Excerpt from Senator Dianne Feinstein's speech to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group on 8/22/05:

“The EPA estimates that the temperature in California could rise by as much as 5 degrees by the end of this century. Virtually nothing has been done about this. That is why I am so pleased to see the Silicon Valley Leadership Group take a role through the Sustainable Silicon Valley Initiative.

The goal of this initiative is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the region to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. This is exactly what we need and it has to be done. And California is a state that is also willing to limit dangerous emissions. Most states, and most cities, and the Federal Government lack at addressing this issue is shocking and I think it is wrong. These are huge challenges.”

The full transcript from the Senator's speech is below:

A Report from Washington

Given by United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

Delivered to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group

San Jose, CA

August 22, 2005

It's great to be in San Jose. Silicon Valley has gone through ups and downs over the past five years – from the highs of the boom to the lows of the bubble bursting. But now the Valley is emerging from the shadows. Growth is improving. Employment is up. Revenues are increasing. Good work Mayor Gonzales and all who steadfastly worked to improve the economy of the region.

So let me begin by taking a few minutes to talk about a few issues important to the Valley, which I hope will promote growth and improve the quality of life for the people who live and work here. Let me begin by sharing with you two successes – which I believe will help make the Valley a better place to live and work.

BART to San Jose

First, the Senate Transportation Appropriations bill provides $5 million for BART to San Jose. This will help us take another step closer to bringing the vision of Mayor Ron Gonzales a reality. This funding isn't yet final. We've got to do all we can to make sure it survives Conference. But it will help us achieve the goal of connecting San Jose to the existing BART system and completing the ring of transit around the Bay Area.

The public supports this project. The region's voters overwhelmingly passed Measure A in 2000. This established a 30-year countywide half-cent sales tax, in part, to fund BART to San Jose. And there will be ridership. The Valley Transportation Agency has estimated that BART to San Jose will accommodate 87,000 riders a day and recover 64% of day-to-day costs when it's completed. This is one of the highest farebox recovery rates in the nation. So it is critical that we stay the course and keep focused on seeing that this project is completed. Securing critical federal funds has been no easy task. And we have to be realistic about how much federal money the project can expect in the future. But I am committed to leading the charge. And I need you to continue to work together and do everything you can to support this critical project.

Housing Trust of Santa Clara County

We were also able to secure a $200,000 appropriation for a public-private partnership formed to solve another of the major challenges in the region: affordable housing. (This is in the Senate Treasury-Transportation Appropriations bill, which has passed Committee but has not come to the Floor.)

The median cost of a home in Santa Clara County -- $700,000. This puts home ownership out of the reach of many middle and lower income residents.

That's where the housing trust comes in. The Trust has raised more than $20 million since 1999 -- from businesses, foundations, and local government. The result:

•  More than 1,200 families have been able purchase their first homes in Santa Clara County.

•  1,249 affordable rental homes and hundreds of shelter and special-needs housing units have been constructed.

And the Trust just launched a second campaign to raise another $10 million. This will help find homes for at least 1,000 families each year for the next three years.

And again, the region stood ready to do its part. More than half--$5.5 million was raised in the first 100 days. This is a remarkable achievement. It speaks volumes about the community's commitment.

And that's why I was pleased to help secure in funding for the program this year.

This $200,000 will be leveraged to generate more than $4 million worth of affordable housing.

So let me commend the leadership of the trust and all of you who have supported the program.

Your work has changed the lives of thousand of people in the valley. Keep up the good work.

Budget Deficit

The good news is that we were able to secure this funding. But that doesn't diminish the fact that we are in tough budget times. And if nothing changes the problems will only get worse. The failure to address the skyrocketing national debt is a critical problem. It has put our nation's future in jeopardy. I supported the 2001 tax cuts.  The Senate voted on them in May of 2001.  The budget was in surplus -- by $128 billion dollars.  And over 10 years the budget was projected to be in surplus over $5.6 trillion.  Many of us knew that it would not last.  So we moved to put a trigger into the bill.  This was something that Alan Greenspan had recommended. This meant that the tax cuts would remain in place as long as the budget was in balance.  But the cuts would come out if the budget went out of balance. That vote on the floor of the Senate was 49 – 50.  The trigger went down.  Now since then, the budget situation has changed dramatically.

