Floor Statements

If I may, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized when the tributes to Senator Corzine have concluded.

Mr. President, I believe I am to be recognized by unanimous consent directly following the tributes to Senator Corzine. I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to the Senator from New Jersey. He has been indeed a good Senator. His tenure here has distinguished him. That is clearly recognized by people of New Jersey. I believe he is going to be a great Governor for that great State.

Certainly.

I certainly will.

Mr. President, I rise today as a 12-year member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 5-year member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do so indeed with a very heavy heart. I have had, until now, great confidence in America's intelligence activities. I have assured people time and time again that what happens at home has always been conducted in accordance with the law.

I played a role in the PATRIOT Act. I moved one of the critical amendments having to do with the wall and the FISA court. Today's allegations as written in the New York Times really question whether this is in fact true. I read it with a heavy heart, yet without knowing the full story.

Let me be clear. Domestic intelligence collection is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. This law sets out a careful set of checks and balances that are designed to ensure that domestic intelligence collection is conducted in accordance with the Constitution, under the supervision of judges and with accountability to the Congress of the United States.

Specifically, FISA allows the Government to wiretap phones or to open packages, but only with a showing to a special court--the FISA court-- and after meeting a legal standard that requires that the effort is based on probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power.

Let me cite two sources. The first is a 1978 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In the report is a comment by the then-chairman of that committee, Senator Birch Bayh. He is talking about the FISA bill that had just come to the floor in 1978:

The bill requires a court order for electronic

surveillance, defined therein, conducted for foreign

intelligence purposes within the United States or targeted

against the international communications of particular United

States persons who are in the United States. The bill

establishes the exclusive means by which such surveillance

may be conducted.

That is the bill, FISA, which was passed in 1978.

Second, in late 2001 this subject came up again on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Senate Intelligence Committee discussed this subject and amended at that time in its authorization bill National Security Act section 502, which is the reporting of intelligence activities other than covert action.

Section 502 states:

To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection

from unauthorized disclosure of classified information

relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or

other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of

Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments,

agencies, and other entities of the United States Government

involved in intelligence activities shall:

(1) keep the congressional intelligence committees--

It doesn't say only the chairman and the vice chairman--

fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities

other than a covert action (as defined in section 503(e)),

which are not the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or

are carried out for or on behalf of any department, agency,

or entity of the United States Government, including any

significant anticipated intelligence activity and any

significant intelligence failure.

And (2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees

any information or material concerning intelligence

activities, other than covert actions, which is within their

custody or control, and which is requested by either of the

congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out

its authorized responsibilities.

At that time, we had this discussion about just the chairman and the vice chairman receiving certain information, and this act was amended, and section (b) was added to the National Security Act, called ``form and contents of certain reports.'' It was to clarify what the form and content of the reporting to the committee would be. And the wording is as follows:

Any report relating to a significant anticipated

intelligence activity or a significant intelligence failure

that is submitted to the congressional intelligence

committees for the purposes of subsection (a)(1) shall be in

writing and shall contain the following:

(1) a concise statement of any fact pertinent to such

report;

(2) an explanation of the significance of the intelligence

activity or intelligence failure covered by such report.

And then section (c) was added, ``standards and procedures for certain reports,'' that those standards and procedures would hereby be established.

What has happened is that it has become increasingly used just to notify a very few people. There are 535 Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States.

If the President of the United States is not going to follow the law and he simply alerts eight Members, that doesn't mean he doesn't violate a law. I repeat, that doesn't mean he doesn't violate a law. FISA is the exclusive law in this area, unless there is something I missed, and please, someone, if there is, bring it to my attention.

Section 105(f) of FISA allows for emergency applications where time is of the essence. But even in these cases, a judge makes the final decision as to whether someone inside the United States of America, a citizen or a noncitizen, is going to have their communications wiretapped or intercepted. The New York Times reports that in 2004, over 1,700 warrants for this kind of wiretapping activity were approved by the FISA Court. The fact of the matter is, FISA can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours and even minutes, if necessary.

In times of war, FISA section 111 states this:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the

Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance

without a court order under this title to acquire foreign

intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15

calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

I would argue the resolution authorizing use of force was not a declaration of war. I read it this morning carefully. It does not authorize the President of the United States to do anything other than use force. It doesn't say he can wiretap people in the United States of America. And apparently, perhaps with some change, but apparently this activity has been going on unbeknownst to most of us in this body and in the other body now since 2002.

The newspaper, the New York Times, states that the President unilaterally decided to ignore this law and ordered subordinates to monitor communications outside of this legal authority.

In the absence of authority under FISA, Americans up till this point have been confident--and we have assured them--that such surveillance was prohibited.

This is made explicit in chapter 119 of title 18 of the criminal code which makes it a crime for any person without authorization to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, I have been repeatedly assured by this administration that their efforts to combat terrorism were being conducted within the law, specifically within the parameters of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which, as I have just read, makes no exception other than 15 days following a declaration of war.

We have changed aspects of that law at the request of the administration in the USA PATRIOT Act to allow for a more aggressive but still lawful defense against terror. So there have been amendments. But if this article is accurate, it calls into question the integrity and credibility of our Nation's commitment to the rule of law.

I refreshed myself this morning on the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. Here is what it says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and

seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,

but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

Clearly an intercept, a wiretap, is a search. It is a common interpretation. A wiretap is a search. You are looking for something. It is a search. It falls under the fourth amendment.

Again, the New York Times states that a small number of Senators, as I said, were informed of this decision by the President. That doesn't diminish the import of this issue, and that certainly doesn't mean that the action was within the law or legal.

What is concerning me, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, is if eight people, rather than 535 people, can know there is going to be an illegal act and they were told this under an intelligence umbrella-- and therefore, their lips are sealed--does that make the act any less culpable? I don't think so.

The resolution passed after September 11 gave the President specific authority to use force, including powers to prevent further terrorist acts in the form of force. I would like to read it. I read Public Law 107-40, 107th Congress:

Sec. 1. Short title.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization

for Use of Military Force''.

Sec. 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed

Forces.

(A) In General.--That the President is authorized to use

all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,

organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,

committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on

September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or

persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international

terrorism against the United States by such nations,

organizations, or persons.

Then it goes on to say:

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers

Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is

intended to constitute specific statutory authorization

within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers

Resolution.

This is use of force. It is not use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance of American citizens or those without citizenship within the confines of the United States. That is the jurisdiction of the FISA Court. There is a procedure, and it is timely.

As a matter of fact, we got into this rather seriously in the Judiciary Committee. At the time we wrote the PATRIOT Act, I offered an amendment to change what is called ``the wall'' between domestic intelligence-gathering agencies and foreign intelligence-gathering agencies from a ``primary purpose'' for the collection of foreign intelligence to a ``significant purpose.'' We had a major discussion in the committee, as is the American way. We were making public policy. We discussed what primary purpose meant. We discussed in legal terms what significant purpose meant.

So this was a conscious loosening of a standard in the FISA law to permit the communication of one element of Government with the other and transfer foreign intelligence information from one element of the Government to the other.

That is the way this is done, by law. We are a government of law. The Congress was never asked to give the President the kind of unilateral authority that appears to have been exercised.

I was heartened when Senator Specter also said that he believed that if the New York Times report is true--and the fact that they have withheld the story for a year leads me to believe it is true, and I have heard no denunciation of it by the administration-- then it is inappropriate, it is a violation of the law.

How can I go out, how can any Member of this body go out, and say that under the PATRIOT Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the President is not going to be bound by the law, which is the FISA court?

And there are no exceptions to the FISA court.

So Senator Specter, this morning, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, announced that he would hold hearings on this matter the first thing next year. I truly believe this is the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years. I am so proud of this Government because we are governed by the rule of law, and so few countries can really claim that. I am so proud that nobody can be picked up in the middle of the night and thrown into jail without due process, and that they have due process. That is what makes us different. That is why our Government is so special, and that is why this Constitution is so special. That is why the fourth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights--to state clearly that searches and seizures must be carried out under the parameter of law, not on the direction of a President unilaterally.

So I believe the door has been opened to a very major investigation and set of circumstances. I think people who know me in this body know I am not led toward hyperbole, but I cannot stress what happened when I read this story. And everything I hold dear about this country, everything I pledge my allegiance to in that flag, is this kind of protection as provided by the Constitution of the United States and the laws we labor to discuss, argue, debate, enact, then pressure the other body to pass, and then urge the President to sign. That is our process.

