Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment for having to vote yet again to increase the national debt limit. The Senate has been forced to take this vote on five occasions under this administration. In the intervening 6 years, the national debt has exploded by almost $3.4 trillion, or 61 percent. The national debt now stands at $9 trillion. To put this in terms that most of us can understand, this amounts to roughly $30,000 owed by every American. Unfortunately, the debt forecast shows no signs of improving. Over the next 5 years, the debt is projected to reach $11.3 trillion. By 2017, the Congressional Budget Office projects this figure will hover around $13 trillion. In this year alone, our national debt is slated to increase by almost $600 billion. Maintaining this debt is not free. The interest charged on the amount we have borrowed grows each and every day. And, the more we borrow, the more we pay in interest. Over the next 10 years, the interest payments on the national debt are projected to total $2.8 trillion. This year, interest payments on the debt will reach $235 billion. This means less money for the programs that matter most for working Americans. Congressional Democrats have demonstrated a commitment to fiscal responsibility by passing pay-as-you-go budget rules that require Congress to offset new spending. This Congress has worked to find ways to pay for major priorities-- such as the extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which I hope will pass today in the Senate with a bipartisan, veto-proof majority. The fact that the Senate must vote, yet again, to increase the national borrowing limit begs the question: Why are we here? Misguided tax policies are one of the reasons we are considering this measure today. The President has presided over the greatest fiscal reversal in our Nation's history. He inherited a budget surplus of $236 billion from President Clinton, the largest surplus in American history. He took that surplus and sunk it into expensive tax cuts at a cost of more than $1.3 trillion to date and $3 trillion over the next decade. But what I find most frustrating, is that these tax cuts have come in the midst of significant military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never in the history of this Nation have we enacted significant tax cuts during a time of war. We have dipped into the pockets of our children and grandchildren and ``charged'' the costs of these wars to a National credit card. When you combine the cost of the debt-financed tax cuts with spending for the military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terror--currently approaching $610 billion--the inevitable result is that our Federal budget is squeezed, while our crushing debt continues to grow. The reality is, even under a best-case scenario, we are years and hundreds of billions of dollars away from a full redeployment of American troops from Iraq. The President will soon request another $190 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is no longer unrealistic to suggest that operations there might cost upwards of $1 trillion before all is said and done. Year after year, supplemental after supplemental, we continue borrowing to pay for these wars. In real terms, the cost is over $350 million per day. Almost $15 million per hour; $250,000 per minute; or $4,000 every second. We must recognize the mistakes of the past few years and understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. As we approach a $10 trillion debt limit, it is essential to look forward for solutions. Where do we go from here? We start with responsible spending. While I support targeted tax cuts to help working families, it is time to allow the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. It would be unfair and irresponsible to not do so. We need solutions to shore up our strained entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, as the retirement of baby boomers looms. We need to adequately fund children's health and education programs and invest in the future of our young people. We need to focus on foreign diplomacy to repair our reputation as a global leader. We need to invest in homeland security and other domestic programs that will keep America safe and increase productivity. Most importantly, we need to start planning for the future today. Every day that we wait, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, the debt increases, vital programs are under funded, and the cycle continues. We must do better. I understand the political realities of this vote. However, it is important to recognize the consequences of this measure failing. Not increasing the debt limit could result in the government defaulting on its obligations, exacerbating already shaky credit markets across the globe. So while I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the measure to once again raise the debt limit, it is also my hope that my colleagues will join me in seeking real and permanent solutions to our Nation's fiscal problems. Tax cuts, ``staying the course,'' and not addressing the future of our most critical entitlement programs are sometimes politically appealing policies, but they are also not responsible. Responsible policies come from making the difficult choices that put America's future first. This Congress must exhibit leadership in breaking with the traditions of the last few years to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak with Senator Feingold in morning business for 15 minutes. I understand the other side is going to object to a unanimous consent request. I am going to ask if you would like me to do it upfront. Is that correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will do them both first and then both Senators can object, and then Senator Feingold and I will have some time to speak, if that is agreeable.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to do that also.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may finish. It is my understanding that the Senator has another commitment, and therefore I am happy to accommodate him in that regard.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I always oblige the Senator from Nevada. So if I have unanimous consent, that will be the order.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 96, S. 223, a bill to require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports in electronic forms; that the committee- reported amendment be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, on the original bill, which has just been objected to, twice in April, first on April 17 and then on April 26, I rose to ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass S. 223. It was reported out by the Committee on Rules on March 28. In the first case Senator Alexander objected on behalf of a Republican Senator. In the second, Senator Bunning rose to object on behalf of the Republican side. But to this date, no Republican Senator has come forward to acknowledge placing a hold on this bill and say why the bill should not become law. I wrote the minority leader on May 27 asking for his help in learning who was opposed to the bill and why. But no Members have yet come forward to identify themselves. This is a simple, direct bill with respect to transparency. It is an idea whose time has long come. Everybody else does it, and so it is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be. At our hearing on March 14 and at our markup on March 28, it was clear there was no public opposition to this proposal. I believe it is time for the Senate to act. The bill is entitled Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. It is sponsored by Senator Feingold, who sits behind me in the Chamber, Senator Cochran, and 30 other Senators. It would require that Senate campaign finance reports be filed electronically rather than in paper format. Currently House candidates, Presidential candidates, political action committees, and party committees are all required to file electronically. But Senators, Senate candidates, authorized campaign committees of Senators, and the Democratic and Republican Senate campaign committees are exempted. So we operate the Senate separately from everybody else. Is this practical? The answer is no. It is cumbersome. Paper copies of disclosure reports are filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. They scan them. They make an electronic copy, and they send the copy to the FEC on a dedicated communications line. The FEC then prints the report, sends it to a vendor in Fredericksburg, VA, where the information is keyed in by hand and then transferred back to the FEC database at a cost of approximately $250,000 to the taxpayers. Of course, during this convoluted period, there is no transparency. Therefore, the reports are not available for public scrutiny. It is long past time to bring the Senate into the modern era and to recognize that transparency is a part of a political process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in ensuring timely access and disclosure of campaign finance activities to the public. The sponsor of this bill, Senator Feingold, has joined me today to urge passage of this bill. Thanks to the enactment of S. 1, there is a new reason why we are doing this today. Section 512 of S. 1 now requires Members placing a hold on a bill to come forward and identify themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no Member has yet used this section to break through the anonymity of a Senate hold. I believe it is appropriate that this provision be asserted now for the first time in connection with a bill that is all about transparency. I think it might be useful for me to read it, since it is now the law: Section 512 (a) In General.