Today the debt is $4 trillion over ten years and the deficit is going to be $331 billion this year. This is the third largest in history.  (The Number 1 and Number 2 deficits in size also occurred during this Administration.) This is caused by two things: The tax cuts and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq, up to this point, has cost more than $300 billion - the largest expenditure for war in the history of our country.  And the tax cuts have squeezed the budget, making it difficult to fund so many priorities. Budgets are normally 10-year documents. They allow you to see what the budget would mean over the next decade. The President's budget, however, is a five-year budget.  Why?  So no one can see the cost of the tax cuts explode when this President leaves office.  Here's how:

Tax Cuts -- The tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010. But if they are made permanent, it will add $204 billion to the budget deficit in 2011 and $432 billion in 2015. And over the next ten years the total costs would be $1.9 trillion. And the costs skyrocket after that. (CBO) In view of this, I will oppose making these cuts permanent until this dismal fiscal outlook is reversed.

Estate Tax -- There will also be action shortly to repeal the estate tax. And the total cost from 2006 to 2015 would be $455 billion. (CBO). Under current law, the exemption increases from estates of $1.5 million this year to $3.5 million in 2009. This leaves only 6,004 California estates subject to the tax – only the very largest. (American Assoc. of Life Insurers) If there is a compromise that protects farms and small businesses, I will take a careful look at it. But I cannot support full repeal – the loss of revenue is simply too great. I also will not vote to repeal fully the estate tax at this time.

AMT – There is another reason, the Alternative Minimum Tax, which by 2010, has now grown such that it is going to begin to impact 30 million middle income payers. They will have to pay their taxes under the AMT subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax by 2010. That was their view to be the case. We must fix this, and that fix costs $500 billion over the next ten years. (CRS)

So, this means that revenue lost as a result of the extension of the tax cuts, if it happens, the full repeal of the estate tax, if it happens, and fixing of the AMT alone costs $2.9 trillion by 2015. And when you add in the costs of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, situations that we face that are unknown with respect to Iran and possibly North Korea, the revenue gap in addition to the deficit could reach $4 trillion. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

Now what does this mean? This means devastation on domestic policy for the United States. It makes it difficult for Medicare, for Medicaid, for Social Security, the so called entitlements which are now about 16% of all the expenditures of the Federal Government. It means less money for transportation, which means more pot-holed highways, longer commute times, more frustration, and enormous difficulty for our workforce. Less money for education, which means that the money won't be there to improve academic excellence. Therefore, the next generation of engineers and scientists – you can be sure – will more and more come from other countries. It means less money for homeland security, cops, for Medicaid, for border patrol, for virtually every domestic program.

No corporation would operate this way. So I think the time has come to begin to talk fiscal responsibility. We must put our house in order. And I hope we will have the cooperation of the Administration in doing that.

Global Warming

I now would like to just mention, I think, the number one environmental problem we face. Again the US scored quite low; we do need to take action on global warming.

Energy -- I say this as a member of the Energy Committee, and as you know the Congress just passed and the President just signed a very large energy bill. I voted no on the bill. I don't think it does nearly enough to do what we need to do to become more energy self-sufficient. The United States of America is 5% of the world's population, and yet we use 25% of the energy. And global warming is real and it is happening, and we need to do something about it. Every single attempt sent to the Senate, was voted down on the floor of the Senate. The Senate must address global warming. McCain and Lieberman had a bill which for the first time put a cap on global warming gasses. It was voted down on the floor of the Senate. This is a huge tragedy because the planet is warming. Over the last 100 years by 2 degrees, projected over this century by another 4 degrees. California has warmed by 2 degrees since 1900. Annual precipitation has decreased over much of our state by 10 to 25 percent in many areas.

It is estimated that if we continue as we are, by the end of the century, the Sierra Nevada snowpack will have dramatically shrunk, eliminating the water source for 16 million people. That is all the water in the southern California basin, and it will disappear by the end of this century if we continue to do business as usual.

The EPA estimates that the temperature in California could rise by as much as 5 degrees by the end of this century. Virtually nothing has been done about this. That is why I am so pleased to see the Silicon Valley Leadership Group take a role through the Sustainable Silicon Valley Initiative.

The goal of this initiative is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the region to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. This is exactly what we need and it has to be done. And California is a state that is also willing to limit dangerous emissions. Most states, and most cities, and the Federal Government lack at addressing this issue is shocking and I think it is wrong. These are huge challenges.

Gas Prices

Now let me say one thing of what is happening with gas prices. We are all business people, and we know that most of the big oil companies have made profits centers. And when they make their quarterly earnings they come with bigger profit centers. And that in a sense is the strength of a big corporation, because one profit center can offset the losses in another profit center.