If the President wanted this authority, he should have come to the Intelligence Committee for an amendment to FISA, and he did not. The fact that this has been going on since 2002--it is now the end of 2005. Maybe 8 people in these 2 bodies in some way, shape, or form may have known something about it, but the rest of us on the Intelligence Committees did not.

That is simply unacceptable.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the fiscal year 2006 Labor, HHS, Education and related agencies conference report.

As my colleagues know, this is the second conference report to come out of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee this year. This bill, which passed the House yesterday by two votes, represents a failure by the leadership of this Congress to adequately fund health, education, and workforce programs.

The first conference report--the one defeated by the House--contained drastic cuts to existing programs like the title VII health professions programs and No Child Left Behind.

So what is different between the bill before us today and the one that failed? Does the second conference report restore the harmful cuts to health and education that were supported by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate? Does the bill contain even one dollar more than the bill that was defeated by the House?

The answer to those questions is no.

The first conference report included $201 million worth of cuts to rural health programs identified by the National Rural Health Association. The bill before us restores a few of these programs but it still retains $137 million, or 68 percent, worth of those cuts.

The bill before us restores a provision costing $90 million that would have prohibited Medicare and Medicaid from covering prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction.

And how does this bill pay for these provisions? It is not with new money but, rather, with $120 million that was designated for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund for pandemic flu preparedness and $60 million that was supposed to go to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' administrative account for implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

At a time when seniors are struggling to understand and sign up for the new Medicare drug benefit, this bill cuts the account needed to run Medicare's 1-800 help line, run its Website Medicare.gov, conduct outreach and provide technical assistance to millions confused seniors.

And at a time when public health experts across the globe are warning countries to act now to prepare for a pandemic influenza, this bill cuts $120 million in pandemic flu preparedness funding.

In total, this bill cuts health funding by $466 million.

That includes a cut of $185 million for the Bureau of Health Professions title VII programs, making it harder to recruit and retain qualified health professionals, and the elimination of nine vital health programs including trauma care, rural emergency medical services, the geriatric education centers, health education training centers, and the health community access program.

In California, the elimination of the geriatric education program will eliminate funding for the Northern California Geriatric Education Center at the University of California San Francisco, the only source of Federal funding for geriatric education from the Bay Area to Oregon.

It provides a less than 1 percent increase in funding the National Institutes of Health, the smallest percentage increase to NIH since 1970. This bill cuts the number of new research grants that NIH can fund by 355, from 9,612 to 9,257.

Last September, 91 of my colleagues joined me in sending a letter to President Bush supporting the administration's goal of eliminating cancer death and suffering by 2015. The wholly inadequate funding for NIH in this bill dims the hope of reaching this 2015 goal.

The conference report harms all working American families.

First, the conference report slashes the Office of Disability Employment Policy to $20 million, close to half of the funding in fiscal year 2005. The disabled community will no longer have the training, employment, and education needed to earn a decent wage. This is a community that already faces a 68 percent unemployment rate.

Second, reducing job training programs, dislocated worker assistance, and employment services by $530 million will make it close to impossible for dislocated workers to re-enter the workforce. This is particularly appalling given the recent bankruptcy and layoff announcements by Delta, Northwest, and General Motors, just to name a few.

Lastly, the reduction in trade adjustment assistance will leave workers to fend for themselves when industries change and jobs shift oversees. This is vital to the Nation's economic stability. The fast- moving pace of innovation requires that we have a flexible workforce provided with the training needed to transition to the next opportunity. Reducing this type of program will leave American workers behind.

The ability to work is the path to financial independence, economic stability, and the key to earning a better life. This conference report shamefully denies that opportunity to dislocated and disabled workers wanting to earn a better life.

And finally, this bill hurts our Nation's schools, educators, and students.

It cuts total Federal education funding by $59 million for the first time in over a decade.

Within education, No Child Left Behind is significantly cut by $779 million or 3 percent that will ultimately result in an estimated $3 million loss for California schools.

Furthermore, this bill shortchanges the authorized funding level for No Child Left Behind programs by $13.1 billion.

This major cut and underfunding is being done when the required math and reading performance levels under the law are increasing for school districts and schools are struggling to find the funds necessary to meet the law's requirements.

This bill also fails to provide any increase to the Pell grant student aid award of $4,050 for the fourth year in a row, even though a $100 increase was promised in the budget resolution.

Federal Pell grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.

Pell grants help over 5.3 million low- and middle-income students attend college, over 500,000 of them in California.

There could not be a worse time for freezing student's financial grant aid as the costs of attending a 4-year public college or private college have dramatically increased both nationwide and in California.

According to the College Board, the average cost nationwide of attending a public university for 1 year has increased 66 percent to $5,132 within the last 10 years, and yet Pell grant aid continues to remain stagnant.

This bill also drastically cuts other important education programs, such as Even Start literacy programs that help disadvantaged children and their parents increase their English skills are cut by 56 percent, from $200 million to $100 million; education technology State grants are cut by 45 percent, from $496 million to $275 million; and State grants for keeping schools safe and drug free are cut by 20 percent, from $437 million to $350 million.

The bill before us shortchanges American families, and I believe America can do better. The cuts in this bill for vital health, education, and workforce programs are a direct result of the agenda of this administration and

the leadership in Congress: to pass tax cuts and reconciliation bills that actually worsen the deficit, all the while doing nothing to address the long-term fiscal picture of entitlement spending.

As an appropriator, I recognize that tough decisions have to be made. However, the policy choices of this administration have put Members of this body in the position of having to vote on the elimination of health programs for the poorest and sickest of Americans and for cuts to education programs for low-income students. I reject that choice and believe we must rebalance our priorities.

The choice we should be making today is to improve our healthcare safety net, to fully fund our schools, and to help American workers find the path to financial independence and economic stability.

This conference report fails Americans on all those fronts, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member very much. I would like to make a brief statement. I am not sure I can do it in 5 minutes. I may have to ask unanimous consent for a little additional time.

Today the Senate is taking up the conference report to accompany the PATRIOT Act. I am the original Democratic cosponsor of the unanimously passed Senate bill, as well as cosponsor of the Combat Meth Epidemic Act and the Port Security Crimes Act, both of which are incorporated in the conference report. Thus, it is only after careful consideration that I have determined to vote against cloture tomorrow, and I would like to take a moment to explain why.

I fear that it is going to be a very divisive and partisan vote tomorrow. The USA PATRIOT Act has been a valuable tool in our effort to combat terror, but it has also become a divisive point of contention between Democrats and Republicans and, as a result, doesn't have the broad support of the American people. Thus, it is extremely important that every effort be made to reach an accommodation before debate becomes contentious and even more partisan.

Outside the beltway, the USA PATRIOT Act has come to be terribly misunderstood. Many believe it is related to Guantanamo Bay and the detention of prisoners. Others believe it authorizes torture or the secret arrest of Americans. It does none of these things.

At the same time, some have irresponsibly sought to characterize anyone who seeks to improve or criticize the law as somehow playing into the hands of the terrorists. They have implied that the USA PATRIOT Act will expire in its entirety on December 31, and we will be left with no defense against terrorist acts. This, too, is untrue.

What is true is that when it comes to national security, it is so important to build consensus. Our efforts to combat terror in general, and the authorities in the PATRIOT Act specifically, are diminished in effectiveness if they are not seen by most Americans as the product of bipartisan effort in Washington.

I believe our Nation's safety requires this body to reach compromise on this bill.

That is why, when Senator Specter asked me to join him in introducing the Senate bill, I agreed. I want to say something. Senator Specter has been a wonderful chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He listens, he is open, he is smart, he is legally pristine, and he has been a fine leader for the committee.

I believed Senator Specter, working with Senator Leahy and the members of the Judiciary Committee, would be able to build consensus, to reach compromise, and deliver legislation that the American people could be confident represented bipartisan agreement, not politics.

My confidence in Senators Specter and Leahy and my colleagues on the committee was well placed. In July, the committee unanimously reported the bill favorably, and shortly thereafter the Senate, again unanimously, passed the bill.

Having a USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, supported by Senators Cornyn and Schumer, Kyl and Feingold, Hatch, Kennedy, and every single Member of this body gave me great comfort, and I believe was an important step toward healing the divisive partisanship that has come to be associated with the bill.

Unfortunately, that spirit seems to have ended. The conference report process, instead of bringing unity, appears to have had the opposite result: dividing my colleagues by failing to adequately take into account differing views on elements of the bill. The simple result is that in the next day we are likely to divide into two camps.

In the end, of course, we will extend the PATRIOT Act's expiring provisions in some form because despite the rhetoric, nobody doubts that the provisions will be extended. What is at issue is whether and to what extent modifications are made.

