Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I have submitted an amendment to the pending surface transportation reauthorization bill. Community colleges are a critical source of education and job training for many individuals. Nationwide, we have 1,655 community colleges, which enroll nearly 6 million students. These community colleges will play a big role in helping Americans develop the skills to be competitive in our 21st century economy. In light of the President's call for job training assistance, it is imperative that we support programs that help workers meet the new demands of our economy. My amendment does just that. This amendment ensures that transit agencies that partner with community colleges on job training programs are eligible for Federal grants. By supporting collaborative job-training programs between community colleges and transit agencies, we support our workforce in gaining valuable technical skills, while also supporting industries that are facing a workforce shortage. I will urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that we are supporting our workers in getting a valuable education and supporting an industry that is facing a critical workforce shortage.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I have filed Amendment No. 1536 to the pending surface transportation reauthorization bill. This amendment is also supported by Senator Boxer. This amendment would change the railcar procurement rules to allow transit systems to contract for delivery of railcars for up to 5 years from the date of delivery of the first railcar. Current law requires the purchase of buses and railcars to be completed within 5 years of the date the contract is signed, not the date of the first delivery. So this amendment would give transit operators the chance to sign larger and more cost effective contracts, which in some cases can save substantial money. The current rules do not make sense for rail operators. They are designed to stimulate competition among manufacturers, and they prevent transit agencies from locking themselves into contracts for outdated buses in a market that is constantly evolving and advancing technologically. But these rules do not recognize the reality of purchasing and producing railcars. A light rail system's car designs must maintain a basic design for compatibility reasons, so rules designed to promote innovative design have little benefit. But by forcing the transit rail agency to buy cars with the same basic design in two orders instead of one, these rules almost certainly increase total costs. It may also lead to the purchase of different models from two different orders, increasing maintenance costs in the future. For instance, the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, or BART, is replacing its entire fleet of 669 railcars and buying an additional 106 for an expansion project. BART's railcars have been in use for about 50 years, and they have become too costly to maintain. It is clearly time that they be replaced. The current 5 year procurement rule, however, would force BART to issue two small procurements, instead of one large one. BART estimates this will cost taxpayers and transit riders $325 million and they will buy the same number of cars either way. This amendment would allow transit agencies like BART to sign one single contract, to purchase in bulk, and to save money for strapped systems. Buying in bulk means cheaper flooring, seats, and all other component parts needed to build a railcar. BART also risks increased prices of component parts between contracts. This amendment empowers transit systems to apply lessons learned from the airline industry in order to make transit more efficient and less costly. As BART has pointed out in their letter on this amendment, Southwest Airlines is their model. Southwest flies only Boeing 737s, making it the lowest cost maintenance system in the country. BART wants a single railcar design, to bring about the same type of savings. BART hopes to purchase one model and keep their maintenance costs low as well. The bottom line is this amendment gets Federal rules out of the way of transit agencies that want to use their market power. It helps transit get the best possible price when purchasing equipment. It stretches limited Federal dollars much, much further. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure that taxpayers' money is used in an efficient manner. During these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2012, which will improve the sharing of cyber threat and cybersecurity information in the private sector and with the federal government. We all know that the cyber threat is perhaps the number one threat to our Nation at this time. It is significant that just last month, at the Senate Intelligence Committee's hearing on Worldwide Threats, the U.S. Intelligence Community's official statement equated cyber threats to terrorism and proliferation as the highest priority threats to our security. An unclassified report by the Intelligence Community made public in November 2011 said cyber intrusions against U.S. companies cost untold billions of dollars annually and named China and Russia as aggressive and persistent cyber thieves. One of the main obstacles to better U.S. cybersecurity is that a combination of existing law, the threat of litigation, and standard business practices prevent or deter the private sector from sharing information about the cyber threats they face and the losses of information and money they suffer. We know there have been multi-million dollar cyber thefts from the Royal Bank of Scotland, Citibank, and other financial institutions. But companies like these are reticent about making public these cyber attacks because that could further damage their bottom line. Even cyber security companies like RSA and national security agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation fall victim to malicious cyber activity, but the lessons learned from those attacks are generally not shared with others that face the same threat. Finally, cyber criminals violate our privacy by hacking into the computers in our homes. They steal passwords for our bank accounts, access our private information, and turn our computers into launching points for further attacks. These cyber intrusions affect Americans in substantial and real ways, and the threat is only growing. After reviewing the intelligence for many years on the cyber threat, it is clear to me that foreign nations and non-state actors are already causing major damage to our economy. I am also convinced that these bad actors are capable of causing potentially catastrophic loss of life and economic damage by opening a dam, crashing our financial system, or bringing down the electric grid. For these reasons, I am very pleased that Majority Leader Reid is bringing comprehensive cybersecurity legislation to the Senate Floor after the President's Day Recess. For 2 years, Leader Reid has worked with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of all the committees of jurisdiction on cybersecurity to produce this legislation, and Senators Rockefeller, Collins, Lieberman and Snowe in particular are to be commended for their extensive efforts in this area. As the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am particularly interested in legislation to address the need for better information sharing. The intelligence committees in the Senate and House have been working to improve information sharing on counterterrorism since the terrorist attacks of September 11. The urgency in the cyber arena is just as important, but is, if anything, more difficult, as we must coordinate and protect the sharing of information that will go to a far greater number of entities, both public and private. Unfortunately, the private sector entities that operate the critical networks that control financial markets, power plants, dams, and communications are prevented in very real ways from sharing information to warn each other of cyber threats. Barriers to such sharing include perceived financial and reputational risks; legal barriers in electronic surveillance laws; liability concerns that arise from potential lawsuits; and lack of one Federal agency in charge of cyber information sharing. The bill I am introducing today will allow for more information sharing by providing clear authority to share cyber threat information and by reducing legal barriers to private entities' ability to work with each other and with the federal government to share cybersecurity information, in a manner that upholds privacy and civil liberties. Participation in information sharing in this bill would be voluntary for companies, but any company that does share threat information will be protected for doing so, and the information would be subject to strict privacy controls. I also want to be very clear that this bill does not give law enforcement or the Intelligence Community any new authorities for conducting surveillance. In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2012, former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn said that the Intelligence Community needs to make cyber threat information available to other parts of the government and to commercial entities to maximize our cyber defenses. