Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I know that Senator Lieberman is going to speak on the specific provisions of section 220 in the base bill, S.1, at a later time. However, I would like to share with this body what I understand to be the facts. If I understand correctly what is attempted in the underlying bill, the goal is to compel disclosure, registration and reporting for those companies, individuals or organizations that say, We have a cause, this is the cause; we want to establish a grassroots lobbying organization. They go and hire organizations to get going and spent more than 25,000 a quarter. They say go ahead and organize a movement, but nobody ever knows who they are or who funds them. This is called astroturf lobbying. Some people refer these groups as ``sham'' or ``front'' organizations. I am not going to say they necessarily are, but they have been referred to as such. They seek to influence legislation through mass media, using campaign and issue ads, letters, phone calls, think-tank public policy papers, and public polls. The problem is, these organizations are hired guns funded by undisclosed special interest corporations and public policy firms. They conduct grassroots organization lobbying efforts which are often very misleading or in some cases, deceptive. For example, an oil company hires a sham organization to promote the benefits of alternative fuels to big oil, or a cigarette company hires a front group to lobby for smoke-free environment--or whatever the popular cause may be. They go out to organize, make lobby contacts, and conduct other lobby activities on specific issues. Unlike genuine grassroots groups that tend to be money poor but people rich, astroturf campaigns are typically people poor and money rich. Section 220 of the base bill contains the provisions on disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. I am the first one to say these provisions could be more clearly written. Nonetheless, the section's goal is to close the loophole in current law that allows these groups to engage in lobbying contacts without any public disclosure or reporting whatsoever--like the paid lobbying contacts and efforts of Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed. The bill recognizes this increased type of lobbying--paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying--and creates new disclosure and reporting rules for such activities. It makes clear that efforts by an organization to contact its own members as part of a grassroots lobbying campaign are not covered and are unaffected by these provisions unless some outside group paid the organization to do so. The bill also requires a $50,000 quarterly threshold as a precondition of registration. This means that small and truly local efforts are not covered. I do not agree with the comments made by the ranking member about this section 220. Non-profits will continue to be able to lobby under current tax law that requires threshold disclosure and reporting. However, private sector groups and their paid lobbyists are not currently required to disclose, register or report and therefore would be under section 220. So this is the differentiation between the two groups. The provisions would create a balanced playing field by opposing a sham grassroots lobbying operation while protecting legitimate grassroots lobbying organizations. This in essence is the purpose. If it does survive consideration here, we will take another look at it in conference with respect to narrow definitions, registration and the reporting trigger thresholds. I do believe if somebody goes out and creates one of these groups, pours a lot of money into it and then hires people for grassroots lobbying purposes, then this group should be required to disclose and report so the public knows exactly who the group is and who is financing the group. Is it an undisclosed oil company or is it really a legitimate Citizens for Alternative Fuels to Oil? I think that it is important to determine the credibility and legitimacy of these organizations involved in grassroots lobbying. I know the ACLU is opposed to it. The ACLU is a group that has been around for a long time. I don't see them being affected by this at all because they would be covered under this other section of the law. I offer these comments in the interests of the purpose of section 220 in this legislation, which I think is bona fide, helpful, and overdue. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon. I thought you did.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to point out, I was on the floor when this item was discussed, when the Senator from New Hampshire offered his line-item veto amendment. I was also on the floor when Senator Conrad, who is our side's budget expert, came forward and debated it. There was a rather fulsome debate. I want to recount what Senator Conrad said about his belief about the amendment, that not only does it raise serious constitutional concerns, but it would allow the President to unilaterally block enacted funding, even if Congress rejects a proposed rescission. In addition, rather than strengthening fiscal discipline, the amendment could lead to more spending, not less. He pointed out how it could be used to eliminate entire new programs or improvements to benefits such as Medicare and Social Security. The President would have a year after a bill's enactment to propose a rescission. The President could package rescissions as he or she wishes and could