Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank all of my colleagues for their support in extending the highly successful breast cancer research stamp for 4 additional years. This bill has the strong bipartisan support of Senator Hutchison and 61 other Senators from both sides of the aisle. Without congressional action, this extraordinary stamp is set to expire on December 31 of this year, and it deserves to be extended. This legislation would: Permit the sale of the breast cancer research stamp for 4 more years--until December 31, 2011; allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense, and not affect any other semipostal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released just last month, confirms that the breast cancer research stamp continues to be an effective fundraiser in the effort to increase funds to fight the disease. Since the stamp first went on sale 9 years ago, over 790 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold by the U.S. Postal Service--raising $57.8 million for breast cancer research. These dollars have led to significant advances in the treatment of breast cancer through research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, which receives 70 percent of the stamp's proceeds, and at the Department of Defense, DOD, which receives the remaining 30 percent of the proceeds. For example, the GAO reported that: In 2006, NIH began to use the stamp's proceeds for a new program called the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment to help determine which breast cancer patients are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy. Dr. Susan Neuhausen at the University of California used an NIH award that has led to many insights into breast cancer risks--using both genetic and environmental data to further define the breast and ovarian cancer risk for individuals with a specific genetic mutation. Dr. Archbald Perkins at Yale University used a Department of Defense award to do research to help with the prognosis of some breast cancers by using new techniques to identify novel genes involved in cancer. In addition to raising much needed funds for breast cancer research, this wonderful stamp has also focused public awareness on this devastating disease, and it is just as necessary today as ever. About 3 million women in the United States are living with breast cancer, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed. This year alone, about 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed among American women. And one out of every 8 women nationwide will get breast cancer in her lifetime, with the disease claiming another woman's life every 13 minutes. Extending the life of this remarkable stamp is crucial. With the sale of the breast cancer research stamp, every dollar we continue to raise will provide hope to breast cancer survivors and will help save lives until a cure is found. Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, as chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, to voice my support of legislation to name the great hall in the new Capitol Visitor Center ``Emancipation Hall.'' This legislation--S.1679--was introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu on June 21, 2007, and is cosponsored by Senator Barack Obama. I am proud to join them as a cosponsor. A companion bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Zach Wamp and Jesse Jackson. The measure has over 225 cosponsors in the House and last week it was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is my understanding that it will soon be taken up by the House, which earlier approved the proposal as part of the fiscal year 2008 legislative branch appropriations bill. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation. The naming of ``Emancipation Hall'' in the new Capitol Visitor Center would be a fitting tribute to the contributions of slaves in the construction of our Nation's Capitol Building. It would also serve to recognize the end of slavery in the United States. The Capitol Visitor Center is nearing completion, and its Great Hall promises to be a spectacular place--an estimated 3 million people are expected to gather in the area as they come to visit our great Capitol each year. And through large skylights in the ceiling, visitors will be able to look upwards and gaze upon the grand Capitol dome. This environment is the perfect place for visitors to reflect upon the construction of the U.S. Capitol, and to recognize the slaves who helped to build it. The total number of slaves who worked on the Capitol is unknown. But there is evidence that slave workers contributed in a number of important ways to its construction. This includes a slave named Philip Reid who played an important role in the casting of the 19-foot, 15,000-pound bronze Statue of Freedom that rests atop the Capitol dome. Others are memorialized in pay stubs to their owners for work done in the Capitol. Naming the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center as ``Emancipation Hall'' would serve to recognize both the brutal truth of our Nation's past and the importance of freedom as a pillar of modern America. The history of slavery in the United States is a grim chapter in our Nation's history. But the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, was an important step toward abolishing slavery in the United States. In the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln declared: I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof; will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. While the Emancipation Proclamation did not officially abolish slavery in all of the United States, it was an important commitment by the government to end this centuries-long injustice. By sustaining the history of this great act, we highlight the importance of freedom. And by naming the Capitol Visitor Center's main entry as ``Emancipation Hall,'' we do so in a significant way that all visitors of our Nation's Capitol Building will notice and respect. As chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and the Joint Committee on the Library, which oversees Capitol artwork, I believe it is very important to provide an accurate and diversified image of our Nation for the visitors to our Capitol. The naming of ``Emancipation Hall'' would be one step toward achieving that. I also welcome a new report by the congressional Slave Labor Task Force, which has come forward with a number of recommendations for acknowledging and commemorating the work slaves performed in building our Capitol. I look forward to working with the task force on this issue so people throughout the world will know more about the contribution by slaves toward constructing the building that has become the very foundation of our democracy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to notify all Senators that on Friday, November 9, 2007, the Committee on Rules and Administration approved the request of the Select Committee on Ethics and granted a 3- week extension until December 3, 2007, for the Ethics Committee to issue the initial guidelines implementing the new rules on privately sponsored travel required by Public Law 110-81. In their letter to the Rules Committee, Senators Boxer and Cornyn note that unless the request is approved, the new travel rules would become effective on November 13, 2007. Due to the scheduling of a number of proposed trips on or shortly after November 13, the Ethics Committee believes that the additional required paperwork would not be submitted in time for review before the trips commence. The 3-week extension will afford the Ethics Committee additional time to post the proposed new travel guidelines on its Web site. These guidelines will be effective on December 3, 2007, and all privately sponsored travel beginning on or after that date will be required to conform to the new rules and guidelines. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the Ethics Committee dated November 7, 2007, printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, shortly the Senate will vote on whether to confirm Michael Mukasey as the next Attorney General or whether to leave the Department of Justice without a real leader for the next 14 months. I believe that is the issue. I will vote to confirm Judge Mukasey. For me, the Department of Justice has always been the beacon of law enforcement and justice around the world. I have always truly believed we had a state-of-the-art system of justice that functioned independently of whoever happened to hold the White House or whoever was in the Congress. This beacon has been dimmed in the last 7 years, and I am one who finds the Department in disarray today. I think the real issue before us today is: Can this nominee be a strong and independent leader of the Justice Department in the remaining time of this administration? Can he depoliticize the Department? Can he restore its morale? Will he be independent from the White House? If your answer is yes, then I believe we should vote for him. If it is no, then you don't mind an Acting Attorney General for the next 14 months. Ten of the most important positions in the Department today have no permanent person serving but are either acting or interim. Mr. President, 21 out of 93 U.S. Attorney positions are vacant, and only two nominees are pending before the Senate for confirmation. Cases have been brought based on partisan considerations instead of the facts and the law. U.S. Attorneys who did not initiate partisan prosecutions were summarily fired. The Civil Rights Division has been weakened and politicized. Judge Mukasey has shown he will be a strong and independent Attorney General. He couldn't be any more different from Alberto Gonzales. Alberto Gonzales owed his political career, and his legal career to a great extent, to President Bush. Judge Mukasey does not. He has followed an independent path. And he has been, for 18 years, a Federal district court judge--yes, following the rule of law, not the rule of man. He has stood on his own, he has litigated on his own, he has judged on his own. Judge Mukasey, in my view, is going to be a very different Attorney General. And it is hard for me to understand why everyone in this body doesn't come to the same conclusion just by judging his background against the background of the prior Attorney General. That is very hard for me to understand. Their backgrounds--their legal backgrounds, their service backgrounds--are so entirely different. If you read the 178 pages of answers to questions that were submitted by Senators, some as many as 30, 35 questions, you see the independence of Judge Mukasey. In response to question 20 by Senator Kennedy, Judge Mukasey said this: There can be no political litmus test for the hiring of career civil service employees. This is, and must be, a bedrock principle. He added that he would have ``zero tolerance'' in this area. Isn't that what we want? On the issue of politically motivated prosecutions, which, as I have said, I believe there have been by this department, he said, in the transcript, dated 10/17/07, page 19: Partisan politics plays no part in either the bringing of charges or the timing of charges. And in response to question 20(a) by Senator Durbin he also said he would recommend the firing of any U.S. Attorney who brought or planned to bring a case for partisan gain. Isn't that what we want? With regard to election crime prosecutions, he wrote this: The closer to an election, the higher the standard that must be met for charges to be brought. That was in response to question no. 18 from Senator Kennedy. In addition, Judge Mukasey made it clear he will work to fix the many problems that have arisen in the Department's Civil Rights Division. He wrote this to us: The Civil Rights Division occupies a crucial place in the Department precisely because it continues to carry out the work of the civil rights movement by enforcing the Nation's civil rights laws. I strongly support the mission of the Civil Rights Division and will ensure that it has the tools and resources it needs to fulfill its mandate. This was in answer to a question submitted by Senator Leahy. I think these answers alone show it is not going to be business as usual in the Department of Justice. Isn't that what we want? Now, the President has said publicly he will not send another nominee to the Senate. So what does that mean? It means if we don't confirm this nominee, we will effectively have an Acting Attorney General for the remaining 14 months of this President's tenure. And what does that mean? It could likely mean that Peter Keisler, who has been an architect of Bush administration policies at DOJ for more than 5 years, will remain as Acting Attorney General for the rest of this administration. Is that what we want? It means most likely there will be recess appointments this winter for the 10 major leadership positions in the Department. And what does that mean? Simply stated: The administration could put in place the most egregious and political leadership, and we--the Senate--could do nothing about it. We would have reduced transparency and reduced congressional oversight. Now this is the realpolitik. This is the likelihood, should Judge Mukasey fail confirmation. I believe it is the fundamental and driving factor for confirmation of this nominee. Not to confirm him will leave this vital department open to a continuation of egregious past actions, and we have railed against those past actions for years now. We have a chance to make a change. We don't select the nominee, the President selects the nominee. Does he have failed character? No. Does he lack in experience? No. Does he have the temperament to be Attorney General? He has proven it with 18 years as a Federal judge. Does he know one of the most important areas of the law--national security law? He has tried some of the major terrorist cases that have been tried in Article III courts in the United States of America, and defendants have gone to prison. Now, I have seen people pound their breasts here on torture. And none of us want torture. There is a difference between U.S. law and treaty law. We have passed certain U.S. laws. We have passed a Military Commissions Act. That is a law of the United States of America. We have passed the Detainee Treatment Act. That is a law of the United States of America. The Detainee Treatment Act prohibits waterboarding for any military personnel anywhere in the world. So, to the opponents of this nomination: We have passed a law. They say it is not necessary to pass a law, but in fact we have passed a law prohibiting waterboarding. And Judge Mukasey has said the Detainee Treatment Act is binding on the President and binding on this country. The one exception is, there is no U.S. law that deals with the CIA. That is the exception. There are prestigious human rights groups that say it doesn't matter; the Geneva Conventions and the Conventions Against Torture prevail. The President is saying I have Article II authority, and AUMF authority, and my view of Presidential power. So what will solve it? A constitutional confrontation? The Supreme Court? What solves it? My belief is, it is so easy: Instead of pounding our chests, simply do what we did in the Detainee Treatment Act, but do it for the CIA and prohibit waterboarding. End of debate. Some people want to keep the issue alive rather than solve the problem. I am not one of those people. I believe we should end the ambiguity, and simply prohibit waterboarding across the board. I do not believe Judge Mukasey should be denied confirmation for failing to provide an absolute answer on this one subject. Nobody should think anything else is happening tonight. He would be denied confirmation because he said, I would like an opportunity to look at these laws, to look at these treaties, to read the legal opinions that have been written, and then have time to make up my mind. Maybe we will want people to snap to and issue immediate judgments. This man has been a judge for 18 years. Maybe he likes to consider the facts before he makes a decision. I don't think that should be disqualifying. We can bring him before the Judiciary Committee in late January and simply say: Judge Mukasey, now-Attorney General Mukasey, you have had an opportunity to look at the law. What is your opinion? At the same time, I can say to you quite honestly, I believe waterboarding is illegal. I don't think it should be countenanced by the United States of America. I am not a lawyer, and I have not been for 18 years--or even 1 year--a Federal judge. I believe waterboarding is prohibited under the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. But