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2012 would do just that. Specifically, this legislation requires the Federal government to designate a single focal point for cybersecurity information sharing. The bill refers to this focal point as a ``Cybersecurity Exchange'' because with cybersecurity, it's not enough for entities to operate as ``centers'' or ``task forces'' that only receive information; they must also serve as a hub for appropriately distributing and exchanging cyber threat information. The bill also requires the government to reduce bureaucratic obstacles to sharing so that the government can be a more effective partner for the private sector. The bill establishes procedures for the government to share classified cybersecurity threat information with certified private sector entities. Generally, only government contractors can receive a security clearance, but other companies, such as Internet Service Providers, need to receive classified threat information in order to protect against attacks. This bill makes them eligible to receive security clearances for that purpose. Those companies would be under the same restrictions to protect classified information as the government. The bill removes legal and policy barriers to information sharing by affirmatively authorizing private sector entities to monitor and defend their own networks and to share cyber information. By creating a robust privacy compliance regime to ensure that information in the Federal government's hands is protected. Just as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Privacy Act, and many other statutes place conditions on the government's ability to use information it receives, this bill would limit the government's ability to use private sector cyber information for approved cybersecurity purposes only. And also by providing appropriate liability protections for companies that share cyber information under the terms of the bill. A company that shares threat information with a cybersecurity exchange or with other private sector entities is protected under this bill from litigation for having done so. Many companies have told us that the threat of litigation deters them from sharing details about cyber attacks they have faced. In order to assist other companies and the government to protect against those attacks in the future, that information needs to be shared and acted upon. I look forward to the consideration of this bill and the rest of the cyber legislative package that will be taken up by the Senate soon.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2012, which will improve the sharing of cyber threat and cybersecurity information in the private sector and with the federal government. We all know that the cyber threat is perhaps the number one threat to our Nation at this time. It is significant that just last month, at the Senate Intelligence Committee's hearing on Worldwide Threats, the U.S. Intelligence Community's official statement equated cyber threats to terrorism and proliferation as the highest priority threats to our security. An unclassified report by the Intelligence Community made public in November 2011 said cyber intrusions against U.S. companies cost untold billions of dollars annually and named China and Russia as aggressive and persistent cyber thieves. One of the main obstacles to better U.S. cybersecurity is that a combination of existing law, the threat of litigation, and standard business practices prevent or deter the private sector from sharing information about the cyber threats they face and the losses of information and money they suffer. We know there have been multi-million dollar cyber thefts from the Royal Bank of Scotland, Citibank, and other financial institutions. But companies like these are reticent about making public these cyber attacks because that could further damage their bottom line. Even cyber security companies like RSA and national security agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation fall victim to malicious cyber activity, but the lessons learned from those attacks are generally not shared with others that face the same threat. Finally, cyber criminals violate our privacy by hacking into the computers in our homes. They steal passwords for our bank accounts, access our private information, and turn our computers into launching points for further attacks. These cyber intrusions affect Americans in substantial and real ways, and the threat is only growing. After reviewing the intelligence for many years on the cyber threat, it is clear to me that foreign nations and non-state actors are already causing major damage to our economy. I am also convinced that these bad actors are capable of causing potentially catastrophic loss of life and economic damage by opening a dam, crashing our financial system, or bringing down the electric grid. For these reasons, I am very pleased that Majority Leader Reid is bringing comprehensive cybersecurity legislation to the Senate Floor after the President's Day Recess. For 2 years, Leader Reid has worked with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of all the committees of jurisdiction on cybersecurity to produce this legislation, and Senators Rockefeller, Collins, Lieberman and Snowe in particular are to be commended for their extensive efforts in this area. As the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am particularly interested in legislation to address the need for better information sharing. The intelligence committees in the Senate and House have been working to improve information sharing on counterterrorism since the terrorist attacks of September 11. The urgency in the cyber arena is just as important, but is, if anything, more difficult, as we must coordinate and protect the sharing of information that will go to a far greater number of entities, both public and private. Unfortunately, the private sector entities that operate the critical networks that control financial markets, power plants, dams, and communications are prevented in very real ways from sharing information to warn each other of cyber threats. Barriers to such sharing include perceived financial and reputational risks; legal barriers in electronic surveillance laws; liability concerns that arise from potential lawsuits; and lack of one Federal agency in charge of cyber information sharing. The bill I am introducing today will allow for more information sharing by providing clear authority to share cyber threat information and by reducing legal barriers to private entities' ability to work with each other and with the federal government to share cybersecurity information, in a manner that upholds privacy and civil liberties. Participation in information sharing in this bill would be voluntary for companies, but any company that does share threat information will be protected for doing so, and the information would be subject to strict privacy controls. I also want to be very clear that this bill does not give law enforcement or the Intelligence Community any new authorities for conducting surveillance. In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2012, former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn said that the Intelligence Community needs to make cyber threat information available to other parts of the government and to commercial entities to maximize our cyber defenses. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2012 would do just that. Specifically, this legislation requires the Federal government to designate a single focal point for cybersecurity information sharing. The bill refers to this focal point as a ``Cybersecurity Exchange'' because with cybersecurity, it's not enough for entities to operate as ``centers'' or ``task forces'' that only receive information; they must also serve as a hub for appropriately distributing and exchanging cyber threat information. The bill also requires the government to reduce bureaucratic obstacles to sharing so that the government can be a more effective partner for the private sector. The bill establishes procedures for the government to share classified cybersecurity threat information with certified private sector entities. Generally, only government contractors can receive a security clearance, but other companies, such as Internet Service Providers, need to receive classified threat information in order to protect against attacks. This bill makes them eligible to receive security clearances for that purpose. Those companies would be under the same restrictions to protect classified information as the government. The bill removes legal and policy barriers to information sharing by affirmatively authorizing private sector entities to monitor and defend their own networks and to share cyber information. By creating a robust privacy compliance regime to ensure that information in the Federal government's hands is protected. Just as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Privacy Act, and many other statutes place conditions on the government's ability to use information it receives, this bill would limit the government's ability to use private sector cyber information for approved cybersecurity purposes only. And also by providing appropriate liability protections for companies that share cyber information under the terms of the bill. A company that shares threat information with a cybersecurity exchange or with other private sector entities is protected under this bill from litigation for having done so. Many companies have told us that the threat of litigation deters them from sharing details about cyber attacks they have faced. In order to assist other companies and the government to protect against those attacks in the future, that information needs to be shared and acted upon. I look forward to the consideration of this bill and the rest of the cyber legislative package that will be taken up by the Senate soon.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the nomination of magistrate judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo to the position of district judge for the Southern District of California. Judge Bencivengo will fill a judicial emergency vacancy in a judicial district along the southwest border that has one of the highest and most rapidly increasing criminal caseloads in the country. The Southern District of California includes San Diego and Imperial Counties. It borders Mexico, and it consequently has a large immigration caseload. It ranks fourth in the country in terms of criminal case filings per authorized judgeship. The district's former chief judge, Irma Gonzalez, wrote me a letter urging Judge Bencivengo's confirmation and highlighting the felony caseload crisis in the district. As Chief Judge Gonzalez explained, since 2008 criminal case filings in the district have increased by 42 percent and civil case filings by 25 percent. In the past fiscal year alone, criminal cases had risen 17 percent up to the time of her letter. It is, in fact, a judicial emergency.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me tell everyone a little about Judge Bencivengo. She is a consensus nominee who was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a voice vote. That does not often happen. There was no objection from any colleague on any side of the aisle. She was recommended to me by a bipartisan judicial selection committee which I have established in California to advise me in recommending judicial nominees to the President. This committee reviews judicial candidates based on their legal skill, reputation, experience, temperament, and overall commitment to excellence. Judge Bencivengo has been a U.S. magistrate judge in San Diego for the last 6 years, and she has earned an outstanding reputation in that judicial role. Throughout my advisory committee's process, Judge Bencivengo has actually set herself apart as a person who would be truly exceptional. She was born in New Jersey. She began her undergraduate career at Rutgers. She earned a bachelor's in journalism and political science and a master's from Rutgers as well. She worked for a leading American corporation--Johnson & Johnson--in New Brunswick. She then attended the University of Michigan Law School, where she excelled, graduating magna cum laude, and was inducted into the Order of the Coif. After law school, she joined the San Diego firm of Gray Cary, which later became part of a major international law firm. She became a founding member of the firm's patent litigation group. Her knowledge of patent law, which she honed in law school and in private practice, made her a valued resource for her colleagues and clients, so she quickly rose through the ranks at her firm. She was selected as the national cochair of her firm's patent litigation group, a role in which she managed 70 patent attorneys. In 2005, she became a magistrate judge, a role in which she has served as a serious and thoughtful jurist. Since her appointment, she has published 180 opinions, over 190 reports and recommendations, over 1,800 orders on nondispositive motions, and roughly 800 of her orders involved felony criminal cases. She has substantial expertise in patent law, which will be welcome in the district, which is part of a new Federal judicial program designed to assign more patent cases to judges who are experts in the field of patent law. So she will be helpful. Judge Bencivengo has received high praise from any number of people. I know of no opposition to her confirmation. I think this advice and consent process will yield a very good, seasoned San Diego magistrate judge for the district court, and I am very proud to recommend her and to have had unanimous consent of the Judiciary Committee for her confirmation. I see Senator Lee on the floor. Perhaps I could ask unanimous consent that when Senator Lee concludes, and if there is time remaining, I be recognized to speak for a couple minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to Senator Lee's comments. I understand the reasons for which he is opposing this nominee. I would again point out that, in my opinion, based on what I heard the distinguished Senator say, it has nothing to do with the nominee. It has to do with a peripheral issue. I would hope a majority of the Senate would understand this is a totally noncontroversial, totally capable, totally qualified, and totally good nominee. To hold her confirmation hostage is something that doesn't redound well on this body. This is a judicial emergency in the Southern District of California, and we need to get this judge approved. So while I appreciate the Senator's comments--I think most of us are well aware of the feelings on the other side--I think somehow, some way, we have to come together and prevent what is happening. And what is happening is, if I don't get my way on something, I am going to hold up appointments, I am going to hold up confirmations, and I am going to do whatever I can to show I have power to disrupt this body. In essence, the body can be disrupted. We know that. There are very strong minority rights in the Senate rules of order. But at the same time, we have an obligation to see that qualified people who want to serve in this government--in this case in the judicial arm, in the Federal Court system--have an opportunity to do so, and where there is real danger in terms of overly high caseloads, we can respond and get qualified nominees in place. I appreciate what the Senator had to say. I understand it. But I appeal to this body: Please vote to approve Cathy Bencivengo to the Southern District of California.