Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object, if it is time on our side that will be used.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me do something I do sometimes-- correct myself. If the Senator is offering to use the time on his side, that is fine with me. As long as it is not using the time for the bill on our side.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is extraordinarily broad. It is much broader than FISA, and in the course of my remarks, I would hope to address how broad it is. It essentially bars Federal, State, and local governments from obtaining any information relating to an individual that is held by a third party unless the government first obtains either a warrant or consent from the individual. This is also not germane to FISA. It has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over this matter. For that reason alone, I would vote against it. Also, it impedes the timely reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act. I also oppose the substance of the amendment. The amendment is titled the ``Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act.'' In reality, it seeks to reverse over 30 years of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the fourth amendment. In 1967 the Supreme Court established its reasonable expectation of privacy test under the fourth amendment, in the case of Katz v. United States. Nine years later, in a case known as U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court held: [T]he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities. So already you have a Supreme Court case saying that the fourth amendment does not prohibit the use of this kind of information by the government. The Miller case involved the government obtaining account records from a bank. But in 1979, just 3 years after Miller, the Supreme Court took up the issue of third-party collection in a case involving the installation and use of pen registers, which are electronic devices that enable law enforcement to collect telephone numbers dialed from a particular phone line without listening to the content of those calls. The 1973 case is known as Smith v. Maryland, and in it the Court held: [W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must ``convey'' phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . . Telephone users . . . typically know that they must convey numerical information to the phone company; that the phone company has facilities for recording this information; and that the phone company does in fact record this information for a variety of legitimate business purposes. Although subjective expectations cannot be scientifically gauged, it is too much to believe that telephone subscribers, under these circumstances, harbor any general expectation that the numbers they dial will remain secret. . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. More recently, in the Court's 2012 decision in U.S. v. Jones, some Justices have questioned whether the time has come to revisit Miller and Smith in some form. Now, perhaps they are right, but this amendment isn't the form they had in mind. And this isn't the time to do so. This amendment is so broad that the police could not use cell phone data to find a missing or kidnapped child without a warrant or the consent of the missing child--impossible to get. Similarly, they could not ask the phone company to provide the home address of a terrorist, drug dealer, or other criminal without consent or warrant. They could not ask a bank if such criminals had recently deposited large sums of money. In fact, as written, this amendment would prohibit law enforcement from looking up the name, address, and phone number of a criminal suspect, witness, or any other person online unless they obtained a warrant or the consent of the criminal suspect. As you can see, the amendment is too broad. As I have already stated, the FAA authorities expire in 4 days. If those authorities are allowed to lapse, our intelligence agencies will be deprived of a critical tool that enables those agencies to acquire vital information about international terrorists and other important targets overseas, plus what they may be plotting in the United States. It is imperative that we pass a clean reauthorization of these authorities without amendments that will hamper passage in the House. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, in listening to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and also reading the amendment, I want to make clear that there are parts of this amendment to which I would agree. However, the House bill is now before us, which would extend the sunset of the FISA Amendments Act 5 years versus 2\1/2\ years in the Leahy Amendment. So, before us is the 5-year authorization period which the House has already passed. We have 4 days before the FISA Amendments Act essentially end. I cannot support that shorter time but I support the 5-year extension. The part of the amendment of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that I do agree with is the expanded mission of the inspector general of the Intelligence Community. Since the chairman is now becoming the President in rapid promotion, I will be happy to address my remarks to him. (The PRESIDENT pro tempore assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know we have spent large amounts of time on the particular issue of Section 702 reporting. For example, the law requires semiannual Attorney General and DNI assessments of section 702. Every 6 months they assess compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures. The law also requires the inspector general of Justice and the IG of every element of the intelligence community authorized to acquire foreign intelligence information to review compliance within Section 702. In addition, the IGs are required to review the number of disseminated intelligence reports containing a reference to a U.S.