Dianne Feinstein

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, for about the past week I have been very concerned and involved in a situation involving Mongolia. It is a small country. It has been a democratic country for the past 20 years. At one time it was part of the Soviet bloc but no longer. I have talked to many people at the State Department, the Vice President's office, the chairman of Brookings, the former Ambassador to Mongolia. I come to the floor to address the situation of Mr. Nambaryn Enkhbayar, the former President of Mongolia from 2005 to 2009. I was in Mongolia when he was President and had the opportunity to get to know him as a distinguished international statesman who, sadly, is facing so-called allegations of corruption in the country he led so well and so long. Mr. Enkhbayar, in addition to being President of the country, was previously Prime Minister and has held many other leadership positions in government over the years. As President, he designed and effectively executed Mongolia's ``third neighbor'' policy of diversifying its diplomatic and economic relations beyond the strong ties with its immediate neighbors, China and Russia. Specifically, Mr. Enkhbayar personally emphasized relations with the United States; with our Asian allies such as Japan, Korea and Australia; and with Europe. At the request of the Bush Administration, he dispatched Mongolian troops to fight alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, held two summits with President Bush and concluded Mongolia's Millennium Challenge pact in 2007. Under his leadership, the Mongolian Government strengthened its international peace-keeping role with the United Nations, joined and then took a leading role in the Community of Democracies, provided humanitarian transit for North Korean refugees through Mongolia, and developed important intelligence exchanges with American counterparts. Domestically, Mr. Enkhbayar contributed to Mongolia's political maturation with his graceful concession and cooperation after he lost his re-election bid in the 2009 presidential election to Mr. Elbegdorj, the current President of Mongolia. This smooth transition of the presidency from one party to another at that time did much to solidify the foundations of democratic politics in the country. Sadly, the atmosphere in Mongolia has become less conducive to such fair play this year, as Mongolia approaches an important parliamentary election in June. After retiring from politics with the end of his presidential term in 2009, Mr. Enkhbayar re-entered the public arena again this year with the formation of a third major party and the fielding of a slate of candidates, including for himself, for the parliament. Just as the campaigning for this election was starting in earnest a month ago, Mr. Enkhbayar was arrested under charges brought by the Anti-Corruption Agency of Mongolia, an organization established while he was president. It is important to say that building practices of good governance and challenging corrupt practices form an important benchmark of achievement for any developing democracy. We should applaud vigorous efforts to combat corrupt practices in the country. That is needed. But it is equally important that those fighting corruption avoid a sense of involvement in such practices themselves. Certainly, to say the least, the bringing of charges against a political leader in the midst of an important election campaign is unusual. As extraordinary as the timing of the charges, the process of Mr. Enkhbayar's subsequent arrest and incarceration was of even more concern. Mr. Enkhbayar was ostensibly wanted for questioning, but on the evening and early morning of April 12 13, he was forcefully removed from his home by several hundred law enforcement officials and without any resistance on his part and then spirited away for confinement in a remote prison where all access was severely limited. In incarceration, Mr. Enkhbayar suffered further indignities and irregularities of due process. He had inadequate access to family and counsel. He reportedly received abusive verbal treatment. After initiating a ``dry hunger strike'' without liquids to protest these circumstances--which is his right under international law as a prisoner--he was denied adequate medical treatment and endured attempts to force feed him. Only after his health was at risk, Mr. Enkhbayar was released on bail this morning so he could receive the medical treatment he so desperately needs. It is my hope he will be well enough to continue with his campaign for parliament. Yet I am deeply concerned that he still may be charged with corruption, allegations that have been deemed by one of his attorneys to be ``insubstantial, stale and petty.'' Our concern now should be, in the first instance, Mr. Enkhbayar's health and even his physical survival of this ordeal. Secondly, we need to press for due process in the adjudication of his case and ensure he is afforded his full rights to a speedy, transparent and fair hearing of the charges, with full legal assistance with his defense. We cannot be sure at this time that either of these considerations, the minimum that is owed any citizen or any human being under the rule of law in a democracy, can be secured. So I call upon the authorities of Mongolia to announce that the procedures and schedule for adjudication of his case will proceed and that President Enkhbayar will be accorded full due process rights to which he is entitled. To do less would be to reinforce fears the process employed here is politically driven and meant exclusively to remove Mr. Enkhbayar from participation in the parliamentary election now underway. Finally, this brings me to a larger issue concerning fears for the fate of Mongolian democracy and for the now strong relationship between Mongolia and the United States. Mongolia has been rightly acclaimed for the extraordinary progress it has made in building democratic practices and institutions since the collapse of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. Indeed, Mongolia is the only successful, functioning democracy from the Pacific Ocean to Eastern Europe through the entire expanse of inner Asia. A small country, due to its achievement, has become a country of large significance on the world stage--the best argument that a free and brave people can move their country from authoritarianism to democracy in a relatively short period of time. Having done so, Mongolians have enjoyed an extraordinary degree of support and attention from the outside world, led by our country, the United States. The Mongolian-American relationship now encompasses Mongolia's impressive economic potential as it develops its rich mineral resources with the help of foreign partners, many of them American companies with a strong interest in investment there. However, all this promise could be negatively impacted by the emergence of the practices we have seen in the case of Mr. Enkhbayar. The chill of intimidation is felt by every Mongolian citizen, for if such treatment can be applied to a former President and still popular leader, no one is safe. And then such harsh treatment tends to bring reciprocity, and the country is in danger of falling into a vicious cycle of political score settling. For the sake of Mongolia and the future of its people, the country's leaders must step away from this risk immediately. It is equally true that once having lost one's good reputation, it is almost impossible to restore it. There is still time for Mongolia's authorities to correct a dangerous turn of events probably no one expected or wanted. There are many friends abroad, including this Senator, who pray they will do so. Should the troubling circumstance of Mr. Enkhbayar's case continue, it would thereafter be impossible for Mongolia's friends in America and around the world in other democracies to continue speaking with the hope, promise, and optimism for the country's future with which we have for the last two decades. Much is at stake in Mongolia now. Its political leaders and people have been wise and skillful in choosing the right course in many times of challenges and crises in the past. I call upon our friends there to help their country, their supporters, and themselves by taking the humane and lawful actions that are needed now to reclaim their reputation at the forefront of the communities of democracies. I hope it has been obvious that I speak as a friend--a concerned friend--but one who wishes Mongolia well. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I can't thank the Senator enough. I am very worried about this leak. I was reading the London news clips, and as the Senator knows, I chair the Senate Intelligence Committee. I believe I can speak for the leadership of both committees in saying we have not been briefed. This has been very closely held because of the seriousness of the operation. And to see what is now in the papers, which essentially endangers the asset, puts him in fear of his life, tells our allies we cannot be trusted to carry out a mission without leaking that mission and also thereby alerting al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula that they need to increase their security to prevent penetration--it is, I think, the most serious leak certainly in the time I have been chairman of the committee. I thank the Senator for raising it and for the Senator's solidarity in that belief.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Hutchison, to introduce bipartisan legislation that would expand No Child Left Behind professional development funding to include training for teachers and school personnel on how to recognize signs of sexual abuse in students. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 695,000 children were victims of maltreatment in 2010. Approximately 9.2 percent, or 63,940 children, were victims of sexual abuse; this is an increase from 7.6 percent in 2009. Recent events have shown that warning signs of sexual abuse in children are being missed. The vast majority of States mandate that teachers report suspicions of child abuse, yet not all States require teachers to participate in training. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 60 percent of all reports of child abuse and neglect are made by professionals, yet only 16 percent of abuse and neglect is reported by education personnel. Given the amount of time teachers and school personnel spend with children, it is of absolute importance that the warning signs of child sexual abuse be identified, reported, and acted on. It is critical to make sure all school personnel have access to training on how to recognize child sexual abuse. The Helping Schools Protect Our Children Act of 2012 expands the list of allowable uses for Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, Title II funding to permit States to use this funding to train teachers, principals, and other school personnel on how to recognize child sexual abuse. Under current law, Title II provides grants to States for a variety of purposes related to recruitment, retention, and professional development of K 12 teachers and principals. Our bill would allow professional development funds in schools to be used to provide teachers with the tools to recognize child sexual abuse. I am proud that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, and my colleague Senator Frank Lautenberg have joined me as original cosponsors on this bill. It is essential that as mandated reporters, school personnel should have the proper training to recognize child abuse. When there are no witnesses, what happens behind closed doors in an abusive home can scar a child for a lifetime. The more we learn to recognize the signs of abuse or neglect, the better we will foster a safe environment for young people to learn and grow. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Hutchison, to introduce bipartisan legislation that would expand No Child Left Behind professional development funding to include training for teachers and school personnel on how to recognize signs of sexual abuse in students. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 695,000 children were victims of maltreatment in 2010. Approximately 9.2 percent, or 63,940 children, were victims of sexual abuse; this is an increase from 7.6 percent in 2009. Recent events have shown that warning signs of sexual abuse in children are being missed. The vast majority of States mandate that teachers report suspicions of child abuse, yet not all States require teachers to participate in training. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 60 percent of all reports of child abuse and neglect are made by professionals, yet only 16 percent of abuse and neglect is reported by education personnel. Given the amount of time teachers and school personnel spend with children, it is of absolute importance that the warning signs of child sexual abuse be identified, reported, and acted on. It is critical to make sure all school personnel have access to training on how to recognize child sexual abuse. The Helping Schools Protect Our Children Act of 2012 expands the list of allowable uses for Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, Title II funding to permit States to use this funding to train teachers, principals, and other school personnel on how to recognize child sexual abuse. Under current law, Title II provides grants to States for a variety of purposes related to recruitment, retention, and professional development of K 12 teachers and principals. Our bill would allow professional development funds in schools to be used to provide teachers with the tools to recognize child sexual abuse. I am proud that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, and my colleague Senator Frank Lautenberg have joined me as original cosponsors on this bill. It is essential that as mandated reporters, school personnel should have the proper training to recognize child abuse. When there are no witnesses, what happens behind closed doors in an abusive home can scar a child for a lifetime. The more we learn to recognize the signs of abuse or neglect, the better we will foster a safe environment for young people to learn and grow. 