What will be lost is the much needed sense that the PATRIOT Act represents a broad consensus. That may be more important than the specific details of provisions and issues. I believe it is. The bottom line is that having a consensus bill is of paramount importance. So I rise today because I still believe----

May I have 5 minutes more, please.

I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Yesterday, I urged Majority Leader Frist to work as hard as he can to bring people back to the table before the vote. The day before, I urged Attorney General Gonzales to work with Senators Leahy and Specter toward the same end. I have said the same thing to Senators Specter and Leahy personally, and today I renew this request.

Press reports today quote insiders saying that efforts to reach compromise have been abandoned. Some seem to believe that a filibuster fight would be an opportunity to force Democrats into bad votes, thus securing partisan advantage in upcoming elections.

Others seem to believe that the American people can be tricked into thinking that Members such as Senators Craig, Sununu, Murkowski, Hagel, Obama, Durbin, Feingold, Salazar, and Kerry, all of whom signed a moving letter yesterday explaining why they would vote against cloture, are somehow helping terrorists. Still others, counting the votes, think the opportunity to embarrass the administration is too good to miss.

I reject these positions. Instead, I ask respectfully that we get back to work.

I strongly urge my colleagues to carefully read the letter sent by this group of Senators. While I do not agree with every one of their points, the key issues they raise have merit and should be addressed.

The most important of the issues they raise involve section 215--the so-called library provision--and provisions governing judicial review, particularly of national security letters. I believe on these two issues, as well as some of the others, continued good-faith negotiation will result in solving the problems in a way that will be acceptable to a vast majority of this body and will not in any way diminish the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence organizations to do their job.

Congress has a long and honorable tradition of putting aside party politics when it comes to national security. We were able to do that in the Senate with this bill. So it is critical that this approach be carried forward to the end.

I believe the unanimously passed Senate bill represents that compromise. And while I understand that some accommodations must be made to the House, these cannot be so great as to destroy the consensus in the Senate that we have built.

I know that Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have worked long and hard. I also know that Senator Leahy made some compromises to vote for the Senate bill that passed this body unanimously. I asked Senator Specter and Senator Leahy to please try once again to achieve the compromise that we had when the Senate bill passed this body unanimously.

I believe national security deserves no less, and I believe the distinguished leadership of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, can achieve this if given the opportunity and if the leadership puts its clout behind bringing the House on board as well.

Absent that, I will vote for the Sununu legislation to provide an element of time. I also ask that the meth bill, as well as the port security bill, be added to his legislation. I thank the ranking member and the chairman and I yield the floor.

I wonder, Mr. President, if you will allow me a brief response to the chairman and manager of the bill.

I don't want to take Senator Leahy's time.

I very much appreciate the conversation we had last night, where I tried to share this view. I thank the Senator for listening.

It seems to me, and Senator Leahy will certainly correct me if I am wrong, that the crux of the problem revolves around two sections of the bill. It seems to me there is more than one way to solve that problem. I just think if the two of you got together, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House, that there might be consensus reached. I believe the rest of the bill certainly can go into play. I do not see any problems with those, on my part. But I think Senator Leahy, who has participated in this--let me say another thing.

I believe there is a real problem in these conferences where people get shut out at certain points. It is counterproductive. I would urge that not happen in the future because when it does, I believe it conditions, negatively, the entire remainder of the conference.

It is the national security letters and section 215.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Santa Ana River Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2005.

This legislation authorizes Federal assistance through Title XVI for projects developed by local communities to reduce their dependence on water from the Colorado River. It helps California develop safer and more reliable water supplies.

Congressman Gary Miller along with Congressmen Calvert, Dreier, Royce, Cox and Rohrabacher introduced similar legislation in the House. Their bill passed the House in October.

The projects in this bill will increase the region's water supply by 200,000 acre-feet annually and are prototypes for providing water supplies to new communities throughout the arid Western States.

The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System is an innovative approach to reuse water resources within one of the most populated counties in the Nation. Seventy-two thousand acre feet of reclaimed water will be produced annually for indirect potable use. This is enough water to meet the needs of more than 300,000 people each year. This bill authorizes $51.8 million for the groundwater replenishment system, just 10 percent of the actual cost of the project.

Another project in the bill expands desalination facilities in the Chino Basin, providing a fourfold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater

supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

This legislation also authorizes $40 million to construct regional brine sewer lines that will enable our communities to safely dispose of the brine generated from the ``desalted'' groundwater supplies.

In order to naturally treat the regions water and remove contamination from the Santa Anna River, I am also seeking Federal support for the construction of wetlands. This concept holds the promise of efficiently improving the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies.

The creation of a Center for Technological Advancement of Membrane Technology will foster research efforts to improve membrane design and testing. Research conducted at this facility will help develop technologies to increase the stability of our water supply.

I believe the ever-growing demand for water throughout Southern California can be satisfied through local supplies. Regional watershed plans, coordinating water use throughout multiple jurisdictions, are a critical tool to reach this goal. All of the projects in this legislation were developed on a regional basis and the Federal cost share of each project is less than 20 percent.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation as it holds the key to providing a roadmap for other communities' efforts to meet the challenges posed by a scarce potable water supply.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Santa Ana River Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2005.

This legislation authorizes Federal assistance through Title XVI for projects developed by local communities to reduce their dependence on water from the Colorado River. It helps California develop safer and more reliable water supplies.

Congressman Gary Miller along with Congressmen Calvert, Dreier, Royce, Cox and Rohrabacher introduced similar legislation in the House. Their bill passed the House in October.

The projects in this bill will increase the region's water supply by 200,000 acre-feet annually and are prototypes for providing water supplies to new communities throughout the arid Western States.

The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System is an innovative approach to reuse water resources within one of the most populated counties in the Nation. Seventy-two thousand acre feet of reclaimed water will be produced annually for indirect potable use. This is enough water to meet the needs of more than 300,000 people each year. This bill authorizes $51.8 million for the groundwater replenishment system, just 10 percent of the actual cost of the project.

Another project in the bill expands desalination facilities in the Chino Basin, providing a fourfold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater

supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

This legislation also authorizes $40 million to construct regional brine sewer lines that will enable our communities to safely dispose of the brine generated from the ``desalted'' groundwater supplies.

In order to naturally treat the regions water and remove contamination from the Santa Anna River, I am also seeking Federal support for the construction of wetlands. This concept holds the promise of efficiently improving the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies.

The creation of a Center for Technological Advancement of Membrane Technology will foster research efforts to improve membrane design and testing. Research conducted at this facility will help develop technologies to increase the stability of our water supply.

I believe the ever-growing demand for water throughout Southern California can be satisfied through local supplies. Regional watershed plans, coordinating water use throughout multiple jurisdictions, are a critical tool to reach this goal. All of the projects in this legislation were developed on a regional basis and the Federal cost share of each project is less than 20 percent.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation as it holds the key to providing a roadmap for other communities' efforts to meet the challenges posed by a scarce potable water supply.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, on World AIDS Day, to remember the 20 million people who have died as a result of the largest pandemic in human history and with the hope that the 40 million people worldwide who are currently living in the shadow of this devastating illness will not be added to the list of lives lost.

The human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is a certain and silent killer, decimating entire generations, crippling continents, and orphaning as many children as the populations of Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City combined.

While scientific advances promise new hope for so many, we are still far from winning the war on this deadly virus much more must be done.

AIDS was first identified in the United States in Los Angeles in 1981.

In that year, as mayor of San Francisco, I allocated $180,000 for the treatment of this disease. By the time I left the mayor's office in 1988, funds allocated for AIDS programs in San Francisco had grown to over $20 million, more than that of the Federal Government. At that time, the crisis had exploded. AIDS cases reported in the United States had ballooned exponentially from 189 in 1981 to a staggering 32,311.

Today, there are over 1 million Americans living with HIV, and the damage this disease continues to inflict across the globe is shocking.

Worldwide, some 40 million people are living with HIV; 95 percent of those 40 million reside in developing nations. Tragically, only 12 percent of those infected are able to access the antiretroviral drugs needed to significantly extend and improve the quality of their lives.

It costs an estimated $300 per person per year to purchase the drugs to treat someone with HIV in the developing world, which is less than one dollar per day. As Americans, it is imperative that we acknowledge the AIDS crisis and its causes both globally and locally but our current efforts are simply not enough.

Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, accounts for only 10 percent of the global population but is home to 60 to 70 percent of the worlds reported cases of HIV. Those infected in the region comprise some 25 million of the 40 million people worldwide stricken with the disease.

