Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we have before us today a supplemental appropriations bill that will finally start the process of bringing our troops home. The United States today is in its fifth year in Iraq. The administration offers no apparent road out of Iraq. It offers only an escalation plan that keeps growing, and an open-ended commitment to a civil war. The Congress of the United States has an obligation to express its voice on this matter and to offer a solution. The search for a solution has been difficult. We have come to the floor many times this year, and we have struggled to find the right course of action. I believe that path is before us today. This legislation would initiate the orderly drawdown of our forces and redefine the mission for a small supporting force that would remain. It sets benchmarks for the administration and for the Iraqi Government. This legislation calls for actions which this administration has stubbornly resisted, including the prompt phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. This redeployment would begin within 120 days of the legislation being enacted. The legislation sets a goal of March 31, 2008, for redeploying major combat forces from Iraq. A smaller force would be allowed to remain, with its mission limited to protecting American and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. This supplemental also calls for a vigorous ``diplomatic, political, and economic strategy.'' This strategy would involve ``sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.'' This is the key to ending the violence in Iraq--the recognition that the solution to Iraq lies not in U.S. force but in political accommodation among the Iraqis. This legislation also sets benchmarks for the Iraqi Government. These include deploying trained and ready Iraqi security forces in Baghdad; strengthening the authority of Iraqi commanders to make tactical and operational decisions without political intervention; disarming militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Iraqi Constitution; enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that Iraq's oil is distributed to all Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; enacting and implementing legislation that reforms the de- Ba'athification process in Iraq; ensuring a fair process for amending the Iraqi Constitution to protect minority rights; and enacting and implementing rules to protect the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament. Finally, this supplemental requires that the top U.S. commander in Iraq report to Congress on progress by the Iraqi Government in meeting these benchmarks--30 days after this act is enacted and every 90 days thereafter. Our Nation's present course of action is untenable and unsustainable. Our very purpose for being in Iraq bears little resemblance to the reasons Congress authorized the use of military force in October 2002. What do we have as we enter the fifth year of this war? A terrible human toll in dead and injured--3,200 Americans killed, more than 24,000 wounded, with estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths that soar well into the six figures and a toll on our Treasury that is unsustainable. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Iraq war is already the fourth most expensive war in U.S. history, behind World War II, Korea and Vietnam. We are spending roughly $8.4 billion in Iraq a month--more than $2 billion a week. So far we have spent nearly $400 billion in Iraq. Think of the opportunity costs to this Nation. Wars cost money. I understand this. But we cannot continue this level of spending on a distant civil war with no exit strategy. If we keep our combat forces in Iraq for years to come--as this administration seems intent on doing--it will likely become the second costliest war we have ever waged. Our military cannot continue to bear this heavy burden. This war has eroded our troop readiness, depleted military equipment, and left our fighting forces weary. Consider these developments: Army and Marine officers say the rapid pace of deployments into Iraq has put the readiness of their troops into a ``death spiral''--with 40 percent of gear worn out and soldiers and marines left fatigued and undertrained. Our Nation owes our fighting forces better than this. The 3rd Infantry Division, scrambling to meet deployment orders, reportedly has sent injured troops back to Iraq--including ones so badly injured that they could not put on their body armor. We owe our fighting forces better than this. The Army's medical facilities are understaffed and underfunded--not just at Building 18 at Walter Reed--and its medical staff is overwhelmed. We owe our fighting forces better than this. Some 1,800 Marine Corps reservists will get letters this week notifying them that they are being involuntarily recalled for a year, thanks to a shortage of volunteers to fill some jobs in Iraq. This follows news that should make everyone in this Chamber take notice: The 82nd Airborne Division--the storied ``All-American'' Division--is so strained by this war that it can no longer respond on short notice to a crisis. For decades, the 82nd Airborne has kept a brigade on round-the-clock alert--ready to respond to a crisis anywhere around the globe within 18 to 72 hours. But The New York Times reported on March 20 that the 82nd Airborne can no longer meet this standard--a standard it has long held with pride. I believe the supplemental that we have before us today is the solution to the Iraq problem. It provides a vehicle for Congress to express its sense on Iraq and to require the President to take concrete, measurable steps forward. It sets clear deadlines and requires vigorous regional diplomacy. It sends a message to an administration marked by arrogance and declares to the Iraqi Government that their time has come. Zalmay Khalilzad, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said as much Monday, March 26, in his farewell news conference. Mr. Khalilzad was direct: The Iraqi leadership must understand, he said, that time is running out. Finally, most importantly, this legislation begins the process of bringing our troops home. We have a choice today. We can vote for a clear-headed Iraq policy or do nothing. We can exercise our constitutional oversight duties or we can be a rubberstamp for a failed Iraq policy. I urge my colleagues to choose the first path. To choose the other is to abdicate our responsibility. (At the request of Mr. Lott, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Wyden's amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would provide critical funding for a multiyear extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and fully fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program. This amendment provides nearly $5 billion for rural schools, counties and communities through 2012--crucial to California's rural counties, which face a devastating loss in Federal funding. Last Thursday, March 22, my colleagues and I on the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the inclusion of $425 million in emergency appropriations to fund the Secure Rural Schools program for 1 year in the emergency supplemental--helping to immediately address the pending budget crisis confronting over 700 counties in 39 States, including my State of California. This emergency funding adds $425 million to the $100 million available from the 25 percent of receipts that compensate counties for reductions in timber harvest on public lands. However, our counties should not have to rely on emergency funding year after year and be faced with such uncertainty. We must provide our rural counties with a stable funding stream so that they are not in the same dire situation next year and can plan for the future. This amendment, supported by the National Association of County Officials, the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, and the National Education Association, would maintain a safety net for counties while gliding down funding in a predictable manner so counties can fiscally prepare for the future. Specifically, this amendment would provide $2.8 billion in funding over 5 years for a multiyear extension of the Secure Rural Schools Program. It would also provide $1.9 billion to fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program for 5 years, from 2008 through 2012. This program compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in the State. It would also provide funding beyond fiscal year 2007 to be fully paid for by a combination of tax offsets. In addition, it would provide California, Oregon, and Washington with additional transition funding in the early years to minimize the effects of the overall decline of the total authorization level to $379 million in 2011 under the Secure Rural Schools Program. The additional transition funding for these States--California, Oregon, and Washington--would also help counties with adjusting to the new funding formula under the Secure Rural Schools Program. The new funding formula would be based on the current formula of historical payments and the current acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with mechanism to focus support on those communities in greatest economic need. Under this amendment, California's counties would receive $283 million in funding from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 from the Secure Rural Schools Program. Without this funding, mostly rural California counties would face sudden, catastrophic cuts. Counties in California would lose $57 million this year alone if the Secure Rural Schools Program is not extended. Last year, California's counties received $69 million to fund their schools and road and forest improvement projects from this program. The loss of these Federal funds would have a devastating impact on California's rural counties, resulting in school closures, teacher layoffs, and some schools could even face bankruptcy or State takeover. Furthermore, essential road and forest improvement projects would be jeopardized. For example, Trinity County received almost $8 million in funding, and all school districts in the county could be faced with bankruptcy and would have to eliminate the school curriculum, cut one full-time school nurse--leaving one nurse to cover the entire 4,000-square-mile county--and cut music and arts programs. Plumas County, which received $7.5 million, would have to lay off teachers--resulting in increased class sizes in grades K through 12-- eliminate all school librarians, and close school cafeterias. Lassen County received $4 million, and over half of the 10 school districts in the county would be faced with budget insolvency-- resulting in school libraries being closed, teacher layoffs, the elimination of school-based health services, and the reduction of teacher training and student textbooks. We simply cannot allow this to happen. It is critical that we provide immediate and long-term funding to our rural counties that depend on the Secure Rural Schools Program for their livelihood. This amendment would also fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program, providing $1.9 billion over 5 years. This means California would receive an estimated $11 million or more in additional dollars annually on top of the $21 million the State currently receives from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. In recognition of the reality that Federal lands pay no local property taxes, PILT compensates counties for the Federal lands within their borders. PILT compensation is especially important for rural counties with heavy concentrations of Federal lands that reduce their available tax base. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can ensure that our Nation's rural counties continue to receive much needed resources to serve their schools and communities.