Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. So we have broad and strong support for the settlement agreement. Now, the question is, Why do we have it? The reason we have it is because it is my understanding that the Government has lost the case, and the result is that with or without the settlement, a Federal court will require restoration of the San Joaquin River. According to all of the parties, the court could--and we believe would--order a huge release of water from Friant Dam, negatively impacting the 15,000 farms in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. In contrast, the settlement agreement allows orderly restoration of the river, with minimized impacts to irrigated agricultural and municipal water users. It provides negotiated flood control and other protections for private landowners. It represents a sensible and hard- fought consensus solution. I know, because these parties came to me and asked me if I would sit down with all of the parties and try to put together this settlement agreement, and we did, in fact, do this. It is virtually supported by all of these elements. Also, the settlement would be far less costly to the taxpayers than returning to court and having the end result of having a Federal judge manage the river. That is what the alternative is. Here is why: The settlement provides almost $400 million in non-Federal funds, so what would have had to have been funded by the Federal taxpayers will be lowered. Effectively, the costs are lowered to Federal taxpayers. The affected water districts have agreed to help fund the settlement with approximately $200 million. The State of California will provide another $200 million. If the Coburn amendment is successful and this is dropped from the bill, the Federal Government will have to pay an additional $400 million and face the fact that the judge could well order a huge release of water, not staggered to any particular time, in no orderly manner, which could have tremendous adverse impacts on the farming community. The settlement also minimizes economic costs to the region by providing water supply certainty for users, but without the settlement water users in Friant could face more severe water losses and potentially millions of dollars of lost income and lost jobs. As I say, this is 15,000 separate farming entities, so that is unacceptable. Critics have argued that this provision is wasteful spending and that it would cost millions of dollars for every fish restored. But the facts prove them wrong. To get the number the critics use, they assume that only 500 fish will ever be restored; that is, salmon, instead of the 30,000 salmon that will eventually return to the river each year as a self-sustaining fishery. They ignore all the other benefits of the settlement. According to the Congressional Research Service analysis I have referenced, it is ``misleading'' to disregard the ``full array of likely project costs and benefits,'' including ``the values that Californians and U.S. citizens place on improvements in environmental quality and restored runs of salmon.'' The bottom line: The settlement offers the best possible solution to a longstanding water fight in my State. I do not believe there is anything wasteful about it. Remember, this suit has gone on for 18 years. I have talked with every one of the parties. They have all come together asking for a settlement agreement, including the Federal Government, the State of California, and actually the environmental group that sued, the NRDC, because they believe that if left to the judge, the action might be very adverse in terms of large amounts of water, rather than being staggered and done in a more sensible way, would be detrimental to the Friant farmers as well as, quite possibly, to the fish. The other problematic amendment offered by Senator Coburn is amendment No. 675 which would remove the Government's eminent domain authority for the public lands omnibus bill, including the San Joaquin River settlement title of the lands bill. Now, to be candid, none of us like the use of eminent domain. In the 9 years I was mayor, I refused to use eminent domain in San Francisco and, in fact, never did. But Senator Coburn's amendment ignores the basic reality that the use of eminent domain is sometimes necessary to carry out western water projects that are vital for an entire region because the water comes from one place, the State is vast, and it has to be moved to other places, and the public benefit of moving that water is enormous in the seventh largest economy on Earth. These water projects need to have the use of eminent domain as a last resort for building water projects and flood channels on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. Otherwise, the Government clearly is not going to be able to build water conduits, water projects, and flood control elements where they are most needed. That may be different in small States, but in huge States such as California, where the water comes primarily either from the very north of the State, the Sierra Nevada mountain range, or the Colorado River--where we are being weaned off of the Colorado River, and have an agreement to dramatically cut our take of water from the Colorado River--we have to have the conveyances to move the water around the State. Private landowners also receive the benefit of upgraded flood protections and bypasses around key diversion points, so that fish are not diverted along with irrigation supplies. This is a very sensitive, very problematic area. It has taken a lot of work to know how to do this. The Federal Government could not build these flood and bypass measures to benefit third party landowners without the ability to acquire land through eminent domain. That is just a fact. There is a great need for water projects in my State. If we don't move, I believe California will end up a desert State. We are faced with high wildfire potential, with warming climates, and reduced water. We are in the third year of a drought. Mr. President, you might be interested in knowing that for the big Central Valley of California, which makes California the No. 1 agricultural producer in America, most of that valley's water allocation from the Central Valley Project for this year is zero, which means fallowing, which means cutting out trees and crops. So we are in a very sensitive situation. I urge the Senate to vote no on these Coburn amendments. I think it is very easy to come in and second-guess a situation and not know anything about 18 years of litigation and the fact that the Government is going to lose the case and having to try to work out a settlement, which gets the best for all of the parties concerned. I believe we have done it, and it has taken hours and hours of negotiation. This has been approved by this body once. To remove the bill and the eminent domain authority from the lands bill would be tragic. Again, the Federal Government would have to pick up the costs the State of California is willing to pay under this settlement--$200 million--and the cost these water contractors are willing to provide--$200 million-- and do the whole job itself, which is going to cost an additional $400 million. These amendments are in no way, shape, or form, cost effective, and they will hamstring California's effort to solve what is an egregious problem, and that is an increasingly drying State, which is in drought almost on a perpetual basis and is trying to solve its problems. On behalf of Senator Boxer and I, I urge a ``no'' vote on both of these amendments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time not count against the time allocated for the Kirk nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Exhibit 1 State Capitol, Sacramento, CA, May 5, 2008. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: As Congress again considers legislation needed to implement the Settlement Agreement reached to restore the San Joaquin River, I write to reiterate my support of your leadership in this matter and to urge Congress to act now to take advantage of this historic opportunity. Restoring the San Joaquin River will provide vital benefits to the environment, to the people of the San Joaquin Valley, and to all Californians. I remain confident that this settlement can be implemented to provide these important benefits while minimizing impacts to the Friant water users and preserving the regional economy. The state of California has already committed substantial funding to support the settlement effort. In November 2006, California voters approved Proposition 84, the Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection Bond, which earmarks $100 million to support San Joaquin River restoration. Other bond funds are available to provide flood management improvements and to support regional water supply reliability projects. Moreover, I have directed my Administration to pursue all available opportunities to contribute to the dual restoration and water management goals of the Settlement Agreement. Thank you again for your leadership to secure the passage of the necessary legislation to advance the restoration of the San Joaquin River. Please know that my Administration remains committed to this important effort and we look forward to continuing our work with the federal government on this significant restoration program. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported Ethanol Parity Act of 2009. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Bingaman, Collins, Cantwell and Martinez. First, let me explain what this bill does. The Imported Ethanol Parity Act instructs the President to lower the secondary ethanol import tariff, so that tariffs on ethanol are no higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline. This would restore parity between the real tariff faced by imported gasoline and ethanol, which currently compete. This legislation is necessary because last year's Farm Bill shifted the function of ethanol tariffs. Historically, there has been relative parity between ethanol subsidies and ethanol tariffs. The tariffs served to ``offset'' domestic subsidies for ethanol use, thereby preventing imported ethanol from benefiting from domestic subsidies. But after passage of the Farm Bill, these tariffs began to serve as a real barrier to trade. The Farm Bill maintained the primary 2.5 percent tariff and extended the secondary tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, creating a combined tariff of $0.56 to $0.59 per gallon, depending on the sale price. But the Farm Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy that these tariffs are intended to offset to $0.45 per gallon. This disparity means that an ethanol importer pays more tariff than he gets back in subsidy, and parity has been lost. Specifically, an ethanol importer pays $0.11 to $0.14 per gallon of tariff to the U.S. Treasury that he never gets back from the ethanol subsidy. Ethanol is therefore disadvantaged when it competes directly with other imported transportation fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. It increases the cost of gasoline in the United States by making ethanol more expensive. It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane. Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline. It taxes imported transportation fuel from our friends in Brazil, India, and Australia, while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax free. It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices. It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3 percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must diversify supply. Bottom Line: Until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices. This legislation responds to the Tariff's defenders. In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill which would have eliminated the tariff. The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders. The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon secondary tariff on ethanol imports have always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to offset the blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, whether produced domestically or internationally. They argue that the ethanol subsidy exists to support American farmers who produce ethanol at higher cost than foreign producers. For instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol operates as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both domestically produced and imported ethanol.'' On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.'' In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated that the blender tax credit is available to refiners regardless of whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a tariff. In 2008, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry but the U.S. taxpayer.'' I ask tariff advocates to either support this legislation or explain how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed to offset. Bottom Line: Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to overcome a trade barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face. The tariffs cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.56-$0.59 per gallon if its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy, and it should be reduced. Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less expensive for the United States to combat global warming. Here is how: the fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of the greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. In California, it accounts for 40 percent of all of our emissions. To reduce this impact, we need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself. For this reason, in the 110th Congress I introduced the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in 2020. This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in which Congress requires oil companies to use an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least 50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline. Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of transportation fuel. The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel requirements under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the energy content in corn ethanol, is renewable. The rest is primarily natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process. The most recent research compiled by the California Air Resources Board concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of imported sugar based ethanol are 73 percent lower than gasoline, while the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol from the Midwest are 31 percent lower than gasoline. Even when land use change is factored in, the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil is the single least emitting fuel option available for today's vehicles. It is only surpassed on an emissions basis by electric and fuel cell cars, which are unfortunately at least a few years away from widespread adoption. Biofuels that protect our planet may be produced abroad, and we should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, if we import crude oil and gasoline tariff free. This legislation accomplishes two goals: it corrects the Farm Bill's mistaken policy that imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate friendly ethanol imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive advantage over cleaner fuel that simply should not exist at a time we are trying to combat climate change. It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff. I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported Ethanol Parity Act of 2009. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Bingaman, Collins, Cantwell and Martinez. First, let me explain what this bill does. The Imported Ethanol Parity Act instructs the President to lower the secondary ethanol import tariff, so that tariffs on ethanol are no higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline. This would restore parity between the real tariff faced by imported gasoline and ethanol, which currently compete. This legislation is necessary because last year's Farm Bill shifted the function of ethanol tariffs. Historically, there has been relative parity between ethanol subsidies and ethanol tariffs. The tariffs served to ``offset'' domestic subsidies for ethanol use, thereby preventing imported ethanol from benefiting from domestic subsidies. But after passage of the Farm Bill, these tariffs began to serve as a real barrier to trade. The Farm Bill maintained the primary 2.5 percent tariff and extended the secondary tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, creating a combined tariff of $0.56 to $0.59 per gallon, depending on the sale price. But the Farm Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy that these tariffs are intended to offset to $0.45 per gallon. This disparity means that an ethanol importer pays more tariff than he gets back in subsidy, and parity has been lost. Specifically, an ethanol importer pays $0.11 to $0.14 per gallon of tariff to the U.S. Treasury that he never gets back from the ethanol subsidy. Ethanol is therefore disadvantaged when it competes directly with other imported transportation fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. It increases the cost of gasoline in the United States by making ethanol more expensive. It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane. Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline. It taxes imported transportation fuel from our friends in Brazil, India, and Australia, while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax free. It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices. It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3 percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must diversify supply. Bottom Line: Until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices. This legislation responds to the Tariff's defenders. In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill which would have eliminated the tariff. The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders. The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon secondary tariff on ethanol imports have always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to offset the blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, whether produced domestically or internationally. They argue that the ethanol subsidy exists to support American farmers who produce ethanol at higher cost than foreign producers. For instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol operates as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both domestically produced and imported ethanol.'' On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.'' In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated that the blender tax credit is available to refiners regardless of whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a tariff. In 2008, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry but the U.S. taxpayer.'' I ask tariff advocates to either support this legislation or explain how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed to offset. Bottom Line: Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to overcome a trade barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face. The tariffs cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.56-$0.59 per gallon if its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy, and it should be reduced. Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less expensive for the United States to combat global warming. Here is how: the fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of the greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. In California, it accounts for 40 percent of all of our emissions. To reduce this impact, we need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself. For this reason, in the 110th Congress I introduced the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in 2020. This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in which Congress requires oil companies to use an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least 50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline. Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of transportation fuel. The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel requirements under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the energy content in corn ethanol, is renewable. The rest is primarily natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process. The most recent research compiled by the California Air Resources Board concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of imported sugar based ethanol are 73 percent lower than gasoline, while the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol from the Midwest are 31 percent lower than gasoline. Even when land use change is factored in, the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil is the single least emitting fuel option available for today's vehicles. It is only surpassed on an emissions basis by electric and fuel cell cars, which are unfortunately at least a few years away from widespread adoption. Biofuels that protect our planet may be produced abroad, and we should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, if we import crude oil and gasoline tariff free. This legislation accomplishes two goals: it corrects the Farm Bill's mistaken policy that imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate friendly ethanol imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive advantage over cleaner fuel that simply should not exist at a time we are trying to combat climate change. It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff. I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009, on behalf of myself and Senator Kennedy, to prevent the exploitation of people, citizens, and non-citizens alike, who are preyed on when seeking immigration assistance. The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non- citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Kennedy in putting an end to it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009, on behalf of myself and Senator Kennedy, to prevent the exploitation of people, citizens, and non-citizens alike, who are preyed on when seeking immigration assistance. The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non- citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Kennedy in putting an end to it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban Bisphenol A, BPA, from food and drink containers. I am pleased to be working with Congressman Markey on this issue, and he will be introducing identical legislation in the House. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Schumer, who has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I believe this is a good and necessary bill. The science shows that BPA is added to food and drink containers, and leaches into these foods and beverages, especially when heated in a plastic container. Make no mistake, chemicals are everywhere, even in our food. In many cases, we know very little about their safety. I strongly believe that the time has come to utilize a precautionary standard in all food and beverages with respect to chemical additives. If you do not know for certain the chemical is benign, it should not be used. Bisphenol A, known commonly as BPA, is one such example. It is used in consumer products all around us: plastic containers that store food, compact discs, water bottles, canned soups and other canned foods, even baby bottles. More than 100 studies suggest that BPA exposure at very low doses is linked to a variety of health problems, including prostate and breast cancer, obesity, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, brain damage, altered immune system, lowered sperm counts, and early puberty. The National Toxicology Program in the Department of Health and Human Services has cited ``some concern'' that Bisphenol A may affect neural development in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The solution is simple. My legislation will ban the use of Bisphenol A from food and drink containers. This ban will be effective 180 days following enactment of the legislation. The bill will create a waiver process, in case a company demonstrates that it is technologically impossible to replace BPA in that time frame. A manufacturer can receive a one year waiver, which is renewable, while they work to remove BPA from their product. They must submit a plan to remove BPA, and their product must be labeled as containing BPA. The legislation also directs the Food and Drug Administration to routinely review the ``List of Substances Generally Regarded as Safe.'' If new evidence emerges that suggests a chemical is not safe for use in a particular manner, it will be removed from the product. Scientists have raised alarms regarding BPA for some time. It is an endocrine disruptor, mimicking estrogen when it is exposed to a cell. Scientists at Stanford University accidentally discovered BPA's estrogen-mimicking effects in 1993. A mysterious estrogen-like chemical skewed results of their lab work, and they finally realized that BPA was leaching from laboratory flasks. We know that BPA is found in almost everyone. