anthony Lake, John Lehman, Richard Leon, Robert McFarlane, Donald McHenry, Sam Nunn, Thomas Pickering, Ted Sorensen, and John Whitehead. It is a bipartisan group that has come out with this, and I believe we should absorb it and use that information. The Army Field Manual provision has the support of the Intelligence Committees. I offered the amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate on the intel authorization bill. It was passed by the Senate and it was passed by the House, and it is part of the bill, and as I said, the House has passed their bill. The amendment was the subject of passionate and considered debate in Congress. It has unique support--18 former security officials, as I have said--and this Army Field Manual was issued in its current form by the Department of the Army in September of 2006. It followed the requirements of the Detainee Treatment Act, and it applies uniformly across all elements of the military and civilian elements of the Department of Defense. The manual was published after more than 3 years of drafting and coordination. This was the most scrutinized field manual the Army has ever produced, including reviews and comments by every relevant Pentagon office, every combatant commander, the White House, the DNI, the CIA, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Departments of Justice and State have also concurred with the manual's guidance. For the first time ever, the Army consulted with Congress in the persons of Senators McCain, Warner, and Levin in drafting the manual. The manual complies with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, and the Detainee Treatment Act. There is perhaps no more authoritative figure on the manual than our commanding officer in Iraq, GEN David Petraeus. In a response to a survey showing that American troops in Iraq would consider torture in order to save their comrades, Petraeus wrote to the entire multinational force on May 10, 2007, and here is some of what he said: Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone ``talk''; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees. Now, what does the manual do? It specifically authorizes 19 approaches--you could call them interrogation techniques--and they are well thought out and each one is several pages on how to apply it. One of them can only be used on unlawful army combatants with the prior approval of the combatant commander. These techniques describe ways to build rapport with the detainee in order to get him or her to share information. GEN Michael Maples, the Director of the DIA, recently rebutted the contention that the Army Field Manual wouldn't have covered the interrogation method used by an FBI special agent to get Saddam Hussein to finally come clean that he had no weapons of mass destruction. So the manual specifically prohibits eight techniques, and here is what they are: Forcing a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes; beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain; waterboarding--very much the talk of the Nation; use of military working dogs; inducing hypothermia or heat injury; conducting mock executions; depriving detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care. Those are the eight prohibited techniques in the Army Field Manual. It also incorporates what is called the ``golden rule,'' and this is important. It is an approach to interrogation. It requires military personnel to ask this question: If an interrogation technique were to be used against an American soldier, would I believe the soldier had been abused? Adopting this conference report would extend that ``golden rule'' to CIA interrogations, to station agents all across the globe, and make sure that no coercive technique could be used if we would not be comfortable with the same technique being used against an American citizen. Now, here are some facts about the CIA program. The CIA has used coercive techniques on detainees since September 11, 2001, under the President's authorization and approval of the Department of Justice. The CIA has waterboarded three detainees--Abu Zubaydah, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The White House believes that waterboarding could be used in the future, even though General Hayden has recently publicly questioned its legality. The CIA has used contractors for interrogations, as General Hayden admitted in an open, public hearing this past week. So the CIA has outsourced what is an inherently governmental function of questionable legality and morality. More importantly, the CIA's interrogation techniques change. There is no uniform standard. There is no standard as to how they are to be combined, what the circumstances are. Think about this. Done with cold calculation, any interrogation technique, when applied over the course of hours or days or months, and in combination with other techniques, can cross the line into illegality. An interrogator can choose from a menu of coercive approaches, pick several of them, and go to work. So don't be fooled. Even the least coercive-sounding technique, when used relentlessly or in combination, can be torture. Now, in addition to being immoral, I believe the CIA interrogation program is illegal. I say this as a member of the Intelligence Committee, and I say this as one who has been briefed several times on these techniques. These techniques have violated the Convention Against Torture and the U.S. torture statute by inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering to others. It has violated Geneva Convention common article III, which prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The medical research is clear. Coercive techniques cause severe pain and suffering. That is why both the AMA and the American Psychological Association have passed resolutions against their members participating in such interrogations. In a letter dated September 13, 2006, retired General and former Secretary of State Powell wrote this: The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. I think that says it in a nutshell. As every Member knows, we will never win the war on terror by capturing or killing or torturing all our enemies. We will only win the war by our ideals and by removing any public support for al-Qaida's vision. Using torture cuts away from our moral high ground. It takes America into the ``dark