Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Objection.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if the Chair would allow me to thank the Senator from Wisconsin, he has been an energetic, enthusiastic advocate for a very long time. He is not always hard to please. I want to particularly say ``thank you'' to him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin is next on our list. However, he had a pressing meeting, so we would be happy to go to a Republican.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The lobbying portion of this bill falls within Senator Lieberman's jurisdiction. I also thank him for a job well done. He has been steadfast in this pursuit for a number of years. I will exchange places with the Presiding Officer, and Senator Obama will be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is critically important that we continue and improve upon this successful effort that has made a difference in the lives of so many children. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, as well as their staffs, for the countless hours they have spent in order to bring this bipartisan compromise before us today. Like all compromises, the bill is not perfect. I, along with several of my colleagues, voted for a budget resolution that included an additional $50 billion for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. I understand that fiscal constraints make it difficult to fund a sum of that magnitude. But at the same time, no dollar spent to insure a child is wasted. History of the Program I am proud to have supported this program since its inception in 1997. At that time, there were too many working families who played by the rules and could not afford health insurance for their children. They had just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid or other Government programs, but not enough income to be able to afford the premiums that private insurance requires. So a Republican Congress and a Democratic President came together to create the Children's Health Insurance Program, which has enjoyed a decade of broad bipartisan support. The success has been clear. Twenty-one percent of the children in California were uninsured when the Children's Health Insurance Program launched. Six years later, in 2005, that rate had fallen to 14 percent, despite economic downturns, which commonly lead to increases in the number of uninsured. It is now time for a Republican President and a Democratic Congress to come to together to allow this program to continue to fulfill its promise. Summary of Legislation The bill we are considering today will allow this program's success to continue and make significant improvements. This legislation would: Invest $35 billion to provide health insurance coverage to 3.2 million children who are currently uninsured. This will keep the 6.6 million children already enrolled in the program from losing coverage. Give States the tools they need to find and enroll these uninsured children. Six million of the nine million uninsured children in the United States today are eligible for Medicaid, or they are eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program. These families deserve to know they are eligible for coverage, and they ought to receive it without unnecessary bureaucracy and additional paperwork. Tobacco Tax Increase These improvements are funded with an increase in the Federal tobacco tax, to $1 per package of cigarettes. Not only will this increase fund needed health insurance for children, it will create significant health improvements. We must be very clear about the serious implications of tobacco use. It has to be understood that: Tobacco is linked to at least 10 different kinds of cancer. Tobacco use accounts for about 30 percent of all cancer deaths. Tobacco use remains the top cause of preventable death in the United States. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this tax will prevent an additional 1,873,000 children alive today from ever becoming smokers. And this prevents them from becoming cancer victims later in life. Of this I am certain. During my time in the Senate, I have worked to make the eradication of cancer a top priority. I strongly believe that we can eliminate the death and suffering caused by cancer in my lifetime. I have worked with the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute. I have spoken to leading cancer researchers, and patients and their families. And over and over again, I have heard that tobacco is a leading cause of cancer. There is much about cancer that we still do not understand and that we cannot control. But the relationship between tobacco and cancer could not be clearer. The one thing we can do, immediately, to stop cancer deaths, is to reduce tobacco use. This legislation takes a step in that direction, while providing health coverage for children in the process. Importance of health insurance for children We know that when it comes to children, health insurance matters. It can determine whether a child receives appropriate treatment, and even if he lives or dies. According to a Families USA study conducted this year, An uninsured child admitted to the hospital as the result of an injury is twice as likely to die during his or her hospital stay than a child with insurance. Uninsured children admitted to the hospital with middle ear infections are less than half as likely to get ear tubes inserted than children with insurance. These are not rare occurrences. As any parent will attest, children get into plenty of accidents, and children get lots of ear infections. No child should suffer a worse outcome because her parents could not afford health insurance. CHIP is not Government Health Care Frankly, I am quite surprised that the Senate is not unanimously endorsing the compromise we have before us today. I was stunned when President Bush indicated he would veto it. Unfortunately, some are attempting to use this debate to score political points, and in the process, are portraying the Children's Health Insurance Program in an unfair light. Let us be clear. The Children's Health Insurance Program is not Government-run health care. Doctors, nurses and parents still make medical decisions. And in California, our Healthy Families program relies on commercial managed care plans. California offers 24 health plans, 6 dental plans, and 3 vision plans. In fact, 99.72 percent of Californians in Healthy Families have a choice between two health plans. In four of our largest counties, families can choose between as many as seven plans. Twenty-four different health plans in one State. That