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey, NHANES, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found BPA in the bodies of 92.6 percent of the people surveyed. The study did not examine the exposure of children under 6. But it did find that levels were highest in young children, a troubling finding given that exposure to BPA is potentially most dangerous during these critical early years of development. We know a major source of this exposure: the cans that contain our food, the containers we eat from, even the baby bottles used to serve formula. The Environmental Working Group commissioned an independent lab to study BPA in cans in 2007. They tested 97 cans of some of the most popular consumer products. Their findings will alarm any consumer: 53 of the 97 cans tested had detectable levels of BPA; 20 of the 53 cans with BPA have high enough levels that consuming that canned product would expose a person to levels near those that have been found to impact laboratory rats; 1 in 10 cans contained enough BPA to expose a pregnant woman or child to more than 200 times the Government's safe level. The same is true for 1 out of every 3 cans of infant formula. For women who regularly eat canned food, their exposure level throughout a pregnancy may exceed safe doses. These are not exotic products, but the canned goods that are in pantries across this county: meal replacement shakes, canned soups, vegetables, and canned pastas, like ravioli. Baby bottles are also a common exposure source. Multiple studies have confirmed that many of the most popular brands of baby bottles leach BPA. A coalition of health and environmental groups, in their recent report ``Baby's Toxic Bottle'', identified several popular brands of baby bottles that leach BPA when heated: Avent; Disney, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo; Gerber; Playtex. Now every parent knows that milk served to babies is often heated, at least to room temperature. And these bottles, when heated, leached between 5 and 8 parts per billion of BPA, a level that is within the range that has been shown to cause harm in animal studies. We know that BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical, and may act like estrogen when in the human body. While the science is still emerging, research is connecting Bisphenol A with a variety of serious health effects. These include: early onset of puberty; hyperactivity; lowered sperm count; miscarriage. The chemical industry will try to reassure consumers that BPA is safe, and that studies have found these health effects only in laboratory animals exposed to BPA in high doses. But new evidence that goes beyond laboratory rat models is emerging. Last year, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine linked BPA to problems in brain function and mood disorders in monkeys, for the first time connecting the chemical to health problems in primates. The Yale scientists exposed monkeys to low levels of BPA, which the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, have deemed safe for humans. Researchers found that this chemical exposure interfered with brain cell connections vital to memory, learning and mood. The researchers stated that the findings suggest that exposure to low-dose BPA may cause widespread effects on brain structure and function. In September of last year, the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, published a study that links BPA levels in people to several serious health problems. The study examined the BPA concentrations found in 1455 adults who participated in the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, NHANES, a study which detected BPA in more than 90 percent of Americans tested. Using this data, researchers linked higher BPA concentrations to adverse health affects, including: cardiovascular disease; type II diabetes; clinically abnormal concentrations of some liver enzymes. The Los Angeles Times reported on the study on September 17th, stating ``that the quarter of the group with the highest BPA levels-- levels still considered safe by the FDA--were more than twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and cardiovascular disease as the quarter with the lowest levels.'' This is the first large scale study to be done examining human exposure, and I believe it must be taken very seriously. Industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. But one study shows us why we should be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies. In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies into low dose exposure to BPA with studies funded by the BPA industry. The results are astounding; 92 percent of the Government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems in animals. However, none of the industry funded research identified any health problems in animals exposed to low levels of BPA. This raises serious questions about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. It also illustrates why our Nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research into their products. The Food and Drug Administration agrees that the science is incomplete. The FDA's Science Board released a report in October 2008 that raised serious questions about the previous FDA assessments that found BPA to be safe. In response, the FDA has asked for more studies and more research. More research is fine, but I feel strongly that we must not leave a dangerous chemical on the market while scientists learn exactly how dangerous it is. Sufficient evidence exists for us to act now. I believe strongly in taking a precautionary approach to our chemical policy; people should be protected from chemicals until we know that they are safe for use. There is a great deal wrong with the regulatory system in this country and the way we address dangerous chemicals. Our system is essentially backwards. Chemicals are added to products before we know much about them. To be removed from the market, a chemical must be proven to be exceedingly dangerous. That means that while we wait for evidence of harm to develop, our children are using dangerous products, and possibly eating contaminated food. I believe it should be the reverse. We should follow the lead of the European Union, and Canada, and remove chemicals until we know them to be safe. We should not be waiting for proof of danger, which too often comes in the form of birth defects, cancer, and other irreversible health harms. While we continue to work to change our regulatory system, the time has come to apply this precautionary principle to BPA. Without question, there is more scientific work to be done. But we must not continue to expose our citizens to these risks while we wait to confirm BPA's dangers beyond a reasonable doubt. The Canadian government has already taken this approach with BPA, moving to eliminate polycarbonate baby bottles that contain Bisphenol A last year. Canadian officials stated that because safe alternatives are readily available, this ban is a prudent way to reduce risk for vulnerable infants. Many large retailers and producers, including Toys ``R'' Us, Nalgene, and Wal-Mart have agreed to no longer sell or produce baby bottles or plastic water bottles containing BPA. And just last week, the leading manufacturers of baby bottles announced they would no longer sell baby bottles made with BPA. This is great news. I commend them, but we should not be forced to rely on retailers to product American consumers from health hazards. The Congress agreed with this precautionary approach and banned six plasticizing chemicals, called phthalates, in legislation last year. Like BPA, phthalates have been linked to a variety of health problems in young children. Instead of doing nothing with the evidence mounts, Congress chose to step in and protect children from this risk. The time has come to do the same with Bisphenol A. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban Bisphenol A, BPA, from food and drink containers. I am pleased to be working with Congressman Markey on this issue, and he will be introducing identical legislation in the House. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Schumer, who has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I believe this is a good and necessary bill. The science shows that BPA is added to food and drink containers, and leaches into these foods and beverages, especially when heated in a plastic container. Make no mistake, chemicals are everywhere, even in our food. In many cases, we know very little about their safety. I strongly believe that the time has come to utilize a precautionary standard in all food and beverages with respect to chemical additives. If you do not know for certain the chemical is benign, it should not be used. Bisphenol A, known commonly as BPA, is one such example. It is used in consumer products all around us: plastic containers that store food, compact discs, water bottles, canned soups and other canned foods, even baby bottles. More than 100 studies suggest that BPA exposure at very low doses is linked to a variety of health problems, including prostate and breast cancer, obesity, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, brain damage, altered immune system, lowered sperm counts, and early puberty. The National Toxicology Program in the Department of Health and Human Services has cited ``some concern'' that Bisphenol A may affect neural development in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The solution is simple. My legislation will ban the use of Bisphenol A from food and drink containers. This ban will be effective 180 days following enactment of the legislation. The bill will create a waiver process, in case a company demonstrates that it is technologically impossible to replace BPA in that time frame. A manufacturer can receive a one year waiver, which is renewable, while they work to remove BPA from their product. They must submit a plan to remove BPA, and their product must be labeled as containing BPA. The legislation also directs the Food and Drug Administration to routinely review the ``List of Substances Generally Regarded as Safe.'' If new evidence emerges that suggests a chemical is not safe for use in a particular manner, it will be removed from the product. Scientists have raised alarms regarding BPA for some time. It is an endocrine disruptor, mimicking estrogen when it is exposed to a cell. Scientists at Stanford University accidentally discovered BPA's estrogen-mimicking effects in 1993. A mysterious estrogen-like chemical skewed results of their lab work, and they finally realized that BPA was leaching from laboratory flasks. We know that BPA is found in almost everyone. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey, NHANES, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found BPA in the bodies of 92.6 percent of the people surveyed. The study did not examine the exposure of children under 6. But it did find that levels were highest in young children, a troubling finding given that exposure to BPA is potentially most dangerous during these critical early years of development. We know a major source of this exposure: the cans that contain our food, the containers we eat from, even the baby bottles used to serve formula. The Environmental Working Group commissioned an independent lab to study BPA in cans in 2007. They tested 97 cans of some of the most popular consumer products. Their findings will alarm any consumer: 53 of the 97 cans tested had detectable levels of BPA; 20 of the 53 cans with BPA have high enough levels that consuming that canned product would expose a person to levels near those that have been found to impact laboratory rats; 1 in 10 cans contained enough BPA to expose a pregnant woman or child to more than 200 times the Government's safe level. The same is true for 1 out of every 3 cans of infant formula. For women who regularly eat canned food, their exposure level throughout a pregnancy may exceed safe doses. These are not exotic products, but the canned goods that are in pantries across this county: meal replacement shakes, canned soups, vegetables, and canned pastas, like ravioli. Baby bottles are also a common exposure source. Multiple studies have confirmed that many of the most popular brands of baby bottles leach BPA. A coalition of health and environmental groups, in their recent report ``Baby's Toxic Bottle'', identified several popular brands of baby bottles that leach BPA when heated: Avent; Disney, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo; Gerber; Playtex. Now every parent knows that milk served to babies is often heated, at least to room temperature. And these bottles, when heated, leached between 5 and 8 parts per billion of BPA, a level that is within the range that has been shown to cause harm in animal studies. We know that BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical, and may act like estrogen when in the human body. While the science is still emerging, research is connecting Bisphenol A with a variety of serious health effects. These include: early onset of puberty; hyperactivity; lowered sperm count; miscarriage. The chemical industry will try to reassure consumers that BPA is safe, and that studies have found these health effects only in laboratory animals exposed to BPA in high doses. But new evidence that goes beyond laboratory rat models is emerging. Last year, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine linked BPA to problems in brain function and mood disorders in monkeys, for the first time connecting the chemical to health problems in primates. The Yale scientists exposed monkeys to low levels of BPA, which the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, have deemed safe for humans. Researchers found that this chemical exposure interfered with brain cell connections vital to memory, learning and mood. The researchers stated that the findings suggest that exposure to low-dose BPA may cause widespread effects on brain structure and function. In September of last year, the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, published a study that links BPA levels in people to several serious health problems. The study examined the BPA concentrations found in 1455 adults who participated in the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, NHANES, a study which detected BPA in more than 90 percent of Americans tested. Using this data, researchers linked higher BPA concentrations to adverse health affects, including: cardiovascular disease; type II diabetes; clinically abnormal concentrations of some liver enzymes. The Los Angeles Times reported on the study on September 17th, stating ``that the quarter of the group with the highest BPA levels-- levels still considered safe by the FDA--were more than twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and cardiovascular disease as the quarter with the lowest levels.'' This is the first large scale study to be done examining human exposure, and I believe it must be taken very seriously. Industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. But one study shows us why we should be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies. In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies into low dose exposure to BPA with studies funded by the BPA industry. The results are astounding; 92 percent of the Government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems in animals. However, none of the industry funded research identified any health problems in animals exposed to low levels of BPA. This raises serious questions about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. It also illustrates why our Nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research into their products. The Food and Drug Administration agrees that the science is incomplete. The FDA's Science Board released a report in October 2008 that raised serious questions about the previous FDA assessments that found BPA to be safe. In response, the FDA has asked for more studies and more research. More research is fine, but I feel strongly that we must not leave a dangerous chemical on the market while scientists learn exactly how dangerous it is. Sufficient evidence exists for us to act now. I believe strongly in taking a precautionary approach to our chemical policy; people should be protected from chemicals until we know that they are safe for use. There is a great deal wrong with the regulatory system in this country and the way we address dangerous chemicals. Our system is essentially backwards. Chemicals are added to products before we know much about them. To be removed from the market, a chemical must be proven to be exceedingly dangerous. That means that while we wait for evidence of harm to develop, our children are using dangerous products, and possibly eating contaminated food. I believe it should be the reverse. We should follow the lead of the European Union, and Canada, and remove chemicals until we know them to be safe. We should not be waiting for proof of danger, which too often comes in the form of birth defects, cancer, and other irreversible health harms. While we continue to work to change our regulatory system, the time has come to apply this precautionary principle to BPA. Without question, there is more scientific work to be done. But we must not continue to expose our citizens to these risks while we wait to confirm BPA's dangers beyond a reasonable doubt. The Canadian government has already taken this approach with BPA, moving to eliminate polycarbonate baby bottles that contain Bisphenol A last year. Canadian officials stated that because safe alternatives are readily available, this ban is a prudent way to reduce risk for vulnerable infants. Many large retailers and producers, including Toys ``R'' Us, Nalgene, and Wal-Mart have agreed to no longer sell or produce baby bottles or plastic water bottles containing BPA. And just last week, the leading manufacturers of baby bottles announced they would no longer sell baby bottles made with BPA. This is great news. I commend them, but we should not be forced to rely on retailers to product American consumers from health hazards. The Congress agreed with this precautionary approach and banned six plasticizing chemicals, called phthalates, in legislation last year. Like BPA, phthalates have been linked to a variety of health problems in young children. Instead of doing nothing with the evidence mounts, Congress chose to step in and protect children from this risk. The time has come to do the same with Bisphenol A. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to oppose two amendments, the Ensign amendment and the Barrasso amendment. However, before doing so, because my distinguished colleague from South Carolina spoke about the horrible earmarks, I wish to present my point of view. I come from the largest State in the Union. We are about 38 million people. In population, we are bigger than 21 States and the District of Columbia put together. We have 10.1 percent unemployment. We have 1.86 million people unemployed. That is more people unemployed in California today than are people in 14 States in the United States. We have increasing wildfires. We have decreasing water. We are the largest agricultural State in the Union--a $40 billion agricultural industry. For the great Central Valley south of the delta, the water allocation for this year is zero. We are a State that is in great need of infrastructure repair. The great North Delta, which provides the drinking water for 16 million people in my State, is subject to collapse. Levees collapse. We have major problems with collapsing sewers, bridge repair--Doyle Drive going onto the great Golden Gate Bridge is in high susceptibility to coming down in an earthquake. I could go on and on. I have been, for 14 out of the 16 years I have been here, on the Appropriations Committee. Yes, I fight for funds for my State. That is what I came here to do. I want my earmarks, which are congressionally added spending, to be transparent and be out there for the world to see. If I make a mistake, I will change the mistake. But I want to help my State; otherwise, why do I come here? I cannot guarantee that the President of the United States, with all he has on his desk, is going to take care of California's needs. That is what I am here for; that is what I became an appropriator to do. And to handcuff what is a coequal branch of Government--remember, we have three branches of Government and they are coequal under the Constitution. To say that I am going to represent this great State, the seventh or eighth largest economic engine on Earth, and not help its infrastructure, not help provide for the needs of its people as somebody who sits as an appropriator-- something I don't want to do. Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your State? If you have to depend on a President who may want to ignore your State--that has happened in the past, and it can happen in the future. So I think all of this dialog is misplaced. If I can't fight for my State, if I can't help my State, if I can't see that there is money for sewers and money for water reconstruction and where education needs are vital--and a State that had a $42 billion deficit and was almost ready to collapse because it could not come to agreement on the terms should be made worse off because I can't do anything to help my State or Senator Boxer can't do anything to help our State? So I look at this as a way to reduce spending, no question about that, but also to create a more powerful precedent where the Congress is less able to add vital projects. Supposing a President has a bias against a given project. There is nothing, then, that an individual Senator or House Member or the House Members as a whole or the Senate as a whole can do about it. We make ourselves impotent as a coequal branch of Government if there is no ability, where necessary, to add to the budget. Now, it has been said that earmarks have greatly declined--and they have--and it has been said by some that they will be limited to 1 percent of the budget for the next year. I have no problem with that. I think that ought to be announced now. I am prepared to do that in the Interior budget. But we have to know what the rules are when we do the appropriations bills. What happens is, we do the appropriations bills, and then they come out here and run into this kind of opposition. I say set the rule ahead of time, decide earmarks are to be a certain part of the budget. They have been ratcheted down over the years. Continue to ratchet them down and set a percent, so every one of us who is chairman of an appropriations subcommittee knows exactly what we have to work with. Quickly, let me speak to two amendments--one that has been presented on the floor and one that hasn't but will be. The one that has been presented on the floor is the Ensign amendment, No. 615, on DC vouchers. I wish to speak on that and the Barrasso amendment, No. 637, on oil