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 in support of the Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012. This bill will allow homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes to refinance their loans at today's historically low mortgage rates. The administration's current refinancing programs are designed to help homeowners whose loans are guaranteed by Federal housing agencies. The problem is, those programs do nothing to help homeowners whose loans are owned by banks and mortgage trusts. This bill would create a fund in the Federal Housing Administration that would allow underwater homeowners whose loans are not guaranteed by the GSEs or FHA to refinance into today's low mortgage rates. The FHA would be able to insure these loans, greatly reducing the interest rates charged by lenders. Currently, these homeowners are completely locked out of refinancing and are not being served by the private markets. A homeowner paying 7 percent interest on their mortgage could reduce their interest rate by 2.5 percent or more through this program. The average American homeowner could save up to three thousand dollars a year in lower interest payments. The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012 is modeled after a proposal President Obama outlined in his State of the Union address in February. Eligibility requirements for this new program are very straightforward. Homeowners must be current on their mortgage. They must meet a minimum credit score. Their loan must be under the FHA conforming loan limit. They must be living in a single-family, owner-occupied home that is their principal residence. Additionally, the program requires that loans not be higher than 140 percent of a home's value. Housing data shows that homeowners with loan-to-value ratios under 140 percent are significantly less likely to default than those with higher ratios. An added benefit of the 140 percent loan-to-value limit is that it could encourage lenders to write down the principal amount owed on the mortgage to allow homeowners to qualify for participation. This would be tremendously helpful for homeowners whose home values have fallen dramatically after the collapse of the housing bubble. Some will criticize this proposal, suggesting the government must get out of the housing market for it to recover. I believe the government can play a vital role in making sure that home values don't continue their steep declines. Robert Shiller, the noted housing bear and respected housing economist who publishes the closely watched Case-Shiller housing index, believes that home prices have reached normal levels. To those who would oppose this bill, I ask: how much further would you have home values decline? While many economic indicators are increasing, falling home prices and foreclosures continue to burden the economy. Here is a quick inventory of the state of America's homeowners: Case-Shiller found home prices in February rising for the first time in 10 months, although that gain was a nominal 0.2 percent. Nationally, more than 11 million homeowners, or 23 percent, are upside down on their mortgage, meaning they owe more than the value of their home. Almost 30 percent of homes in California are underwater. Median home prices are at levels not seen since the late 1990s, with the gains in the intervening years completely wiped out. Home values on average have dropped by more than 30%, with $7 trillion in household wealth lost. And Core Logic found that home prices increased 0.6 percent last month, but are still down 0.6 percent from a year ago. Many housing economists believe the market is at its bottom, but that doesn't mean we are out of the woods. Further increases in foreclosures would undoubtedly put further downward pressure on home prices, which could further threaten underwater homeowners and feed into a vicious negative cycle. This is also a matter of fairness. When homeowners take on a mortgage, they have no control over whether their bank will slice-and-dice that loan, selling it to third-party investors. If that happens, chances of refinancing into lower interest rates plummet. I have worked closely with the administration to make sure this added responsibility does not increase the financial risk to the FHA. The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act would create a new insurance fund at the FHA, totally separate from the existing mortgage insurance fund that is currently under-capitalized. The new fund would receive its own appropriation and would be audited separately from the existing mortgage insurance fund. Furthermore, I have worked to put safeguards in place to reduce FHA's risk. Most notably, homeowners must be current on their mortgages in order to participate. Finally, the cost of the new program would be completely offset by a 0.1 percent increase in guarantee fees for loans backed by Fannie and Freddie in 2022. The benefits of this proposal are clear: Refinancing into lower interest rates could save the average homeowner upwards of $3,000 a year. Recent statistics show that the expanded refinancing program the administration announced in November is seeing tangible results. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, refinance applications have jumped by as much as 70 percent in some of the hardest-hit States. Clearly, efforts to expand refinancing opportunities are working. Similar benefits should be afforded to those homeowners whose loans-- through no fault of their own--are not insured by the Federal Government. Beyond providing relief to American families, savings on mortgage payments would have a broader benefit for the economy. Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has maintained an extremely low interest rate policy to encourage the availability of affordable credit. There is no question that these measures have had an effect. The stock market is climbing again after falling off a cliff in late 2008. Mortgage rates have fallen to near-historic lows, recently dipping below 4 percent. Consumers are spending less of their income paying down debt, from a high of 9.1 percent in 2007 to 5.8 percent today. As a result, consumers are saving more and spending more on purchases that have been put off for years. This is a boost to the economy. For proof, look no further than the rebound in vehicle sales that has fueled the resurgence of American auto manufacturers. However, there is also no doubt that the effects of the Fed's low interest rate policies have been dampened by problems in the housing market. The Fed has noted that home foreclosures are one of the biggest drags on the economic recovery. Allowing all homeowners to lower their mortgage payments through refinancing is one way to help stop this downward spiral. We cannot have a robust economic recovery while the housing market languishes. Just as a dilapidated foreclosure erodes the value of every home on the block, a sputtering housing market affects all aspects of the economy. The sooner we reverse declines in the housing market, the sooner we can foster a robust economic recovery. We owe that to every American, and I encourage my colleagues to support The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012. This bill will allow homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes to refinance their loans at today's historically low mortgage rates. The administration's current refinancing programs are designed to help homeowners whose loans are guaranteed by Federal housing agencies. The problem is, those programs do nothing to help homeowners whose loans are owned by banks and mortgage trusts. This bill would create a fund in the Federal Housing Administration that would allow underwater homeowners whose loans are not guaranteed by the GSEs or FHA to refinance into today's low mortgage rates. The FHA would be able to insure these loans, greatly reducing the interest rates charged by lenders. Currently, these homeowners are completely locked out of refinancing and are not being served by the private markets. A homeowner paying 7 percent interest on their mortgage could reduce their interest rate by 2.5 percent or more through this program. The average American homeowner could save up to three thousand dollars a year in lower interest payments. The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012 is modeled after a proposal President Obama outlined in his State of the Union address in February. Eligibility requirements for this new program are very straightforward. Homeowners must be current on their mortgage. They must meet a minimum credit score. Their loan must be under the FHA conforming loan limit. They must be living in a single-family, owner-occupied home that is their principal residence. Additionally, the program requires that loans not be higher than 140 percent of a home's value. Housing data shows that homeowners with loan-to-value ratios under 140 percent are significantly less likely to default than those with higher ratios. An added benefit of the 140 percent loan-to-value limit is that it could encourage lenders to write down the principal amount owed on the mortgage to allow homeowners to qualify for participation. This would be tremendously helpful for homeowners whose home values have fallen dramatically after the collapse of the housing bubble. Some will criticize this proposal, suggesting the government must get out of the housing market for it to recover. I believe the government can play a vital role in making sure that home values don't continue their steep declines. Robert Shiller, the noted housing bear and respected housing economist who publishes the closely watched Case-Shiller housing index, believes that home prices have reached normal levels. To those who would oppose this bill, I ask: how much further would you have home values decline? While many economic indicators are increasing, falling home prices and foreclosures continue to burden the economy. Here is a quick inventory of the state of America's homeowners: Case-Shiller found home prices in February rising for the first time in 10 months, although that gain was a nominal 0.2 percent. Nationally, more than 11 million homeowners, or 23 percent, are upside down on their mortgage, meaning they owe more than the value of their home. Almost 30 percent of homes in California are underwater. Median home prices are at levels not seen since the late 1990s, with the gains in the intervening years completely wiped out. Home values on average have dropped by more than 30%, with $7 trillion in household wealth lost. And Core Logic found that home prices increased 0.6 percent last month, but are still down 0.6 percent from a year ago. Many housing economists believe the market is at its bottom, but that doesn't mean we are out of the woods. Further increases in foreclosures would undoubtedly put further downward pressure on home prices, which could further threaten underwater homeowners and feed into a vicious negative cycle. This is also a matter of fairness. When homeowners take on a mortgage, they have no control over whether their bank will slice-and-dice that loan, selling it to third-party investors. If that happens, chances of refinancing into lower interest rates plummet. I have worked closely with the administration to make sure this added responsibility does not increase the financial risk to the FHA. The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act would create a new insurance fund at the FHA, totally separate from the existing mortgage insurance fund that is currently under-capitalized. The new fund would receive its own appropriation and would be audited separately from the existing mortgage insurance fund. Furthermore, I have worked to put safeguards in place to reduce FHA's risk. Most notably, homeowners must be current on their mortgages in order to participate. Finally, the cost of the new program would be completely offset by a 0.1 percent increase in guarantee fees for loans backed by Fannie and Freddie in 2022. The benefits of this proposal are clear: Refinancing into lower interest rates could save the average homeowner upwards of $3,000 a year. Recent statistics show that the expanded refinancing program the administration announced in November is seeing tangible results. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, refinance applications have jumped by as much as 70 percent in some of the hardest-hit States. Clearly, efforts to expand refinancing opportunities are working. Similar benefits should be afforded to those homeowners whose loans-- through no fault of their own--are not insured by the Federal Government. Beyond providing relief to American families, savings on mortgage payments would have a broader benefit for the economy. Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has maintained an extremely low interest rate policy to encourage the availability of affordable credit. There is no question that these measures have had an effect. The stock market is climbing again after falling off a cliff in late 2008. Mortgage rates have fallen to near-historic lows, recently dipping below 4 percent. Consumers are spending less of their income paying down debt, from a high of 9.1 percent in 2007 to 5.8 percent today. As a result, consumers are saving more and spending more on purchases that have been put off for years. This is a boost to the economy. For proof, look no further than the rebound in vehicle sales that has fueled the resurgence of American auto manufacturers. However, there is also no doubt that the effects of the Fed's low interest rate policies have been dampened by problems in the housing market. The Fed has noted that home foreclosures are one of the biggest drags on the economic recovery. Allowing all homeowners to lower their mortgage payments through refinancing is one way to help stop this downward spiral. We cannot have a robust economic recovery while the housing market languishes. Just as a dilapidated foreclosure erodes the value of every home on the block, a sputtering housing market affects all aspects of the economy. The sooner we reverse declines in the housing market, the sooner we can foster a robust economic recovery. We owe that to every American, and I encourage my colleagues to support The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Asian and Pacific Islander community in the United States and celebrate the tremendous contribution these Americans have made to our Nation. There are an estimated 17.3 million residents of Asian descent in our country and 5.6 million Asian-Pacific Americans living in California. I am proud that our State has the largest Asian population in the country. California also boasts the highest number of Asian-owned businesses at 508,969, and the U.S. Armed Forces has more than 265,000 Asian- American veterans. In 1977, Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii introduced a resolution in the Senate and President Jimmy Carter signed a joint resolution officially establishing Asian-Pacific American Heritage Week to honor the first Japanese immigrants to the United States and the Chinese individuals who worked on the Transcontinental Railroad. In 1992, May was officially designated Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month. This year's Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month theme, ``Striving for Excellence in Leadership, Diversity and Inclusion,'' is embodied in the accomplishments of numerous Asian-Pacific Americans. In Congress, my colleagues, Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, are joined by California Representatives Judy Chu, Mike Honda, and Doris Matsui as examples of good public servants. A number of California cities are led by Asian-Pacific Americans, including: Mayor Ling-Ling Chang of Diamond Bar, Mayor Edwin Lee of my hometown of San Francisco, Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, Mayor Richard Sun of San Marino, Mayor Jeremy Yamaguchi of Placentia, and Mayor Vincent Yu of Temple City. Additionally, it is appropriate to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of Asian-Pacific Americans who sit on the bench in California. Judge Edward M. Chen just finished his first year as a U.S. district court judge in San Francisco. Associate Justice Goodwin Liu was recently appointed to the Supreme Court of California. Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen has served with distinction as the first Vietnamese-American Federal judge since 2009, and was nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011. She has won confirmation to the Ninth Circuit, which makes her the first Asian-American female Federal appellate judge in the Nation. Public service is by no means the only area in which Asian-Pacific Americans have made great strides forward. National Basketball Association phenomenon Jeremy Lin, a California native, has provided inspiration well beyond the Asian-Pacific American community. From young children to adults, the Harvard-educated athlete has proven to millions that no dream is too big to achieve. Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month is particularly relevant in 2012, as we recognize the 70th anniversary of the Japanese-American relocation during World War II, under Executive Order 9066. I remember this shameful page in our history. As a young girl, my father took me to the Tanforan Racetrack, near San Francisco, which was a staging point for Japanese Americans en route to more permanent detention centers. Seeing the barbed wire, and the men, women, and children housed in horse stables and small buildings on the infield of the racetrack was an experience I will never forget. It is important that our Nation acknowledge mistakes, no matter how far in the past. I am proud to have cosponsored and voted in support of a resolution expressing congressional regret for decades of legislation targeting Chinese people for physical and political exclusion, as well as reaffirming the commitment of the Senate to preserve civil rights and constitutional protection of all Asian-Pacific Americans. The future of the Asian-Pacific American community is bright, and I have no doubt it will see many triumphs in the years ahead. Today, it is my honor to recognize the ongoing determination, ambition, and success of Asian-Pacific Americans during Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen's nomination. She was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee. She is an outstanding jurist with a 10-year track record of success as a trial judge in my State. I recommended Judge Nguyen to President Obama to the district court in 2009 after my bipartisan judicial selection committee gave her its highest recommendation. The Senate confirmed her then unanimously 97 to 0 in 2009. I have no doubt she will be an outstanding circuit court judge, and I hope my colleagues will support her nomination. Judge Nguyen earned her bachelor's degree from Occidental College and her law degree from the UCLA School of Law. After law school, she practiced commercial law for 4 years with the law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett. She then moved into public service, becoming an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. During her 7 years there, she prosecuted a broad array of crimes, including violent crimes, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, gun cases, and all kinds of fraud. In 2000 she received a special commendation from FBI Director Louis Freeh for obtaining the first conviction ever in the United States against a defendant for providing material support to a designated terrorist organization. The Justice Department recognized her with numerous other awards and commendations for superior performance, and she was promoted to Deputy Chief of the General Crimes Section. In 2002 Governor Gray Davis appointed Judge Nguyen to the Los Angeles superior court, where she established a track record of success as a distinguished jurist. In 2009 President Obama nominated her to the district court on my recommendation, and she was confirmed unanimously. Over nearly 10 years, as a State and Federal judge, Judge Nguyen has presided over thousands of cases, including 75 jury trials and 12 bench trials. She prizes fairness and integrity, and treats all parties fairly and with respect. Those who know Judge Nguyen--including two former U.S. attorneys appointed by President George W. Bush--have praised Judge Nguyen for her first-rate legal mind and judicial temperament. Debra Yang, who led the U.S. Attorney's Office from 2002 to 2006, after being appointed by President George W. Bush, submitted a letter to the Judiciary Committee in support of Judge Nguyen's nomination. Yang says that she ``would make an excellent Federal . . . court judge.'' She also reports that her ``reputation among . . . colleagues is tremendous.'' Thomas O'Brien, who was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush in 2007, has also submitted a letter endorsing Judge Nguyen's nomination. O'Brien says Judge Nguyen ``handled complex and controversial cases with technical finesse and grace'' and that Judge Nguyen is a ``highly qualified nominee who is intelligent, skilled, and exercises sound judgment.'' But she also has an inspiring life story. She was born in South Vietnam in the midst of the Vietnam war. She came to America at the age of 10. Her family lived in a tent in a San Diego refugee camp for 3 months before moving to Los Angeles, where her parents worked two or three jobs at a time. Judge Nguyen and her five siblings helped their parents after school and on weekends. They helped to clean dental offices and to peel and cut apples. They helped run a small doughnut shop, which their parents scrimped and saved to open. Judge Nguyen worked her way up--through school, as a lawyer and prosecutor, and as a trial judge. If she is confirmed today, she will be the first Asian-American female Federal appeals court judge, and I am proud to express my very strong support for her nomination. I would like to conclude by expressing my view that it is absolutely critical that cooperation on judicial nominations continue. Nearly 10 percent of judicial positions are currently vacant, Mr. President, as you well know--twice as many as when President Bush left office. This high vacancy rate is today being felt more than anywhere else by States in the Ninth Circuit. California and Arizona are home to some of the busiest Federal trial courts in the Nation. This means businesses, individuals, and prosecutors already are struggling with severely overburdened Federal courts. The Ninth Circuit is also the busiest Federal appellate court in the country. It has over 1,400 appeals pending per three-judge panel--the most of any circuit by a wide margin, and over twice the average of the other circuits. The Judicial Conference of the United States has declared each Ninth Circuit vacancy a judicial emergency. Judge Nguyen's confirmation today will help ease the burden, but it will not do enough. Paul Watford is another outstanding Ninth Circuit nominee from California. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee 3 months ago. Based on the calendar, he should be the next circuit court nominee to receive a confirmation vote in this body. He has sterling qualifications. He has worked as a Federal prosecutor and an appellate attorney at a prestigious law firm. He clerked for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He is a moderate nominee, well schooled in the law. He has support on both sides of the aisle, including from two former presidents of the Los Angeles chapter of the Federalist Society. So I hope the Senate will consider Mr. Watford's nomination very soon. It is a judicial emergency. So, once again, I thank the leaders on both sides for agreeing to bring Judge Nguyen's nomination to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. I hope we will continue to confirm highly qualified nominees to our Federal courts, which is especially important to the Ninth Circuit.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act--VAWA. VAWA is a critical piece of legislation that protects American women from the plague of domestic violence, stalking, dating violence and sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act is the centerpiece of the federal government's efforts to combat domestic violence and sexual assault and has transformed the response to these crimes at the local, State and federal levels. As my colleagues know, VAWA was signed into law in 1994. This body reauthorized it in 2000 and again in 2005 on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. And it is my hope that we can repeat this bipartisan cooperation with the current reauthorization bill. I applaud those on both sides of the aisle for coming together to support this legislation. The measure today has a total of 61 cosponsors, including eight Republicans. VAWA has always been bipartisan, is bipartisan today, and needs to come to a vote. During my days as the mayor of San Francisco, law enforcement officers most worried about responding to domestic abuse calls. That is where things got really rough. Tragically, I saw it happen over and over again. It was a big problem then, and it remains a big problem today. To address these problems, the bill reauthorizes a number of grant programs administered by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to provide funding for emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. It also provides support for State agencies, rape crisis centers, and organizations that provide services to vulnerable women. And American women are safer because we took action. Today, more victims report incidents of domestic violence to the police, and the rate of non-fatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53 percent since 1994, according to the Department of Justice. Because of VAWA, States have the funding to implement ``evidence-based'' anti-domestic violence programs, including ``lethality screens,'' which law enforcement uses to predict when a person is at risk of becoming the victim of deadly abuse. In my home state of California, with the help of VAWA funds, we reduced the number of domestic violence homicides committed annually by 30% between 1994, the year in which VAWA was enacted, and 2010. Simply put, VAWA funding saves lives. An extremely noteworthy example of VAWA's success came to my office from the Alameda County District Attorney. In 1997, Alameda County, CA reported 27 deaths as a result of domestic violence. That was about the normal rate at that time. But by last year, 2011, the district attorney reported just three deaths. The district attorney credits VAWA for reducing the number of domestic violence homicides in Alameda County. This is a clear example of why we need to reauthorize VAWA. Through the use of VAWA funding, Alameda County created the Family Justice Center in 2005 to provide comprehensive services to adults and children who experience domestic violence or sexual assault. Today, the center is a national model of how communities can bring service professionals together to serve crime victims. During these tough economic times, the demand for the Family Justice Center's services has grown--as has its need for VAWA funding. In the center's first year, they treated approximately 8,000 clients, including an estimated 1,000 children. In 2010, the center treated 12,000 clients. Last year, the center treated more than 18,000 women, men, children and teens who were victims of interpersonal violent crimes. During a recent visit to my office, the Alameda County District Attorney noted that without VAWA funding it would not be possible for the Family Justice Center to continue to serve this growing population of crime victims. The vital need for domestic violence prevention services was highlighted in a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC--which found that on average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States. Over the course of a year, that equals more than 12 million women and men. In California, about 30,000 people accessed crisis intervention services from one of California's 63 rape crisis centers in 2010 and 2011. These centers primarily rely on federal VAWA funding--not State funding--to provide services to victims in their communities. In 2009 alone, there were more than 167,000 cases in California in which local county or State police officers were called to the scene of a domestic violence complaint according to the California Department of Justice. The bill we are are considering today gives increased attention to victims of sexual violence. This form of violence is particularly destructive because, for many years, our society viewed sexual violence as the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator. Although VAWA has always addressed the crime of sexual assault, a smaller percentage of the bill's grant funding goes to sexual assault victims than is proportional to their rates of victimization. The bill does three things to address this imbalance: No. 1, it provides an increased focus on training for law enforcement and prosecutors to address the ongoing needs of sexual assault victims; No. 2, the bill extends VAWA's housing protections to these victims; No. 3, and the bill ensures that those who are living with, but not married to, an abuser qualify for housing assistance available under VAWA. The bill also updates the federal criminal code to clarify that cyberstalking is a crime. With increasing frequency, victims are being stalked over the Internet through e-mail, blogs, and Facebook. When stalking is done online, the message sent by the perpetrator is memorialized forever, making it more difficult for victims to put the painful experience in the past and move forward in their lives. Despite the fact that the underlying bill has 61 cosponsors from both parties, not a single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee--of which I am a longtime member--voted to advance the legislation. The bill considered in the Judiciary Committee includes several changes that I believe improve the underlying bill. For example: It creates one very modest new grant program, consolidates 13 existing programs, and reduces authorization levels for all other programs by 17 percent. The new bill would decrease the total authorization level of $795 million in fiscal year 2011 to $659 million in fiscal year 2012. And it places emphasis on preventing domestic homicides and reduces the national backlog of untested rape kits. Yet, there are some who refuse to support it because it now includes expanded protections for victims. Specifically, VAWA was expanded to include additional protections for gay and lesbian individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse, and authority for Native American tribes to prosecute crimes. In my view, these are improvements. Domestic violence is domestic violence. I ask those who oppose the bill: If the victim is in a same- sex relationship, is the violence and danger any less real? If a family comes to this country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, well, you are illegal; I am sorry, you don't deserve any protection? 