combine rescissions that have been enacted in several different pieces of legislation. Senators would be forced to vote on the package with little opportunity for public notice or input and no opportunity to offer amendments, nor would there be any opportunity to filibuster proposed rescissions. The new power would make it much easier for a President to eliminate new Medicare or Social Security benefits to which he objects. Now, I agree very much with what the majority leader said. This is a very problematic amendment. It was debated on the floor of the Senate. It needs further refinement if anybody is going to move ahead with it. Clearly, it is a major amendment. Clearly, it is a real problem for our side. But for the minority to take down the bill over this amendment when the amendment is not germane to the bill, when I have tried very hard to keep matters that are not within the scope of the bill off the bill, including a matter I myself very much wanted to present, I think makes no sense. The minority leader pointed out that this bill passed before, 2 years ago, by a vote of 90 to 8. The whole point of this legislation is to show that the two sides can come together, be bipartisan, and enact a bill that will bring about ethics, lobbying, and earmark reform. And we have done that. As Senator Bennett, the ranking member, and I have sat on this floor, there has been ample time for Members to bring their amendments to the floor. I assure you that there has been a lot of time when we have just sat here in a quorum call. To allow this bill to be pulled down at this time is just a special matter of some kind of pique, when we know that the line-item veto amendment is extraordinarily problematic and deserves another venue, deserves more scrutiny, and should take some time before it is passed in any way, shape, or form. So I am fully in support of what the majority leader had to say. It makes no sense for the other side to take down this bill over it. I hope the proposal made by the majority leader will be accepted. I believe he will keep his word. I will help in any way I possibly can to see that that is, in fact, the case. But we are so close to getting this bill done, and it has some momentous things in it that represent a total change of the way these bodies operate, and they are important, significant, and timely. We ought to pass this bill. We ought to show the American people that we can work together, Republicans and Democrats, for a common purpose. So I just want to say that after a week and a half, I am profoundly disappointed that this has come about. I really thought we were going to be able to work together and pass a strong, bipartisan bill. And, in fact, most of the amendments have passed by huge majorities. I think there have only been two that have been relatively close. I urge the Republican side to reconsider. There are so many positive elements of this bill, and the American people will be so shortchanged if we cannot solve whatever problem there is between us and pass a bill that we voted on 90 to 8 some time ago, which has even been strengthened by some of the eight members who voted against it because they didn't think it was strong enough. This is a very strong measure. Those of us who will work in conference will work to smooth out any bumps. We will work in an open way, and no side will be shut out of the conference. I pledge it will be a collegial conference. This is our opportunity to set an agenda for the 110th Congress. Please, please, please, let us not reject this. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Maybe I am misinterpreting something. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, I thought what was said was that if the Senator from New Hampshire doesn't get a vote on his amendment, that his side will vote ``no'' on cloture. That was clearly what I heard. Am I wrong?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will tell the Senator what is wrong with it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The amendment is a very complicated amendment. It is impossible to understand, it is a lengthy amendment, and all of the reverberations. I contend and say that it is out of the scope of this bill, and we hope to keep the bill away from these kinds of contentious matters but pass those items within the scope of the bill. I thought there was general agreement with that position. I thought the Senator would recognize, based on the debate Senator Gregg had with Senator Conrad that there were real questions with the amendment that took further study. My impression was the Senator from New Hampshire was willing to go through that process at the time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper to introduce the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act. Today, we are introducing the first of five bills to address the number one environmental issue facing this planet--global warming. This bill establishes a national cap and trade system over the electricity sector. It will reduce emissions from this sector by 25 percent by 2020. What distinguishes this bill is that it has the support of 6 major energy companies. Together, these companies operate in 42 States and produce approximately 150,000 megawatts of energy. This is greater than 15 percent of the U.S. electricity market. These companies include, first, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Corporation, which is the parent of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. PG&E