and gas drilling permits. Here is another situation we are in. If the Senate approves either of these amendments, or any of the other 10 to 12 amendments now pending, this omnibus bill dies. The bill has been passed by the House. The House said they will take no amendments. The bill is over here, and we have a number of amendments being presented, many of which some of us would like to vote for, but we cannot. The Ensign amendment is one of those amendments for me. If the omnibus bill dies, you then fund the Federal Government for another year. It has already been funded for 6 months out of a continuing resolution. This year is already 43 percent gone. This means no agency has been able to start a new program, and funding levels have been frozen at fiscal year 2008 levels since October 1, 2008. As a matter of fact, we have paid for 1.2 million Federal executive branch employees. It is increased 3.9 percent in January of this year. The money for that is in this omnibus bill. If the bill doesn't pass, I suppose it has to be added to a CR, and other things would have to be added to a CR as well. But I believe we should pass this bill. Let me speak for a moment about the Ensign amendment. I have supported the pilot program that provides vouchers on a pilot basis in Washington, DC, since its inception 5 years ago. I believe I was the deciding vote. This was added to an appropriations bill. I thought long and hard about it and decided to support it. I am prepared to continue to support this if the comprehensive evaluation, due this spring, shows that the program has value and students are improving. I believe in my heart of hearts that public education must fundamentally change. It must move away from the large, institutional- type school into the smaller, more personal setting where teachers can spend more time with students and their families, particularly in a student's younger, habit-forming years. I don't believe youngsters from lower income families should be denied the opportunity to learn in these smaller, more personal settings. We have huge schools in California. Some have thousands of students and hundreds more than should be in any one school. The Washington, DC, scholarship program is a 5-year pilot program to determine whether low- income students do, in fact, learn more and learn better in the area's private and parochial schools. Forty-nine schools, private and parochial, are included; 1,700 students are participating. They come from families under the average income of $23,000. They receive a Federal stipend of $7,500 a year to make their education in the private or parochial school possible, and the appropriation is $14 million a year. I believe we need different models for children to learn. Think of it--this country is so diverse, so many different people, so many different languages, so many different cultures. Yet there is one institutional type--public school. That is the model that is followed. I don't understand why there can't be different models. I believe there should be. So far, preliminary evaluation by the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Educational Sciences has shown some academic gains in reading and math. When these students entered the program, they were performing in the bottom third in reading and math tests in DC's public schools. Last year's evaluation, as I understand it, showed that the reading test scores of three subgroups of students, representing 88 percent of students receiving a scholarship, were higher by the equivalent of 2 to 4 months of additional schooling. These academic gains, again, are despite the many challenges these children face outside the classroom, coming from families where the average income is $23,000. I believe the results of the more comprehensive evaluation are critical, and we expect to have those results this spring. I look forward to learning more in the months ahead on how students are performing overall in the program and the impact it has had. In closing, I believe the debate over the DC Voucher Program is an important one. It is a valid one, and we should discuss it and debate it on this floor. But this bill is not the place to do it. If I were to vote yes and others were to vote yes, it would kill this bill, and we all know that. Simply stated, the House will not accept it. So I believe the debate is for another time. I regretfully will have to vote no on this amendment. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, I also want to oppose the Barrasso amendment. The 2009 Interior appropriations bill, as written, carries a provision that allows the Bureau of Land Management to recoup the cost of processing over 9,000 oil and gas drilling permits that were filed this year. Now, appropriations bills are replete with user fees, so this is nothing new. In fact, the language we are carrying in the omnibus bill is the same as what was in the 2008 bill and mirrors the proposal put forward by the Bush administration for the past 2 years. This language simply says to the oil and gas companies: If you are going to drill on public land, you need to cover the cost of processing your permit. For fiscal year 2009, the fee is $4,000 per permit. It is used to pay for the necessary environmental analysis that must be done before a permit can be issued. The $36 million raised through this fee is but a drop in the bucket compared to what these companies are getting. Listen to this: 23,293 active leases produce 108 million barrels of oil, 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 2 million gallons of liquid natural gas. In 2008, that resulted in $34.9 billion in revenues to oil and gas companies. From that, they pay $4.2 billion in royalties, leaving the companies with $30.7 billion. Out of that substantial sum, what we are asking the companies to do is pay $36 million in permit costs for environmental analyses and the processing of the permits. That is less than one- eighth of a percent or, to be precise, .12 percent to offset administrative costs. I want to ask you to consider this: From 2003 to 2007, the revenue of the oil and gas industry increased by 63 percent, from $1.1 trillion to nearly $1.9 trillion. At the same time, industry profits net income more than doubled, increasing from $72 billion to more than $150 billion during this time period. This is not an industry that is in need of a special break. As a matter of fact, one of these companies is a corporation that has made the greatest net profit of any corporation in our Nation's history. These companies are well off. They can afford to pay the permit costs, and I believe they should. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Wyoming strikes the cost recovery of the permit process and leaves the Federal Government and ultimately the taxpayers responsible for paying all of the administrative costs. I think that is fundamentally wrong. Furthermore, the industry would cause the Interior bill to exceed the subcommittee's spending allocation. Right now, our bill complies with the allocation we have been given, but striking the cost recovery fee, the Barrasso amendment would put the Interior bill $36 million over its allocation. I understand a point of order will be made against the bill at a later time. That concludes my comments. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I know he is under a time agreement. I say to the Senator through the Chair, I really do look forward to working with Senator Alexander. This is very important. I so regret some of the pressures that are brought upon this program. I am so pleased he and I agree these children should have different models to choose from in the public educational arena. This Washington Scholarship Program, I think we both believe, can go a long way, and hopefully the findings will be positive. I look forward to working with the Senator from Tennessee as well. I thank him for his comments.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a request for the distinguished Senator of Connecticut and ask unanimous consent that Ellen Cohen, a fellow on the staff of Senator Lieberman, be granted floor privileges for the duration of this debate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Amendment No. 599 Mr. President, I would now like to speak against amendment No. 599, offered by Senator Murkowski, which would limit the Endangered Species Act protections for the polar bear and other fragile species. The Interior portion of the omnibus bill as currently written allows the Obama administration to quickly undo two last-minute rules imposed by the Bush administration. The first Bush administration rule, issued in December 2008, denies the protections of the Endangered Species Act to the polar bear, despite its threatened status. The omnibus bill language would allow the Obama administration to immediately lift this ruling. This is an important first step toward fully protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. As I said, the amendment would undo the Obama administration's ability to quickly move to change two last-minute rules imposed by the Bush administration. The first Bush administration rule, issued in December 2008, denies the protections of the Endangered Species Act to the polar bear, despite its threatened status. The omnibus bill language would allow the Obama administration to immediately lift this ruling. This is an important first step toward fully protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. The second Bush regulation, also issued in December of 2008, excludes independent wildlife experts from the decisionmaking process of the Endangered Species Act. This is major. I think it is wrongheaded because it would leave the decisionmaking up to the Department that handled whatever the project was without any input from scientists or biologists on the subject. So whichever Federal agency has proposed a project is given the full jurisdiction to determine whether there is an impact to an endangered or threatened species, and independent scientists are excluded from the consultation process. The omnibus bill, as currently written, allows the Obama administration to quickly undo the Bush rule and return independent wildlife experts to this consultation process. The amendment offered by Senator Murkowski would further prolong these two Bush administration rules and require a public comment period of 60 days before the Bush rules can be lifted. I cannot support that. In my view, right now the polar bear is not sufficiently protected. Here is why. Under the rule issued by the Bush administration, the polar bear is only protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This Federal statute only protects polar bears from direct harm. It does not address the problem of the arctic habitat of the bears, which is literally melting away. I read books. I have watched PBS nature shows, which have shadowed polar bears, which have shown the deteriorating ice pack. Let me quote something Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, the former Secretary of the Interior, said in May of last year. Here is what he said. This is a Republican Secretary of the Interior: Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of [sea ice] habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. So we know the polar bear is being jeopardized by the deterioration of ice. Now, some people, perhaps, do not believe the ice is really deteriorating. But if you look here, this is the Arctic Sea ice loss. This whole thing, as shown on this chart--both the ochre color, the yellowish color, and the white--is the way it was in 2005. In 2005, this was the Arctic. In 2007, the Arctic ice mask is 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, and you can clearly see its deterioration in a 2-year period. So what is happening in the Arctic is actually very dramatic. It is actually destroying polar bear habitat, and absent that habitat, the polar bear cannot feed himself or herself. The polar bear starves. The nature show on PBS actually tracked a female polar bear. It showed her starving. It showed her having two cubs. It