Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Oh. Then I will yield. If the mind is open, I am happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon? Whose side did you say?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask how much additional time I have?

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Enzi amendment. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for the work they have done on this bill. But this amendment significantly disadvantages at least nine jurisdictions facing HIV/AIDS crises throughout the country because it essentially would prevent any stop- loss provision enacted by the House from going into effect. Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and the rest of the HELP Committee worked tirelessly for most of last year to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act. I voted for this reauthorization, and I recognized at the time that the method of counting HIV/AIDS victims had to change to more clearly reflect living victims. However, this then mandated huge cuts to vital programs, despite the fact that States and eligible metropolitan areas were assured that no jurisdiction would face destabilizing losses. The HELP Committee staff provided GAO data during the debate projecting that San Francisco would receive approximately $17.1 million in fiscal year 2007. But San Francisco did not receive that amount. Their formula award totaled $14.6 million, which is $2.5 million less than estimated. A compromise was to offset losses by clearly making available supplemental award funding so that the Health Resources and Services Administration could consider the funding losses when awarding this supplemental funding. This amendment seeks to do away with all of this. Despite these estimates and built-in protection, several areas of the country received significant funding cuts when the 2007 awards were announced earlier this year. The San Francisco eligible metropolitan areas, which also include Marin and San Mateo Counties, lost approximately $8.5 million. That is just those three counties--an $8.5 million loss. This accounts for 30 percent of the Ryan White funding--a loss too great for any jurisdiction to absorb in 1 year. It didn't surprise me when San Francisco lost money in 2007. The city knew it would likely face losses. But the protections put in place clearly were not adequate. The loss of one-third of total funding is clearly destabilizing. To be very candid with you, I find it highly objectionable. This isn't only unique for San Francisco. Five other cities also lost 20 percent or more of their funding: Hartford, CT, 32.1 percent; New Haven, CT, 23.7 percent; Nassau-Suffolk County, NY, 21.7 percent; Ponce, Puerto Rico, 28.9 percent; Caguas, Puerto Rico, 34.3 percent. No jurisdiction can absorb cuts of this magnitude in 1 year without significant harm to those they serve. To address this, the House of Representatives included a stop-loss provision to cap the losses faced by these jurisdictions in their version of the fiscal year 2008 Labor- HHS appropriations bill. This provision limits the fiscal year 2007 losses for eligible metropolitan areas, or EMAs, to 8.4 percent--not 30 percent but 8.4 percent--which is a manageable amount. Transitional grant areas will have their losses capped at 13.4 percent. So there is a willingness to respond to the mandate; that is, change your method of counting and, secondly, absorb reasonable cuts. I don't think that is too much to ask. I think this is overkill. I was the mayor who first found AIDS, and I can take you back to 1981 and I can tell you what it was like. You won't like it. What I tried to do in the task force of the Conference of Mayors was to bring mayors into the modern day. San Francisco essentially led the Nation in the fight against AIDS. I think to have to take a 30-percent cut, when we are seeing some regeneration of AIDS, is a terrible mistake. Senator Enzi's amendment could nullify the House's solution. Let me be clear. Under the House language, San Francisco would still lose $2.3 million. All of the cities will still face significant cuts. This provision is designed not to stop all reductions but to limit them to a level that can be absorbed in 1 year. The House provided funding for the stop-loss on top of a $23 million increase for part A of the Ryan White CARE Act. So virtually every area across the country sees an increase in funding. But these areas take a dramatic 30-percent cut in funding. I don't think that is right, and I don't believe we should accept it. The Government Accountability Office examined the impact this stop- loss provision would have on jurisdictions in 2008. In addition to benefiting the 11 jurisdictions whose cuts are reduced, the House bill results in increased funding for 42 of the remaining 45 jurisdictions. The very minor cuts projected in the remaining three jurisdictions are less than one-tenth of 1 percent. A reduction of 30-percent is simply not manageable. The provision makes no changes to the underlying reauthorization. It doesn't prevent it from moving forward at all. It caps the total losses faced by any jurisdiction in fiscal year 2007 with a one-time solution. It doesn't reopen the reauthorization so carefully crafted by Senators Kennedy and Enzi and their committee. The epidemic, as I mentioned, is far from over in San Francisco. AIDS continues to be the second leading cause of premature death in the city and counting. Nearly 23,000 people are currently living with HIV/AIDS in San Francisco, which is more than at any point in the epidemic. Listen to that--nearly 23,000 people in San Francisco are living with HIV now, and that is more than at any point during the epidemic. In addition, the population of San Francisco living with HIV/AIDS is increasingly impoverished, homeless, and struggling. Many have serious medical needs. About 2 weeks ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Francisco doctors diagnosed 15 HIV patients with Kaposi sarcoma. That is a form of cancer commonly found in patients early in the epidemic but had become rare. I will never forget, in a staff meeting I had with department heads back in 1981, when the director of public health said: Madam Mayor, something is happening. We are finding patients with large purple lesions all over their bodies, and we don't know what it is. His name is Merv Silverman. I said: Merv, find out what it is and come back and tell me. Three weeks later, they came back, and it was the discovery for the first time of AIDS in this country. So I feel very sensitive about it. I started the first AIDS program in the Nation. We funded it with property tax dollars. That is how we became a leader in the area. To take a 30-percent cut when we have the largest number of HIV/AIDS victims in our history in the city, to me, is discriminatory, wrongheaded, and it need not happen. So I very much hope this body will respond. I understand Senator Enzi wants to protect the reauthorization and the funding formula he authored, but I think we have to admit that the impact on some areas of the country was not anticipated. Fixing these unintended consequences does not require reopening the legislation. It can be addressed with a one-time solution that will still leave some cities with a decline in funds; that means the House solution of stop- loss. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Enzi amendment, which would strike a dastardly blow to a city that has seen too much suffering, as well as others. I thank the chair and 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. That is fine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I too rise to discuss the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick and to explain why I will vote in favor of cloture and in favor of confirming him to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. There has seldom been an appellate nominee to whom I have given more thought than I have given to Judge Southwick. I am very much aware of the concerns many on my side of the aisle, in the House of Representatives, and in the community feel. I have reviewed Judge Southwick's record and the transcript of his confirmation hearing. I have read the many letters, both pro and con, and I have spent about an hour or more talking with him in person. What emerged for me was an understanding that Judge Southwick is a qualified, sensitive, and circumspect person. I think the personal qualities of an individual often get lost in our debates about judicial nominees. These nominees are not just a collection of prior writings or prior judicial opinions. They are, first and foremost, people; and the kind of person they are is, in fact, important. In my conversations with Judge Southwick, I have gotten a sense of the type of person that I believe him to be. He is not either insensitive or a racist but one who is thoughtful and analytical and a strong believer in the law. As an appellate court judge, he evaluates the specific legal issues of the case before him, not necessarily the veracity of the parties involved as would a trial judge. I know some of my colleagues are opposed to this nomination. Concerns have been raised about his judicial record, particularly with regard to civil rights and the rights of gays and lesbians. I assure my colleagues that I have taken these concerns seriously. I gave them careful consideration and made my best judgment, which is all any of us can do. While I respect the views of my colleagues who oppose this nomination, I also respectfully disagree. I think Judge Southwick made mistakes by concurring in the two opinions in question, but I don't think those rulings define his views. I don't believe they outweigh the other factors that suggest Judge Southwick should be confirmed. As I see it, there are three factors that weigh in favor of confirmation. They are: First, the qualifications and character of the judge himself; Second, the need to fill this long-time vacancy in the Fifth Circuit which the judicial branch has designated as a judicial emergency; And third, my very strong belief that when a future Democratic President sends up a judicial nominee who becomes controversial, the test should be whether the nominee is within the judicial mainstream and is qualified by education, experience, and temperament to be a sound judge or Justice in the Federal court system of our great country. When I weighed those factors against the concerns I have heard, I decided to vote in favor of Judge Southwick in committee. They also will form the basis for my vote on Judge Southwick tomorrow. The first factor I wish to address is his qualifications and character. I don't think anyone disagrees that Judge Southwick is an experienced appellate court judge. He sat on the State court of appeals in Mississippi for 11 years, from January 1995 to December of 2006. He has heard roughly 7,000 appeals. How many judges have we confirmed without nearly that kind of experience? This is a large number of cases. There is no organization better positioned to evaluate the performance of judges in Mississippi than the Mississippi State bar, and they awarded Judge Southwick their Judicial Excellence Award in 2004, after he had been on the State court bench for 10 years. That award describes him as: ``A leader in advancing the quality and integrity of justice,'' and as ``a person of high ideals, character, and integrity.'' Isn't that the kind of judge we want to see on the bench? I think those views from the bar association from his home State are important. I also think it is significant that the American Bar Association, which evaluates every judicial nominee that comes to the Senate for confirmation, unanimously rated Judge Southwick ``well qualified''--their highest rating. In fact, the evaluation by the ABA for him to serve on the Fifth Circuit is stronger than it was when he was nominated to a district court last year. For that nomination, the ABA was not unanimous in finding him ``well qualified.'' But they were for the appellate court. The Judiciary Committee approved that nomination, but the 109th Congress ended without further action on it. Now, Judge Southwick stands before us with a unanimous recommendation for the Fifth Circuit from the ABA. I am also impressed, as Senator Specter spelled out, by his record of military service to our country. I find it singular among the judges in the 15 years I have served on the Judiciary Committee. This judge joined the U.S. Army Reserves in 1992 at the age of 42. To do that, he had to get an age waiver. How many would do that? He had already achieved professional success as a lawyer. At the time, he was serving as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Still, he felt a sense of duty to his country, and he did not let his age or his promising civilian legal career stop