is California's largest utility and serves approximately 1 in every 20 Americans. PG&E Corporation currently owns approximately 6,500 megawatts of generation. Second, Calpine, which operates in 20 States and Canada, generating 26,000 megawatts of energy. Third, Florida Power & Light, which operates in 26 States, generating more than 30,000 megawatts. Fourth, Entergy, which operates in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, generating approximately 30,000 megawatts. Fifth, Exelon, which operates in Illinois and Pennsylvania, generating 38,000 megawatts of energy. Sixth, Public Service Enterprise Group, which is the largest provider of energy in New Jersey, generating approximately 15,000 megawatts. These companies' support is greatly appreciated, and I think it signals a new willingness in the energy industry to seriously tackle global warming. This bill is just the beginning of a major program. Over the next weeks and months, we will also be introducing a cap and trade bill for the industrial sector; a bill that increases fuel economy standards by ten miles per gallon over the next ten years; a bill to promote bio- diesel and E-85; and other low carbon fuels and an energy efficiency bill modeled after California's program. This is an ambitious agenda, but I believe it is the right way to go if we are to slow global warming. A great debate has raged in the halls of Congress, in academia, and in the field over the past two decades. At issue were three fundamental questions: First, is the earth warming? Second, if so, is the warming caused by human activity? And third, can it be stopped? Over the past few years, a consensus has been forged. An overwhelming body of evidence has been gathered. And, an inescapable conclusion has been reached: The earth is warming. The warming is caused by human activity, namely the combustion of fossil fuels. It cannot be stopped, because carbon dioxide does not dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for 30, 40, or 50 years or more. When we pick up the newspaper each day we see the results. We read about ice sheets the size of small nations breaking off the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic. We read about polar bears committing acts of cannibalism, something unknown in recent memory. We read about species disappearing, seas rising, coral reefs dying, and glaciers melting. But, all this dire news does not mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing. If we act now, and if we act with purpose, the most serious consequences can be averted. Global warming can be contained to 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. But if we do not act, and temperatures spike by 5 degrees or more, the world around us will change forever. There's no going back. The question becomes what can we do? I've spent the last year trying to answer this question. And the conclusion I've reached is that there is no single answer, no silver bullet, no one thing to turn the tide. But rather, we need many answers in many different areas. And more importantly, we need people of common purpose, working together, to find innovative solutions. And that's why we're here today. As I was searching for answers, I picked up the phone and called PG&E Corporation's CEO, Peter Darbee. I said, ``Peter, would you help me out on Global Warming legislation?'' To his immense credit, Peter went back, studied the issue, and said ``You're right. Something must be done.'' And he's been terrific. He's helped at every step of the way. It means so much to me that PG&E, Calpine, Florida Power and Light, and all the companies that comprise the Clean Energy Group's Clean Air Policy Initiative have endorsed the legislation we are introducing today. This is the most aggressive global warming bill that industry has supported to date. And I want to thank the CEOs of these companies today for their courage and leadership in taking this step. Here's what the bill would do. The bill would establish a cap and trade program for the electricity sector, which is the single largest piece of the global warming puzzle, accounting for 33 percent of all U.S. emissions. First, the bill would a cap at 2006 levels in 2011--a 6 percent reduction from anticipated levels of greenhouse gases from the electric sector. In 2015, it would ratchet the cap down to 2001 levels--a 16 percent reduction from anticipated levels. In 2016, the bill would reduce the cap further to 1 percent below 2001 levels. And, from 2017 to 2019 it would require additional annual 1 percent reductions. By 2020, emissions would be reduced 25 percent below anticipated levels. And after that, emissions will be reduced even further--by an additional 1.5 percent a year and potentially more, if the EPA, based on scientific evidence, believes that more needs to be done to avert the most dire consequences of global warming. That's the cap. The trade part of the bill gives companies flexibility to embrace new technologies, encourage innovation, and promote green practices--not just in this area, but across the economy. As I said, this bill is only one part of the answer. One piece of the puzzle. Congress has a window of opportunity to act. If we act boldly and quickly, then perhaps we can make a difference. But if we resort to the feuding which has characterized past Congresses, our world will be the poorer for it. I think there is but one choice. 