showed one of the cubs dying of starvation. It showed her struggling to find food floating out on individual pieces of ice. In my view, there is no question that Secretary Kempthorne was correct, that the polar bear will very shortly meet the criteria of the Endangered Species Act and, therefore, I strongly believe if that is, in fact, the case, we should have the proper opportunity to assess it and move in that direction. So I am fully supportive of what President Obama has done to move rapidly to set up the situation for that kind of consideration. The statute that is in the underlying bill would ensure that melting habitat of the Arctic is taken into consideration. So the omnibus bill will give the Obama administration strengthened authority to quickly undo the Bush rule on polar bears and open the door to the process of applying the Endangered Species Act to the threatened polar bear. Anyone who looks at the beauty of these animals recognizes their significance not only to nature but to man and woman as well. This is an extraordinary animal. It deserves to be protected. So I am very proud we have language in the bill that is supportive of what the President of the United States is attempting to do. So I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to, first of all, oppose the Thune amendment, and then to speak in opposition to the Murkowski amendment. I rise as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. In its current form, the Interior portion of the omnibus is funded at $27 billion. This section includes a substantial increase for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. For fiscal year 2009, the bill provides $5.957 billion. This is an increase of $320 million over the fiscal year 2008 bill. It is a 5.7-percent increase. That is a great deal of money. The Thune measure--well, let me make one other point first. In addition, the Recovery Act, which we enacted last month, contained $1 billion for these two agencies. So taken together, the omnibus bill and the recovery act will provide $6.957 billion. That is an increase over the 2008 level of $1.320 billion, or 23 percent. Now, that is what the underlying bill and the recovery act, the stimulus bill, does--a 23- percent increase. That is a great deal of money. Senator Thune has proposed an across-the-board cut of 0.1 percent to the entire omnibus to pay for an increase of $400 million for these two agencies in addition. That means every account in the entire omnibus bill must take a cut. Now, if the Thune amendment were successful, it would increase my bill, the Interior bill, by $372 million, which would put us over our allocation, which would make germane a point of order against our bill. I think that is wrong. I think when we do a substantial increase, I do not understand the need for this. I do not understand why a 23-percent increase, to the tune of $6.957 billion--that is a huge increase, probably one of the greatest increases in any part of this omnibus, and that is the underlying omnibus bill. So I am concerned. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Thune amendment. Mr. President, I would like to raise a point of order against the amendment under section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act. The pending amendment would increase spending in the Interior Subcommittee by $400 million, primarily by cutting spending in the jurisdiction of the eight other subcommittees funded in this act. The amendment, therefore, would result in spending exceeding the budget allocation of the Interior Subcommittee. I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the Interior Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2009 concurrent resolution on the budget.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like the opportunity to simply say to the Senator from South Dakota that it is not correct there was no Republican input into this bill. This bill was put together last year. Senator Allard was the ranking member. Senator Allard and his staff participated in the committee deliberation of this bill. There is no question about it. I think we have to remember this is not a 2010 appropriations bill; it is a 2009 appropriations bill. I wish to state that the reason we have a 23-percent increase in the bill for Indian services and Indian health care is that we recognize there is a need. This is a substantial addition. So my objection to the amendment should not be construed that I do not want to support Indian health services or Indian health care. The amendment causes a point of order against the bill. We exceed our allocation. It forces every one of the nine bills to take a cut and then adds to my bill an additional $372 million which forces us up over the limit. This is a bill that has been discussed. It has been discussed with the Republican side. We had agreement on it last year. I believe the commitment should be kept and the bill should be passed. I believe there is an ample increase both for Indian health care and Indian services. So I wanted the opportunity to respond to the Senator from South Dakota in that regard. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Thune amendment and ask this body to vote against it. Last year's Interior appropriations bill provided $5.6 billion for Native American programs. This year, the regular appropriations bill and the recently enacted Recovery Act will provide $6.9 billion for Indian health. That is an increase of 23 percent over the 2008 level. The Thune amendment would increase the funding an additional 6 percent, or $400 million, paid for by an across-the-board cut in every account in this omnibus bill. That would cause the Interior bill to exceed its allocation; consequently, a point of order would rest against the entire Interior bill and it would be dead. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI requires that not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congess, the rules of each committee shall be published in the Record. In compliance with this provision, I ask that the rules of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that the Senator from Nevada wishes to call up the amendment and speak very briefly--he mentioned to me 2 minutes. I believe I am in the line to speak and I wish to speak on this amendment. Is that the agreement?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is the subject of this amendment vouchers?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No problem. Amendment No. 587

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the manager of the bill. I rise today to speak in strong opposition to amendment No. 575 offered by Senator Ensign. This amendment is not the instant amendment that he just spoke about; it is the amendment that essentially would repeal all commonsense gun laws in the District of Columbia. I believe the amendment is reckless. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence on the streets of our Nation's Capital. It will endanger the citizens of the District, the Government employees who work here, our elected officials, and those who visit this great American Capitol. And, of course, if successful, it will be the first new step in a march to remove all commonsense gun regulations all over this land. The Ensign amendment repeals gun laws promoting public safety, including DC laws that the U.S. Supreme Court indicated were permissible under the second amendment in the Heller decision. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court decision in Heller that the second amendment gives individuals a right to possess weapons for private purposes not related to State militias, and that the Constitution does not permit a general ban on handguns in the home. But that is the law. It has been adjudicated. It has gone up to the highest Court, and I am one who believes if we do not like the law, we should try to make changes through the proper legal channels. However, it is important to note that Heller also stands for the proposition that reasonable, commonsense gun regulations are entirely permissible. As the author of the original assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994, I know commonsense gun regulations do make our communities safer, while at the same time respecting the rights of sportsmen and others to keep and bear arms. Just yesterday, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of 52 people in California, Minnesota, and Maryland. In addition to seizing 12,000 kilograms of cocaine and more than 16,000 pounds of marijuana, the DEA also seized 169 illegal firearms from members of the Sinoloa Cartel. Where did they get those guns? It would be interesting to find out because this cartel is one of several that law enforcement believes is responsible for kidnappings and murders within the United States in addition to engaging in violent gun crimes. In talking about the Sinoloa Cartel yesterday, Attorney General Holder noted that reinstituting the assault weapons ban would benefit the United States, as well as help stop the flood of weapons being sent from the United States to Mexico for use by drug cartels to cause violence on both sides of the border. I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and intend to do so. I have been quiet about this because there are many pressing needs of this Nation. But with the help of the President, the administration, and the people of this great country, we do need to fight back against these kinds of amendments. Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion on the Heller case that a wide variety of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful,'' including the laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' and regulations governing ``the conditions and qualifications of the commercial sale of arms.'' I cannot think of any place more sensitive than the District of Columbia. Even bans on ``dangerous and unusual weapons'' are completely appropriate under the Heller decision. So it is interesting to me that you have this decision, and then you have the Senate moving even to obliterate what is allowable under the decision. Senator Ensign's amendment completely ignores Heller's language and takes the approach that all guns for all people at all times is called for by Heller. It is not. We have all seen the tragic consequences of gun violence: the massacre of students at Virginia Tech University in 2007, the murders at Columbine High School in Colorado, the North Hollywood shootout where bank robbers carrying automatic weapons and shooting armor- piercing bullets shot 10 Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers and seven civilians before being stopped. We have seen criminal street gangs able to buy weapons at gun shows and out of the back seats or the trunks of automobiles. We have seen their bullets kill hundreds, if not thousands of people across this great land--men, women, and children. I remember one case in the San Francisco Bay area not long ago where a youngster taking a piano lesson in a home had a bullet from a gang member pierce the wall of the home, cut his spine, and today he is a paraplegic. It is unbelievable for me to think of the ease with which people can buy weapons. As Senator Schumer said, if this amendment becomes law, even if you cannot see, even if you cannot pass a sight test, you can have access to firearms. That is not what this Nation should encourage. Those incidents and the gun violence that occurs every day across this country show us that we should be doing more, not less, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill and not give them unfettered access to firearms. It is worth noting just how far this amendment goes in repealing DC law and just how unsafe it will make the streets of this Capitol. Here is what it would do: It would repeal DC's ban on semiautomatic weapons, including assault weapons. If this amendment becomes law, military-style assault weapons with high-capacity magazines will be allowed to be stockpiled in homes and businesses in the District, even near Federal buildings such as the White House and the