--the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate or their designees shall recognize a notice of intent of a Senator who is a member of their caucus to object proceeding to a measure or matter only if the Senator (1) following the objection to a unanimous consent to proceeding to, and, or passage of, a measure or matter on their behalf, submits a notice of intent in writing to the appropriate leader or their designee; and (2) not later than 6 session days after submission under paragraph (1), submits for inclusion in the Congressional Record and in the applicable calendar section described in subsection (b) the following notice: ``I, Senator [whoever it is] intend to object to proceeding to [name the bill], dated, for the following reasons.'' So if 6 Senate days from now the hold on this bill will become evident, it has been a rolling hold up until now, but now, after 6 days, we must know who it is. I would believe if there are efforts to obfuscate this section of the law candidly, we should amend the law to prevent that from happening. This is a simple bill. Everybody is for it. Nobody wants to say who is against it. I think that should become apparent. I believe Senator Feingold and I hope Senator Cochran, the cosponsor of the bill--and they have dozens of cosponsors--would agree. I wish to acknowledge Senator Feingold, if I may, and I yield the remainder of my time to him and also thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, reserving the right to object, I wish to make a comment or two, if I might. This proposal would require all organizations that filed ethics complaints to publicly disclose any individual or entity that has donated $5,000 or more to that organization. If the good Senator from Nevada would be willing, I would be very willing to have this proposal considered in the Rules Committee in a prompt way. I would not like to hold up passing this commonsense simple filing bill, and I don't want to debate the merits at this time. This bill Senator Ensign is proposing is not germane to the basic bill before us. It would quite likely be a poison pill that would kill any chance of us getting the electronically filed bill enacted into law at this time. I reiterate the offer to hear it in a prompt manner in the Rules Committee, but I must object to it at this time. I do so object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 213, H.R. 1255, Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007; that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record as if read, without intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, expectations were high on Capitol Hill and the rest of the Nation this month. We were all hoping to hear a major new strategy on how to forge political accommodation in Iraq from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and most importantly from President Bush. We did hear of some limited, tactical success in improving security, but we learned nothing new on how the Bush administration would bridge the yawning political gap between Shia and Sunni. In fact, the President in his speech last week to the Nation offered no change in policy and no strategy for reaching the political accommodation that is necessary in Iraq. In his eighth prime-time address on Iraq, the President again made the case that his policy will bring success in Iraq. We have heard ``mission accomplished,'' we have heard calls for patience, and innumerable claims that we are winning. We have heard that more troops will lead to political progress. We have heard that ``when they stand up, we stand down,'' but there is no clear plan to get them to stand on their own. And, this time we received yet another slogan--``Return on Success'' a new name for staying the course, keeping the status quo. So, even though for months we have been told by the White House and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to wait until September for a new strategy, we are still told to wait--again--but for what? Neither General Petraeus nor Ambassador Crocker could provide answers to how long a U.S. troop presence will be in Iraq. As Ambassador Crocker said, ``No timelines, dates, or guarantees.'' Yet we are told to embrace their recommendations and continue more of the same. This will do nothing to force Prime Minister Maliki to take the necessary actions to bring political stability to that nation. Sadly, we are left with no conclusion but this--the upcoming year will result in little change in the political stalemate that marks Iraq's Government today. This, I believe, is a missed opportunity for telling the American people how political progress would be made in Iraq, for describing how and when the vast majority of our troops would come home, and for charting a new strategy and finding a way out of Iraq. No, this President and his military and political advisors seemed determined to keep a high level of U.S. forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future. It was clear from the President's speech that he fully intends to maintain his failed Iraq policy through the end of his administration and then lay the problem at the feet of his successor. The President would also like to take credit for drawing down our troops when the reality is that he is willing to go no further than presurge levels through next July. The same troop levels in Iraq 10 months from now as we had 10 months ago. This is not change; this is not a plan. In fact, this was always the expectation, because simply put, the Army is on the verge of breaking. Troop rotation limitations make it imperative that we draw down troop levels by this April to avoid extending our soldiers' 15-month tours further. Only a token contingent--about 5,000--will come home by the end of this year. Clearly, a choice has been made by this White House to leave the difficult decisions to the next administration; that is, unless Congress acts. So Congress, once again, has an opportunity, an opportunity to do what this administration will not--to bring about major reductions in troops, and to begin the process of bringing our troops home. I hope Democrats and Republicans can find common ground in the coming weeks to transition the mission and remove our troops from the midst of a civil war that only the Iraqis can solve. We must forge a bipartisan plan to move our troops out of Iraq. That is what the American people want. Improvements in security are welcome, but by themselves, they do nothing to answer the difficult questions facing the nation. I do not doubt that the surge has had a positive effect on security. When you add 30,000 U.S. forces into a region, you are going to have an impact on the area. I would be surprised if it were otherwise. And it is clear that there have been improvements in security in Al Anbar province. Sunni sheiks are working with U.S. forces against brutal foreign fighters. But we must also acknowledge that many of these improvements started to take place before the surge even began. And levels of violence in other areas of Iraq have receded from the December 2006 peak. Yet, these levels of violence, it should be noted, still remain high compared with 2004 and 2005 levels. Every recent report admits that the security progress has been uneven. In fact, the latest Pentagon Quarterly assessment released just this week points out that even as Iraqi civilian deaths fell to their lowest level in 5 months in June, attacks against coalition forces reached record levels that same month. Civilian casualties, in fact, rose again in July, and a telling chart