is certainly not a form of ``socialized medicine.'' Many employers providing private insurance cannot afford to give their workers more than one choice. This legislation remains targeted at the children and families most in need of assistance. I am from San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in one of the most expensive States in the Nation. No one will deny that it costs more to live in San Francisco than just about any other place in the country. You spend more on groceries, more on housing, more on transportation, and not surprisingly, more on health care. The California Association of Realtors estimates that in order to purchase the average entry level home in California, a family must have a household income of over $96,000 per year. Yet, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, we have a uniform Federal poverty level, which is $20,650 for a family of four. President Bush insists that no family above twice this poverty level, or $41,300, could possibly need additional help to afford health insurance. I strongly disagree. I would like to challenge anyone to support two children on $41,300 annual income in California, and find the $11,480 necessary to purchase the average family insurance policy. It is nearly impossible. This is precisely why we created the Children's Health Insurance Program 10 years ago, to prevent hard-working families from falling through the cracks. This legislation maintains the State flexibility necessary to do just that. California Stories As a mother and grandmother, I know that there are few things worse than having a sick child. I cannot imagine the dilemma of a mother or father who knows that their child needs medical attention, but must also consider whether that treatment will have a catastrophic impact on their family's finances. The Herman family from Sonoma County, CA, found themselves in this situation, twice in 1 month. Daughter Amber Herman fell and hurt her arm. Three-year-old Jacob shoved a rock in his ear during a family camping trip. Parents Penny and Peter Herman are self-employed small business owners, unable to afford private insurance. The Hermans faced a $5000 out-of-pocket medical bill for their care. And Penny was pregnant with the couple's third child, Abraham. The family learned they were eligible for Healthy Families, and enrolled in the program. Penny received coverage for her pregnancy from Medi-Cal. All three children now have comprehensive health care coverage. The Nunez family in Solano County, California never worried about health insurance; they were always covered under their father Pablo's union health plan. Pablo started his own business and he, wife Sandra, and their four children lost their coverage. Through outreach efforts, the family learned a few months later that their kids might qualify for coverage. They did, and all four Nunez children were enrolled in Healthy Families before they had a health care emergency. These stories show that a robust Children's Health Insurance Program, coupled with good information and a straightforward enrollment process, makes a real difference in the lives of countless families. Conclusion Without action, these children and many others will risk losing this insurance coverage. It is my hope that the President will reconsider his ill-advised veto threat and sign this bipartisan legislation into law. While the President may want to advance his own health care reform ideas, it is not fair to hold millions of uninsured children hostage in the process. I welcome a wide-ranging debate on how to reform our health care system, after this bill is signed and the State Children's Health Insurance Program is protected. This is a successful bipartisan program. It must be reauthorized, and the American people must make it clear to President Bush that they will accept no less. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I won't object, but I misspoke, and if I may just correct the record. This is not a conference report. It is a bill. But it is still not subject to amendment because the tree is filled. I wanted to make that clear.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to invoke cloture on this bill, S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. In the last election, the message was loud and clear: It is time to change the way business is done in the Nation's Capital. In response, what is before us this morning is the single most sweeping congressional reform bill since Watergate. I support its passage, and I support its passage despite the fact that I do not like everything that is in this bill. It is a strong bill. I am sure it is too strong for some and it is too weak for others, but, like all conference reports, it is, in effect, to some degree a compromise. On Tuesday, by a 411-to-8 strongly bipartisan vote, the House passed this legislation, and now it is the Senate's turn. It would be a serious mistake if we do not step up to the plate and demonstrate to the American people that we have heard their message. As I say, the bill is not perfect. There have been some complaints by the minority party about the process used to bring this bill to the floor, and I wish to begin by addressing that issue. Last January, the Senate passed S. 1 by a 96-to-2 vote. On May 24, the House passed companion legislation by a 386-to-22 margin. Those were strong bipartisan votes. But when the majority leader sought unanimous consent to name conferees, one member of the minority party objected, and he held fast to his objections, preventing the establishment of a conference committee where Members could have sat down in the light of day and negotiated Member to Member the differences between the two bills. Clearly, that wasn't able to take place. With few other options available, the majority leader and the Speaker of the House sought consensus on a bill that could be taken up by both Houses, and that consensus bill is what we have before us today. It may not be every person's wish, and as chairman of the Rules Committee, I commit right now to keep these items on the front burner, and should changes be necessitated, I would be very happy to entertain them. Though I cannot speak for my counterpart, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Bennett, I believe he would also. But today, let me say this: I believe this is a good bill--not a perfect bill but a good bill. Its passage today is the most direct action we can take to show the American people that, yes, we want to curb the influence of lobbyists and we want to restore the public trust on how we operate as Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. In