Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 3326, a trade package that includes legislation sponsored by myself and Senator McConnell to renew the import ban on Burma for another year. I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma for 15 years. In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive order. In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time. It was signed into law and has been renewed annually since then. It expired on July 26 which is why this legislation is before us today. In past years, the debate on renewing the import ban on Burma has focused on more than two decades of violence, oppression, and human rights abuses by the ruling Burmese military. They annulled the last free parliamentary elections won by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. They kept Suu Kyi in prison or under house arrest, detained hundreds of political prisoners, and ignored democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. They drafted a new constitution that maintained the military's grip on power and prevented Suu Kyi and her party from participating in the political process. But, I am pleased to report that this year is different. We have seen some remarkable changes in Burma over the past year which appear to have put Burma on the path of reform and rejoining the international community. Hundreds of political prisoners have been released. New legislation broadening the rights of political and civic associations has been enacted; and negotiations with ethnic minority groups have begun and some cease-fires have taken effect. In addition, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, NLD, were allowed to compete in by-elections for 45 open seats in the new parliament in April 2012. Suu Kyi and the NLD won 43 of the 44 seats they contested. For those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy, it was a thrilling and deeply moving event. Years of sacrifice and hard work had shown results--the people of Burma had spoken with a clear voice in support of freedom and democracy. The United States has responded to this reform process in a number of ways. Secretary Clinton traveled to Burma last December and met with Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein. The United States and Burma resumed full diplomatic relations, with Ambassador Derek Mitchell becoming the first U.S. ambassador to Burma in 22 years. Earlier this month, the administration announced that it was suspending U.S. sanctions on providing financial services to Burma and investing in Burma. I supported these actions. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge the steps Burma has already taken and encourage additional reforms. Some may ask then: why stop there? Given the reforms, why renew the import ban? The fact of the matter is, the reforms are not irreversible and the Government of Burma still needs to do more to respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Burma and the international community. First, it must address the dominant role of the military in Burma under the new constitution. The military is guaranteed 25 percent of the seats without elections and remains independent of any civilian oversight. In addition, the commander in chief of the military has the authority to dismiss the government and rule the country under martial law. It goes without saying that such powers are incompatible with a truly democratic government. Second, Burma must stop all violence against ethnic minorities. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Burmese military is continuing attacks in Kachin State, displacing thousands of civilians and killing others. Third, the government must release all political prisoners. I applaud the decision of the Government of Burma to release hundreds of political prisoners, including a number of high-profile democracy and human rights activists. Yet, according to the State Department, hundreds more remain in detention. Unfortunately, the Government of Burma maintains there are no more political prisoners. We must keep the pressure on Burma until all democracy and human rights activists are free and able to resume their lives and careers. I believe that renewing this ban will help keep Burma on the path to full democratization and national reconciliation and support the work of Suu Kyi, the democratic opposition, and the reformists in the ruling government. It will give the administration additional leverage to convince Burma to stay on the right path. And the administration will still have the authority to waive or suspend the import ban--as it has suspended sanctions on investment and financial services--if the Government of Burma took the appropriate actions. If we do not renew the import ban, however, and Burma backslides on reform and democratization, we would have to pass a new law to reimpose the ban. By passing this legislation, we ensure that the administration has the flexibility it needs to respond to events in Burma as it as done so with financial services and investment. Suu Kyi herself has argued that ``sanctions have been effective in persuading the government to go for change.'' I think renewing the import ban will push it to go further. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I assume that bill is in order and on the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee to, in my own way, indicate the seriousness of the job we are about to begin. I know there is controversy. I know there are differences of opinion. But what people have to understand is that we have breach after breach now, and they have become far more numerous, much more sophisticated, and much more insidious in recent years. I want to give a number of examples of what is happening out there in the real world, and let me begin by going back to 2008, when the Pentagon's classified military computer networks suffered a ``significant compromise.'' That is according to former Deputy Secretary Bill Lynn in 2010. These breaches are usually classified at the time they happen; therefore, people don't know about them. So all I am going to do is run through unclassified breaches, and even that is beyond comprehension. Former Secretary Lynn also detailed that foreign hackers stole 24,000 U.S. military files in a single attack on a defense contractor in March 2011. In the 5 months from October 2011 through February 2012, over 50,000 cyber attacks were reported on private and governmental networks, with 86 of those attacks taking place on critical infrastructure networks. Now, that is according to the bipartisan Policy Center's Cybersecurity Task Force. Fifty thousand incidents were the ones that were reported to the Department of Homeland Security, so they represent only a small fraction of the cyber attacks carried out against the United States. In December 2011, press reports revealed that the networks of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were completely penetrated for more than a year by hackers. The hackers apparently had access to everything in Chamber computers, including member company communications and industry positions on U.S. trade policies. In March 2011, NASA's Inspector General reported that cyber attacks successfully compromised NASA computers. In one attack, intruders stole 150 user credentials that could be used to gain unauthorized access to NASA systems. Another attack at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that involved China- based Internet Protocol addresses let the intruders gain full access to key JPL systems and sensitive user accounts. Forty-eight companies in the chemical, defense, and other industries were penetrated during 2011 for at least 6 months by a hacker looking for intellectual property. The cybersecurity company Symantec attributes some of these attacks to computers in Hebei, China. It became worldwide news when Google alleged in April of 2011 that China had compromised hundreds of Gmail passwords for e-mail accounts of prominent people, including senior U.S. officials. On March 17, 2011, RSA publicly disclosed that it had detected a very sophisticated cyber attack on its systems in an attempt to obtain data that would compromise RSA's authenticated log-in technology. The data acquired was then used in an attempt to penetrate Lockheed Martin's networks. Between March 2010 and April 2011, the FBI identified 20 incidents in which the online banking credentials of small to medium-sized U.S. businesses were compromised and used to initiate wire transfers to Chinese economic and trade companies. As of April 2011, the total attempted fraud amounts to approximately $20 million, and the actual victim losses are $11 million. In October 2010, hackers penetrated the systems of NASDAQ, which sparked concerns about the severity of the cyber threat facing the financial industry. In January 2011, a hacker extracted $6.7 million from South Africa's Postbank over the New Year's holiday. In January 2011, hackers penetrated the European Union's carbon trading market, which allows organizations to buy and sell their carbon emissions quotas, and stole more than $7 million in credits, forcing the market to shut down temporarily. An international computer-crime ring, broken up in October 2010, siphoned about $70 million in a hacking operation targeting bank accounts of small businesses, municipalities, and churches, according to the FBI. In November 2008, hackers breached networks at Royal Bank of Scotland's WorldPay, allowing them to clone 100 ATM cards and withdraw over $9 million from machines in 49 cities. In December 2008, retail giant TJX was hacked. The one hacker captured and convicted, named Maksym Yastremskiy, is said to have made $11 million from the hack. In August 2008, computer networks in Georgia were hacked by unknown foreign intruders, most likely at the behest of the Russian Government because they were coordinated with Russian military actions against Georgia. In May 2007, Estonian Government networks were harassed by a denial- of-service attack by unknown foreign intruders, most likely again at the behest of the Russian Government because they were part of the worst dispute between the two countries since the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, as you can see from some of the examples above, for years now, the United States and other countries have been at the receiving end of multiple, concerted efforts by nation-states and non-state actors to hack into our networks. These bad actors are infiltrating our communications, accessing our secrets, and sapping our economic health by stealing intellectual property. They may also be building a capability, if necessary in the future, to wage cyber war. We may not even know until the attack has been launched. These attacks are sophisticated, and involve hacking techniques that we unfortunately now see quite often. Cyber attacks can come in the form of viruses and worms, malicious backdoors, logic bombs, and denial-of-service attacks, just to name a few. A groundbreaking unclassified report from November of last year published by the Intelligence Community said cyber intrusions against U.S. companies cost billions of dollars annually. The report named China and Russia as aggressive cyber thieves. On China, the report said: ``Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.'' We know that sophisticated attacks from China against financial and technology companies, such as Google, resulted in property theft on a massive scale. Billions of dollars of trade secrets, technology, and intellectual property are being siphoned each year from the United States to benefit the economies of China and other countries. On Russia, the report said: ``Russia's intelligence services are conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from U.S. targets.'' I can assure everyone that the classified assessments are far more descriptive and far more devastating. The examples above are bad enough, but cyber threats are evolving, and I am very concerned that the next wave will come in the form of crippling intrusions against the computers that control powerplants, dams, transportation hubs, and financial networks in these United States. We have already seen the use of cyber attacks in warfare, when hackers inside Russia reportedly took down the command and control systems in Estonia in 2007. That was 5 years ago, roughly a lifetime in the realm of cyber attack capability. Senior national security experts from across the political spectrum have sounded the alarm about this threat. For Example, Leon Panetta, at his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of Defense, said: The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack that cripples our power system, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems. Bob Mueller, Director of the FBI, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that ``the cyber threat, which cuts across all programs, will be the number one threat to our country.'' We are dealing with the No. 1 threat to the country. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 with Senators Lieberman, Collins, Rockefeller, and Carper. I wish to thank them for their tireless work on this legislation over the past several years. This act has seven titles. Each of them addresses a key gap in our Nation's cyber laws. I wish to take a moment to describe the critical infrastructure provisions in Title I, but I wish to focus most of my remarks on the information-sharing part of the bill, which makes up Title VII. Title I covers Critical Infrastructure Protection, which means protecting the public and private infrastructure that underpin our economy and our way of life--a big deal. A cyber attack against these networks could open a dam, crash our financial system, or disable the electric grid. It could stop all planes and interrupt the FAA--on and on and on. Although some critical infrastructure companies have taken action to protect their networks, too many of them have not. It appears that market forces are insufficient for many critical infrastructure companies to adopt adequate cybersecurity practices. Thus, Title I of this bill would create strong incentives for companies to work with the Federal Government to establish standards for critical infrastructure protection. Let me be candid. Even though the bill makes cybersecurity standards voluntary, I know many Senators still resist this idea. I do not. I would have preferred that this bill include its original critical infrastructure provisions, which would have mandated baseline standards for cybersecurity. But I recognize we have to compromise. I recognize this legislation is a necessary first step to provide some security, and that compromise to the voluntary measures in this bill was necessary. So we have done it. I hope if and when we see a major cyber attack against the power grid, or Wall Street, or a major dam, we won't see this compromise as a mistake. Other Senators have spoken at length about critical infrastructure and other parts of the bill, so let me move to Title VII, regarding information sharing. This is the part the Intelligence Committee has had something to do with. This title--at least 40 pages of the bill-- covers authorities and protections for sharing information about threats to cybersecurity. The information-sharing title addresses one of the main problems I heard from both the private sector and the government about existing laws and business practices when it comes to cyber: that private sector companies and the government know a lot about the cyber attacks against their networks, but this information is so stovepiped that no one is as well protected as they could be if the information were shared. That, I believe, is fact. As the Bipartisan Policy Center's Cyber Security Task Force recently found: Despite general agreement that we need to do it, cyber information sharing is not meeting our needs today. Title VII addresses this problem. It reduces the legal barriers that hamper a private entity's ability to work with others and the Federal Government to share cybersecurity threat information. How do we do this? What does that title do specifically? First, it explicitly authorizes companies to monitor and defend their own networks. Many companies monitor and defend their own networks today in order to protect themselves and their customers. But we have heard from numerous companies that the law in this area is unclear, and that sometimes it is less risky, from a liability perspective, for them to allow attacks to happen than to take additional steps to defend themselves. Can you imagine that? So we make the law clear by giving companies explicit authority to monitor and defend their own networks. Secondly, the bill authorizes the sharing of cyber threat information among private companies. There have been concerns that anti-trust laws prevent companies from cooperating on cyber defense. This bill, in section 702, clearly says: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any private entity may disclose lawfully obtained cybersecurity threat indicators to any other private entity in accordance with this section. Third, the bill authorizes the government, which will largely mean (in practice) the Intelligence Community--I hope the DNI--to share classified information about cyber threats with appropriately cleared organizations outside of the government. Traditionally, only government employees and contractors have been eligible to receive security clearances, and therefore to gain access to national secrets. To put it another way, those with a valid ``need to know'' most security secrets are within the government. That isn't true, though, for cybersecurity. In this case, we cannot restrict classified information tightly within government--the companies that underpin our Nation's economy and way of life have a ``need to know'' about the nature of cyber attacks so they can better secure their systems. It is not sufficient for the government to be able to defend itself against an attack. It is also necessary for companies such as Google, or an institution such as NASDAQ, to be able to protect themselves and to use all possible defenses that we can help provide to them. Under this bill, companies are able to qualify to receive classified information. They will be certified and then able to obtain classified information about what cyber threats to look out for. Fourth, the bill establishes a system through which any private sector entity--whether a power utility, a defense contractor, a telecom company, or others--can share cyber threat information with the government. When it comes to cyber, information sharing must be a two-way street. Oftentimes, the private sector has important information about cyber intrusions that the government doesn't possess. After all, the private sector is the one on the frontlines of incoming cyber assault, so companies are often best able to understand the attack. The private sector should be able to share that information with the government so that the government can protect itself and fulfill its responsibility to warn others about the threat. So let me describe how this bill allows for and encourages that information sharing, and most importantly, let me describe the liability protections that companies receive for doing so. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence, would designate one or more Federal cybersecurity exchanges. We envision that these exchanges would be an existing entity, such as one of the existing Federal cybersecurity centers. Private companies would share cyber threat information with these exchanges directly. These exchanges must be civilian entities, which is important to a number of Senators. They will have procedures in place to share that information as quickly as possible with other parts of the government. The information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. It cannot be used in a regulatory enforcement action. This exchange would serve as a focal point for information sharing with the government. Having a single focal point would establish a single point of contact for the private sector. Otherwise we would have chaos. Some people want multiple points. It is difficult to do and still maintain the security that is necessary. We think this approach solves the problem. Having a single focal point is also more efficient for the government. It would help eliminate stovepipes, because right now there are dozens of different parts of the government receiving information from the private sector about cyber threats they are encountering. It is all over the map. It would also make privacy and civil liberties oversight easier, which I know interests you, Mr. President. I will describe that in a moment. Finally, it should save taxpayers money, because it is more efficient to manage--and that has to be a concern--and oversee the operation of one entity versus many entities. Let me now describe the all-important liability protections that are such a critical part of this. Section 706 of the bill provides liability protection for the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information with the Federal exchange. The bill reads: No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any Federal or State court against any entity [that means a company] acting as authorized by this title, and any such action shall be dismissed promptly for . . . the voluntary disclosure of a lawfully obtained cybersecurity threat indicator to a cybersecurity exchange. That is section 706(a). It is clear as a bell. In other words, a company is immune from lawsuit over sharing cyber threat information with a Federal exchange. The same immunity applies to the following: companies that monitor their own networks; cybersecurity companies that share threat information with their customers; companies that share information with a critical infrastructure owner or operator; and companies that share threat information with other companies, as long as they also share that information with the Federal exchange within a reasonable time. This ``reasonable, good faith'' defense is also available for the use of defensive countermeasures. If a company shared information in a way other than the five ways I have just mentioned, it still receives a legal defense under this bill from suit if the company can make a reasonable, good-faith showing that the information-sharing provisions permitted that sharing. Further, no civil or criminal cause of action can be brought against a company, an officer, an employee, or an agency of a company for the reasonable failure to act on information received through information- sharing mechanisms set up by this bill. Basically--and this is important; please listen--the only way anyone participating in the information-sharing system can be held liable is if they were found to have knowingly violated a provision of the bill or acted in gross negligence. So there are very strong liability protections for anyone who shares information about cyber threats--which is completely voluntary--under this bill. Now, what information will be shared with the exchange? Information that should be shared includes--but is not limited to--malware threat signatures, known malicious Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses, and immediate cyber attack incident details. The exchanges would be able to share this information in as close to real time as possible over networks. That is the only way for the private sector and the government to stay a step ahead of our cyber adversaries. What kind of information can they share? We define this information in our bill as ``cybersecurity threat indicators.'' We define this term to include only information that is ``reasonably necessary'' to describe the technical attributes of cyber attacks. This is not a license for the government to take in and distribute private citizens' information. Rather, it is narrowly tailored to cover information that relates specifically to a cyber attack. In addition to narrowly defining what information can be shared with an exchange, our bill also requires the Federal Government to adopt a very robust privacy and civil liberties oversight regime for information shared under this title. There are multiple layers of oversight from different parts of the Executive Branch, including the Department of Justice, the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as well as the Congress. I wish to direct Members to the privacy and civil liberties protections on pages 185 through 192 of this bill for the litany of procedures, reviews, and reports that are required. We have worked closely with several Senators, including the Presiding Officer, Senator Franken, and Senators Durbin, Coons, Akaka, Blumenthal, and Sanders on these protections, and I really thank them all for their efforts in that regard. I think my colleagues have really helped the bill become a better bill. I would also be remiss if I didn't show my great appreciation of the work and leadership of the majority leader for his unrelenting focus on getting this bill to the floor and making time to have this debate. It is infinitely better having this debate now rather than after a major cyber attack. My greatest worry is that we wouldn't pass something. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. This legislation is unprecedented. It will take some steps. We will find other steps we will need to take. We will need to come back to it and come back to it because technology is moving so quickly. I think this is as important a bill as I have seen in my 20 years in the Senate. I know what is out there. I know what some other countries are doing. I know what some bad actors are doing. The time has come to protect ourselves and take some action. I hope we will have the support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my strong support for the DISCLOSE Act of 2012. This bill is a first step toward restoring some transparency and accountability to our electoral system, an action sorely needed in the wake of the Supreme Court's misguided Citizens United decision. If the DISCLOSE Act is passed by Congress and signed into law it would put in place the following two new campaign disclosure measures: One, it requires third-party groups to disclose their top funding sources those over $10,000 to the Federal Election Commission; and, two, it requires these independent groups to certify that their activities are not coordinated with candidates or political parties. Why are these new disclosure requirements necessary? The DISCLOSE Act is necessary because Citizens United, a narrow 5-4 decision by the Roberts Court, struck down critical parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Let me be clear: Citizens United upended nearly a century of congressional law and overturned two Supreme Court rulings. It is the reason super PAC is now a household phrase, and the decision troubled me greatly. The Court held that the first amendment affords corporations and interest groups the right to spend freely millions, even billions of dollars on election ads to support or defeat a particular candidate. The practical effect of the decision didn't take long to appear. We have already seen how unlimited and opaque special interest money can decide a Presidential primary, and we continue to see the impact during the current general election. The Citizens United decision has opened the door to unlimited, undisclosed corporate and special interest spending in Federal elections. In other words, an individual or a corporation can give tens of millions of dollars to an independent campaign effort to slander, impugn, or oppose a candidate or an issue or to support the same anonymously. Under current law there is no requirement to disclose to the voters or any government agency the names of the individuals who contributed to these campaign efforts. This is total unlimited and anonymous spending. Let me repeat: unlimited spending. It is impossible to exaggerate how far reaching this decision is: it weakens the very essence of our democracy and the integrity of our system of elections. What does this mean in the real world? This means an oil company like ExxonMobil, which earned $41 billion in profits last year, can spend unlimited money to defeat candidates who oppose offshore drilling. It means Academi (the company formerly known as Blackwater) and other defense contractors can spend unlimited sums to elect candidates who view their defense positions favorably. And large banks will be free to use their corporate treasury to attack candidates in favor of financial regulation and consumer protection. During testimony in 2010, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 said it well: It would not take many examples of elections where multimillion corporate expenditures defeat a member of Congress before all members quickly learn the lesson, vote against the corporate interest at stake in a piece of legislation and you run the risk of being hit with a multimillion-dollar corporate ad campaign to defeat you. Since Citizens United, we have seen explosive growth in outside corporate and special-interest expenditures: The fall 2010 midterm elections ushered in the independent third- party groups, which spent a record $300 million during that election cycle. This amount is quadruple the $69 million spent by outside groups in 2006. Nearly three-quarters of political advertising in 2010 came from sources prohibited from spending money in 2006. By the summer of 2008, about $70 million had been spent by third- party groups during the Presidential race. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, outside groups are currently on pace to at least triple that 2008 total. An astonishing $167 million has already been spent as of July 11, 2012. Almost $140 million of this comes from super PACs established in the wake of the Citizens United decision. As of July 11, there are 667 registered super PACs that have already raised more than $244 million. More money is being spent than ever before, and it is clear that these unlimited sums could be a major factor in the 2012 elections. Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported that many independent ads for the general election campaign originate from nonprofit interest groups that do not disclose their donors. The analysis found that politically active nonprofit groups with undisclosed donors have spent more than $24 million in the 2012 cycle on political ads. The public deserves to know who these donors are. The value of transparency was demonstrated vividly in 2010, when Texas-based oil companies funded a ballot measure to repeal California's landmark climate change law, the ``California Climate Change Solutions Act.'' Although the campaign for this measure spent more than $10 million, they were unable to conceal that their funding came from out-of-State sources, led by multimillion-dollar contributions from Texas-based oil companies. This transparency allowed California voters to know the real source of advertisements during the campaign and make a more informed decision. That proposition failed, and, I believe it failed because voters knew who was paying for the ads. Transparency works. It makes a difference. With public confidence in government at a record low, now is the time for more transparency, not less. We must restore confidence in our government. The Supreme Court made its decision in Citizens United, so there isn't much that Congress can do. But the DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to make clear the effects of Citizens United and ensure that our election process remains transparent. The public deserves to know who is funding the super PACs and other groups that are airing political ads. When voters know who paid for an ad, they make more educated decisions. The DISCLOSE Act is a step toward making that reality.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues on the transportation conference for including the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization and for removing the controversial residual risk provision. That provision was a real concern to me and more than a dozen cities and counties in California. It would have required nearly 1 million residents in my State to purchase flood insurance even though they live behind fully functioning levees that meet or exceed Federal safety standards. That provision alone could have quadrupled the number of homeowners in my State who have to buy flood insurance. The flood insurance bill called this low-level risk behind levees ``residual risk.'' It is the risk left over after a levee has been built--the risk of levee failure, in essence. These are levees that homeowners funded with their own tax dollars, and the provision would have forced them to spend even more money. That is just not good policy. And I was proud to add my voice to that of the Senator from Arkansas in strong opposition to including it in the bill. The bottom line is this: Until the residual risk provision was removed, the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization would have had a devastating effect on communities in California and across the Nation. Even homeowners in communities who maintain their levees to Federal safety standards with their own tax dollars would have been forced to pay for Federal flood insurance. I simply could not support such an unfair policy. It sent the message to homeowners and local communities that regardless of their investments in flood protection, it is simply not good enough. That is not the message we should be sending when this country needs to invest more in flood control infrastructure, not when homeowners are struggling to pay their mortgages, not when housing starts are near alltime lows, and not when our economy is still struggling to get back on track. I was not alone in my opposition to the residual risk provision. I received letters from elected officials across the State--Oceanside, Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Angeles, Santa Maria, Stockton, Sacramento, Yuba City. Del Norte, Sutter, Yolo, and Butte Counties were opposed, as well as San Joaquin County. This was not a regional issue. The letters came in from southern California, the central coast, northern California and the Central Valley. In San Joaquin County, in the middle of my State, this provision would have meant 280,000 additional residents had to purchase flood insurance. This is a county where 1 in every 194 homes is in foreclosure--3.3 times the national average. At even $1 a day, this added expense could jeopardize the county's already shaky housing market. The purchase requirement would have covered most of the city of Stockton, with a population of nearly 300,000. This would have further devastated a city that suffered the second highest foreclosure rate in the Nation last year. In Palo Alto, this provision would have required another 5,500 homeowners to buy insurance. In Sutter County, an estimated 28,000 of the 34,308 parcels would have been affected. That is 81.6 percent of all parcels in the county. In Butte County, 14,000 parcels would have been affected. In Los Angeles County, supervisors Mark Ridley Thomas and Don Knabe tell me that at least 200,000 properties and 800,000 residents would have been impacted. These homeowners are currently protected by 130 miles of levees and 18 dams in L.A. County. Many of the affected homeowners live along the Los Angeles River, which isn't really a river at all--it is a concrete channel. And it is very hard to imagine a flood ever occurring there. More than $200 million has been invested to minimize the risk. The federally authorized Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project reinforced levees along the Los Angeles River to protect against floods well beyond a 100-year event. Local taxpayers contributed $55 million to complete this project; Federal contributions totaled another $155 million. This investment was made so that residents could avoid $32 million in yearly flood insurance premiums. With the inclusion of the residual risk provision, homeowners in the area would have once again had to pay flood insurance bills every year. I appreciate the efforts of Senators Cochran and the chairman and ranking member to address this problem, but changes they made to the original draft did not go far enough. Even with their changes, the provision could have further depressed home prices by driving up ownership costs in many areas. Let me be clear: This policy wasn't proposed because homeowners lived behind unsafe levees. These were safe levees that meet Federal standards. Some believe this provision was added to the original bill to restore the fiscal solvency of the program. By bringing in new, low- risk properties, it is true that the fiscal health of the Flood Insurance Program would have improved. But I, for one, oppose propping up the Flood Insurance Program on the backs of constituents who played by the rules. If the goal is to ensure that people are informed about the risks they face, I continue to be willing to work with my colleagues to accomplish that. In fact, California already offers a model for achieving that very goal. The bottom line is this: Even with the changes made to the residual risk provision, the bill would have still required homeowners and businesses protected by certified levees to purchase mandatory flood insurance. Candidly, I was shocked that we even considered adding this provision without a full floor debate because it was not a trivial extension. The bill would have imposed substantial new costs to nearly 1 million homeowners in California alone. Again, I thank my colleagues on the conference committee for removing this provision. This conference report was not the time or place for it to be considered. Now, with the 5-year reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program in place, we will be taking an important step to stabilize our housing market. We have also taken some very responsible steps to put the program back on the path to fiscal solvency. I commend my colleagues for putting together this package of bills. I know they had a tremendous challenge, and I think they have done an exceptional job.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 2422.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I present this amendment on behalf of Senator Kyl, Senator Boxer, and myself. It is a very simple amendment. It maintains a provision from the 2008 farm bill that sets aside $37.5 million for air quality improvement projects. This program has been used to replace old diesel tractor engines with newer, cleaner ones. This improves efficiency for the farmer and air quality in the region. It has helped thousands of farmers comply with EPA, State, and local air quality regulations. In California's Central Valley, we have some of the poorest air quality in the country. It is an EPA extreme nonattainment zone, and the EPA and the State have set very strict standards for emissions. This funding has achieved the equivalent of removing more than 408,000 cars from California highways in the last 5 years. I urge its passage.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2309.