in that Pentagon report shows the average daily casualties in Iraq-- including coalition forces, civilians, and Iraqi security forces-- increasing to about 150 per day in July and August. Moreover, we face a growing humanitarian crisis in Iraq as the number of displaced Iraqis is increasing by 80,000 to 100,000 a month. To date, at least 2.2 million Iraqis have fled their country, and another 2 million have been forced to leave their homes to escape the sectarian violence. There continue to be IED explosions, suicide bombings, sectarian killings on a daily basis. So violence continues, even if by some measures there have been indications of a decline in the last several weeks. But the point is this--the surge is not an end in itself. It is not a strategy. It is a tactic to achieve a purpose. The purpose of the surge was meant to give politicians the breathing space needed to make the tough choices necessary to forge a stable government. Yet, according to independent analysis, there has been little progress in meeting the key benchmarks. The Iraqi Government has met only 3 of 18 benchmarks--not including major political action on an oil law, constitutional reform, and debaathification. These benchmarks, by the way, were commitments made by the Iraqi Government itself, not the U.S. Congress. They were put forward to the Nation by President Bush in January as critical indicators of political progress in Iraq that would come about as part of the surge. Yet, this did not happen. And recent reports all raise stark doubts about the likelihood that we will see any significant political progress on the part of the Iraqi government in the coming months. Even Ambassador Crocker showed deep pessimism that meeting these benchmarks and achieving major political progress would be possible in the next month or year. He said, ``I frankly do not expect us to see rapid progress through these benchmarks'' and suggested that progress would take months if not years to achieve. So the American people are being asked for more patience at a time when it is clear that we do not have a strategy in place to remedy the situation in the immediate future. While this administration continues to endorse an open-ended commitment of our presence in Iraq, our brave service men and women are caught in the middle of a situation that everyone agrees can only be resolved with a political solution. This is deeply troubling to me. Our nation has been in Iraq for 4\1/2\ years. We have spent $450 billion and the President will soon ask us for $200 billion more. We have lost nearly 3,800 American troops, over 400 from my home State of California. Almost 28,000 have been injured in Iraq. We entered the country thinking that we would be met as liberators, and had no contingency plans in place if we were not. The borders weren't secured, leading to an inflow of foreign fighters. Debaathification was put in place on all levels of civil society, leading to resentment and widespread unemployment. The army was disbanded, creating a disaffected, trained insurgency. The munitions dumps weren't secured, essentially arming the insurgency. There has never been a clear-eyed strategy to resolve the major difference between Shia and Sunni. In a case of truly open candor, General Petraeus even admitted that he did not know if the U.S. presence in Iraq had made America ``safer.'' And now the American people are being asked for more of the same. More time, more patience, more of our blood and treasure--all without a strategy. I cannot support this view. I have said for a long time now that I believe that we should transition the mission in Iraq and begin to move our troops home. I am more convinced of that today. Our forces only buttress the Maliki government and shield them from making the tough decisions. If our President will not hold the Iraqis accountable, then Congress must. Bush's plan means a large number of American troops in Iraq for years to come--an undefined commitment to Iraq. Is it right to ask for a commitment from our troops when the Iraqis won't commit themselves? Clearly no. So I believe that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle should come together in support of a plan to start bringing our troops home. They should not be in the middle of an ethno-sectarian civil war. We need an answer to the one question which General Petraeus famously asked as commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq in 2003, ``Tell me how this ends.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, September 26, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting to consider on the Nomination of Robert C. Tapella of Virginia, to be Public Printer, Government Printing Office; and the nominations of Steven T. Walther of Nevada, David M. Mason of Virginia, Robert D. Lenhard of Maryland, and Hans von Spakovsky of Georgia to be members of the Federal Election Commission. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Baucus, Boxer, Obama, Clinton, and Ben Nelson, the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act. This act is designed to address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. I was pleased to join former Senator Talent in drafting, introducing and securing the passage of the original bill. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today to ensure that it operates as Congress intended. The bill that I introduce today would: clarify that all retailers, including mail order retailers, who sell products that contain chemicals often used to make methamphetamine--like ephedrine, pseudoepedrine and phenylpropanolamine--must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and will comply with the Combat Meth Act's requirements; require distributors to sell these products only to retailers who have certified that they will comply with the law; require the DEA to publish the list of all retailers who have filed self-certifications, on the DEA's website; and clarify that any retailer who negligently fails to file self-certification as required, may be subject to civil fines and penalties. The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that we passed last year has been a resounding success. The number of methamphetamine labs in the United States has declined dramatically now that the ingredients used to make methamphetamine are harder to get. The Combat Meth Act that became effective in September 2006 included important new provisions for retailer self-certification, employee training, requiring products to be placed behind counters, packaging requirements, required sales logbooks, and limits on the amounts that a person can purchase in a given day and over a 30-day period. Now, because of that law's implementation, the number of methamphetamine labs decreased from about 12,000 labs to about 7,300 labs--a 41 percent decrease in just one year. Once the bill was enacted into law, the number of meth ``super labs'' in my home State of California declined from 30 in 2005 to only 17 in 2006. Fewer meth labs means more than just less illegal drug production. As the Fresno Bee reported today, the DEA has noted that in 2003, 3663 children were reported exposed to toxic meth labs nationwide--but so far this year, the number of exposed children is only 319. So things are moving in the right direction, and that is good news. But with more than 7,000 methamphetamine labs in the U.S., and children still being exposed to their toxins, it is also clear that there is still work to be done. After the Combat Meth Act became law, DEA examined how the retailer self-certification process was working. On May 16, 2007, DEA sent letters to the 1600 distributors who they believed were selling products that contained ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, asking them to turn over lists of the retail stores that they sell to, so that DEA could check to see how many of those retailers had self-certified as that law requires. Rather than actively assisting the DEA in its efforts, about \3/4\ of the distributors failed or declined to provide any information about the retail stores. The distributors who did cooperate provided DEA with the names of 12,375 retail customers. When DEA checked those out, it found that about 8,300 of those retail stores had never self-certified as the law requires. Based on these findings, the DEA estimates that nationwide, as many as 30,000 additional retail sellers of products are not complying with the law. In short, retailers' noncompliance with the self-certification requirement appears to be widespread, and undercuts the effectiveness of the Combat Meth Act. Unfortunately, there is no effective way for law enforcement to