Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Guantanamo has become a lightning rod for international condemnation. Both allies and enemies have decried the stories of detainee abuse and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that the individuals held at Guantanamo are legally entitled to be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions. In short, the continued use of Guantanamo is causing more damage than benefit in our war on terrorism. The Supreme Court determined last summer that the Geneva Conventions applies to Guantanamo detainees, and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in response. There remain court challenges and policy questions as to whether the proceedings at Guantanamo are now legal. What is clear, however, is that, whether legal or not, Guantanamo is harming our national interests. This is not solely my view. Secretary of Defense Gates testified recently before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He said, ``I came to this position believing that Guantanamo should be closed. I know that people have expressed that as a wish. The president has expressed it as a wish.'' The Secretary remarked that Guantanamo has ``a taint about it.'' According to media accounts, the current and former Secretaries of State, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, share this view. Unfortunately, these expressions will not necessarily lead to concrete action. On March 23, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow stated that it was unlikely that the Guantanamo detention facility would close during the Bush Presidency. That is unfortunate, but I think the way forward is now clear. It is time to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo, and it is time for the Congress to act. And so today I am proud to offer legislation to end detention operations at Guantanamo within a year. Approximately 750 enemy combatants--including individuals believed to be Taliban fighters or al-Qaida irregulars have been sent to Guantanamo since January 11, 2002. Roughly 385 are there today, and it is estimated that only 60 to 80 of them will ever be charged. According to a Pentagon spokesman last month, another 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo despite having been cleared for transfer or release. This is an untenable situation. Let me be clear. I have no room in my heart for al-Qaida members or affiliates. I know full well that they would kill innocent Americans given half the chance. But the people in this administration who have made these decisions have never recognized that it is not just for the detainees' sake that we comply with U.S. and international law, it is to our benefit as well. As Senator McCain and GEN Colin Powell have forcefully argued, we treat individuals in accordance with international law to ensure that Americans captured in battle are treated likewise. Unfortunately, due to the administration's decision not to apply Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and to allow new interrogation techniques, there have been abuses. These have been documented, among other places, in the official report by Air Force LTG Randall Schmidt on June 9, 2005. Ironically, use of these techniques not only turned the tide of world opinion and shocked our consciences, but they are inconsistent with producing accurate intelligence. The second major result from mistaken administration policies has been our fall from the world's leader in the realm of ideals, not just in power. The detentions at Guantanamo have been decried, from moral leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu to political leaders like Tony Blair. Archbishop Tutu said, ``I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful.'' Prime Minister Blair commented that Guantanamo Bay is an ``anomaly that at some point has to be brought to an end.'' While world leaders and various offices of the United Nations have criticized Guantanamo, terrorists around the world have used it to rally new recruits. Just like the horrible scenes from Abu Ghraib, we have found evidence that the disrespect for Islam and the Koran at Guantanamo has helped breed a new generation of terrorists. The legislation that I introduce today would close the Guantanamo detention facilities within a year of enactment. Everyone being held at that time would have to be transitioned to an alternative legal status. There are five major options. Detainees could be transferred to a civilian or military facility in the United States and charged with a violation of U.S. or international law for prosecution in a civilian or military proceeding; transferred to a facility in the United States for continued detention, for individuals judged to be enemy combatants; transferred to any international legal tribunal that may be authorized for this purpose; transferred to their home nation or a third-party government for further processing. This would require that the Government obtain the required assurances that the detainee will not be tortured or otherwise handled in a matter against international law; or for detainees judged to pose no continuing security threat to the United States or our allies, released. What would this accomplish? First, and most importantly, it would end the stain on America's reputation and reiterate that we are a nation of laws and justice. Second, moving trials to the United States, whether under the military commission process or otherwise, would enhance the credibility of those proceedings. As Secretary Gates testified, ``no matter how transparent, no matter how open the trials, if they took place at Guantanamo in the international community, they would lack credibility.'' Finally, moving detainees to the mainland would ease the logistics of trials and oversight. It would obviate the need for the government to run its own airline business shuttling Members of Congress, lawyers, reporters, and military police to Guantanamo. Some will argue that closing Guantanamo will damage our security. Let me make clear: I am not for releasing any terrorist, any Taliban fighter, or anyone that we will have to face again on the battlefield. We have high-security prisons and military brigs around the nation and know how to keep prisoners from harming the local population. In fact, the Justice Department has successfully convicted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef for their roles in the first World Trade Center bombing. Jose Padilla was held in a naval brig, and is currently awaiting a trial in the United States. Our military and criminal justice systems are up to this task. Nor is it the case that moving detainees from Guantanamo will hinder our ability to gain intelligence from them. In fact, the majority of detainees are not being interrogated at Guantanamo, and almost none of them have any actionable intelligence left after imprisonment for years. Finally, I am aware that legislation has been introduced to amend the Military Commissions Act, especially with regard to its habeas corpus provisions. I support these efforts. But legal experts have testified that moving detainees to the United States would have little impact on the Government's ability to prosecute them. The procedures of the Military Commissions Act, or any other court martial or criminal proceeding, do not depend on the location of the trial. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already held that legal process at Guantanamo is subject to U.S. law. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is our responsibility to ensure that the war on terror is being fought in a way that maximizes our ability to prevail. The situation at Guantanamo has impeded our success. It has strained our relations with key allies. It has provided fodder to our detractors. And it has dampened the national support we need to keep fighting our enemies. After more than 5 years, it is time to close this prison. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. We will be back and back and back again.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, on April 17, just over a week ago, I rose, along with the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and adopt S. 223, which was reported unanimously by the Rules Committee on March 28. Senator Alexander objected on behalf of a Republican Senator. As a result, the bill remains in limbo. To this date, that Republican Senator has declined to come forward to say why the bill should not become law. This is such a simple, direct bill with respect to transparency. It is an idea whose time has long come. It is very hard for us to understand who could oppose this good government bill and what their reason for opposing it could be. After last week's roadblock halted passage, the minority leader's spokesman told the Washington Post: Senators are now reviewing the bill in anticipation of legislative action. We would hope that review is complete. We could now get down to business and today, by unanimous consent, just as we did in the Rules Committee, pass this bill, send it to the House, and have it become law. At our hearing on March 14 and our markup on March 28, it was clear there was no public opposition whatsoever to this bill. It is really time for the Senate to act. The bill is titled the ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.'' It is sponsored by Senators Feingold and Cochran and 33 additional Senators. It would simply require that the Senate campaign finance reports be filed electronically rather than in paper format, just as everyone else is doing now. Currently, House candidates, Presidential candidates, political action committees, and party committees are all required to file electronically. And they do. But Senators, Senate candidates, authorized campaign committees, and the Democratic and Republican senatorial campaign committees are exempt. As a result, we have a cumbersome system in which paper copies of disclosure reports are filed with the Senate Office of Public Records, which scans them to make an electronic copy and sends the copy to the FEC on a dedicated communications line. The FEC then prints the report and sends it to the 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. This is $250,000 which is needlessly spent to continue an archaic system. It is long past time to bring the Senate into the modern era. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to let this bill go today. I yield the floor to the author of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership and for his continuing interests. Hopefully, this will pass today. In that vein, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar item No. 96, S. 223, a bill to require Senate candidates to file designated statements and reports in electronic form, and 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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1999, when George Bush was a candidate for the Presidency and President Clinton was Commander in Chief, George Bush had this to say about American troops in Bosnia: Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain what the exit strategy is. Well, the Congress has been asking for an exit strategy year after year for 4 years now. In fact, President Bush has no exit strategy. So the United States is bogged down in an impossible situation: ``Shock and awe,'' followed by ineffective follow-on efforts. Today, in the fifth year of this war, the United States is enmeshed in what has become a vicious and terrifying civil war. It cannot be won through the use of American military force. This war can only be won through political accommodation between Sunni and Shia, which means only the Iraqis can settle it, which means only the Iraqi Government can settle it. To this date, they appear to be unable to do what needs to be done to stop this conflict. So without an exit strategy, the war goes on, the killings continue, and the casualties rise. Nearly 25,000 Americans injured, with tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured, and hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes by this war. Estimates put Iraqi civilian deaths in the first 3 months of this year at more than 5,500 in the Baghdad area alone. On Monday, two truck bombs killed nine members of the 82nd Airborne Division and wounded 20 more. It was the deadliest day of combat in the division's history since the Vietnam war. I fear that unless Congress acts and puts forward that exit strategy, this bloodshed will continue year after year. That is intolerable. Today, we have before us a measure that offers a solution and a strategy to fill the void left by the administration. The Iraqi supplemental spending bill responsibly funds our troops and changes the course in Iraq. Most importantly, it sends a message to the Iraqi Government that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended, that benchmarks will measure the progress, and that political accommodation is crucial. Under this legislation, the Iraqi Government would be judged on how it disarms militias, pursues Sunni-Shia reconciliation initiatives, establishes fair oil-sharing laws, reforms debaathification laws, and protects the rights of minorities. This is as it should be. This legislation ensures that our troops have sufficient rest and training and are provided well-maintained equipment. This is as it should be. It allows for a redefined mission for American forces limited to antiterrorism operations, training Iraqi forces, and protecting American civilians and members of the Armed Forces. This is as it should be. It begins the process of bringing our troops home. Into the fifth year of a war, this, too, is as it should be. The American people spoke in a clear voice. Today, the United States Senate will as well. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and that the following Senators be recognized in the following order: Senator Shelby, 3 minutes; Senators Feinstein and Feingold, 10 minutes total; Senator Bunning, 15 minutes; and Senator Schumer, 15 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Grassley in introducing the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2007. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals market their illegal drugs to our children, using appalling techniques like the recently reported sales on our streets of candy-flavored methamphetamine. In particular, the bill would: double the maximum penalties applicable to drug crimes if a criminal defendant manufactures, offers, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under the age of 21; if the violation is a repeat offense, the maximum sentence would be tripled; and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least a year would apply in every case involving illegal drugs that targets its marketing at minors. The growing problem of marketing illegal drugs to minors was highlighted in a recent USA Today article, entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise,'' which stated, ``Reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' Normally, methamphetamine--a highly addictive stimulant--is a brownish, bitter-tasting crystalline powder. But drug dealers, recognizing that this may not be appealing to children or teenagers, have reacted by reaching a new low: they are using candy and soda flavors to market their meth. Soda flavors. Strawberry methamphetamine that they market as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Reddish methamphetamine marketed as an energy drink like ``Red Bull.'' Even ``chocolate quick.'' Scott Burns, Deputy Drug Czar at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, warns that this development may negatively affect the gains we have recently made in getting the word out to our young people about how horrible this drug is. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people 12 and older who used methamphetamine for the first time in the previous year decreased from 318,000 people in 2004 to 192,000 people in 2005. That's the good news. But Deputy Drug Czar Burns warns that with drug dealers having a tougher time selling their product, especially to young people, ``they have to come up with some sort of gimmick.'' And that gimmick, he warns, is the use of flavored methamphetamine. In my own State of California, San Francisco police since late January have arrested teens with quantities of meth designed to taste like chocolate. The Haight-Asbury clinic also confirms chocolate- flavored methamphetamine being used on the streets. Dr. Alex Stalcup, a nationally renowned drug counselor, reports seeing teenage patients at the New Leaf Treatment Center suffering the ill effects of flavored methamphetamine since the first of this year. One of Dr. Stalcup's patients was unaware that the substance was meth at all, and said he was told that it was a solidified form of the energy drink Red Bull. Dr. Stalcup warns that this new form of the drug also may be more likely to lead to an overdose, by users who may not be aware of, or who may underestimate, a candy-flavored drug's impact. Perhaps the first report of this problem emerged in late January, when a Carson City, Nevada police informant purchased 2 grams of a strawberry-flavored methamphetamine from an alleged member of the Lima Street gang. Officers later served a search warrant on his home and found more. Police bulletins warned this ``new type of meth will be more attractive to a younger crowd and may surface in schools.'' Additional reports also came in. On February 13, a police officer in Greene County, MO, seized a bag of ``strawberry meth'' from a female passenger in a car stopped in a rural area of Greene County, MO. And in Idaho, the Administrator of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy warned of how drug dealers were producing ``strawberry quick'' and ``chocolate quick'' forms of meth, to attract young buyers and spawn a new generation of drug buyers. The Idaho Press-Tribune even reported that at Valentine's Day, drug dealers compressed the flavored form of the drug into heart-shapes, colored it bright pink, and wrapped it in shiny paper. Based on intelligence gathered by Drug Enforcement Administration agents from informants, users, police and drug counselors, flavored crystals are now available in California, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and Minnesota. The bill I offer today would address this problem, by enacting penalties to discourage colored and flavored drugs and the marketing of drugs to minors. Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes illegal drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But the enhancement applies only if there is an actual distribution to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute doesn't qualify. And current law doesn't address flavored drugs or marketing illegal drugs in ways appealing to kids. The bill I introduce would fix that. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute an illegal drug that is flavored, colored, packaged or altered in a way designed to make it more appealing to someone under age 21, they would face this same enhanced penalty. This bill will send a strong and clear message to the drug dealers-- if you flavor up your drugs or alter them in a way that makes it more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. Flavored meth is designed to get people to try it a few times. It's all about hooking young people. And that is truly tragic. Listen to what one former addict wrote after hearing about this new development: They do need to worry about our children because I happen to know quite a few 10 and 12 year olds on up that are already using it and selling it out there. So whoever thinks it's not a threat to our children--WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's more and more dangerous out there when people cannot handle it and they develop a chemical imbalance and lose their mind to where they don't even know who they are anymore. I happen to know a very, very young pretty girl I've met, and she will never come back to who she was. She's gone. She is crazy and is gonna end up hurt then dead one of these days. I pray for this girl all the time . . . Estimates now place the number of habitual meth users worldwide at 26 million worldwide--more than the combined total for heroin and cocaine. It is extraordinarily addictive. We must act to preserve the gains we have made, and keep kids from getting cruelly tricked into an addiction they may never break. These new penalties will make dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Grassley, as well as Senators Kohl, Feingold and Durbin as original co- sponsors, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007. This bill would take an important grant program for drug-endangered children that Congress authorized in the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act, and extend it for two additional years. In particular, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act authorized $20 million in Federal grants for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to States to assist in the treatment of children who have been endangered by living at a home where methamphetamine has been manufactured or distributed. But unless we pass new legislation, that authorization will not continue beyond the current fiscal year. A companion bill was introduced earlier this year by California Congressman Dennis A. Cordoza, with bipartisan support in the House. The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP, has documented that innocent children are sometimes found in homes and other environments, hotels, automobiles, apartments, etc., where methamphetamine and other illegal substances are produced. According to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, there were 1,660 children affected by or injured or killed at methamphetamine labs during 2005. These children who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production face a variety of health and safety risks, including: inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs, or contaminated foods that may result in nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns, and death; fires and explosions; abuse and neglect, and hazardous lifestyles, presence of booby traps, firearms, code violations, and poor ventilation. Where children are involved, drug lab seizures must go beyond the normal response from law enforcement, fire and HAZMAT organizations. Additional agencies and officials often