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Chambliss and myself. This is a simple amendment. It simply authorizes a study into how we can better cover farmers affected by recalls they did not cause. When a food safety recall occurs--such as spinach, tomatoes, cantaloupe--consumers stop purchasing the product regardless of what farm the food came from. When this happens, producers suffer major financial losses because of a recall they did not cause. This amendment directs the USDA to conduct a study into the feasibility of a crop insurance product that would cover a producer's losses after these kinds of events. The amendment has zero cost, it has bipartisan support, and it is endorsed by United Fresh.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I urge an ``aye'' vote. I don't believe a rollcall vote is necessary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment that the Senate will not be considering amendment No. 2252, the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012. Unanimous consent was required for this amendment to be voted on, but it is my understanding that there were objections to its consideration. That is unfortunate because this was a bipartisan amendment cosponsored by Senators Blumenthal, Scott Brown, Cantwell, Collins, Kerry, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Murray, Sanders, Vitter, and Wyden. The amendment was supported by the vast majority of the egg industry, and it was supported by the vast majority of animal welfare organizations. The major opposition to this amendment came from groups wholly unaffected by it. Without Congressional action, the egg industry in California and the rest of this Nation is very much in jeopardy. Individual State standards threaten to cripple the industry. That is why I introduced this amendment--to give the industry a chance to survive. The amendment would have set a national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens and would have established standards for egg labeling. Let me briefly explain the specifics: The size of new and existing hen cages would have had to be increased over the next 18 years. The practice of depriving hens of food and water to increase egg production would have been outlawed. Minimum air quality standards would have been put in place for hen houses, protecting workers and birds. And clear requirements for egg labeling would have been created, so consumers know whether the eggs they buy come from hens that are caged, housed in enriched cages, cage-free or free range. As I said earlier, this bill is strongly supported by the Nation's largest egg producer organization, the United Egg Producers. And it is supported by the largest animal welfare organization, the Humane Society of the United States. After years of disagreement, the Humane Society and the egg producers decided to work together, and they were able to agree on a reasonable and practical compromise. The text of this amendment is the product of their negotiations. The reason for the compromise is clear: The current laws governing the treatment of egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs vary from State to State. This makes it difficult for producers to do business in multiple States. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 2 with 64 percent of the vote. This initiative requires egg producers to increase cage size so that the birds can stand up and extend their wings. Similar initiatives passed in Michigan, Arizona, Washington, Ohio and Oregon. And there may be more if Federal legislation is not enacted. The result of the varying State laws is that producers will not be able to ship eggs freely across State lines. The amendment would have addressed this problem by setting a single national standard that is consistent with the existing State laws. And it would have given consumers peace of mind knowing that eggs were raised humanely. It should have been a win-win and an example of what can happen when groups decide to work together. But instead, a group of unaffected parties decided to make this amendment a rallying cry, and they spread mis-information about what this amendment would really do and who it would really impact. I understand that many of my colleagues have heard from these other industries. Even though this amendment will not come up, I still want to set the record straight. The first misconception is that this amendment will set precedent beyond egg producers and impact other industries such as pork, beef, or poultry. Let me be clear. This amendment applies only to egg producers and is the result of careful negotiations between the only industry that is impacted and animal welfare groups. Regulations governing eggs date back 30 years and have had no effect on other industries to date. For instance, the FDA has on-farm enforcement authority for egg farms but not for meat or poultry farms. This amendment will not change that. Furthermore, the meat industry has insisted on preemption of State laws and emphasized the importance of national standards for decades. This legislation applies the same principle to the egg industry. Another argument I hear is that this bill will hurt small producers. But small producers--farmers with 3,000 birds or fewer--are exempt from the requirements under this amendment. Even moderate-sized operations, with more than 3,000 birds, have built-in protections--most notably the long phase-in period--up to 18 years. Over such a long period, many producers would have replaced existing cages due to normal wear and tear. This amendment will just require producers to purchase slightly larger cages in the coming years. Even the smallest companies can plan for an investment 18 years out. This amendment will have positive effects for all producers by providing certainty about the rules with which they must comply. All producers, regardless of size, face a disadvantage when there is a complicated web of different State regulations. A third misconception is that this amendment is not based on sound science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The amendment is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, the American Association of Avian Pathologists, the Center for Food Safety, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Multiple studies demonstrate that larger, enriched colony cages result in decreased mortality, decreased contamination, and increased egg production. One survey from Feedstuffs magazine found that hen mortality in larger, enriched cages declined by 45 percent compared to conventional battery cages. The survey also found that the number and quality of eggs per hen improved, from an average of 399 eggs to 421 in enriched cages. The weight-per-case of eggs also increased, from 47.93 pounds to 49.4 pounds. I ask my colleagues to look at the data before jumping to conclusions. This amendment is good for animals and good for the industry. Finally, I want to set the record straight with regard to consumers and egg prices. A new study released last week by the consulting firm Agralytica found that this amendment would not have a substantial effect on consumers. Between 2013 and 2030, egg prices are expected to increase only 1 percent as a result of this amendment. A 1-percent increase translates to about a penny and a half per dozen eggs, or one-eighth of 1 cent per egg. The Agralytica study attributes the low impact to the long phase-in period, giving producers ample time to adjust to the new requirements. The bill has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumers League. And it is important to understand that this amendment captures what is already occurring with consumer demand. Polls indicate broad support for the provisions in this amendment. The survey found that: Consumers support this bill by a 4-to-1 margin; Consumers prefer a Federal standard over State standards by a 2-to-1 margin; and, 92 percent of consumers support the industry transitioning to enriched cages. It is not often that we have the opportunity to enact legislation that helps industry, reflects consumer demand, and is supported by a broad coalition of advocates on both sides of an issue. If my colleagues have any doubts about the support for this bill, take a look at the list of supporters. As of today it is 13 pages long. We wouldn't have gotten this far if it weren't for the strong support and leadership of the United Egg Producers. Without this amendment, the livelihood of the egg producers nationwide will be compromised by the confusing tapestry of State laws. We had the opportunity to fix this problem before more damage is done--so the fact that we are not even going to consider the amendment makes it all the more disappointing. The egg industry was prepared to make these investments, and animal welfare advocates and consumers will approve of the end result. This was a reasonable and widely supported solution to a costly problem. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the issue to have this legislation considered at a later date. The future of the industry is dependent on it, and I am confident we will be able to get there. Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor. Agriculture

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Vice Chairman Chambliss and I are introducing a bill today to authorize funds included in the fiscal year 2012 Defense Appropriations Act that were not previously authorized. Last year, the classified annex to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012, division A of the conference report on H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, added three funding lines for two separate intelligence programs. While those programs are part of the National Intelligence Program, these additional funds were placed in a separate budgetary account, the Military Intelligence Program. The additional funds for these items included in the defense appropriations conference annex were not included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, Public Law 112 87, which authorized the National Intelligence Program budget. Neither were the additional funds for these items included in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, Public Law 112 81, which authorized the Military Intelligence Program budget. This created a situation in which funds for an intelligence program were appropriated but not authorized in statute. Section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act states that funds may be obligated or expended for an intelligence or intelligence-related activity only if those funds were specifically authorized by the Congress for such activities. As a result, the additional funds appropriated for these items have not been specifically authorized as required by section 504 and, therefore, may not be obligated or expended for these intelligence activities. Vice Chairman Chambliss and I have no substantive objections to expending the appropriated funds for these specific programs. However, we hold strongly to the principle that intelligence funds must be authorized if they are to be spent--this is one of the major purposes of the annual intelligence authorization bills. We have discussed this matter with the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and have agreed to seek passage of this legislation to permit them to spend these funds for the purposes identified in the 2012 Defense Appropriations Act. The bill we are introducing today is very simple and quite short. It specifically authorizes the increased funding for these specific items to the extent that they are in excess to the amounts authorized in the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. For reasons of classification, I can't describe the nature of these intelligence programs on the Floor. Any Member, however, is welcome to come to the Intelligence Committee office and receive a briefing on the programs and why the funding is important. I believe this legislation is necessary as a technical correction to permit funds already appropriated to be obligated and expended. I appreciate the work and cooperation of my Vice Chairman Senator Chambliss on this matter and hope this legislation will move quickly to enactment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am in support of this resolution with Senator Boxer congratulating the Los Angeles Kings on their 2012 Stanley Cup Championship. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the players, staff, and fans for obtaining professional hockey's ultimate prize. The Los Angeles Kings have won the Stanley Cup for the first time in the 45-year history of their franchise. Since 1967 the Kings have proudly represented the Los Angeles community with unwavering commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to introduce a joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year. We are proud to be joined by Senators McCain and Durbin in this important effort. Congressman Joe Crowley and Congressman Peter King have introduced this resolution in the House and I thank them for their leadership and support. Over the past year, we have seen some remarkable changes in Burma after years of violence and repression. But the government of Burma still has a lot of work to do to demonstrate to us, the international community, and, above all, the people of Burma that it is truly committed to reform, democratization, and national reconciliation. We should renew this ban for another year as an incentive to the government of Burma to continue on the path it has undertaken and take additional actions. I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma for 15 years. In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the government of Burma had physically harmed, re- arrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive Order. In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time. It was signed into law and has been renewed annually since then. It is set to expire on July 26, which is why a renewal of that ban is now before us today. But unlike past years, we have some good news to report. Burma has begun to take some significant steps towards embracing democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. This is welcome news after so many years of inaction coupled with despotic military rule. How did we get to this point? Recall that in 1990 Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy overwhelmingly won the last free parliamentary elections in Burma, but those results were annulled by the military junta, then named the State Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC. These events marked the beginning of more than two decades of violence, oppression, and human rights abuses. In 2008, the ruling military junta, renamed the State Peace and Development Council, pushed through the ratification of a new constitution, which was drafted without the input of the democratic opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi. Elections for the new parliament were held in November 2010, but Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy were prohibited from participating. The Union Solidarity and Development Party, comprised of ex-military officials, won approximately 80 percent of the seats. The new parliament elected former General and Prime Minister, Thein Sein, as President. Following the elections, Suu Kyi was finally released from house arrest, after being in prison or house arrest for the better part of 20 years. While I was pleased that Suu Kyi was free, I was deeply concerned that nothing had really changed for the people of Burma. Suu Kyi and her party were blocked from participating in the political process. The military maintained its grip on the government and the economy. Democracy advocates and human rights activists remained in prison. Violence against ethnic minority groups continued unabated. Yet, in the past year we have seen more positive change than we had in the past 20 years. Indeed, Burma's new government has taken a number of significant actions in an effort to rejoin the international community. Hundreds of political prisoners were released. New legislation broadening the rights of political and civic associations has been enacted; and negotiations with ethnic minority groups have begun and some cease-fires have taken effect. In addition, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, NLD, were allowed to compete in by-elections for 45 open seats in parliament in April 2012. Suu Kyi and the NLD won 43 of the 44 seats they contested. For those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy, it was a thrilling and deeply moving event. Years of sacrifice and hard work had shown results the people of Burma had spoken with a clear voice in support of freedom and democracy. The U.S. has responded to this reform process in a number of ways. Secretary Clinton traveled to Burma last December and announced the two countries would resume full diplomatic relations. Following the April parliamentary elections, the administration announced that it would nominate Derek Mitchell to be the first U.S. ambassador to Burma in 22 years and suspend sanctions on investment and financial services. I supported these actions. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge the steps Burma has already taken and encourage additional reforms. Some may ask then: why stop there? Given the reforms, why not let the ban on imports simply expire? The fact of the matter is, the reforms are not irreversible and the government of Burma still needs to do more to respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Burma and the international community. First, it must address the dominant role of the military in Burma under the new constitution. The military is guaranteed 25 percent of the seats without elections and remains independent of any civilian oversight. In addition, the Commander-in-Chief of the military has the authority to dismiss the government and rule the country under Martial Law. It goes without saying that such powers are incompatible with a truly democratic government. Second, Burma must stop all violence against ethnic minorities. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Burmese military is continuing attacks in Kachin State, displacing thousands of civilians and killing others. Third, the government must release all political prisoners. I applaud the decision of the Government of Burma to release hundreds of political prisoners, including a number of high-profile democracy and human rights activists. Yet, according to the State Department, hundreds more remain in detention. Unfortunately, the government of Burma maintains there are no more political prisoners. We must keep the pressure on Burma until all democracy and human rights activists are free and able to resume their lives and careers. As we debate renewing the import ban, it is important to consider the advice and counsel of Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition. For her part, Suu Kyi has said that while she does not oppose suspending sanctions, the international community must be cautious. Speaking via Skype to an event in Washington D.C. last month she said: I sometimes feel that people are too optimistic about the scene in Burma. You have to remember that the democratization process in Burma is not irreversible. I have said openly that we can never look upon it as irreversible until such time that the military commits itself to democratization solidly and efficiently. I understand that Suu Kyi has spoken to Senator McConnell directly about this matter and she supports renewing the import ban for another year. I believe that renewing this ban will help keep Burma on the path to full democratization and national reconciliation and support the work of Suu Kyi, the democratic opposition, and the reformists in the ruling government. It will give the administration additional leverage to convince the Burma to stay on the right path. The administration will still have the authority to waive or suspend the import ban as it has suspended sanctions on investment and financial services if the Government of Burma took the appropriate actions. If we let the import ban expire, however, and Burma backslides on reform and democratization, we would have to pass a new law to re- impose the ban. By passing this joint resolution, we ensure that the administration has the flexibility it needs to respond to events in Burma has it as done so with financial services and investment. Suu Kyi herself has argued that ``sanctions have been effective in persuading the government to go for change.'' I think renewing the import ban will push it to go further. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Today I wish to recognize an unsung hero of the U.S. intelligence community and upstanding San Franciscan, Mr. Andrew Liepman, who is retiring from the U.S. Government after 30 years of service. I came to know Andy when he joined the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, as the Deputy Director of Intelligence in 2006. He has served in that position and as Principal Deputy Director for the past 6 years. Andy has been a friend to the Senate Intelligence Committee and a dedicated leader of our Nation's counterterrorism efforts. I am sorry to see him leave the NCTC and the government but wish him the very best as he plots his future course. Andy has had a distinguished career in the intelligence community since he joined the CIA in 1982. He served in multiple positions at the CIA, at the Office of Near East and South Asian Analysis, the Office of Iraq Analysis, and the Office of Terrorism Analysis in the Counterterrorism Center. He also worked in a variety of assignments outside the CIA before coming to the NCTC, including time at the Department of State, the Nonproliferation Center, and the National Intelligence Council. But it was during his time at the NCTC that Andy came to be one of the Nation's top counterterrorism officials and a true leader of the intelligence community. He has worked closely with the NCTC's three Directors: ADM Scott Redd, Michael Leiter, and now Matt Olsen. And he has diligently kept the Senate Intelligence Committee informed on the terrorist threat--as a hearing witness and as a briefer to Senators and staff and also on the phone to describe imminent or breaking counterterrorism operations. When the committee has had to resolve a problem in the counterterrorism arena, whether getting information or fixing processes that weren't working, Andy was usually the person to solve it. He has served with a direct, frank professional manner, although Andy has quite the reputation for being a lively and fun boss as well. Mr. Liepman's legacy is the strength and reputation of the National Counterterrorism Center and particularly its Directorate of Intelligence. Since its creation in 2005, the NCTC has developed into a world-class analytic organization. It produces thousands of reports a year, from hour-to-hour situational reports when terrorist threats are unfolding, to daily analyses, to detailed, comprehensive products. The NCTC leads interagency reviews and speaks for the intelligence community on key intelligence questions. It produces tailored reports to answer policy questions--I recently requested one myself, on whether the Haqqani Network in Pakistan meets the criteria to be named a foreign terrorist organization. Under Andy's leadership, along with the Directors with whom he has worked, the National Counterterrorism Center has also grown to fill the role for which it was created. Among other things, the NCTC now includes Pursuit Groups, formed after the Christmas Day 2009 attempted airline bombing, to make sure that no terrorism lead goes unchecked. The center is the single repository of the government's definitive terrorism databases, which supports the various watchlists that keep suspected terrorists from boarding a plane or crossing the border. The NCTC plays a key role in coordinating the government's preparation and response to terrorist events, enhancing border and transportation security, and sharing terrorism-related intelligence with other intelligence agencies, the rest of the Federal Government, and with State, local, and tribal partners. A lasting reflection of Andy's work is the NCTC workforce itself. Many of its analysts and operators are detailed from around the intelligence community, and these positions have become valued assignments. With the large growth of intelligence personnel working on counterterrorism since September 11, 2001, Andy has been a teacher, mentor, and supervisor for a generation of analysts. People across the intelligence community would seek out positions working for Andy and at the NCTC, and his efforts to develop them into expert professionals is a key reason that the NCTC is capable of the work it does today. I understand that after 30 years in government service and 6 years in the grueling environment of the NCTC, it is time for Andy to move on. I am pleased that he will have some time with his family, his mother Marianne, and his two brothers, who all live in California. It has been a long time since Andy graduated from the University of California at Berkeley--with a degree in forestry, no less--and I wish him well as he heads back to California and wherever else his future may lead. Mr. President, the intelligence community is filled with men and women who serve this Nation with dedication and skill and who are never properly recognized for their efforts and their contribution. I am pleased to be able to honor one of them today and give thanks on behalf of the committee for his career of service.