determine the universe of who is, and who is not, obeying the law. Currently, there is no requirement that retailers notify the DEA before they start selling products with these listed chemicals. Retailers can likely avoid negative consequences if they are ever confronted with their failure to self-certify. Currently, the law imposes sanctions only for willful and reckless refusals to self- certify. There is no punishment available if a retailer negligently fails to self-certify as required. Not even civil sanctions are available. In short, without distributors restricting the supply of these products to retailers who have self-certified, retailers may simply take their chances, rather than self-certifying as the law intended, figuring that they will never get caught, or if they do get caught, that they will never be punished. It is unacceptable that, a year after the Combat Meth Act imposed this requirement and became fully effective, tens of thousands of retailers still are not following the law. It is unacceptable that distributors of these products can continue to profit off of their sales to retailers who are not complying, or are even refusing to comply with the law. So this bill is designed to make the Combat Meth Act more effective, by putting in place a process that will ensure that every retailer who orders these products that can be used to make methamphetamine must comply with the law before they can get and resell the products. First, it will require that all retail sellers of products with these listed chemicals must file self-certifications, closing a loophole that now exists for mail-order retailers. Second, the DEA will be required to post all self-certified retailers on its website, so that advocacy groups and others who are concerned about methamphetamine in their communities can identify retailers who are selling these products without complying with the law, and can notify the authorities. Third, distributors of these products will only be allowed to sell to retailers who have self-certified which they will be able to verify by checking the DEA's public website. Once recalcitrant retailers are faced with the real and immediate economic consequence of a possible cut-off of their desire to purchase these products, I am confident that most will file self-certifications as the law requires. Finally, the bill clarifies that even a negligent failure to self- certify, if proven, can give rise to civil sanctions. This is a common-sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the self-certification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Baucus, Boxer, Obama, Clinton, and Ben Nelson, the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act. This act is designed to address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. I was pleased to join former Senator Talent in drafting, introducing and securing the passage of the original bill. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today to ensure that it operates as Congress intended. The bill that I introduce today would: clarify that all retailers, including mail order retailers, who sell products that contain chemicals often used to make methamphetamine--like ephedrine, pseudoepedrine and phenylpropanolamine--must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and will comply with the Combat Meth Act's requirements; require distributors to sell these products only to retailers who have certified that they will comply with the law; require the DEA to publish the list of all retailers who have filed self-certifications, on the DEA's website; and clarify that any retailer who negligently fails to file self-certification as required, may be subject to civil fines and penalties. The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that we passed last year has been a resounding success. The number of methamphetamine labs in the United States has declined dramatically now that the ingredients used to make methamphetamine are harder to get. The Combat Meth Act that became effective in September 2006 included important new provisions for retailer self-certification, employee training, requiring products to be placed behind counters, packaging requirements, required sales logbooks, and limits on the amounts that a person can purchase in a given day and over a 30-day period. Now, because of that law's implementation, the number of methamphetamine labs decreased from about 12,000 labs to about 7,300 labs--a 41 percent decrease in just one year. Once the bill was enacted into law, the number of meth ``super labs'' in my home State of California declined from 30 in 2005 to only 17 in 2006. Fewer meth labs means more than just less illegal drug production. As the Fresno Bee reported today, the DEA has noted that in 2003, 3663 children were reported exposed to toxic meth labs nationwide--but so far this year, the number of exposed children is only 319. So things are moving in the right direction, and that is good news. But with more than 7,000 methamphetamine labs in the U.S., and children still being exposed to their toxins, it is also clear that there is still work to be done. After the Combat Meth Act became law, DEA examined how the retailer self-certification process was working. On May 16, 2007, DEA sent letters to the 1600 distributors who they believed were selling products that contained ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, asking them to turn over lists of the retail stores that they sell to, so that DEA could check to see how many of those retailers had self-certified as that law requires. Rather than actively assisting the DEA in its efforts, about \3/4\ of the distributors failed or declined to provide any information about the retail stores. The distributors who did cooperate provided DEA with the names of 12,375 retail customers. When DEA checked those out, it found that about 8,300 of those retail stores had never self-certified as the law requires. Based on these findings, the DEA estimates that nationwide, as many as 30,000 additional retail sellers of products are not complying with the law. In short, retailers' noncompliance with the self-certification requirement appears to be widespread, and undercuts the effectiveness of the Combat Meth Act. Unfortunately, there is no effective way for law enforcement to determine the universe of who is, and who is not, obeying the law. Currently, there is no requirement that retailers notify the DEA before they start selling products with these listed chemicals. Retailers can likely avoid negative consequences if they are ever confronted with their failure to self-certify. Currently, the law imposes sanctions only for willful and reckless refusals to self- certify. There is no punishment available if a retailer negligently fails to self-certify as required. Not even civil sanctions are available. In short, without distributors restricting the supply of these products to retailers who have self-certified, retailers may simply take their chances, rather than self-certifying as the law intended, figuring that they will never get caught, or if they do get caught, that they will never be punished. It is unacceptable that, a year after the Combat Meth Act imposed this requirement and became fully effective, tens of thousands of retailers still are not following the law. It is unacceptable that distributors of these products can continue to profit off of their sales to retailers who are not complying, or are even refusing to comply with the law. So this bill is designed to make the Combat Meth Act more effective, by putting in place a process that will ensure that every retailer who orders these products that can be used to make methamphetamine must comply with the law before they can get and resell the products. First, it will require that all retail sellers of products with these listed chemicals must file self-certifications, closing a loophole that now exists for mail-order retailers. Second, the DEA will be required to post all self-certified retailers on its website, so that advocacy groups and others who are concerned about methamphetamine in their communities can identify retailers who are selling these products without complying with the law, and can notify the authorities. Third, distributors of these products will only be allowed to sell to retailers who have self-certified which they will be able to verify by checking the DEA's public website. Once recalcitrant retailers are faced with the real and immediate economic consequence of a possible cut-off of their desire to purchase these products, I am confident that most will file self-certifications as the law requires. Finally, the bill