In Botswana, a staggering 39 percent of the entire population is HIV positive, and the average life expectancy for a baby born in 2010 will be 27 years a figure not seen since the end of the 19th century.

Although some countries have been remarkably proactive in preventing the spread of the virus, HIV remains rampant in others. In most countries, women are disproportionately affected by HIV, in some African nations outnumbering men by more than a 3 to 1 margin.

Sadly, our plight in America continues as well. New advances in antiretroviral drugs show promise in helping many, but AIDS remains an incurable, fatal disease. Especially disconcerting in this country are the disproportionate numbers of minorities and gay men contracting HIV.

African-American women comprise some 72 percent all women diagnosed with HIV in the United States. While African Americans make up only 12 percent of the American population, they account for about 40 percent of AIDS cases diagnosed since the pandemic began.

Perhaps most disturbing, a recent study revealed that 46 percent of Black gay men tested were HIV positive, and of those tested, two-thirds were unaware of their status.

In my home State of California, 45 percent of Los Angeles nursing homes reported that they would not provide treatment for an HIV- positive patient, and one-third of the city's OBGYNs would refuse to treat a mother with HIV.

As a Senator representing the State with the second-highest cumulative number of persons living with AIDS in the United States, I have taken a proactive approach to securing funding for those who so desperately need help battling this disease by consistently supporting increased funding and reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.

I have been a cosponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act since the 107th Congress, legislation that would ensure low-income HIV patients receive access to antiretroviral drugs from Medicaid before their immune systems are crippled by the disease.

Additionally, I have been a cosponsor of the Microbicide Development Act since the 107th Congress, a bill to expand, intensify, and coordinate research and development of microbicides to prevent the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Today's prevention options such as condoms and mutual monogamy are not feasible for millions of people around the world, especially women. Many women lack the social or economic power to insist their partners use condoms. Microbicides are user-controlled products in the form of gels, creams, or films that kill or inactivate the bacteria and viruses that cause HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and their use empowers women to protect themselves from contracting this disease.

To combat AIDS in the developing world, I cosponsored the Kennedy- Feinstein-Feingold Amendment to Help Fight HIV/AIDS, urging developing countries to use compulsory licensing to greatly increase the amount of safe, generic drugs made available to HIV/AIDS patients.

I also authored an amendment to strike language requiring that one- third of funding from the President's Global HIV/AIDs initiative go to ``abstinence until marriage'' programs to

ensure that our prevention dollars use the comprehensive ``ABC'' approach, Abstinence, Be Faithful, use Condoms to prevent the spread of

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a pioneering scientist and mathematician--Dr. John V. Wehausen. Considered one of the world's leading researchers in the field of hydrodynamics, Professor Wehausen passed away on October 6 of this year. I wish to send my sincerest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues.

A professor emeritus of engineering science at the University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Wehausen left behind a monumental body of work and vast pioneering contributions to a number of academic fields. Some of his work, now decades old, still remains an important resource for scholars and students.

Professor Wehausen was born in Duluth, MN, and grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. He matriculated at the University of Michigan where he earned B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mathematics as well as an M.S. in physics.

He left Ann Arbor for Brown University in Rhode Island where he not only began a long and prestigious teaching career, but also met his wife, Mary Katherine Wertime. Ms. Wehausen preceded her husband in death in 2001 after 62 years of marriage.

After Brown, Professor Wehausen spent teaching stints at Columbia University and the University of Missouri before working for the U.S. Navy during World War II in operations analysis and research and development.

In 1956, Professor Wehausen accepted a position at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught until 1984 and where he remained an active researcher thereafter. Shortly after arriving at UC-Berkeley, Professor Wehausen helped form the Department of Naval Architecture, one of the first programs of its kind in the Nation.

During the decades he spent at UC-Berkeley, Professor Wehausen not only produced volumes of influential scholarship but also garnered a reputation as a faculty member who respected and cared for his students. A respect reciprocated by his many students.

More than a prodigious researcher and instructor, Professor Wehausen held a great love for languages, music, and literature. He gained proficiency in a number of languages and also was an accomplished musician.

Professor Wehausen has left behind a great legacy of scholarship. His many awards testify to his abilities and his determination. Among his many honors were the Davidson Medal from the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, an honorary doctorate degree from the Joseph Fourier University in France, and the International Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

His four children all live in my home State of California, and I send them my deepest condolences at the passing of their father. Professor Wehausen made monumental contributions to the fields of math and science, and the influence of his life's work will surely live on for many generations to come.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my chairman, Senator Hutchison, in recommending this 2006 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations conference report to the Senate. This is the first year that MILCON has added dramatically to its portfolio, and I want to compliment the chairman of our committee, and I want to compliment her staff for what has been, I think--on what could have been a very difficult bill--a very bipartisan, constructive, team-like, problem-solving effort. I only wish we had more of it in the Senate. But I want the chairman to know how much I am grateful to her for her leadership, and I want her staff to know that as well.

I also thank Chairman Cochran--what Senator Hutchison said was right about the amount of money--and also Senator Byrd for their leadership and diligence in getting this bill through conference and to the Senate floor.

As the chairman said, the conference report before us today is a first. It provides for the infrastructure needs of our military and the health care and other needs of our veterans.

The bill is a big one. It is an $82.57 billion bill. It includes $12.167 billion for MILCON, family housing, environmental cleanup; $70.25 billion for veterans' benefits and health care--that is the big addition--and $157.6 million for several related agencies.

Of the many vital programs the Senator elucidated as funded in this conference report, none is more important than the funding we provide to meet the medical needs of our Nation's veterans. As a Senator from a State with the largest population of veterans in the Nation, I cannot overstate the importance of this issue. We have to support our veterans to the fullest extent possible.

The conference report before us today provides $22.547 billion for veterans medical services. Included in that level is $1.225 billion in contingent emergency funding to make up the projected shortfall in the President's original budget request. The Senate had sought a higher level of funding, and it was my sincere hope that the House, which had zero emergency funding for veterans in its version of the bill, would have agreed to our position and accepted the full amount provided in the Senate bill. That did not happen. But given the huge disparity between the House and Senate funding proposals, the level of funding provided in the conference report is a good start. I commend, again, the chairman for her hard work--for the cooperation of Senator Cochran, chairman of the Appropriations Committee--in bridging the enormous gap between the two bills and ensuring that the conference report did not shortchange our veterans. I do not believe it does shortchange our veterans.

The proposed funding for VA medical services is equal to the level of funding the administration has said it needs for fiscal year 2006. That is clearly a good start. But it offers--and it has to be pointed out-- no safety net to our veterans, should the VA's budget once again prove to be wrong. This is a worrisome prospect. Hopefully, the administration got it right this time and the funding will be sufficient, but everyone should know that we will be watching. Additionally, there is much talk floating around the Capitol of an across-the-board cut to discretionary programs. I would like to be clear to everyone, any across-the-board cut to VA medical services will mean cuts in health care for veterans. There is no other way around it. We can't allow it to happen.

As I noted earlier, the medical services proposal includes the $1.225 billion in contingent emergency funding. This means the administration will have to designate the funding as an emergency before it is apportioned to the VA. I want to send this message loud and clear to the administration: Do not sit on this funding and force the VA to have to begin rationing health care. We will not stand for that.

The MILCON portion of the report provides $12.17 billion to fund state-of-the-art facilities. The Senator has mentioned some of them-- barracks, housing for military families, and other vital infrastructure for servicemembers around the world.

Army projects were increased by 19 percent; Air Force, by 18 percent; and the Navy, by nearly 8 percent. When enacted, this bill will fund Active-component MILCON at $5.1 billion. We were also able to provide significant increases in funding for Reserve-component MILCON. This is important at a time when our Reserve Forces are being asked to do more than ever before and, in many cases, are being deployed to combat zones overseas multiple times. Ensuring that these troops have adequate facilities in which to train and maintain their equipment is crucial to the success of their mission. To that end, the conferees agreed to increase funding for Army Guard projects by 60 percent, a substantial amount; for Air Guard projects by 83 percent over the President's budget request. In fact, overall funding for Reserve components was increased by 52 percent over the President's budget request, dedicating $1.1 billion for new facilities for our Reserve bases. That is important, and it means that this committee has done an excellent job in recognizing the need.

In summary, I once again thank my chairman, Senator Hutchison. I not only enjoy her collegiality but her friendship as well. I want her to know that that means a great deal to me. I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd for their leadership. And I would like to thank our staffs who really worked in what I like to believe is a hallmark, sometimes, of this great body, which is bipartisanship. They have shown an unfailing spirit of cooperation. So thank you, Tammy Cameron, Sean Knowles, and Dennis Balkham for Senator Hutchison, and Christine Evans, B. G. Wright, Chad Schulken, and Chris Thompson of my staff.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.