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 Carper to introduce the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act. Today, we are introducing the first of five bills to address the number one environmental issue facing this planet--global warming. This bill establishes a national cap and trade system over the electricity sector. It will reduce emissions from this sector by 25 percent by 2020. What distinguishes this bill is that it has the support of 6 major energy companies. Together, these companies operate in 42 States and produce approximately 150,000 megawatts of energy. This is greater than 15 percent of the U.S. electricity market. These companies include, first, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Corporation, which is the parent of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. PG&E is California's largest utility and serves approximately 1 in every 20 Americans. PG&E Corporation currently owns approximately 6,500 megawatts of generation. Second, Calpine, which operates in 20 States and Canada, generating 26,000 megawatts of energy. Third, Florida Power & Light, which operates in 26 States, generating more than 30,000 megawatts. Fourth, Entergy, which operates in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, generating approximately 30,000 megawatts. Fifth, Exelon, which operates in Illinois and Pennsylvania, generating 38,000 megawatts of energy. Sixth, Public Service Enterprise Group, which is the largest provider of energy in New Jersey, generating approximately 15,000 megawatts. These companies' support is greatly appreciated, and I think it signals a new willingness in the energy industry to seriously tackle global warming. This bill is just the beginning of a major program. Over the next weeks and months, we will also be introducing a cap and trade bill for the industrial sector; a bill that increases fuel economy standards by ten miles per gallon over the next ten years; a bill to promote bio- diesel and E-85; and other low carbon fuels and an energy efficiency bill modeled after California's program. This is an ambitious agenda, but I believe it is the right way to go if we are to slow global warming. A great debate has raged in the halls of Congress, in academia, and in the field over the past two decades. At issue were three fundamental questions: First, is the earth warming? Second, if so, is the warming caused by human activity? And third, can it be stopped? Over the past few years, a consensus has been forged. An overwhelming body of evidence has been gathered. And, an inescapable conclusion has been reached: The earth is warming. The warming is caused by human activity, namely the combustion of fossil fuels. It cannot be stopped, because carbon dioxide does not dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for 30, 40, or 50 years or more. When we pick up the newspaper each day we see the results. We read about ice sheets the size of small nations breaking off the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic. We read about polar bears committing acts of cannibalism, something unknown in recent memory. We read about species disappearing, seas rising, coral reefs dying, and glaciers melting. But, all this dire news does not mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing. If we act now, and if we act with purpose, the most serious consequences can be averted. Global warming can be contained to 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. But if we do not act, and temperatures spike by 5 degrees or more, the world around us will change forever. There's no going back. The question becomes what can we do? I've spent the last year trying to answer this question. And the conclusion I've reached is that there is no single answer, no silver bullet, no one thing to turn the tide. But rather, we need many answers in many different areas. And more importantly, we need people of common purpose, working together, to find innovative solutions. And that's why we're here today. As I was searching for answers, I picked up the phone and called PG&E Corporation's CEO, Peter Darbee. I said, ``Peter, would you help me out on Global Warming legislation?'' To his immense credit, Peter went back, studied the issue, and said ``You're right. Something must be done.'' And he's been terrific. He's helped at every step of the way. It means so much to me that PG&E, Calpine, Florida Power and Light, and all the companies that comprise the Clean Energy Group's Clean Air Policy Initiative have endorsed the legislation we are introducing today. This is the most aggressive global warming bill that industry has supported to date. And I want to thank the CEOs of these companies today for their courage and leadership in taking this step. Here's what the bill would do. The bill would establish a cap and trade program for the electricity sector, which is the single largest piece of the global warming puzzle, accounting for 33 percent of all U.S. emissions. First, the bill would a cap at 2006 levels in 2011--a 6 percent reduction from anticipated levels of greenhouse gases from the electric sector. In 2015, it would ratchet the cap down to 2001 levels--a 16 percent reduction from anticipated levels. In 2016, the bill would reduce the cap further to 1 percent below 2001 levels. And, from 2017 to 2019 it would require additional annual 1 percent reductions. By 2020, emissions would be reduced 25 percent below anticipated levels. And after that, emissions will be reduced even further--by an additional 1.5 percent a year and potentially more, if the EPA, based on scientific evidence, believes that more needs to be done to avert the most dire consequences of global warming. That's the cap. The trade part of the bill gives companies flexibility to embrace new technologies, encourage innovation, and promote green practices--not just in this area, but across the economy. As I said, this bill is only one part of the answer. One piece of the puzzle. Congress has a window of opportunity to act. If we act boldly and quickly, then perhaps we can make a difference. But if we resort to the feuding which has characterized past Congresses, our world will be the poorer for it. I think there is but one choice. 