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the continued attacks on the rights of women to control their own reproductive choices. Women should have access to comprehensive reproductive care and should be able to decide for themselves how to use that care. Here is the problem. The politics of women's health care has reached an extreme point, most recently with the decision of the Susan G. Komen Foundation to stop funding for breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. Following the outrage of millions of men and women around the country, the Foundation reversed its course, at least for this year. A year ago, House Republicans passed a budget that would have eliminated the Title X Family Planning Program and defunded Planned Parenthood. Annually, these programs serve almost 8 million Americans nationwide providing primary care, cancer screenings, well baby care, contraceptive services, education, annual exams, STD and HIV testing, and flu vaccines. These programs provide critical health care services to many women who simply cannot afford to go anywhere else. It is ironic to defund these programs because family planning education and access to contraception can save money. For example, title X supported family planning centers prevented 406,000 abortions and saved taxpayers $3.4 billion in 2008 alone. The same House-passed budget would have also eliminated the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. Teen pregnancy costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Recently, the Obama administration announced its final policy on contraception coverage as part of the preventive health services recommended for women. The policy concluded employers are required to provide no-cost contraception or another option to their employees. The administration included a very narrow exemption to this requirement, and allowed religious organizations, such as churches or synagogues that primarily employ people of their own faith, to opt-out. This narrow religious exemption, which does not include hospitals, universities, or other organizations with religious affiliations, was the right decision. It ensures that millions of women of all faiths, including nurses, janitors, doctors, and college instructors, will access to good health care, including contraception, if they want it. A nurse seeking employment should not have to choose between one employer who provides contraception coverage and one who doesn't. Access to contraception is widely supported. Today, two new polls were released that showed the majority of catholic voters support coverage for prescription birth control. Seventy-one percent of American voters, including 77 percent of Catholic women voters, support health plans covering birth control without co-pays. Moreover, 28 States, including California, already require employer- provided health plans to include contraception coverage if the plan provides prescription drug coverage. In 2004, the California Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities was no different from any other employer and therefore required to provide contraception coverage for their employees. I agree. Access to contraception can reduce rates of unintended pregnancy, help with certain health problems, and reduce the risks of some cancers. Expanding the exemption would have caused unacceptable harm to women. The administration should keep this exemption narrow. House Republicans insisted on including a ban on local funding for abortions in the District of Columbia in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill. They have introduced and passed numerous bills that would significantly restrict a women's right to choose. This past October, the House passed a bill that would prohibit Federal funds from being used for any health plan that offers abortion coverage. This would mean that any women receiving Federal subsidies to help them afford health insurance would effectively be prohibited from purchasing coverage that included abortion services. Last May, the House passed a bill that falsely claimed to end public funding for abortion. There are already stringent Federal protections that prohibit Federal dollars from being used for abortions; this bill was not about that. Instead this bill was an attempt to reopen a contentious debate and to impose unprecedented limitations on women using their own money for abortion services. Even worse, this bill would have allowed hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care or refer a patient to a hospital that would provide it, even when a woman's life is in critical danger. This attack on women's health must be defeated. All women deserve access to quality comprehensive health care, regardless of their income level or place of employment. There is a balance between respecting America's democratic values and increasing access to important health services for women. In addition to being a health concern, for many women it is an economic concern as well. Better health policies for women help them save on out of pockets costs. When women are healthy, communities are healthy. I will continue to stand for women's health and fight for equal access to care. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer, I join my colleagues in the House of Representatives, including Mr. Costa, Mr. Lungren, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Farr, Mr. Denham, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Baca, Mr. Herger, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Filner, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Nunes, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Lee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Chu, Ms. Speier, Ms. Linda Sanchez, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Honda, Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Calvert, to pay tribute to Mr. Jack King on the occasion of his retirement from the California Farm Bureau Federation. For more than 35 years, Jack King has worked on behalf of our Nation's farmers and ranchers to ensure that they have a voice in our Nation's capital. His passion for agriculture has made him a strong and effective advocate for the American Farm Bureau Federation and the California Farm Bureau Federation. Growing up on a dairy farm in Wisconsin taught Jack the value of hard work, and the important role agriculture plays in America--specifically when it comes to feeding and clothing our families and supporting our economy. Upon graduating from the University of Wisconsin, Jack began his career in agriculture with the university's cooperative extension office. Jack then went on to work for the Wisconsin Council of Agricultural Cooperatives and the Wisconsin Council of Agriculture. In 1973, Jack ventured west and joined the California Farm Bureau Federation as assistant manager of the information division. Jack expanded his work with the Farm Bureau, and in 1985, he became news services director for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Based in Illinois, Jack managed internal and external communications and often worked in conjunction with the Washington, D.C. office to ensure that legislators were connected with farmers and ranchers. In 1994, Jack returned to California to serve as manager of the California Farm Bureau Federation's National Affairs Division. He served as a direct link between farmers, ranchers, and Members of Congress. Jack's tremendous contributions and dedication can be measured in a number of ways. Notably, Jack made approximately 200 trips to Washington, D.C. His deep commitment was based in his belief that legislators needed to hear directly from farmers and ranchers in order to understand their contributions and the difficulties they face. Specifically, Jack has been dedicated to working on comprehensive immigration reform, natural resource regulations, and renewable energy. Of course none of these accomplishments would be possible without the love and support of Jack's wife, Mary Ann; their sons, Carl, David and Bryan; and two grandchildren. We ask our colleagues to join us in recognizing Jack King's enthusiasm and work ethic. His devotion and loyalty to our Nation's farmers and ranchers make him a source of pride for our community, State and Nation. We thank Jack for his work on behalf of farmers and ranchers in California and all across the country, and wish him well in retirement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Lieberman, Rubio, Boxer, Durbin, McCain, Webb, and Mark Udall to submit a resolution expressing our deep concern about the current situation in Tibet and our steadfast support for the Tibetan people. Once again, we