I do, as well, Mr. President.

I have two amendments. I will not require more than 15 minutes.

No, it is 30 minutes in opposition.

We have 15 minutes; I have two amendments.

Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk. The first is an amendment, on behalf of myself, Senators Sununu, Gregg, Wyden, Cantwell, Feingold, Burr, McCain, Kerry, and Collins, ``To repeal certain tax benefits relating to oil and gas wells intangible drilling and development costs.''

The second amendment is an amendment, on behalf of Senator Kerry and myself, which would be a restatement for millionaires of 39.6 percent income tax rate, the pre-May 2003 rates of tax on capital gains and dividend rates and deduction limitations until the budget deficit is eliminated.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would strike a tax incentive from the books for the oil and gas companies that allows them to expense their exploration and development costs.

This tax credit is unnecessary, not because I say that it is, but because the oil companies have said they do not need it. The President of the United States has said the oil companies do not need it, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this tax credit costs the Federal Treasury $2.4 billion over 5 years.

I wish to make clear that this amendment only repeals the credit for the major integrated oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. This tax credit allows major oil companies, such as the ones I have just mentioned, to deduct 70 percent of their drilling costs up front, then the next 30 percent over the course of 5 years. Costs that can be deducted include workers' wages, fuel costs, drilling equipment, materials, and supplies, et cetera.

Now, why should the oil and gas industry get special treatment? And why should they get tax breaks from the Federal Government when they are making record profits? In the third quarter of 2005 alone, the five biggest companies earned a staggering combined total of more than $30 billion.

ExxonMobil's profits skyrocketed another 75 percent in the third quarter to almost $10 billion. Over the first 9 months of 2005, ExxonMobil made a profit of $25.42 billion.

BP made 34 percent more, or $6.46 billion, in the third quarter of 2005. So far this year, BP has made $18.66 billion.

Shell's profits soared 68 percent to $9 billion in the third quarter of 2005, while making $20.94 billion over the first 9 months of the year.

Chevron's third-quarter profits were 12 percent higher, or $3.6 billion. So far this year, Chevron made $10 billion.

ConocoPhillips saw an 89 percent increase or $3.8 billion in the third quarter, while making a profit of $9.85 billion over the first 9 months of the year.

At the same time this is happening, the Federal budget deficit is the third largest in history, totaling $319 billion, and the national debt has surpassed the $8 trillion mark.

In April of this year, President Bush stated:

With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy

companies do not need taxpayers'-funded incentives to explore

for oil and gas.

At the joint Senate hearing last week, at which the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell testified, Senator Wyden asked them if, given the fact that oil prices are above $55 per barrel, they needed these Federal tax incentives. They all responded ``No.'' In fact, Lee Raymond of ExxonMobil stated this: ``No and I don't think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.''

Now, I see Senator Wyden is in the Chamber, and since I have quoted him, I would like to ask him if I have accurately reported what happened at this Senate joint hearing with the oil executives.

Let me ask this question. Did the Senator get the idea from all of the big oil companies that none of them wanted these tax incentives?

I thank the Senator from Oregon.

In essence, Mr. President, this is the biggest handout to the biggest corporations in America--as a matter of fact, in the world. We should not be giving them a tax break so they can do their job--to drill for oil--when they certainly do not need it.

Again, let me be clear: this is a tax credit for the major oil companies only. It should not surprise anyone to learn that these same oil companies' effective tax rates were well below 35 percent. In 2001, their tax rate was 17.3 percent; in 2002, 5.6 percent; in 2003, 13.3 percent. This averages out to 13.3 percent over the 3-year period.

By contrast, 14 industries have higher effective tax rates. The health care industry is 22.3 percent; the financial industry, 19.7 percent; pharmaceuticals pay 21.6 percent; the chemical industry, 20.8 percent; the computer industry, 16 percent; tobacco and food industries, 23.8 percent--and on and on and on, and yet the oil companies pay very little.

So not only are these energy tax incentives taking money out of the Treasury, they are also allowing oil companies to lower their effective tax rate so that less money actually flows from them into the Treasury. That is unacceptable. They say they do not need it. The President says they do not need it. And this would essentially correct that situation.

When this tax bill was considered, the Finance Committee recognized this fact and repealed the amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures for the major integrated oil companies. It also changed the way oil companies with gross receipts over $1 billion can account for their oil inventories. The amendment I offer today takes one more step in taking away unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. I thank the cosponsors.

Amendment No. 2610

Now, Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment on the second amendment, which I call the millionaire's amendment, which is offered to my colleagues by Senator Kerry and me.

I have never had a millionaire come to me and say: I need a tax break. I have had them come to me and say: Frankly, the $100,000 I get a year is de minimis to me. It doesn't make a difference to me.

So I wonder, when we are cutting Medicaid, when we are cutting virtually every domestic program we can cut, why millionaires get $100,000 in tax breaks a year. It does not make sense. They do not ask for them. They do not need them. It does not really make a difference to them.

Our amendment directly targets the budget deficit. It says if the budget is not in balance, tax rates for income, capital gains, and dividends will return to previous levels, and deduction limits, for taxpayers earning more than $1 million. So those taxes would be reinstated only for people earning more than $1 million. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center, this amendment could increase revenues by more than $100 billion over 5 years.

When I came to the Senate in 1992, the debt was $4 trillion. In the 1990s, we put it down, and by 1998, we achieved the first budget surplus in 29 years. By 2001, the 10-year projected surplus was $5.6 trillion. Now, it has been said on this floor over and over again that projected surplus has been turned into a major projected long-term deficit. The Federal budget deficit will reach $515 billion this year when all trust funds are included. This means over half a trillion dollars will be added to our Nation's debt--a national debt that has already exceeded the $8 trillion mark. Yet millionaires get a $100,000 tax break a year, which they have told me they don't need, it doesn't make a difference. At the same time, this debt and deficit will fuel a rise in interest rates. There have already been a dozen hikes. It will eventually slow down the economy, and it will certainly limit job creation.

In order to cover the costs of our debt, this Senate cut $10 billion in health care spending for the poorest Americans. To make matters worse, the temporary relief for physicians in the spending bill is borne on the backs of Medicare beneficiaries in the form of higher Part B premiums. The spending cuts will directly increase, by $2.90, the amount Medicare beneficiaries pay each month in premiums in 2007. That is a 33-percent increase in monthly premiums. While it is vital that Congress prevent future cuts in Medicare reimbursement to physicians, the spending cuts amounted to a $1.4 billion tax on seniors. This is simply unacceptable.

I do not think it is a bad idea to say that millionaires might be willing to help people on Medicare. They might be willing to provide some support for Medicaid so that the poorest Americans could receive health care.

So here is the bottom line: Realistically, there are very few millionaires in my State. There are about 28,000--28,000 out of 37 million people. The number of people on Medicare and Medicaid affected by these cuts is in the millions. That is the difference. So if you restore this tax for millionaires, it essentially covers the cuts on Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I understand that Senator Wyden would like to use some of this time. I would be happy to allot him--how much time does the Senator require?

Yes.

I am happy to yield the balance of my time to the Senator from Oregon.

I yield my 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

I am yielding my remaining 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I present this amendment on behalf of Senators Sununu, Gregg, Wyden, Cantwell, Feingold, Burr, McCain, Kerry, Collins, Clinton, Schumer, Snowe, and myself.

In April of this year, the President of the United States stated this:

With oil at more than $50 a barrel, energy companies do not

need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.

Before a joint Senate hearing last week, the big companies-- ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell--said they do not need these tax incentives. Each CEO said they did not need it.

This amendment removes those tax incentives. I think the time has come to do that.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have all seen the HHS bill go down in the Senate. There is a message in this. That is that the people of America are only going to accept so many cuts in health care, in Medicaid, in Medicare, in transportation, and other vital areas.

This amendment directly targets our budget deficit. If the budget is not in balance, tax rates for income, capital gains, and dividends will return to previous levels and deductions for taxpayers earning more than an adjusted gross income of $1 million a year.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center, this amendment could increase revenues by more than $100 billion over 5 years. It is a strong step, a first step in helping the budget deficit and also saying to people in this country that millionaires are prepared to forego tax cuts to benefit the very poor of our country.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to address a provision in the Energy and Water appropriations conference report, which requires the Bureau of Reclamation to produce a special report analyzing costs and benefits associated with constructing an Auburn Dam.