-person identity and the number of U.S. person identities subsequently disseminated. The law also already requires annual reviews by agency heads of Section 702. It also requires a semiannual Attorney General report on Title VII every 6 months to fully inform the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. And there is another semiannual report on FISA required for the Attorney General to submit a report to the committees. Finally, there are requirements for the provision of documents relating to significant construction or interpretation of FISA by the FISA Court. So it is clear that there are many reporting requirements on FISA and specifically section 702. I would also add that the Intelligence Committee has had hearings with the DNI, with Attorney General Holder, with Director of FBI Mueller on how Section 702 is carried out. I will also tell you the Intelligence Committee staff spends countless hours going over the reports in meetings with representatives of the departments. However, I would say to Chairman Leahy that what I would like to do is look at your amendment and see how it compares to what is currently being done and possibly add some parts of your amendment to our authorization bill next year. I would urge that we have your staff and the Intelligence Committee staff work together to see what we can do. The real reason to oppose all of this at this time is that these authorities expire in 4 days. I remember the vote in the Judiciary Committee on this amendment very well. Had the bill come to the floor over the summer, after it passed out of Committee, then we might have had time to convince the House to consider these changes to current law. But here we are where we have a 5-year House bill in front of us and only 4 days to extend the sunset. As I am opposing all amendments, I would respectfully and, not quite sorrowfully but almost, have to oppose your amendment with the caveat I added, Mr. Chairman. In deference to you and your chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee staff will work closely with yours to see if there is anything that needs to be added to a future intelligence authorization bill. I thank you for that and I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object. Might I ask tomorrow when the intelligence votes will take place?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is too classified.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment and to indicate that the administration opposes the amendment as well. We have just 4 days to reauthorize this critical intelligence tool before it expires. That is the reason for having the House bill before us today. The House bill is a clean bill. It extends the program to 2017, when it would sunset and would need another reauthorization. I believe we must pass the House bill now. I believe 2017 is the appropriate date. I am very worried that if we do anything else, if we pass any one of these amendments, we will jeopardize the continuation of what is a vital intelligence tool. So regretfully, I oppose the Leahy amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the vice chairman of the committee opposes this amendment, as does the administration. We have only 4 days to authorize this intelligence tool before it expires. Sending this legislation to the President without amendment is the only sure way to do it. The Director of National Intelligence is engaged in an ongoing process to declassify significant FISA Court opinions where it is possible to do so. I have agreed to work with Senator Merkley to get summaries of FISA Court decisions that can be made public. In sum, the intelligence community strives to be as transparent as possible with the public, but legislation that would force its hand and potentially risk the exposure of classified information is both unnecessary and unwise. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, as does the vice chairman and the administration. This amendment is not germane to FISA. It has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over this matter. It seeks to reverse 30 years of Supreme Court precedence of interpreting the fourth amendment. According to the administration talking points received this afternoon: The amendment would severely limit the effectiveness of law enforcement authorities at all levels of government and will effectively repeal the FISA Amendments Act. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 which we will vote on later today. I will vote yes on this bill as I did on last year's bill even though nothing in it effectively addresses indefinite military detention, which 67 Members of this body are now on record opposing. My colleagues will recall that I introduced, with a large bipartisan group of cosponsors, an amendment that provided that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended on U.S. soil cannot be detained indefinitely, without charge or trial. The Senate passed this amendment by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 67 to 29. I am saddened and disappointed that this detention amendment was dropped in conference. I don't understand why we could not ensure that, at the very least, American citizens and green card holders cannot be held indefinitely without charge or trial. As I have said over the past few days, to me this is a no-brainer and is a real missed opportunity. The main reason I support this bill is because it authorizes $640.7 billion for fiscal year 2013 for the Department of Defense. This funding ensures our troops deployed around the world--especially those in Afghanistan--have the equipment, resources, and training they need to defend this Nation. For example, the Defense bill fully funds the President's budget request of $5.7 billion to build the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces so those forces can take over for U.S. forces and take the security lead throughout Afghanistan by 2014. The Defense authorization bill will also provide the resources necessary to support our defense strategies and allow our military to modernize equipment worn out after 11 years of war in the difficult battlefield environments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Such resources include investments in our Global Hawk unmanned aircraft, which provide critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information. These aircraft have also provided crucial support for disaster response efforts, including for rescue workers in the wake of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan. To increase diplomatic security around the world and so that we learn from the mistakes that took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, this bill requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to increase--by up to 1,000--the number of marines in the