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to introduce a joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year. We are proud to be joined by Senators McCain and Durbin in this important effort. Congressman Joe Crowley and Congressman Peter King have introduced this resolution in the House and I thank them for their leadership and support. Over the past year, we have seen some remarkable changes in Burma after years of violence and repression. But the government of Burma still has a lot of work to do to demonstrate to us, the international community, and, above all, the people of Burma that it is truly committed to reform, democratization, and national reconciliation. We should renew this ban for another year as an incentive to the government of Burma to continue on the path it has undertaken and take additional actions. I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma for 15 years. In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the government of Burma had physically harmed, re- arrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive Order. In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time. It was signed into law and has been renewed annually since then. It is set to expire on July 26, which is why a renewal of that ban is now before us today. But unlike past years, we have some good news to report. Burma has begun to take some significant steps towards embracing democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. This is welcome news after so many years of inaction coupled with despotic military rule. How did we get to this point? Recall that in 1990 Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy overwhelmingly won the last free parliamentary elections in Burma, but those results were annulled by the military junta, then named the State Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC. These events marked the beginning of more than two decades of violence, oppression, and human rights abuses. In 2008, the ruling military junta, renamed the State Peace and Development Council, pushed through the ratification of a new constitution, which was drafted without the input of the democratic opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi. Elections for the new parliament were held in November 2010, but Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy were prohibited from participating. The Union Solidarity and Development Party, comprised of ex-military officials, won approximately 80 percent of the seats. The new parliament elected former General and Prime Minister, Thein Sein, as President. Following the elections, Suu Kyi was finally released from house arrest, after being in prison or house arrest for the better part of 20 years. While I was pleased that Suu Kyi was free, I was deeply concerned that nothing had really changed for the people of Burma. Suu Kyi and her party were blocked from participating in the political process. The military maintained its grip on the government and the economy. Democracy advocates and human rights activists remained in prison. Violence against ethnic minority groups continued unabated. Yet, in the past year we have seen more positive change than we had in the past 20 years. Indeed, Burma's new government has taken a number of significant actions in an effort to rejoin the international community. Hundreds of political prisoners were released. New legislation broadening the rights of political and civic associations has been enacted; and negotiations with ethnic minority groups have begun and some cease-fires have taken effect. In addition, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, NLD, were allowed to compete in by-elections for 45 open seats in parliament in April 2012. Suu Kyi and the NLD won 43 of the 44 seats they contested. For those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy, it was a thrilling and deeply moving event. Years of sacrifice and hard work had shown results the people of Burma had spoken with a clear voice in support of freedom and democracy. The U.S. has responded to this reform process in a number of ways. Secretary Clinton traveled to Burma last December and announced the two countries would resume full diplomatic relations. Following the April parliamentary elections, the administration announced that it would nominate Derek Mitchell to be the first U.S. ambassador to Burma in 22 years and suspend sanctions on investment and financial services. I supported these actions. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge the steps Burma has already taken and encourage additional reforms. Some may ask then: why stop there? Given the reforms, why not let the ban on imports simply expire? The fact of the matter is, the reforms are not irreversible and the government of Burma still needs to do more to respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Burma and the international community. First, it must address the dominant role of the military in Burma under the new constitution. The military is guaranteed 25 percent of the seats without elections and remains independent of any civilian oversight. In addition, the Commander-in-Chief of the military has the authority to dismiss the government and rule the country under Martial Law. It goes without saying that such powers are incompatible with a truly democratic government. Second, Burma must stop all violence against ethnic minorities. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Burmese military is continuing attacks in Kachin State, displacing thousands of civilians and killing others. Third, the government must release all political prisoners. I applaud the decision of the Government of Burma to release hundreds of political prisoners, including a number of high-profile democracy and human rights activists. Yet, according to the State Department, hundreds more remain in detention. Unfortunately, the government of Burma maintains there are no more political prisoners. We must keep the pressure on Burma until all democracy and human rights activists are free and able to resume their lives and careers. As we debate renewing the import ban, it is important to consider the advice and counsel of Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition. For her part, Suu Kyi has said that while she does not oppose suspending sanctions, the international community must be cautious. Speaking via Skype to an event in Washington D.C. last month she said: I sometimes feel that people are too optimistic about the scene in Burma. You have to remember that the democratization process in Burma is not irreversible. I have said openly that we can never look upon it as irreversible until such time that the military commits itself to democratization solidly and efficiently. I understand that Suu Kyi has spoken to Senator McConnell directly about this matter and she supports renewing the import ban for another year. I believe that renewing this ban will help keep Burma on the path to full democratization and national reconciliation and support the work of Suu Kyi, the democratic opposition, and the reformists in the ruling government. It will give the administration additional leverage to convince the Burma to stay on the right path. The administration will still have the authority to waive or suspend the import ban as it has suspended sanctions on investment and financial services if the Government of Burma took the appropriate actions. If we let the import ban expire, however, and Burma backslides on reform and democratization, we would have to pass a new law to re- impose the ban. By passing this joint resolution, we ensure that the administration has the flexibility it needs to respond to events in Burma has it as done so with financial services and investment. Suu Kyi herself has argued that ``sanctions have been effective in persuading the government to go for change.'' I think renewing the import ban will push it to go further. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the nomination of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Hurwitz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is the busiest Federal appellate court in the Nation. It has over 1,400 appeals pending per three-judge panel. This is the most of any circuit, and it is over two times the average of other circuits combined. Think of that: It is twice as heavily busy with cases as the average of the other circuits combined. The Judicial Conference of the United States has declared each Ninth Circuit vacancy a judicial emergency. So today we are considering a nominee to a judicial emergency vacancy. The nominee is Justice Andrew Hurwitz of the Arizona Supreme Court, and he is very well respected. He is seasoned. He has over 25 years of practical experience and 9 years on the State supreme court. He has the strong support of the two Republican Senators from his home State, Jon Kyl and John McCain. Candidly, I am surprised that a cloture vote is necessary. This body should be able to confirm this nominee without controversy. So I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and to support this nomination. Justice Hurwitz earned his bachelor's degree from Princeton University, Phi Beta Kappa, in 1968. He earned his law degree from Yale Law School in 1972 where he was note and comment editor of the Yale Law Journal. Following graduation, Justice Hurwitz clerked for three distinguished Federal judges: Jon O. Newman, then of the District of Connecticut; Joseph Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States. Following these three clerkships, Justice Hurwitz worked in private practice for over 25 years in Phoenix, AZ, where he represented clients in State courts, Federal courts, and administrative agencies. Hurwitz's clients have included AT&T, Lucent Technologies, ABC, Clorox, the city of Phoenix, PGA Golf, the Arizona State Compensation Fund, various Native American tribes, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the Council of State Governments. That is a wide and diverse cross-section of companies in our country. Hurwitz has tried more than 40 cases to final judgment. That is actually more than most appellate court judges who have been before us. He has argued numerous cases before the Ninth Circuit and other State and Federal appellate courts and argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Hurwitz was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2003, where he has built a reputation as a fair-minded and highly skilled jurist. As Senator Kyl said in the Judiciary Committee: Everyone who has practiced in Arizona before the Arizona Supreme Court on which Justice Hurwitz sits . . . is complimentary of his legal skills, temperament, and he has received widespread support [in Arizona] for his appointment . . . to the ninth circuit. Justice Hurwitz was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve as a member of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence and was reappointed to that position by Chief Justice Roberts. In my view, Justice Hurwitz is one of the most qualified circuit court nominees I have seen, and I have served on the Judiciary Committee for 19 years now. There are two areas of dispute I would like to address. First, some have criticized Justice Hurwitz on the death penalty. As a Democrat who supports the death penalty, I can tell you these charges are simply wrong. On the Arizona Supreme Court, Justice Hurwitz has voted to uphold numerous death sentences. Just this year, in State v. Cota, he authored an opinion for the court upholding the death sentence of a man who killed a married couple who had hired him to perform house work. He joined a similar opinion this year in State v. Nelson which upheld the death penalty for a man who hit his 14-year-old niece on the head with a mallet. Last year, in State v. Manuel, he joined an opinion upholding a death sentence for a man who shot and killed the owner of a pawn shop in Phoenix. Justice Hurwitz did argue a case in the Supreme Court called Ring v. Arizona, which established that a jury, not a judge, must find the facts necessary to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty. The Ring decision was 7 to 2. It is part of a line of cases--beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey in 2000--in which Justices Scalia and Thomas have been at the forefront of expanding defendants' rights to have certain facts found by juries, not judges. In fact, Justices Scalia and Thomas concurred in the decision. Justice Breyer dissented. So it is not something that breaks down along ideological lines. There is simply no question Justice Hurwitz will follow the law on the death penalty if he is confirmed. He has done so for the last 9 years. The second issue is a Law Review article Hurwitz wrote in 2002 about a decision by a district court judge 40 years ago that may have influenced--I say may have influenced--the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. In response, I would first say, as Senator Kyl said in the Judiciary Committee, that Justice Hurwitz did not express his personal views on the Roe decision. Second, the real question is how Justice Hurwitz has comported himself as a judge because we have long years to look at. By all accounts, his record has been superb. Not once has an opinion he has written been overturned by a higher court. Let me repeat: Not once has he been overturned by a higher court. Yet it is my understanding that 60 votes is hard-pressed to get in this body, and that is hard for me to understand. As Senator Kyl has also said, Justice Hurwitz's ``opinions obviously carefully adhere to the law . . . [and] that is what most of us are looking for in judicial nominations.'' And that is absolutely right. In the Judiciary Committee I listened to Senator Kyl's strong defense of Justice Hurwitz. Jon Kyl is not a liberal; he is a rock-rib conservative. I said at the time that Senator Kyl's statement was ``music to my ears'' because I