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much. Thank you, Mr. President. I very much commend the Senator from North Dakota. I think he said it well and in a very inspiring way. If I had to summarize it, it would be that we in America try to take care of our own--not only people in other nations, but people who have been the victims of real disaster in this country. The fact is we haven't been doing it for 3 years, and the disasters have piled up: in 2005, 2006, and 2007. This package takes care of that problem. In my State, California, we suffered two devastating disasters in the last 2 years which have resulted in Federal disaster declarations: a heat wave and a freeze. We are currently suffering a drought. Governor Schwarzenegger has certified through March 13 a loss from the freeze of $1.397 billion. The total damage has yet to be figured. I think people don't understand how big this was in California. We have losses in 35 out of 58 counties, many the most productive in the country, that produce more agricultural products than 22 other States, in 40 different types of crops. They include avocados, strawberries, grapes, walnuts, guavas, lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, artichokes, asparagus, and celery. The losses include $817 million in damage to California's citrus crops. Lemons, limes, mandarins, grapefruit, navel oranges, and Valencias are dead in the field. Here is what some of it looks like. This is one tree. Now, most people know Florida has oranges, but those are the oranges we make juice out of. When you eat an orange, a tangerine, or a grapefruit, or you put a lemon in your ice tea, those fruits are from California. But not this year. We have lost at least 50 percent of the navel orange crop, 65 percent of the Valencia crop, and 65 percent of our mandarins. My farmers need this assistance. Some of my colleagues are asking, why do we need to provide this funding? Farmers should have their own insurance. The answer is, in California most farmers already do have insurance, but here is the rub: It is not going to be nearly enough to cover the damage. Let me provide an example. According to the Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency, citrus growers will be able to collect up to $311 million in crop insurance. Now, that sounds like a lot, but the farming costs for California's citrus industry for this year's operations alone total $560 million. What do I mean by farming costs? This is the amount farmers have spent to irrigate, spray, prune, everything that is necessary to prepare a crop for harvest. But this year, there is no harvest. Therefore, they absorb the $560 million. They also have to begin to get ready for next year's harvest. They need to get their loans. That will also be an incurrence of $560 million in normal farming costs. That adds up to $1.2 billion in regular farming costs, and only $311 million--at most--in available insurance they can recoup. And they are not guaranteed a crop next year. Add on to that the $100 million these growers spent in January on wind machines, irrigation, and other methods to protect their orchards from the freezing temperatures, plus the costs they are incurring now to remove the dead fruit and branches. Now, 85 percent of citrus is grown by family farmers--that is just a fact--not the big agricultural combines. These are responsible farmers. In fact, 75 percent of the citrus acres in California are insured, but again, insurance alone will not cover the needs of my constituents. This is why we need this assistance. When some people saw there was also an appropriation for dairy milk loss, some people actually laughed. I was offended, because in July of 2006, California experienced 2 weeks of blistering, triple digit temperatures. For 12 days the San Joaquin Valley, the most productive agricultural region of this country, had temperatures over 105 degrees. What does this mean? Well, 20,552 milk cows died and 10,738 calves died. Those are counted animals--over 30,000 dead. That doesn't include our losses in poultry. There were so many dead carcasses, the rendering plants could not handle the load. The State temporarily lifted the ban on burying dead livestock in landfills, but that was still not enough. These cows died because of the heat. Even the cows that survived produced 25 percent less milk than is normal. So the death of these animals, plus the stress put on the ones still producing, resulted in more than $228 million in milk losses for my dairymen. In addition, because regular breeding could not take place for a month because of the death of so many animals, my farmers will again face at least $228 million in losses for 2007. That is why my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, has joined with me in helping us push for the addition of this relief into our emergency supplemental. This is a total of $460 million in losses. We are asking for only $95 million, and that is in this supplemental. What is more, this funding can be accessed by dairymen on the gulf coast, including Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, who also suffered losses due to the hurricanes. Let me conclude. This has not been easy, and I thank Senator Byrd, Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Senator Kohl, and Senator Reid for their work on this Agricultural Disaster package, and also the Republican leadership on the Appropriations Committee who acceded to the request. America is a great nation, and one of the reasons we are a great nation is we don't only care about others; we care about our own. If there is ever a time when we could help our own, it is in this supplemental appropriation. So what I say is: Hands off, please. We have worked hard to get where we are. The losses have been substantial. The disasters have been large. Families who can't pay their mortgages, who lose their boats if they are fishermen, lose their farms if they can't make the payments, can be helped by this assistance. So I hope it remains in. I hope we resist an effort to remove this from the supplemental package. Again, I thank those who have helped with this. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to establish the second annual ``Endangered Species Day'' on May 18, 2007. I am submitting this resolution with Senators Collins, Feingold, Levin, Snowe, Kerry, Biden, Cantwell, Lieberman, Wyden, Clinton, Crapo, and Sanders whose co-sponsorship I appreciate. I want to commend my constituent Mr. David Robinson, who first suggested the establishment of an ``Endangered Species Day.'' Individuals like Mr. Robinson do make a difference. The designation of an ``Endangered Species Day'' provides a multitude of opportunities for young people, students, and the general public to learn more about endangered species both in our country and abroad. Last year, thirty-six events were held across the country to highlight endangered species success stories. The Governor of Maine, the Rhode Island State legislature, and the cities and counties of Santa Barbara, San Diego, and San Francisco also declared State and local Endangered Species Days. Zoos and aquariums across the country, such as the Roger Williams Zoo and the San Diego Zoo, also held educational events. Endangered Species Day 2006 provided an opportunity for schools, libraries, museums, zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, agencies, businesses, community groups, and conservation organizations to educate the public about the importance of protecting endangered species and to highlight everyday actions that individuals and groups can take to help protect our nation's wildlife, fish, and plants. Based on the success of last year, I believe that ``Endangered Species Day'' fosters increased communication and awareness about many of the most endangered species by encouraging such activities as school field trips to the zoo or attending a lecture at the local library. In my home State of California, I am especially proud of the conservation and management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations of California condor, winter run chinook salmon, the least Bell's vireo songbird, and the California gray whale. Despite these success stories, we need to be aware that more can be done. At this time, we have more than 1,800 species in the U.S. and abroad, which are designated as ``at risk'' for extinction. One small step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the public about these species. I am submitting this resolution with the hope that ``Endangered Species Day'' can spark the wonder and interest in our youth to continue the conservation efforts we have begun, but still are far from finishing. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow the Los Angeles World Airports to provide the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, which lie directly in the Los Angeles International Airport's flight path, with noise reduction funds. This bill would authorize the Los Angeles World Airports to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at these schools. In 1980, the Lennox School District and the City of Los Angeles settled a lawsuit, allowing aircraft carrying up to 40 million people per year to fly overhead the schools. The City also agreed to provide approximately $2.5 million to the Lennox School District. Currently, an airplane flies a few hundred feet above the Lennox and Inglewood schools about every three minutes. The noise is deafening. It rattles windows, disrupts lessons, and makes it very difficult for these students to learn. In February 2005, the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts settled a lawsuit with the Los Angeles World Airports under which the Los Angeles International Airport agreed to provide the School Districts with more than $110 million in noise mitigation funds over 10 years. These funds are essential for the improvement of conditions at these schools. Unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration interpreted the 1980 agreement and Federal law in a way that prevents the payment of the funds under the 2005 agreement. Thus, Federal legislation is necessary to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at the Lennox and Inglewood schools. I am introducing legislation to do just this. This bill was drafted with the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration, and it has the support of the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, the Los Angeles World Airports, and the Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Jane Harman, will introduce this same bill today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this non-controversial legislation that will allow for the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects in the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow the Los Angeles World Airports to provide the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, which lie directly in the Los Angeles International Airport's flight path, with noise reduction funds. This bill would authorize the Los Angeles World Airports to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at these schools. In 1980, the Lennox School District and the City of Los Angeles settled a lawsuit, allowing aircraft carrying up to 40 million people per year to fly overhead the schools. The City also agreed to provide approximately $2.5 million to the Lennox School District. Currently, an airplane flies a few hundred feet above the Lennox and Inglewood schools about every three minutes. The noise is deafening. It rattles windows, disrupts lessons, and makes it very difficult for these students to learn. In February 2005, the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts settled a lawsuit with the Los Angeles World Airports under which the Los Angeles International Airport agreed to provide the School Districts with more than $110 million in noise mitigation funds over 10 years. These funds are essential for the improvement of conditions at these schools. Unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration interpreted the 1980 agreement and Federal law in a way that prevents the payment of the funds under the 2005 agreement. Thus, Federal legislation is necessary to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at the Lennox and Inglewood schools. I am introducing legislation to do just this. This bill was drafted with the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration, and it has the support of the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, the Los Angeles World Airports, and the Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Jane Harman, will introduce this same bill today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this non-controversial legislation that will allow for the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects in the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on the Smithsonian Institution. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I call up amendment No. 574.