As part of that report, I believe it is critical that the Secretary of the Interior should utilize the expertise of U.S. Geological Survey to produce an up-to-date assessment of the seismic hazards associated with Auburn Dam.

I would also like to make it clear that this Auburn study cannot become a distraction from the vital work that needs to be done right away to protect Sacramento from a tragic flood.

I am deeply concerned with the lack of adequate flood protection for Sacramento. Sacramento is the only major United States city without 100-year flood protection.

The Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed six other major flood-prone cities: New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, and Tacoma. All of these cities have at least 200-year flood protection.

Our top priority has to be to quickly shore up levees and improve Folsom Dam to protect Sacramento from a 200-year flood. Until this is complete, 300,000 people are at risk from catastrophic flood.

With respect to the conference provision, there are other issues involved with Auburn Dam, such as who would pay for the project, and the potential environmental effects of flooding 50 miles of the American River. But today I would like to focus on the seismic risk issue.

This is not the first time that building an Auburn Dam has been proposed. In the late 1960s construction began on an Auburn Dam. Construction continued, and $200 million was spent, until 1975, when an earthquake occurred nearby on a previously unknown fault. This earthquake forced a reexamination of the risks involved.

According to a 1980 Bureau of Reclamation report, if an earthquake caused the Auburn Dam to fail, Folsom Dam would be overtopped by a water surge only minutes later.

Most of the Sacramento area, an area inhabited by 750,000 people, would be flooded in a matter of hours, making evacuation difficult. Floodwater would be fast-moving and as deep as 40 feet, destroying houses and lowering chances of rooftop survival.

The risk of earthquake and its effects, which stopped construction back then, has not gone away. That's why it is so critical that Congress know what the risks are, and take this into consideration when deciding whether to go forward with this dam.

It has now been 30 years since work at the proposed site was halted, and as a result, the seismic risk assessments are out-of-date.

The most recent comprehensive study of seismic hazard issues associated with the dam project was produced by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1996, nearly 10 years ago. Even when this report was written, the science of seismic hazard assessment had already progressed considerably since most of the data on the dam project were collected in the 1970s.

The report called for additional study and analysis, much of which was never undertaken. This need for study and analysis still exists.

The Auburn Dam, if constructed, would sit on part of the Foothills fault system. The faults in the area of the proposed dam site are currently considered inactive, but were active in the past. The U.S. Geological Survey should use the best science available to evaluate past earthquakes, as well as the potential for future earthquakes, in the vicinity of the proposed dam.

One potential risk comes from a ``reservoir triggered earthquake.'' Filling a reservoir is well-established as a potential trigger for seismic activity. Even inactive faults may experience seismic events after reservoirs are built on top of them.

The weight and pressure of the water in the reservoir increases stress and weakens the effective strength of the rock. Water seeps into fissures and pores in the rock, and may lubricate faults, allowing movement even in some cases where friction would have held dry rock in place.

It has been suggested that the Oroville earthquake, a Richter scale magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred in 1975, may have been caused by filling the reservoir behind the Oroville Dam. The Auburn Dam, if constructed, would be built along the same fault system as the Oroville Dam.

Many other instances of these ``reservoir triggered earthquakes'' have been studied around the world. Recent global reviews list nearly 100 sites where filling reservoirs may have triggered seismic activity.

These studies show that the increased risk of earthquakes may last for years after a reservoir is filled. Both flood-control-only and permanent-waterstorage dams entail some risk.

The 1996 U.S. Geological Survey report for Auburn took this possibility very seriously. The report devoted a lengthy section to its consideration, and called for additional study.

The new report must address this issue. This is essential information that will influence Congress's decision on whether to proceed beyond preliminary feasibility studies. Do my colleagues agree?

I thank my colleagues.

Lake Sakakawea Recreation Upgrades

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations conference report.

One of the most important things about this conference report is a program that it does not fund. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator-- also known as the ``bunker buster''--is not funded in this bill. I am proud that Congress--for the second year in a row--has stated clearly and unambiguously that we should not spend taxpayer dollars on this program. I hope the administration gets the message and does not request funding for developing this new generation of nuclear weapons next year.

This conference report includes $327 million for the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This funding means that construction of the National Ignition Facility, NIF, can continue. When it is completed in a few years, the NIF will help keep the United States nuclear weapons stockpile reliable, without facing the dangers of underground nuclear testing. A completed NIF is a key component of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of our Nation's nuclear stockpile. There are also many California-specific needs met in this bill. city

I am pleased that the conference report provides $37 million for the Federal-State partnership for California Bay-Delta Restoration, CalFed. The CalFed reauthorization took considerable effort on the part of many in Congress, but that effort has paid off, in this, the first authorized CalFed appropriations in 5 years. I am grateful to Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for providing $2 million over the President's Budget request for this program in the Senate bill and I am pleased that this allocation was maintained in conference with the House.

These funds will contribute to the much needed improvement of California's water supply infrastructure and protection of aquatic ecosystems. Among the elements of a balanced CalFed program that are in progress are feasibility studies on the enlargement of several reservoirs, improved water conveyance, ecosystem restoration, and water quality projects. The improvements we make to California's water infrastructure now will head off a supply crisis with water, similar to the one we faced with energy a few years ago.

This conference report inc1udes funding for specific flood control priorities in California. My State faces a number of significant flood threats. The city of Sacramento, the surrounding areas like Marysville and Rancho Cordova, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta face some of the greatest flood danger in the Nation. Currently, much of Sacramento is below 100-year flood protection. This legislation allocates $39 million to improve flood control in Sacramento and provides funding to ensure that other regional flood control projects are ready to go to construction next year.

While the funds in this bill are a good start, I will continue to seek additional funding to protect the Sacramento metropolitan area from catastrophic flooding.

The conference report also includes $5 million for Upper Newport Bay Restoration. Upper Newport Bay is the largest functioning full tidal wetland in southern California. However, the bay's ability to sustain wildlife is threatened due to decades of increasing sedimentation related to rapid urbanization of the watershed. As a result, open water areas are disappearing in the bay, tidal circulation has diminished, and shoaling is occurring within Federal and local navigation channels and slips. This project will restore degraded habitat and reestablish wetland and wildlife habitat areas.

I am also pleased that the conference report includes $61.65 million, $11.65 million above the President's Budget request, for the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project. These funds will construct flood control improvements to protect over 3 million people in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.

One issue that concerns me in this conference report is a requirement for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a special report to update the analysis of costs and associated benefits of the Auburn Dam on the American River. I am concerned that the reporting requirements do not include an updated assessment of the risks of an earthquake, risks that are serious enough to have caused the termination of earlier work on the Auburn Dam in 1975.

I again want to express my congratulations to Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid and want to thank them for the level of support given to California in this conference report.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern over apparent discrepancies between the administration's rhetoric with respect to our treatment of detainees, and the clear reality of the situation.

We all agree, I hope, that individuals in the custody of the United States must be treated humanely. We certainly agree that under no circumstances must American military and government personnel engage in torture. That is why we ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1994.

And that is why Senator McCain's provision prohibiting the use of ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment'', and adopting the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation procedures passed the Senate as part of the Defense appropriations bill by a 90 to 9 vote on October 5. It was also unanimously adopted to be included in this Defense authorization bill.

Senator McCain's amendment simply makes it clear that the Convention Against Torture applies without geographical limitation.

It states that conduct that is unacceptable on U.S. soil is also unacceptable in Guantanamo Bay, in Abu Ghraib, or anywhere else the United States government may be holding detainees.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that captives are to be treated humanely, and just this week he reiterated his policy that:

In this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law.

We don't torture.

And yet, the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, has been making a great effort to lobby Members of Congress to alter the McCain provision by exempting the CIA and members of the intelligence community from its prohibition on torture.

According to Human Rights Watch, the language he circulated on October 20th proposes that:

``Subsection (a)''--that is, the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment --``shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by and element of the United States Government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the President determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.''

Why? The President has stated that it is not his policy to torture. We all know the catastrophic effects that even the appearance of impropriety in this area has on the image of the United States abroad. We know the irreparable harm that reports of abuse and secret detention centers do to our war effort. And, we know that torture does not produce good and effective intelligence. So why fuel that fire by enacting a specific exemption to our long-standing policy of humane treatment?

Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that the CIA has been ``hiding and interrogating'' its most valuable prisoners at so- called ``black sites'' at several locations in Eastern Europe and Asia.

If this is true, it would allow the intelligence community to engage in ``unconventional'' interrogation procedures at secret locations outside of Congressional oversight or military directives on the treatment of prisoners.