Marine Corps security guard program to be able to deploy them to troubled facilities to protect our personnel abroad. As I mentioned, the Senate overwhelmingly passed, on a 67 to 29 vote, the amendment to ban the indefinite detention of U.S. persons--citizens and green card holders--without charge or trial. The amendment would have updated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which clearly states: No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress. The amendment would have built on the Non-Detention Act of 1971 so that it applies to not just U.S. citizens but also to green card holders. It would have provided that no military authorization allows indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and green card holders apprehended inside the United States. The detention amendment stated: An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention. Unfortunately, as soon as the amendment passed, the language was misrepresented by critics on the left as well as proponents of indefinite military detention on the right, particularly after a handful of Senators who previously opposed this effort switched their vote at the last minute. Make no mistake, the amendment is not a Trojan horse designed to surreptitiously authorize indefinite detention in the United States. The text of the amendment is clear, and the legal experts I consulted on the amendment agree. For example, Stephen Vladeck of American University, a law professor who has litigated military detention issues in the Supreme Court and an expert on national security law, testified this year before the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act, which is almost identical to the detention amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Professor Vladeck reviewed the statements of support for the amendment by Senators Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham-- both of whom advocated indefinite military detention powers in the past. Professor Vladeck wrote: The Graham/Levin colloquy sought to cast [the Feinstein] language as doing exactly the opposite of what it says, i.e., as confirming that U.S. citizens can be detained even within the territorial United States pursuant to the logic of the Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld]. Professor Vladeck concluded that Senators Levin and Graham were ``exactly wrong'' because ``the plain text of the bill is simply irreconcilable with that understanding.'' In another article, Vladeck and Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman, another expert on military detention and national security, wrote: If it were to be enacted, the amendment would ensure that a future president could not construe the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Force (AUMF), the FY2012 NDAA, or any comparable statute to authorize the military detention of citizens and LPRs [lawful permanent residents] apprehended within the United States. I agree with these law professors--with whom I worked, in fact, on the drafting of my bill and amendment. It is true the courts have previously reached ambiguous and conflicting decisions regarding whether U.S. persons apprehended on American soil may be subject to indefinite detention under the laws of war. However, far from adding to this ambiguity, I am confident this amendment would bring much-needed clarification to this area of the law. The Feinstein detention amendment would have updated the Non- Detention Act of 1971 which Congress passed to repudiate the shameful Japanese-American internment experience during World War II. That 1971 landmark legislation, which liberal critics of the detention amendment have made no effort to overturn, protected only U.S. citizens from detention. In contrast, the amendment broadens protections from indefinite detention, protecting both green card holders, called ``lawful permanent residents'', as well as citizens. At a time when civil liberties are under attack, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As Professors Lederman and Vladeck note, ``The new Feinstein amendment . . . does protect the vast majority of persons in the United States from noncriminal detention without express statutory authorization . . . .'' As I said during the floor debate on the amendment, I would support extending the protections in the amendment to all persons in the United States, whether lawfully or unlawfully present, but so far we have lacked sufficient support in the Senate to do this. Most Republican cosponsors of the bill said they would not support the legislation if it went that far. Other critics misrepresent the language of the amendment by charging that it could be read to imply there is an authorization to indefinitely detain illegal immigrants and legal visitors in the United States. In doing this, they ignore the language in paragraph 3 that explicitly prevents such an interpretation. Paragraph 3 of the amendment clarifies that the text to be added to the Non-Detention Act of 1971 ``shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.'' Again, don't take my word for it. Professors Lederman and Vladeck say that the amendment ``would do nothing of the sort.'' The bottom line: Indefinite military detention is incompatible with our values, and this amendment would have been a major step forward to make sure we never return to the dark chapter of American history when we detained Japanese-American citizens out of fear during World War II. Mr. President, some have pointed to section 1029 of the conference report and said that it accomplishes what the Feinstein amendment would have done. That is not true. The amendment offered by Congressman Gohmert regarding habeas corpus, which is now section 1029 of the underlying conference report, does nothing except restate that constitutional rights to file a habeas claim can't be denied. Consider the exact text of this section, which reads:

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this month marks the retirement of Ms. Kathleen Turner after nearly 32 years in government service, specifically working in various capacities in the intelligence community. I commend her for her service to the Nation and wish her the very best in her retirement. Ms. Turner has had a varied and distinguished career, having worked in different positions and capacities within the intelligence community. For most of that time, Kathleen worked where efforts and successes are not always rewarded publicly. I am glad we can do so here today. I have known Kathleen mostly in her capacity as the director of the Office of Legislative Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a position she assumed in the summer of 2006. For the last 6 years, Ms. Turner has had the sometimes unenviable job of representing the intelligence community on Capitol Hill and representing Capitol Hill to the intelligence community. Ms. Turner is the daughter of Robert and Beverly Turner, a television repair shop owner and homemaker respectively, and was born and raised in the small suburban town of Pacific Palisades, in my State of California. Kathleen is the fifth of seven children and she went to UCLA and majored in political science and then came to the East Coast. I am willing to forgive her for this lapse in judgment. Kathleen received a master's degree in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. When she completed her master's, she went right into the Defense Intelligence Agency. Ms. Turner started her professional career with DIA as an analyst of Soviet strategic forces. She served as the Intelligence Liaison Officer to the Strategic Defense Initiative Office, and later served as the Senior Analyst for Russia and Eurasia, managing all military intelligence analysis on these regions. During the 1990s, Ms. Turner progressively served as DIA's Director of Human Resources, the Director of Administration, and the manager of the DIA and General Defense Intelligence Program and budget office. Starting in 2002, Ms. Turner served as DIA's Director of Congressional and Public Affairs. In short, in her 24 years at DIA, Kathleen did and saw every aspect of intelligence work in one of the few intelligence agencies to perform every kind of intelligence operation. That, combined with her outgoing personality and ability to juggle many tasks at once, made her a natural choice to join the Legislative Affairs Office for the first Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, in October 2005 as that office was standing up. She quickly became the DNI's Director of Legislative Affairs in July 2006. As Director, she was responsible for the Office of the DNI's interactions with the Congress, and informing the Office of the DNI seniors of Congressional interests and perspectives on intelligence matters. In addition, Ms. Turner provided policy guidance to all 16 intelligence community legislative affairs offices. I got to know Kathleen in the job when I became chairman of the Intelligence Committee in January 2009, through numerous meetings with DNI Dennis Blair and then DNI Jim Clapper. She always had suggestions for ways to work through problems, and could translate issues and perspectives between intelligence-speak and congressional-speak. Kathleen could also work a room--she knew every Member on the committee and all of our staff, and knew what questions needed answers or what policies were being proposed. I must say, it is a good thing for Kathleen that she has retired from legislative affairs, as the delay in reauthorizing FISA legislation now, only 10 days from its expiration at the end of the year, would have been keeping her up around the clock and adding one more time when Congress' special way of doing things caused stress and aggravation to all involved. On a more personal note, Kathleen's most direct contribution to me was her idea, which she then brought to fruition, to bring together a group of senior women in the intelligence community and me for a dinner on November 7, 2011 at the Hay Adams Hotel. It was a hit. Since then, the group has gotten together three more times, twice at my house and once more at a restaurant, and we have really gotten to know each other and build a relationship beyond our meetings across the meeting or witness table. Throughout her career and travels around the world, I know Kathleen has had the loving support of her husband, Bob Sparks, who is the son of a naval officer. Bob was educated at the Virginia Military Institute and then at the University of Virginia for law school. He currently practices law in Northern Virginia. With her retirement, Kathleen and Bob look forward to spending more time together and on the water. I am pleased to be able to thank Kathleen Turner for her service and wish her all the very best in all her future endeavors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I come here today to talk about my friend: Senator Danny Inouye. Danny was a friend of mine since I came to the Senate 20 years ago. He had a unique ability to connect with people, to befriend them. I know. He always helped me. He was smart, able and someone that over 20 years I grew to love. He was a war hero who fought bravely in World War II, even at a time when many in this country actively discriminated against Japanese- Americans. And he served in this body for 50 years--the second longest serving Senator of all time. Danny and I worked closely together on the Appropriations Committee for many years. I often sought his counsel, and he was always an advocate for me. I want to say something personally to his beloved wife Irene: You were married to a truly wonderful man and an American hero. Death of a loved one is hard. I know. I have been through it. But, Irene, the love does remain. I know you were so proud to be his wife, to help him share his dreams through these years. I want you to know that you have many friends here, who now want to help you through this most difficult part of life. Danny, you will be greatly missed. Thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing legislation that will ensure that monies in the Crime Victims Fund are used for their intended purpose, to help victims of crime. Senator Kyl and I have long worked together to improve the treatment of victims in our criminal justice system. In 2004, we passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Because of that legislation, for the first time, victims were given the right to be heard in what is really their own case, and to participate in the proceedings against the accused. The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen another area of federal law that has a profound impact on the ability of victims to navigate the criminal justice system. In 1984, Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to