side,'' and thus it reduces our ability to win this war. I believe we should end this now. The military is the segment of the U.S. population most likely to be captured and interrogated by our enemies. They know any technique we authorize can be used against them, and that is the point. If the United States uses waterboarding, you can be sure that waterboarding will be used against our station agents, against our military. It is a mistake to do so. That is why 43 retired generals and admirals, including 10 four-star officers, have signed a letter to Congress denouncing coercive techniques and supporting the single unified uniform standard for the entire Government, the Army Field Manual. Here is what they wrote: We believe that it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans. That principle, embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of military personnel in combat. And the letter goes on. I have listened to the experts such as FBI Director Mueller and DIA Director General Maples. They all insist that even with hardened terrorists you get more and better intelligence with the gloves on than when you take them off. The CIA cannot show that coercive techniques are more effective than noncoercive techniques. And I wish I could say what I know from a classified setting, but I cannot. They point to the anecdotes they have declassified, while the counterexamples remain classified. So I can only summarize and say this: This is the moment where the Senate stands up. The House has stood up. They have passed a bill. If we want to ban waterboarding, if we want to ban the eight techniques banned by the Army Field Manual, this is our moment to do so. I think we should stand tall. I think we should adhere to our principles. I think we should raise what we say internally and once again regain the world's credibility. I hope we maintain the Senate bill as it is. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I spoke earlier this morning, so I will be brief. It would appear that the Senate is poised to pass a measure that would end the debate over torture in our Nation. It would require the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual when it comes to interrogations of detainees, and it would create a uniform standard for interrogation across the Government. It would prohibit waterboarding and certain other coercive interrogation techniques. I deeply believe it will go a long way toward restoring our Nation's credibility. I have spoken with experts on interrogation, numerous retired three and four star generals, and human rights leaders. From our discussions, I am absolutely convinced that we must have a uniform standard for interrogation of detainees across the Government. That is what putting the CIA under the Army Field Manual would do. This debate is about values. We are a nation of values, and we believe in the rule of law. It is fair to say that America has been diminished around the world. Our standing is at an all-time low, not only among our allies but also our enemies. This comes from Abu Ghraib. It comes from Guantanamo. It comes from renditions, and it comes from black sites. It comes from waterboarding, a technique used during the Spanish Inquisition to get religious dissenters to publicly disavow their beliefs. Let me give one example of why a clear, single standard for all detainee interrogation is needed. Until a couple of weeks ago, the executive branch refused to admit that it had waterboarded anyone. Then last week, at a public hearing, General Hayden stated that the CIA has waterboarded three detainees: Abu Zubaydah, Abd al-Rahim al- Nashiri, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. General Hayden said this was done in the past and would not be used in the future. In fact, General Hayden said that waterboarding itself was no longer necessary. These were two major revelations. The U.S. Government had, in fact, authorized waterboarding, and we weren't going to do it again. The very next day, a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the President could reauthorize the use of waterboarding at any time. At this point, we had returned to a state of confusion. The CIA was saying waterboarding was not authorized and not needed. The White House was saying waterboarding was still on the table. That was not the end. The very next day, General Hayden testified in open session again, this time in front of the House Intelligence Committee. Here is what he said: In my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique-- Meaning waterboarding-- would be considered lawful under current statute. . . . So here you have a mix of views. Here you have unclear American policy. The bill which we have before us today clears up that confusion, and it states once and for all what the U.S. Government would do; that there would be 19 specific approaches documented over many pages for each approach in this volume, and 8 specific techniques that are banned, one of which is waterboarding. So we have the opportunity today to take a stand--to clear the air and to say that the U.S. Government follows uniform specific standards for interrogation of detainees as put forward by the Army Field Manual. I would like to quote a statement the President of the United States--President Bush--made on June 22, 2004. Here is his quote: We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being. President Bush, if you stand by these words, you will sign this intelligence authorization bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I very much would like to thank a few people who have been very helpful in this whole thing. The first is David Grannis, my intelligence liaison, who has been with me all the way. I thank the Partnership for a Secure America and the 18 former national security officials who wrote in support of the Army Field Manual. I thank Senators Hagel and Snowe for taking a stand for what is right for America in the Intelligence Committee. I thank our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, for being willing to risk the passage of this legislation by supporting this very important amendment. I also thank Senator Whitehouse. He offered this amendment when it was in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I thank him for his tireless efforts in support of this conference report. I have seen him on the Senate floor at least twice today. He was a cosponsor of the amendment I offered in the conference, and I know his staff has been very effective in working on this amendment. I thank Senator Tom Carper of Delaware who has done a lot of work on this issue on the telephone. I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Ron Wyden, who came earlier to the floor to speak on this issue. So there have been many people working toward this vote, and it looks as if it may just happen. I would like them to know that we are very grateful for their support. Oh, one more: Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold was a cosponsor when I offered the amendment in the Intelligence Committee. I very much thank him for his steadfastness. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left out of the 5 minutes?