it is not prohibited by name. It is prohibited in terms of its effects. There is a certain grayness for some--for some. The opponents of this nomination have not given us any reason to think an acting or interim Attorney General would give us a better answer about waterboarding. As a matter of fact, I would hazard a guess they would not. I would hazard a guess that if this nominee goes down, the exact same policies that have characterized the last 7 years will continue for the next 14 months. Am I being too abrupt to suggest we are missing something, that we should not get overwhelmed by the pounding of the chest against torture--that this is our chance for change? If Judge Mukasey were not a respected judge, if he didn't have the legal background, if he didn't have the streak of independence--and read 178 pages of questions and answers and you will see that streak of independence--I would tend to agree with some of what has been said here. But I do not, because I seriously believe this is the only chance this Senate is going to be offered to put new leadership in the Department of Justice. If, in fact, you believe it is in disarray, then there is only one action to take. If you believe it has been politicized, there is only one action to take. The former Attorney General has not been independent, and he said he wore two hats--one serving the White House and one serving the people. If you believe there is only one hat an Attorney General can wear, and that is serving the people, then you have no choice other than Judge Mukasey. That is because otherwise, there will be an Acting Attorney General, not subject to confirmation, not subject to questioning, not subject to any kind of oversight--but, again, an arm of the White House. Most of the major newspapers in my State have editorialized in favor of Judge Mukasey. This is what the San Diego Union-Tribune had to say about him: Torture is antithetical to American values. President Bush ought to issue an Executive order explicitly outlawing waterboarding. That said, Mukasey is not to blame for the Bush administration's interrogation policies. In his confirmation hearings, he has demonstrated a firm commitment to defend the Constitution. He merits confirmation by the Senate. They got it. The Detroit Free Press had this to say: As Attorney General, Mukasey can be expected to fight hard for what's legal rather than what's expedient. Don't we want that? At least that's a step toward restoring the rule of law in the last 14 months of the Bush administration. The full Senate should confirm Mukasey, lest the president's next pick be someone with a more malleable sense of right and wrong. Then, a paper from my State, The Sacramento Bee, got it right: As a replacement for Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, the nominee for U.S. attorney general, would bring a restorative independence of mind to the job. . . . Mukasey appears likely to operate in the open and with a higher respect for the system of the U.S. Government than for personal ties. A critical question. We would expect him to urge the president to work with Congress. The Senate should confirm Mukasey to begin the cleanup at Justice. This is the only chance we have. It is not as if we can turn him down and the administration is going to send us another nominee. They have already said they will not. I do not believe that voting down this nominee will do even a bit of good in preventing torture. No one has explained why more of the same at the Justice Department would be better than putting Judge Mukasey in charge. I do believe he will be a truly nonpolitical, nonpartisan Attorney General; that he will make his views very clear; and that, once he has the opportunity to do the evaluation he believes he needs on waterboarding, he will be willing to come before the Judiciary Committee and express his views comprehensively and definitively. In conclusion, this nominee had no part in the administration's policies or legal opinions with respect to torture. We should not blame him for them. How can this man be the standard-bearer for torture? He is not. Why is he being treated as such? We should give this nominee an opportunity to look at these treaties, look at the laws, read the opinions, and we should do what we are here to do--legislate and prohibit waterboarding across the board. I thank the ranking member. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to hear testimony on the recently released GAO report regarding funding challenges and facilities maintenance at the Smithsonian Institution. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban the use of phthalates in toys. This legislation will ban the use of six types of phthalates in toys, which are linked to birth defects. Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in a variety of everyday products, including cosmetics, nail polish, paint, and shower curtains. Alarmingly, they are used in a variety of children's toys, such as rubber ducks, teething rings, and bath toys. This legislation will ban the manufacture, sale or distributions of toys and childcare articles that contain more than .1 percent of DEHP, DBP, or BBP. It will also ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of toys and childcare articles for use by children 3 years old or younger that contain more than .1 percent of DINP, DIDP, or DnOP. It clearly states that phthalates cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that cause reproductive or developmental harm. Phthalates are used in a variety of PVC, polyvinyl chloride, plastic products to make them soft and pliable. Phthalates are not chemically bonded to PVC molecules. When a child places a plastic toy with phthalates into his or her mouth, these phthalates leach out of the plastic product and into the child's system. Phthalates are found in many common children's toys: rubber ducks, soft bath books, teethers, and even dolls. In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys to a Chicago lab for testing to see if they exceeded the .1 percent limit proposed in this legislation. The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate at five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the proposed limit of DEHP, a carcinogenic phthalate. The face of a popular doll contained double the proposed phthalate limit. While the science is still evolving, we know that exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term health effects. Phthalates interfere with the natural functioning of the hormone system, and can cause reproductive abnormalities, many resulting from low levels of testosterone. In 2005, Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine found that pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with a birth defect that is a key indicator of low testosterone levels. Men with high phthalate levels have lower sperm counts and damaged sperm DNA. Phthalate exposure has also been linked to premature birth and the early onset of puberty. They may be a factor in some cancers. Young children, whose bodies are still growing and developing, are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them. In the face of this troubling science, at least 14 other nations have acted to ban or restrict the use of phthalates in children's products. Examples include: the European Union's ban, upon which this legislation is modeled, has been in effect since 2006; the Argentina Ministry of Health imposed a ban in 1999; and Japan banned toys containing DEHP and DINP intended to be put in the mouth of children up to the age of 6. My home State of California recently became the first state to ban phthalates in toys and other products intended for children. California parents will now know that the toys they give their children are not placing them at risk for serious health problems. It is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations. Without action, the U.S. risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. American children deserve better. Opponents of this ban will argue that we cannot safely replace phthalates, and that these replacements could place children at an even greater risk. The experience in the European Union certainly suggests otherwise. Facing the phthalate ban, European manufacturers began to develop alternatives. Danisco, a Danish company, has introduced a phthalate alternative that has been approved for use in both the U.S. and the European Union. Manufacturers have found ways to make safe, phthalate free toys for European Union children, and there is no reason that they should not do the same for American children. There is much we do not know about the chemicals that surround us. Evidence is demonstrating that phthalates are posing a risk to children. I strongly believe that products not known to be safe should not be in the hands and mouths of children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide all American children with the same safe toys available in Europe and California. 