Capitol. Even the .50 caliber sniper rifle, with a range of over 1 mile, will be allowed in DC under this amendment. This is a weapon capable of firing rounds that can penetrate concrete and armor plating. And at least one model of the .50 caliber sniper rifle is easily concealed and transported. One gun manufacturer describes this model as a ``lightweight and tactical'' weapon and capable of being collapsed and carried in ``a very small inconspicuous package.'' Is this what we want to do? There is simply no good reason anyone needs semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons in an urban community. It is unfathomable to me that the same high-powered sniper rifle used by our Armed Forces will be permitted in the Nation's Capital. Yet this is exactly what the amendment would allow if passed by the Senate. Next, the amendment would repeal existing Federal anti-gun trafficking laws. For years, Federal law has banned gun dealers from selling handguns directly to out-of-State buyers who are not licensed firearms dealers. This has helped substantially in the fight against illegal interstate gun trafficking, and it has prevented criminals from traveling to other States to buy guns. Senator Ensign's amendment repeals this longstanding Federal law and allows DC residents to cross State lines to buy handguns in neighboring States. Illegal gun traffickers will be able to easily obtain large quantities of firearms outside of DC and then distribute those guns to criminals in DC and in surrounding States. And no one should be so naive as to say that this amendment will not do this. It will. The amendment repeals DC law restricting the ability of dangerous and unqualified people to obtain guns. The amendment also repeals many of the gun regulations that the Supreme Court said were completely appropriate after Heller. So all of those who will vote for this amendment should not do so thinking they are just complying with the Heller decision. This is part of a march forward by gun lobby interests in this country to begin to remove all commonsense regulations, and no one should think it is anything else. This would repeal the DC prohibition on persons under the age of 21 from possessing firearms, and it repeals all age limits for the possession of long guns, including assault weapons. Do we really want that? I think of the story of an 11-year-old who had a reduced barrel shotgun and just recently killed somebody with it. Is this what we want to see all over this country, the ability of virtually anyone to obtain a firearm regardless of their age? I don't think so. The amendment even repeals the DC law prohibiting gun possession by people who have poor vision. I heard Senator Schumer speak about this yesterday afternoon. Unbelievably, under this amendment, the District would be barred from having any vision requirement for gun use, even if someone is blind. Is this the kind of public policy we want to make for our Nation? Is this how co-opted this body is to the National Rifle Association and others? I hope not. One of the reasons we have 6-year terms is to allow us to make difficult decisions. There is no higher charge than protecting our public safety. We should protect individuals. The way we protect individuals is by enacting public policy that is prudent, reasonable, and subject to common sense. This amendment does none of the above. I ask my colleagues to think carefully about this amendment, because if it succeeds, trust me, the march for similar legislation will be on. I introduced the assault weapons legislation. I survived. I had an election in 1994, just after I had introduced it. I survived. The people of my State want commonsense gun control. They don't want local jurisdictions stripped of any ability to enact prudent regulation. The Presiding Officer is in the chair. The husband of one of her colleagues, going home on the Long Island train, was shot and killed by someone who never should have had a weapon. How many of these incidents do we have to have? How many businesses employing people who are mentally ill have to suffer when they have a grudge against an employee, and kill 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 people? How many schools do we have to have where aggrieved students go out and acquire the most powerful weapons and come into cafeterias, libraries, or classrooms and mow down students? A vote for this amendment, any way we look at it, makes this easier to happen. I believe passionately about this. I will never forget, many years ago, before I was mayor, walking into the robbery of a corner grocery store. When people die of gunshot wounds, it is not the way it is on television or in the movies. I saw brain matter all over the walls. I saw the husband, a proprietor, the wife, a proprietor. This individual who came in even shot the dog. People are capable of terrible criminality. We should not encourage that criminality by making their access to weapons so very easy. As I say, this is the first step in a march to see that there is no ability to enact prudent gun regulation throughout the United States. I ask every colleague, before they vote for this, to think about the people they represent and whether society is going to be safer because of their vote. How deep have we sunk in catering to these interests? For shame. The amendment before the Senate repeals all firearm registration requirements in the District, making it even more difficult for law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes and track down the registered owner. The amendment repeals all existing safe-storage laws and prohibits the District from enacting any additional safe-storage laws. After the Heller decision, the District passed emergency legislation to allow guns to be unlocked for self-defense, but requiring that they otherwise be kept locked to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. We all ought to want that. The Ensign amendment repeals even this modest limitation and prevents the District of Columbia City Council from enacting any law that discourages--whatever that means-- gun ownership or requiring the safe storage of firearms. How can we, in the Capital of the United States where we have had so many tragic events, possibly do this? This is simply ridiculous and goes well beyond the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller. Think about what this means. Consider that every major gun manufacturer recommends that guns be kept unloaded, locked, and kept in a safe place. Under this amendment, the District could not enact any legislation requiring that guns be stored in a safe place, even in homes with children. How can anyone believe this broad-brush amendment is the right thing to do? How can any of us believe it provides protection for the people we represent? Let me make one other point. The American people clearly do not agree with this amendment. Last fall, when a virtually identical bill was being considered in the House of Representatives, a national poll found that 69 percent of Americans opposed Congress passing a law to eliminate the District's gun laws--69 percent. That is about as good as we get on any controversial issue. Additionally, 60 percent of Americans believe Washington will become less safe if Congress takes this step. Is this what we want? Do we want the Capital of the United States to become less safe? I don't think so. Today, if this amendment passes in the Senate, it will be directly against the wishes of the American people. It will not pass because it is good public policy--it will only be passed to placate the National Rifle Association. I say for shame. As a former mayor who saw firsthand what happens when guns fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles, and the mentally ill, I believe this amendment places the families of the District of Columbia in great jeopardy. The amendment puts innocent lives at stake. It is an affront to the public safety of the District. It is an affront to local home rule. This isn't just a bad amendment; it is a very dangerous one. I very strongly urge Senators to join me in opposing it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I rise today to speak in strong opposition to amendment No. 575 offered by Senator Ensign. I believe the amendment is reckless. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence on the streets of our Nation's Capital. It will endanger the citizens of the District, the Government employees who work here, our elected officials, and those who visit this great American Capitol. And, of course, if successful, it will be the first new step in a march to remove all commonsense gun regulations all over this land. The Ensign amendment repeals gun laws promoting public safety, including DC laws that the U.S. Supreme Court indicated were permissible under the second amendment in the Heller decision. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court decision in Heller that the second amendment gives individuals a right to possess weapons for private purposes not related to State militias, and that the Constitution does not permit a general ban on handguns in the home. But that is the law. It has been adjudicated. It has gone up to the highest Court, and I am one who believes if we do not like the law, we should try to make changes through the proper legal channels. However, it is important to note that Heller also stands for the proposition that reasonable, commonsense gun regulations are entirely permissible. As the author of the original assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994, I know commonsense gun regulations do make our communities safer, while at the same time respecting the rights of sportsmen and others to keep and bear arms. Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion on the Heller case that a wide variety of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful,'' including the laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' and regulations governing ``the conditions and qualifications of the commercial sale of arms.'' I cannot think of any place more sensitive than the District of Columbia. Even bans on ``dangerous and unusual weapons'' are completely appropriate under the Heller decision. So it is interesting to me that you have this decision, and then you have the Senate moving even to obliterate what is allowable under the decision. Senator Ensign's amendment completely ignores Heller's language and takes the approach that all guns for all people at all times is called for by Heller. It is not. We have all seen the tragic consequences of gun violence: the massacre of students at Virginia Tech University in 2007, the murders at Columbine High School in Colorado, the North Hollywood shootout where bank robbers carrying automatic weapons and shooting armor- piercing bullets shot 10 Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers and seven civilians before being stopped. We have seen criminal street gangs able to buy weapons at gun shows and out of the back seats or the trunks of automobiles. We have seen their bullets kill hundreds, if not thousands of people across this great land, men, women, and children. As Senator Schumer said, if this amendment becomes law, even if you cannot see, even if you cannot pass a sight test, you can have access to firearms. That is not what this Nation should encourage. Those incidents and the gun violence that occurs every day across this country show us that we should be doing more, not less, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill and not give them unfettered access to firearms. It is worth noting just how far this amendment goes in repealing DC law and just how unsafe it will make the streets of this capital. Here is what it would do: It would repeal DC's ban on semiautomatic weapons, including assault weapons. If this amendment becomes law, military-style assault weapons with high-capacity magazines will be allowed to be stockpiled in homes and businesses in the District, even near Federal buildings such as the White House and the Capitol. Even the .50 caliber sniper rifle, with