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, to introduce the Aung San Suu Kyi Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2008. We are proud to be joined by 73 of our colleagues in sponsoring this measure to award the Congressional Gold Medal to a woman who has inspired us all with her commitment to nonviolence, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for the people of Burma. On December 17, 2007, the House voted 400-0 to award Suu Kyi this honor and we urge the Senate to promptly follow suit. Last September we witnessed the largest democratic demonstrations in Burma in almost 20 years. Tens of thousands of Burmese citizens took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to speak out against the country's oppressive military regime, and to cry out for democracy. I watched these courageous people with a deep sense of admiration and respect. Led by respected Buddhist monks, the people of the ``Saffron Revolution'' called on the military junta to release all political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in a true dialogue on national reconciliation. Yet, as it had in the past, the military junta responded to the recent peaceful protests with violence and bloodshed. Soldiers used brutal force to break up the protests, beating and sometimes killing innocent civilians. No amount of force, however, can crush the spirit of Aung San Suu Kyi and her peaceful quest for democracy and human rights. Indeed, she is a woman of unrivaled courage. In the face of threats, intimidation, harassment, and an assassination attempt, she has never wavered from her principles and continues to support national reconciliation for all the people of Burma. By introducing this legislation, we seek not only to honor a remarkable woman who embodies the values and standards of the Congressional Gold Medal, but also to raise our voices once again in support of her cause which is our cause: a free and democratic Burma. By now, her story is well known. Aung San Suu Kyi was born on June 19, 1945, in Rangoon to Aung San, commander of the Burma Independence Army, and Ma Khin Kyi. In August 1988, Suu Kyi, in her first political action, sent an open letter to the military-controlled government, asking for free, open and multi-party elections. The following month, she founded the National League for Democracy, which remains dedicated to a policy of nonviolence and civil disobedience. Suu Kyi was named its general-secretary. Recognizing the threat Suu Kyi posted to their grip on power, the Burmese junta had her placed under house arrest and held without charges or trial. Yet, despite the best efforts of the military junta to suppress the growing democratic movement, in 1990 the National League for Democracy won 82 percent of the seats in parliamentary elections. But the junta annulled the election results and refused to release Suu Kyi. Since then, the Burmese regime--now called the State Peace and Development Council--has refused to engage in a national dialogue with Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition, and intensified its campaign of oppression and abuse. In 2003, pro-government thugs attempted to assassinate Su Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy as they rode in a motorcade in the northern city of Depayin. Last May, the military junta renewed her house arrest for another year. In fact, for most of the past 18 years, she has remained imprisoned or under house arrest, alone without minimal contact with the outside world. Yet, as in 1990, the regime has once again failed to stamp out Suu Kyi's message of democracy, human rights, non-violence and the rule of law. She continues to inspire not only the people of Burma but the entire world. Indeed, Suu Kyi's commitment to freedom and democracy has been widely recognized. In 1990, Suu Kyi was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by the European Parliament. The prize honors efforts on behalf of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in opposition to injustice and oppression. It is named for the late Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner. In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her commitment to nonviolence and support for freedom and democracy for Burma. She was not allowed to attend the ceremony. In its recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote: In the good fight for peace and reconciliation, we are dependent on persons who set examples, persons who can symbolize what we are seeking and mobilize the best in us. Aung San Suu Kyi is just such a person. She unites deep commitment and tenacity with a vision in which the end and the means form a single unit. Its most important elements are: democracy, respect for human rights, reconciliation between groups, non-violence, and personal and collective discipline. Suu Kyi donated her $1.3 million in prize money to establish a health and education fund for Burma. She is the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient. In 2000, Suu Kyi was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, by President Bill Clinton. Last year, 45 U.S. Senators signed a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release. In letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including former Filipino president Corazon Aquino, former Czech president Vaclav Havel, former British prime minister John Major and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.'' It is only fitting, that Congress join this international chorus