Earlier this week, I wrote a letter to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting that the committee conduct hearings into these allegations that the CIA is holding prisoners in ``black sites'' around the world.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has jurisdiction over the entire intelligence community. And therefore, it is critical that it have access to all information and material related to these disturbing allegations.

Moreover, I believe that the committee must do a better job with its oversight responsibilities, particularly as they relate to detention, interrogation, and rendition activities by our intelligence agencies.

The fact is that our policy to date with respect to detainees has been confused, and that that confusion has led to disturbing allegations of abuse and even torture.

The Senate has already acted to clarify the rules by passing the McCain amendment. I have heard it argued that this will somehow ``tie the hands'' of the President in his prosecution of the war, but I strongly disagree.

In the first place, the President himself insists that detainees should be treated humanely. We are simply acting to codify his policy.

Secondly, the Constitution is perfectly clear with regard to the authority for regulating the United States military: that authority lies with the Congress.

Some claim that the Founding Fathers intended the executive branch to have a free hand in prosecuting this Nation's wars.

But their consideration and deliberation on this issue resulted in Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to ``make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,'' and also ``To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.''

It is clear that this administration has been inconsistent and mistake-prone in regulating the Armed Forces with respect to the treatment of detainees.

There is the case of Captain Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne Division, who attempted for 17 months to determine what regulations were in force.

He determined that, years after President Bush had declared that all prisoners, regardless of their Geneva status, were to be treated ``humanely,'' the definition of what constituted humane treatment was still being left to individual commanders.

He reports:

We've got people with different views of what ``humane''

means and there's no Army statement that says ``this is the

standard for humane treatment for prisoners to Army

officers.'' Army officers are left to come up with their own

definition of humane treatment.

The results of this lapse are well documented. Even the Pentagon's own reports are highly critical:

The Taguba Report found ``numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses,'' which the report described as ``systemic.''

Along the same lines, the Mikolashek Report examined 94 cases of confirmed abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and found that ``ambiguous guidance from command on the treatment of detainees'' was a contributing factor.

Further, the Fay-Jones Report implicated 35 soldiers, including the top two military intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib prison, in 44 cases of abuse.

So the problem goes far beyond a ``few, isolated bad apples.'' Decent, hardworking American soldiers simply do not know how they may or may not treat their captives.

I note that on Tuesday, the Department of Defense released a new directive banning the use of unmuzzled dogs in interrogations, or to harass or intimidate prisoners. I welcome this directive, but it is too little, too late. The ban comes after dozens of confirmed reports of soldiers using dogs to intimidate inmates of Abu Ghraib, and it is limited in scope and details.

The McCain amendment would give a clear baseline standard of human rights, which all Americans will always recognize--the rights which our Founders believed were inalienable rights; the rights they chose to enshrine in our Constitution.

It is not for the Vice President, or anyone else for that matter, to circumvent those rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

This week the White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, tried to justify the exemption, saying, ``You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.''

I agree that these are terrible men, but we must also consider men like Mr.

Dilawar, an innocent taxi driver who was beaten to death in Afghanistan.

We are talking about thousands of innocent Iraqis rounded up in sweeping neighborhood raids and systematically abused.

And we are talking about their friends and families, and an entire generation of young people around the world who are watching and judging the actions of the United States.

If we fail, in their eyes, to live up to our ideals, if the promise of America is reduced to self-serving hypocrisy, then I fear we will breed more terrorists than we can ever stop.

In fact, the scale of the problem is such that the narrowly-focused Pentagon reports do not provide us an adequate picture.

In conclusion, let me state this--it is essential that we answer these three fundamental questions:

Is our current policy legal?

Is it moral?

And does it work?

From my work on this issue in the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee, I fear the answer to all three is ``No.''

I believe that Congress did not intend to permit torture abroad when it ratified the Convention Against Torture. The overwhelming support enjoyed by Mr. McCain's amendment is evidence of that.

Furthermore, I do not believe that violating fundamental human rights is ever justified.

There are some absolutes in this world, and some activities that the United States simply cannot condone.

I am convinced that our detainee policy has been a costly failure. Far from making us safer, the aggressive interrogation of terror suspects has served to breed more terrorists, and to make us more vulnerable to attack.

Should Congress refuse to statutorily codify the legal and humane treatment of prisoners, we risk endangering those Americans who become prisoners themselves.

We must set an honorable example for the entire international community; to do otherwise would be a betrayal of the values we hold dear.

American values, such as the humane treatment of detainees, are truly at the very core of this debate.

We must not fail--America's future will rest on it.

Amendment No. 2519

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment introduced by Senator Levin and several colleagues that formulates our military strategy and foreign policy in Iraq.

We need clear, defined benchmarks that lay out how and when we can begin a structured downsizing of the 160,000 Americans currently serving in Iraq.

Increasingly, Americans are demanding answers about how we intend to transition sovereign control of Iraq to the newly elected government.

If we do not heed the call of the American people, popular support for this war will continue to wane.

We must have a well-reasoned approach that will allow our Armed Forces to remove themselves from the constant crossfire between Sunnis and Shia.

As we look forward, I believe the parliamentary election on Dec. 15 represents one such opportunity.

For the first time in history, the Iraqi people will have democratically elected their permanent leaders to serve full 4-year terms. Their constitution, problematic as it may be, has been adopted, and it is time for Iraqis to take greater control.

A growing perception is that U.S. military forces buttress the Shiites. As a result, we pay a high cost, in lives lost and casualties.

We need to change course to remove ourselves from being the literal and figurative target of Sunni enmity.

Frankly, this battle cannot be won militarily by American forces.

A structured downsizing of our presence in Iraq will not only take our service men and women out of harm's way, but it will also force Iraq's religious and political leaders to confront the insurgency and find a balance of power acceptable to Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.

The first and primary impetus for transitioning our forces will be a better trained Iraqi Security Force.

Ultimately, the Iraqis will have to defend themselves and confront the insurgency, both militarily and politically. The question is when.

Training of the Iraqi Security Forces has been too slow, and the administration has been less than forthright about the capabilities of the Iraqi troops on the ground.

In the interim period ahead, U.S. forces may continue to have a significant role to play, especially in the areas of training and rebuilding infrastructure. But this requires a change of focus for American troops from leading combat missions to buttressing and backing Iraqis as they seek to quell the insurgency and growing violence.

For starters, we need to increase the number of U.S. military personnel providing initial training to the Iraqi forces from the current 1,200. This number is frankly inadequate, and raises questions about our military's priorities in Iraq.

This does not necessarily mean that all Iraqi forces will be trained to the level of U.S. forces--that is unlikely--but the real benchmark is for Iraqi units to have a basic level of training and equipment to safeguard their towns, cities and communities.

The Pentagon recently estimated that an additional 125,000 Iraqi security personnel will be needed to bring total endstrength to 325,000.

If it is going to take a force of 325,000 Iraqis, then it is incumbent upon the U.S. military to prioritize this training and put enhanced efforts into recruiting qualified individuals to serve.

It is only fair to our service men and women, and to their families, if we put every effort into properly training Iraqis so that American troops can come home as soon as possible.

America needs to change course, reassess its mission in light of this escalating insurgency, place more responsibility on Iraq for a negotiated settlement, and begin a structured drawdown of American forces.

This structured drawdown must come in the form of a consistent, planned strategy. This amendment uses the word ``redeployment,'' which I frankly believe is confusing.

Our military leaders must establish a framework for a careful, cautious removal of our troops from Iraq, in conjunction with the rising number of trained Iraqis.

This might mean the removal of 10,000 American troops for every 20,000 trained Iraqis, or a similar but concrete formula.

Certainly, we should prioritize what troops are most needed in the training process and begin to drawdown our endstrength in other areas.

This amendment rightly requires the President to report regularly on American policy in regards to Iraq and our military operations there.

The administration needs to define and lay out an endgame.

The Levin provision ensures that Congress will be receiving regular updates on the administration's strategy in Iraq, and as it must be unclassified, will provide the American people the opportunity to see whether there truly is a plan for success.

Again, I believe it is time to reevaluate our policy and strategies in Iraq.

We have lost over 2,000 American troops, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died.

Americans are tired of hearing daily about the chaos and violence that has beset Iraq. With American soldiers and scores of Iraqi civilians dying every day, there has to be a better course.

In my view, it is clear that now is the time to consider a comprehensive plan for the structured downsizing of our mission, while we greatly increase the emphasis on training Iraqis to protect themselves.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the veterans of our armed services. As combat operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, Veterans Day provides an important opportunity to honor those men and women who have made such great sacrifices for our Nation, both young and old.