recent years, there has been an explosive growth in the number of registered lobbyists in Washington from 16,342 in 2000 to 34,785 in 2005. So in 5 years, the numbers of lobbyists have doubled, and, according to all reports, the numbers keep growing. One of the most critical provisions of this bill will now shine new light on the role lobbyists play in political campaigns by requiring the disclosure of funds they bundle on behalf of Members, PACs, and party committees. It will also require that lobbyists disclose all their campaign contributions as well as payments to Presidential libraries, inaugural committees, or entities controlled by, named, or honoring Members of Congress, and it requires lobbyists to file electronic reports quarterly on their lobbying activity, with these reports becoming available on a searchable public database. The bill also increases civil penalties from $50,000 to $200,000 and establishes a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for those lobbyists who knowingly and corruptly fail to comply with these new requirements. There has been increasing concern about former members of the administration, former lawmakers, and their staff gaining undue access as lobbyists because of the relationships they have made while working for the Government. This bill seeks to address those concerns by increasing the length of time, the so-called cooling-off period, for Senators. Currently, Senators are barred from lobbying Congress for 1 year. With passage of this bill, that would be extended to 2 years. Cabinet Secretaries and other very senior executive personnel would be prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for 2 years after they leave their position. In other words, they cannot lobby the department from which they left for 2 years. That is an increase from 1 to 2 years. Senior Senate staff and Senate officers would be barred from lobbying the entire Senate for 1 year, instead of just their former employing office. That would be the whole Senate, not just their office. There has been a lot of talk also about the K Street Project in which lobbyist firms, trade associations, and other business groups were told by former House majority leader Tom Delay and others that they would encounter a closed door in Congress unless they hired members of the then majority party. This bill seeks to end that practice by prohibiting Members of Congress and their staff from influencing hiring decisions of any private organization on the sole basis of partisan political gain, and it carries with it a fine and imprisonment of up to 15 years for violations. That is a stiff penalty, but hopefully it sends a stiff and strong signal that such practices will not be tolerated in the future. Another issue that recently came to light is that Members of Congress convicted of bribery, perjury, conspiracy, and other related crimes can still receive their congressional pensions. I did not know this. Probably you didn't know this, Mr. President. But, fortunately, this bill ends that practice. S. 1 also contains a number of major reforms to Senate rules, and I will highlight a few of the most important procedural reforms. Section 511 amends rule XXVIII to subject ``dead of night'' additions to conference reports, when the new matter was not approved by either House, to a 60-vote point of order. This is a very important change in the rules, and it has been the bane of many our existence for a long period of time. You go through the process, and then after the process is concluded, in the dead of night, something is stuck into a conference bill. This practice will end. Currently, when an out-of-scope provision is added to a conference report, we can object, but the objection brings down the whole bill. The reform in this bill will allow a Member to object to just the added provision. I first proposed this provision in the last Congress and worked closely with Senator Lott on its development. I am very happy that it is included in the final bill. Section 512 ends secret Senate holds by requiring the Senator placing a hold on a legislative matter or nomination to publicly disclose that hold within 6 days. This, too, is an important reform. We all know about anonymous holds. We all know what it takes to discover who actually has the hold. It is time those Members who seek to hold up legislation come forward and disclose who they are and why. We do not prohibit their ability to exercise this senatorial prerogative, but we do require that they be transparent and, therefore, public about it. Section 513 requires that Senate committees and subcommittees post video recordings, audio recordings, or transcripts of all public meetings on the Internet. A great deal of attention has been given to the dramatic escalation in the number of earmarks awarded by Congress, and I wish to spend a couple of minutes on the earmark provisions. According to a survey of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the number of earmarks has skyrocketed from 6,114 to 13,012 in 2006. So in 6 years, the number of earmarks has more than doubled. Henceforth, earmarks which are in effect congressional additions to spending cannot be made in the dark of night but only in the full light of transparent disclosure. That is a big change. This bill would require that the sponsor or the requester of each and every earmark be publicly identified, and because there is often disagreement about what does and does not constitute an earmark, the bill provides for the first time in Senate rules a definition that does not restrict the disclosure requirement to only appropriations bills. You and I, Madam President, serve on the Appropriations Committee, but there are also these authorizations that, in effect, are requests for added spending. This new rule XLIV requires that all congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in bills, resolutions, conference reports, and managers' statements be identified and posted on the Internet at least 48 hours before Senate action. So 48 hours before a bill comes to the floor, all of these additions must be transparently available to the public. It requires for the first time that Senators certify that they and their immediate family will not have a direct pecuniary benefit from the earmark they request as defined by rule XXXVII. Separately, rule XLIV also subjects new directed spending added to a conference report when the new spending was not approved by either House to a 60-vote point of order so that you, Madam President, I, Senator Grassley, or anyone else can come to the floor and raise