must be called in to assist, including emergency medical personnel, social services, and physicians. Recognizing this need, the ONDCP several years ago announced a national Drug Endangered Children (DEC) initiative to assist with coordination between existing State programs and create a standardized training program to extend DEC to states where such a program does not yet exist. As a result of this initiative, several states developed DEC programs, to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare workers, to ensure that children found in these environments receive appropriate attention and care. These DEC programs began to develop interagency protocols to support drug-endangered children, addressing issues such as: staff training, including safety and cross training; roles and responsibilities of agencies involved; appropriate reporting, cross-reporting, and information sharing; safety procedures for children, families, and responding personnel; interviewing procedures; evidence collection and preservation procedures, and medical care procedures. Protocols were designed to identify and provide guidance on the variety of issues that responding agencies needed to address in these situations, such as taking children into protective custody and arranging for child protective services, immediately testing the children for methamphetamine exposure, conducting medical and mental health assessments, and ensuring short- and long-term care. Unfortunately, the ONDCP's initiative, which had been funded in part through a DOJ award of $2.124 million under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine Initiative of 2003, was not continued thereafter. The USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act that we passed in 2005, establishing a specific grant program for this purpose, recognized the need to continue this initiative. Unfortunately, this grant program that we authorized was never funded. In fiscal year 2006, the program that we authorized was appropriated no funds at all. In fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives voted to include $5 million for this important program as part of its CJS Appropriations bill. But unfortunately, the 109th Congress adjourned without passing most of its FY2007 appropriations bills, and the Continuing Resolution we passed to keep the government running did not fund this provision either. So the bill that I introduce today would give the Congress another chance to revive this important initiative. And it can't come too soon for places like Merced, California, where three-quarters of all foster care cases are reported to be methamphetamine-related. I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Channel Islands National Park Management Act of 2007. This legislation seeks to clarify the future use and management of the park, and specifically protects Santa Rosa Island for the use of the public. The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access. Unfortunately, late last year during conference negotiations a provision was slipped into the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization bill seeking to overturn a court-approved settlement agreement which requires the phasing out of private hunting on Santa Rosa Island. Under a binding court settlement in the late 1990s, non-native deer and elk must be removed from Santa Rosa Island over a phased, 4-year period beginning in 2008. Today, from mid-August through mid-November, a large portion of the island is closed to the public so that the island's prior owners can run a trophy hunting operation targeting the deer and elk on the island. Under the settlement, this hunting operation was to end in 2011 allowing the island to be completely open to the public year round. Now, under last year's provision, the prior owners will seek to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips. Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, the prior owners would seek to keep essentially everything they had before--and that's simply not in the public interest. Some may be interested in learning a little history and background on this gem of an island: Santa Rosa Island is approximately 53,000 acres and lies about 50 miles west of Ventura Harbor. It is the second largest of the five islands making up the Channel Islands National Park. It is extremely rugged and pristine, with terrain ranging from grassy hills to steep, wind-carved canyons to white sandy beaches. Craggy, steep cliffs overlook rocky tide pools along its coast. Wildflowers cover many parts of the island during the spring and summer. It is ecologically sensitive and includes several endemic plants and species. For example, it is the only place in the world to see the island fox and spotted skunk in their natural habitat. A variety of shore birds--like the snowy plover--and sea mammals--such as seals and sea lions--breed on its beaches. It is seen by many scientists as one of the nation's most unique places. In addition to being the home of rare flora and fauna, it is an archaeological and paleontological treasure, with some sites dating back 11,000 years or to the Pleistocene-era. In fact, in 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth was excavated on the island. It offers incredible recreational opportunities for the public, including hiking, camping, kayaking, fishing, sea sports, and wildlife watching. The limitation of public access to the island to accommodate privately run hunting trips would be a tragedy. This is the public's land. It's a national park, and the public should be able to visit it and enjoy its breath-taking beauty and remoteness. I also want to address one issue the provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill purportedly seeks to address: enhancing hunting opportunities for disabled veterans. While no one opposes providing hunting opportunities for our veterans, it is clear that it is neither a practical nor viable option to use Santa Rosa Island as a hunting reserve for injured and disabled veterans. This view is now supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA, an organization which previously expressed support for the provision overturning the settlement. Notably, in July 2006, the PVA reached the conclusion following an investigative visit to Santa Rosa that the ``numerous obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the possible, limited benefit it could provide.'' Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already 9 military installations that permit hunting--five that can accommodate disabled servicemembers. Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base, are relatively close to the Channel Islands National Park, and allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals, including deer, waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote. Altogether there are over 100 U.S. military installations where hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to disabled servicemembers and veterans. Naturally, the Park Service is firmly opposed to the provision seeking to overturn the settlement. But it is also important to note that neither the Department of Defense nor the Veterans Administration asked for the language. Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public. To allow any less would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and wrongly limit the public's access to this national treasure. I strongly believe that we must do everything to protect the island for the public and oppose any measures that could continue to restrict access to the island. This legislation we are introducing today would safeguard the island in just this manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Grassley in introducing the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2007. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals market their illegal drugs to our children, using appalling techniques like the recently reported sales on our streets of candy-flavored methamphetamine. In particular, the bill would: double the maximum penalties applicable to drug crimes if a criminal defendant manufactures, offers, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under the age of 21; if the violation is a repeat offense, the maximum sentence would be tripled; and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least a year would apply in every case involving illegal drugs that targets its marketing at minors. The growing problem of marketing illegal drugs to minors was highlighted in a recent USA Today article, entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise,'' which stated, ``Reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' Normally, methamphetamine--a highly addictive stimulant--is a brownish, bitter-tasting crystalline powder. But drug dealers, recognizing that this may not be appealing to children or teenagers, have reacted by reaching a new low: they are using candy and soda flavors to market their meth. Soda flavors. Strawberry methamphetamine that they market as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Reddish methamphetamine marketed as an energy drink like ``Red Bull.'' Even ``chocolate quick.'' Scott Burns, Deputy Drug Czar at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, warns that this development may negatively affect the gains we have recently made in getting the word out to our young people about how horrible this drug is. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people 12 and older who used methamphetamine for the first time in the previous year decreased from 318,000 people in 2004 to 192,000 people in 2005. That's the good news. But Deputy Drug Czar Burns warns that with drug dealers having a tougher time selling their product, especially to young people, ``they have to come up with some sort of gimmick.'' And that gimmick, he warns, is the use of flavored methamphetamine. In my own State of California, San Francisco police since late January have arrested teens with quantities of meth designed to taste like chocolate. The Haight-Asbury clinic also confirms chocolate- flavored methamphetamine being used on the streets. Dr. Alex Stalcup, a nationally renowned drug counselor, reports seeing teenage patients at the New Leaf Treatment Center suffering the ill effects of flavored methamphetamine since the first of this year. One of Dr. Stalcup's patients was unaware that the substance was meth at all, and said he was told that it was a solidified form of the energy drink Red Bull. Dr. Stalcup warns that this new form of the drug also may be more likely to lead to an overdose, by users who may not be aware of, or who may underestimate, a candy-flavored drug's impact. Perhaps the first report of this problem emerged in late January, when a Carson City, Nevada police informant purchased 2 grams of a strawberry-flavored methamphetamine from an alleged member of the Lima Street gang. Officers later served a search warrant on his home and found more. Police bulletins warned this ``new type of meth will be more attractive to a younger crowd and may surface in schools.'' Additional reports also came in. On February 13, a police officer in Greene County, MO, seized a bag of ``strawberry meth'' from a female passenger in a car stopped in a rural area of Greene County, MO. And in Idaho, the Administrator of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy warned of how drug dealers were producing ``strawberry quick'' and ``chocolate quick'' forms of meth, to attract young buyers and spawn a new generation of drug buyers. The Idaho Press-Tribune even reported that at Valentine's Day, drug dealers compressed the flavored form of the drug into heart-shapes, colored it bright pink, and wrapped it in shiny paper. Based on intelligence gathered by Drug Enforcement Administration agents from informants, users, police and drug counselors, flavored crystals are now available in California, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and Minnesota. The bill I offer today would address this problem, by enacting penalties to discourage colored and flavored drugs and the marketing of drugs to minors. Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes illegal drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But the enhancement applies only if there is an actual distribution to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute doesn't qualify. And current law doesn't address flavored drugs or marketing illegal drugs in ways appealing to kids. The bill I introduce would fix that. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute an illegal drug that is flavored, colored, packaged or altered in a way designed to make it more appealing to someone under age 21, they would face this same enhanced penalty. This bill will send a strong and clear message to the drug dealers-- if you flavor up your drugs or alter them in a way that makes it more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. Flavored meth is designed to get people to try it a few times. It's all about hooking young people. And that is truly tragic. Listen to what one former addict wrote after hearing about this new development: They do need to worry about our children because I happen to know quite a few 10 and 12 year olds on up that are already using it and selling it out there. So whoever thinks it's not a threat to our children--WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's more and more dangerous out there when people cannot handle it and they develop a chemical imbalance and lose their mind to where they don't even know who they are anymore. I happen to know a very, very young pretty girl I've met, and she will never come back to who she was. She's gone. She is crazy and is gonna end up hurt then dead one of these days. I pray for this girl all the time . . . Estimates now place the number of habitual meth users worldwide at 26 million worldwide--more than the combined total for heroin and cocaine. It is extraordinarily addictive. We must act to preserve the gains we have made, and keep kids from getting cruelly tricked into an addiction they may never break. These new penalties will make dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Channel Islands National Park Management Act of 2007. This legislation seeks to clarify the future use and management of the park, and specifically protects Santa Rosa Island for the use of the public. The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access. Unfortunately, late last year during conference negotiations a provision was slipped into the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization bill seeking to overturn a court-approved settlement agreement which requires the phasing out of private hunting on Santa Rosa Island. Under a binding court settlement in the late 1990s, non-native deer and elk must be removed from Santa Rosa Island over a phased, 4-year period beginning in 2008. Today, from mid-August through mid-November, a large portion of the island is closed to the public so that the island's prior owners can run a trophy hunting operation targeting the deer and elk on the island. Under the settlement, this hunting operation was to end in 2011 allowing the island to be completely open to the public year round. Now, under last year's provision, the prior owners will seek to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips. Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, the prior owners would seek to keep essentially everything they had before--and that's simply not in the public interest. Some may be interested in learning a little history and background on this gem of an island: Santa Rosa Island is approximately 53,000 acres and lies about 50 miles west of Ventura Harbor. It is the second largest of the five islands making up the Channel Islands National Park. It is extremely rugged and pristine, with terrain ranging from grassy hills to steep, wind-carved canyons to white sandy beaches. Craggy, steep cliffs overlook rocky tide pools along its coast. Wildflowers cover many parts of the island during the spring and summer. It is ecologically sensitive and includes several endemic plants and species. For example, it is the only place in the world to see the island fox and spotted skunk in their natural habitat. A variety of shore birds--like the snowy plover--and sea mammals--such as seals and sea lions--breed on its beaches. It is seen by many scientists as one of the nation's most unique places. In addition to being the home of rare flora and fauna, it is an archaeological and paleontological treasure, with some sites dating back 11,000 years or to the Pleistocene-era. In fact, in 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth was excavated on the island. It offers incredible recreational opportunities for the public, including hiking, camping, kayaking, fishing, sea sports, and wildlife watching. The limitation of public access to the island to accommodate privately run hunting trips would be a tragedy. This is the public's land. It's a national park, and the public should be able to visit it and enjoy its breath-taking beauty and remoteness. I also want to address one issue the provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill purportedly seeks to address: enhancing hunting opportunities for disabled veterans. While no one opposes providing hunting opportunities for our veterans, it is clear that it is neither a practical nor viable option to use Santa Rosa Island as a hunting reserve for injured and disabled veterans. This view is now supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA, an organization which previously expressed support for the provision overturning the settlement. Notably, in July 2006, the PVA reached the conclusion following an investigative visit to Santa Rosa that the ``numerous obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the possible, limited benefit it could provide.'' Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already 9 military installations that permit hunting--five that can accommodate disabled servicemembers. Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base, are relatively close to the Channel Islands National Park, and allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals, including deer, waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote. Altogether there are over 100 U.S. military installations where hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to disabled servicemembers and veterans. Naturally, the Park Service is firmly opposed to the provision seeking to overturn the settlement. But it is also important to note that neither the Department of Defense nor the Veterans Administration asked for the language. Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public. To allow any less would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and wrongly limit the public's access to this national treasure. I strongly believe that we must do everything to protect the island for the public and oppose any measures that could continue to restrict access to the island. This legislation we are introducing today would safeguard the island in just this manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Grassley, as well as Senators Kohl, Feingold and Durbin as original co- sponsors, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007. This bill would take an important grant program for drug-endangered children that Congress authorized in the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act, and extend it for two additional years. In particular, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act authorized $20 million in Federal grants for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to States to assist in the treatment of children who have been endangered by living at a home where methamphetamine has been manufactured or distributed. But unless we pass new legislation, that authorization will not continue beyond the current fiscal year. A companion bill was introduced earlier this year by California Congressman Dennis A. Cordoza, with bipartisan support in the House. The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP, has documented that innocent children are sometimes found in homes and other environments, hotels, automobiles, apartments, etc., where methamphetamine and other illegal substances are produced. According to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, there were 1,660 children affected by or injured or killed at methamphetamine labs during 2005. These children who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production face a variety of health and safety risks, including: inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs, or contaminated foods that may result in nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns, and death; fires and explosions; abuse and neglect, and hazardous lifestyles, presence of booby traps, firearms, code violations, and poor ventilation. Where children are involved, drug lab seizures must go beyond the normal response from law enforcement, fire and HAZMAT organizations. Additional agencies and officials often must be called in to assist, including emergency medical personnel, social services, and physicians. Recognizing this need, the ONDCP several years ago announced a national Drug Endangered Children (DEC) initiative to assist with coordination between existing State programs and create a standardized training program to extend DEC to states where such a program does not yet exist. As a result of this initiative, several states developed DEC programs, to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare workers, to ensure that children found in these environments receive appropriate attention and care. These DEC programs began to develop interagency protocols to support drug-endangered children, addressing issues such as: staff training, including safety and cross training; roles and responsibilities of agencies involved; appropriate reporting, cross-reporting, and information sharing; safety procedures for children, families, and responding personnel; interviewing procedures; evidence collection and preservation procedures, and medical care procedures. Protocols were designed to identify and provide guidance on the variety of issues that responding agencies needed to address in these situations, such as taking children into protective custody and arranging for child protective services, immediately testing the children for methamphetamine exposure, conducting medical and mental health assessments, and ensuring short- and long-term care. Unfortunately, the ONDCP's initiative, which had been funded in part through a DOJ award of $2.124 million under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine Initiative of 2003, was not continued thereafter. The USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act that we passed in 2005, establishing a specific grant program for this purpose, recognized the need to continue this initiative. Unfortunately, this grant program that we authorized was never funded. In fiscal year 2006, the program that we authorized was appropriated no funds at all. In fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives voted to include $5 million for this important program as part of its CJS Appropriations bill. But unfortunately, the 109th Congress adjourned without passing most of its FY2007 appropriations bills, and the Continuing Resolution we passed to keep the government running did not fund this provision either. So the bill that I introduce today would give the Congress another chance to revive this important initiative. And it can't come too soon for places like Merced, California, where three-quarters of all foster care cases are reported to be methamphetamine-related. I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Majority Leader Reid's legislation S. 761, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science-- COMPETES--Act of 2007 to help maintain our Nation's competitive edge in the critical areas of math, science, engineering and technology. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important bill with 57 of my colleagues. This bill will strengthen educational opportunities in math, science, engineering, and technology from elementary through graduate school, increase the Federal investment in basic research, and develop an innovation infrastructure--all which is greatly needed in an increasingly competitive global economy. This bipartisan bill reflects recommendations by the National Academies' report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate America'' report. Both of these reports conclude that action is needed now in order to secure our country's economic and technological leadership in the future. For example, indicators of the need for action are the following: More than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China in 2004. In India, the figure was 350,000. In the U.S., it was only about 70,000. Science and engineering jobs are expected to grow by 21 percent from 2004 to 2014, compared to a growth of 13 percent in all other fields, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Nationwide, about 68 percent of middle school math students were taught by teachers who did not have a major or certification in the subject. For science middle school students, 57 percent were taught by teachers who did not have a major or certification in the subject-- based on the 2004 report by the National Center for Education Statistics. In California, the State also faces a critical shortage of math and science teachers. The State will need to produce more than 16,000 new math and science teachers within 5 years and more than 33,000 over the next decade due to attrition and retirement. This is from the March 2007 report by the California Council on Science and Technology. This report also concludes that strengthening the teaching of math and science is crucial if California is to maintain its competitive edge and economic growth. That is why it is imperative that we take steps to ensure that our children, as our future leaders, are fully prepared with the skills to take on the demands of the country's changing economy and workplace. Specifically, this bill would increase authorized funding for the National Science Foundation from $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. California receives about 20 percent of total funding from NSF grants; increase authorized funding for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science from $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 to over $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. California receives over 20 percent of total Federal funding; direct NASA to transfer $160 million from its accounts for the funding of basic science and research for fiscal year 2008 and fully participate in interagency activities to foster innovation; authorize $290 million over 4 years to establish a Distinguished Scientists Program under the U.S. Department of Energy which would be a joint program between universities and National Laboratories to support up to 100 distinguished scientist positions; authorize $210 million for fiscal year 2008, and such sums as necessary for each of the following three years, for new grants under the U.S. Department of Education to develop university degree programs for students to pursue bachelor's degrees in math, science, engineering, and critical foreign languages with concurrent teaching credentials. Also, grants would be used for master's degree programs in these fields for current teachers to improve their skills. This model is similar to the University of California's California Teach Program which aims to put a thousand new math and science teachers annually into the State's classrooms. It will authorize $190 million over 4 years to create a new grant program to improve the skills of K-12 math and science teachers, under the U.S. Department of Energy, for summer institutes at each of the National Laboratories; authorizes $146.7 million for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as necessary for the following 3 years to provide ``Math Now'' grants, under the U.S. Department of Education, to improve math instruction for struggling elementary and middle school students; authorize $140 million over 4 years for a new competitive grant program under the U.S. Department of Energy to assist States in establishing or expanding statewide math and science specialty schools and provide expert assistance in teaching from the National Laboratories' at these schools; establishes a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness and requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to identify barriers to innovation 1 year after enactment. America's economy is fueled by innovation, and innovation is enabled by a strong foundation in math and science. Our country's math and science foundation is eroding, and our innovative strength is similarly weakening. The U.S. trade balance in high-technology products has shifted from a $54 billion surplus in 1990 to a $50 billion deficit in 2001. This legislation can help reverse this trend. It will help maintain our Nation's global competitiveness and continue to attract the best and brightest minds across the country to pursue careers as engineers, scientists, technicians, and very importantly, as math and science teachers. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer my personal congratulations to Talmadge E. King, Jr., MD, for receiving the Edward Livingston Trudeau Medal from the American Thoracic Society. The award recognizes Dr. King for his lifelong commitment to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of lung disease. Throughout his career, Dr. King has made significant contributions to pulmonary medicine in patient care, research, specialty organization, and through his generous philanthropic contributions. Dr. King began his illustrious career after graduating from Gustavus Adolphus College in 1970 and Harvard Medical School in 1974. Following his graduation from Harvard Medical School, he began his residency at Emory University Affiliated Hospitals in Atlanta, GA. After 2 years of residency at Emory, Dr. King was offered a pulmonary fellowship at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver. Here he also held a professorship in medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Over the next decade, Dr. King spent time at two other Denver hospitals, the Veterans Administration Medical Center and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine. In both of these capacities his talents as a doctor and as an administrator were quickly recognized and he rapidly advanced within both organizations. By 1997, however, he was ready to bring his considerable talents to the Golden State--and we were happy to have him. Dr. King left Denver to take on two new roles in San Francisco, concurrently serving as the vice chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and as the chief of medical services at San Francisco General Hospital. As chief of medical service at San Francisco General Hospital, he leads a department of over 140 full-time physicians and scientists and more than 500 support staff, with an annual budget of over $65 million. Currently, Dr. King still serves as the chief of medical services at San Francisco General, and since 2005, he has also served as the interim chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. Dr. King is also a founding board member of the Foundation of the American Thoracic Society, the philanthropic arm of the American Thoracic Society. In this role, Dr. King has been an exemplary contributor and tireless fundraiser to support domestic and international research to find better treatments for the myriad of lung diseases that afflict individuals around the globe. Of course, no congratulations would be complete without mentioning the contributions of his wife Mozelle Davis King and his two children Consuelo and Malaika who have been there every step of the way and provided him with steadfast love and support. Again, I congratulate Dr. King on this great achievement and wish him continued success in the years to come. It is truly a pleasure to honor and thank him for all that he has done for patients across the country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Ninety-two years ago today, on the night of April 24, 1915, the Ottoman government launched a series of raids in which hundreds of Armenian leaders and intellectuals were arrested and subsequently deported or killed. This event marked the beginning of a systematic campaign of murder, deportation, and forced starvation, during which as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished and 500,000 were exiled by the Ottoman government. We are obliged to remember and speak about their suffering because silence about such atrocities plants the seed for another tragedy. On the eve of the 1939 Nazi invasion of Poland, seeking to allay the fears of his aides, Adolf Hitler said: ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' And today, the world is again witnessing genocide, one waged by a government against its own people, one involving mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and forced starvation. I am speaking, of course, about the genocide in Darfur. Let there be no mistake. The ongoing genocide in Darfur, carried out by the Government of Sudan and its janjaweed militias, traces its roots to the silence and quiescence of the international community during previous episodes of genocide and ethnic cleansing, including the Armenian genocide. By acknowledging and learning from the Armenian genocide, then, we become better positioned to prevent present and future atrocities. Open discussion of the Armenian genocide serves another important purpose. It enables the descendants of those involved in the Armenian genocide--both perpetrators and victims--to mend the wounds that have not yet healed. As recently as January of this year, a Turkish-Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink, was murdered because of his outspoken advocacy for Turkish recognition of the Armenian genocide. This incident serves as an important reminder that an open, informed, and tolerant discussion of the genocide is critical. California is home to many of the descendants of the genocide's survivors, who immigrated to the United States and, over the course of a few decades, built strong and vibrant communities. Working closely with the Armenian-American community over my many years in public service, I know how alive and painful this issue continues to be for many Armenian Americans. So I rise before you today and ask that you join me in acknowledging and commemorating the Armenian genocide. Together, let us send a strong message that such atrocities will never be accepted, regardless of when and where they take place. And let us ensure that the legacy of the Armenian genocide is one of reconciliation and hope.