in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and award her the Congressional Gold Medal. As a U.S. Senator, I have worked hard to raise awareness about the situation in Burma and pass legislation to put pressure on the military junta to release Suu Kyi and begin a true dialogue on national reconciliation. In 1997, former Senator Bill Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the Democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the Executive Order in 1997 and the ban remains on the books today. In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time for up to 3 years. It was signed into law and has been renewed one year at a time for each of the past 4 years. Last year, the women of the United States Senate came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, call for her immediate release, urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma. At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma. Our message is clear: We will not remain silent, we will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma. This legislation is but one small step on the path to that goal. I remain hopeful that the military regime will heed the will of its people and the international community and we will be able to present Aung San Suu Kyi with this honor in person. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, 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 my good friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, to introduce the Aung San Suu Kyi Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2008. We are proud to be joined by 73 of our colleagues in sponsoring this measure to award the Congressional Gold Medal to a woman who has inspired us all with her commitment to nonviolence, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for the people of Burma. On December 17, 2007, the House voted 400-0 to award Suu Kyi this honor and we urge the Senate to promptly follow suit. Last September we witnessed the largest democratic demonstrations in Burma in almost 20 years. Tens of thousands of Burmese citizens took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to speak out against the country's oppressive military regime, and to cry out for democracy. I watched these courageous people with a deep sense of admiration and respect. Led by respected Buddhist monks, the people of the ``Saffron Revolution'' called on the military junta to release all political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in a true dialogue on national reconciliation. Yet, as it had in the past, the military junta responded to the recent peaceful protests with violence and bloodshed. Soldiers used brutal force to break up the protests, beating and sometimes killing innocent civilians. No amount of force, however, can crush the spirit of Aung San Suu Kyi and her peaceful quest for democracy and human rights. Indeed, she is a woman of unrivaled courage. In the face of threats, intimidation, harassment, and an assassination attempt, she has never wavered from her principles and continues to support national reconciliation for all the people of Burma. By introducing this legislation, we seek not only to honor a remarkable woman who embodies the values and standards of the Congressional Gold Medal, but also to raise our voices once again in support of her cause which is our cause: a free and democratic Burma. By now, her story is well known. Aung San Suu Kyi was born on June 19, 1945, in Rangoon to Aung San, commander of the Burma Independence Army, and Ma Khin Kyi. In August 1988, Suu Kyi, in her first political action, sent an open letter to the military-controlled government, asking for free, open and multi-party elections. The following month, she founded the National League for Democracy, which remains dedicated to a policy of nonviolence and civil disobedience. Suu Kyi was named its general-secretary. Recognizing the threat Suu Kyi posted to their grip on power, the Burmese junta had her placed under house arrest and held without charges or trial. Yet, despite the best efforts of the military junta to suppress the growing democratic movement, in 1990 the National League for Democracy won 82 percent of the seats in parliamentary elections. But the junta annulled the election results and refused to release Suu Kyi. Since then, the Burmese regime--now called the State Peace and Development Council--has refused to engage in a national dialogue with Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition, and intensified its campaign of oppression and abuse. In 2003, pro-government thugs attempted to assassinate Su Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy as they rode in a motorcade in the northern city of Depayin. Last May, the military junta renewed her house arrest for another year. In fact, for most of the past 18 years, she has remained imprisoned or under house arrest, alone without minimal contact with the outside world. Yet, as in 1990, the regime has once again failed to stamp out Suu Kyi's message of democracy, human rights, non-violence and the rule of law. She continues to inspire not only the people of Burma but the entire world. Indeed, Suu Kyi's commitment to freedom and democracy has been widely recognized. In 1990, Suu Kyi was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by the European Parliament. The prize honors efforts on behalf of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in opposition to injustice and oppression. It is named for the late Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner. In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her commitment to nonviolence and support for freedom and democracy for Burma. She was not allowed to attend the ceremony. In its recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote: In the good fight for peace and reconciliation, we are dependent on persons who set examples, persons who can symbolize what we are seeking and mobilize the best in us. Aung San Suu Kyi is just such a person. She unites deep commitment and tenacity with a vision in which the end and the means form a single unit. Its most important elements are: democracy, respect for human rights, reconciliation between groups, non-violence, and personal and collective discipline. Suu Kyi donated her $1.3 million in prize money to establish a health and education fund for