provide support for victim compensation and assistance programs. This past year, $37 million from the Crime Victims Fund was used to support over 300 victim-witness coordinators and specialists within the Department of Justice's 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices and the FBI's 56 field offices. These personnel advise victims of their rights, update victims on the status of criminal proceedings against the accused, and otherwise assist victims with understanding the operation of the judicial system. However, it was recently brought to the attention of Senator Kyl and myself that these victim-witness coordinators and specialists are being asked to perform duties unrelated to the provision of services for victims. The diversion of funds from victim services prompted the National Organization for Victim Assistance to send a letter this past June, which I am submitting for the record, calling on Congress to clarify the purposes for which monies in the Crime Victims Fund may be used. Senator Kyl's and my legislation would do just that. It will make clear that resources available under the Crime Victims Fund may be used only to support services for victims. A person who is a victim of a crime may have never stepped foot inside a courtroom or had any other interaction with our legal system prior to the commission of the crime. Yet, so much is at stake for that victim when the accused is prosecuted. Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to ensure that victims are able to fully participate in their case. We must make certain that 100 percent of these funds are used to support victims during their time of great need. The legislation Senator Kyl and I are introducing today has already passed out of the Judiciary Committee as part of the Justice For All Reauthorization Act of 2011. While that broader legislation has unfortunately stalled, it is my hope that the Senate and House can quickly pass this one specific, uncontroversial piece, to ensure that victims of crime have all the support that they need and deserve.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing legislation that will ensure that monies in the Crime Victims Fund are used for their intended purpose, to help victims of crime. Senator Kyl and I have long worked together to improve the treatment of victims in our criminal justice system. In 2004, we passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Because of that legislation, for the first time, victims were given the right to be heard in what is really their own case, and to participate in the proceedings against the accused. The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen another area of federal law that has a profound impact on the ability of victims to navigate the criminal justice system. In 1984, Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to provide support for victim compensation and assistance programs. This past year, $37 million from the Crime Victims Fund was used to support over 300 victim-witness coordinators and specialists within the Department of Justice's 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices and the FBI's 56 field offices. These personnel advise victims of their rights, update victims on the status of criminal proceedings against the accused, and otherwise assist victims with understanding the operation of the judicial system. However, it was recently brought to the attention of Senator Kyl and myself that these victim-witness coordinators and specialists are being asked to perform duties unrelated to the provision of services for victims. The diversion of funds from victim services prompted the National Organization for Victim Assistance to send a letter this past June, which I am submitting for the record, calling on Congress to clarify the purposes for which monies in the Crime Victims Fund may be used. Senator Kyl's and my legislation would do just that. It will make clear that resources available under the Crime Victims Fund may be used only to support services for victims. A person who is a victim of a crime may have never stepped foot inside a courtroom or had any other interaction with our legal system prior to the commission of the crime. Yet, so much is at stake for that victim when the accused is prosecuted. Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to ensure that victims are able to fully participate in their case. We must make certain that 100 percent of these funds are used to support victims during their time of great need. The legislation Senator Kyl and I are introducing today has already passed out of the Judiciary Committee as part of the Justice For All Reauthorization Act of 2011. While that broader legislation has unfortunately stalled, it is my hope that the Senate and House can quickly pass this one specific, uncontroversial piece, to ensure that victims of crime have all the support that they need and deserve.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize today an extraordinary public servant and a dedicated leader of the U.S. intelligence community, Ms. Caryn Anne Wagner, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis--I&A--at the Department of Homeland Security. After 30 years of devoted Federal service, Caryn came out of retirement in 2010 when the President nominated her to the Under Secretary position. She was confirmed for this position and has proven herself a manager and leader of what had been a troubled agency. After nearly 3 years in the job, Ms. Wagner will retire again on Friday, December 21. I am sorry to see her leave but wish her the very best as she prepares for her next chapter. I came to know Caryn when she was nominated to be the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. Since then, she has drawn on the depth and breadth of her experience in the intelligence community and the Congress to build the foundations of a Homeland Security intelligence office that will long outlast her tenure. The mission of I&A is to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the intelligence and information it needs to keep the homeland safe, secure, and resilient and to bring to the intelligence community the information and analysis from the Department's thousands of officers posted at our Nation's airports, borders, and numerous other places around the world. It also informs and empowers State, local, and tribal