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee has amended the ``Public Transportation Subsidy Regulations.'' Based on the Committee's review of the regulations adopted on August 1, 1992, as amended, the following changes are effective April 24, 2007. The regulations are amended by deleting and substituting as follows: Sec. 2, substitute entire section for the following: Sec. 2. Authority The Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act (Pub.L. 103-172) allows Federal agencies to participate in state or local government transit programs that encourage employees to use public transportation. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, as amended by the Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century (Pub.L. 105-178) allows employers to give employees as a tax free ``de minimis fringe benefit'' transit fare media up to the maximum monthly amount authorized under section 132(f)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as modified by the Internal Revenue System's published Revenue Procedures, and upon written authority of the Rules Committee. Sec. 3, (e) Delete ``Pub. L. 101-509'' and insert ``Pub. L. 103-172''. Sec. 3, insert definition at end of Section Insert the following definition at the end of the definition: ``(f) Unique Identifier--A number or token, as approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, designed to be used across all systems in the United States Senate to uniquely identify an individual's set of records within each of those systems.'' Sec. 4, (a) Delete ``currently not to exceed $105 per month.'' Sec. 4, (e) Replace entire section with the following language: ``(e) Any fare media purchased under this program may not be sold or exchanged, although exchanges of metro card media are permissible for transportation provided by Virginia Railway Express (VRE), the Maryland Transit Administration's (MARC's) train, or vanpools certified by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).'' Sec. 7 Delete ``social security number'' and insert in its place ``unique identifier.'' Delete ``(currently $105)''. Sec. 8, (A) Delete ``Pub. L. 101-509'' and insert ``Pub. L. 103-172''. Set forth below are the amended regulations which are effective April 24, 2007: Public Transportation Subsidy Regulations Sec. 1. Policy It is the policy of the Senate to encourage employees to use public mass transportation in commuting to and from Senate offices. Sec. 2. Authority The Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act (Pub. L. 103-172) allows Federal agencies to participate in state or local government transit programs that encourage employees to use public transportation. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, as amended by the Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178) allows employers to give employees as a tax free ``de minimis fringe benefit'' transit fare media up to the maximum monthly amount authorized under section 132(f)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as modified by the Internal Revenue System's published Revenue Procedures, and upon written authority of the Rules Committee. Sec. 3. Definitions (a) Public Mass Transportation--A transportation system operated by a State or local government, e.g. bus or rail transit system. (b) Fare Media--A ticket, pass, or other device, other than cash, used to pay for transportation on a public mass transit system. (c) Office--Refers to a Senate employee's appointing authority, that is, the Senator, committee chairman, elected officer, or an official of the Senate who appointed the employee. For purposes of these regulations, an employee in the Office of the President pro tempore, Deputy President pro tempore, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority Whip, Minority Whip, Secretary of the Conference of the Majority, or Secretary of the Conference of the Minority shall be considered to be an employee, whose appointing authority is the Senator holding such position. (d) Qualified Employee--An individual employed in a Senate office whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate, whose salary is within the limit set by his or her appointing authority for participation in a transit program under these regulations, and who is not a member of a car pool or the holder of any Senate parking privilege. (e) Qualified Program--Refers to the program of a public mass transportation system that encourages employees to use public transportation in accordance with the requirements of Pub. L. 103-172 whose participation in the Senate program in accordance with these regulations has been approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration. (f) Unique Identifier--A number or token, as approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, designed to be used across all systems in the United States Senate to uniquely identify an individual's set of records within each of those systems. Sec. 4. Program Requirements (a) Each office within the Senate is authorized to provide to qualified employees under its supervision a de minimis fringe employment benefit of transit fare media of a value not to exceed the amount authorized by statute. (b) Each appointing authority may establish a salary limit for participation in this program by his or her employees. If such salary limit is established, all staff paid at or below that limit, and who meet the other criteria established in these regulations, must be permitted to participate in this program. (c) For purposes of these regulations, an individual employed for a partial month in an office shall be considered employed for the full month in that office. (d) The fare media purchased by participating offices under this program shall only be used by qualified employees for travel to and from their official duty station. (e) Any fare media purchased under this program may not be sold or exchanged, although exchanges of Metro Card Media for transportation provided by Virginia Railway Express (VRE), the Maryland Transit Administration's MARC trains, or vanpools certified by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). (f) In addition to any criminal liability, any person misusing, selling, exchanging or obtaining or using a fare media in violation of these regulations shall be required to reimburse the office for the full amount of the fare media involved and may be disqualified from further participation in this program. Sec. 5. Office Administration of Program Each office electing to participate in this program shall be responsible for its administration in accordance with these regulations, shall designate an individual to manage its program, and may adopt rules for its participation consistent with these regulations. An employee who wishes to participate in this program shall make application with his or her office on a form which shall include a certification that such person is not a member of a motor pool, does not have any Senate parking privilege (or has relinquished same as a condition of participation), will use the fare media personally for traveling to and from his or her duty station, and will not exchange or sell the fare media provided under this program. The application shall include the following statement: This certification concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States and making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the maker subject to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Safekeeping and distribution of fare media purchased for an office is the responsibility of the program manager in that office. Participating offices may not refund or replace any damaged, misplaced, lost, or stolen fare media. Sec. 6. Senate Stationery Room Responsibilities The only program currently available in the Washington, DC metropolitan area at this time is ``Metro Pool,'' a program established through Metro by the District of Columbia. Transit benefits will be provided through Metro Pool for participating offices in the Washington, DC area. The Committee on Rules and Administration shall enter into an agreement with Metro Pool for purchase of fare media by the Senate Stationery Room as required by participating offices on a monthly basis. A participating office shall purchase the fare media with its authorized appropriated funds from the Senate Stationery Room through its stationery account pursuant to 2 U.S.C.Sec. 119. Each office shall present to the Senate Stationery Room [two copies of] the certification referred to in section 7 of these regulations. A new certification shall be submitted when an employee is added to or deleted from the program. The Stationery Room shall make available to the Senate Rules Committee Audit Section a monthly summary of office participation in this program. In addition, the Stationery Room may not refund or replace any damaged, misplaced, lost, or stolen fare media that has been purchased through the office's stationery account. Sec. 7. Certification The certification required by section 6 shall be approved by the appointing authority and shall include the name, and unique identifier of each participating employee within that office, and the following statements: (a) Each person included on the list is currently a qualified employee as defined in Section 3. (b) No person included on the list has any current Senate parking privilege and that no parking privileges will be restored to any person on the list during the period for which the fare media is purchased. (c) That each month's fare media for each participating employee does not exceed the maximum dollar amount specified in statute. Sec. 8. Other Participating Programs Section 6 provides for procedures for participation by Washington offices in the Metro Pool program established through Metro by the District of Columbia. Additional programs in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, or programs offered in other locations where Members