a point of order to that congressional add-on, and then that would be subject to a 60-vote point of order. If a Senator objects to the earmark being dropped into the conference report, it then will most likely be stripped out unless 60 Senators vote to keep it in. Committees would also be required, to the greatest extent practicable, to disclose in unclassified language the funding level and the name of the sponsor of congressionally directed spending included in classified portions of bills, joint resolutions, and conference reports. The chairman of each committee is responsible for certifying that the list of earmarks is correct and properly identified. So there is also a burden placed on the chair of every committee and subcommittee. Let me speak for a moment about gift and travel reform. The Senate rules have also been reformed to curb the special access that special interests seek to gain by providing Members with gifts, meals, and tickets to entertainment and sports events. This bill prohibits staff and Senators from accepting gifts from registered lobbyists or entities that employ them. The bill prohibits Senators from attending parties in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the Senator is the party's Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee. The bill amends rule XXXV by prohibiting Senators and their staff from accepting private travel from registered lobbyists or entities that hire them, and prohibiting lobbyists from organizing, arranging, requesting, or participating in travel by Senators or their staff. However, Senators and their staff, with preapproval from the Ethics Committee, will still be allowed to accept travel by entities that employ lobbyists if it is necessary to participate in a 1-day meeting, a speaking engagement, a fact-finding trip, or similar event. And Senators and their staff can still accept travel provided by 501(c)(3) organizations if the trip has been preapproved by the Ethics Committee. Finally, Senators will be required to pay the fair market value--that is, the charter rate--for flights on private jets not operating or paid for by an air carrier that is certified by the FAA. Section 601 separately establishes the same requirement for Senate candidates and Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. This, in itself, is a consequential reform and somewhat controversial. Finally, before closing, I would like to thank the majority leader for his unyielding determination to bring this bill forward. Without his dogged determination, and that of the Speaker of the House, I don't believe this bill would be before us today, and both are to be commended. The 2006 election saw the largest congressional shift since 1994, and even with the war in Iraq on many voters' minds, Americans remain seriously concerned about ethics in government. It is time we listen to their concerns. This bill attempts to do so. It is not always easy, it is not going to please everybody, and as I said in the beginning, Members are either going to feel that this bill is too strong about this part or that part, or too weak about this part or that part. But let me just reinforce that this is a conference report. It is not subject to amendment. It has been put together in an unusual procedure because of the objection from the other side to us going to conference, which would have been a far preferable method of handling this. I once again repeat my commitment that as chairman of the Rules Committee, I will be happy to consider any amendments that the operation of this bill might indicate are warranted in the future. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday we lost a man who was the heart and soul of the great San Francisco 49er teams of the 1980s. Bill Walsh was a great coach and a fine friend. I rise today with Senator Boxer to introduce a resolution to honor the life and career of a pioneer in the field of football, a true leader and teacher, and a dedicated husband, father and friend. He touched so many in the bay area. He led the 49ers to three Super Bowls. And he gave this city a shot in the arm in some of its darkest hours. I became mayor in 1978. Bill Walsh became head coach in 1979, after honing his skills at Stanford. Many forget that the 49ers before Bill Walsh were an unremarkable team. They hadn't made the playoffs in years. The team was filled with journeymen. San Francisco was a baseball town, and football played second fiddle. But just 2 years later in the 1981 season Bill Walsh led the 49ers on an improbable run to a Super Bowl victory. Led by a quarterback named Montana, these 49ers played an exciting new brand of football. Only later would we discover that Bill Walsh had revolutionized the game--he transformed smash-mouth football into the elegant ``West Coast Offense.'' And this team became the stuff of legends. The players became household names. Montana. Rice. Lott. Clark. Young. Even the plays became mythical. Who can forget ``The Catch''? And Cinderella became a powerhouse and a powerhouse became a dynasty. I look back on that time with great fondness. One of the photos that I treasure most is in my home in Washington. It was the parade after the first Super Bowl victory. Bill and Eddie DeBartolo and I were sitting on the rim of a car. We were worried that no one would show up. Some said that San Francisco doesn't do parades. And then we turned down Market Street. And there were a million plus San Franciscans lining the streets. I will never forget that moment. Bill Walsh meant so much to this city. He made the 49ers great at a point when the city needed it most. The city was fragmented and divided in the early 1980s. Mayor George Moscone had been assassinated a few years earlier. There were riots. And there was little to bring us together. But on Sundays, the differences melted away. The tensions diminished. The anxieties subsided. There was nothing like Montana to Rice for an 80-yard touchdown. Nothing like a victory over the Los Angeles Rams. Nothing like a Super Bowl championship. And on Mondays, after a victory, you would see a changed city. A little bit nicer, a little less mean. So Bill Walsh brought this city together in ways that he, nor I, would ever really understand. Football became the glue to bind this city together. And during the 10 years I came to know Bill, I came to admire him, respect him, and love him. And he made me, like so many others, a 49ers fan for life. Bill Walsh, though, was more than a coach. He was a leader. A mentor. A friend. He didn't just revolutionize how football is played, but how it is coached and taught. He believed, as