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Boxer as a cosponsor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator Kyl. SCAAP is a vital program to the States and localities to reimburse them for the costs associated with housing undocumented criminal aliens. Funding for SCAAP is authorized in the amount of $950 million for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2011, but we have never fully funded SCAAP. Instead we have paid only pennies on the dollar for these costs. In my home State of California, there are currently over 20,000 criminal alien inmates. It costs California approximately $715 million per year to house these aliens. In 2007, Congress appropriated $399 million for SCAAP. In this budget resolution, SCAAP is funded at $407 million. In 2005, a total of 758 applications from 50 different States and the U.S. territories were submitted for fiscal year 2005 SCAAP funds. The real problem here is that the problem of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. Yet the Federal Government consistently shifts the costs for enforcing immigration laws onto our States. This cost- shifting is not fair to State governments. My amendment makes SCAAP funding whole by providing an additional $543 million to this program.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment to the budget resolution that Senator Chambliss and I have offered to increase FY2008 funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program to $900 million. The need for this amendment is clear. This country is currently experiencing a violent crime surge unlike anything we have seen in more than a decade. Just a few weeks ago, the Police Executive Research Forum reported that their survey of 56 cities and sheriffs' departments showed that, from 2004 to 2006, homicides increased overall by 10 percent, aggravated assaults with guns rose 10 percent, and robberies rose 12 percent. In just 2 years. Of course, these updated survey results mirror the FBI's own statistics, which showed that in 2005 violent crime rose in every region of the country, and by 2.5 percent overall--the largest reported increase in 15 years. For the first 6 months of 2006, the surge in violent crime was even worse--3.7 percent overall, according to the FBI. Let me put these numbers in human terms. The International Association of Chiefs of Police equates this 2.5 percent rise to 31,479 more victims of violent crime in 2005. And a 3.7 percent increase for all of 2006, it says, equates to about 47,000 more Americans murdered, robbed, assaulted, raped, or subjected to violent crimes last year. Unfortunately, despite these disturbing numbers, the President's budget proposal for FY2008 continued to propose drastic cuts in the Federal assistance traditionally available to State and local law enforcement. Listen to the warning cry that the International Association of Chiefs of Police recently issued: [T]he cuts contained in the proposed FY 2008 budget have the potential to cripple the capabilities of law enforcement agencies nationwide and force many departments to take officers off the streets, leading to more crime and violence in our hometowns and, ultimately, less security for our homeland. These are strong words, but they make sense in the wake of the drastic Federal cuts we have seen to State and local law enforcement, especially in the last few years. In FY2007, the total funding level for State, tribal and local law enforcement assistance was $2.316 billion. That was already more than $1.5 billion below the level given only 5 years earlier, when DOJ funded programs for state and local law enforcement totaled $3.831 billion. Last year's $2.316 billion amount included not only Byrne/JAG, but also the COPS program and 17 other State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance grant programs, including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP; Tribal Courts Initiative, and other programs to promote Drug Courts, Prescription Drug Monitoring, Cannabis Eradication, and State and Local Intelligence Capabilities. For FY2008, however, the President remarkably proposed to eliminate all 17 of these programs. In their place, it proposed only two consolidated programs, one of which would be called the Byrne Public Safety Program, or BPSP. Unfortunately, even when BPSP was combined with the President's other proposed programs, its total budgeted amount for FY2008 was only $582 million--a $1.7 billion cut from the already- depleted FY2007 number. In other words, the President's budgeted $582 million represented an 85 percent cut in these funds in just 6 years. And to make matters worse, the President's FY2008 budget also proposed more than $500 million in cuts to the DHS grant programs traditionally available to State and local law enforcement. During the 1990s and earlier years in this decade, our Federal Government vigorously funded grants programs for State and local law enforcement. And we saw results--violent crime went down year after year. But with the recent cuts, violent crime rates have now turned back up. Literally tens of thousands of additional Americans each year have become victims of violent crime. It is time for the Senate to add substantial Byrne/JAG funding to this year's budget resolution--just as we have done in the past 2 years. In FY2006 and again in FY2007, this Senate voted to increase Byrne/JAG to $900 million--even after President Bush and previous Budget Committees tried to ``zero out'' this program. I recognize and appreciate that Senator Conrad and his Budget Committee in the new Congress have taken a very different view of Byrne/JAG. I applaud their decision to reject the much smaller budget figure for Byrne/JAG that was contained in the President's Budget, as well as the decision to reject the President's proposal to consolidate Byrne/JAG with other grant programs and eliminate its formula funding. This is a major step forward. Unfortunately, however, it just is not enough. At a time when this country is seeing the biggest surge in violent crime it has experienced in more than a decade, using FY2007 levels that are $1.5 billion below FY2002 levels will not do the trick. The Senate must do more--just as we rose to the occasion and voted to do more in the past. After a Byrne/JAG amendment was offered on the budget resolution last year, we were confronted in June with the sharply higher 2005 violent crime numbers reported by the FBI. And in December, the FBI gave us even worse violent crime numbers for the first half of 2006. Given these disturbing trends, the Senate needs to restore these needed funds to the Byrne/JAG program. I understand that this budget is tight, and I appreciate the difficult tradeoffs involved. But at a time when we are about to consider a Supplemental Appropriations bill that may add more than $100 billion so that we can try to secure the streets of Baghdad against violence, I do not think that it's asking too much for us to spend the funds we need to secure our own streets from the violence that the FBI says we are increasingly seeing. Homeland security is undoubtedly important, but so is home town security. The Byrne/JAG program, named after slain New York Police Officer Edward Byrne, is a time-tested program run by DOJ that has proven its effectiveness over the course of more than 20 years. It is a key source of funding for multi-jurisdictional task forces. And because 40 percent of a State's Byrne/JAG funds must be set aside for local governments, smaller and rural law enforcement agencies are often especially dependent on Byrne/JAG to meet their needs. Increased funding for Byrne/JAG has been endorsed by a wide array of law enforcement groups, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Amendment No. 616

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. This budget resolution provides Congress with a $2.9 trillion spending blueprint for the upcoming year. It establishes a process and guidelines by which Congress will determine the revenues and spending for the Federal Government. I support this resolution. It puts our Nation on the road back to fiscal responsibility. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about our Nation's fiscal health. We have moved a long way from where we were 6 years ago. When President Clinton left office, he left with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. That surplus could have allowed Congress to eliminate the Nation's debt by 2010. But today, the Nation faces a $248 billion deficit and the debt has grown to $8.9 trillion. This translates to roughly $30,000 owed by each and every United States citizen. It took almost 200 years for every President from George Washington to George H.W. Bush to amass $2.6 trillion in debt. President Bush matched their $2.6 trillion in debt in just 5 years. And, over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects the interest payments on the debt will be more than $3 trillion. That is $3 trillion that cannot be spent on priorities like healthcare, education or homeland security. This should be a major concern to the American people. Our Nation is in this situation because of the misplaced policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. The President's tax cuts have cost this Nation over $1 trillion. Over the next 10 years, these tax cuts will cost over $3 trillion more. The vast majority of these tax cuts have gone to benefit the very wealthy. Additionally, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost $510 billion to date. And there is no end in sight. This has squeezed the budget and made it difficult to fund all those programs that deserve funding. Let me tell you what this means. When the President submitted his budget proposal to Congress on February 5, it was deeply flawed. It cut or eliminated 141 programs, programs that are of great importance to the American people. My home State of California was especially hard hit. The President's budget proposed cutting Community Development Block Grants by 21 percent. This would have meant that California's CDBG funding would be cut by almost $140 million from its 2006 funding level. This would be devastating. In the City of Victorville, CDBG funds have helped revitalize areas of the city 3000 residents call home. In Los Angeles, these funds have allowed 8,500 housing units to be rehabilitated. CDBG funds have preserved over 2,000 jobs and removed over 41 million square feet of graffiti. Yet the President's budget did not support this important program. The President's budget also short-changed the law enforcement programs that Americans rely on for their continued safety. The Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program was eliminated under the President's budget, as was the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. As a border State, these programs are essential to California. Additionally, under the President's budget, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, was given only half of the funding that is necessary to continue to serve the children already enrolled in this program. The good news is the budget before us today restores many of the President's cuts. For instance: It funds CDBG at 2007 levels, plus an adjustment for inflation. California State and local governments can continue to work for housing and community development in low-income areas. The budget also restores funding to the COPS program. It allocates $522 million for COPS, a program that has put over 100,000 police officers on the streets in communities across the country. And we have adopted an amendment by my colleague Senator Biden to increase COPS funding to its authorized level of $1.5 billion. I was proud to support this increase. This budget also restores $407 million for SCAAP. And through an amendment I offered and the Senate has adopted, will increase the funding for SCAAP to its authorized level of $950 million. California has the highest number of undocumented aliens in the country. And California prisons house over 20,000 criminal aliens, incurring tremendous costs. Last year alone, California spent over $715 million keeping criminal aliens off the streets. This budget increases spending on SCHIP from $2 billion in the President's budget to $50 billion. The $48 billion increase will allow for continued coverage of all currently enrolled children in SCHIP. This budget then goes one step further. It expands SCHIP, insuring an additional six million children who are currently eligible for this program but are not enrolled. Young Americans should not suffer as a result of the President's misplaced priorities. Additionally, this budget provides critically needed funding for vital Veterans' care programs. Specifically, it provides over $43 billion for Veterans, $3.5 billion more than the proposal offered by President Bush. This money will allow our brave troops to obtain the medical care they deserve. After the alarming revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other Veterans' facilities around the country, it is clear that we need to ensure that VA facilities provide the highest level of care. This proposal funds medical and prosthetic research and information technology; and it ensures that baseline operating expenses are met. In addition, the proposal provides middle-income taxpayers relief from the alternative minimum tax. Absent congressional action, nearly 20 million more Americans will be forced to pay the AMT next year. This proposal adds 2 years of relief from the AMT, where the President could only find room for 1. Congress faced many restrictions and tough choices in crafting this budget. And lawmakers' hands were tied due to years of fiscal mismanagement. The budget resolution is far from perfect. It fails to provide permanent relief from the AMT for middle-class families and, while it restores much needed funds in critical areas, it does not fully fund critical programs. But it refocuses our priorities. And it takes important steps to restore fiscal responsibility. Unlike the President's budget proposal, this budget will create a surplus in 2012 and is nearly balanced a year before that. Change will take time. And there is no cure-all for the years of fiscal irresponsibility and misguided policies that we have seen. As I said before, this budget is far from perfect. However, it initiates much needed change and I believe will put us back on the path from which the President and Republican Congress strayed. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interest of Americans who have entrusted us with a great responsibility. I hope that they will join me today in meeting this responsibility by voting for the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Sessions to re-introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation protects the safety of consumers who wish to fill legitimate prescriptions over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies. This legislation imposes basic, commonsense requirements on an industry that presents both promise and peril. First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies. Second, this bill prohibits an Internet pharmacy from dispensing or selling a controlled substance without an in-person examination by a physician. Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operating in violation of the law, and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law. The disclosure requirements contained in this bill will allow patients to differentiate between shady off-shore pharmacies and legitimate licensed ones. Under this legislation, pharmacies must clearly disclose: the name and address of the pharmacy. Contact information for the pharmacist-in-charge. A list of States in which the pharmacy is licensed to operate. They must also clearly post a statement that they comply with the requirements in this legislation. The bill states that pharmacies can dispense to patients only if they have a valid prescription from a practitioner who has performed an in- person examination. This requirement will ensure that doctors can verify the health status of a patient and ensure that the drug he or she will receive from the pharmacy is medically appropriate. This legislation recognizes that in the case of an emergency, a patient may not always be able to see his or her typical physician. For that reason, it allows a doctor to designate a covering practitioner to write a valid prescription if he or she is not available. Finally, this bill contains real penalties to hold accountable those who continue to operate pharmacies in violation of these requirements. First, for Internet sales of controlled substances, the bill makes clear that such activities are subject to the current Federal laws against illegal distributions and the same penalties applicable to hand-to-hand sales. Second, the bill increases the penalties for illegal distributions of controlled substances categorized by the DEA as Schedule III, IV and V substances, with new penalties if death or serious bodily injury results, and longer periods of supervised release available after convictions. The bill also allows a State's Attorney General to file a Federal motion to stop these pharmacies from operating illegally, no matter where the entity is headquartered. Previously, this type of enforcement would require a filing in every state. Prescription drug abuse is a growing front on the War on Drugs, with 15.1 million adults admitting to abuse of prescription drugs in a 2003 study. That's a 94 percent increase in the last decade. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that deaths from accidental drug overdoses nearly doubled from 1999 to 2004, increasing from 11,155 in 1999 to 19,838 in 2004. Accidental drug overdoses are now the Nation's second-leading cause of accidental death, behind automobile crashes. The CDC attributed the rise in drug overdose deaths to a higher use of prescription painkillers and increasing numbers of overdoses of cocaine and prescription sedatives. These increases did not occur in our inner cities; instead, the increase was described as being fueled by prescription drug abuse in middle-class, rural America--with overdose death rates doubling in 23 States, mostly in the South and Midwest. Ready access to controlled substances over the Internet is helping to fuel these addictions. A study conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found at least 344 websites offering controlled substances. 89 percent of these pharmacies do not require a prescription from a physician, accepting either an online consultation or no prescription at all. 38 percent of these pharmacies claim their drugs are shipping within the United States, putting them within the reach of U.S. law enforcement. We also know that internet pharmacies fill a disproportionate number of prescriptions for controlled substances. According to data from the National Community Pharmacy Association (NCPA)-Pfizer Digest, controlled substances account for only 11 percent of the business at community ``brick and mortar'' pharmacies. 89 percent of their business consists of non-controlled prescription drugs. In contrast, approximately 95 percent of the business done by internet pharmacies is controlled substances. To understand how many of these Internet pharmacy websites exist, just visit any Internet search engine. Type in the name of any controlled substance, like Vicodin, Oxycontin, codeine, or even anabolic steroids. Several websites will appear, offering to sell you these drugs without a prescription and without a medical examination. Some of these websites simply ask patients to send copies of medical records, with no verification of their validity. Patients use these pharmacies to obtain addictive drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin. They can receive these dangerous drugs without a doctor performing a physical exam to ensure that an underlying health condition will not cause a dangerous side effect. Often, a credit card is all that is required. Law enforcement officials are well aware of this growing problem but face many challenges in trying to find and prosecute rogue pharmacy operators. Last year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned at that time how ``the purchase of . . . controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet is of great concern.'' He said that the Internet's wide accessibility and anonymity ``give drug abusers the ability to circumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice, a[s] they dispense potentially dangerous controlled pharmaceuticals,'' and said that, with ``no identifying . . . information on these websites, it is very difficult for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind them.'' In January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales again appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The problem had only grown worse. He described the non-medicinal use of controlled substance prescription drugs as ``the fastest rising category of drug abuse in recent years.'' He noted how ``[r]ogue pharmacies operating illicitly through the Internet increasingly have become a source for the illegal supply of controlled substances,'' and offered to work with Congress to try to adopt additional enforcement tools that may be appropriate. I believe that the bill I introduce today will address many of these problems that the Attorney General has identified. At the same time, receiving medications from a legitimate, licensed Internet pharmacy is one of the new conveniences ushered in by the Internet age. This bill preserves the ability of well run pharmacies and well intentioned patients to access controlled substances by means of the Internet. In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA. Ryan was an 18-year-old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy. It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay. Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers. Ryan's story is just one of many. Internet pharmacies are making it increasingly easy for teens like Ryan to access deadly prescription drugs. That is why I support this legislation. It creates sensible requirements for Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Sessions to re-introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation protects the safety of consumers who wish to fill legitimate prescriptions over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies. This legislation imposes basic, commonsense requirements on an industry that presents both promise and peril. First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies. Second, this bill prohibits an Internet pharmacy from dispensing or selling a controlled substance without an in-person examination by a physician. Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operating in violation of the law, and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law. The disclosure requirements contained in this bill will allow patients to differentiate between shady off-shore pharmacies and legitimate licensed ones. Under this legislation, pharmacies must clearly disclose: the name and address of the pharmacy. Contact information for the pharmacist-in-charge. A list of States in which the pharmacy is licensed to operate. They must also clearly post a statement that they comply with the requirements in this legislation. The bill states that pharmacies can dispense to patients only if they have a valid prescription from a practitioner who has performed an in- person examination. This requirement will ensure that doctors can verify the health status of a patient and ensure that the drug he or she will receive from the pharmacy is medically appropriate. This legislation recognizes that in the case of an emergency, a patient may not always be able to see his or her typical physician. For that reason, it allows a doctor to designate a covering practitioner to write a valid prescription if he or she is not available. Finally, this bill contains real penalties to hold accountable those who continue to operate pharmacies in violation of these requirements. First, for Internet sales of controlled substances, the bill makes clear that such activities are subject to the current Federal laws against illegal distributions and the same penalties applicable to hand-to-hand sales. Second, the bill increases the penalties for illegal distributions of controlled substances categorized by the DEA as Schedule III, IV and V substances, with new penalties if death or serious bodily injury results, and longer periods of supervised release available after convictions. The bill also allows a State's Attorney General to file a Federal motion to stop these pharmacies from operating illegally, no matter where the entity is headquartered. Previously, this type of enforcement would require a filing in every state. Prescription drug abuse is a growing front on the War on Drugs, with 15.1 million adults admitting to abuse of prescription drugs in a 2003 study. That's a 94 percent increase in the last decade. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that deaths from accidental drug overdoses nearly doubled from 1999 to 2004, increasing from 11,155 in 1999 to 19,838 in 2004. Accidental drug overdoses are now the Nation's second-leading cause of accidental death, behind automobile crashes. The CDC attributed the rise in drug overdose deaths to a higher use of prescription painkillers and increasing numbers of overdoses of cocaine and prescription sedatives. These increases did not occur in our inner cities; instead, the increase was described as being fueled by prescription drug abuse in middle-class, rural America--with overdose death rates doubling in 23 States, mostly in the South and Midwest. Ready access to controlled substances over the Internet is helping to fuel these addictions. A study conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found at least 344 websites offering controlled substances. 