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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 31 which was submitted earlier today.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to consider Working Land Conservation: Conservation Security Program and Environmental Quality Incentive Programs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to evaluate the status of implementation of the aviation security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 9:45 a.m. in SD-406. Agenda Rules: Rules of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Finance

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to organize for the 110th Congress. The Committee will also consider an Original Bill entitled, ``The Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Paying Off Generics to Prevent Competition with Brand Name Drugs: Should it Be Prohibited?'' on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness List Panel I: Hon. Jon Leibowitz, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC. Panel II: Billy Tauzin, CEO, PhRMA, Washington, DC; Merril Hirsh Partner, Ross, Dixon, and Bell LLP, Washington, DC; Bruce Downey, Chairman and CEO, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Washington, DC; Michael Wroblewski, Consumers Union, Non-Profit Publisher of Consumer Reports, Yonkers, NY.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., to receive testimony on abusive practices in Department of Defense Contracting for services and inter-agency contracting.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield for a moment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, may I ask a second question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is my understanding, initially, the Senator's amendment had a grandfather clause. Does it now contain that grandfather clause?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Because I said ``presently employed,'' if I may, through the Chair. To clarify that, I said anybody ``presently employed.'' We know it affects people. We know it would affect people in the future. We also know it affects people presently employed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have introduced an amendment on this bill which has to do with the appointment of U.S. attorneys. This is also the subject of the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, and since the Attorney General himself will be before that committee on Thursday, and I will be asking him some questions, I speak today in morning business on what I know so much about this situation. Recently, it came to my attention that the Department of Justice has asked several U.S. attorneys from around the country to resign their positions--some by the end of this month--prior to the end of their terms not based on any allegation of misconduct. In other words, they are forced resignations. I have also heard that the Attorney General plans to appoint interim replacements and potentially avoid Senate confirmation by leaving an interim U.S. attorney in place for the remainder of the Bush administration. How does this happen? The Department sought and essentially was given new authority under a little known provision in the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization to appoint interim appointments who are not subject to Senate confirmation and who could remain in place for the remainder of the Bush administration. To date, I know of at least seven U.S. attorneys forced to resign without cause, without any allegations of misconduct. These include two from my home State, San Diego and San Francisco, as well as U.S. attorneys from New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, Texas, Washington and Arizona. In California, press reports indicate that Carol Lam, U.S. attorney for San Diego, has been asked to leave her position, as has Kevin Ryan of San Francisco. The public response has been shock. Peter Nunez, who served as the San Diego U.S. attorney from 1982 to 1988, has said: [This] is like nothing I've ever seen in my 35-plus years. He went on to say that while the President has the authority to fire a U.S. attorney for any reason, it is ``extremely rare'' unless there is an allegation of misconduct. To my knowledge, there are no allegations of misconduct having to do with Carol Lam. She is a distinguished former judge. Rather, the only explanation I have seen are concerns that were expressed about prioritizing public corruption cases over smuggling and gun cases. The most well-known case involves a U.S. attorney in Arkansas. Senators Pryor and Lincoln have raised significant concerns about how ``Bud'' Cummins was asked to resign and in his place the administration appointed their top lawyer in charge of political opposition research, Tim Griffin. I have been told Mr. Griffin is quite young, 37, and Senators Pryor and Lincoln