Burma. She is the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient. In 2000, Suu Kyi was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, by President Bill Clinton. Last year, 45 U.S. Senators signed a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release. In letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including former Filipino president Corazon Aquino, former Czech president Vaclav Havel, former British prime minister John Major and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.'' It is only fitting, that Congress join this international chorus in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and award her the Congressional Gold Medal. As a U.S. Senator, I have worked hard to raise awareness about the situation in Burma and pass legislation to put pressure on the military junta to release Suu Kyi and begin a true dialogue on national reconciliation. In 1997, former Senator Bill Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the Democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the Executive Order in 1997 and the ban remains on the books today. In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time for up to 3 years. It was signed into law and has been renewed one year at a time for each of the past 4 years. Last year, the women of the United States Senate came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, call for her immediate release, urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma. At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma. Our message is clear: We will not remain silent, we will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma. This legislation is but one small step on the path to that goal. I remain hopeful that the military regime will heed the will of its people and the international community and we will be able to present Aung San Suu Kyi with this honor in person. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Specter, Senator Inouye and Senator Durbin. This is a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by calls all through the day and night. In recent years, we have seen an unparalleled development of new technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters. This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and should be protected. The vast majority of these technological developments bolster the Democratic process, promoting an interchange of information and ideas. One of these is the so-called robocall, in which a prerecorded message can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through computer automation. With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls. A recent Pew Foundation poll found that 80 percent of Iowans in the recent primaries received automated political robocalls. A high level of sophistication goes into these robocalls--they are targeted and specific software dictates who is called, and when. But the process can be abused. And we all have heard stories about people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the day and night. I believe this is wrong. Not only is it interfering with the privacy rights of Americans, but it can turn people away from the political process itself. Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list--with millions of individuals subscribing. But political calls were specifically exempted from that list. Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some safeguards without halting the practice altogether. The Robocall Privacy Act of 2008 bans political robocalls to any person from 9 p.m. in the evening and a.m. in the morning. It also bans more than two political robocalls from each campaign to the same telephone number per day, bans the caller from blocking the ``caller identification'' number, and requires an announcement at the beginning of the call identifying the individual or organization making the call and the fact that it is a pre-recorded message. This is to prevent misinformation about the caller. The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on stopping the worst of these calls. The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law. The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but not receive money damages. A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls. Why are these provisions so important? Let me briefly describe some recent incidents: Hundreds of robocalls woke voters up at 2 in the morning during a 2007 New York election--because of a software programming error. The calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m. In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him. In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call. The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue-- has indicated voters receive many calls a day. They have reported as much as 37 political phone calls in one day for one voter. That same organization reports that 40 percent of its membership indicated it received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season. In a recent Texas campaign, a negative robocall was sent to voters early in the morning--supposedly from one of the candidates. That candidate immediately protested it was not done on his behalf--but instead was an attempt to smear him by using his name. Voters became furious at the call. In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, and enraged voters about the false, late- night call. Repeated robocalls to Tennessee resident Jonathan Gregory caused him to complain to The Tennessean newspaper: ``It's extremely annoying, and it's like getting telemarketing calls at work. . . . I think they should have some type of limit on how many times they can call the same number.'' A February 1 Letter to the Editor of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, from a woman from East Pennsboro, PA, indicated that she received many political robocalls to her personal cell phone and was billed for each call. I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for political speech and I want to encourage the free exchange of information about candidates. But I also believe people should have a right to be protected from the most egregious forms of abuse. However, the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their homes by forcing them to answer calls and listen again and again. Something must be done. The bill