clarifies that even a negligent failure to self- certify, if proven, can give rise to civil sanctions. This is a common-sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the self-certification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Leahy-Specter amendment to restore habeas corpus, as part of the Defense authorization bill. This amendment is identical to S. 185, the Habeas Restoration Act, which was introduced earlier in this Congress and enjoys bipartisan support. I was pleased to sign onto that bill as one of its earliest cosponsors, and I am pleased to speak in favor of this amendment today. I strongly disagree with the provisions in the Military Commissions Act that were passed last fall, eliminating the jurisdiction of American courts to consider any petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an alien detained by the United States after either being determined to be an enemy combatant or while awaiting such a determination. I believe the Leahy-Specter amendment would rectify this provision, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I firmly believe that we must do all we can to fight the war on terrorism. But we also must preserve the core principles that create the foundation of this country. The right to habeas corpus is one of those fundamental principles. Habeas corpus is the right secured in the Constitution, allowing a person to seek relief from unlawful detention. It has roots that date back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Habeas corpus has been suspended only a few times in our history--and then only temporarily, such as during our Civil War. Never in history have we suspended habeas corpus indefinitely, for a war that has no foreseeable end. This is not simply a matter affecting a few hundred detainees at Guantanamo. The Military Commissions Act went far beyond eliminating the rights of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo--it also potentially can reach all 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States, as well as visitors to our country. Under this law, any of these people can be detained, potentially forever, without any ability to challenge their detention in Federal court, simply based on the Government declaring them enemy combatants. In fact, the Government need not even find that a noncitizen is an enemy combatant for their habeas rights to be stripped. It is enough for someone to be ``awaiting'' a determination--of a mere accusation is enough for a person to lose this basic right. Here is what the Military Commissions Act says: No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Most of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo have been held without charges for years. While they did receive very limited due process through DOD-sponsored administrative tribunals, designed to evaluate whether they can continue to be classified and held as enemy combatants, in these review tribunals, detainees can often face: secret and hearsay evidence, evidence obtained from ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' and no right to counsel. Appeals from these review tribunals are limited to the question of whether the Government followed its own limited procedures. There are even recent reports that when some of these tribunals found that a detainee was not an enemy combatant, the Defense Department arranged for the tribunals to be repeated, until Government officials got a result that they wanted. Rather than abolishing habeas corpus, I believe the judiciary plays a vital role in evaluating and reviewing whether due process has been provided and whether innocent persons are being held. This is not a partisan issue, as demonstrated by the fact that the lead Senators are the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. In addition, conservatives like Kenneth Starr, Professor Richard Epstein, and David Keene of the American Conservative Union have all called for restoration of habeas, as have a long list of liberal and other scholars, retired Federal judges, and military leaders such as RADM Donald Guter, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who wrote that the elimination of habeas corpus rights for detainees ``makes us weaker and impairs our valiant troops.'' The right of habeas corpus is a key component of what keeps our system of justice fair and balanced. It is time for Congress to ensure that it remains available. I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy- Specter amendment to restore the rule of law at Guantanamo and elsewhere and the Great Writ of habeas corpus to its rightful place in our American system of justice. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, is an important and consequential bill. The bill before us would increase the 435-seat House of Representatives to 437 seats, by providing one seat for a voting member in DC, which is predominately Democratic, and one additional seat for Utah, which is predominately Republican. And it does it in a way that doesn't give advantage to one political party over the other. The time has come to give the District a voice and a vote in the House of Representatives. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. The legislation is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; Senator Orrin Hatch; and my distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, Senator Robert Bennett. I am a cosponsor this legislation. The District of Columbia occupies an interesting and unique place in the United States: It covers just 61.4 square miles, sandwiched between Virginia and Maryland: Yet with more than 580,000 residents, the population of the District surpasses that of the entire State of Wyoming. The District of Columbia is the seat of American government. The U.S. Congress determines the laws for the District; the Federal Government impacts the District's transportation system, health system, and police function. DC residents pay the second highest per capita Federal income taxes in the country. And District residents have sacrificed their lives defending our Nation. During World War I, World War II, Vietnam, the Korean war, and today in Iraq, they have fought for our democracy. Despite all this, DC residents have no vote in how the Federal Government operates. ``No taxation without representation,'' the colonists told King George in the late 1700s. We cannot allow this lack of representation to continue during the 21st century. Today, the District of Columbia has a nonvoting representative in Congress--Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has been vocal in representing the interests of the residents of DC, but she is unable to cast a vote on the House floor to ensure that voice is heard. This makes little sense. We now have an opportunity to change this and to strike the right balance while doing it. The bill before us would add two seats to the House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and one for Utah. Utah was next in line for a fourth congressional district representation in the House, according to 2000 population census data. At that time, Utah was only 856 residents away from becoming eligible for an additional seat. So this legislation strikes the appropriate balance by allowing additional representation for both DC and Utah without disadvantaging either national political party. In the last 200 years, Congress has not granted House representation to the District of Columbia by statute. Whether such a Federal law is constitutional has never been before the courts. As a result, critics of the legislation have argued that a bill providing for a vote for the District representative is unconstitutional. However, a bipartisan group of academics, judges, and lawyers argue that Congress has the authority and historical precedents to enact Federal law, and I agree with their view. The Constitution vests in Congress broad power to regulate national elections and plenary authority over DC under the District clause, article I, section 8, clause 17. This clause permits Congress wide discretion to grant rights to the District of Columbia, including for the purposes of congressional representation. From 1790 to 1800, Congress allowed District residents to vote in congressional elections in Virginia and Maryland. This was allowed not because they were residents of those States but because Congress acted within its District clause authority. Constitutional scholars from the right and the left, the most notable conservatives being Judge Kenneth Star and Professor Viet Dinh, believe this legislation is constitutional. These scholars reference the sweeping authority of the District clause, which