thought we finally might be getting away from this effort to find a single statement or speech in someone's background to use to condemn him or her for all time. In this case, it is a district judge's decision from 40 years ago and a Law Review article. If we have 41 Members who are going to vote against this man because he wrote a Law Review article about a case decided 40 years ago, that is a real problem, particularly because this man is a supreme court justice of the State of Arizona, and particularly because both Republican Senators support him. I, as a Democrat--and Democrats on our side in the Judiciary Committee--also support him. There may be something else that somebody wrote 40 years ago in college--and we have seen some of this too. It goes on and on, and it is wrong. I agree with Senator Kyl that this is a highly qualified nominee for the busiest circuit in the country and a circuit that has a judicial emergency. So I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture to support Justice Hurwitz's nomination by virtue of education, by virtue of training, by virtue of private practice, and by virtue of court record, his record is unimpeachable, and I stand by that. So I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lilia McFarland, a member of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to stand in support of equal pay for equal work. Forty-nine years ago, the Equal Pay Act was signed into law. Yet, gender-based wage discrimination remains a serious problem for women in the U.S. workplace and it has very real implications for their families. Today we will vote on legislation that is a matter of basic justice and fairness. The Paycheck Fairness Act will update the Equal Pay Act by closing loopholes and strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination by employers. Without a doubt, the Equal Pay Act has helped women achieve significant progress in the workplace. However, the gender pay gap remains just as real today as it was almost 50 years ago. It is true: Although women make up about half of today's workforce, women still earn only about 77 percent of what men earn. That's wrong. Women in the workplace, the women who head households or earn the only paycheck in a family--the women in the trenches of this economy-- know this fundamental truth: The gender wage gap exists--it is not a myth. It has implications for families and our economy. It has been with us too long and we have a chance and obligation to fix it. I have heard lots of stories about paycheck disparities in California. I know my colleagues have heard similar stories from women in their states. In-depth studies reveal the existence of gender pay disparities, regardless of age, occupation, education or marital status. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, the pay gap has been narrowing by one-half of a cent every year since 1963. This means, without Congressional action, women will not achieve pay parity with men until the year 2056. Let me share a story about a woman from Sylmar, CA who worked at a local retail store. She wrote me a letter and said: I know firsthand about unequal pay for equal jobs. I worked with two male associates, all doing the same job. I was hired at 25 cents more an hour than the two males because I had more job experience. Less than six months later, I learned that one of the males had received a `merit raise' which put his hourly rate higher than mine. He had been absent many times. When I asked for a merit raise, based on no absences, good customer comments and always going above and beyond in my job, I was told by male management: ``You don't deserve a merit raise.'' The discrimination was obvious. In California, there are 5.3 million children--2.6 million households--wholly or partially dependent on a mother's earnings. According to recent census estimates, in California, the average pay for a woman working full time, year round is $41,302 per year, while the average for a man is $49,453. This means that women are paid 84 cents for every dollar paid to men. Put another way, this amounts to a yearly gap of $8,151 between full- time working men and women in the State. The figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earned about 62 cents and Latinas only 57 cents for every $1 earned by a male. As a group, full-time working women in California lose approximately $36 billion each year due to the wage gap. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, if the wage gap were eliminated, a working woman in California would have enough money for approximately 62 more weeks of food, four more months of mortgage and utilities payments, seven more months of rent, 25 more months of family health insurance premiums or 1,914 additional gallons of gas. Equal pay in not only a women's issue--millions of families rely on a woman's paycheck for its family's earnings. Women are critical to driving this economy. So ensuring equal pay for equal work benefits the entire economy. When women earn less than men, fewer dollars are available to go back into the economy as consumer spending. As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, the Paycheck Fairness Act would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination. Let's pass this commonsense bill and move one step closer to paycheck fairness.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, with Senators Blumenthal, Brown, Cantwell, Merkley, Vitter, and Wyden, that will codify an agreement reached by the nation's largest egg producer organization, the United Egg Producers, and the largest animal welfare organization, the Humane Society of the United States. In its most simple terms, the legislation sets a national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs. As of today, 6 States, including California, have set their own standards about how egg-laying hens should be raised, and 18 other States allow citizen ballot initiatives could initiate similar laws in the future. These State standards will make it difficult for egg producers to freely ship across State lines. Starting in 2015, eggs produced in Iowa, Indiana and other egg- exporting states can no longer be shipped to California because the hens will have been raised in cages that do not meet California's standards. Different standards in Michigan and Ohio will take effect later, further adding to the patchwork of regulations. As States with disparate standards continue to protect their own egg producers by banning the sale of eggs from States with lower or no standards, a complicated web of State laws will impair interstate commerce. I have met with a number of egg producers and their concerns vary. For some producers, different regulations increase costs because new cages must be designed for each State in which they operate. Other producers fear that egg prices in states without regulations will plummet as imports flood their market. Some egg producers selling to national grocery stores will have to produce eggs that meet different standards in different States. Concerns don't end with producers. Consumers can expect to see higher prices at grocery stores and restaurants will have to pay more for every egg they prepare. Millions of individuals, including myself, are concerned about the living conditions of these animals. That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. The United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States worked for over a year to reach this compromise, and I believe it is one that strikes a very fair balance. Producers must enlarge cages for egg-laying hens and allow space for the birds to engage in natural behaviors such as nesting and perching. Producers will have up to 18 years to meet this standard and make the required investments. The legislation will officially outlaw the practice of starving chickens to increase egg-production, a cruel practice that is rarely used today, and one with consensus to end. The bill will also lead to improved air quality in hen-houses by prohibiting excessive ammonia levels and it requires humane euthanasia of spent hens. This is also already common practice in the industry. At its heart, this legislation is about protecting the future of the egg industry. The egg industry brought this legislation to Congress and has asked us to help them implement the uniform regulations needed to survive and grow. With this legislation, egg producers will have the market certainty they need and a reasonable timetables to make the required changes. Producers need these uniform national standards so they can invest in new cages without facing the risk of more stringent state laws rendering their investments moot. The egg industry is prepared to make these investments, many of which can be accomplished during the normal course of replacing aged equipment. In addition to promoting industry stability, this bill will save jobs and strengthen the economy. Furthermore, consumers are already embracing these reforms. Polls indicate broad support for the provisions in this bill and for humane treatment of egg-laying hens in general. A recent survey found that 64 percent of Americans say that these newer facilities should be required through Federal legislation. A majority, 58 percent, of American consumers also support a national standard. The survey found 92 percent of consumers support the industry transitioning to these new enriched cages. Candidly, it is not often that we see this sort of compromise in Washington. Two groups that have been in fundamental conflict for years sat down and reached a deal. The egg industry and the Humane Society are lock-step in their support for this bill. They are joined in endorsing the bill by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Consumer Federation of America. Even though the egg industry supports this bill, some still target this legislation as anti-agriculture they suggest the legislation will somehow be applied to, or set a precedent for Federal regulation of other industries. That is simply not the case. I want to be clear: requirements in the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012 only apply to the production of eggs. The bill will not affect any other agricultural product including beef, pork, poultry and milk. This legislation is a responsible compromise between those who advocate for more humane treatment for egg-laying hens and those who put breakfast on our tables. I hope that even in this partisan climate we can enact this commonsense and widely endorsed legislation. This legislation protects restaurants, bakers, food processors and American consumers from unnecessarily high egg prices. It protects egg producers from having eggs they can't sell. This legislation is a reasonable, widely-supported solution to a real, costly and growing problem. The bill has the support of the United Egg Producers, which represents nearly 90 percent of the Nation's egg industry, as well as nine state and regional egg producer groups, more than 100 individual egg farms and more than 880 other family farms. I urge you to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, with Senators Blumenthal, Brown, Cantwell, Merkley, Vitter, and Wyden, that will codify an agreement reached by the nation's largest egg producer organization, the United Egg Producers, and the largest animal welfare organization, the Humane Society of the United States. In its most simple terms, the legislation sets a national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs. As of today, 6 States, including California, have set their own standards about how egg-laying hens should be raised, and 18 other States allow citizen ballot initiatives could initiate similar laws in the future. These State standards will make it difficult for egg producers to freely ship across State lines. Starting in 2015, eggs produced in Iowa, Indiana and other egg- exporting states can no longer be shipped to California because the hens will have been raised in cages that do not meet California's standards. Different standards in Michigan and Ohio will take effect later, further adding to the patchwork of regulations. As States with disparate standards continue to protect their own egg producers by banning the sale of eggs from States with lower or no standards, a complicated web of State laws will impair interstate commerce. I have met with a number of egg producers and their concerns vary. For some producers, different regulations increase costs because new cages must be designed for each State in which they operate. Other producers fear that egg prices in states without regulations will plummet as imports flood their market. Some egg producers selling to national grocery stores will have to produce eggs that meet different standards in different States. Concerns don't end with producers. Consumers can expect to see higher prices at grocery stores and restaurants will have to pay more for every egg they prepare. Millions of individuals, including myself, are concerned about the living conditions of these animals. That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. The United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States