governments and law enforcement on the frontlines of our homeland defense against terrorism. Caryn's many years of experience in the intelligence community, combined with an indepth knowledge of the National Intelligence Program, collaborative instincts, and insightful thinking on intelligence matters have been key components of her success. She previously held senior positions involving oversight of the collection and analysis of intelligence to include: the Director of Analysis and Production and Director of the Military intelligence staff for the Defense Intelligence Agency, where she was responsible for development and management of the General Defense Intelligence Program; the Defense Intelligence Agency's senior representative to the U.S. European Command and North Atlantic Treaty Organization--NATO--Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Management and the first chief financial officer for the National Intelligence Program; as well as the Executive Director for Intelligence Community Affairs. In that role, she was responsible for the Community Management staff, which provided strategic planning, policy formulation, resource planning, program assessment and budget oversight for the intelligence community. Adding to her experience in the executive branch, she also served for a brief time in the private sector, where she provided support to military operations, intelligence planning, and intelligence systems architecture development. She also served our Nation in uniform for 8 years as a signals intelligence and electronic warfare officer in the U.S. Army, and in the Congress as budget director for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But I want to note in particular her role as Under Secretary in the Department of Homeland Security. Caryn stepped into a relatively new organization that had some notable problems, to include an unclear mission, a shocking overreliance on a workforce in which government contractors outnumbered employees, and major shortfalls in office budgeting and spending. Drawing upon her considerable experience, Caryn was able to shape I&A's personnel structure to match as closely as possible that of the larger intelligence community; thereby greatly decreasing the number of contractors, flattening the Federal grade structure, and moving junior and midgrade personnel into career ladder positions. She also addressed and conquered basic management challenges that had previously gone unnoticed and unaddressed. As a result, I&A now has a functioning process to develop a budget request and execution plan; procedures in place for hiring and training qualified personnel; and procedures for identifying the need for policies, then writing, publishing and enforcing them. While overseeing the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence functions, Under Secretary Wagner has promoted information sharing and engagement with State, local, and tribal partners and has championed the consolidation of the Department's counterintelligence mission. In the critical area of cyber security, Caryn has overseen I&A's close collaboration and analytic support to the Department's National Protection and Programs Directorate. Under Secretary Wagner has approached every issue with a pragmatic and professional approach that should be a model for all who follow her. I would also like to note that over the past year or so, I have had a series of dinners and informal gatherings with senior women in the intelligence community. In that context, I have gotten to know Caryn on a more personal level, and I hope that we will continue our friendship after her retirement. Our Nation owes this public servant a tremendous debt of gratitude. I wish to thank her on behalf of the committee for her decades of exceptional service to our country and to wish her and her husband Chad the very best in the days and years ahead. Caryn can at long last dedicate more time to her love of gardening, travel, theater going and fine dining, and I wish her all the very best.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the nomination of Fernando Olguin, whom I recommended to President Obama to be a U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California after he earned a strong recommendation from my bipartisan judicial selection committee. Born and raised in the greater Los Angeles community of Azusa, Judge Olguin lives in the Los Angeles area today. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. After serving for 2 years as a law clerk to a Federal district court judge in Arizona, Judge Olguin joined the U.S. Department of Justice through the Attorney General's Honors Program. From 1991 through 1994, Judge Olguin served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division in Washington, DC, enforcing numerous Federal statutes, including the Fair Housing Act and the Public Accommodations Act. He then joined the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, serving as its national education program director from 1994 to 1995 in Washington, DC. Judge Olguin then came back to California, becoming a partner at the law firm Traber, Voorhees, and Olguin, where he practiced civil litigation from 1995 to 2001. He was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge in 2001, where he has built a stellar record. In his 11 years on the bench, he has managed a docket of hundreds of cases at a time and issued hundreds of published opinions, as well as nearly 2,000 decisions and orders. In 2011, he had the best record of any magistrate judge on the court at working with litigants to settle their disputes. This is very important in a busy district like the Central District, whose judges carry the seventh-highest civil caseload in the Nation. Judge Olguin is well respected in the L.A. community, and he is supported by the law enforcement community including L.A.P.D. Chief Charlie Beck, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Chief Beck says Judge Olguin's record ``has been characterized by fairness, thoroughness, sound judgment, and evenness of temperament.'' In short, Judge Olguin is well-qualified, seasoned, and fair. I am very proud to support him, and I urge my colleagues to support him as well. I also want to urge the confirmations of other judicial nominees from my home State, many of which have been pending on the executive calendar for months. Including