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 to introduce legislation to ban the use of phthalates in toys. This legislation will ban the use of six types of phthalates in toys, which are linked to birth defects. Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in a variety of everyday products, including cosmetics, nail polish, paint, and shower curtains. Alarmingly, they are used in a variety of children's toys, such as rubber ducks, teething rings, and bath toys. This legislation will ban the manufacture, sale or distributions of toys and childcare articles that contain more than .1 percent of DEHP, DBP, or BBP. It will also ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of toys and childcare articles for use by children 3 years old or younger that contain more than .1 percent of DINP, DIDP, or DnOP. It clearly states that phthalates cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that cause reproductive or developmental harm. Phthalates are used in a variety of PVC, polyvinyl chloride, plastic products to make them soft and pliable. Phthalates are not chemically bonded to PVC molecules. When a child places a plastic toy with phthalates into his or her mouth, these phthalates leach out of the plastic product and into the child's system. Phthalates are found in many common children's toys: rubber ducks, soft bath books, teethers, and even dolls. In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys to a Chicago lab for testing to see if they exceeded the .1 percent limit proposed in this legislation. The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate at five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the proposed limit of DEHP, a carcinogenic phthalate. The face of a popular doll contained double the proposed phthalate limit. While the science is still evolving, we know that exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term health effects. Phthalates interfere with the natural functioning of the hormone system, and can cause reproductive abnormalities, many resulting from low levels of testosterone. In 2005, Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine found that pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with a birth defect that is a key indicator of low testosterone levels. Men with high phthalate levels have lower sperm counts and damaged sperm DNA. Phthalate exposure has also been linked to premature birth and the early onset of puberty. They may be a factor in some cancers. Young children, whose bodies are still growing and developing, are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them. In the face of this troubling science, at least 14 other nations have acted to ban or restrict the use of phthalates in children's products. Examples include: the European Union's ban, upon which this legislation is modeled, has been in effect since 2006; the Argentina Ministry of Health imposed a ban in 1999; and Japan banned toys containing DEHP and DINP intended to be put in the mouth of children up to the age of 6. My home State of California recently became the first state to ban phthalates in toys and other products intended for children. California parents will now know that the toys they give their children are not placing them at risk for serious health problems. It is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations. Without action, the U.S. risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. American children deserve better. Opponents of this ban will argue that we cannot safely replace phthalates, and that these replacements could place children at an even greater risk. The experience in the European Union certainly suggests otherwise. Facing the phthalate ban, European manufacturers began to develop alternatives. Danisco, a Danish company, has introduced a phthalate alternative that has been approved for use in both the U.S. and the European Union. Manufacturers have found ways to make safe, phthalate free toys for European Union children, and there is no reason that they should not do the same for American children. There is much we do not know about the chemicals that surround us. Evidence is demonstrating that phthalates are posing a risk to children. I strongly believe that products not known to be safe should not be in the hands and mouths of children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide all American children with the same safe toys available in Europe and California. 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 in support of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. The bill before us today would authorize an increase in Federal funding for the operation and development of passenger rail services, reauthorize Amtrak for an additional 6 years, and provide much needed reform of the Nation's rail system. This legislation makes an important first step to establish high- speed rail systems throughout the United States. A strong national rail system provides Americans with a practical transportation alternative, helps to alleviate traffic congestion on our Nation's highways and reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation would also require an increase in financial and operation transparency and accountability at Amtrak, reduce Federal operating subsidies, and improve train performance and customer service. Today, Amtrak serves nearly 25 million riders each year at more than 500 stations across 46 States. Amtrak is also one of the Nation's largest providers of contracted commuter service for State and regional authorities. Over 60 million commuters in California, Maryland, Connecticut, Washington, and Virginia take Amtrak to work each year. California's partnership with Amtrak represents the largest State- supported passenger rail program in the United States. Each day, Amtrak operates approximately 70 intercity trains and 100 commuter trains in California. Amtrak's corridors in California are also among the busiest in the Nation, with more than 10 million Californians boarding Amtrak during fiscal year 2006. The Pacific Surfliner service from San Diego through Los Angeles is the second busiest corridor in the United States with over 2.5 million riders in 2006. The Capitol Corridor service between Sacramento and San Jose is the third most traveled corridor in the country with over 1 million riders in 2006. Home to two of the Nation's top five most congested cities in the United States, my home State of California understands the importance of viable travel alternatives. Passenger rail services have helped ease highway congestion, reduce automobile emissions and improve the State's air quality. California is well ahead of the curve on developing a transportation system that has low environmental impact yet meets the growing needs of the California economy. But there is still much more work to be done. It is expected that California's population will grow to more than 50 million people by 2030. California would need to build about 3,000 additional lane-miles on intercity highways and over 90 new gates and five new airport runways to serve the expected population in 2030. The State of California and the California High-Speed Rail Authority are working to develop a high-speed rail system which would stretch from San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento in the north, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. With trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph, the travel time from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles would be just under 2\1/2\ hours. As envisioned, California's high-speed train system could accommodate nearly 120 million passengers annually by 2030. This state-of-the-art rail