have offices that meet the requirements of the law and these regulations, may be used for qualified employees, subject to the following requirements: (A) Authorization The public transit system shall submit information to the Committee on Rules and Administration that it participates in an established state or local government program to encourage the use of public transportation for employees in accordance with the provisions of Pub. L. 103-172 and these regulations. If the program meets the requirements of the statute and these regulations and is approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, any Senate office served by such transit system may provide benefits to its employees pursuant to these regulations. (B) Procedures (1) A qualified program operating in the Washington, DC metropolitan area that permits purchase arrangements similar to those provided by the Metro Pool program shall participate in the Senate program in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 6. (2) A qualified program operating in the Washington, DC metropolitan area that does not have purchase arrangements similar to Metro Pool, or a qualified program located outside that metropolitan area, that permits purchases directly by an office, may make arrangements for purchase of media directly with a participating office. Such an office may provide for direct payment to that system and shall submit the certification in accordance with Section 7. (3) In the case of a qualified program that does not permit purchase arrangements as provided in paragraphs (1) or (2) above, an office may provide for reimbursement to a qualified employee and shall submit a certification in accordance with Section 7. (C) Documentation The following documentation must accompany a voucher submitted under paragraph 8(B)(2) or (3): (1) A copy of the Rules Committee approval, in accordance with section 8(A), with the first voucher submitted for that transit program, provided subsequent vouchers identify the transit program. (2) The certification. (3) Proof of purchase of the fare media. (D) Voucher Guidance In the case of a Senator's state office, reimbursement for payment to either a qualified transit system, or a qualified employee shall be from the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOP&OEA) as a home state office expense on a seven part voucher. In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, reimbursement for payment to either a qualified transit system, or a qualified employee shall be as follows: 1. In the case of a Senator's office from the SOP&OEA as an ``other official expense'' (discretionary expense). 2. In the case of a Senate committee or administrative office as an ``Other'' expense. Sec. 9. Special Circumstances Any circumstances not covered under these regulations shall be considered on application to the Committee on Rules and Administration. Sec. 10. Effective Date These regulations shall take effect on the first day of the month following date of approval.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on April 18, 2007, the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library met and adopted the rules of procedure for the 110th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate that the rules of procedure of the Joint Committee of Congress for the Library be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment before us that will split the Ninth Circuit. We will be voting on a point of order at 2 o'clock. I think it is very unfortunate that the pending bill, to make much- needed improvements in the security of our judges, is being threatened by a rehashing of an old and bad idea to split the circuit. There is a raft of reasons why the Senate should defeat this effort to divide the Ninth Circuit. First, it would be a serious blow to judicial independence if the circuit were to be split because of disagreement with its decisions. It would also result in an unfair distribution of the Ninth Circuit caseload. Judges in the new Ninth Circuit would be much more busy than their counterparts on the Twelfth Circuit. The proposal that is being made by Senator Ensign essentially takes California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Mariana Islands and puts them into their own Ninth Circuit, and takes all the big continental States that are now part of the Ninth Circuit and creates a Twelfth Circuit. That is the proposal that is before the body now. This proposal would also destroy the current uniformity of the law in the West. It would have significant costs that the judiciary cannot afford to bear, given its already tight budgets, and it is opposed by the vast majority of the people who know the circuit best: its judges. Virtually overwhelmingly I think all but three or four of the judges in the Ninth Circuit oppose its splitting. I agree with many of the Ninth Circuit's decisions. I disagree with some of them. However, the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to be independent and free from congressional or Presidential pressure or reprisal. I am concerned that recent attempts to split the Ninth Circuit are part of an assault on the independence of the judiciary by those who disagree with some of the court's rulings. As former Gov. Pete Wilson has stated: These attempts are judicial ``gerrymandering,'' designed to isolate and punish judges whose decisions some disagree with. They are antithetical to the Constitution. That is not me saying that; that is the former Republican Governor of California. Attempting to coerce or punish judges or rig the system is not an appropriate response to disagreements with a court's decisions. Rather, it is essential that we preserve our system of checks and balances and make it clear that politicians will not meddle in the work of judges. The configuration of the Ninth Circuit is not set in stone; however, any change to the Ninth Circuit should be guided by concerns of efficiency and administration, not ideology. After a substantial review of the statistics, decisions, and reports from those who know the circuit best, it is clear that splitting the Ninth Circuit would hinder its mission of providing justice for the people of the West. The split proposal before us would unfairly distribute judicial resources to the West. This is the key. The Ninth Circuit would keep 71 percent of the caseload of the current circuit but only 58 percent of its permanent judges. Any split we look at, because California is so big, tilts the circuit and, of course, all of the proponents of the circuit split take the judges with them. So it leaves a disproportionate share of a heavy caseload in the Ninth Circuit--unless you split California, and to split California creates a host of technical and legal problems. Last year, the Ninth Circuit had a caseload of 570 cases per judge, as opposed to a national average of 381 cases per judge. So under the proposed split, the Ensign plan, the average caseload in the new Ninth Circuit would actually increase to 600 cases per judge, while the new Twelfth Circuit would have half that, 326 cases per judge. There is no effort to give the Ninth the new judges they would need to keep the caseload even. This inequitable division of resources would leave residents of California and Hawaii facing greater delays and with court services inferior to their Twelfth Circuit neighbors. The uniformity of law in the West is a key advantage of the Ninth Circuit, offering consistency to States that share many common concerns. The size of the Ninth Circuit is an asset, offering a unified legal approach to issues from immigration to the environment. Dividing the circuit would make solving these problems even more difficult. For example, splitting the circuit could result in different interpretations in California and Arizona of laws that govern immigration, different applications of environmental regulations on the California and Nevada sides of Lake Tahoe, and different intellectual property law in Silicon Valley and the Seattle technology corridor. These differences would have real economic costs. These are border States, and trade and commerce in the Pacific is a huge part of what they do. Therefore, the legal consistency between them is an asset, not a disadvantage. In a time of tight judicial budgets, splitting the circuit would add significant and unnecessary expense. The split actually would require additional Federal funds to duplicate the current staff of the Ninth Circuit and a new or expanded courthouse and an administrative building since existing judicial facilities for a Twelfth Circuit are inadequate. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts estimated that creating a Twelfth Circuit would have a startup cost of $96 million, with another $16 million in annual recurring cost. If we are going to do anything, what we need is more judges on the Ninth Circuit. That is the key. With budget pressures already forcing our Federal courts to cut staff and curtail services, this is no time to impose new, unnecessary costs on the judiciary. My colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, joins me in these remarks. She will have a separate statement. Those who know the Ninth Circuit best overwhelming oppose the split. Of the active Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, 18 oppose the split, to be exact, and only 3 support it. The district court and bankruptcy judges of the Ninth Circuit also oppose the split. Every State bar association that has weighed in on the split--Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington--opposes breaking up the Ninth Circuit, and more than 100 different national, regional, and local organizations have written to urge that the Ninth Circuit be kept intact. I believe splitting the Ninth Circuit would create more problems right now than it would solve. It will not solve the caseload problem of the circuit, and that is the critical issue. Those who propose the split do so to unfairly benefit themselves because they also take the judges from the Ninth Circuit and they add them to the Twelfth Circuit. They would end up having a caseload per judge of one-half of what the caseload would be in a new Ninth Circuit. So it is not a fair plan because it does not fairly distribute the resources based on caseload. I believe there is only one criterion for resources, and that is caseload. The judges must be where the cases are, and that should be an inescapable truth that we follow. I urge the Senate to vote to sustain the point of order on the Ensign amendment to split the Ninth Circuit, and instead let's focus our attention on securing the courts and then, secondly, providing the judges who are necessary to equalize caseloads throughout the Nation. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004; that at 2 p.m. today, a vote occur on Senator Ensign's motion to waive the point of order, considered made by this agreement, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided and controlled between Senators Feinstein and Ensign or their designees; that if the motion to waive the Budget Act is not successful, then without further intervening action or debate, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill; that if the motion to waive the Budget Act is successful, the provision on third reading and passage be vitiated. I ask that the preceding be done by unanimous consent.