89 percent of these pharmacies do not require a prescription from a physician, accepting either an online consultation or no prescription at all. 38 percent of these pharmacies claim their drugs are shipping within the United States, putting them within the reach of U.S. law enforcement. We also know that internet pharmacies fill a disproportionate number of prescriptions for controlled substances. According to data from the National Community Pharmacy Association (NCPA)-Pfizer Digest, controlled substances account for only 11 percent of the business at community ``brick and mortar'' pharmacies. 89 percent of their business consists of non-controlled prescription drugs. In contrast, approximately 95 percent of the business done by internet pharmacies is controlled substances. To understand how many of these Internet pharmacy websites exist, just visit any Internet search engine. Type in the name of any controlled substance, like Vicodin, Oxycontin, codeine, or even anabolic steroids. Several websites will appear, offering to sell you these drugs without a prescription and without a medical examination. Some of these websites simply ask patients to send copies of medical records, with no verification of their validity. Patients use these pharmacies to obtain addictive drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin. They can receive these dangerous drugs without a doctor performing a physical exam to ensure that an underlying health condition will not cause a dangerous side effect. Often, a credit card is all that is required. Law enforcement officials are well aware of this growing problem but face many challenges in trying to find and prosecute rogue pharmacy operators. Last year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned at that time how ``the purchase of . . . controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet is of great concern.'' He said that the Internet's wide accessibility and anonymity ``give drug abusers the ability to circumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice, a[s] they dispense potentially dangerous controlled pharmaceuticals,'' and said that, with ``no identifying . . . information on these websites, it is very difficult for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind them.'' In January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales again appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The problem had only grown worse. He described the non-medicinal use of controlled substance prescription drugs as ``the fastest rising category of drug abuse in recent years.'' He noted how ``[r]ogue pharmacies operating illicitly through the Internet increasingly have become a source for the illegal supply of controlled substances,'' and offered to work with Congress to try to adopt additional enforcement tools that may be appropriate. I believe that the bill I introduce today will address many of these problems that the Attorney General has identified. At the same time, receiving medications from a legitimate, licensed Internet pharmacy is one of the new conveniences ushered in by the Internet age. This bill preserves the ability of well run pharmacies and well intentioned patients to access controlled substances by means of the Internet. In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA. Ryan was an 18-year-old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy. It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay. Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers. Ryan's story is just one of many. Internet pharmacies are making it increasingly easy for teens like Ryan to access deadly prescription drugs. That is why I support this legislation. It creates sensible requirements for Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. There is no question that we must reform our entitlement programs and change the way our Nation's finances are managed. With this in mind, I support the premise behind this amendment: the Social Security trust fund should not be used to help reduce the Federal budget deficit. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being taken from Social Security each year just to help pay our bills. Last year, this figure approached $200 billion. However, this amendment has a fatal flaw. It leaves the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of ``pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits.'' In my view, this is unacceptable. This body has already closed the door on the President's ill- conceived plan for private Social Security accounts. The opposition to privatization is well-known: Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program. Transition costs alone, over the first 20 years, would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion. Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40 percent. Half of all American workers today have no pension or retirement plan from their employers. That means Social Security is their only source of income. It is critical that we protect this safety net. We must hold the line on spending, but this has to be done in conjunction with a more responsible approach to tax policy. The President's tax cuts have already cost more than $1 trillion and those enacted will be more than $3 trillion over the next decade. When you combine the cost of the tax cuts with spending for the military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terror--currently totaling $510 billion--the inevitable result is that our Federal budget is squeezed, while our crushing debt grows. As we debate this budget resolution, I urge my colleagues to be mindful of the long-term impact of our spending decisions. The looming crisis with our entitlement programs is clear. We must stop raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay our bills. But I cannot support this particular amendment which opens the door to privatizing Social Security. I am firmly committed to opposing any Social Security reform proposals which leave the possibility of private accounts on the table. And this amendment would do just that. So I must voice my opposition, and I ask that my colleagues join me in rejecting this proposal.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you. And I thank the chairman of the committee as well. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 214. As we all know, that is a bill to reinstate the Senate's role in the confirmation process of U.S. attorneys. I thank both Senators Leahy and Specter for supporting this bill. I wish to say right upfront I believe we should pass a clean bill today. I have had the privilege of working with both Senators Kyl and Sessions. I understand their amendments, but essentially what I have been trying to do is put the law back to the way it was before the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Now, at that time--March of last year--unbeknownst to Democratic and Republican Senators a provision was included in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that essentially allows the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for an indefinite period of time without Senate confirmation. Surprisingly, less than 1 year after receiving this new authority, serious allegations and abuse of the process have come to light. We now know that at least eight U.S. attorneys were forced from office, and that despite shifting rationales for why, it has become clear that politics has played a considerable role. We know that six of the U.S. attorneys who were fired were involved with public corruption cases. Unfortunately, it is now clear that the bigger issue is what we do not know. Despite last night's production of some 3,000 pages related to the firing process, we are now faced with a growing list of unanswered questions, including: What was the White House's role in these decisions? In one e-mail produced last night, there is a conversation about involving the President in the process, and asking who decides what his level of involvement should be. But there are no subsequent documents showing the answers. Obviously, the question is: Who did decide and what was his role? Who made these determinations about who to fire, and who was involved in the loyalty evaluation? Again, the documents produced last night do not answer this question, and we are still faced with several lists of targeted U.S. attorneys that beg the question: Who else was a target and what happened? We also need to know what role, if any, did open public corruption cases play in determining who would be fired? What was the Attorney General's role in the process? Was the change to the law in March of 2006 done in order to facilitate the wholesale replacement of all or a large number of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation? While I believe the Senate and the House will exercise our due diligence investigating these questions, we have an opportunity right now to ensure this politicization of U.S. attorneys does not happen again. The bill before the Senate would return the law to what it was before the change that was made in March of 2006. It would still give the Attorney General the authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, but it would limit that authority to 120 days. If after that time, the President had not nominated a new U.S. attorney or the Senate had not confirmed a nominee, then the district courts would appoint an interim U.S. attorney. This is the process that was developed under the Reagan administration and it worked from 1986 to 2006. That is 20 years. It worked with virtually no problems for 20 years. I think it is important we reinstate these important checks and balances and ensure that Senate confirmation is required. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill and to vote against all amendments. I think it is necessary we pass this bill today, and I hope it is by a very substantial margin. I am so distressed at the politicization of the Department of Justice. I am so distressed that there is not an arm's length between politics and the law today in this country. I believe it is a very serious situation. I believe strongly that once the U.S. attorney takes that oath of office, they must be independent, objective, and follow facts wherever they lead them in the pursuit of justice. I believe that is what both political parties want and I believe that is what the American people want. There is only one way we are going to get back there with U.S. attorneys, and that is by simply returning the law to what it was before. I also wish to point out the administration's interest in saying this is a political appointment has a limit, and I have expressed what that limit is. The only way we are going to effect the necessary changes is to pass this law this morning, and I very much hope it will be passed and passed without amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Joseph Gabra and his wife, Sharon Kamel, Egyptian nationals currently living with their children in Camarillo, CA. Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel entered the United States legally on November 1, 1998, on tourist visas. They immediately filed for political asylum based on religious persecution. The couple fled Egypt because they had been targeted for their active involvement in the Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. Mr. Gabra was repeatedly jailed by Egyptian authorities because of his work for the church. In addition, Ms. Kamel's cousin was murdered and her brother's business was fire-bombed. When Ms. Kamel became pregnant with their first child, the family was warned by a member of the Muslim brotherhood that if they did not raise their child as a Muslim, the child would be kidnapped and taken from them. Frightened by these threats, the young family sought refuge in the United States. Unfortunately, when they sought asylum here, Mr. Gabra, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating his fear of persecution to the immigration judge. The judge denied their petition, telling the family that he did not see why they could not just move to another city in Egypt to avoid the abuse they were suffering. Since the time that they were denied asylum, Ms. Kamel's brother, who lived in the same town and suffered similar abuse, was granted asylum. I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure immense and unfair hardship. First, in the nine years that Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have lived here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels. They came to the United States on a lawful visa and immediately notified authorities of their intent to seek asylum here. They have played by the rules and followed our laws. In addition, during those nine years, the couple has had four U.S. citizen children who do not speak Arabic and are unfamiliar with Egyptian culture. If the family is deported, the children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life. Jessica, 8, is the Gabra's oldest child, and in the Gifted and Talented Education program in Ventura County. Rebecca, age 7, and Rafael, age 6, are old enough to understand that they would be leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. Veronica, the Gabra's youngest child, is just 18 months old. More troubling is the very real possibility that if sent to Egypt, these four American children would suffer discrimination and persecution because of their religion, just as the rest of their family reports. Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have made a positive life for themselves and their family in the United States. Both have earned college degrees in Egypt and once in the United States, Mr. Gabra passed the Certified Public Accountant Examination on August 4, 2003. Since arriving here, Mr. Gabra has consistently worked to support his family. The positive impact they have made on their community is highlighted by the fact that I received a letter of support on their behalf signed by 160 members of their church and community. From everything I have learned about the family, we can expect that they will continue to contribute to their community in productive ways. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the Camarillo community be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Joseph Gabra and his wife, Sharon Kamel, Egyptian nationals currently living with their children in Camarillo, CA. Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel entered the United States legally on November 1, 1998, on tourist visas. They immediately filed for political asylum based on religious persecution. The couple fled Egypt because they had been targeted for their active involvement in the Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. Mr. Gabra was repeatedly jailed by Egyptian authorities because of his work for the church. In addition, Ms. Kamel's cousin was murdered and her brother's business was fire-bombed. When Ms. Kamel became pregnant with their first child, the family was warned by a member of the Muslim brotherhood that if they did not raise their child as a Muslim, the child would be kidnapped and taken from them. Frightened by these threats, the young family sought refuge in the United States. Unfortunately, when they sought asylum here, Mr. Gabra, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating his fear of persecution to the immigration judge. The judge denied their petition, telling the family that he did not see why they could not just move to another city in Egypt to avoid the abuse they were suffering. Since the time that they were denied asylum, Ms. Kamel's brother, who lived in the same town and suffered similar abuse, was granted asylum. I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure immense and unfair hardship. First, in the nine years that Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have lived here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels. They came to the United States on a lawful visa and immediately notified authorities of their intent to seek asylum here. They have played by the rules and followed our laws. In addition, during those nine years, the couple has had four U.S. citizen children who do not speak Arabic and are unfamiliar with Egyptian culture. If the family is deported, the children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life. Jessica, 8, is the Gabra's oldest child, and in the Gifted and Talented Education program in Ventura County. Rebecca, age 7, and Rafael, age 6, are old enough to understand that they would be leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. Veronica, the Gabra's youngest child, is just 18 months old. More troubling is the very real possibility that if sent to Egypt, these four American children would suffer discrimination and persecution because of their religion, just as the rest of their family reports. Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have made a positive life for themselves and their family in the United States. Both have earned college degrees in Egypt and once in the United States, Mr. Gabra passed the Certified Public Accountant Examination on August 4, 2003. Since arriving here, Mr. Gabra has consistently worked to support his family. The positive impact they have made on their community is highlighted by the fact that I received a letter of support on their behalf signed by 160 members of their church and community. From everything I have learned about the family, we can expect that they will continue to contribute to their community in productive ways. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the Camarillo community be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a markup of S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there could be a straightforward explanation for this e-mail that has nothing to do with public corruption cases Carol Lam was pursuing. However, the timing looks really suspicious and it raises serious questions, questions that need to be answered. Because if any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could very well comprise obstruction of justice. I believe that irrespective of the intent behind the decision to fire Carol Lam and the other U.S. attorneys working on public corruption cases, such a removal sends a message to all other Federal prosecutors, whether intended or not, that creates a chilling effect. Because of this, there should have been very careful consideration given to what steps should have been taken to ensure it was clear there was good reason to remove the prosecutor, that the office itself had a comprehensive plan in place to ensure no cases or investigations would be harmed or slowed in any way and that ongoing public corruption cases had absolutely nothing to do with the removal of the U.S. attorney. However, in the case of Carol Lam and in the case of five other U.S. attorneys, the administration failed to meet even these bare minimum standards. I strongly believe that removal of a United States attorney who is involved in an ongoing public corruption case should occur only--only if there is a very good reason, and not simply ``we could do better.'' Because of the public corruption cases and allegations that individuals were removed to put in politically connected young lawyers, another issue that must be examined is the appearance of politics impacting how U.S. attorneys are treated and what that means for the prosecution of justice. As was reported in the McClatchy newspapers, former Federal prosecutors and defense lawyers have said: Allegations of political interference could undermine the reputation of U.S. attorneys as impartial enforcers of the law. And, yes, I really agree with that. One former Federal prosecutor said: One of the things the Department has stood for was being apolitical. Sure, politics does get involved in the appointment process, but this is just nuts. He is right. Yes, appointees are selected and nominated by the party in power. But once an individual U.S. attorney takes that oath of office, he or she must be independent, objective, and must be free to pursue justice wherever the facts lead. Bruce Fein, the former Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Reagan administration, said in an interview last week: [W]e expect the rule of law to be administered evenhandedly. That's what ties our country together and gives legitimacy to decisions by the court and to the government itself. When it's obvious that the prosecution function is being manipulated for political purposes, that undermines the entire rule of law. In defending its actions, administration officials and others have tried to argue that both Presidents Reagan and Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when they came into office, and that is no different than what occurred in December. Right? Wrong. The implication of this argument has been that it is not unheard of to fire U.S. attorneys in this manner, and that, at some level, it is commonplace. Right? Wrong, it is not commonplace. In fact, the Department of Justice and the White House knew that this was not commonplace and that comparing its actions to Reagan and Clinton was an inaccurate analogy. A memo, written by Kyl Sampson on January 1, 2006, to the Counsel to the President, clearly stated: During the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, President Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision. That is a memo from the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, again, on January 1, 2006. So they knew. They knew that just to say President Reagan and President Clinton each formed a new team when they became President couldn't be used as precedent because it was not an accurate precedent. Despite this, the administration and its defenders have continued to argue that firing U.S. attorneys was ``entirely appropriate'' and that it was justified because executive branch appointees ``serve at the pleasure of the President.'' In fact, this had never been done before. In fact, as far as we have been able to find out so far, and they are still researching it--but the Congressional Research Service has told us that in the past 25 years, only two U.S. attorneys who served less than a full term have been fired. Interestingly, this talking point about ``serving at the pleasure of the President'' is repeated throughout the documents that have been released as to what the administration should say when asked about the firing of U.S. attorneys. Specifically, it was listed in several versions of a memo that outlined the steps to be taken to execute the plan. This, again, is a memo from the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General: ``Step 3: Prepare to withstand political upheaval.'' We should expect that there will be ``direct and indirect appeals of the Administration's determination to seek these resignations. . . . Recipients of such `appeals' must respond identically . . . U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.'' So those to whom somebody appeals must reinforce this argument: U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. That little statement is meant to cover, I am sorry to say, a multitude of sins. Of course, in the most literal sense, it is true: executive branch employees serve at the pleasure of the President. However, blind adherence and single-minded pursuit of this principle ignores that it is equally true that our Nation's prosecutors must be independent, they must be objective, and they must pursue justice wherever the facts lead. And it ignores that our country is based on the principle of checks and balances. Of course, in this instance this means that we must return Senate confirmation as a certainty to the law, and this is exactly what we do in S. 214--we simply return the law to what it was before that unknown addition was added to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization without the knowledge of Senators. Since January when this issue was first raised, the Department of Justice has repeatedly stated publicly that it did not intend to avoid Senate confirmation. For example, before the Judiciary Committee on January 18, 2007, the Attorney General testified that DOJ was ``fully committed to try and find presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed U.S. Attorneys for every position.'' However, in e-mails and memos written by his staff, a strategy was outlined that does not show a commitment to Senate confirmation. For example, on September 13, 2006, 3 months before the firing call on December 7, the Attorney General's Chief of Staff sent an e-mail to Monica Goodling, liaison between the Department of Justice and the White House, suggesting that the Department use the new authority slipped into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to facilitate firing U.S. attorneys and replacing them with new ones. The e-mail said: I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make [U.S. attorney] appointments. Then, the inference is, by avoiding Senate confirmation, the e-mail goes on: [W]e can give far less deference to home State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House. This is only one example of discussions among White House and DOJ officials about the benefits of avoiding the Senate, especially when the home State Senators are Democrats. In another example there is an e-mail chain from December 2006 between the Department of Justice and the White House which discusses how to deal with the opposition of Arkansas' Democratic Senators to the interim appointment of Tim Griffin. I quote: ``I think we should gum this to death.'' . . . The longer we can forestall [the Senators saying they will never support