I do, that the devil is in the details. And that you have to practice right to play right. He was the first to script the first 15 plays in a game. And he didn't just coach men. He shaped them into good football players and good citizens. His greatest skill may have been as a scout, identifying raw talent and sculpting it into masterpieces. They said that Joe Montana didn't have a strong enough arm, that Jerry Rice wasn't fast enough, that Steve Young wasn't disciplined enough. But Bill saw what other people missed. He saw the intangibles. He saw leadership. And work ethic. And character. And there is no one who wouldn't want a Bill Walsh-coached player on their team. Bill was a mentor as well. He wanted his players and coaches to fulfill their potential more than anyone. He encouraged them to spread their wings and go out on their own. And you can see the results, more than half the coaches in the league have been in some way touched by Bill Walsh--either directly like Seattle Seahawk's Coach Mike Holmgren or Indianopolis Colts' Coach Tony Dungy or indirectly, by the second and third generation coaches who may not have coached or played under Bill, but are teaching his offense nonetheless. But I think what we will miss most is not Bill Walsh the coach, but Bill Walsh the person. He was decent, and good, and kind. Sure, he was tough. In football, just as in public life, you have to be. But he was fair. He expected his players and coaches to spend the time and effort it takes to be great. But he did not expect anything from them that he was not prepared to give himself. Bill once said, ``Playing to one's full potential is the only purpose of playing at all.'' The good news is that Bill fulfilled his purpose. He played to his full potential in everything he did. I know I speak for all San Francisco when I say that this is a sad day. He will truly be missed. Bill Walsh may have been called a ``Genius'' when it comes to football, but his legacy goes well beyond the Xs and Os. He touched this city, and we owe him a debt that can never be repaid.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Casey to introduce legislation to authorize a comprehensive review of our nuclear weapons policy and posture. Before we ramp up funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program as the administration has requested, we should have a clear, bipartisan consensus on the role nuclear weapons will play in our national security strategy and the impact they will have on our nuclear nonproliferation efforts. The Nuclear Policy and Posture Review Act of 2007 does three things. First, it authorizes the President to conduct a nuclear policy review to consider a range of possible roles of nuclear weapons in U.S. security policy. The administration may reach out to outside experts and conduct public hearings to get a wide range of views. The policy review will provide options and recommendations for a nuclear posture review. This report is due on September 1, 2009. Second, following the completion of the nuclear policy review, it authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the U.S. to clarify U.S. nuclear deterrence policy and strategy. This report is due March 1, 2010. Finally, it zeros out funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program until the policy review and posture review reports have been submitted to Congress. In his testimony on March 29, 2007, before the House Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee, former Senator Sam Nunn, Chairman of Nuclear Threat Initiative, noted that: On the [Reliable Replacement Warhead] itself, if Congress gives a green light to this program in our current world environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood by our allies; exploited by our adversaries; complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons and . . . make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all the more difficult. I could not agree more. Indeed, I remain deeply concerned about this administration's nuclear weapons policy. As a U.S. Senator, I have worked with colleagues in the House and Senate to stop the re-opening of the nuclear door and the development of new nuclear weapons. Together, we have eliminated funding for the Advanced Concepts Initiative, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and the Modern Pit Facility. These were consequential victories but the fight is far from over. For fiscal year 2008, the administration requested $118 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program; $88 million in the National Nuclear Security administration's budget and $30 million in the Department of Defense's budget. These funds would be used for Phase 2A activities: design definition and cost study. This would represent approximately a four-fold increase over fiscal year 2007 funding of $24.7 million. The House, however, rejected the administration's request and zeroed out funding for RRW in its fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. In its report accompanying the legislation, the House cited the lack of a definitive nuclear weapons policy review as a key reason for withholding funding for what will be a costly new nuclear warhead program. It stated: The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessment defining the objectives of a future nuclear stockpile makes it impossible to weigh the relative merits of investing billions of taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production activities when the United States is facing the problem of having too large a stockpile as a Cold War legacy. Currently, there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the large number of existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less producing additional warheads, or for the DoD requirements that drive the management of the DOE nuclear weapons complex. While the Senate bill did not follow suit, it did cut $22 million from the administration's request, for a total of $66 million, and restricted activities to Phase 2A. I believe we can match the House's action and this bill would do just that. The administration is clearly getting nervous about the prospects for funding for RRW. On Wednesday, the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and State released a 4-page white paper on nuclear weapons strategy: ``National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century''. It affirmed the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and sought to justify funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. Among other things, it stated that the Reliable Replacement