911 operators and police officers don't refuse to help a victim because of their sexual orientation or the country where they were born. When you call the police in America, they come. VAWA will help ensure that all victims have access to life-saving services, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered victims experience domestic violence in 25 percent to 35 percent of relationships--the same rate as heterosexual couples. Yet, these victims are often turned away when they seek help from shelters and professional service providers and they do not receive the help they need. VAWA would improve the LGBT community's ability to access services by explicitly prohibiting grant recipients from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity and by clarifying that gay and lesbian victims are included in the definition of underserved populations. Domestic and sexual violence in Tribal communities is a problem of epidemic proportions. Studies indicate that nearly three out of five Native American women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. The VAWA Reauthorization bill provides law enforcement with additional tools to take on the plague of violence affecting Native women. The bill adds new Federal crimes--including a 10-year offense for assaulting a spouse or intimate partner by strangling or suffocation--the two types of assault that are frequently committed against women in Indian Country. And it closes loopholes to ensure that those who commit domestic violence in Indian Country do not escape justice. The Chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in Highland, CA recently wrote to me to emphasize the importance of closing the jurisdictional loophole. According to the chairman, the rampant violence against Native women can in part be attributed to the absence of tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators. Crimes of domestic violence or dating violence that would typically lead to convictions and sentences of anywhere between 6 months and 5 years in U.S. courts are too often falling through the cracks in the legal system when identical crimes occur in Indian Country. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 is supported by over 50 national religious organizations including the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Catholic Women, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church. As I mentioned earlier, law enforcement officers are at particular risk when they respond to domestic violence incidents. According to the Law Enforcement Officer Deaths Memorial Fund, in 2009, 23 percent of firearms-related deaths involved domestic disturbance calls. In 2010, eight officers were killed responding to domestic violence calls. VAWA provides needed training to decrease the risk to law enforcement when responding to domestic violence calls. The legislation includes grants to develop and strengthen policies and training for law enforcement to recognize and effectively respond to instances of domestic abuse. To me, this bill is a no-brainer. To stand in the way of this bill is almost to say we don't consider violence against women an important issue. Let me repeat: this bill protects American women. It has support on both sides of the aisle. It saves lives. It is a lifeline for women and children who are in distress. We need to show our commitment to end domestic violence and sexual violence. I hope that all senators will support this important effort to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with strong bipartisan support as we always have. This has always been a bipartisan effort. Let's vote and let's get it done. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, which I have cosponsored. This legislation would repeal five specific tax subsidies and a royalty relief provision to the largest oil companies, which simply do not need them and which our Federal Government definitely cannot afford. And this bill would invest the savings from repealing these subsidies to extend vital clean energy incentives that have recently expired. It would also save billions of dollars in order to reduce the deficit. This is a simple vote, really. If you are for subsidizing profitable and polluting industries and raising taxes on clean, innovative, and renewable energy companies, you should not support this bill. But if you are for fiscal responsibility, balancing the Federal budget, and investing in a cleaner energy industry that is less dependent on international oil markets and suppliers, you should vote yes. If you are against increasing taxes on clean energy sources such as wind, solar, and energy efficiency, you should vote yes. And if you believe that we cannot afford to spend Federal dollars subsidizing an industry that needs no help, you should vote yes. Oil prices have risen to well above $100 per barrel, and according to AAA, California currently has the highest gasoline prices of any State in the continental United States, currently at $4.30 per gallon of regular unleaded. But these higher prices are not the result of a change in the cost of producing and refining oil. According to a Finance Committee analysis of the SEC filings of the three largest oil companies in the United States that filed, it costs them an average of $11 to produce one barrel of oil. At today's prices that is nearly $100 in pure profit for each barrel. The result is massive oil company profits on the backs of American consumers. Last year, the top five oil companies made more than $135 billion in profit. That is an increase of 80% over what they made in 2010. Yet the largest oil companies are not using these profits to produce more oil. Oil production for the biggest five oil companies was down 4 percent last year. Instead of using their enormous revenues to invest in drilling, the big five oil companies are buying back stock, issuing dividends, and lobbying governments. For example, Shell Oil's profits increased by 54 percent between 2010 and 2011. But its production decreased by 3 percent. And the American taxpayer is providing oil subsidies that increase profits, stock prices, and dividends--and don't produce more oil or lower gasoline prices. U.S. taxpayers subsidize these hugely profitable oil companies to the tune of over $2 billion dollars per year, year after year. Some Members of Congress still believe these subsidies lead to lower gas prices, despite all evidence to the contrary. As Severin Borenstein, the codirector of University of California Center for the Study of Energy Markets, recently said: The incremental change in production that might result from changing oil subsidies will have no impact on world oil prices, and therefore no impact on gasoline prices. According to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, repealing tax subsidies for Big Oil would not result in higher gasoline prices. CRS concludes that because the current $100-per-barrel price of oil far exceeds the cost of production, it is unlikely that a small increase in taxes would reduce output in a manner that decreases supply resulting in higher gasoline prices. Yet these subsidies continue. This bill eliminates five tax subsidies that lower the tax burden for oil companies without producing a public benefit. These changes will prevent oil companies from deducting things like payments to foreign governments and also prohibit oil companies from claiming that oil production is ``domestic manufacturing'' deserving of incentives designed to help manufacturers compete with Chinese factories. This legislation also includes the key provisions of the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act, a bill Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced to eliminate royalty relief that rewards dangerous oil drilling methods. By eliminating sections 344 and 345 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that provided mandatory royalty relief for deepwater gas and oil production on the Outer Continental Shelf, this bill will ensure that Americans receive fair value for federally owned mineral resources. In 2005, Congress created this royalty-relief program to encourage exploration and production in the ocean's very deepest waters. But the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe showed that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters to justify this incentive. When the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, 11 people died and 17 others were injured. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, and more than one-third of Federal waters in the gulf were closed to fishing. This week, the National Academy of Sciences found that plumes of subsurface oil substantially damaged a community of deep-sea gulf corals. Drilling in deep water presents substantially more challenges and technical difficulties than drilling in shallow water or on shore. The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column exert torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and heavier. The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, and the pressure in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch. The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, and many technical procedures can only be accomplished with the use of remotely controlled robots thousands of feet below the surface. Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters, and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at a depth of about 400 meters. This crystallization repeatedly impeded efforts to stop the gushing oil and was a primary reason it took so long to stop BP's Deepwater Horizon spill. Bottom line: the risks of drilling for oil in thousands of feet of water are far higher than other oil exploration methods, and spills are both ecologically devastating and hard to stop. American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize this most dangerous form of offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy either. I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face, and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal. That is why I believe it is unconscionable that Congress allowed the taxes on renewable sources of energy to go up on December 31, while taxpayer-funded subsidies continue to finance production of fossil fuels. I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, and incentivize the use of renewable energy. One of our biggest victories has been an aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was enacted in 2007. In order to implement this law, the Obama administration has raised fleetwide fuel economy standards to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40-percent increase above today's standard. The fleetwide average will rise to 54.5 mpg by 2025. This is important because these standards will dramatically reduce the economic burden of massive swings in the price of oil and gasoline on American families. By 2025, the average new car will reduce what an American family spends on gasoline by $5,200 to $6,600 during the life of vehicle, and that is assuming relatively affordable gas prices in the $3 per gallon range. If prices were to stay at today's levels, this law will save American families even more money. The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years due to the Federal incentives that are expiring and which this legislation would extend. The Treasury Grants Program, which expired in December, has helped fund the installation of more than 22,000 renewable energy projects with a generating capacity of more than 14,000 megawatts. The production tax credit has allowed wind power capacity to more than triple since 2005. If the production tax credit is not extended by the end of this year, Navigant Consulting estimates that annual installations of wind will drop by more than 75 percent, wind-supported jobs will decline from 78,000 in 2012 to 41,000 in 2013, and total wind investment will drop by nearly two-thirds, from $15.6 billion in 2012 to $5.5 billion in 2013. We simply cannot afford as a nation to abandon the renewable energy industry just as it is emerging as a major force in our economy. These are private sector jobs in a growing industry that is competing globally. Just 2 years ago, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, oil, and coal combined, for the first time. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go. The Obama administration has offered up millions of acres of Federal land for oil extraction by oil companies. As a result, production on these Federal lands has increased. In fact, of the over 12,000 permits that the Obama administration has issued since 2009, 7,000 sit idle. But the fact is that whether or not the Federal government has opened enough land to oil drilling has almost nothing to do with gas prices, even though many politicians argue it does. According to a statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by the Associated Press released this month, ``there is no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.'' The AP writes: If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. . . . More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those 3 years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more. U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that is not what prices are now. I don't believe oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits. Over the last decade, the five largest oil companies have enjoyed nearly $1 trillion in profits and tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable. Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should receive a royalty as compensation. And when oil companies profit by charging $4 per gallon of gas, they should pay income taxes like the rest of us do instead of relying on billions of dollars of tax subsidies to avoid their obligations. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize the significant contributions that the East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland, CA, is making with respect to renewable energy production. East Bay Municipal Utility District is a regional water and wastewater treatment agency serving the needs of the citizens of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in the San Francisco Bay area. I am proud to note that with 1.3 million customers in the east bay region, this agency is leading the way in developing sustainable energy and water conservation practices that benefit the region. On April 3, the East Bay Municipal Utility District's board of directors will formally dedicate a project that will create clean energy for the region and help ensure that waste materials that would otherwise be sent to landfills are reused. This new project is the Power Generation Station Renewable Energy Expansion Project and it builds on the successful Resource Recovery Program that is already serving as a model for other wastewater treatment plants across the Nation. The Power Generation Station Renewable Energy Expansion Project will utilize biogas, methane, produced from anaerobic digesters to power electrical generators and a new 4.6-megawatt clean-burn turbine. The source materials used by the anaerobic digesters will be waste that is currently being sent to garbage dumps. As a result of this new project, EBMUD's total production capacity at its wastewater treatment plant will be 10.6 megawatts, enough capacity to meet the electrical power demands of 13,000 homes. The innovative Power Generation Station Renewable Energy Expansion Project will allow the East Bay Municipal Utility District to be the first agency of its kind in the Nation to generate all its own energy entirely from the production of biogas generated from waste materials. Excess energy, above and beyond that needed to meet the electrical power demands of running the wastewater treatment plant, will be sold back to the electrical grid, thereby helping to keep customer rates low by reducing EBMUD's power bill and increasing revenues from the sale of electricity. Increasing the generation of green energy supports California's goal of increasing clean energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This project is particularly important because EBMUD is currently generating so much biogas from waste material that it is forced to flare the excess biogas. At a time when all of us must find ways to reduce energy consumption and help generate renewable energy, I commend the board of directors and the employees of the East Bay Municipal Utility District for the foresight they have shown in developing and growing the Resource Recovery Program and in the construction of this important sustainable energy project. This project serves as a reminder to each of us that we can find ways to develop high-quality public services and reduce operating costs through innovative thinking and the use of technology. I congratulate East Bay Municipal Utility District for leading the way on developing clean energy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his remarks in support of the Violence Against Women Act. I believe the bill will be before us shortly. We will count on Senator Brown's vote. So we look forward to that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a public servant, a social worker, and a tenacious advocate for vulnerable Americans. I rise today to honor a trailblazer and a mentor for me and countless others. I rise today to honor an outstanding U.S. Senator from Maryland and the dean of the Senate women, my friend Barbara Mikulski. I am privileged to have represented California in this body for almost 20 years. When I first ran for the Senate, back in 1992, I received a call from Barbara Mikulski, personally urging me on and reaching out to provide encouragement. I have relied on her advice, her friendship, and the Mikulski brand of candor ever since. As a matter of fact, one of my fondest evenings was a three-onion martini right down the street. It is hard to believe, but when Senator Mikulski took office in 1987, there was only one other woman in this body, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, later Nancy Kassebaum Baker, the great Republican Senator from Kansas. Increasing the number of women in the Senate has been painfully slow. In 1991, the ranks of women in this body rose to three, then later to seven after the 1992 election. Today we have 17 women in this body and 76 in the House. As Senator Mikulski reflected in the Washington Post last year: Women were so rare even holding statewide political office [back then] . . . I was greeted with a lot of skepticism from my male colleagues. Was I going to go the celebrity route or the Senate route? I had to work very hard. And she has. Barbara has worked very hard to become an outstanding legislator and a trailblazing public official. Let me list a few of her firsts. She was the first female Democrat to serve in both Chambers of Congress--that in itself is impressive--the first female Democrat to be elected to the Senate without succeeding her husband or her father; the first woman to chair a Senate appropriations subcommittee; the first woman to serve a quarter century in the Senate; and the first woman elevated to a Senate leadership position. She is the only current Member of Congress in the National Women's Hall of Fame. And she is not done yet. Just last week, Barb achieved another historic first. According to the Senate Historical Office, she reached 12,858 days of service, becoming the longest serving female Member of Congress in our Nation's history. Senator Mikulski was born and raised in Baltimore. Determined to make a difference in her community--and you know that well, Mr. President-- and guided by her Catholic belief and a belief in social justice, she became a social worker, helping at-risk children and educating seniors about Medicare. She once said, ``I feel that I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper.'' Social work evolved into community activism when Barb successfully organized communities against a plan to build a highway through Baltimore's Fells Point neighborhood. Shortly thereafter, in 1971, she was elected to the Baltimore City Council where she served 5 years. That was about the time I was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1970 in San Francisco. In 1976, she ran for Congress and won, representing Maryland's 3rd District for a decade. She was then elected to the Senate and has won reelection in 1992, 1998, 2004 and 2010 by large majorities. As I said, Barb is an accomplished legislator. She is also one of the very best. She cares passionately about quality education and ensuring every student has access to higher education. She is a fighter for stem cell research to cure our most tragic and debilitating diseases. She is a tireless advocate for the National Institutes of Health. And she is a leader on women's health, writing law requiring Federal standards for mammograms, and a fearless proponent of breast and cervical cancer screenings and treatment for uninsured women. We serve together on the Intelligence Committee. She asks some of the most prescient questions. I have seen her commitment to the FBI, to fighting terrorism, and also to cybersecurity where she headed a task force for our committee that has resulted in the cybersecurity legislation newly pending. Finally, she has led the way to strengthen pay equity for women. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act is the law of the land today because of Barbara Mikulski's effort. As Barb said when we passed the bill: I believe that people should be judged solely by their individual skills, competence, unique talent and nothing else in the workplace. Once you get a job because of your skill and talent, you better get equal pay for equal work. Or, in a manner that best captures Barb's candor, she said, ``Women of America, square your shoulders, put on your lipstick, suit up, and let's close that wage gap once and for all.'' To me, that is classic Barbara Mikulski. Let me close with a story. Every so often at Barbara's leadership, the Senate women get together for dinner. There is no agenda or staff, just Republican women, Democratic women, and a lot of lively conversation. We talk about our families, we talk about the workplace, we talk about the world, and, of course, we even talk, to some extent, about this place. Sometimes we enjoy Senator Mikulski's world-famous crab cakes, the best you will ever taste, and second only to the Dungeness crab of the west coast, I might add. If you have not, make sure you try the recipe on her Web site. We talk about our families and the way we can work together. It is a throwback to the civility of the Senate. These dinners are when Barb really stands out as the dean of Senate women. Women in this country have always had to fight for the most basic of rights. I think young women forget that it was not until 1920 that we were able to vote in this country, and it was only because women fought for it. Barb will be the first to say her milestones are symbols of how far she has come. But she will also show us how much farther women have to go. Today we take it for granted that a woman can be Secretary of State-- we have had two--or Speaker of the House--we have had one or a candidate for President. Not quite yet. Oh, no, I take that back. We have had one. And one day soon, a woman will sit in the Oval Office of this great country. When she does, she will owe a great deal to Barbara Mikulski. But on this day, let the Congressional Record of this Senate reflect and forever record that Senator Barbara Mikulski is the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress, and this country is forever better because of it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, during this second anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I wish to discuss some of the benefits this law has already brought to consumers. Millions of Americans nationwide and in California have already benefited from this law. For the first time, insurance companies are held accountable they cannot drop coverage just because someone gets sick, they cannot deny coverage because of a preexisting condition, and they cannot impose limits on the amount of care provided in a lifetime. This law helps women, children, young adults, seniors, families, and individuals living with disabilities and chronic medical conditions. In California, because of the law, over 12 million people no longer have a lifetime limit on their health insurance plan. This includes almost 4.5 million women and 3.26 million children. Now, individuals and families with medical expenses do not have to worry that they will reach a point where insurance will no longer provide coverage. Eliminating lifetime caps on coverage and phasing out annual caps will reassure Californians that their health coverage will be there when they need it. The health reform law is taking great strides to ensure affordable prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Before health reform, Medicare beneficiaries were faced with a prescription drug coverage gap that was unaffordable for many. This so- called doughnut hole forced beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their drug costs after they exceeded an initial coverage limit. As many as one in four seniors went without a prescription every year because they simply could not afford it. Now, the law is closing this coverage gap, and already, an estimated 320,000 Medicare beneficiaries in California have saved almost $172 million on prescription drugs. Under the health reform law, insurance companies are already banned from denying coverage to children because of a preexisting condition, such as a heart defect, autism, or juvenile diabetes. Parents no longer have to spend away college funds to cover children with medical conditions. Beginning in 2014, health insurers are prohibited from denying anyone health insurance coverage because of a preexisting medical condition. This means that being pregnant can no longer be considered a preexisting condition. It means that individuals will no longer be prevented from purchasing affordable insurance simply because they had an accident, are sick, or got cancer. Under the law, insurance companies have to pay more of the premium dollars they collect on actual medical care, not on profits. In California, because of this provision, almost 9 million people are getting better value for their premium dollars. Furthermore, California has received over $5 million in grants from the law to fight unreasonable premium increases and to bolster scrutiny of rates. Because of the health reform law, young adults can now stay on their family insurance plan up to age 26. Previously, insurance companies could drop coverage for young adults, many times at age 19. Now the law makes it easier and more affordable for young adults to get health insurance. Already over 350,000 young adults in California have benefited from this provision. This law takes great strides to equalize insurance coverage for women and to rid the system of discriminatory practices based on gender. The practice of ``gender-rating,'' or charging more for insurance simply because of gender, is outlawed in the health reform law. This means that women can no longer be charged higher premiums. Over a recent 3-year period, 7.3 million women 38 percent of women who tried to buy coverage on the individual market were either rejected altogether, charged a higher premium, or sold policies that excluded certain benefit coverage because of a ``preexisting condition'' like cancer or having been pregnant. Now, women will be guaranteed coverage at a similar rate to men. Already, almost 2.3 million Californian women with private insurance have access to no-cost preventive services because of the law. This includes necessary cancer screenings, such as mammograms, annual wellness exams, and contraception. Additionally, over 1.6 million women in California who are on Medicare now have access to free preventive services because of the law. These are just a few critical consumer protections that are now in play because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law 2 years ago. We have a long ways to go to improve our health care system and to ensure affordable quality care for all Americans, but these essential consumer protections take great strides to get us there.