Judge Olguin, four of the 13 District Court nominees on the executive calendar are from California. The other nominees are: Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar and Bill Orrick, nominees to the Northern District recommended by Senator Boxer; and Superior Court Judge Troy Nunley, a nominee to the Eastern District whom I recommended to the President. All three were approved by bipartisan votes in the Judiciary Committee, two of them by voice vote. Each of these districts is in a judicial emergency according to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Northern District's caseload is over 20 percent above the national average. It now takes over 50 percent longer for a case to go to trial than it did a year ago in the Northern District, which hears some of our country's most complex technology cases. The Eastern District is the most overworked district in the Nation by far. With over 1,100 weighted filings per judgeship, its caseload is over twice the national average. With this extreme crisis, I especially urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow Judge Troy Nunley to be confirmed this year. Judge Nunley essentially was a career prosecutor and State Department of Justice lawyer before joining the State bench over 10 years ago. He is highly qualified and experienced. He also earned unanimous support in the Judiciary Committee, so he is uncontroversial. I am very pleased we recently confirmed Jesus Bernal to the Central District, and I urge my colleagues to support Judge Olguin as well. My State--more than any other--urgently needs us to take prompt action on judicial nominees. I am pleased with the progress we have made in the lameduck, and I very much hope the three other California nominees who remain on the calendar will be confirmed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I wish to express my support for legislation granting permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, to Russia. We need to act now so that our exporters can take advantage of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO, in August. The House voted to approve PNTR for Russia on November 16th on a 365- 43 vote. The Senate Finance Committee approved its version of the bill on a 24-0 vote in July. The legislation enjoys widespread support among manufacturers, service providers, and farmers. It has been endorsed by, among others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Farm Bureau. As a part of joining the WTO, Russia negotiated agreements with each member, including the United States, making commitments to eliminate non-tariff barriers, protect intellectual property, liberalize key sectors such as services, and improve its business climate. For example, Russia agreed to: lower tariffs on industrial products from an average rate of 10 percent to 7 percent; not raise tariffs on 90 percent of agricultural products and keep them at 15 percent or lower; join the WTO Information Technology Agreement and eliminate tariffs on major IT products within 3 years; abide by WTO rules on enforcement of intellectual property rights; and remove limitations on foreign equity in telecommunications companies, insurance companies, banks, and wholesale and retail enterprises. These commitments will be subject to the WTO's dispute settlement process and help promote greater transparency and a more stable business environment for foreign investors. Since the United States is a member of the WTO, this agreement includes only concessions by Russia. The United States will not lower a single tariff, provide any market access benefits, or make any changes to U.S. trade law. Under WTO rules, however, in order for the United States to take advantage of Russia's commitments, it must enact permanent normal trade relations for Russia. Currently, Russia enjoys normal trade relations, NTR, status--the status enjoyed by a trading partner that faces the most favorable U.S. tariffs in exchange for similar benefits for U.S. exports. This status must be renewed on an annual basis due to a provision enacted in the Trade Act of 1974--the so-called ``Jackson-Vanik'' amendment--in response to concerns about Jewish emigration from the former Soviet Union. That law conditions normal trade relations status on a country allowing its citizens to emigrate freely. Russia has consistently met the requirements of Jackson-Vanik since the fall of the Soviet Union and its NTR status has been renewed annually without debate since 1994. Yet, WTO rules mandate that its members provide each other with unconditional or ``permanent'' normal trade relations. That is, we have to treat each member equally, extending them the most favorable U.S. tariffs in exchange for similar benefits without restrictions. Otherwise, they are under no obligation to extend the same favorable treatment to U.S. exports. Since the United States only grants Russia conditional or annual normal trade relations status, the United States is not in compliance with these rules and Russia can refuse to extend the market access commitments it made to join the WTO to U.S. exports. This is putting our exports at a competitive disadvantage because every other WTO member--155 in total--has permanent normal trade relations with Russia and has been receiving the benefits of Russian membership in the WTO since August. So while we delay, our manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and workers are losing out on a fast-growing market. Russia has a gross domestic product of $2.2 trillion, the sixth largest in the world. Its economy is expected to grow by 4 percent annually through 2015, according to the International Trade Administration. U.S.-Russia trade grew by 37.9 percent in 2011 and total U.S.