does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Specter, Senator Inouye and Senator Durbin. This is a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by calls all through the day and night. In recent years, we have seen an unparalleled development of new technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters. This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and should be protected. The vast majority of these technological developments bolster the Democratic process, promoting an interchange of information and ideas. One of these is the so-called robocall, in which a prerecorded message can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through computer automation. With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls. A recent Pew Foundation poll found that 80 percent of Iowans in the recent primaries received automated political robocalls. A high level of sophistication goes into these robocalls--they are targeted and specific software dictates who is called, and when. But the process can be abused. And we all have heard stories about people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the day and night. I believe this is wrong. Not only is it interfering with the privacy rights of Americans, but it can turn people away from the political process itself. Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list--with millions of individuals subscribing. But political calls were specifically exempted from that list. Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some safeguards without halting the practice altogether. The Robocall Privacy Act of 2008 bans political robocalls to any person from 9 p.m. in the evening and a.m. in the morning. It also bans more than two political robocalls from each campaign to the same telephone number per day, bans the caller from blocking the ``caller identification'' number, and requires an announcement at the beginning of the call identifying the individual or organization making the call and the fact that it is a pre-recorded message. This is to prevent misinformation about the caller. The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on stopping the worst of these calls. The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law. The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but not receive money damages. A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls. Why are these provisions so important? Let me briefly describe some recent incidents: Hundreds of robocalls woke voters up at 2 in the morning during a 2007 New York election--because of a software programming error. The calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m. In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him. In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call. The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue-- has indicated voters receive many calls a day. They have reported as much as 37 political phone calls in one day for one voter. That same organization reports that 40 percent of its membership indicated it received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season. In a recent Texas campaign, a negative robocall was sent to voters early in the morning--supposedly from one of the candidates. That candidate immediately protested it was not done on his behalf--but instead was an attempt to smear him by using his name. Voters became furious at the call. In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, and enraged voters about the false, late- night call. Repeated robocalls to Tennessee resident Jonathan Gregory caused him to complain to The Tennessean newspaper: ``It's extremely annoying, and it's like getting telemarketing calls at work. . . . I think they should have some type of limit on how many times they can call the same number.'' A February 1 Letter to the Editor of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, from a woman from East Pennsboro, PA, indicated that she received many political robocalls to her personal cell phone and was billed for each call. I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for political speech and I want to encourage the free exchange of information about candidates. But I also believe people should have a right to be protected from the most egregious forms of abuse. However, the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their homes by forcing them to answer calls and listen again and again. Something must be done. The bill does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the legal requirement that FISA is the exclusive authority for the electronic surveillance of Americans. When FISA was written in 1978, it followed 30 years of warrantless surveillance of communications and telegrams of hundreds of thousands of Americans sending messages outside the country. This would stress that FISA is the legal way for the collection of electronic surveillance against Americans. In 2001, the administration decided they would not take the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the FISA Court, that they would perform this program outside of FISA, and it took until January of 2007 to bring this within the confines of FISA where it is to this day. I think we need to make a strong statement in this bill that FISA is the exclusive authority for the electronic surveillance of all Americans, and this amendment aims to do that. It provides penalties for moving outside of the law, and I believe it would strengthen the opportunity to prevent the Chief Executive, either now or in the future, from moving outside of this law.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, FISA has a law within it as to how you do electronic surveillance, and that law has specific provisions of what companies seeking to assist the Government must do. Essentially, what this amendment does is ask the FISA Court to review that compliance by the telecom companies to see that they complied with the elements of that part of FISA. I think some Members have been able to look at the certification letter sent to telecoms, but most Members have not, and I think it is very important that the court have an opportunity to review these certifications and see if they are adequate under the provisions of the FISA law, and this is exactly what this amendment does. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.