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague and good friend Senator Hatch to introduce this bill, which will resolve an unsettled issue that is making it difficult for museums and universities to obtain works of art for temporary exhibition from foreign countries. Cultural exchange with foreign nations enables the sharing of ideas and history across the globe. When foreign works are shown at American museums, they expose our people to the richness of world history and culture. In 2011, the San Diego Museum of Art hosted an exhibition of 64 works of famous Spanish artists, such as El Greco, Pablo Picasso, Francisco Goya, and Salvador Dali. Also in 2011, the De Young Museum in San Francisco hosted an exhibition of more than 100 Picasso masterpieces from Paris, as well as more than 100 objects from the Olmec civilization in Mexico. In 2009, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art hosted an exhibit containing artifacts from the Ancient Roman city of Pompeii, which was buried by a volcanic eruption and rediscovered in the 18th Century. In 2007, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art hosted an exhibit with approximately 250 works of art created in more than seven different Latin American countries between 1492 and 1820. Without these exhibitions coming to American museums, many Americans simply would not have the chance to see such important cultural and historical works in person. Exhibitions of such works also draw countless visitors each year, helping museums--which are vital to the preservation of our own culture and heritage--survive and thrive in difficult economic times. For decades, American law has offered legal protection for these exhibitions. Passed in 1965, a law called the Immunity from Seizure Act, 22 U.S.C. 2459, is designed to provide the legal certainty necessary for American museums to organize such exhibitions with their foreign counterparts. This law empowers the President or his designee to approve a foreign work for temporary exhibition or display in the United States, a process now handled by the State Department. If approval is granted, then the work of art is essentially protected from judicial process-- such as a court-ordered seizure--while it is in the United States. Unfortunately, this important law has been undermined by a decision of the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia in a case called Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam. In this case, the City of Amsterdam had made a temporary loan of works of art for educational and cultural purposes to the Guggenheim Museum in New York and the Menil Collection in Houston Texas. Even though the State Department's approval was sought and received for the temporary loan, the court held that the City of Amsterdam's temporary loan nevertheless subjected the City to Federal court jurisdiction in a lawsuit over the work of art. The reason was that--even though the loan was for educational and cultural purposes, for works to be shown at museums--the City's activities nevertheless qualified as ``commercial activity'' under a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3). The result of this decision, unsurprisingly, is that foreign museums have been more reluctant to lend their art works to our museums in the United States. The Executive Branch during the Bush administration recognized this problem and tried to correct it. It urged the D.C. Circuit to reverse the decision, saying in an amicus brief that the District Court's ruling was wrong, that it ``substantially undermine[d] the purposes'' of the Immunity from Seizure Act, and that it would ``discourage foreign states and other lenders from providing their artwork for temporary exhibit in the United States.'' Unfortunately the appeal was dismissed before the D.C. Circuit had a chance to correct this problem. That is why this bill is necessary. Several museums in my home state--including the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University, and the Santa Barbara Museum of Art--have asked me to help restore the legal certainty that existed prior to the Malewicz decision. I know that institutions in Senator Hatch's home State of Utah have sought his help in this regard as well. I am very pleased to say that Senator Hatch and I have worked together--along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member John Conyers, and Representatives Steve Chabot and Steve Cohen--to draft a narrow bill that we hope can be enacted quickly this year. This bill is simple. It relies on the State Department's approval process. If the State Department approves a loan of a foreign art work--essentially immunizing the work from judicial seizure under existing law--then the foreign state's activities associated with the work's exhibition cannot be used to assert jurisdiction over the foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3). This narrow approach does only what is necessary to fix the problem created by the Malewicz decision--nothing more, nothing less. It is important to note that this bill would not apply if the foreign state does not seek or receive the State Department's approval. The State Department requires detailed certifications and independent investigations about an art work's provenance before it grants approval. The bill also expressly would not apply to any work taken in Europe by the Nazis or their collaborators. Once again, I thank Senator Hatch and my colleagues in the House for working with me on this important legislation, which has already passed the House of Representatives by voice vote. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague and good friend Senator Hatch to introduce this bill, which will resolve an unsettled issue that is making it difficult for museums and universities to obtain works of art for temporary exhibition from foreign countries. Cultural exchange with foreign nations enables the sharing of ideas and history across the globe. When foreign works are shown at American museums, they expose our people to the richness of world history and culture. In 2011, the San Diego Museum of Art hosted an exhibition of 64 works of famous Spanish artists, such as El Greco, Pablo Picasso, Francisco Goya, and Salvador Dali. Also in 2011, the De Young Museum in San Francisco hosted an exhibition of more than 100 Picasso masterpieces from Paris, as well as more than 100 objects from the Olmec civilization in Mexico. In 2009, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art hosted an exhibit containing artifacts from the Ancient Roman city of Pompeii, which was buried by a volcanic eruption and rediscovered in the 18th Century. In 2007, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art hosted an exhibit with approximately 250 works of art created in more than seven different Latin American countries between 1492 and 1820. Without these exhibitions coming to American museums, many Americans simply would not have the chance to see such important cultural and historical works in person. Exhibitions of such works also draw countless visitors each year, helping museums--which are vital to the preservation of our own culture and heritage--survive and thrive in difficult economic times. For decades, American law has offered legal protection for these exhibitions. Passed in 1965, a law called the Immunity from Seizure Act, 22 U.S.C. 2459, is designed to provide the legal certainty necessary for American museums to organize such exhibitions with their foreign counterparts. This law empowers the President or his designee to approve a foreign work for temporary exhibition or display in the United States, a process now handled by the State Department. If approval is granted, then the work of art is essentially protected from judicial process-- such as a court-ordered seizure--while it is in the United States. Unfortunately, this important law has been undermined by a decision of the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia in a case called Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam. In this case, the City of Amsterdam had made a temporary loan of works of art for educational and cultural purposes to the Guggenheim Museum in New York and the Menil Collection in Houston Texas. Even though the State Department's approval was sought and received for the temporary loan, the court held that the City of Amsterdam's temporary loan nevertheless subjected the City to Federal court jurisdiction in a lawsuit over the work of art. The reason was that--even though the loan was for educational and cultural purposes, for works to be shown at museums--the City's activities nevertheless qualified as ``commercial activity'' under a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3). The result of this decision, unsurprisingly, is that foreign museums have been more reluctant to lend their art works to our museums in the United States. The Executive Branch during the Bush administration recognized this problem and tried to correct it. It urged the D.C. Circuit to reverse the decision, saying in an amicus brief that the District Court's ruling was wrong, that it ``substantially undermine[d] the purposes'' of the Immunity from Seizure Act, and that it would ``discourage foreign states and other lenders from providing their artwork for temporary exhibit in the United States.'' Unfortunately the appeal was dismissed before the D.C. Circuit had a chance to correct this problem. That is why this bill is necessary. Several museums in my home state--including the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University, and the Santa Barbara Museum of Art--have asked me to help restore the legal certainty that existed prior to the Malewicz decision. I know that institutions in Senator Hatch's home State of Utah have sought his help in this regard as well. I am very pleased to say that Senator Hatch and I have worked together--along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member John Conyers, and Representatives Steve Chabot and Steve Cohen--to draft a narrow bill that we hope can be enacted quickly this year. This bill is simple. It relies on the State Department's approval process. If the State Department approves a loan of a foreign art work--essentially immunizing the work from judicial seizure under existing law--then the foreign state's activities associated with the work's exhibition cannot be used to assert jurisdiction over the foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3). This narrow approach does only what is necessary to fix the problem created by the Malewicz decision--nothing more, nothing less. It is important to note that this bill would not apply if the foreign state does not seek or receive the State Department's approval. The State Department requires detailed certifications and independent investigations about an art work's provenance before it grants approval. The bill also expressly would not apply to any work taken in Europe by the Nazis or their collaborators. Once again, I thank Senator Hatch and my colleagues in the House for working with me on this important legislation, which has already passed the House of Representatives by voice vote. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her remarks. For a long time, I had been the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, and I am just delighted that she is there as well and that we share the same point of view with respect to this bill. I rise today to urge the Republican leadership of the Senate to allow this piece of legislation that protects American women from the plague--and it is a plague--of domestic violence, stalking, dating violence, and sexual assault to come to the floor of this Senate for a vote. I was in the Judiciary Committee, and I voted for the original Violence Against Women Act. It was authorized for 6 years. We reauthorized it. It served another 6 years. And now the bill is up for reauthorization. It came out, surprisingly, from the Judiciary Committee on a split vote. Unfortunately, that was a party-line vote. I might say, I was stunned by this vote because never before had there been any controversy--in more than a decade and a half, in all of this time--about this bill. This act is the centerpiece of the Federal Government's effort to combat domestic violence and sexual assault, and it has positively impacted the response to these crimes at the local, State, and Federal levels, and I hope to show this. The bill authorizes a number of grant programs administered by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to provide funding for emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As a matter of fact, I was thinking last night, when I was mayor of San Francisco back in the early 1980s, I started the first home for battered women, which is La Casa de las Madres. We were able to fund it because it was such a critical need. Women being battered had no place to go and therefore, often stayed in the home where they were battered again and again. This bill also provides support for State agencies, rape crisis centers, and organizations that provide services to vulnerable women. American women are safer because we took action. Today, more victims report incidents of domestic violence to the police, and the rate of nonfatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53 percent since this bill went into effect in 1994. These figures are from the Department of Justice. So here we have a 53-percent decrease in the rate of nonfatal partner violence. The need for the services was highlighted in a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that, on average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States--24 a minute by an intimate partner in the United States. Over the course of the year now, that equates to more than 12 million women and men. In California, my State, 30,000 people accessed crisis intervention services from one of California's 63 rape crisis centers in 2010 and 2011. These centers primarily rely on Federal Violence Against Women Act funding--not State funding--to provide services to victims in communities. In 2009 alone, there were more than 167,000 cases in California in which local, county, or State police officers were called to the scene of a domestic violence complaint. Madam President, 167,000 cases--that is many. Despite the fact that the underlying bill has 58 cosponsors from both parties, not a single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee voted to advance the legislation. Now, the bill that came out of Judiciary does have some changes, and I want to talk about them for a moment. It creates one very modest new grant program. It consolidates 13 existing programs. It reduces authorization levels for all other programs by nearly 20 percent. And the savings--17 percent. The bill is reduced in cost by 17 percent. That is $136 million. It encourages effective enforcement of protective orders. That is a big problem. Women get protective orders, and they are violated because they are not enforced. And it reduces the national backlog of untested rape kits. It is a real problem if a jurisdiction cannot test a rape kit. Yet there are some who refuse to support it because it now includes expanded protections for victims. Let me put this on the table. The bill's protections extend to lesbian and gay victims of domestic abuse. It includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. The bill also gives Native American tribes better prosecutorial tools to fight crimes of domestic violence. In my view, these are improvements. Domestic violence is domestic violence. I ask my friends on the other side, to the victim in a same-sex relationship, is the violence any less real, is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I do not think so. If a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say: ``Well, you are illegal. I am sorry. You do not deserve any protection?'' No, we do not. And 9 1 1 operators and police officers do not refuse to help victims because of their sexual orientation, or the country in which they were born, or their immigration status. When you call the police in America, they come regardless of who you are. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 is supported by 50 national religious organizations, including the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Council of Catholic Women, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. I go back to my days as mayor of San Francisco when I saw over and over again, up close and personal, what happens because of domestic violence. I saw police getting killed when they intervened in situations involving domestic violence. We had a number of funerals for police officers in Oakland which I attended. It all stemmed from domestic violence. To defeat this bill is almost to say that we do not need to consider violence against women, that it is not an important issue. It is. It is not a partisan issue. It never has been in this body, which is why, candidly, I am surprised I find myself on the floor urging that this bill be brought to the floor, because it has been historically, through two reauthorizations, and is a bipartisan bill. You can't help but notice that this is not the first time a policy which would specifically imperil the health and safety of American women has compelled some of us to come to this floor and speak out on behalf of American women. I hope that opposition to this bill is not part of a march, and that march, as I see it, over the past 20 years has been to cut back on rights and services to women. And I mean that most sincerely. I have never seen anything like it. When I came here, there were discussions about Roe v. Wade. When I first went on the Judiciary Committee, which was in 1993, I heard it. There were debates over Supreme Court opinions--Casey, et al.--and then there were debates over partial abortion. Then this year we fought against the Blunt amendment which would have effectively allowed employers to arbitrarily decline to provide critical preventive health care services for women. You know, we had to fight for the simplest things. I think young women forget that it took until 1920 for women to get to vote in this country. It was only because women fought for it. And we have fought since the country was established for the right to vote, for the right to inherit property, for the right to go to school. Now we fight for our rights to have sufficient services from the government with respect to our health. Now I am here to fight for a bill that strengthens laws and protects women against domestic violence and sexual assault. To me, this bill is a no-brainer. It has the support of both sides of the aisle. It is bipartisan. It saves lives. It is a lifeline for women and children who are in distress, who have no place to go or to stay and have to submit to domestic violence abuse. And no one can say I am exaggerating. Trust me, I have seen it. I have seen the bruised bodies up close and personal. This bill has reduced the number of domestic assaults on women. The record indicates that. It should be continued. It is a no-brainer. I hope it is brought to the floor. I hope we maintain a bipartisan vote. I hope it is reauthorized. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the nomination of Michael Walter Fitzgerald, a highly qualified nominee to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The vacancy Mr. Fitzgerald would fill has been declared a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Central District is the ninth-busiest court in the country in terms of filings per judgeship, and it has several vacancies that need to be filled. I wish it had not taken four and a half months to see Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed, but I am very grateful that the Senate is able to make progress on his nomination today. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. Mr. Fitzgerald was born in Los Angeles in 1959 and attended California's public schools. He received a scholarship to attend Harvard College, from which he graduated magna cum laude in 1981. After graduating from Harvard, Mr. Fitzgerald taught at Anaheim High School. He then attended Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley, where he was managing editor of the Industrial Relations Law Journal and graduated Order of the Coif in 1985. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Irving R. Kaufman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Mr. Fitzgerald has over 25 years of experience practicing law. After one year in private practice he became an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, where he served from 1988 through 1991. During that time, he served on the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force and with the Major Narcotics Section. He led an investigation that resulted in the seizure of 2,241 pounds of cocaine and the conviction of a major drug trafficking kingpin. Since his service as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald has worked as an attorney in private practice, first at the law firm Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe and now at Corbin, Fitzgerald, and Athey LLP. He has represented plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases, as well as criminal defendants. He also has represented major corporations and corporate officials in investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice. For example, he represented a senior Boeing manager in a Federal grand jury investigation, as well as Bank of America. He also has been active in pro bono work. For example, Mr. Fitzgerald represented an FBI special agent, Frank Buttino, who had security clearance revoked after his sexual orientation was revealed to his FBI superiors. The case resulted in a settlement, in which the FBI revoked its policy of treating sexual orientation as a negative factor in security clearance determinations. Mr. Fitzgerald also served as a deputy counsel on the Rampart Independent Review Panel, which was appointed by the Los Angeles Police Commission to investigate a major corruption scandal in the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department. He also served as a counsel to the Special Advisor to the Webster Commission, which investigated the L.A.P.D.'s response to the L.A. riots in 1992. In short, Mr. Fitzgerald has an impressive record--strong academic credentials, an appellate clerkship, service as a Federal prosecutor, and over two decades in private practice. Mr. Fitzgerald is also the first openly gay nominee to a California Federal Court--an important milestone on the road to equality. I am confident he will be a superb addition to the district court, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for his remarks, and most particularly for the remarks of my friend and colleague from California. She has fought this fight along with the dean of our women, Senator Mikulski, year after year and time after time. Before I speak about the Blunt amendment, I wanted to express that the retirement or announced perspective retirement of Senator Olympia Snowe is, for me, a heartbreak. I have regarded her as one of the most impressive Senators in our body. She still has many good years ahead of her. I have had the pleasure of working with her on a number of bills. Most importantly, we did really the only fuel economy improvement that had been done in 20 years in the 10-over-10 bill. What is interesting about it is it was a bipartisan bill and it got passed thanks to Senator Ted Stevens who was Vice-Chairman of the Commerce Committee at the time and it was put in his bill. So it was really quite wonderful to see that happen. This is my 20th year here, along with my friend and colleague Senator Boxer, and over the last 10 years what I have seen is more and more attacks on women and women's health, stemming largely from the abortion debates, but not only that. We have fought--and Senator Mikulski has led the way--for equal pay, we have fought against discrimination, attacks on Title X Family Planning grants, attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, and attempts to limit access to preventive health care such as contraception. These attacks to limit a woman's right to make her own reproductive health care choices have now escalated to an unprecedented level. I am not going to go into the specifics of some of them, but trust me, I never thought I would see people in public office put forward some of the bills out there. I believe strongly that all women should have access to comprehensive reproductive care, and should be able to decide for themselves how to use that care regardless of where they work or what insurance they have. The other side of the aisle has tried to take away access not only to contraception but also primary and preventive screenings for low-income women that are provided by the Title X Family Planning program and by Planned Parenthood. Title X programs serve over 5 million Americans nationwide, Planned Parenthood almost 3 million. They are not minor, they are major, and for many individuals it is their only source of care. And now here we are defending not just women's rights but the rights of all Americans to have access to essential and preventive health care benefits. I strongly oppose this latest attack in the form of the Blunt amendment, and I join my colleagues on the floor to speak about the harm that this amendment will do. I think it was stated by Senator Menendez that the amendment is vague. In its vagueness it becomes a predicate for any provider, employer, or insurer to decline to provide to cover a myriad of health care benefits simply on the basis of religious beliefs or moral conviction. There is no statement in the legislation as to what the religious belief or moral conviction has to be, when it begins, or when it ends. It is an excuse as to why they do not want to do something. What does this mean? Well, what it means in reality is 20 million women could be denied any preventive health care benefits, including contraception, mammograms, prenatal screenings, and cervical cancer screenings. In addition, 14 million children--and this is right--could be denied, under this Blunt amendment, access to recommended preventive services including routine immunizations, necessary preventive health screenings for infants, and developmental screenings. In my State alone an estimated 6.2 million individuals--2.3 women, 1.6 million children, and 2 million men--could be denied access to the preventive health services afforded to them by the health reform law, which incidentally is four typewritten pages, single spaced, a list of preventive health services. This debate is not about religious freedom. It is about allowing providers and employers the right to deny access to care for autism screening, STD and cancer screenings, and well-baby exams for any reason. All they have to say is they have a moral concern with it, that their conscience bothers them. For instance, any employer could refuse to cover screening for type 2 diabetes because of moral objections to a perceived unhealthy lifestyle. A health plan could refuse to cover maternity coverage for an interracial couple because they have a religious or moral objection to such a relationship. The only thing this amendment does is protect the right to deny. It doesn't give anything. It allows denial. It does nothing to protect the rights of employees to access fundamental health care. The radical wing of the Republican Party does not speak for most of the women in this country. About 100 organizations nationwide oppose this amendment, including the National Partnership for Women and Families, National Physicians Alliance, Human Rights Campaign, and the American Public Health Association. Earlier we heard from an intensive care nurse who had worked 37 years in intensive care in a Boston hospital who said people get the best care essentially when the politicians stay away, and I believe that. I have heard to date--and I am sure Senator Boxer has heard from a similar number--from 11,500 constituents in my State, Senator Boxer's State, who oppose this amendment and have grave concerns about its implications. I don't need to tell the women in this body that we have had to fight for our rights. No one has given women anything without a fight. We had to fight for our right to inherit property, our right to go to college, our right to vote, and for the last 10 years, the right to control our own reproductive systems. We will continue to fight the Blunt amendment and other attempts to roll back the clock. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the long-reaching implications of this amendment and oppose it. Senator Boxer shared with me a letter, and she indicated that she had read one part of it. I wish to read another part of it. This is a letter from Patrick Kennedy to Scott Brown, and I want to read this paragraph because it involves someone everybody on this floor knows sat right over there at that desk for years and was known as the lion of the Senate. When he stood on his feet, everyone listened. Here is what Patrick Kennedy said: My father believed that health care providers should be allowed a conscience exemption from performing any service that conflicted with their faith. That's what was in his 1995 law and what he referenced to the Pope. That is completely different than the broad language of the Blunt amendment that will allow any employer, or even an insurance company, to use vague moral objections as an excuse to refuse to provide health care coverage. My father never would have supported this extreme legislation. It is signed Patrick Kennedy, and I believe Senator Boxer put the letter in the Record so anyone who wishes to see the whole letter has access to it. But I hope this amendment is defeated on the floor. I see the distinguished Senator from the neighboring State, Maryland, the dean of the women, is on the floor. I will yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I heard the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York, and, obviously, I agree and I guess I would like to add my 2 cents to the arguments presented. I am a 19-year member of the Judiciary Committee, so I have had a front-row seat for judicial nominations for a long time. Over 800 judges have been confirmed since I came to the Senate. Now, it was not so long ago that liberals and conservatives could easily win confirmation as long as they were well qualified, fair- minded, and had judicial temperament. They were confirmed. It may even surprise some that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3, and Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98 to 0. That was a different time. Today partisanship has stalled even the most uncontroversial judicial appointments. Senate Republicans allowed no nominees to be confirmed at the end of the last session and have allowed only five so far this year. In this environment even those reported out of committee by voice vote without any controversy are unable to receive a floor vote for many months if they ever receive one at all. Let me give a recent example, a judge I recommended to the President. Judge Cathy Bencivengo's nomination to the Southern District of California was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. Yet she waited 4 months for a floor vote. Then she was ultimately confirmed 90 to 6, showing that there simply was no need to hold up the nomination in the first place. This level of obstruction is relatively new and has impeded the confirmation process for both judicial and executive branch nominees. Let's do a quick comparison. Nearly 80 percent of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees during his first term were confirmed--80 percent. In contrast, less than 60 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed. As a result, the judicial vacancy rate stands at nearly 10 percent. That is double what it was when President Bush left office. Similarly, during