have seen how harsh and counterproductive Chinese policies have heightened tensions and led to deadly violence. According to press reports and the International Campaign for Tibet, since the beginning of the Chinese New Year on Monday, security forces in Sichuan province have opened fire three times on Tibetans who gathered peacefully to protest Chinese policies on Tibet. At least six Tibetans have been killed and many more wounded. These attacks come on top of a recent spate of self-immolations mostly by Tibetan monks and nuns. Since March 2011, at least 16 Tibetans, including four this month alone, have set themselves on fire and at least 12 have died. I know I join my colleagues in mourning these tragic deaths and the death of Tibetans in this latest round of unrest. In addition, I call on Chinese security forces to exercise maximum restraint and stop targeting Tibetan protesters. Violence is not the answer to the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people. We must raise our voice with this resolution to call on Beijing to respect the right of Tibetans to practice their own religion freely and preserve their distinct cultural and linguistic identity. This resolution mourns the death of Tibetans who have self-immolated and deplores the repressive policies targeting Tibetans; calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to suspend implementation of religious control regulations, reassess religious and security policies implemented since 2008 in Tibet, and resume a dialogue with Tibetan Buddhist leaders, including the Dalai Lama or his representatives, to resolve underlying grievances; calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to release all persons that have been arbitrarily detained; to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors; and to allow unrestricted access to journalists, foreign diplomats, and international organizations to Tibet. The resolution commends His Holiness the Dalai Lama for his decision to devolve his political power in favor of a democratic system; congratulates Tibetans living in exile for holding, on March 20, 2011, a competitive, multi-candidate election that was free, fair, and met international electoral standards; and reaffirms the unwavering friendship between the people of the United States and the people of Tibet. Over the past several years I have been following the situation in Tibet with increasing concern. I became involved in this issue when I first met His Holiness the Dalai Lama during a trip to India and Nepal in the fall of 1978. At that time, as Mayor, I invited His Holiness to visit San Francisco and he accepted. In September 1979, I was delighted to welcome the Dalai Lama to San Francisco to receive his first public recognition in the United States. He inspired me to act and I have had the privilege to call him a friend for over 30 years. Over this time, I have come to the view that Chinese policies on Tibet are intended to suppress the Tibetan culture and people. These policies include punitive security measures including permanently placing Chinese officials in monasteries; surveillance, mass arrests, and detentions; and restrictions on freedom to practice religion including requiring monks to denounce the Dalai Lama. We have seen how these policies have created an atmosphere of despair, hopelessness, and frustration among many Tibetans. Despite nine rounds of talks between the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China and envoys of His Holiness, a comprehensive solution to the Tibetan issue remains out of reach. As a friend of China and the Dalia Lama, I am saddened to see the situation in Tibet deteriorate to this point. The Dalai Lama has been trying to engage the Chinese leadership for over fifty years. In the 1990s, I carried three letters to President Jiang Zemin from the Dalai Lama requesting a face to face meeting. In my view, the Dalai Lama's concerns are driven by a strong Tibetan belief and experience that the Chinese Government continues to suppress the Tibetan culture and way of life. As my colleagues know, the Dalai Lama has made it clear that he does not support independence for Tibet, but rather meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people within the People's Republic of China. Most recently, in his March 2011 statement marking the 52nd anniversary of the peaceful Tibetan uprising he stated: In our efforts to solve the issue of Tibet, we have consistently pursued the mutually beneficial Middle-Way Approach, which seeks genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the [People's Republic of China]. The newly elected prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, has affirmed this policy in his inaugural address: Guided by the wisdom of our forefathers and foremothers, we will continue the Middle-Way policy, which seeks genuine autonomy for Tibet within the People's Republic of China. Despite these repeated and unequivocal statements, Beijing continues to insist that His Holiness seeks independence for Tibet. I am stunned that this message has fallen on deaf ears. Let there be no doubt: the clear goal of His Holiness and the Tibetan people is autonomy within China. This autonomy can only come about through meaningful dialogue and negotiation, not actions that would undermine Tibetan culture. As such, I urge the administration to work with our friends and allies in the international community and call on the Chinese Government to begin a substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama on national reconciliation, respect for the Tibetan culture, and meaningful autonomy for Tibet. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Tibetan people and support this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in marking the 2-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. I want to express my support for legislation to reverse the harmful impact of this decision and restore accountability, transparency and common sense to our Nation's electoral system. Nearly 2 years ago, on January 21, 2010, the Roberts Court handed down a 5-4 decision striking down parts of the ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.'' That decision--Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission--flew in the face of nearly a century of Congressional law and overturned two prior rulings of the Supreme Court. This case is not alone. It is part of a pattern of decisions from the Roberts Court that have overturned precedent. I have a real concern that this Court is going out of its way to rewrite and reinterpret prior law with decisions, I am sorry to say, seem to favor corporate interests over the interests of the American people. The Citizens United decision may be the most troubling of these activist decisions. This decision does not only impact one group of people or one area of the law--it affects the very functioning of our elections and the democracy of more than 300 million Americans. The Court's decision in this case opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in Federal elections. Let me repeat: unlimited spending. The Court held that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of corporations to spend freely--in the millions or even the billions--on election ads to support or defeat a particular candidate. What does this mean in the real world? This means that an oil company like ExxonMobil--a company that earned $45 billion in profits last year--could spend unlimited money to support a candidate who supports more drilling, or to defeat a candidate who opposes more oil drilling. It means that Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater, and other defense contractors could spend unlimited sums toward the election of candidates who view their defense positions favorably. Or large banks like Bank of America would be free to use their corporate treasury to attack candidates who favor financial regulation and consumer protection. As Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 testified at a Rules Committee hearing in 2010, ``It would not take many examples of elections where multimillion corporate expenditures defeat a Member of Congress before all Members quickly learn the lesson, vote against the corporate interest at stake in a piece of legislation and you run the risk of being hit with a multimillion-dollar corporate ad campaign to defeat you.'' Is this what we want? Four years ago in 2008, at this same point in the presidential election cycle, $12.9 million was spent by super PACs in support of candidates. The fall 2010 midterm elections ushered in this new political landscape with outside groups spending a record $300 million on political advertisements and other messages. This amount represents a 340 percent increase above 2006 spending levels. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the spending by presidential super PACs in this year's election cycle has quadrupled since 2008 to an astonishing $42.5 million spent as of January 24, 2012. More money is being spent than ever before. Do not take my word for it. Take a look at what is going on in the Republican Presidential primary. Corporations and wealthy individuals are funding these super PACs and spending vast amounts of money to attack candidates. My concerns with these dramatic increases in spending are heightened by a recent finding from the Center for Responsive Politics that approximately 44 percent of the outside spending in 2010 came from anonymous sources. The Roberts Court's decision in Citizens United was, I believe, the wrong one. It protects corporate free speech and will drown out an individuals' free speech. It has threatened to put democratic elections in the United States up for sale to the highest bidder. And it will, I believe, lead to voters having less reliable information about candidates, not more. The Court gets the final word on the Constitution, and it has spoken. However, Congress should pass the DISCLOSE Act or Senator Tom Udall's campaign finance constitutional amendment. I supported the DISCLOSE Act in the last Congress because I believe it is a critical step forward, but the bill was narrowly defeated on a cloture vote of 59-39 in September of 2010. Given what we have seen in the Republican primaries this year, I think this body must try again to pass the DISCLOSE Act. In 2010, we came close to passing it and needed just one additional yea vote to move the bill forward. The DISCLOSE Act ensures the American public knows who is funding an ad when they see it on television, and it will close loopholes that could have otherwise allowed unlimited spending in our elections by foreign nationals and corporations receiving government assistance. I understand that Senator Schumer is working to reintroduce this legislation, and I fully support him in this effort. Senator Udall's resolution to amend the Constitution would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal campaigns, including the independent spending of super PACs. This resolution is a critical step to ensure that corporate dollars will not flow in the dark to one candidate and against another, but, instead, our election process will regain the transparency it has lost after Citizens United. I believe it is essential that we pass legislation to address this growing problem, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Los Angeles Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2011, which is cosponsored by Senator Boxer. This legislation is very simple. It directs the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and enforce regulations to control helicopter noise and improve helicopter safety above Los Angeles. FAA must complete the regulations within three years, in consultation with the local community, and it must include an exemption for public safety aircraft. The bill is a companion to legislation with the same name introduced by Representative Berman. This legislation is long overdue. Under current law, helicopter pilots can and do fly practically wherever they want above Los Angeles, and no agency limits their activity. The Federal Aviation Administration controls our Nation's airspace exclusively, but it imposes no restrictions on helicopter flight paths, elevation, or hovering. If a helicopter wants to hover over a home in Los Angeles for an hour, it can. One neighborhood leader told the New York Times this summer that he was afraid of complaining too loudly about the noise helicopters create because he feared helicopter operators would retaliate, legally, by parking over his house. City officials and State agencies permit the location of helicopter landing pads, but they have absolutely no power to govern what the chopper does once it takes off. They can do nothing to discourage tourist pilots from flying low and banking hard for the promise of a tip. Bottom Line: This is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated industry. This reality is increasingly frustrating to Los Angeles residents who are experiencing what many people say is the most intense period of helicopter use in memory. Every day brings a steady swarm of helicopters buzzing above Southern California's bedroom communities in what many officials say are greater numbers than ever before. There are media helicopters, traffic helicopters, tour helicopters, paparazzi and film crew helicopters, corporate helicopters and private commuter helicopters. Downtown L.A. has a helicopter parking lot in the clouds; helipads lie atop nearly every skyscraper. But the city's residents may have finally reached their breaking point in July, after two consecutive weekends of extreme helicopter noise. First, the helicopters hovered for hours on end as Prince William and his new bride, Kate, settled into Hancock Park, a Los Angeles community. Then, a week later, the helicopters monitoring the impact of closing Interstate 405 were even worse. Los Angeles resident Sue Rosen told the New York Times that there were, at any given time, at least five helicopters hovering over her house watching the 405. ``The noise was nerve-wracking,'' she said. ``The house was vibrating.'' The same week, a helicopter thumped loudly above the Hollywood Bowl at the exact moment Gustavo Dudamel was leading the Los Angeles Philharmonic through the adagio in the overture to Mozart's ``Abduction From the Seraglio.'' Although the Hollywood Bowl has worked aggressively with helicopter operators to establish a voluntary no-fly zone during concert nights, they have no power to enforce it, and pilots ignore it. Noise from helicopters above the Hollywood bowl has been so loud some years that the Symphony had to stop playing. As one pilot explained: the Hollywood Bowl managers ``are always calling the towers telling them to get us away. But they can't do anything.'' Only FAA can act. Only the FAA has the authority to improve the lives of millions of Californians bothered by helicopters by establishing common sense rules that increase safety and reduce noise. But to date, FAA leaders have ignored this problem. In fact, FAA has not even tracked noise and annoyance complaints. This bill directs the FAA to take this matter seriously. FAA would be required to bring about safer, more pleasant skies above Los Angeles in cooperation with the local communities. The air above our cities is a common Federal resource that only Congress has the power to protect, and today the air above Los Angeles is polluted with helicopter noise. This is therefore a very important bill for the quality of life in America's second largest city. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and work with us to enact it as part of FAA reauthorization. 