system would take millions of cars off the road, ease traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and allow people to travel faster, safer and more comfortably. To move our great Nation into the next era of modern, efficient, environmentally friendly transportation, all levels of public and private finances and resources must be brought to bear. This legislation is an important first step. Investment in America's passenger rail system is important for California. It is important for this Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the urban demands we have placed on our water supplies and ecosystem have resulted in significant water shortages in communities across the Nation. Water quality and quantity are in jeopardy if local, State, and Federal Governments do not support the implementation of cost-effective projects that enhance and increase potable water supplies. Therefore, I am introducing this bill to authorize programs that will facilitate a comprehensive water supply and watershed project in southern California. Leaders and agencies across five counties in the Santa Ana Region of southern California have partnered to develop a comprehensive plan which addresses regional needs of their communities; communities whose population exceeds 3 million citizens. These communities are committed to leveraging over $1 billion in local and State funds to match the Federal Government's investment. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Miller, together with Representatives Ken Calvert, David Dreier, Edward Royce, John Campbell, Dana Rohrabacher and Loretta Sanchez. Specifically, this bill would fund three distinct projects, which together will help address water needs of 64,000 households and increase the region's water supply by 31,000 acre-feet per year in an environmentally sustainable manner. This legislation could serve as a model for communities nationwide to help meet the challenges imposed by decreasing snow pack and precipitation and scarce potable water supplies that will be exacerbated by climate change. This bill would authorize the Federal Government to spend $10 million on a cost shared basis to create wetlands along the Santa Ana River, providing an expanded natural treatment system to purify the River before it replenishes Orange County's groundwater supplies. Like all of the projects in the plan, the construction of natural treatment systems using wetlands minimizes the impacts on the environment, reduces carbon emissions, and improves the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies. An authorization of $25 million in the expansion of groundwater desalination in the Chino Basin would increase desalination from the current 9,000 acre-feet per year to 40,000 acre-feet per year. This element of the program would provide a new fresh drinking water supply for Jurupa Community Services District, Santa Ana Mutual Water Company in Riverside County, and the cities of Norco, Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in San Bernardino County. These communities serve the needs of millions of citizens. Because the Santa Ana River watershed crosses multiple jurisdictions, this legislation seeks to complement the ability to produce reclaimed water in one area with expanded desalination projects in the neighboring Chino Basin, providing a four-fold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for over 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The Groundwater Replenishment System, which is expected to be fully operational in just weeks, is the largest indirect potable reuse project in the world. The focal point of the system is membrane purification technology. Thus, $12 million is being requested to build an advanced water filtration technologies research center to find better, more cost-effective approaches to water purification as it relates to municipal water supply needs. This regional plan will decrease reliability on imported water supplies from the Colorado River and California's deteriorating Bay- Delta water supply system. It will also allow for banking millions of gallons of water in our groundwater basin, protecting the region against natural disasters that could disrupt the delivery of water to Southern California from the fragile Delta and Colorado systems. I am proud of the commitment our regional agencies have made to develop a response to meet the current and future demands for water supply. The regional plan has broad community support, solves multiple water supply problems, reduces energy consumption, restores habitat, and provides significant jobs and economic benefits to one of the Nation's most densely populated areas. I look forward to timely consideration of this legislation that could provide the road map to solving water demands across the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the urban demands we have placed on our water supplies and ecosystem have resulted in significant water shortages in communities across the Nation. Water quality and quantity are in jeopardy if local, State, and Federal Governments do not support the implementation of cost-effective projects that enhance and increase potable water supplies. Therefore, I am introducing this bill to authorize programs that will facilitate a comprehensive water supply and watershed project in southern California. Leaders and agencies across five counties in the Santa Ana Region of southern California have partnered to develop a comprehensive plan which addresses regional needs of their communities; communities whose population exceeds 3 million citizens. These communities are committed to leveraging over $1 billion in local and State funds to match the Federal Government's investment. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Miller, together with Representatives Ken Calvert, David Dreier, Edward Royce, John Campbell, Dana Rohrabacher and Loretta Sanchez. Specifically, this bill would fund three distinct projects, which together will help address water needs of 64,000 households and increase the region's water supply by 31,000 acre-feet per year in an environmentally sustainable manner. This legislation could serve as a model for communities nationwide to help meet the challenges imposed by decreasing snow pack and precipitation and scarce potable water supplies that will be exacerbated by climate change. This bill would authorize the Federal Government to spend $10 million on a cost shared basis to create wetlands along the Santa Ana River, providing an expanded natural treatment system to purify the River before it replenishes Orange County's groundwater supplies. Like all of the projects in the plan, the construction of natural treatment systems using wetlands minimizes the impacts on the environment, reduces carbon emissions, and improves the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies. An authorization of $25 million in the expansion of groundwater desalination in the Chino Basin would increase desalination from the current 9,000 acre-feet per year to 40,000 acre-feet per year. This element of the program would provide a new fresh drinking water supply for Jurupa Community Services District, Santa Ana Mutual Water Company in Riverside County, and the cities of Norco, Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in San Bernardino County. These communities serve the needs of millions of citizens. Because the Santa Ana River watershed crosses multiple jurisdictions, this legislation seeks to complement the ability to produce reclaimed water in one area with expanded desalination projects in the neighboring Chino Basin, providing a four-fold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for over 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The Groundwater Replenishment System, which is expected to be fully operational in just weeks, is the largest indirect potable reuse project in the world. The focal point of the system is membrane purification technology. Thus, $12 million is being requested to build an advanced water filtration technologies research center to find better, more cost-effective approaches to water purification as it relates to municipal water supply needs. This regional plan will decrease reliability on imported water supplies from the Colorado River and California's deteriorating Bay- Delta water supply system. It will also