Griffin] the better. We should run out the clock . . . ``all of this should be done in `good faith,' of course.'' The e-mail went on to say: Our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us . . . pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney; and otherwise hunker down. That is an e-mail that deserves a lot of questions. In addition, in a November 15, 2006, memo regarding the plan to replace U.S. attorneys, ``Step 2: Senator calls,'' outlines that for my State of California and for Michigan and Washington, the strategy was to have Bill Kelly from the White House call ``the home State `Bush political lead,' '' since there was no Republican home State Senators. So while the Justice Department has said: We consulted with home State Senators--that is true only if they were Republican. If they were Democratic home State Senators they were not, in fact, called. I believe all of this adds up to a very complex and very serious situation that now has even more questions that need to be asked and answered under oath. For example, we need to know who from the White House was involved in these decisions? Was the plan orchestrated by the White House? Who made these determinations about who to fire and who was involved in the loyalty evaluation? What other U.S. attorneys were targeted for dismissal? We know there were several but their names have been redacted from the documents we have received. We need to know who are they, why were they on the list, and why did they come off the list? What were the real reasons used to determine who would be fired, since the evaluations don't line up with the EARS reports? What role, if any, did open public corruption cases play in determining who would be fired? What was the Attorney General's role in the process? What did he know and when did he know it? How can he say he didn't know what was going on with the firing of the U.S. attorneys, even though the White House did, and even though there are e-mails showing that he was consulted? Was the change to the law in March of 2006 done in order to facilitate the wholesale replacement of all or a large number of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation? We know that somebody suggested all 93 U.S. attorneys should be replaced, at one point. My question is, was this done to facilitate that? These are just some of the questions I hope our committee will delve into as the investigation continues. Finally, in an e-mail that discussed avoiding the Senate confirmation process, the Attorney General's Chief of Staff wrote: There is some risk that we'll lose the authority [to appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely], but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it? Think about that: There is some risk that we will lose the authority to appoint U.S. attorneys indefinitely, but if we don't ever exercise it, then what is the point of having it? I believe the time has come for the administration to lose that authority. All these unanswered questions and allegations have demonstrated at the very least one real thing: the law must be returned to what it was prior to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, and the bipartisan bill before the Senate would do just that. Through negotiations with Senator Specter we are now considering legislation that would give the Attorney General authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney but only for 120 days. If after that time the President has not sent up a nominee to the Senate and had that nominee confirmed, then the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney will fall to the district court. Given all we have learned in the past few months, I believe this is the least we can do to restore the public's faith in an independent system of justice. This bill will also help prevent any future abuse or appearance of politicization of U.S. attorney positions. The legislation also makes it clear that the 120-day limitation applies to all the interim U.S. attorneys who are currently in place, including those who are the result of the Department's actions in December. These changes are in line with the way the law used to be and would simply be restoring the proper checks and balances that are needed in our system of government. I urge my colleagues to oppose all amendments and pass a clean bill. I have noted the distinguished ranking member of the committee is on the Senate floor. Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 214, the bill the leader just referred to. This is a bill that simply reinstates the Senate's role in the confirmation process of U.S. attorneys. It is a bill I introduced with Senator Leahy on January 9, 2007, days after I first learned in early December that officials from main Justice called a handful of U.S. attorneys from around the country and forced them to resign their positions without cause. At that time, I had very little information and was unaware of exactly what had occurred and why. As I looked into it, I learned that in March of 2006, the PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and a change was made in the law. It was made in conference without Democratic Senators present. To the best of my knowledge, it was made without the knowledge of any Senator, Republican or Democrat. It is my understanding this was a request from the Justice Department that was presented by Will Moschella to the staff of the Judiciary Committee and, without the knowledge of Senators, was put into the bill. It then gave the President the authority essentially to appoint a U.S. attorney without confirmation for the remainder of his term. The bill, S. 214, that is before the Senate today simply returns the law the way it was before this action took place in March of 2006. Today, just a little more than 2 months after I first learned about this situation, additional information has come to light. But rather than alleviating the concerns and answering questions, we are now faced with new and more serious allegations. In fact, the big question looming over this debate is whether the Attorney General and others in the Bush administration have misled the Congress and the public. If true, this is very serious. There are also allegations that the firings were done because the Department of Justice and the White House were both unhappy with some of the U.S. attorneys' handling of public corruption cases. If true this, too, is very serious. We now know that at least eight U.S. attorneys were forced from office, and that despite shifting rationales for why, it has become clear that politics has, in fact, played some role. Last week, we learned that the White House was involved in this process and that discussions took place with such prominent figures as Presidential adviser Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. We also learned last week that these discussions began well over 2 years ago, almost immediately following the 2004 election, and it appears from recently released e-mails that Attorney General Gonzales was personally consulted, even while he was still serving as White House Counsel. This information also shed new light on who was being targeted for firing and why. It is this last point--why some were targeted--that has served to raise more questions and more significant concerns. We have learned that as many as six of the eight U.S. attorneys who were involved with public corruption cases. While we don't know what role this played in their selection, it is an unavoidable fact that raises serious questions. Today, as the Senate begins the debate on the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act, I would like to discuss some of what we have learned in greater detail and some of the reasons this bill is so necessary. I believe it is important to look at how interim U.S. attorneys have been appointed over the years. There appears to be an assumption by the Bush administration that the Attorney General should have an exclusive authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys. But, in fact, history paints a much different picture. When first looking into this issue, I found that the statutes had given the courts the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney and that this dated back as far as the Civil War. Specifically, the authority was first vested with the circuit courts in March of 1863. Then, in 1898, a House of Representatives report explained that while Congress believed it was important to have the courts appoint an interim U.S. attorney, there was a problem relying on circuit courts ``since the circuit justice is not always to be found in the circuit and time is wasted in ascertaining his whereabouts.'' Therefore, at that time, the interim appointment authority was switched to the district courts; that is, in 1898 it was switched to the district courts. Thus, for almost 100 years, the district courts were in charge of appointing interim U.S. attorneys, and they did so with virtually no problems. This structure was left undisturbed until 1986 when the statute was changed during the Reagan administration. In a bill that was introduced by Senator Strom Thurmond, the statute was changed to give the appointment authority to the Attorney General, but even then it was restricted and the Attorney General had a 120-day time limit. After that time, if a nominee was not confirmed, the district courts would appoint an interim U.S. attorney. The adoption of this language was part of a larger package that was billed as technical amendments to criminal law, and thus there was no recorded debate in either the House or the Senate and both Chambers passed the bill by voice vote. Then, 20 years later, in March 2006--again without much debate and again as a part of a larger package--a statutory change was inserted into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. This time, the Executive's power was expanded even further, giving the Attorney General the authority to appoint an interim replacement indefinitely and without Senate confirmation. Unfortunately, not 1 year after securing this new authority, abuses have come to light. Almost immediately after I first spoke about what I had learned in January, the Attorney General called me to tell me that I had my facts wrong. However, he also sent up his staff to confirm that ``less than 10'' U.S. attorneys had been asked to resign on December 7, 2006. Despite this, the Attorney General adamantly denied politics had any role in the process. In fact, in an interview with an Associated Press reporter on January 16, 2007, the Attorney General was asked about the charges of political motivation, and he responded: Nothing could be further from the truth. He further stated in response to your comment, Mr. President, that the Department tried to avoid Senate confirmation to reward political allies: We in no way politicized these decisions. Two days later, the Attorney General reiterated this position when he came before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18 of this year and said: I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons. That is a categorical and definitive monosyllabic statement. However, the Department had to backtrack when it became evident that the former U.S. attorney from your State, Mr. President, Arkansas, Bud Cummins, was simply replaced in order to make room for Tim Griffin, who had served as Karl Rove's special assistant and had been in charge of opposition research against Democratic candidates for the Republican National Committee. Less than a month later, the Deputy Attorney General confirmed this fact when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 7, 2007. At that time, he said: The fact is there was a change made [in Arkansas] that was not connected, as we said, to the performance of the incumbent, but more related to the opportunity to provide a fresh start with a new person in that position. Deputy Attorney General McNulty, however, went on to say that all the others who were fired were fired for ``performance-related reasons.'' But this, too, was not the final explanation. The Department next tried to justify the firings by arguing that the U.S. attorneys were let go because there were ``policy disagreements.'' Then the Attorney General said that these U.S. attorneys had ``lost [his] confidence.'' So there are three different reasons so far. Now, most recently, the explanation has been that the Department thought it ``could do better''--the fourth explanation. These explanations are as slippery as they are misleading. Rather, what documents and e-mails demonstrate is that none of these reasons was the deciding factor that led some U.S. attorneys to be targeted for firing. Instead, it appears these individuals lost their jobs because a