him. He volunteered in 2004 for a unit that was going to be deployed to Iraq. That unit, the 155th Brigade Combat Team, was, in fact, deployed, and he was with it. Judge Southwick was 53 years old at the time. He had a wife and family and a prestigious job as a judge on the State court of appeals. Yet, from January to December 2005, he served in Iraq--first as a Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at Forward Operating Base Duke, and then as Staff Judge Advocate for the 155th Brigade at Forward Operating Base Kalsu. How many judges have done that? Shouldn't that count for something? Well, it counts to me, Mr. President. To me, it is a clear indication of the character of the man, and I deeply respect him for this military service. The second factor that is important, in my judgment, is the need to fill this vacancy on the Fifth Circuit. It has been vacant for 7 out of the last 8 years. Judge Southwick is the third nominee for the position--not the first or the second, but the third. The vacancy opened in August 1999--7 years ago--and went unfilled for more than 4 years. Then, in 2004, the President used a recess appointment to place Charles Pickering on the bench. The Senate did not confirm Judge Pickering to the seat, and since the end of 2004, it has been vacant again. Michael Wallace was nominated for it, but that nomination wasn't approved by the Judiciary Committee. So at this time the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has declared this seat to be a ``judicial emergency.'' Now, I am not suggesting that we should confirm whomever the President nominates just because a seat has been vacant for a long time, or because the seat has been designated a judicial emergency. But I hope this urgent need to fill a longtime vacancy will help tip the balance in the nominee's favor. By any measure, 7 years is too long for a vacancy to remain open. The third factor that weighs in favor of confirmation for me is my strong belief that we have seen too much delay and controversy over qualified nominees for too many years. There are plenty of examples of long delays in the confirmation process when President Clinton was in office and the Senate was under the Republican control. For example, when Ronnie White had the support of Senator Bond and was voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee twice, it took more than 2\1/2\ years for the nomination to come to the floor, and then the nomination was rejected. William Fletcher was a well-qualified Ninth Circuit nominee in the 1990s. Unlike Judge White, at least Judge Fletcher was confirmed by the Republican Senate--thanks in large measure to Senator Hatch--but not until he had waited for 3\1/2\ years. During that period of time, I had calls from prospective judges, saying: I don't know what to do. Do I stay the course, or withdraw? What do I do about my family? These are real problems and we ought to respond to them. I also share the views of my colleague, Senator Lott, that we must improve the confirmation process. He recently wrote an op-ed column in which he explained his vote to confirm Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Since the Senator is sitting here, let me quote him: I probably wouldn't agree with Justice Ginsburg on any philosophical issue, but she was qualified to serve by education, experience, and temperament. Elections have consequences, and she had President Clinton's confidence. That is the way it was. I have used the same analysis to arrive at my position on Judge Southwick. I probably would not agree with him on certain philosophical issues, but I think he is qualified to serve by education, by experience, and by temperament. Critics of this nomination have pointed to two opinions: one that reinstated an employee who had been fired for using an egregious racial slur, and another that denied a woman custody of her child for reasons that included--but were not limited to--her involvement in a same-sex relationship. These are 2 opinions out of 7,000 cases that he heard or that he sat on. They are opinions he joined, not ones he wrote. One was a majority opinion joined by four other judges on his court, and one was a concurring opinion in a case where he also joined the majority opinion. Ultimately, the case involving the racial slur was reversed by the State supreme court and remanded for consideration of a different penalty. The ruling of Judge Southwick's court in the child custody case apparently was not appealed to the State's high court. Critics of Judge Southwick have also pointed to certain rulings that, in their view, suggest that Judge Southwick will be hostile to workers, minorities, and those who lack power and privilege in our society. These are serious concerns. But I don't think these cases accurately reflect Judge Southwick's views. This is only my best judgment, based on my own discussions with him. The racial slur case, Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, involved, as has been stated, a State employee who had used a racial slur in reference to an African-American coworker. The State agency fired the employee, and she appealed to an administrative board, which ordered her reinstated. Judge Southwick joined a majority opinion that upheld the board's decision to reinstate the employee. The opinion stated that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision of the board. I believe he should not have joined the court's opinion, but I don't think his decision to concur in that opinion should disqualify him from being a Federal judge. After our meeting in person, I asked the judge to put his thoughts in writing, and he did. I found the letter convincing. Mr. President, I will quote some of this letter: The court said that the use of the word ``cannot be justified'' by any argument. It could have gone far beyond that legalistic statement. Captured in this one terrible word is a long, dark, sad chapter in our history. This racial slur is unique in its impact and painful to hear for many, including myself. I said at my hearing that this is the worst of all racial slurs. Its use is despicable. All people of good will should make their rejection of the word clear. The opinion had an opportunity to express more fully and accurately the complete disgust that should greet the use of this word. Such a statement would certainly be consistent with my own beliefs that this is the worst kind of insult. As I