Warhead program is critical to sustaining long-term confidence in the nuclear stockpile and will help reduce the stockpile and move us away from nuclear testing; and any delay to the program will force the U.S. to maintain a larger stockpile, invest in costly and risky Life Extension Programs, and increase the likelihood that we will have to resume nuclear testing. These arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Indeed the evidence clearly shows that there is no need to rush forward with increased funding for RRW. Let us take a close look at the status of our nuclear weapons arsenal. Are there currently problems with the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal? No, for each of the past 11 years the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense have certified that the nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. Has the Pentagon asked for a new warhead for new missions? No, there is no new military requirement to replace existing, well- tested warheads. What about the plutonium pit, the ``trigger'' of a nuclear weapon? In past years, the administration requested funding for a Modern Pit Facility that could build up to 450 pits a year arguing that the pits in our current stockpile were reaching the end of their life-span. Is our stockpile at risk due to aging pits? No, a December 2006 report by the National Laboratories showed that plutonium pits have a life-span of at least 85 years, and possibly up to 100 years. That report validated Congressional action to eliminate funding for the Modern Pit Facility. I am pleased that the administration listened and did not request funding for the facility in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. Are we at risk for resuming nuclear testing? No, as I have argued our stockpile is safe and secure and will clearly remain so for the foreseeable future. If the likelihood of resuming nuclear testing is increasing it is due to the fact that the administration has, in past years, requested funding to lower the time to test readiness at the Nevada test site from 24-36 months to 18 months and, above all, refused to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT. What about costs? I find it interesting that the administration would cite the costs of successful Life Extension Programs as a reason to ramp up funding for the RRW. Has the administration shared with us what it will cost to replace the warhead on our deployed nuclear arsenal with a new Reliable Replacement Warhead? The answer is no. The administration has remained silent about when the supposed cost savings from RRW will ultimately kick in. In fact, the development of a new nuclear warhead will likely add billions of dollars to the American taxpayer's bill at a time when, as noted above, the stockpile is safe and reliable. As the House Energy and Water Appropriations report argued: Under any realistic future U.S. nuclear defense scenario, the existing legacy stockpile will continue to provide the nation's nuclear deterrent for well over the next two to three decades. The effort by the NNSA to apply urgency to developing a significant production capacity for the RRW while lacking any urgency to rationalize an oversized complex appears to mean simply more costs to the American taxpayer. Before we move any further with this program which would add a new warhead to the stockpile, we should have a better understanding of the role nuclear weapons will play in our security policy in a post-Cold War and post 9/11 world. If we as a country are going to move away from massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons and explore more conventional alternatives, does it make sense to add a new warhead to the stockpile? If we are committed to strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, what impact would a Reliable Replacement Warhead have on those efforts? If the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program can certify the safety and the reliability of our existing nuclear stockpile, should we shift resources from RRW to more pressing concerns? It is common sense to ask these questions and engage in comprehensive review and debate about these options before we make the decision on manufacturing new warheads. As it stands now, we are addressing this issue backwards and behind closed doors. That is, we are rushing to develop a new warhead without an understanding of the role it will play in our nuclear weapons policy and national security strategy and without public input that will lead to a bipartisan policy. Let us be clear: a rushed, four page white paper is simply not sufficient to answer these questions and make decisions about developing new nuclear warheads. The administration has promised a more detailed report but its haste to put out this paper suggests that it is more intent on rushing the development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program than in taking a sober, unbiased look at our nuclear weapons policy and posture. A lack of a substantive debate and review means we are not paying sufficient attention to the potential negative consequences of RRW. Speeding up the development of a new nuclear warhead may send the wrong message to Iran; North Korea; and other would-be nuclear weapon states and encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent. What to us may appear to be a safer, more reliable weapon could appear to others to be a new weapon with new missions and a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a report last month acknowledging that a Reliable Replacement Warhead ``could lead to a final selected design that is certifiable without a nuclear test.'' Yet, the report also concluded that absent a comprehensive review of nuclear policy and stockpile needs, the purpose and intention of RRW could be widely misinterpreted abroad. Pointing out that there has been no high level statement about nuclear weapons policy since the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, it called on the administration to develop a bipartisan policy on the future of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons policy before moving ahead with RRW. It stated: In the absence of a clear nuclear posture, many interpretations are possible [about U.S. nuclear weapons policy] and the lack of a national understanding and consensus on the role of U.S. nuclear weapons puts any new approach at considerable risk at home and abroad. For example, an RRW plan that emphasizes the goal of sustaining the deterrent without nuclear testing could be perceived quite differently from one that focuses on future flexibility