allow for banking millions of gallons of water in our groundwater basin, protecting the region against natural disasters that could disrupt the delivery of water to Southern California from the fragile Delta and Colorado systems. I am proud of the commitment our regional agencies have made to develop a response to meet the current and future demands for water supply. The regional plan has broad community support, solves multiple water supply problems, reduces energy consumption, restores habitat, and provides significant jobs and economic benefits to one of the Nation's most densely populated areas. I look forward to timely consideration of this legislation that could provide the road map to solving water demands across the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to inform all Senators that the Committee on Rules and Administration has updated the U.S. Senate Travel Regulations. The Ethics Committee recently issued guidance to the Rules Committee that making more than one reservation for official travel with a participating airline would not constitute a gift under Senate rule XXXV, the Gift Rule. Consistent with the Ethics Committee's guidance, the transportation expenses section of the U.S. Senate Travel Regulations has been updated to address the issue of making more than one reservation on scheduled flights. The following statement has been added to I.B of the transportation expenses section, found on page IV-64 of the U.S. Senate Handbook: 3. A Member shall be permitted to make more than one reservation on scheduled flights with participating airlines when such action assists the Member in conducting his/her official business. This change is effective immediately. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the updated U.S. Senate Travel Regulations be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Lott and Cochran to introduce legislation that will help make flood insurance more affordable for working families across the country. This bill makes a substantial change to the National Flood Insurance Program by reducing flood insurance premiums for those living near recently decertified levees. This is critical in California and the Gulf States, where several levees no longer meet national certification standards. Here is how the bill works: If a national flood map update results in the decertification of a levee, those living nearby will be required to purchase flood insurance. This legislation makes those now required to pay flood insurance eligible for a 50 percent discount on premiums for 5 years. Levee decertification will force some homeowners to pay upwards of $1,000 per year for new flood insurance policies from the National Flood Insurance Program; according to FEMA premium estimates for high-risk residential areas. This bill will save most families in a newly zoned high-risk residential area more than $500 each year, or roughly $40 each month. The goal of the 5-year reprieve is to give the responsible agencies time to bring the levees up to standard. When the levees are strong again, the homeowners will no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. The financial burden would be lifted. This grace period helps those who need it most and softens the harsh and expensive consequences that accompany FEMA's Map Modification process. Additionally, the 5-year limit allows this legislation to accomplish these objectives in a manner that is fiscally responsible. Our colleagues in the House recently passed legislation H.R. 3121, that seeks to ensure the continued viability of the National Flood Insurance Program. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Dennis Cardoza, authored an amendment similar to this legislation, which passed by voice vote and is now included in the House's proposed changes. The House bill encourages broader participation, increases financial accountability, and eliminates unnecessary rate subsidies. Additionally, the bill makes the updating and modernization of flood maps a priority, and requires a thorough review of the Nation's flood protection systems. Under the new requirements, FEMA will work in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers and local communities to inventory their flood control systems and reassess their levels of protection. However, as FEMA remaps and reexamines flood threats, many households will find that they are no longer as safe as they thought. In California alone there are more than 136 communities that contain at least one levee that will be impacted by the deaccreditation process. These communities contain levees that will be, or may have already been, remapped and decertified for not providing protection from the 1 percent annual chance flood. Many of the families in these impacted communities have lived in their homes for years, and believed that the levees in their backyards protected them from the threat of dangerous and costly flooding. As a result of the changing risk, homeowners who were previously exempt from mandatory flood insurance may now be required to purchase flood insurance. That is why I believe this bill is necessary. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Protection Act lightens this burden. For nearly 40 years, the National Flood Insurance Program has been instrumental in making flood insurance readily available to all Americans: Communities have partnered with the Federal Government to adopt and enforce floodplain management and, in turn, receive federally-backed insurance policies; and through the development of effective floodplain management strategies, millions of families have been protected from flooding and saved from the devastating costs associated with flood damage. But today, the program is in danger. After the record-breaking losses of nearly $20 billion suffered as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, it is clear that the program needs to be updated. This expansive project will allow communities to formulate responsible floodplain development plans and prepare for catastrophic flooding. The project will also ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program charges fair rates for their flood insurance premiums. Now, I support the National Flood Insurance program and recognize the importance of mandatory purchase requirements. The problem is that homeowners who have paid their taxes and helped to pay for the upkeep of these levees, will now find themselves forced to pay an additional insurance premium because of a failing levee. Many of these individuals in my State and across the country are low- income earners and this increasing burden threatens to break the bank. Coupled with rising energy, health care and home mortgage costs, the unexpected additional expense of flood insurance may be too much for some families. That is why we need to offer this assistance. We must act soon to overhaul our Nation's flood insurance program. However, it is also our responsibility to mitigate the impact of the levee decertification process on thousands of unsuspecting families across the country. 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 on behalf of myself and Senators Lott and Cochran to introduce legislation that will help make flood insurance more affordable for working families across the country. This bill makes a substantial change to the National Flood Insurance Program by reducing flood insurance premiums for those living near recently decertified levees. This is critical in California and the Gulf States, where several levees no longer meet national certification standards. Here is how the bill works: If a national flood map update results in the decertification of a levee, those living nearby will be required to purchase flood insurance. This legislation makes those now required to pay flood insurance eligible for a 50 percent discount on premiums for 5 years. Levee decertification will force some homeowners to pay upwards of $1,000 per year for new flood insurance policies from the National Flood Insurance Program; according to FEMA premium estimates for high-risk residential areas. This bill will save most families in a newly zoned high-risk residential area more than $500 each year, or roughly $40 each month. The goal of the 5-year reprieve is to give the responsible agencies time to bring the levees up to standard. When the levees are strong again, the homeowners will no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. The financial burden would be lifted. This grace period helps those who need it most and softens the harsh and expensive consequences that accompany FEMA's Map Modification process. Additionally, the 5-year limit allows this legislation to accomplish these objectives in a manner that is fiscally responsible. Our colleagues in the House recently passed legislation H.R. 3121, that seeks to ensure the continued viability of the National Flood Insurance Program. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Dennis Cardoza, authored an amendment similar to this legislation, which passed by voice vote and is now included in the House's proposed changes. The House bill encourages broader participation, increases financial accountability, and eliminates unnecessary rate subsidies. Additionally, the bill makes the updating and modernization of flood maps a priority, and requires a thorough review of the Nation's flood protection systems. Under the new requirements, FEMA will work in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers and local communities to inventory their flood control systems and reassess their levels of protection. However, as FEMA remaps and reexamines flood threats, many households will find that they are no longer as safe as they thought. In California alone there are more than 136 communities that contain at least one levee that will be impacted by the deaccreditation process. These communities contain levees that will be, or may have already been, remapped and decertified for not providing protection from the 1 percent annual chance flood. Many of the families in these impacted communities have lived in their homes for years, and believed that the levees in their backyards protected them from the threat of dangerous and costly flooding. As a result of the changing risk, homeowners who were previously exempt from mandatory flood insurance may now be required to purchase flood insurance. That is why I believe this bill is necessary. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Protection Act lightens this burden. For nearly 40 years, the National Flood Insurance Program has been instrumental in making flood insurance readily available to all Americans: Communities have partnered with the Federal Government to adopt and enforce floodplain management and, in turn, receive federally-backed insurance policies; and through the development of effective floodplain management strategies, millions of families have been protected from flooding and saved from the devastating costs associated with flood damage. But today, the program is in danger. After the record-breaking losses of nearly $20 billion suffered as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, it is clear that the program needs to be updated. This expansive project will allow communities to formulate responsible floodplain development plans and prepare for catastrophic flooding. The project will also ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program charges fair rates for their flood insurance premiums. Now, I support the National Flood Insurance program and recognize the importance of mandatory purchase requirements. The problem is that homeowners who have paid their taxes and helped to pay for the upkeep of these levees, will now find themselves forced to pay an additional insurance premium because of a failing levee. Many of these individuals in my State and across the country are low- income earners and this increasing burden threatens to break the bank. Coupled with rising energy, health care and home mortgage costs, the unexpected additional expense of flood insurance may be too much for some families. That is why we need to offer this assistance. We must act soon to overhaul our Nation's flood insurance program. However, it is also our responsibility to mitigate the impact of the levee decertification process on thousands of unsuspecting families across the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINSTEIN

Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Presdient, 5 years have passed since we lost our distinguished colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, in a tragic plane crash. That crash also took the lives of his wife Sheila, their daughter, Marcia, three loyal staffers, and two pilots. That sad day the Senate lost a passionate, gifted, and respected colleague and friend. Paul was a political science professor, with a sharply honed intellect. But his heart was as big as his mind, and he was a committed advocate for the less fortunate. He was elected in 1990 and quickly became a strong, crusading voice in the Senate. Paul fought for increased education funding, for improvements in the minimum wage, for affordable, accessible health care, for campaign finance reform, for legislation to protect small farmers, and for legislation to expand insurance coverage for the mentally ill. Paul helped lead the successful opposition to an energy bill in 1991 that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. Paul was a champion of the dispossessed around the world--in Latin America, in Africa, and in Asia. In 1996, when I voiced concern over the treatment of women and girls by the Taliban, Paul was one of the few open to the idea that the United States should do something. In 1999, Paul and I introduced the International Trafficking of Women and Children Victims Protection Act to address these heinous crimes and to hold to account nations that fail to meet minimum international standards. Paul cared deeply about Tibetan autonomy. The last time we worked together was to cosponsor legislation to encourage dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government--and to protect the identity of the people of Tibet. He would have been pleased to see the Congressional Gold Medal--the Nation's highest civilian honor--awarded to the Dalai Lama earlier this month. Paul was eloquent. He was compassionate. And he is missed. I feel honored to have been his friend and colleague. I will never forget him, and the Senate is better for his service.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, either my colleague Senator Boxer or I have updated the Senate each day on the California wildfire situation. Senator Boxer is in California now, and I believe the President is as well. I wish to give a brief update to the Senate. So far, this is the largest evacuation of people in California history. It is the largest evacuation in the United States since Katrina. San Diego remains the worst of the burning regions. As of this morning, the President has approved individual assistance programs that will allow FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to make payments for rental assistance, home repair, and pay for some home replacement costs. As soon as the fires die down and the wind in places is easing, FEMA will set up centers. I urge Californians, who have been evacuated from their homes, who have had their homes partially burned or burned to the ground, to go to FEMA centers and see what assistance is available to you. This morning, on television, I heard a family speak. I think they are from Escondido. I think they have a few acres--12. They had a home. They have children. The home was burned down, but the father said: We have fire insurance. Then I heard of another family, with four young children, and no fire insurance. The father has no relatives in the area. Fortunately, the wife has a mother with whom the family will be in the near term. But they said: We don't know what we will do. For those people who are in the ``We don't know what we will do'' category, this is the job of FEMA, to be out there, to open those centers, and to offer help and aid to these people. So please, Californians, use this. More than 950,000 people have been ordered evacuated. More than 420,000 acres have burned. That is roughly 656 square miles. If you think of it, it is a huge area. More than 6,000 firefighters are battling 19 active fires. They range from north of Los Angeles to San Diego, and they have crossed the Mexican border. More than 1,155 homes have been destroyed and 68,000 are threatened. Two deaths are reported so far. I believe there are others. Now, if the winds die down today, we will be able, hopefully, to get a handle