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this morning, I heard my friend and colleague, Senator Brownback, on the floor speaking about the decision of the Supreme Court. He and I both chair the Senate's Cancer Coalition, so it has been a great pleasure for me to work with him. But we have very different views when it comes to a woman's right to choose, and I would like to rise today to express my concern and deep dismay regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. This judgment today is a major strike against a woman's right to choose. The Court, in this case, by a narrow 5-to-4 margin, has essentially enacted the first Federal abortion ban in this country and has struck down a primary requirement of Roe v. Wade--protection of the health of a mother. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote: Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, Federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. It blurs the line firmly drawn in Casey between pre-viability and post- viability abortions. And for the first time since Roe, the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health. This is simply shocking. It is shocking because this can affect any second-trimester abortion. Just 7 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down this very ban in Stenberg v. Carhart in the year 2000. It struck it down out of concern that it did not provide adequate protections for a woman's health and that the law enacted was too vague. The Federal courts, the Fifth and the Ninth Circuits, have all examined this and opposed it. No Federal Court has upheld this abortion ban until today. Now, what has changed in the 7 years? The answer is nothing, except the composition of the Court. The additions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have accomplished what the Bush administration has sought from its earliest days--a court willing to further restrict a woman's right to choose. When they appeared before the Judiciary Committee during their confirmation hearings, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito affirmed their respect for stare decisis as preeminent and a controlling factor. In these hearings, Chief Justice Roberts said, and I quote: People expect that the law is going to be what the court has told them the law is going to be. And that's an important consideration. Justice Alito said, and I quote: I've agreed, I think numerous times during these hearings, that when a decision is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis. With Justice O'Connor no longer on the Court, the majority of Justices ignored what Senator Specter referred to as ``super precedent'' in these hearings. As Justice Ginsburg points out: The Court admits that ``moral concerns'' are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortions. She continues: Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution--ideas that have long since been discredited. The Court, now filled with Bush appointees, is replacing the judicial precedent that they promised to respect for their definition of morality. That is where I see us as being today. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has substituted the medical decisions of politicians for that of doctors. In the Congressional findings of the legislation creating this ban, as well as the majority opinion of the Court, politicians and Justices decided what procedures are medically necessary and which are not. Justice Kennedy wrote, in today's majority decision, that the Court assumed the abortion ban would ``be unconstitutional if it subjected women to significant health risks.'' He goes on to declare ``safe medical options are available.'' However, doctors who perform these procedures disagree. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the group that represents more than 90 percent of all OB/GYN specialists in the country, assembled an expert panel that identified several specific instances in which this procedure, intact dilation and extraction, has meaningful safety advantages over other medical options. The procedure is safer for women with serious underlying medical conditions, including liver disease, bleeding and clotting disorders, and compromised immune systems. Experts also testified that this procedure is significantly safer for women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, including severe hydrocephalus. That is when the head fills with water and is very often larger than the body. In these rare and heartbreaking cases in which a woman learns that something has gone tragically wrong in a pregnancy she very much wanted, no woman should be forced to bear the added burden of undergoing a medical procedure that is not the safest option. The decision today unquestionably breaks new ground. I am extremely concerned that this has opened the door to a further judicial interference in what should be private medical decisions made by women, their partners, their religious beliefs, and their doctors. With this decision, the Roberts Court is signaling a new willingness to uphold additional restrictions on abortion, even those that do not expressly protect a woman's health. This is dangerous. The Roberts Court has also opened the door for a major change in how it will determine whether a law unconstitutionally restricts a woman's rights. Generally, laws have been struck down when they are unconstitutional on their face, because if a law is unconstitutional for 10 people or 10 million people, then it should not stand. The Court is turning that analysis on its head. The Court's opinion today says it may uphold laws, even when they may be unconstitutional. This means that in the future a woman could be put in an untenable situation. A woman facing a health crisis needs to act within days or weeks but instead would need to depend on the legal system. Let me give you an example. A woman learns her pregnancy has gone tragically wrong and her health is at risk. She is told by the doctor that there exists a medical procedure that would help her, but it is banned. The alternatives will risk her health. She has to go to court and argue that her constitutional rights, in this specific instance, have been violated. We all know the wheels of justice spin slowly. It is doubtful the system could respond in a timely manner to a woman in this kind of crisis. If she can prove her case, she might be allowed to have the procedure, but the ban itself would still remain in place, requiring the next woman in a similar situation to have to successfully demonstrate that the law is unconstitutional. This is amazing. The Court, in effect, is requiring that women's health be at risk until it deems enough women have demonstrated the negative impact of the law on them. Requiring this type of legal challenge to any restriction on abortion will impact women in the most vulnerable situations. I would like, for a moment, to quote Justice Ginsburg. She points out: Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, ``are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.'' . . . Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ``to participate equally in the social life of this Nation.'' In this, incidentally, she is quoting Sandra Day O'Connor in places in an earlier decision. Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ``their ability to control their reproductive lives.'' . . . Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature. In keeping with this comprehension of the right to reproductive choice, the Court has consistently required that laws regulating abortion, at any stage of pregnancy and in all cases, safeguard a woman's health. This is now out the window. It is monumental. In conclusion, I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal in America. It was when I was a college student at Stanford. I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so young women could go to Tijuana for an abortion. I knew a woman who ended her life because she was pregnant. In the 1960s, while abortion was still illegal, as a member of the California Board of Terms and Parole, I sentenced women convicted of illegally performing abortions. I saw the morbidity that they caused by their procedures. It was barbaric in those days. So I am very concerned with this ruling. The Court is taking the first major step back to these days of 30, 40 years ago. Young women today have not had these experiences. They have lived only in an era in which the Court recognized their autonomy, their right to make their own medical decisions. If I were a young woman today, I would be incredibly concerned that this era is drawing to a close. The threat on reproductive freedom is no longer theoretical. Today it is very real. All those who care about protecting a woman's right to privacy should take notice and make their voices heard. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chairman of the Rules Committee to speak about a bill that the Committee heard and passed out unanimously a short time ago. That bill is entitled the ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.'' It is sponsored by Senators Feingold, Cochran, and 32 other Senators. It would require that Senate campaign finance reports be filed electronically rather than in paper format. That is all the bill does. Currently, House candidates, Presidential candidates, political action committees, and party committees are all required to file electronically, and they do. But Senators, Senate candidates, authorized campaign committees, and the Democratic and Republican Senate campaign committees are exempt. As a result, we have a very cumbersome system in which paper copies of disclosure reports are filed with the Senate Office of Public Records, which then scans them, makes an electronic copy of them, and sends that copy to the FEC on a dedicated communications line. The FEC then prints the report and sends it to a vendor in Fredericksburg, VA, where the information is keyed in by hand and transferred back to the FEC database. All of this costs about $250,000, and it is a waste of money, a waste of staff, and a waste of time. At our hearing on February 14 on this bill--and this bill is just on this point--it was clear that there was no public opposition to this proposal, only public support. The bill has been hotlined. It has cleared on the Democratic side. It has not cleared on the Republican side. Now, again, this bill says we will just allow us to electronically file our quarterly reports. I just electronically filed my quarterly reports. I then gave a paper copy to the Secretary of the Senate. This is exactly the type of good-government law the Senate can adopt as a stand-alone measure. I hope we move this legislation today, without burdening it with other items. It is really long past time to bring the Senate into the modern era. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in ensuring timely access and disclosure of Senate finance campaign activities and bring that information before the public. I will now yield to the author of the legislation, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.