Well, our average gas price is $3.08 in California now. What that means is that people are spending $50 to fill up a tank. And then to need to commute daily to this city $100 a week, two tank-fulls back and forth back and forth. $400 a month to drive your car to work. That's a lot of money.

And I took a look at some of the profits:

• Exxon Mobil -- 44% profit increase in the first quarter, a 32% profit increase in the 2 nd Quarter

• BP -- A company I got to know with John Brown, I worked with him when I was mayor, 29 percent increase in the 2 nd Quarter;

• Conoco Phillips -- a 51 percent increase in the 2 nd Quarter

I think that these companies need to pursue restraint. Price restraint in California at this point in time.

So last week I wrote a letter to each CEO urging price restraint—voluntarily, urging the company—voluntarily, to understand that there is only so much blood that the worker can have squeezed out. It will be very interesting for me to get the response to that.

We anticipate that these high gas prices are going to continue. We anticipate that productionary boost will continue, but California is at defining capacity. So California couldn't even find more capacity even if it had it.

And unfortunately, the ethanol provisions in the energy bill, which I opposed, are abhorrent. To make gasoline, it actually takes more gasoline to refine than it did initially.

So this is a very difficult area, and I think that the oil companies will practice some restraint. Hopefully voluntarily rather than as a product of regulation.

CAFTA

Finally, let me just say a word about the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I guess I was the only Democrat in the California delegation that voted for the agreement. I did not vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I did not vote for the Chile- Singapore agreement. I took a very hard look at this agreement and it was a win-win for California for virtually every single California industries. And here's why. What's going up from Central America today all have tariffs attached. All the tariffs of California products that go to Central America are removed in this agreement.

And what it means is:

• Agriculture – that vegetables, fruits, nuts, 16.7% tariff gone. Dairy, largest dairy state in the union, 19.5 % tariff gone, 60% in some areas. Grain is 10.6%, beef 30%, rice 60%, wine 35%

• Entertainment : 5-20%. DVDs 10%
• Textiles : 18%
• Electronics and computers : up to 20% tariff gone.

Which means that a huge export market for our economy, a 42 million person export market, is now open in Central America. Now, this should be good. This should enable companies in this great valley to hire more people. It should mean a higher quality of life for you and much more business.

The labor issues, which are the crux I believe in the opposition. There is $20 million in another bill for the administration to utilize to essentially create more equal labor conditions for Central American workers than they have today.

And I will be meeting, I hope shortly, with Mr. Portman, our United States trade representative, to try and have some input into how that money is spent in strengthening these labor conditions. And I would ask any member from our delegation that would like to join the debate with me. But I felt that CAFTA was really an important free trade agreement for California.

Conclusion and Q & A

So these are some of the things that have happened. I believe sincerely that we are going to win the social security battle. And the way that we are going to win it is that the American people have spoken loudly that they want social security to remain in tact. And it is a huge unifying movement all across this country. I don't know whether you know this or not, but 50% of all American workers have no retirement or pension benefits. 50%, that means the only thing they will have when they are done working hard is social security. So it is up to all of us in public office to see that that remains viable. And I believe we intend to do it, I also believe that it is do-able. The problem with it is it isn't adjusted as it moves along, so Congress has to take the action and is reluctant to do it. Therefore the system, based on actuary tables, gets out of whack periodically. It needs to get back in so that there are adequate people working to support retirees. The system can be changed at least 10 to 15 different ways to make it more cost efficient and cost effective, and this is what I believe we should do.

Well, as you can tell it is an interesting time, it is an interesting agenda. I go back in September. We will be in session with the judiciary committee. I would like everybody to watch. I think the questioning should be very, very interesting. Thank you so much, I will be happy to take your questions.

Question and Answer with Audience

•  Question: Senator, let me start by following up the final point that you made about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. You laid out a pretty compelling case about how important the stakes are in this. Let me ask you as a member of the judiciary committee, certainly Judge Roberts is going to be reticent to tipping his hand as to how he might rule in some of these cases. What kinds of questions are you going to be asking to get to the core of these constitutional issues that you are concerned about. What kinds of answers are you expecting of him for you to support his nomination?