to develop and deploy nuclear weapons for new military mission. It goes on to state: . . . nuclear weapons are ultimately an instrument of policy and strategy rather than of war fighting, and only with the leadership of the president can there be major changes in that instrument. Unfortunately we have not seen such leadership from this administration. Because it pursued the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, because it sought to lower the time- to-test readiness at the Nevada test site from 24-26 months to 18 months, because it sought to build a Modern Pit Facility that could produce up to 450 pits a year, this administration has lost the credibility to take a fresh and open look at nuclear weapons policy and posture. Only a new administration, free from the constraints of the heated debates of the past, will have the authority to conduct a comprehensive review of our nuclear weapons policy and posture. A bipartisan consensus on this policy is essential. It will let the world know exactly where we stand on these important issues and help clear up any confusion about our intentions. Friend and foe alike will know that regardless of who holds power in Congress or the White House, the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy will not change. It will strengthen our efforts to convince other states to forego the development of nuclear weapons and make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war. I believe that bipartisan policy is beginning to emerge. In a January 4, 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, ``A World Free of Nuclear Weapons'', George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn laid out a compelling vision for a world free of the threat of nuclear war. They laid a set of common sense steps the U.S. and other nuclear weapon states can take to make this happen including: taking nuclear weapons off high-alert status; substantially reducing the size of nuclear stockpiles; eliminating short-ranged nuclear weapons; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; securing all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium around the world; getting control of the uranium enrichment process; stopping production of fissile material for nuclear weapons globally; resolving regional confrontations that encourage the development of nuclear weapons. They conclude: Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without that bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. We should pay close attention to these words. In conclusion, let me say that there is a big difference between an RRW program that increases the reliability of the existing stockpile and one that leads to a resumption of nuclear testing. Congress should ask the tough questions to ensure that this is not a back door to new nuclear weapons with new missions and new rounds of testing. I firmly believe we should zero out for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program until the next administration takes a serious look at our nuclear weapons programs and issues a bipartisan policy on the size of the future stockpile, testing, and nuclear nonproliferation efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to craft that sensible, bipartisan nuclear weapons policy that will make Americans safe and allow us to reclaim a leadership role in the fight against nuclear proliferation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Speaking through the Chair to the Senator from Texas--I see the majority leader is going to say something. Madam President, is he going to make us an offer?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, through the Chair to the Senator from Georgia, what we have said is, a version of the AgJOBS bill. The AgJOBS bill was negotiated over 7 years between the growers and the United Farm Workers Union and others. So it is a negotiated product. I actually thought that we had satisfied the Senator's concerns in many of our discussions. I am trying to recall, but I believe there were at least three areas where we made some changes specifically because of the Senator's concerns in the discussions that we had. So I thought we had agreement on the H-2A part of the bill, which I believe was your interest, in return for which, with respect to the earned adjustment part of the bill, I would be happy to discuss this with you more. But the bill is based on, if a worker has worked in agriculture, he or she can submit documentation to that effect, for so many hours over so many years, that individual can get what we call a blue card in the original bill and continue to work in agriculture for a substantial additional period. If they satisfied the hours, the filing, the taxes, and everything required of them, then they could apply after that period for a green card. That is as far as our bill went, the original bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I thank the Senator from Idaho for those comments. He is absolutely right in what is happening. It is happening to a great extent as well in California. Referring to this chart, I wish to show the Senate what has happened. Agriculture is moving to Baja, Mexicali, and the Nogales regions--more than 20,750 acres of agriculture have moved from the United States to this area here and more than 8,600 employees have moved to this area in Mexico. Over here, more than 25,350 acres have moved to the center of Mexico, with more than 2,460 employees.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thought the problem area was citizenship.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Seven years ago. This bill is known by everybody in this body, and everyone in this body should know there is a need. We believe we have the votes in the House to pass the bill as well if it is a stand-alone bill, a 5-year pilot that enables farmers to hire workers. Let me say one other thing. There is a myth out there that anybody can do agricultural labor. If you stand by a freeway and watch people pick lettuce, you will see precision movements, you will see an organized crew, you will see they are trained in how to do it, and you will also see it is backbreaking labor that Americans will not do. There is no industry in the United States that faces the crisis agriculture does right now, I say to Senator Boxer. She knows that. I know that. We know what is happening to our farms and growers. Whether they operate 50,000 acres or 50 acres, it is the same problem. It takes, in California, 40,000 workers to harvest grapes. They are grown in four counties. It takes 40,000 workers to harvest 1 crop. Does the