a range of over 1 mile, will be allowed in DC under this amendment. This is a weapon capable of firing rounds that can penetrate concrete and armor plating. And at least one model of the .50 caliber sniper rifle is easily concealed and transported. One gun manufacturer describes this model as a ``lightweight and tactical'' weapon and capable of being collapsed and carried in ``a very small inconspicuous package.'' Is this what we want to do? There is simply no good reason anyone needs semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons in an urban community. It is unfathomable to me that the same high-powered sniper rifle used by our Armed Forces will be permitted in the Nation's Capitol. Yet this is exactly what the amendment would allow if passed by the Senate. Next, the amendment would repeal existing Federal antigun trafficking laws. For years, Federal law has banned gun dealers from selling handguns directly to out-of-State buyers who are not licensed firearms dealers. This has helped substantially in the fight against illegal interstate gun trafficking, and it has prevented criminals from traveling to other States to buy guns. Senator Ensign's amendment repeals this longstanding Federal law and allows DC residents to cross State lines to buy handguns in neighboring States. Illegal gun traffickers will be able to easily obtain large quantities of firearms outside of DC and then distribute those guns to criminals in DC and in surrounding States. And no one should be so naive as to say that this amendment will not do this. It will. The amendment repeals DC law restricting the ability of dangerous and unqualified people to obtain guns. The amendment also repeals many of the gun regulations that the Supreme Court said were completely appropriate after Heller. So all of those who will vote for this amendment should not do so thinking they are just complying with the Heller decision. This is part of a march forward by gun lobby interests in this country to begin to remove all commonsense regulations, and no one should think it is anything else. This would repeal the DC prohibition on persons under the age of 21 from possessing firearms, and it repeals all age limits for the possession of long guns, including assault weapons. Do we really want that? I think of the story of an 11-year-old who had a reduced barreled shotgun and just recently killed somebody with it. Is this what we want to see all over this country, the ability of virtually anyone to obtain a firearm regardless of their age? I don't think so. The amendment even repeals the DC law prohibiting gun possession by people who have poor vision. I heard Senator Schumer speak about this yesterday afternoon. Unbelievably, under this amendment, the District would be barred from having any vision requirement for gun use, even if someone is blind. Is this the kind of public policy we want to make for our Nation? Is this how co-opted this body is to the National Rifle Association and others? I hope not. The amendment before the Senate repeals all firearm registration requirements in the District, making it even more difficult for law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes and track down the registered owner. The amendment repeals all existing safe-storage laws and prohibits the District from enacting any additional safe-storage laws. After the Heller decision, the District passed emergency legislation to allow guns to be unlocked for self-defense, but requiring that they otherwise be kept locked to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. We all ought to want that. The Ensign amendment repeals even this modest limitation and prevents the District of Columbia City Council from enacting any law that discourages, whatever that means, gun ownership or requiring the safe storage of firearms. How can we, in the Capitol of the United States where we have had so many tragic events, possibly do this? This is simply ridiculous and goes well beyond the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller. Think about what this means. Consider that every major gun manufacturer recommends that guns be kept unloaded, locked, and kept in a safe place. Under this amendment, the District could not enact any legislation requiring that guns be stored in a safe place, even in homes with children. How can anyone believe this broad- brush amendment is the right thing to do? How can any of us believe it provides protection for the people we represent? Let me make one other point. The American people clearly do not agree with this amendment. Last fall, when a virtually identical bill was being considered in the House of Representatives, a national poll found that 69 percent of Americans opposed Congress passing a law to eliminate the District's gun laws, 69 percent. That is about as good as we get on any controversial issue. Additionally, 60 percent of Americans believe Washington will become less safe if Congress takes this step. Is this what we want? Do we want the Capitol of the United States to become less safe? I don't think so. Today, if this amendment passes in the Senate, it will be directly against the wishes of the American people. It will not pass because it is good public policy, it will only be passed to placate the National Rifle Association. I say for shame. As a former mayor who saw firsthand what happens when guns fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles, and the mentally ill, I believe this amendment places the families of the District of Columbia in great jeopardy. The amendment puts innocent lives at stake. It is an affront to the public safety of the District. It is an affront to local home rule. This isn't just a bad amendment; it is a very dangerous one. I very strongly urge Senators to join me in opposing it. Mr. President, when this bill was tried in the House a year ago, a poll was done nationally in which 69 percent of the people were against it. I have to believe a dominant majority would still be against it. I urge a no vote on the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help protect the retirement benefits earned by our Nation's public service workers. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, as well as Senators Durbin, Kerry, Brown, Cardin, Boxer, Lincoln, Whitehouse, Nelson of Florida, and Menendez. This bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the Government pension offset and the windfall elimination provision--that unfairly reduce retirement benefits for teachers, police officers, and firefighters. These two provisions were originally designed--the Government pension offset in 1977 and the windfall elimiantion provision in 1983--to prevent public employees from being unduly enriched. But, the practical effect is that those providing critical public services are unjustly penalized. Approximately 1\1/2\ million Federal, State, and municipal workers, as well as teachers and other school district employees, are held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits. In California, the problem affects about 200,000 workers. The Government pension offset reduces a public employee's Social Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the individual's public pension. In most cases, the Government pension offset eliminates the spousal benefit for which an individual qualifies. Three quarters of employees affected by the Government pension offset lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes for many years. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Government pension offset provision alone reduces the retirement benefits earned by nearly 500,000 Americans each year by an average of $500 per month. The windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits by up to 50 percent for retirees who have paid into Social Security and also receive a public pension, such as from a State teacher retirement fund. Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $744 in average monthly career earnings, plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $4,483 and 15 percent of earnings above $4,483. Under the windfall elimination provision, retired public employees, however, are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $744 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $350 per month. Our legislation will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which nongovernment pension recipients are entitled. For those living on fixed incomes, in some cases this represents the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty. Americans are hurting as our economy continues to contract. More than $4 trillion in retirement savings were lost last year as markets destabilized and investments soured. Retirees on fixed incomes have been especially impacted by this recession. Every dollar matters to a retiree struggling to pay bills and meet mortgage obligations. In California, more than 837,000 foreclosures were filed last year. The roughly $500 lost by beneficiaries to the Government pension offset each month may mean the difference between foreclosure and keeping one's home. This is also critical for seniors residing in assisted living facilities or retirement communities concerned about paying the increasingly high cost of care. Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 7.6 percent. And, in my State, over 1.7 million people are out of work. For those close to retirement who have lost their jobs, reductions in Social Security benefits compound an already challenging situation. We must also eliminate the barriers which discourage many Americans from pursuing careers in public service. This is more difficult now than ever, as states face mounting deficits and painful budget cuts. Communities must be able to retain their most qualified teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Unfortunately, the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provision only contribute to this problem at a time when we should be doing everything we possibly can to bring the best and brightest to these careers. It is estimated that schools will need to hire between 1.7 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by the end of this year because of record enrollments in public schools. The projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers and critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers. California currently has roughly 310,000 teachers but will need to double this number over the next decade, to 600,000 teachers, in order to keep up with student enrollment levels. It is counterintuitive that on the one-hand, policymakers seek to encourage people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, while on the other hand, those wishing to do so are told that their retirement benefits will be significantly reduced. I certainly recognize that our Federal budget deficit and national debt make repealing the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provision difficult. And, I remain open to considering any alternatives that will allow hard working employees to keep the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. But the bottom line is that we should respect, not penalize, our public service employees. In the 110th Congress, 38 Senators joined me in cosponsoring this legislation. In the House of Representatives, 351 Members of Congress supported Representative Howard Berman's companion bill. Our bill enjoys the support of more than three quarters of the entire House of Representatives. The reason for this support is because public servants across the country are calling on Congress to act. It is long overdue that we resolve this inequity, and it is time that this body protects retirement benefits for public employees and formulates a more cohesive approach to promoting public sector employment. So I hope that my colleagues will join me in protecting the retirement benefits of our Nation's hard working public servants. We value their contributions and must ensure that all Americans receive the retirement benefits they have earned and deserve. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.