Senator Feinstein: Now all of us understand that he is probably not going to answer every question he is asked, and certainly not about with respect to a case. But, he is going to be questioned. He as you know has had a long history and has participated in some 700 different decisions made by the White Houses that he served. And we are trying to get additional papers. So what we will be pushing for is what his views are on certain issues are. There are critical cases involving detainees and prisoner rights right now, and he wrote a paper saying he didn't believe that the Geneva Convention should be enforced in the United States. Which of course would jeopardize all of our people, our soldiers abroad. Therefore, clarification here. What he is not going to do is stonewall the committee. But to say “Look that might come before me. I am not going to answer that precise question, but I will tell you this…” and to go on and give what some of his views are. The American people are entitled to know what this man's views are.

2. Question: You met with him one-on-one in your office shortly after the nomination was announced. Did you ask him some of these questions and get some answers?

Senator Feinstein: Well I met with him for an hour. Let me give you my impression. My impression is that he is not an extremist, he is not an ideologue, he is extraordinarily bright, and he is extraordinarily well versed in the Supreme Court. He has tried 39 cases before the Court. He is often sought out when people have big cases going up before the Supreme Court, for his advice and counsel. When it comes to the law there is no question that he is brilliant. Now, the question comes, because of the pivotal nature of this appointee, how he would view, for example the Commerce Clause. I think this is really important because this could invalidate the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. So I think that is a viable question and we will ask that, I did not ask that when I met with him. But I came away feeling that most of my questions I really want to ask in a public venue, to have him answer in a public venue, rather than quietly, because you really can't depend on that. It is the record that matters and transcripts are kept of all of his hearings, and scholars and others will view them over many years. The hearing of the Supreme Court I will never forget is the Clarence Thomas hearing. I was in Heathrow Airport and there were all these people around me clustered around many television sets and I had been traveling and I didn't know how critical and important that appointment was. I remember I was so surprised by the way Anita Hill was treated before the committee. Well the committee has learned since then, and the committee has changed since then, and there is a woman who is going to see that that never happens again. So, we each have judiciary councils. I have four people who are attorneys and interns who work and they scour the record. They prepare, like with the Commerce Clause, we will begin probably with broad questions, and then narrow, narrow, and narrower. So we will all be prepared, and this isn't going to be off the top of the head questions.

3. Question: What do you see as the role of Congress in helping protect intellectual capital from going illegally to China?

Senator Feinstein : The role of Congress in protecting intellectual property is enormous. Patent and copyrights which come before the judiciary committee is a critical part of this. Wednesday I am going to discuss a little bit about the Grokster case and its impact. I played a little role because the last president of China was the mayor of Shang-Hi while I was the mayor of San Francisco, we had a sister city relationship and I got to know him very well. So I would take various cases to him and he was able to look into them. Particularly for the recording industry with respect to a lot of the pirating factories that exist in China, and at that time China closed 32 of them. They put people on the borders and where very conscious. I don't know the current President, Hu Jintao, so I would like to make that acquaintance and have an opportunity to tell him how important this is. Because I don't think that China, where the very entrepreneurial society can make a copy or pirate anything, where they do it and they do it well, and they get away with it. That's got to stop because this is our strength and we really have to protect it.

4. Senator are you seeing a shift towards a more favorable mood for embryonic stem-cell research in Washington?

Senator Feinstein : I do, to some extent. Bill Frist, the majority leader, came to the floor and made a very long set of remarks indicating that we should, and he would support what is called the Castle-DeGette bill, which both Sam and Zoe wrote it for, which would permit rejective embryos from IVF clinics to be used for stem cell research. That is a big help. It has got to come to the floor. It has not come to the floor. So, it is a body of thinking in the Senate that does not want it to come to the floor. But also, there is no prohibition against human cloning, and no one is for human cloning. So I have a bill which prohibits human cloning. It has about 26 cosponsors and is a bipartisan bill. Because Brownback has one which also prohibits embryonic stems cell research. Which would be a catastrophe for the California program. So a day after tomorrow, Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Villargosa, and I will have a press conference in LA to talk a little bit more about this. The fact that Republicans and Democrats in this state are united and that there are so many millions of people that can be helped by stem cell research, and urging the Congress to move without a prohibition on embryonic stem cell research.

5.  What are your thoughts on the interest in destroying the Hetch-Hetchy Valley? Do you think it's a viable option in the quest to save California's water supply?

Senator Feinstein Hetch-Hetchy is the largest high quality source of water in the state of California. It is the drinking water for 2.5 million people. It provides hydro-electric power to two counties: Merced and Tuolumne. Hetch-Hetchy the valley is about 1/12 the size of Yosemite. It would be just terrible to take down that dam. The cost of filtering the water lower in the river would be prohibitive. I fought it when I was mayor, and I will fight it as a senator all the way. I believe that we should take down dams that don't serve a useful purpose, or that might be environmentally desirable to do it. But to take down a dam that's the highest source of quality water in a troubled state makes no sense to me at all.