Senator from Texas want me to yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may respond through the Chair to the Senator from Georgia, we had hoped, I say to the Senator, that we had worked it out. We believe there are 60 votes for the bill. We are happy, all of us--those of us who have worked on this bill--to sit down with you and go over it again and hopefully have something for the September farm bill. I think it is important. The problem with waiting until September is part of the harvest is over, and we have lost a crop. I cannot tell you how much is going to be on the ground come September, but I can tell you in my State it is going to be a substantial amount. I worry about land lying fallow and then being sold by farmers for development and the loss of rich, great American farmland. I don't think that is what either one of us want. We will try to work with you, Senator Boxer, Senator Craig and I, and, hopefully, we will be able to come up with something by September. So I thank the Senator and the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might, through the Chair to the Senator from Georgia, I would like to make one point. I understand your concern is with the H-2A part of the bill. The other part of the bill is for different States because what happens in my State is, these crews work different produce. They go from one harvest to another to another to another because the harvests are staged at different times. So the bill has two component parts to it. Of course, we are willing to talk. We are happy to sit down and talk. But we tried to do that with you, as you know, and I thought we had a product that we agreed to. My understanding is the Senator from Idaho would like to ask a question.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I had the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, through the Chair to the majority leader, my interest was piqued in what the majority leader had to say. My question is, Would the majority leader be prepared to give Senator Boxer, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, and me a commitment that perhaps the majority leader and the minority leader could sit down and agree to allow a vote on AgJOBS as part of the farm bill without amendments, or some version of AgJOBS?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague from California for this. I speak on her behalf as well. Agriculture is in crisis. We have a $34 billion industry. Labor is down by as much as 30 percent. What is happening is farmers are renting land in Mexico. They don't want us to know that. It is difficult to get these figures, but we got them, and this is what is happening. Now, what will happen to the land in California, Idaho, Washington, and in other places? It will lie fallow. Farmers will soon decide they would rather farm in Mexico, with fewer restrictions on pesticides and lower phytosanitary standards. Their land will be sold for development and we will lose our farmland in this Nation. The catastrophe, the crisis, is now. The harvest system is coming up now. What Senator Boxer, Senator Craig, and many others ask is please pass this 5-year pilot program and enable people who have worked in agriculture, who will continue to work in agriculture, to be able to do so legally. Reform the H2-A program so it functions for the rest of us. The fact of the matter is, 90 percent of agriculture is undocumented labor. Why doesn't the Senate recognize that? Why doesn't the Senate recognize you cannot get Americans to do this work? Why do we want to drown American agriculture? Why do we want to send it over the border? What Senator Craig, Senator Boxer, and I are saying is, with this money, you take away our leverage to get this bill done, unless we can have some kind of commitment that we can do this bill as a stand-alone bill or move it on another bill. We ought to just face that right now, that Senator Craig and I would like to have a commitment that we can put this bill on another bill, or move it as a stand-alone bill without amendments, and hopefully get it passed so agriculture in America can harvest their crops this fall. We ought to have a discussion because this money we all would like to do, no question about it. We all want border security. We all want to fund border security. (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. It does. It pulls together all of us. We believe we have 60 votes in this body for AgJOBS because we believe there are 60 Senators at least who understand what the problem is, there is no question about it. Senator Boxer has been on this issue for at least 7 years. Senator Craig, the Senator from Idaho, was the original sponsor of AgJOBS, along with Senator Boxer and Senator Kennedy. That was 7 years ago. Is that not correct, I ask the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, to commend and congratulate the Anaheim Ducks for winning the 2007 Stanley Cup Finals last month. The Ducks are champions of the National Hockey League for the first time in their 14-year history. After defeating the Minnesota Wild and Vancouver Canucks in the first two rounds of the playoffs, the Ducks won a hard-fought battle with the Detroit Red Wings to reach the Stanley Cup finals for the second time in franchise history. The Ducks reached the pinnacle of the hockey world by displaying the qualities of selflessness, teamwork, and resilience. This championship team was ably led by head coach Randy Carlyle and star players Teemu Selanne, Jean-Sebastian Giguere, Scott and Rob Niedermayer, and Chris Pronger. This talented crew battled their opponents throughout a 2-month marathon playoff and proudly wear the title of ``champions.'' The Ducks' championship represents the first time that the storied Stanley Cup has been able to call my State, California, its home. We Californians are proud to host this trophy, and we look forward to having it return many more times to our state in the future. The Ducks have begun a new era of hockey in Southern California and I am sure they will attempt to defend their title with the same heart, sacrifice and passion that brought the Stanley Cup to Anaheim this year. The Ducks have proven that hockey is alive and well in California. I also look forward to seeing the other hockey franchises in California, the Los Angeles Kings and San Jose Sharks, compete with the Anaheim Ducks for hockey's greatest prize in the coming years. The Anaheim Ducks players, coaches, management, and owners have made their community and their fans proud. The entire organization is to be commended and congratulated for their magnificent achievement.