the first session of the 112th Congress, the confirmation rate of President Obama's executive branch appointments was only 51 percent. President George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each had a confirmation rate of over 70 percent during comparable periods in their Presidency. So, clearly, there has been a change post-Bush, and I think that is what we are talking about. This is not good for the judiciary, it is not good for this body, and it is not good as standard operating practice of the Senate. It is clear we are seeing a degree of obstruction that is unprecedented and that hampers the ability of the judicial and executive branches to perform their constitutional functions. It is preventing us, the legislative branch, from fulfilling the responsibility that we owe to the two other branches of government. In my State we have three nominees, each for positions the judicial conference has declared to be judicial emergencies, which means extraordinarily heavy caseloads. These should win confirmation without delay. I will give you one: Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, a nominee for the Ninth Circuit. She is a remarkable jurist with an impeccable record. She was confirmed to the district court 97 to 0 in 2009. She was approved by the Judiciary Committee for the Ninth Circuit by a bipartisan voice vote. Yet her nomination has been pending on the floor for nearly 3 months. This is an easy one: unanimously passed, has served as a district court judge, could be voted for and passed if not by 100 percent, very close to it. The Ninth Circuit, which has by far more pending cases per appellate panel than any other appellate court, needs her to be confirmed without further delay. There is a reason for this. I think Republicans don't like some of the appellate courts; therefore, what they try to do, candidly, is keep the positions vacant and hope that after the election there will be a Republican President and they will get their nominees through. Well, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and this is not a good way to handle judicial appointments. Let me give another one: Paul Watford should be confirmed quickly to the Ninth Circuit. He is eminently qualified. He clerked for conservative Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He served as a Federal prosecutor, and he has been a distinguished practitioner of appellate law in California for many years. He is uncontroversial. He has been endorsed by the former president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Federalist Society by conservative law professor Eugene Volokh and by the general counsels of several major corporations that he has represented in appellate cases. The Senate should confirm him without delay. Michael Fitzgerald, a nominee to the Central District of California, should also be confirmed quickly. This is a court that ranks as the ninth busiest in the Nation in terms of filings per judgeship. Mr. Fitzgerald is an extraordinarily qualified nominee with 25 years of experience as a Federal prosecutor and as a lawyer in private practice. His nomination was also reported by the Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan voice vote. Yet his nomination has been waiting for a vote on the floor for nearly 4 months. All of this is unnecessary. They could go through by unanimous consent. Now, I understand that some of my Republican colleagues believe President Obama's recent recess appointments are a reason to delay needed confirmations to overburdened courts around the country. I would simply remind my colleagues of a bit of history and ask them to think carefully about whether they want to go down this very dangerous path. Many will recall that President Bush made two controversial recess appointments to the Eleventh Circuit and the Fifth Circuit in early 2004. Like Republicans now, Democrats were upset about the President's appointments. Nevertheless, in the months that followed, Democrats permitted numerous circuit court and district court nominees to be confirmed. The Senate continued to act on such nominees until September of 2004--2 months before the Presidential election. So I say to my colleagues--and say this respectfully--take a step back. Do not obstruct every judicial nomination from this President. Our judicial system depends on a Senate willing to do its constitutional duty and provide advice and consent on judicial nominees. Most pending nominees are well-qualified, consensus choices for courts that urgently need them to begin their service. We should confirm them without delay. Our job is to vote. Our job is not to obstruct, to delay. It is to vote. We function on a majority system. If you do not think someone is qualified, if you do not believe they have the judicial temperament, if you do not believe they have enough experience, if you do not like them for any reason, vote no. That is entirely within the prerogative of a Senator. But to hold them up, despite judicial emergencies, despite high caseloads, is to impact the system of justice. I think this 10-percent vacancy factor now indicates that the condition of justice is, in fact, being affected throughout our country, particularly in the Ninth Circuit and in California as well as in many other States. I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished chair of the committee, for her work in managing this bill. This is a huge bill. It has many titles. It is a complex bill. It is a totally vital bill. Both on this floor and off this floor, she has been advocating and pushing and doing what is necessary. I want to say thank you very much to my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, let me describe what happened in 2008 in Chatsworth, CA. On September 12, 2008, Metrolink commuter train 111, carrying more than 200 people, departed the Chatsworth train station about 4:20 p.m. Heading west, the commuter train ran through a train signal at 44 miles per hour at about 4:22 p.m. and 2 seconds. The train signal showed red, for stop. At the same time, a Union Pacific freight train, weighing four times the weight of the commuter train, was heading east on the same track. It exited a tunnel with little time to react to the oncoming commuter train. Both trains were on the same track going in opposite directions, each going roughly 40 miles per hour. The trains collided head on. The carnage was unspeakable; 25 people died. Their bodies, many torn to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage. This is the scene. This is the commuter train. This is the freight train. This is the car that essentially chopped apart 25 people. As Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman wrote: These were teachers, Federal, State, municipal employees, business owners, executives, artists and students that were all lost on that day. Many families were left without any provider, not to mention the loss of a mom or dad. Another 101 people were injured, many of them very seriously. Volunteers and rescue crews worked valiantly to pull them from the wreckage. You can see this overturned train here. You see the rescue crews. It was a terrible, terrible scene. Judge Peter Lichtman described many of these injuries. Passengers seated at table seats suffered ``horrible abdominal injuries that could not be medically resolved.'' ``All of the bench passengers were launched head [or] face first into a bulkhead.'' ``Almost all of these passengers suffered traumatic brain injuries to varying degrees.'' Let me explain how and why this happened. Seconds before the crash, the train's engineer was text-messaging on his cell phone. He was the only personnel aboard that train when he looked down to send a text to a teenage boy. This was one of 21 text messages sent by this engineer this day. He received 20 secretaries messages and made four outgoing telephone calls, all while he was driving a large commuter train. According to the NTSB's comprehensive report on the crash, this behavior distracted the engineer and caused the collision. It led to the train running red signals. In fact, NTSB found the passenger train's engineer never even hit the brakes before impact. NTSB found that a crash avoidance system would have stopped the train and prevented this disaster, but, unfortunately, the tracks in Los Angeles had and have no such system nor do most tracks in the United States. As a result of this accident, 25 people died and 100 people were injured. The statistics about the Chatsworth disaster do not begin to tell the story. Perhaps I might be able to better put into words what is at stake in this debate in one of the votes we will be taking about positive train control by telling you a little bit about Kari Hsieh and Atul Vyas. Eighteen-year-old Kari did not want to trouble her father to drive her from the family's Newhall home to a restaurant in Simi Valley, so she took the train. In October 2008 she became one of many young people killed in this crash. She was just starting her senior year at Hart High School and looking forward to a career in medicine, according to her family. She played tennis for the school and was well liked by her classmates who described her as warm and caring. ``Anyone who knew her can remember her by her beaming smile and infectious laugh,'' one of her classmates told the Los Angeles Times. Here she is. ``She had such a positive outlook on life and always had something nice to say about everyone,'' wrote a parent of a varsity tennis player. ``I feel blessed to have been part of her life.'' Then there is Atul Vyas, a student at Claremont McKenna College, who was studying to become a doctor. At 20 years old, he was in the process of applying to graduate programs at MIT, Duke, and Harvard. He scored in the top 1 percent of his medical school entry exams, but he was having trouble answering one question on applications: Describe a hardship you have overcome. ``He said `I have not had any.' I have had a blessed life,'' explained his father. Atul never finished that application nor did he reach his goal of medical school. He took Metrolink train 111 home to visit his family as he did every 2 to 3 weeks, but he never made it home because an engineer was texting. As the NTSB found, these young lives and the lives of 23 others could have been saved if crash avoidance technology, known as positive train control, had been in place. In 2008, Congress finally required railroads to deploy positive train control, which the National Transportation Safety Board had placed on its top 10 most wanted safety technologies listed since 1990. This body gave the railroad industry 7 years to deploy positive train control crash avoidance systems nationwide. The leaders of Southern California's Metrolink, Union Pacific, and BNSF railroads each committed to deploy positive train control systems in Los Angeles years earlier than the national mandate. These railroads are still on track to deploy the system next year. I met yesterday with John Fenton, the new CEO of Metrolink, and Matt Rose, the CEO of BNSF. They both indicated their desire to make their highest priority positive train control, and I thank them. Metrolink is going to go ahead with it as soon as possible regardless. BNSF told us if they delay--if this bill delays it, they may take an additional year. I salute both of them for their support of this program. However, I am very alarmed that others in the railroad industry and in Congress diminish the value of positive train control. As a matter of fact, the bill we will most likely be voting on--in one of its titles, the commerce title--delays positive train control until 2018. The House bill delays it until 2020. When the technology is there, despite its complications of installation, when you have high- risk lines, freight lines and commuter lines traveling in opposite directions on the same track, and when you have human frailty--in this case one engineer texting aboard a commuter train of a couple of hundred people--the only answer to assure the safety to the commuter trains of this Nation, in my view, is positive train control. I view it as an emergency need. The NTSB views it as an emergency need. According to them, scores of deadly accidents across the country since 1970 could have been prevented if positive train control in effect were installed. I agree strongly with the NTSB Chairman, Deborah Hersman, whom I happen to know, who recently wrote to the Congress that: The NTSB will be disappointed if installation of this vital safety system to prevent fatalities and injuries is delayed. The need to extend the 2015 positive train control deployment deadline has not been demonstrated. The Senate Commerce Committee has held no hearings on this issue and no published reports investigating this question have recommended an extension, according to the NTSB experts. Furthermore, every railroad has submitted an approved plan to meet the 2015 deadline to the Federal Railroad Administration, and the administration is preparing a report to Congress on positive train control deployment progress this year, which should provide us guidance on that effort to date. I think Congress should consider the FRA's findings carefully before scaling back or delaying a system that can prevent crashes such as Chatsworth. And there have been three prior crashes that have taken lives on this Metrolink system. These are not isolated. They happen. We now have a technical system that can be 100 percent proof-positive to provide safety. So I am very concerned that without a national strategy, deployment of positive train control in southern California will become more difficult. There will be excuses, and there will be a lessening of effort. And both BNSF and Metrolink have made very strong efforts to comply with 2015. Why change it? The Los Angeles area is a huge commuter area, and when it is not necessary to change it, why do it? The national requirement to deploy the system by 2015 creates a substantial incentive for industry to develop new and cost-effective technology that lowers the deployment costs for everyone, including Metrolink. The national strategy, which will hopefully be presented in the FRA's 2012 report to Congress, could play a significant role in addressing positive train control deployment barriers. This system can prevent human error from causing collisions, dangerous releases of hazardous materials, and passengers and train crews from being killed and injured. So I make these remarks today in the hopes that there will be support in this body for the 2015 deadline. And I really appeal to the committee that right now it is locked in at 2018--we have tried, we have talked to the staff, and we have been rejected--to understand that what they are delaying is a device that saves lives, and there is no excuse for so doing. The case has not been made to do so. The hearings have not taken place, there was no markup to add this, and I strongly believe it should not be delayed in this bill. I hope Members will listen. I hope they will respond. Hundreds of thousands of commuters are at risk until this system is put into place. I yield the floor.