testified, everyone took this issue extraordinarily seriously. I regret that the failure to express in more depth our repugnance of the use of this phrase has now led to an impression that we did not approach this case with sufficient gravity and understanding of the impact of this word. The letter goes on to say: I always tried to treat everyone who came before me as a judge with respect. I gave a memorandum to each of my law clerks that they were to use no disparaging words towards anyone in a draft opinion, no matter what the appeal was about. From the bench and in my opinions, I followed that same rule. I believe that everyone whom I encounter, whether as a judge or in some purely private capacity, is deserving of my respect. I took a broad view in looking for staff. I was one of the original ten judges on the Court of Appeals, taking office in January 1995. In my second year on the court, I became the first white judge to hire an African-American law clerk on that court. I could not have been more pleased with her work, and she went on to be a partner in a major Mississippi law firm. I was equally pleased with the two additional African- American clerks I hired before I left the court. Judge Southwick concludes by saying: Until the last two months, my fairness and temperament had not been subject to criticisms. The recent concern may have arisen from the fact that only one piece of evidence was being used, namely, the racial slur opinion. A much better explanation of my own abhorrence of this slur clearly could have been written. I have tried in this explanation to express my disgust for the use of that word and to present some of the evidence from my own life to prove my commitment to furthering the civil rights of all. In the second case, the child custody case, which is called S.B. v. L.W., Judge Southwick's court affirmed a decision to deny custody of a child to a mother who was in a same-sex relationship. The lower court had based its opinion on several different factors, such as employment, financial stability, and stability of the environment, and not just the sexual orientation of the mother. In fact, a major concern in the case was that the mother was planning to move to a new city, and the mother had admitted that the move was not in the daughter's best interest. She said she did not know where her daughter would attend school, and also that she would be devoting a lot of time to starting a new business after the move. Judge Southwick joined the majority opinion, upholding a lower court's decision that the best interests of the child would be better served by being in the father's custody. He also joined a concurring opinion written by another judge. When asked about the case at his hearing, Judge Southwick said that he had joined the concurring opinion because it followed State law at the time, which was governed by Supreme Court precedent that has since been overruled. Judge Southwick conceded at the hearing that under current law the analysis of the case, and perhaps the result, would be different. Again, the question is whether his decision to join the opinion is grounds for disqualifying him from a Federal judgeship. To me, simply stated, it is not. So I am voting in favor of Judge Southwick because I think, based on the letter he wrote to me, on my discussions with him, and on his record, he is not outside of the judicial mainstream. That is the primary criterion I use when evaluating an appellate nominee, and I expect future nominees of Democratic Presidents to be treated in the same way. I believe the concerns that have been raised about Judge Southwick are outweighed by his record of service to our country, his long experience as an appellate court judge, and the temperament I have come to know in my discussions with him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII with respect to the Southwick nomination be waived.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to do what Senator Boxer did yesterday, which is essentially to update the Senate on the catastrophic fires in California. I offer these words on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself. Today there are 14 fires, big fires, burning in California. The bulk of them are uncontained and out of control. The containment factor is very small. More than half a million people have been told to evacuate their homes. More than 309,000 acres have been destroyed by fire, over 400 miles, from north of Los Angeles to San Diego and now across the Mexican border, and more, we fear, will be destroyed. The deaths, fortunately, today are limited to one, with 34 injured throughout southern California, some of them firefighters. High wind and high temperatures persist. A red flag warning is in effect for the California coast from Monterey to the Mexican border. More than 1,000 homes have been destroyed; 11,500 are now threatened. Today more than 100 commercial buildings have been destroyed, and 2,000 are threatened; 52 outbuildings have been destroyed and 550 are threatened. Health warnings have been issued because of smoke and particulate matter. As you know, these fires are driven by hurricane and gale-force Santa Ana winds, which are hot and contrary to the prevailing westerly flow, east to west. They are fueled by bone-dry brush from years of drought and virtually no humidity. Humidity is below 10 percent. Fires are raging still in Malibu, at Lake Arrowhead in Irvine and Santa Clarita. The Arrowhead area is particularly dangerous because there are half a million acres of pine-beetle infested dead trees waiting to go up. Of course, they are raging in San Diego County, which is bearing the brunt of two major fires which well could join. Already, the 300,000 people in San Diego County alone have been told to evacuate. More than 10,000 of them are now taking refuge in Qualcomm Stadium, home to the San Diego Chargers. These people will be there for 48 to 72 more hours and possibly more. Sanitary supplies are going to become a problem. It is going to be a real effort to get food and water to these evacuees and the hundreds of thousands of people displaced around southern California. Both Senator Boxer and I spoke to the Governor, and he has declared a seven-county disaster area. Yesterday the President declared southern California a disaster area to be able to speed the Federal Emergency Management Agency's relief, which is critical. This is going to