worked for over a year to reach this compromise, and I believe it is one that strikes a very fair balance. Producers must enlarge cages for egg-laying hens and allow space for the birds to engage in natural behaviors such as nesting and perching. Producers will have up to 18 years to meet this standard and make the required investments. The legislation will officially outlaw the practice of starving chickens to increase egg-production, a cruel practice that is rarely used today, and one with consensus to end. The bill will also lead to improved air quality in hen-houses by prohibiting excessive ammonia levels and it requires humane euthanasia of spent hens. This is also already common practice in the industry. At its heart, this legislation is about protecting the future of the egg industry. The egg industry brought this legislation to Congress and has asked us to help them implement the uniform regulations needed to survive and grow. With this legislation, egg producers will have the market certainty they need and a reasonable timetables to make the required changes. Producers need these uniform national standards so they can invest in new cages without facing the risk of more stringent state laws rendering their investments moot. The egg industry is prepared to make these investments, many of which can be accomplished during the normal course of replacing aged equipment. In addition to promoting industry stability, this bill will save jobs and strengthen the economy. Furthermore, consumers are already embracing these reforms. Polls indicate broad support for the provisions in this bill and for humane treatment of egg-laying hens in general. A recent survey found that 64 percent of Americans say that these newer facilities should be required through Federal legislation. A majority, 58 percent, of American consumers also support a national standard. The survey found 92 percent of consumers support the industry transitioning to these new enriched cages. Candidly, it is not often that we see this sort of compromise in Washington. Two groups that have been in fundamental conflict for years sat down and reached a deal. The egg industry and the Humane Society are lock-step in their support for this bill. They are joined in endorsing the bill by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Consumer Federation of America. Even though the egg industry supports this bill, some still target this legislation as anti-agriculture they suggest the legislation will somehow be applied to, or set a precedent for Federal regulation of other industries. That is simply not the case. I want to be clear: requirements in the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012 only apply to the production of eggs. The bill will not affect any other agricultural product including beef, pork, poultry and milk. This legislation is a responsible compromise between those who advocate for more humane treatment for egg-laying hens and those who put breakfast on our tables. I hope that even in this partisan climate we can enact this commonsense and widely endorsed legislation. This legislation protects restaurants, bakers, food processors and American consumers from unnecessarily high egg prices. It protects egg producers from having eggs they can't sell. This legislation is a reasonable, widely-supported solution to a real, costly and growing problem. The bill has the support of the United Egg Producers, which represents nearly 90 percent of the Nation's egg industry, as well as nine state and regional egg producer groups, more than 100 individual egg farms and more than 880 other family farms. I urge you to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, at 5:30 we will be voting on the nomination of Paul Watford for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I would like to say a few words about him at this time. But before I do, I think Members might want to consider the fact that the Ninth Circuit is by far the busiest U.S. circuit in the Nation. It has over 1,400 appeals pending per three-judge panel. That is the most of any circuit. It is over two times the average of other circuits combined. The Judicial Conference of the United States has declared each Ninth Circuit vacancy a ``judicial emergency.'' So today we are, in fact, filling one of the seats which is a judicial emergency. The candidate is Paul Watford, a Ninth Circuit nominee with stellar credentials and support across the political spectrum. I am delighted that cloture was vitiated so the vote will be directly on his nomination, and it is anticipated that he will be confirmed without controversy. Mr. Watford earned his bachelor's degree from the University of California Berkeley in 1989 and his law degree from UCLA in 1994 where he was editor of the UCLA Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif. After finishing law school, Mr. Watford clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, an appointee of President Reagan's. He then clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Following his two clerkships, he spent a year in private practice at the prestigious firm of Munger, Tolles, and Olson and then moved into public service as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles in 1997. There he prosecuted a broad array of crimes, including bank robberies, firearms offenses, immigration violations, alien smuggling, and various types of fraud. He later served in the major fraud section of the criminal division, focusing on white collar crime. Among his many cases, he prosecuted the first case of an online auction fraud on eBay in California. During his tenure as a Federal prosecutor, Mr. Watford appeared in court frequently, typically several times per week. He tried seven cases to verdict, and he worked on numerous Ninth Circuit appeals, arguing four of them. In one such case, a cocaine dealer had already convinced the State court that a drug seizure had violated his fourth amendment rights. Mr. Watford prevailed on appeal in forcing the dealer to forfeit over $100,000 in drug trafficking proceeds. In 2000, Watford rejoined Munger, Tolles, and Olson where he is currently a partner. This is one of the premiere appellate law firms in California. Paul Watford specializes in appellate litigation at the firm. Like most major law firms, Munger's docket is dominated by business litigation. Thus the focus of Mr. Watford's work has been appellate litigation for business clients. For example, he represented Verizon Communications in a consumer class action case. He represented the technology company, Rambus, in two complex patent infringement cases. He also represented Shell Oil in an antitrust case. Mr. Watford and his colleagues at Munger won a 9-to-0 reversal on behalf of Shell Oil in the Supreme Court. He has also represented numerous other American businesses, such as Coca-Cola and Berkshire Hathaway, as well as business executives and municipal government agencies. In total he has argued 21 cases in the appellate courts, and he has appeared as counsel in over 20 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. So he is well equipped. His extensive experience as a prosecutor and private practitioner, including his specialty in appellate work, will serve the Ninth Circuit extremely well. Mr. Watford is also regarded by attorneys on both sides of the aisle, including conservative Republicans who praise him for his keen intellect and fair-minded approach to the law. He has been endorsed by two former presidents of the Los Angeles chapter of the Federalist Society. One, Jeremy Rosen, says Watford is, ``open-minded and fair,'' and a ``brilliant person and a gifted appellate lawyer.'' The other, Henry Weissman, says that although he ``do[es] not agree with President Obama on issues, [he] completely agree[s] with his nomination of Paul Watford.'' So that is a good thing. Daniel Collins, who clerked for Justice Scalia and served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Bush Justice Department, says Watford ``embodies the definition of judicial temperament--very level- headed and even keeled.'' Thirty-two Supreme Court clerks from the term when Watford clerked for Justice Ginsburg have written in support of the nomination. These include clerks from every Justice on the Court at that time, including all of Justice Scalia's clerks from that year, as well as several from Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, and Kennedy. I find that quite amazing. A group of over 40 former clerks for Judge Kozinski have also written in support of Watford's nomination. This group includes numerous individuals with unquestionable conservative credentials. Many clerked for Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy. Several, such as Steve Engel, Charles Duggan, and Ted Ullyot also served in the Bush administration, including in the White House Counsel's Office and the leadership of the Justice Department. Watford also has strong support in the business community. The general counsels of leading American corporations, including Google, Mattel, Verizon, and CIRCOR, have also written in support of Mr. Watford. They say Watford ``is exactly the kind of individual that any plaintiff or defendant--person, business, or government--would welcome deciding their case.'' In short, Paul Watford is truly both an excellent and distinguished choice for the Ninth Circuit. He is extremely bright. He is experienced at the trial and appellate level and in both civil and criminal cases. He is uniquely respected for his intellect and judgment, and he has broad support across the political spectrum and in the business community. Maybe this is the reason cloture was vitiated. He is not filibusterable. I hope people see the fine and keen intellect this man is, and he should have a very large vote. If confirmed, he would be one of just two African-American active judges on the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, by far the busiest circuit in the Nation, urgently needs him to begin his service. As I said the Ninth Circuit is a judicial emergency. This will fill one vacancy. So I urge my colleagues to vote at 5:30, in 15 minutes, for Mr. Watford's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an error in the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2004. The intent of section 121 of the 2004 law was to put a parcel on the northern edge of the Barona reservation, in San Diego County, into trust for the tribe. Unfortunately the bill identified a parcel on the southern edge of the reservation and put that in trust. The mistake is compounded by the fact that the land north of the reservation is owned by a non-Indian property owner. The landowner now cannot sell or modify his property without permission from the tribe and the Department of the Interior. The Barona Band of Mission Indians Land Transfer Clarification Act corrects this mistake. The bill removes the private property on the northern side of the reservation from trust status; and the bill places the correct parcel in trust for the Barona tribe on the southern edge of the reservation. The Barona Land Transfer Clarification Act closely follows an agreement brokered by Congressman Duncan Hunter and his staff. Congressman Hunter, and former Congressman Duncan Hunter, Sr. before him, brought the Band, the County of San Diego and the neighboring homeowners to the negotiating table. The agreement they reached, embodied in this legislation, is a product of compromise. The end product is something that everyone agrees is better than the status quo. That is how compromise works. The Tribe supports the legislation. The Homeowners and the County have reviewed and approved the language. For the County and Homeowners, the findings section is the most important part of the bill. This section addresses the ongoing water dispute between the tribe and its neighbors. The fourth finding is particularly important if--the tribe uses the land to bring additional water into the area, the effort is only authorized if it also addresses the water needs of the neighboring off- reservation property. Homeowners in the area have noticed diminished groundwater supplies in recent years, and they have looked to the tribe to help resolve the issue. In this arid part of the State, this is a significant concession on the part of the Tribe, and it is the cornerstone of the entire agreement. I am hopeful that we can quickly pass this legislation and undo this unfortunate mistake. By enacting the Barona Land Transfer Clarification Act, all parties will gain some certainty that their issue will be resolved. Finally, I am proud that my colleague from California Senator Boxer, and Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka have joined me as original cosponsors. Once this legislation is sent over to the House, I know that Congressman Hunter and the San Diego Delegation stand ready to join our fight to resolve this issue. This strong, bi-partisan, bi-cameral support gives me confidence that this simple, straightforward piece of legislation is one that the Senate can pass very quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.