on it. The vast bulk of the damage now is occurring in populated areas. The good news: The canyon fire in Malibu is 75 percent contained. The bad news: Most of the other fires are uncontained and out of control. Interstate 5, the main artery between San Diego and Los Angeles, was closed in both directions earlier, near Camp Pendleton, because of smoke. Northeast of San Diego, the town of Julian has been evacuated. I am particularly concerned about the coming days and the Herculean task of feeding, caring, and providing shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Californians. We have more than 10,000 in Qualcomm Stadium, another 2,000 at the clubhouse at the Del Mar Race Track. The Red Cross is doing great. Thank you, Red Cross. Thank you, Red Cross volunteers. They are manning at least three shelters that I know about, and up to this point food, water, and sanitary facilities have been adequate. I think there is a lot of food for thought for Californians in what is happening in terms of the future, and perhaps it is too early to begin to talk about it. I do not think there is any blame to be cast on anyone. I think everyone is responding: the Governor, the mayors, Homeland Security, FEMA, and, of course, the President. I am very grateful for this, and I know I am joined by my colleague Senator Boxer. She will be back tonight, and I know she will have stories to tell on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. But I think we need to think a little bit in the future, particularly those of us who come from local government. I spent 18 years in local government, 9 as a county supervisor and 9 as a mayor, and there is one thing I know, and that is that local governments control zoning. I think the local governments have to begin to look at their zoning about the siting of new housing developments in floodplains in the northern part of the State, around levees and the siting of large subdivisions in the path of Santa Ana winds in parched, dry areas of the State where these winds blow hard and hot. In this case, at least up to this point, we believe power lines blew down. The winds were so forceful they actually turned large container trucks on their side, and the fires were so strong and burned so hot that they melted the metal of automobiles so that, literally, nothing was left. It could sweep off of a ridge and within minutes come down that ridge and just devour homes and take pieces of board, which are called embers, and send them a mile or two away to start a new fire. In San Diego 4 years ago, there was the cedar fire. It destroyed 2,000 homes. And now there is this fire in the same area. So the question comes: Would local officials be well advised to take a look at zoning codes and to begin to protect areas that are prone to catastrophic wildfire from housing developments? Secondly, community fire plans. Community fire plans are very good. Communities can come together--they did it in the cedar fire area, and they have done it quite successfully--to be able to establish fire plans: how they keep a fire break from their house, what they can take down, the kind of ground cover they should have, the kind of roof that is fire resistant, the siding that is fire resistant--and actually get some Government help to implement these fire plans. This is now going on in the Nevada Tahoe area and in the California Tahoe area as well. So I believe very strongly that local officials should exercise their zoning control to see that citizens in the future are protected by staying out of heavily fire-prone and heavily flood-prone areas. I will be having more to say about that in the future. It is also pretty clear to me that we have to develop some Government-helped catastrophic insurance. I have been very concerned. Allstate Insurance Company pulled out of California, and they pulled out of California because they said: It is catastrophe prone, it is fire prone, it is earthquake prone, and we--Allstate--don't want any part of it. So they are not insuring in California any longer. This must not be allowed to happen. Companies must not be allowed to cherry- pick the United States and only insure areas that are safe and secure and say to other areas: You are on your own. So we are kind of rethinking this area. I think the State of California, which has an earthquake authority which helps underwrite insurance in earthquake-prone areas, perhaps should also develop a flood and fire authority where they can enter into the same kind of undertaking. Just think about what it would be like to have four children standing in front of a television camera and saying: My house burned down. With it, all my possessions, all my children's possessions, all our photographs and albums and memories, and virtually everything we held dear, and we have no insurance. Think about it. Think about how you would feel if you were in that situation. So I think there is going to be a lot of food for thought coming out of these fires in terms of public policy, and I am delighted that my colleague, Senator Boxer, is there, and I look forward to her report tomorrow. I believe we will have much more to say about the public policy that goes into the future for our State and other States that are catastrophe prone. I will just tell my colleagues one other little story. I received a call a while ago from the head of the San Francisco Fine Arts Museum saying that they had an opportunity to bring two paintings to show in San Francisco from the Met, and the insurance for those two paintings was $8 billion, just to bring them out for show. Why? Because insurance was being denied because California was a catastrophe-prone area. This is just one other example of what is ricocheting out there under the surface now, and I think this body has to become involved. Any one of us can have a catastrophe. Any one of us can have a major bombing. Any one of us can have a major earthquake, a major flood, or major fires. I think it is up to us to see that we have in place the regulations and the laws that enable people to get the insurance they need on a cost- effective basis to be able to restore their lives and rebuild once again. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is fine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on October 23, 2007, by the President of the United States: Protocol of Amendments to Convention on International Hydrographic Organization, Treaty Document No. 110-9. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, Mr. President, if I may, to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, first of all, it is my knowledge that the cut to San Francisco and to 11 other jurisdictions is very large. With respect to the reauthorization of Ryan White, we do not agree that it applies only to the fiscal year 2007 cuts. It takes resources, actually, from other jurisdictions. The Pelosi fix in the House ensures a significant increase for title I that would both reduce cuts to a manageable level for 11 jurisdictions and still increase for other jurisdictions. So this isn't taking money away from other jurisdictions, as I understand it. The provisions in the House bill increases funding for 42 of the remaining 45 jurisdictions under title I. Now, I don't know the particulars, to be candid with you, of how these cuts fell, but I do know the cut received in the Bay Area was substantial. I suspect it was from the way they counted AIDS cases, and they knew they had to change the methodology. But basically the point is the cut is substantially large and means you have to cut 30 percent across the board of AIDS programs at a time when San Francisco has the largest number of HIV/AIDS cases in its history--23,000. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to yield my remaining minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m., Wednesday, October 24; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume executive session and consideration of the Southwick nomination, with the time until 11 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and the time from 10:40 a.m. to 11 a.m. divided and controlled between the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes; that the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination at 11 a.m., as provided for under a previous order.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.