be a real test of FEMA. We are going to learn whether FEMA actually learned from the hurricane in New Orleans, a test of whether FEMA has gotten its act together post-Katrina. FEMA must act quickly and urgently to get help to California. The State is going to need cots; it is going to need blankets; it is going to need water, food, and, most importantly, those sanitary facilities that are needed for the people who are camping out today, sleeping in cars, located in schools, or in Qualcomm Stadium. Most importantly, this help has to be spread throughout the 14 different fire areas. It is not going to be enough to simply put it in one place. Last night, the Secretary of the Interior informed me that the fires have crossed the line and are entering into Baja California, Mexico, and urged Mexican authorities to begin to speak out. These fires are fast moving. You see them at a distance on a hill, and you do not believe you will be affected because the winds are contrary to what you expect. Then, suddenly, within a short period of time, 2 hours, the fire is upon you. So people must be alert, and they must evacuate these fire areas. The military is pitching in. Fifteen hundred National Guard personnel are actively engaged or directly supporting firefighting efforts. We have 550 Active-Duty marines, 17,000 California National Guard personnel are available. I believe we have more than 5,300 State of California firefighters on the line, and hundreds more from local jurisdictions. Today, a combination of National Guard, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, are either supporting firefighter efforts or are prepared to pitch in. The problem is, with the wind and dense smoke, it is difficult for a plane or helicopter to know where they are going. Simply put, this is a disaster of huge proportions. It is catastrophic in terms of property loss and environmental damage. Hopefully, it is not going to be a huge catastrophe in terms of loss of life. I do not think there is anything other than a catastrophic health incident that is more serious to a person or family than losing their home by flood or fire. I know Californians will respond in their traditional stalwart and generous manner to help their neighbors. Both Senator Boxer's and my heart go out to all Californians today. I ask unanimous consent that the specific statistical roundup of these larger fires be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask to speak as in morning business.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees played a significant role in keeping our Nation secure during the Cold War era. For example, many of these workers were instrumental in developing our nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, many workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no preventative equipment like respirators, gloves, or body suits was provided to workers. Currently, over 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers. Ninety percent of those have been denied due to a lack of documentation or their inability to prove that they meet exposure thresholds. Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families are faced with the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed nearly 40 years ago, in most cases with no records or documentation. My amendment would cut the redtape by amending section 3621 of the Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program Act of 2000 to treat employees of Santa Susana Field Laboratory as members of the Special Exposure Cohort. Individuals would be eligible for benefits if they worked at Santa Susana Field Lab for a total of 250 days and developed a serious illness that is known to be a result of exposure to radiation or other toxins at the Lab before January 1, 2006. Employees who contracted specified cancers from exposure to radiation would receive at least $150,000, and employees exposed to toxic chemicals would receive $250,000. Additionally, my amendment would allow previously denied Santa Susana Field Lab claimants under the Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program Act of 2000 the opportunity to reapply for compensation and medical benefits. This is a matter that this body needs to address before it is too late. Do the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee agree?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleagues for their support. It is my hope that the Senate will soon address this matter so Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers and their families can finally receive the compensation they deserve.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Senators Harkin and Specter concerning my amendment to the underlying bill, amendment 3403, which would provide compensation to qualifying individuals injured in the course of employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California. This amendment mirrors legislation I introduced in July to correct longstanding injustices to these nuclear workers and their families. Because of the revenue impact of this amendment, I have chosen not to call it up at this time. However, the plight of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees deserves mention as we debate this important bill. In 1999, Congress approved the Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program to provide a $150,000 payment and medical benefits to workers who developed serious illnesses as a result of their work for the Department of Energy. The program has been plagued by slow processing times and roundly criticized by the families struggling to receive compensation for the deaths of loved ones. I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to expand the Special Exposure Cohort to include qualifying Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees. This would allow eligible claims to be compensated without the completion of a radiation dose reconstruction or determination of the probability of causation. I would like to ask Senator Harkin the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, and Senator Specter, the ranking member of this subcommittee, whether they agree with me that Congress should expand the Special Exposure Cohort so that the claims of qualifying individuals can processed more efficiently?