6. Did you have a mentor?

Senator Feinstein : My mentor was my father. My father was really proud of me. He was a professor of surgery at the University of California. He wanted me very much to be a doctor. I went down to Stanford and I got a D in genetics. I called my Dad and said, “Dad, I killed my frog, he jumped around the room with his entrails hanging out. Please, I can't do this!” And he said to me, “Well I got a D too.” That was the only lie he ever told. He never really saw the South side of the (?). It really wasn't the right thing for me. But my dad was really my mentor. When I went to work, he said, “You get here a half hour early. You only take a half hour for lunch, and don't take your coffee breaks.” And it was little things like this, because I worked at Notions in the Emporium when I was 16, and we didn't have computers then, so every spool of thread had to have a sales check. It was a great (?). You learn about the value of the dollar, you learn about standing on your feet for 8 or 9 hours a day. You learn what it's like to come home late at night, hanging onto to the strap in the Muni. And my dad did this for me, and I'm really very grateful, because today the basic discipline I learned then, from him, and the care and concern about people that he had as a doctor, I've been able to transfer and use that care and concern in a different way.

-Press Conference-

Q: …What do you hope to accomplish with these two visits?

Senator Feinstein : Well I have always thought that the Sino-American relationship was an extremely important one, particularly now at this place in time. So I'm delighted that there's going to be a visit. I think intellectual property, I think obviously North Korea, and I think about China's help with Iran even, China can be a good ally of the United States. I think we tend to blame China for some of our (tape ends)… Jobs, manufacturing jobs go, where the owners of companies take them. So I think that's been the tension. China has been a help with North Korea, China has been a help with respect to intelligence and the war on terror, and I think with more communication, more discussion, more high level, hands-on relationship with both countries, we can evolve a very positive relationship with China.

Q: Cindy Sheehan: What do you think about what she's been doing and will she have an effect in Washington on the fate of the war in Iraq?

Senator Feinstein : Well, I wish the President had met with her before it took on the nature that it's taking now. She was a mother who lost her son in Iraq, and I think it goes a long way for the President to explain to a mother what the stakes in Iraq are right now. I think it's true that most Americans want our men and women to come home. They want us out. But America can't turn tail and run. And therefore, I think the President should explain on a personal level why it's so important for the Iraqi constitution to get written…infrastructure to be rebuilt. That the police are untrained. That the Iraqi military is able to defend its nation And then we leave, as soon as possibly can (?)…It would go a long way, I believe, on a personal level.

Q: Have you seen the new documents released this week about Judge Roberts?

Senator Feinstein: Yeah my staff has. I haven't been in Washington, so I haven't seen them.

Q: They were remarks about Justice O'Connor being a political stunt, about Reagan appointing her…

Senator Feinstein: No, I haven't seen those remarks, so I don't know.

Q: Being the only women on the judiciary committee, do you feel you have a special obligation to represent the concerns of women?

Senator Feinstein : Absolutely. I feel I do have a special obligation and a special role. I'm one who remembers when abortion was illegal. I set sentences with members of the California Women's Board of Terms and Parole for women who committed abortion illegally. So I saw the more vivid, I saw a terrible, terrible situation back in the 1950's. I don't want to go back there. So I happen to feel that it would be very difficult for me to vote yes on a nominee who I thought would overturn Roe v. Wade. What I need to find out is what his views are. Now when we had him before us for his confirmation for the DC circuit, he said to Senator Durbin that he believed Roe was well settled law. The next question then is, is the well settled law so well settled that it should not be disturbed and that's a question I want to ask him.

Q: Senator, what is it that Judge Roberts say that could blow his chances in front of you?

Senator Feinstein : I'm not gonna go into that. I haven't thought about it that way.

Q: To phrase it another way, what issues would you like to hear about… like the Congress Clause and the 14 th Amendment. I'm not saying just what he should say but…

Senator Feinstein : Yes, I would like to come away with the view that he was not going to be one that would further restrict and bind lawmakers from enacting legislation that the people of this country want.

Q: You said BART to San Jose, first steps have been taken. What other steps need to be taken to bring BART to San Jose? Its money. Its all money, a lot of money and that's the rub as they say.