provides that ``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia. In addition to believing that Congress can pass this legislation, I believe there are strong reasons why it should pass this legislation. DC is affected, perhaps more directly than any other U.S. jurisdiction, by the actions of Congress. Citizens of the District, rich and poor, work in this town and work in the industries of law, policy, business, tourism, academia and medicine. They pay high taxes; they face the challenges of living in one of the major cities in the United States. This legislation would provide DC with permanent voting rights for the first time in over 200 years. From the Boston Tea Party and ``no taxation without representation'' to the suffragettes and struggles over voting rights in the 1960s, the goal of American society has been to bring a voice to citizens who were voiceless. Voting is the voice of democracy. This political limbo that Congress has placed on the District has run its course. It is time to give the District a voice and a vote in the House of Representatives. This important step can not only right this wrong but can do it without causing partisan rancor or disadvantage to any party. What is at stake here is nothing less than a fundamental fairness voting issue. This bill is consistent with the historical precedents of Congress's role in protecting and preserving the right to vote, regardless of color or class, age or gender, disability or original language, party or precinct, and geography domestic or foreign. It is the right thing to do, and the 21st century is the right times to do it. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking up and passing this bill on a majority vote in the full Senate. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Specter and Feingold in introducing the Equal Justice for U.S. Service Members Act. The act would eliminate an inequity in current law by allowing all court-martialed U.S. service-members who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review through a writ of certiorari. The bill is a simple one, and would do the following: It would allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review; and it would allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied a petition for extraordinary relief. All persons convicted of a crime in U.S. civilian courts today, including illegal aliens, and regardless of the crime they may have committed, have an absolute right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review if they lose in the court of appeals. By contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right as their civilian counterparts. Our military personnel can apply to our highest court on direct appeal for a writ of certiorari only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces actually conducts a review of their case, or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. That happens only about 10 percent of the time. In other words, the other 90 percent of the time, our U.S. servicemembers are precluded from ever seeking or obtaining direct review from the highest court of the country that they fight and die for. A disparity not only exists between our civilian and military court systems. A similar disparity exists even within our military court system itself. The Government routinely has the opportunity to petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But our military personnel do not share these same rights to petition the Supreme Court as their opponents, even on the other side of the same case. That is wrong, and this inequity was recently noted by the American Bar Association. At its annual meeting in August 2006, the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution calling on Congress to fix this long- standing ``disparity in our laws governing procedural due process.'' That is perhaps reason enough to fix this problem, but I also must note that this existing disparity has only become more acute now that Congress has enacted the Military Commission Act. Section 950g(d) of that law, which Congress passed last September, gives the Supreme Court the ability to review by writ of certiorari any final judgment issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an appeal filed by terrorists and war criminals who get convicted by U.S. military commissions. So the worst of the worst at Guantanamo will have a right to petition our Supreme Court to hear their case. Yet unless we act, those same Supreme Court doors will continue to be closed to almost all of our U.S. service personnel who would seek direct review in their own highest Court. Even service-members who apprehended those same terrorists, or served in judgment on their military commissions, or who guard them at Guantanamo, will continue to be treated as second-class citizens, deprived of the opportunity to seek Supreme Court review if they ever need it themselves. Our U.S. service personnel regularly place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is simply unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform of one of those basic rights, the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief, that is given to all convicted persons in our civilian courts, that is given to their prosecutorial adversaries in our military courts, and that we have now given even to the terrorists we expect to prosecute as war criminals in our upcoming military commission process. It is time to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers. That is what this act does. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Specter and Feingold in introducing the Equal Justice for U.S. Service Members Act. The act would eliminate an inequity in current law by allowing all court-martialed U.S. service-members who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review through a writ of certiorari. The bill is a simple one, and would do the following: It would allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review; and it would allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied a petition for extraordinary relief. All persons convicted of a crime in U.S. civilian courts today, including illegal aliens, and regardless of the crime they may have committed, have an absolute right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review if they lose in the court of appeals. By contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right as their civilian counterparts. Our military personnel can apply to our highest court on direct appeal for a writ of certiorari only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces actually conducts a review of their case, or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. That happens only about 10 percent of the time. In other words, the other 90 percent of the time, our U.S. servicemembers are precluded from ever seeking or obtaining direct review from the highest court of the country that they fight and die for. A disparity not only exists between our civilian and military court systems. A similar disparity exists even within our military court system itself. The Government routinely has the opportunity to petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But our military personnel do not share these same rights to petition the Supreme Court as their opponents, even on the other side of the same case. That is wrong, and this inequity was recently noted by the American Bar Association. At its annual meeting in August 2006, the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution calling on Congress to fix this long- standing ``disparity in our laws governing procedural due process.'' That is perhaps reason enough to fix this problem, but I also must note that this existing disparity has only become more acute now that Congress has enacted the Military Commission Act. Section 950g(d) of that law, which Congress passed last September, gives the Supreme Court the ability to review by writ of certiorari any final judgment issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an appeal filed by terrorists and war criminals who get convicted by U.S. military commissions. So the worst of the worst at Guantanamo will have a right to petition our Supreme Court to hear their case. Yet unless we act, those same Supreme Court doors will continue to be closed to almost all of our U.S. service personnel who would seek direct review in their own highest Court. Even service-members who apprehended those same terrorists, or served in judgment on their military commissions, or who guard them at Guantanamo, will continue to be treated as second-class citizens, deprived of the opportunity to seek Supreme Court review if they ever need it themselves. Our U.S. service personnel regularly place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is simply unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform of one of those basic rights, the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief, that is given to all convicted persons in our civilian courts, that is given to their prosecutorial adversaries in our military courts, and that we have now given even to the terrorists we expect to prosecute as war criminals in our upcoming military commission process. It is time to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers. That is what this act does. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Buendia Balderas, his wife, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and their daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, Mexican nationals who have been living and working in the Fresno area of California for over 20 years. Jose Buendia is a remarkable individual who epitomizes the American dream. His father worked as an agricultural laborer in the Bracero program over 25 years ago. In 1981, Jose followed his father to the U.S., where he worked in the shadows to help provide for his family in Mexico. Since then, Jose has moved from working as a landscaper to construction, where he is now a valued employee of Bone Construction in Reedley, CA. He has been employed by this cement company for the past 8 years. Although he knew nothing about construction when he began working in the field, he was disciplined and persistent in his training and is now a lead foreman. His employer, Timothy Bone, says Mr. Buendia is a ``reliable, hardworking and conscientious'' employee. In fact, it was Mr. Bone who contacted my office to seek relief for Mr. Buendia. Alicia Buendia, Jose Buendia's wife, has been working as a seasonal fruit packer for several years. The family has consistently paid all of their taxes. Recently, they paid off their mortgage and today, they are debt free. They have health insurance, savings and retirement accounts, participate in the company profit-sharing company, and support their family here and in Mexico. In short, they are living the American dream. Their daughter, Ana Laura, is an outstanding student. She earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School and was awarded an academic scholarship to the University of California--Berkeley. Unfortunately, because of her immigration status, she was unable to accept the scholarship and her parents now pay full out-of-State tuition for her to attend the University of California--Irvine. Their son, Jose, is a U.S. citizen, and attends Reedley High School. For both Jose and Ana Laura, the U.S. is the only country they know. What makes the story of the Buendias so tragic is that they would have been eligible to correct their illegal status but for the unscrupulous practices of their former immigration attorney. Because Mr. Buendia has been in this country for so long, he qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, his legalization application was never acted upon because his attorney, Jose Velez, was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker applications. This criminal conduct tainted all of Mr. Velez's clients. Although Mr. Buendia's application was found not to contain any fraudulent documentation associated, it was submitted while his lawyer was under investigation. The result was that Mr. Buendia was unable to be interviewed and obtain legal status. To complicate matters, it took the Immigration and Naturalization Service nearly 7 years to determine that Mr. Buendia's application contained no fraudulent information. In the meantime, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reinterpreted the law and determined that he was no longer eligible for relief because he had left the U.S. briefly when he married his wife. Despite these setbacks, the Buendia family has continued to seek legal status. They believed they were successful when an immigration judge granted the family relief based on the hardship their U.S. citizen son would face if his family was deported to Mexico. Unfortunately, the Government appealed the judge's decision and had it overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Despite the problems with adjusting their legal status, this family has forged ahead and continued to play a meaningful role in their community. They have worked hard. They have invested in their neighborhood. They are active in the PTA and their local church. I believe the Buendia family should be allowed to continue to live in this country that has become their own. If this legislation is approved, the Buendias will be able to continue to contribute significantly to the U.S. It is my hope that Congress passes this private legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Buendia Balderas, his wife, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and their daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, Mexican nationals who have been living and working in the Fresno area of California for over 20 years. Jose Buendia is a remarkable individual who epitomizes the American dream. His father worked as an agricultural laborer in the Bracero program over 25 years ago. In 1981, Jose followed his father to the U.S., where he worked in the shadows to help provide for his family in Mexico. Since then, Jose has moved from working as a landscaper to construction, where he is now a valued employee of Bone Construction in Reedley, CA. He has been employed by this cement company for the past 8 years. Although he knew nothing about construction when he began working in the field, he was disciplined and persistent in his training and is now a lead foreman. His employer, Timothy Bone, says Mr. Buendia is a ``reliable, hardworking and conscientious'' employee. In fact, it was Mr. Bone who contacted my office to seek relief for Mr. Buendia. Alicia Buendia, Jose Buendia's wife, has been working as a seasonal fruit packer for several years. The family has consistently paid all of their taxes. Recently, they paid off their mortgage and today, they are debt free. They have health insurance, savings and retirement accounts, participate in the company profit-sharing company, and support their family here and in Mexico. In short, they are living the American dream. Their daughter, Ana Laura, is an outstanding student. She earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School and was awarded an academic scholarship to the University of California--Berkeley. Unfortunately, because of her immigration status, she was unable to accept the scholarship and her parents now pay full out-of-State tuition for her to attend the University of California--Irvine. Their son, Jose, is a U.S. citizen, and attends Reedley High School. For both Jose and Ana Laura, the U.S. is the only country they know. What makes the story of the Buendias so tragic is that they would have been eligible to correct their illegal status but for the unscrupulous practices of their former immigration attorney. Because Mr. Buendia has been in this country for so long, he qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, his legalization application was never acted upon because his attorney, Jose Velez, was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker applications. This criminal conduct tainted all of Mr. Velez's clients. Although Mr. Buendia's application was found not to contain any fraudulent documentation associated, it was submitted while his lawyer was under investigation. The result was that Mr. Buendia was unable to be interviewed and obtain legal status. To complicate matters, it took the Immigration and Naturalization Service nearly 7 years to determine that Mr. Buendia's application contained no fraudulent information. In the meantime, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reinterpreted the law and determined that he was no longer eligible for relief because he had left the U.S. briefly when he married his wife. Despite these setbacks, the Buendia family has continued to seek legal status. They believed they were successful when an immigration judge granted the family relief based on the hardship their U.S. citizen son would face if his family was deported to Mexico. Unfortunately, the Government appealed the judge's decision and had it overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Despite the problems with adjusting their legal status, this family has forged ahead and continued to play a meaningful role in their community. They have worked hard. They have invested in their neighborhood. They are active in the PTA and their local church. I believe the Buendia family should be allowed to continue to live in this country that has become their own. If this legislation is approved, the Buendias will be able to continue to contribute significantly to the U.S. It is my hope that Congress passes this private legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing on S. 1905, the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007, to provide for a rotating schedule for regional selection of delegates to a national nominating convention, and for other purposes. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Presdient, today I recognize Dr. Philip R. Lee, a pioneering Californian and fellow San Franciscan, who has been a dynamic leader in health policy for more than 40 years. This September, the health policy program that Dr. Lee founded 35 years ago at the University of California, San Francisco, UCSF, will be renamed the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies in his honor. Dr. Lee is a giant among health professionals. His work in health care policy continues to affect how millions of Americans receive health care today. He served as Assistant Secretary for Health on two occasions; under President Johnson in the sixties and under President Clinton in the nineties. During the first 8 months of his tenure as Assistant Secretary in 1965, more than 80 landmark healthcare bills were passed including Medicare and Medicaid; health professions education assistance amendments; heart disease, cancer, and stroke amendments; the war on poverty; Job Corps; food stamps; and Head Start, to name a few. Especially significant was Dr. Lee's work in developing policies for the newly created Medicare Program, his work to fund graduate medical education, and the work he is most proud of, the desegregation of 1,000 of the Nation's 7,000 hospitals at a time when discrimination was a real problem in the Nation. I am proud to say that as mayor of San Francisco in 1985, I appointed Dr. Lee as the first president of the newly established health commission of the city and county of San Francisco. He was in charge of San Francisco's public health, mental health and substance abuse services, as well as San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Lee served the health care needs of the residents of San Francisco during challenging times when the city was in the midst of the AIDS epidemic. He has served our city well. Dr. Lee's influence also extends to health care education. As UCSF's third chancellor, he was charged with the instruction of future health care professionals and the running of a premier research university. As chancellor, he was known for his commitment to academic excellence and his efforts to stimulate minority recruitment and enrollment. When Dr. Lee founded the Institute of Health Policy Studies at UCSF, it was the first health policy unit in an academic health sciences center to bring together a multidisciplinary group of faculty to address complex health issues. Dr. Lee's career has been devoted to improving health care and public health for all people. He has an unwavering commitment to the needs of the disadvantaged, including the elderly, the disabled, and those without access to care. Yet he is able to encourage evenhanded policy debate among parties with highly divergent views in a manner that encourages creative innovation. He continues to be a valued teacher and mentor for many who are now in key positions as researchers, teachers, and as leaders in the health professions. It is fitting that the institute he founded three decades ago, the UCSF School of Medicine Institute for Health Policy Studies, will now be re-named the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. I wish to congratulate Dr. Lee on this tremendous honor and thank him for his service to the city of San Francisco and the State of California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the confirmation of Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino to be a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of California. Judge Sammartino is nominated for a seat that has been designated a ``judicial emergency'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The seat has been vacant for 3 years, ever since Judge Judith Nelson Keep passed away in September 2004. Fortunately, the Judiciary Committee has acted quickly on this nomination. It was submitted to the Senate on March 19 of this year. Judge Sammartino completed the required questionnaire, and a hearing was promptly scheduled for June 20. Now, fewer than 3 months later-- including the August recess--we are voting on the nomination today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this nomination to fill this longstanding vacancy and permit the district court in the Southern District of California to operate at full capacity. Judge Sammartino is a graduate of Occidental College and of the law school at the University of Notre Dame. After earning her law degree, she served as a law clerk on the superior court in South Bend, IN. For her entire legal career since then, she has devoted herself to the service of her city, San Diego, and the State of California. Judge Sammartino worked for 18 years as a deputy city attorney in San Diego. In her first 2 years, as a deputy in the Criminal Division, she tried more than 50 criminal cases in front of juries and an equal number of bench trials. She then was promoted to the Municipal Law Section of the Civil Division, where she developed substantial expertise in land use law. She later served as the principal legal advisor to the city of San Diego on redevelopment issues. In that capacity, she played a major role in the planning and construction of the Horton Plaza Retail Centre in downtown San Diego. Judge Sammartino rose to the rank of senior chief deputy city attorney and was responsible for supervising three advisory divisions in the City Attorney's Office. She was a regular participant in legal and strategy decisions for pending cases. Her public service career then moved from the City Attorney's Office to the courthouse. She was appointed to the municipal court in 1994, and to the superior court in 1995. As a testament to her skills as both a judge and a leader, her fellow judges elected her to be assistant presiding judge from 2004 to 2005 and then to be presiding judge as of January 2006. She now oversees the second largest trial court in California, which is also the third largest trial court in the Nation. Judge Sammartino's judicial career has given her experience in a wide range of areas from criminal cases to family law cases, environmental cases, and complex civil cases. In California we have developed a bipartisan process for selecting Federal district court nominees. Under this system, a committee of lawyers known as the Parsky Commission, which includes Democrats and Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President. I am proud of this system, and proud to report that Judge Sammartino was recommended unanimously by the Parsky Commission to be nominated as a Federal district judge. I chaired the hearing on her nomination, and I was impressed with her testimony. By all accounts, she would make an excellent addition to the Federal bench in San Diego. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Nomination of Robert C. Tapella of Virginia, to be Public Printer, Government Printing Office. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Dodd and myself increases the funding for the Peace Corps by $10 million for a total of $333.5 million. This matches the President's request and the funding level in the House bill. The offset comes from unobligated foreign military financing funds. The Peace Corps is one of our most effective and successful foreign aid programs. Since 1961, over 190,000 Americans, including 25,000 from my home State of California, have served as Peace Corps volunteers in 139 countries. Currently, there are 7,749 volunteers serving in 73 countries. I am a big fan of the Peace Corps. They are diplomats, and they restore people's confidence in this country. The Peace Corps also provides critical education. In fact, approximately 20 percent of the Peace Corps volunteers today are serving in predominantly Muslim countries. And at a time when United States prestige is at an all-time low, Peace Corps volunteers provide a different face of America--one of compassion, one of care, and one of understanding. This amendment matches the President's request in the budget. It matches the funding level in the House. It is offset by unobligated balances. I urge that the amendment be adopted today.