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Rosa Parks has been described as the ``Mother of the Modern-Day Civil Rights Movement.'' Her actions on a Montgomery bus in 1955 sparked one of the Nation's largest movements against racial segregation: the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Due to those brave actions, Rosa Parks became an icon of civil disobedience. In 2005, Congress voted to preserve the legacy of Rosa Parks by authorizing a statue of her to be placed in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall. A statue of Rosa Parks would be a fitting tribute to the struggle for equal rights for all Americans. But two years later, the statue has not been obtained. It is time to remove the hurdles, and ensure that Rosa Parks is honored as Congress intended. The law designated Congress's Joint Committee on the Library to obtain the statue. But it was later determined that the Joint Committee does not have the technical ability or resources to enter into contracts or pay for the statue. And now that law is set to expire on December 1, 2007, without ever achieving its intended goal. So, to correct the problems in the original law, I have introduced a stand alone bill that would: designate the Architect of the Capitol as the agent of the Joint Committee; and extend the deadline by 2 more years. This legislation would allow for the Architect of the Capitol to distribute funds on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Library. This legislation has been cosponsored by seven other Senators, including: Senators Bennett, Kerry, Durbin, Levin, Schumer, Dodd, and Stabenow. It is so important that we honor this great American. Mrs. Parks' actions on a single day in December 1955 changed the lives of so many who followed her. Let me tell you a little more about Rosa Parks: Mrs. Parks was born Rosa Louise McCauley, February 4, 1913, in Tuskegee, AL. Her parents were a carpenter and a teacher. Rosa Parks grew up and lived in a segregated South. And when she married, she and her husband became active in the local NAACP chapter. On December 1, 1955, after a day of work at a department store in downtown Montgomery, AL, Rosa Parks boarded a bus to go home. She paid her fare, and took an empty seat in the first row of seats reserved for Blacks. As the bus traveled along its route, all of the White-only seats in the bus filled up. When the bus reached its next stop, several White passengers boarded. As was standard practice at that time, the busdriver told the Black passengers seated in the rows behind the White-only section to move. This included Mrs. Parks and three other passengers. The three other Black passengers moved at the bus driver's insistence. But Mrs. Parks did not. As she recalled in her autobiography, she was simply ``tired of giving in'': People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in. This action of civil disobedience sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which became one of the Nation's largest movements against racial segregation. Rosa Parks was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996. She received a Congressional Gold Medal in 1999. And in 2005, Congress voted to honor her with a statue in the U.S. Capitol. The Architect of the Capitol is prepared to work with the National Endowment for the Arts to find suitable artists and statues to be considered for this honor. But until the funds for this project can be allocated, the search for a statue will not move forward. The legislation introduced today would fix this problem and allow the funds to be released. But more importantly, this legislation would ensure that Rosa Parks an American hero is honored as she so deserves.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me quickly give the background on this. In May of 2007, Senator Kyl, Senator Dole, Senator Boxer, Senator Lott, and myself sent a letter to Michael Leavitt, the Secretary of HHS. We pointed out that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was passed in July of 2006. Pursuant to that act, there were to be two registries set up. The first registry was to be located at the Department of Justice and it would require the establishment of a national sex offender registry which would track details of convicted sex offenders and make the information electronically available to authorities in all jurisdictions, and even the public at large. This registry is up and functioning. The second registry authorized by the new law was a national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. That was directed to be located at the Department of Health and Human Services. This registry is a different but equally vital resource intended for child protection authorities only. Believe it or not, each State already collects information on substantiated cases of abuse and neglect, but once an investigation is under way, adult perpetrators of violence or neglect on children need only to move to another State to escape, and this is the difficult part, because there may be no trace, no record kept that the new State can easily access. In this way, some children may never escape abuse in their own home, because the offender can simply move. Essentially what we have in this amendment is a request for funding of $500,000 to complete the necessary feasibility study which is the first step to the establishment of a national child abuse registry. I have spoken to the chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin. I submit this on behalf of Senator Kyl and myself. I haven't had a chance to talk to the others--Senators Boxer, Lott, and Dole--but I am sure they would be associated with this as well. It is $500,000 for the feasibility study, and my hope is it can be accepted. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member. It is my understanding that--we were told, at least--HHS couldn't do this because they didn't have the money, so this would make that money available and hopefully we will get it. So I thank the Senator very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, at 10 a.m., 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 today in support of this resolution that would designate the month of September as ``National Passport Month.'' Travel book publishers, along with travel editors from some of the most prestigious media outlets in the United States and many student travel organizations, have designated September as ``National Passport Month'' as part of a campaign to educate the public about the importance of having a passport. This resolution supports the goals and ideals of ``National Passport Month'' and calls on the Federal Government, States, schools, businesses and the people of the United States to observe the month of September with programs and activities that will encourage Americans to get their passports and see the world. Since 2000, the number of passport applications received by the U.S. State Department has increased by 66 percent. This year, the State Department is expected to issue a record 17 million passports, up from last year's record of 12 million. This surge in passport applications has led to longer processing times, averaging 6 to 8 weeks. As a result, there have been significant increases in public requests for expedited processing. The designation of September as ``National Passport Month'' will serve as an important reminder for the American people to plan ahead and begin their passport application process early. Despite the significant increase in the number of passport applications being processed, fewer than 23 percent of Americans have passports. This number is far too low. International travel provides a unique perspective of the world and is an invaluable opportunity to interact with the global community and experience world cultures first hand. I want to encourage the American people to get their passports and see the world. The designation of September as ``National Passport Month'' will not only encourage the American people to avoid delays and get their passports early, but it will also acknowledge the positive impact of international travel in promoting understanding, tolerance, acceptance, and goodwill throughout the world. On September 5, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously agreed to an identical resolution introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee. It is my hope that this body will do the same. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation honoring a fallen hero, Army Staff Sergeant Larry S. Pierce. This bill would rename a post office in Taft, California after Staff Sergeant Pierce. Staff Sergeant Pierce moved to Taft, California as a young child and attended Taft city schools and Taft Union High School, which my own father graduated from in 1922. Staff Sergeant Pierce would have graduated with the Taft Union High School class of 1959, but he chose to join the U.S. Army in 1958. On September 20, 1965, Staff Sergeant Pierce was killed near Ben Cat in the Republic of Vietnam. He made the ultimate sacrifice to protect his comrades, smothering the blast of an anti-personnel mine with his body. He was only 24 years old. He left behind his wife, Verlin, and three children: Teresa, Kelley, and Gregory. President Lyndon B. Johnson posthumously awarded Staff Sergeant Pierce the Medal of Honor on February 24, 1966. The citation on his Medal of Honor reads as follows: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Pierce was serving as squad leader in a reconnaissance platoon when his patrol was ambushed by hostile forces. Through his inspiring leadership and personal courage, the squad succeeded in eliminating an enemy machinegun and routing the opposing force. While pursuing the fleeing enemy, the squad came upon a dirt road and, as the main body of his men entered the road, Sgt. Pierce discovered an antipersonnel mine emplaced in the road bed. Realizing that the mine could destroy the majority of his squad, Sgt. Pierce saved the lives of his men at the sacrifice of his life by throwing himself directly onto the mine as it exploded. Through his indomitable courage, complete disregard for his safety, and profound concern for his fellow soldiers, he averted loss of life and injury to the members of his squad. Sgt. Pierce's extraordinary heroism, at the cost of his life, are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country. Naming the Taft Post Office in Staff Sergeant Pierce's honor is a fitting commemoration and meaningful way for the community to remember the dedication and sacrifices of the members of our Armed Forces. I would like to thank the members of the Taft City Council, who passed a resolution on September 4, 2007 to request that Congress rename the Taft Post Office the Larry S. Pierce Post Office. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this resolution to honor the service and sacrifice of Staff Sergeant Pierce. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation honoring a fallen hero, Army Staff Sergeant Larry S. Pierce. This bill would rename a post office in Taft, California after Staff Sergeant Pierce. Staff Sergeant Pierce moved to Taft, California as a young child and attended Taft city schools and Taft Union High School, which my own father graduated from in 1922. Staff Sergeant Pierce would have graduated with the Taft Union High School class of 1959, but he chose to join the U.S. Army in 1958. On September 20, 1965, Staff Sergeant Pierce was killed near Ben Cat in the Republic of Vietnam. He made the ultimate sacrifice to protect his comrades, smothering the blast of an anti-personnel mine with his body. He was only 24 years old. He left behind his wife, Verlin, and three children: Teresa, Kelley, and Gregory. President Lyndon B. Johnson posthumously awarded Staff Sergeant Pierce the Medal of Honor on February 24, 1966. The citation on his Medal of Honor reads as follows: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Pierce was serving as squad leader in a reconnaissance platoon when his patrol was ambushed by hostile forces. Through his inspiring leadership and personal courage, the squad succeeded in eliminating an enemy machinegun and routing the opposing force. While pursuing the fleeing enemy, the squad came upon a dirt road and, as the main body of his men entered the road, Sgt. Pierce discovered an antipersonnel mine emplaced in the road bed. Realizing that the mine could destroy the majority of his squad, Sgt. Pierce saved the lives of his men at the sacrifice of his life by throwing himself directly onto the mine as it exploded. Through his indomitable courage, complete disregard for his safety, and profound concern for his fellow soldiers, he averted loss of life and injury to the members of his squad. Sgt. Pierce's extraordinary heroism, at the cost of his life, are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country. Naming the Taft Post Office in Staff Sergeant Pierce's honor is a fitting commemoration and meaningful way for the community to remember the dedication and sacrifices of the members of our Armed Forces. I would like to thank the members of the Taft City Council, who passed a resolution on September 4, 2007 to request that Congress rename the Taft Post Office the Larry S. Pierce Post Office. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this resolution to honor the service and sacrifice of Staff Sergeant Pierce. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. I rise today in support of the Kennedy-Smith amendment No. 3035, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. This legislation is a crucial step toward prosecuting crimes directed at thousands of individuals who are the targets of brutal and senseless violence. The current Federal hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. This amendment improves the current Federal hate crime law by including crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. Congress must expand the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate. In those States with State hate crimes laws, the Federal Government must provide the resources to ensure that those crimes do not go unpunished. We can and must do more. In my own State of California, horrific instances of violence signify the critical need for legislation today. I would like to share just a few examples: In Santa Ana, retired Federal agent Narciso Leggs, Jr., was found strangled and tortured on June 29 in his southern California apartment. The killer placed a smiling ceramic angel on the victim's shoulder blade and wrote antigay slurs on his flesh with a black marker. Another instance, in Los Angeles, CA, this past Spring: James McKinney, a mentally disabled man, was beaten to death by an unidentified man wielding an aluminum baseball bat as he was walking to the store from his home, a mental health care facility. The attack was caught on surveillance camera on Tuesday May 29, but his attacker remains at large. In San Diego, attackers wielding baseball bats and shouting antigay slurs beat two men and stabbed a third in the back. The attack was the first in more than a decade at San Diego's annual gay pride festival. Lastly, one of the most well-known cases in California happened in West Hollywood to actor Trev Broudy in 2002. The night of his attack, Trev Broudy was hugging a man on a street. Three men with a baseball bat savagely attacked the actor, leaving him in a coma for approximately 10 weeks. As a result of the attack, Trev suffered brain damage, lost half of his vision, and has experienced trouble hearing. The crimes are brutal. The attackers targeted their victims because of who they are. Yet none of these crimes can be prosecuted as a Federal hate crime. These are not isolated instances. These crimes occur all over the country. According to FBI statistics, 27,432 people were victims of hate-motivated violence over the last 3 years. That is an average of over 9,100 people per year, with nearly 25 people being victimized every day of the year, based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability. Even more disturbing is the fact that these FBI statistics show only a fraction of the problem because so many hate crimes are unreported. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000, and survey data from the biannual National Crime Victimization Survey suggests that an average of 191,000 hate crime victimizations take place per year. Race-related hate crimes are the most common, but crimes based on religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation are also significant. In fact, a close analysis of hate crimes rates demonstrates that groups that are now covered by current laws--such as African Americans, Muslims, and Jews--report similar rates of hate crimes victimizations as gays and lesbians--who are not currently protected. On average, 8 in 100,000 African Americans report being the victim of hate crime; 12 in 100,000 Muslims report being the victim of hate crime; 15 in 100,000 Jews report being the victim of hate crime; and 13 in 100,000 gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals report being the victim of hate crime. Every individual's life is valuable. Congress must act to protect every person who is targeted simply because of who they are. Specifically, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 expands on the 1968 definition of a hate crime. Under current Federal law, hate crimes only cover attacks based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Under this amendment, hate crimes will include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. The bill enables States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to apply for Federal grants in order to solve hate crimes and provides Federal agents with broader authority to aid State and local police. Additionally, the bill amends the Hate Crime Statistics Act by inserting ``gender'' and ``gender identity,'' allowing law enforcement agencies to gather data on the newly protected groups. This is not a new bill. It was first introduced in 1998. It has passed the Senate three times: in 2000, and in 2002 and 2004 as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. It passed the House this year as a stand-alone bill and last year as an amendment to the Adam Walsh Act. It is bipartisan. It has 44 cosponsors in the Senate and 171 cosponsors in the House. It is endorsed by over 210 law enforcement, civic, and religious organizations and has the support of 73 percent of the American population. There is no excuse for not passing this bill out of the Senate today. This bill is not about free speech. It is about crimes of violence-- often brutal, savage acts of violence. These crimes target a person solely because of that person's race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, national origin, or disability. By terrorizing one member of a group, they terrorize entire communities of people. These crimes damage our social fabric. We must be clear that we cannot tolerate this kind of intimidation. Today, I ask all of my colleagues to rally against hate by working to ensure that this legislation is not simply supported but actually passed and signed into law. Until it is enacted, many hate crime victims and their families will not receive the justice they deserve. Let us send a message to all Americans that we will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country.