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 to introduce the Los Angeles Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2011, which is cosponsored by Senator Boxer. This legislation is very simple. It directs the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and enforce regulations to control helicopter noise and improve helicopter safety above Los Angeles. FAA must complete the regulations within three years, in consultation with the local community, and it must include an exemption for public safety aircraft. The bill is a companion to legislation with the same name introduced by Representative Berman. This legislation is long overdue. Under current law, helicopter pilots can and do fly practically wherever they want above Los Angeles, and no agency limits their activity. The Federal Aviation Administration controls our Nation's airspace exclusively, but it imposes no restrictions on helicopter flight paths, elevation, or hovering. If a helicopter wants to hover over a home in Los Angeles for an hour, it can. One neighborhood leader told the New York Times this summer that he was afraid of complaining too loudly about the noise helicopters create because he feared helicopter operators would retaliate, legally, by parking over his house. City officials and State agencies permit the location of helicopter landing pads, but they have absolutely no power to govern what the chopper does once it takes off. They can do nothing to discourage tourist pilots from flying low and banking hard for the promise of a tip. Bottom Line: This is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated industry. This reality is increasingly frustrating to Los Angeles residents who are experiencing what many people say is the most intense period of helicopter use in memory. Every day brings a steady swarm of helicopters buzzing above Southern California's bedroom communities in what many officials say are greater numbers than ever before. There are media helicopters, traffic helicopters, tour helicopters, paparazzi and film crew helicopters, corporate helicopters and private commuter helicopters. Downtown L.A. has a helicopter parking lot in the clouds; helipads lie atop nearly every skyscraper. But the city's residents may have finally reached their breaking point in July, after two consecutive weekends of extreme helicopter noise. First, the helicopters hovered for hours on end as Prince William and his new bride, Kate, settled into Hancock Park, a Los Angeles community. Then, a week later, the helicopters monitoring the impact of closing Interstate 405 were even worse. Los Angeles resident Sue Rosen told the New York Times that there were, at any given time, at least five helicopters hovering over her house watching the 405. ``The noise was nerve-wracking,'' she said. ``The house was vibrating.'' The same week, a helicopter thumped loudly above the Hollywood Bowl at the exact moment Gustavo Dudamel was leading the Los Angeles Philharmonic through the adagio in the overture to Mozart's ``Abduction From the Seraglio.'' Although the Hollywood Bowl has worked aggressively with helicopter operators to establish a voluntary no-fly zone during concert nights, they have no power to enforce it, and pilots ignore it. Noise from helicopters above the Hollywood bowl has been so loud some years that the Symphony had to stop playing. As one pilot explained: the Hollywood Bowl managers ``are always calling the towers telling them to get us away. But they can't do anything.'' Only FAA can act. Only the FAA has the authority to improve the lives of millions of Californians bothered by helicopters by establishing common sense rules that increase safety and reduce noise. But to date, FAA leaders have ignored this problem. In fact, FAA has not even tracked noise and annoyance complaints. This bill directs the FAA to take this matter seriously. FAA would be required to bring about safer, more pleasant skies above Los Angeles in cooperation with the local communities. The air above our cities is a common Federal resource that only Congress has the power to protect, and today the air above Los Angeles is polluted with helicopter noise. This is therefore a very important bill for the quality of life in America's second largest city. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and work with us to enact it as part of FAA reauthorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his very eloquent remarks; also, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall, whom I had the pleasure of hearing from my office. I think they have encapsulated the situation we find ourselves in very well. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on the detention authorities in the Defense Authorization bill and announce that today I am introducing legislation to clearly state that citizens apprehended in the United States shall not be indefinitely detained by the military. This new legislation is called the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. I am joined by Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to which this bill will go, Senator Lee, a member of that committee, Senator Kirk, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Paul, Senator Coons, and Senator Gillibrand. I thank them for being original cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation. In sum, the Due Process Guarantee Act we are introducing will add to another major law called the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which clearly stated: No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress. The new legislation we intend to introduce will amend this Non- Detention Act to provide clearly that no military authorization authorizes the indefinite detention without charge or trial of U.S. citizens who are apprehended domestically. It also codifies a ``clear statement rule'' that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for all military authorizations and similar authorities. We cannot limit the actions of future Congresses, but we can provide that if they intend to limit the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens, they must say so clearly and explicitly. I am very pleased to add that Senator Durbin will also cosponsor this legislation. Lawful permanent residents are included in this bill we will introduce because they have the same due process protections as citizens under the Constitution. In this bill, the protections for citizens and lawful permanent residents is limited to those ``apprehended in the United States,'' excluding citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield. I strongly believe constitutional due process requires that U.S. citizens apprehended in the United States should never be held in indefinite detention. That is what this legislation would accomplish, so I look forward to working with my colleagues, especially Chairman Leahy on the Judiciary Committee, to move this bill forward. I note the Senator from Illinois, Senator Kirk, is on the floor of the Senate to speak about this bill as well. Our current approach to handling these suspects in Federal criminal courts has produced a strong record of success since the 9/11 attacks. We would be wise to follow the saying, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Our system is not broken. We thwarted attempted terrorist acts. We have captured terrorists, interrogated them, retrieved actionable intelligence from them, prosecuted them, and locked them up for lengthy sentences--in most cases for the rest of their lives. Both Senator Udall and Senator Durbin pointed out Director Mueller's testimony before the Judiciary Committee yesterday. This is relevant because it had been said that the Director of the FBI was satisfied with the language of the conference report of the Defense authorization bill. When Director Mueller was asked the question yesterday, Are you satisfied with the language, in so many words, he said, not quite. To quote him, Director Mueller said: Given the statute the way it is now, it doesn't give me a clear path to certainty as to what is going to happen when arrests are made in a particular case. He warned: The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining. I am concerned about how these provisions will be implemented once they are enacted into law, so I will be watching carefully to ensure that they do not jeopardize our national security. Finally, I want to explain, as the sponsor of the Feinstein compromise amendment, No. 1456, that the Defense authorization bill should not be read to authorize indefinite detention of U.S. citizens captured inside the United States or abroad, lawful resident aliens of the United States captured inside our country or abroad, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. On page 655 of the conference report, the compromise amendment, No. 1456, that passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1, reads this way, and this is in the conference report of the Defense authorization bill: Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, or lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. What does this mean? This means we have agreed to preserve current law for the three groups specified, as interpreted by our Federal courts, and to leave to the courts the difficult questions of who may be detained by the military, for how long, and under what circumstances. And the Due Process Guarantee Act will clarify that citizens and lawful permanents cannot be detained without charge or trial