number of Department of Justice officials and possibly--we don't know but possibly--White House officials did not judge them to be sufficiently loyal or did not like the cases they were prosecuting or simply wanted to put in new, politically connected, young lawyers. It appears this way because contained in the documents that were released last week is an outline of the Department of Justice's plan for how to determine who should be let go and who should stay. The first step of that plan was to create a new rating system to evaluate all 93 U.S. attorneys. This was to be separate from the independent performance reports, called EARS reports. Those reports routinely occurred and objectively examined each U.S. Attorney's Office by evaluating their prosecution caseloads, their management, their willingness to follow Department priorities, and their ability to work cooperatively with the FBI, with the DEA, and with other client agencies. This rating system was developed back in February of 2005, and one of the primary factors to be considered was loyalty to the administration. One e-mail describing the ratings stated: Recommended retaining strong U.S. attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General. Recommended removing weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafe against administration initiatives. Under this system, two of the eight fired U.S. attorneys received strong evaluations and recommended retaining while three received recommended removing. One of the U.S. attorneys who received a recommended removing rating was Carol Lam from the Southern District of California. She received this low rating despite her many accomplishments and despite her positive performance evaluations. I am familiar with Carol Lam's career because she served in San Diego. In that position, she has taken on some of the biggest cases and really made a positive impact on the community she has served. But that is not just my opinion. Leaders throughout San Diego have sung her praises. Let me give a few examples. Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI office in San Diego: Carol has an excellent reputation and has done an excellent job given her limited resources. Then, when asked whether she had given proper attention to gun cases, he said: What do you expect her to do? Let corruption exist? Adele Fasano, the San Diego Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said: [We have] enjoyed a strong, collaborative relationship with the U.S. Attorney's Office to combat smuggling activity through the ports of entry. City attorney for San Diego, Michael Aguirre, said: [Carol Lam] has been by far the most outstanding U.S. Attorney we've ever had . . . she's won a national reputation as one of the top prosecutors in the country. This is the city attorney. Michael Unzueta, Special Agent in Charge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Carol Lam is truly an example of a dedicated public servant and a law enforcement professional. We will miss her leadership. John Cooper, Special Agent in Charge, Naval Criminal Investigative Service: The departure of Ms. Lam will be a great loss . . . Ms. Lam is the consummate law enforcement executive who leads by example. And Alan Poleszak, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement Agency: The on-going prosecution of [the] Javier Arellano Felix drug trafficking organization is both historic and noteworthy . . . [Ms. Lam's] commitment to Federal law enforcement in this judicial district, county, and city, will be missed. We should take note of the fact that the Arellano Felix organization is one of the largest and most dangerous Mexican drug cartels known. They operate out of Tijuana. They have killed hundreds of people. They have murdered Mexican DAs, they have murdered Mexican judges, and they are a blight. This U.S. attorney took them on. I will tell my colleagues more about that in a moment. The reason Carol Lam was well respected is because she worked hard and she took on the tough fights. She has had success after success. Let me give some examples. In September of 2005, the president of the San Diego chapter of Hell's Angels pled guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering. Guy Russell Castiglione admitted he conspired to kill members of a rival motorcycle gang, the Mongols, to sell methamphetamine. In December 2005, Daymond Buchanan, member of Hell's Angels, was sentenced to 92 months in Federal prison for participating in a pattern of racketeering as well as inflicting serious bodily injury upon one victim. At that time, Ms. Lam announced: With the president, sergeant at arms, secretary, treasurer, and six other members of the Hell's Angels convicted of racketeering charges and facing long prison sentences, the San Diego chapter of the Hell's Angels has been effectively shut down for the foreseeable future. If that isn't enough, in September of 2006, Jose Ernesto Beltran- Quinonez, a Mexican national, pled guilty to making false statements about weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Quinonez was sentenced to 3 years in Federal prison for making up a story about Chinese terrorists sneaking into the United States with a nuclear warhead. The hoax prompted a massive investigation, Federal warnings, discussions at one of President Bush's security briefings, and a nationwide hunt for the group of Chinese supposedly plotting the attack. In December 2006 Mel Kay, of Golden State Fence Company, and Michael McLaughlin pled guilty to felony charges of hiring illegal immigrants and agreed to pay fines of $200,000 and $100,000 respectively. The company, which built much of the fence near Otay Mesa, agreed separately to pay $5 million on a misdemeanor count, one of the largest fines ever imposed on a company for an immigration violation. Was Carol Lam praised for this work? No, she was sent packing without an explanation. Those were not her only cases. She gained a national reputation for her work on public corruption cases. I think it is important to note that public corruption is the FBI's second highest priority after terrorism-related investigations. Now, I didn't know this, but the Judiciary Committee had an oversight hearing of the FBI on December 6, 2006, where the Director, Bob Mueller, came before us and he mentioned what their priorities were, and he said: Terrorism first, and then public corruption second, and crime was way down on the list. As a matter of fact, I found it rather startling, and I questioned him about that. He said, with some emphasis, those are our priorities, and we believe if we don't do public corruption, nobody else will. So the FBI has as its second highest priority public corruption. The FBI is going to be out there putting together cases. Who prosecutes these cases? U.S. attorneys. The FBI's second highest priority, and Carol Lam rose to this challenge. In March of 2004, her office convicted Steven Mark Lash, the former chief financial officer of FPA Medical Management, for his role in defrauding shareholders and lenders of FPA. The collapse of the company left more than 1,600 doctors being owed more than $60 million and patients reporting they were unable to obtain medical care because this company had ceased paying providers. In January of 2005, Mark Anthony Kolowich, owner of World Express Rx, pled guilty to conspiracy to sell counterfeit pharmaceuticals, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and smuggle pharmaceuticals, and conspiracy to launder money. Mr. Kolowich had run an Internet pharmacy Web site where customers could order prescription drugs without a valid prescription. The judge called him the kingpin and architect of an illicit pharmaceutical ring that recruited many others to smuggle drugs across the United States-Mexico border at San Ysidro. Another case. In July 2005, Mrs. Lam brought a case against San Diego councilman Ralph Inzunza and Las Vegas lobbyist Lance Malone. They were convicted on multiple counts of extortion, wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud and were accused of trading money for efforts to repeal a law. Then, in her most well-known case, in November of 2005, Ms. Lam secured a guilty plea from former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham for taking more than $2 million in bribes in a criminal conspiracy case involving at least three defense contractors after he accepted cash and gifts and then tried to influence the Defense Department on behalf of donors. He also pled guilty to a separate tax evasion violation for failing to disclose income in 2004. Now, here is where it gets interesting. Finally, 2 days before she left office, that would be around February 13, Carol Lam announced indictments of Kyle ``Dusty'' Foggo, a former top officer of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor accused of bribing Duke Cunningham and the prime benefactor of secret CIA contracts. It is this latest incident, involving the ongoing investigations stemming from the Cunningham case, that has raised the most significant concerns about Carol Lam's removal. When I first came to the floor in January, I mentioned rumors were circulating around California that Carol Lam was pushed out because of her efforts in the Duke Cunningham case and subsequent investigations. I have tried to be very careful about talking about these allegations because they are so serious and because, at the time, they were based on mere speculation. Despite recent materials coming to light, I want to continue to be very careful in talking about these allegations. At the same time, I must say that today there are even more questions to be answered regarding what role public corruption cases played in the administration's decisions about which U.S. attorneys to fire. We have now learned that six of the eight fired U.S. attorneys were involved in public corruption cases. The Washington Post noted this, I think, very well, as I will point out here on this chart. David Iglesias, New Mexico--oversaw probes of State Democrats and alleges two Republican lawmakers pressured him about the case. He was respected by the Judiciary agencies and staff, complied with Department priorities. Daniel Bogden, Nevada--overall evaluation was very positive. Notable cases, opened a probe related to Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, former Member of Congress. Paul Charlton, Arizona--opened preliminary probes of Representatives Jim Kolbe and Rick Renzi before November election. Well respected, established goals that were appropriate to meet the priorities of the Department. These are quotes from the official performance reports. I am not making them up, and I am not taking them from any individual. These are 27 people who go into an office and evaluate the performance of a U.S. attorney. What did they say about notable cases? Bud Cummins, Eastern Arkansas--Cummins was very competent, highly regarded. That was his performance review. He conducted a probe related to Missouri Governor Roy Blunt, which he later closed without charges. There is Carol Lam, Southern California, whom I have already mentioned. John McKay, Western Washington--here is the job performance: effective, well regarded, capable leader, established strategic goals that were appropriate. Here is the case: Declined to intervene in disputed gubernatorial election, angry GOP. Those are the six. In Carol Lam's case, these allegations have become even more troubling. Following the conviction of Duke Cunningham, in April 2006, Federal prosecutors in Carol Lam's office began investigating whether Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor, and Kyle ``Dusty'' Foggo, the third highest ranking official at the CIA, and others were involved in bribery and corruption. Throughout the first week of May 2006, information began to surface in the press regarding this ongoing investigation. Then, on May 10, 2006, Carol Lam quietly sent an urgent notice to officials at Main Justice to inform the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General she was about to execute search warrants on May 12--that is 2 days later--to search the home and CIA office of Dusty Foggo. The very next day, after she sent this internal notice, Department of Justice staff sent an e-mail to the White House that said this: Please call me to discuss the following: . . . The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have somebody ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires. The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam. And that is the day after she notified Main Justice that she was executing two search warrants. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete e-mail be printed in the Record.

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