-Russia trade stood at $42.9 billion. This mutually beneficial relationship will continue to grow by enacting this legislation. Let me repeat: for those who may be concerned about this legislation's effects on U.S. jobs, it is important to point out that the United States will not have to lower a single tariff or make any market concessions on Russian imports by approving permanent normal trade relations. All concessions will be made by Russia as a part of its agreement to join the WTO. What does this legislation mean for my home State of California? Among U.S. States, California is currently the 4th largest exporter to Russia, according to the Coalition for U.S. Russia Trade. According to the Business Roundtable, California exported $665 million worth of goods to Russia in 2011, supporting 2,000 California jobs. In 2011 California's exported $156 million of computers and electronics to Russia, our top export. Yet, U.S. companies only held 4.2 percent of the Russian import market compared to 36.5 percent for the European Union, EU. As part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to eliminate tariffs on IT products and take additional actions to protect IPR, including joining the WTO Information Technology Agreement. In 2011, California exported $47 million of pharmaceuticals to Russia, but the EU held 77 percent of the import market. As a part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to lower its tariff to 4.4 percent. In 2011, California exported $90 million of cars to Russia, the world's 6th largest car market. U.S. cars, however, make up only 4 percent of Russian imports while Japan has 40 percent of the market and the EU has 35 percent. As a part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to reduce its tariff on cars from 20-35 percent to 15 percent. In addition, for California agriculture, Russia has agreed to: lower tariffs on dairy from 19.8 percent to 14.9 percent; reduce its tariff on grapes from 10 percent to 5 percent within 3 years; lower tariffs on cereals from 15.1 percent to 10 percent; and establish lower in-quota tariff rates for pork, poultry, and beef. Unless we pass permanent normal trade relations, our foreign competitors will be able to use the concessions Russia made when joining the WTO to protect their companies and workers and increase their market share, while the United States will not be able to do the same for our companies and workers. As a result, failure to pass this legislation will only make it harder for California and U.S. companies to compete in Russia. The legislation would also impose sanctions on individuals linked to the incarceration and death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney who was arrested in 2008 after alleging wide-scale tax fraud by several law enforcement and government officials. He died in prison a year later due to health complications while awaiting trial. Investigations later found that Mr. Magnitsky was beaten and did not receive proper medical attention. His case gained international attention and was used to highlight systematic violations of human rights in the Russian judicial system. It is my hope that this provision will help bring those responsible for Mr. Magnitsky's death to justice and encourage Russia to do more to tackle corruption and promote a greater respect for human rights and the rule of law. This is critical if Russia is to enjoy the full benefits of WTO membership and attract more foreign investment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3018.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, and I ask Members to vote against it. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire just said that any transfer of Guantanamo detainees out of that facility essentially endangers Americans. But consider how effectively we hold terrorists in the United States today. We have 180 terrorists in Federal prisons in the United States of America who are in maximum security, and they cannot escape. We have supermax prisons. We have prisons where for 23 hours a day individuals are in a cell that is all concrete with just a small viewing place. What this amendment would do is prevent any flexibility forever in how the U.S. government can handle those held in Guantanamo Bay. For example, the Guantanamo detainees could not be moved to a supermax prison in the United States. I don't think preventing options is the right thing to do. No one in all these years has escaped from a supermax prison in the United States of America. So clearly, the detainees could be held safely and securely. Additionally, I believe this amendment could bring on a veto by the President. Today, a statement of administration policy was issued that indicated concern about restricting the transfer of Guantanamo detainees. I believe Guantanamo has been a blight on the image of our country across this world and it should be closed down. It is important to note that there are reasons to have the flexibility that Senator Ayotte's amendment would restrict. For example, there are detainees at Guantanamo who could be transferred to the U.S. to be convicted in federal criminal courts. Others try to leave, like the Uighurs, for instance, but there is no place for them to go. And this amendment restricts them from being transferred here to the United States. Many say, why would we let terrorists come to our backyard? Well, let's consider the hundreds of terrorists that are already in our backyard serving time at 98 facilities across the United States, according to a GAO report released yesterday. The Blind Sheik is incarcerated in a Federal prison in the U.S. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew, Ramzi Yousef, is in a Federal prison here. Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, is in a Federal prison here. Najibullah Zazi and Adis Medunjanin, who plotted to bomb New York subway system, are both in Federal prison here. I have a list of terrorists arrested here, 98 of them since 2009, who will go to Federal prisons. Let me describe a few of these arrests. One of the examples was earlier this month, Ralph Deleon, with Miguel Alejandro Santana Vidriales and Arifeen David Gojali were arrested by the FBI. They were planning to travel to Afghanistan to attend terrorist training and commit violent jihad. They will do time in a Federal prison here. Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis plotted to bomb the New York Federal Reserve Bank on October 20, 2012. He will do time in a Federal prison here. Adel Daoud plotted to bomb a downtown Chicago bar in September 2012, and he will do time in a Federal prison here. Our Federal prisons hold terrorists already and they will continue to hold them. So to remove any kind of flexibility on Guantanamo and to say that you cannot move a detainee out of the facility and into a Federal prison in the United States is a mistake. I very strongly believe perpetuating Guantanamo forever is a mistake. So I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I yield the floor.