have expressed concerns about press reports that have indicated Mr. Griffin has been a political operative for the RNC. While the administration has confirmed that 5 to 10 U.S. attorneys have been asked to leave, I have not been given specific details about why these individuals were asked to leave. Around the country, though, U.S. attorneys are bringing many of the most important and complex cases being prosecuted. They are responsible for taking the lead on public corruption cases and many of the antiterrorist efforts in the country. As a matter of fact, we just had the head of the FBI, Bob Mueller, come before the Judiciary Committee at our oversight hearing and tell us how they have dropped the priority of violent crime prosecution and, instead, are taking up public corruption cases; ergo, it only follows that the U.S. attorneys would be prosecuting public corruption cases. As a matter of fact, the rumor has it--and this is only rumor--that U.S. Attorney Lam, who carried out the prosecution of the Duke Cunningham case, has other cases pending whereby, rumor has it, Members of Congress have been subpoenaed. I have also been told that this interrupts the flow of the prosecution of these cases, to have the present U.S. attorney be forced to resign by the end of this month. Now, U.S. attorneys play a vital role in combating traditional crimes such as narcotics trafficking, bank robbery, guns, violence, environmental crimes, civil rights, and fraud, as well as taking the lead on prosecuting computer hacking, Internet fraud, and intellectual property theft, accounting and securities fraud, and computer chip theft. How did all of this happen? This is an interesting story. Apparently, when Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act last year, a provision was included that modified the statute that determines how long interim appointments are made. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization changed the law to allow interim appointments to serve indefinitely rather than for a limited 120 days. Prior to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and the 1986 law, when a vacancy arose, the court nominated an interim U.S. attorney until the Senate confirmed a Presidential nominee. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in 2006 removed the 120-day limit on that appointment, so now the Attorney General can nominate someone who goes in without any confirmation hearing by this Senate and serve as U.S. attorney for the remainder of the President's term in office. This is a way, simply stated, of avoiding a Senate confirmation of a U.S. attorney. The rationale to give the authority to the court has been that since district court judges are also subject to Senate confirmation and are not political positions, there is greater likelihood that their choice of who should serve as an interim U.S. attorney would be chosen based on merit and not manipulated for political reasons. To me, this makes good sense. Finally, by having the district court make the appointments, and not the Attorney General, the process provides an incentive for the administration to move quickly to appoint a replacement and to work in cooperation with the Senate to get the best qualified candidate confirmed. I strongly believe we should return this power to district courts to appoint interim U.S. attorneys. That is why last week, Senator Leahy, the incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, and I filed a bill that would do just that. Our bill simply restores the statute to what it once was and gives the authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys back to the district court where the vacancy arises. I could press this issue on this bill. However, I do not want to do so because I have been saying I want to keep this bill as clean as possible, that it is restricted to the items that are the purpose of the bill, not elections or any other such things. I ought to stick to my own statement. Clearly, the President has the authority to choose who he wants working in his administration and to choose who should replace an individual when there is a vacancy. But the U.S. attorneys' job is too important for there to be unnecessary disruptions, or, worse, any appearance of undue influence. At a time when we are talking about toughening the consequences for public corruption, we should change the law to ensure that our top prosecutors who are taking on these cases are free from interference or the appearance of impropriety. This is an important change to the law. Again, I will question the Attorney General Thursday about it when he is before the Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing. I am particularly concerned because of the inference in all of this that is drawn to manipulation in the lineup of cases to be prosecuted by a U.S. attorney. In the San Diego case, at the very least, we have people from the FBI indicating that Carol Lam has not only been a straight shooter but a very good prosecutor. Therefore, it is surprising to me to see that she would be, in effect, forced out, without cause. This would go for any other U.S. attorney among the seven who are on that list. We have something we need to look into, that we need to exercise our oversight on, and I believe very strongly we should change the law back to where a Federal judge makes this appointment on an interim basis subject to regular order, whereby the President nominates and the Senate confirms a replacement. I yield the floor.