Veterans Day is a time to reflect upon and celebrate the extraordinary contributions of all those who have served our country in uniform.

Veterans Day originated on November 11, 1918, as Armistice Day, commemorating the end of World War I. Although Veterans Day originally marked the end of a conflict, it now is an important reminder that our responsibility to veterans extends far beyond the close of hostilities.

First, I believe it is important that we pause and pay tribute to the approximately 160,000 troops still fighting in the regions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sadly, more than 2,000 soldiers have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Numerous others have experienced serious injury and harm.

With thousands and thousands of veterans coming home from this war, we must prepare for their return and ensure that they receive the care and benefits they deserve.

Today, there are 24.5 million living veterans in the United States. And I am proud that California is home to the most veterans in the country--over 2.3 million.

As California's senior Senator, I am honored to serve as the ranking member of the Military Construction and Veteran Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee.

In July of this year, the Senate approved a spending package that provides over $70.7 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, over $1 billion more than the administration's request.

The appropriated funds contain $23.3 billion for medical services, including nearly $2 billion in emergency funding to address the fiscal year 2006 shortfall.

The Senate and House are currently in conference to reconcile differences between the two Chambers' respective bills. It is my hope that we will finish conference on a final version of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill and send it to the President for his signature over the next several days.

In addition to medical services and research, the Senate bill also allocates $104 million for extended care facilities for our veterans. With 9.5 million Veterans over the age of 65, the need for properly funded long-term care is more important than ever.

To date, a quarter of a million veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have been discharged from Active Duty.

Of these, 49,000 have sought care from the Veterans Administration. As a nation we must fully meet our responsibilities to the veterans of this country.

Advances in medicine have thankfully spared many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan from death, but roadside explosives and other weapons have left many of our troops maimed and disabled. To better serve wounded veterans, the Senate recently allocated $412 million for medical and prosthetics research.

There should not be any doubt that these brave men and women have given their all to protect freedom and our way of life.

It is estimated that 500,000 veterans spent all or part of this past year homeless. But tragically, the VA only has the capabilities to assist one-fifth of all homeless veterans.

We must continue to push for the development of an effective and expansive therapeutic housing program to help these thousands of veterans.

The new funding will bring us closer to guaranteeing the health, safety, and comfort of all veterans. The San Diego VA Medical Center alone will be able

to provide care for 2,000 additional patients.

It is also our responsibility to ensure that prescription drugs are affordable. We must also ensure that health care is accessible and that veterans' hospitals are provided with the proper tools and support they need.

This is why I have consistently voted for increased funding for VA health care. Just this year I supported an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act, which extends military health care benefits beyond retirement.

Noble sacrifices of past generations deserve to be remembered and cherished. Congress has consistently supported the construction of new cemeteries where the memories of our esteemed veterans can be honored and their legacies celebrated.

As a nation I believe we should also resist attempts to sell out land and facilities earmarked for veterans to commercial interests.

In west Los Angeles, pressure is increasing on the VA to develop some of the last open space left in the Los Angeles Basin. Land donated to honor the service of veterans should be kept in the hands of veterans. We cannot allow our responsibility to former servicemembers to be subordinated to economic interests.

To truly honor veterans, our country needs to preserve the memory of their courage. I worked with my colleagues from Iowa and California to make the battleship USS Iowa a permanent floating museum. The legendary ship's service in World War II and the Korean war will serve as a proper tribute to the veterans who served aboard this great fighting ship.

I look forward to continuing to work in service of our Nation's veterans. I hope you all will think of these courageous patriots beyond this special day and honor our veterans and the sacrifices they made in order for us to remain a free, self-governing people. To our veterans, I extend a heartfelt thank you for your service to our country. May God bless each of you and your families.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment to the FY06 National Defense Authorization Act that authorizes the Navy to convey approximately 230 acres of open space land along the eastern boundary of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar to the County of San Diego in order to provide access to the historic Stowe Trail.

The Stowe Trail at one time functioned as the primary road leading to the historic town of Stowe, and now links the Goodan Ranch and Sycamore Canyon Preserves in the north with the Mission Trails Regional Park and Santee Lakes Regional Recreation Area further south.

According to county records, up until the 1930s when access to this portion became restricted for military use, the Stowe Trail had served for some 80 years as the principle thoroughfare between the towns of Santee and Poway.

The 230 acres of land that would be conveyed by the Navy under this provision include diverse plant and animal life and environmentally- sensitive habitats and would provide a natural wildlife corridor between the two preserves, as well as with the Santee Lakes Recreation Area.

Under the control of the County of San Diego, this land will become part of an extensive open space trail system that will not only increase recreational opportunities in the region, but will also provide buffer zone that will mitigate against potential encroachment that could impact the essential military missions at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

It is important to point out that this proposed land conveyance is the fruition of a process set in motion jointly by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in 2002.

Both sides have worked together closely since that time to ensure that the result will be a win-win situation for both the County and the Marines.

For example, as part of the land conveyance process, the County of San Diego has fully committed to compensate the Navy by paying the full fair market value for this property.

Amendment No. 2424

Mr. President, as a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I rise today to speak in support of the Agriculture appropriations conference report.

I would particularly like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee, Senators Bennett and Kohl, for including $7 million in the bill for specialty crop funding.

Americans tend to forget that California is the largest agricultural producing State in the Nation. Of the top 10 agricultural producing counties nationwide, 8 are located in California. We export more crops than any other State, and I am proud to say that 97 percent of our farms are family owned.

As a result, I supported the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act, legislation to boost the marketing of highly nutritious fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops to American consumers and international markets. The legislation provided, for the first time, a dedicated source of funding to promote the marketing of specialty crop products.

Specialty crops are fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops, including floriculture. Farms in the Golden State produce more than half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts from just 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. While California accounts for about 13 percent of national cash receipts from agriculture, it receives only about 3 percent of direct government payments to agriculture. These funds, while open to all 50 States, will help California specialty crop farmers.

As the globalization of markets continues, it is becoming increasingly difficult for United States producers to compete against heavily subsidized foreign producers in both the domestic and foreign markets. United States specialty crop producers also continue to face serious tariff and nontariff trade barriers in many export markets. The funding for specialty crops will promote the marketing of specialty crops and improve access to foreign markets and competitiveness.

I am extremely pleased that we were able to include $7 million for crops that are so vital to our Nation's food supply.

In addition, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for including other projects that will benefit California.

They include: $1.35 million for the California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program. These funds will help California counties increase high-risk pest exclusion inspection activities of new shipments of plants, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and animals. Pest exclusion is critical to a successful agricultural industry because it is more effective and less costly to prevent the introduction and establishment of potentially harmful exotic pests from the local environment than it is to eliminate them;

$24.25 million for the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter/Pierce's Disease Control Program. The glassy-winged sharpshooter is an invasive pest that spreads bacteria that kills grapes, almonds and tree fruits. This funding will be used to develop the resources to eliminate the spread of the disease;

$200 million for the Market Access Program. This nationwide program provides funding to promote the export of American agricultural products;

$1.929 million for Exotic Pest Disease Research at the University of California. The Exotic Pest and Disease Research Program funds research to combat a wide variety of exotic organisms that have invaded or could invade California. Recent successes in the program include determining the origin of avocado thrips found in Ventura and Orange counties-- causing an $8.7 million annual loss to growers--and identifying natural enemies to control the thrips and replace pesticides previously in use. A similar approach is being developed for the Avocado Lace Bug. In addition, the program has funded work on such organisms as Sudden Oak Death, red imported fire ant, and Mediterranean fruitfly;

$20 million for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. The program provides nutritional information and supplements as well as healthcare referrals to low-income mothers and pregnant women. The Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides coupons to participants to use to buy produce from small farmers, and nutrition information is provided through the local Farmers Market Nutrition Program agency;

$3.076 million for the Sudden Oak Death Control Program. Funding will be used to continue researching Sudden Oak Death Disease, which infects and destroys oak and tanoak trees;

$401,000 for Ozone Air Quality Research by the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency. A multi-year, intensive air quality study is needed to meet the requirements of Regional Haze State Implementation Plans anticipated after 2008. This study would build upon the Central California Ozone Study and the California Regional Air Quality Study. These new studies will include an ozone filed study, data analysis, modeling performance evaluations, air quality and meteorological modeling improvements, and a retrospective look at previous State Implementation Plan modeling.

This bill is extremely important to ensuring a safe and secure domestic food supply. I would like to again thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of their hard work on this bill.

The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant journal clerk called the roll.