if they are apprehended domestically. I interpret current law to permit the detention of U.S. citizens as ``enemy combatants,'' consistent with the laws of war, only in the very narrow circumstance of a citizen who has taken an active part in hostilities against the United States and is captured outside the United States in an area of ``active combat operations,'' such as the battlefields of Afghanistan. This was the Supreme Court's narrow holding in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004. I am sorry to say that Hamdi has been mischaracterized in this body. Whether Congress should grant the President more expansive powers of detention or act to curtail the powers identified by the Supreme Court in Hamdi is a question that Congress will continue to debate in the future. And we introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act to help clarify current law: that citizens and lawful permanents cannot be detained without charge or trial if they are apprehended domestically. I would like to point out the errors in the legal analysis by those who would interpret current law, or this Defense Authorization Act, to authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, irrespective of where they are captured or under what circumstances. Let's turn to the Supreme Court's 2004 opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which has been incorrectly cited by others for the proposition that the 2001 AUMF permits indefinite detention of American citizens regardless of where they are captured. Hamdi involved a U.S. citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, who took up arms on behalf of the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and turned over to U.S. forces. The Supreme Court's opinion in that case was a muddled decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain U.S. citizens captured in such circumstances as ``enemy combatants'' for some period, but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial. In particular, the Court limited its holding to citizens captured in an area of ``active combat operations'' and concluded that even in those circumstances, the U.S. Constitution and the due process clause guarantees U.S. citizens certain rights, including the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge. The plurality's opinion stated: It [the Government] has made clear, however, for the purposes of this case, the ``enemy combatant'' that it [the Government] is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was ``part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners'' in Afghanistan, and who ``engaged in an armed conflict against the United States'' there. Brief for Respondents 3. That was all a quote from the plurality opinion, and it continues: We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized. The opinion goes on to say at page 517: We conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals-- And here it is-- in the narrow category we describe. . . . And the narrow category they describe is one who is part of forces hostile to the U.S. on the battlefield of Afghanistan. Indeed, the plurality later emphasized that it was discussing a citizen captured on the battlefield. In responding to Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, the plurality opinion says: Justice Scalia largely ignores the context of this case: a United States citizen captured in a foreign combat zone. The plurality italicized and emphasized the word ``foreign'' in that sentence. Thus, to the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a U.S. citizen until the end of hostilities, it does so only under a very limited set of circumstances; namely, citizens taking an active part in hostilities who are captured in Afghanistan and who are afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum. It is also worth noting that amid lingering legal uncertainty regarding whether the government had the authority to detain Hamdi, the Government--this was the Bush administration--saw this and released Hamdi to Saudi Arabia on the condition that he relinquish his U.S. citizenship. As a result, I don't regard the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi as providing any compelling support for broad assertions of legal authority to detain U.S. citizens without trial. Certainly, the case provides no support for the indefinite detention of citizens captured inside the United States. Let me go back to something. In 1971, the Congress passed, and Richard Nixon signed into law, a Non-Detention Act to preclude this very possibility. That act was intended in large measure to put the wrongs of Japanese internment during World War right. It provides simply: No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress. I very much agree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held in the case of Padilla v. Rumsfeld that: [W]e conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because . . . the Non-Detention Act . . . prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. The Second Circuit went on to say that the 2001 AUMF ``is not such an authorization and no exception to [the Non-Detention Act] otherwise exists.'' The Fourth Circuit came to a different conclusion when it took up Padilla's case, but its analysis turned entirely on disputed claims that ``Padilla associated with forces hostile to the U.S. Government in Afghanistan'' and, ``like Hamdi,'' and this is a quote, ``Padilla took up arms against United States forces in that country in the same way and to the same extent as did Hamdi.'' To help resolve this apparent dispute between the circuits, I believe we need to pass the Due Process Guarantee Act that my cosponsors and I are introducing today. I would like to add Senator Bill Nelson of Florida as a cosponsor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is important. We spent about half a day on this floor discussing this with Senator Levin, with Senator McCain, in the cloakroom with Senators Lee and Paul, as well as with a whole host of staff both from the Armed Services Committee as well as the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Here is the conclusion: I, and many of my colleagues and legal scholars, believe neither the AUMF nor the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that we are considering today constitute such an express authorization to detain American citizens. As I previously mentioned, I sponsored compromise amendment No. 1456 to the Defense bill when it passed the Senate and that amendment has now become section 1021(e) of the conference report specifically to prevent misrepresentations from providing Congressional intent to support the detention of Americans. Ex parte Quirin is a 1942 Supreme Court case that upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal that tried several German saboteurs captured inside the United States during World War II and brought to stand trial before the hastily convened military tribunal. One of the saboteurs, Herbert Hans Haupt, was a U.S. citizen. However, the question at issue in Quirin was not whether a U.S. citizen captured inside the United States could be held indefinitely under the laws of war without trial, but rather, whether such an individual could be held in detention for a matter of weeks pending trial by military commission. Haupt was, in fact, tried, convicted and sentenced to death within weeks after his capture. Moreover, the Quirin opinion predates the Geneva Conventions, a milestone of rather substantial significance in the development of the law of war, and the decision also predates the Non-Detention Act of 1971. As Justice Scalia said in his dissent in Hamdi: ``[Quirin] was not [the Supreme] Court's finest hour.'' The only recent case of a U.S. citizen captured inside the United States and held as an enemy combatant under the law of war is that of Jose Padilla. However, amid considerable legal controversy regarding the legality of his detention, Padilla was ultimately transferred out of military custody and tried and convicted in a civilian court. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a dirty bomb attack in the United States. He was initially detained pursuant to a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On June 9, 2002, two days before a Federal judge was to rule on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President Bush designated him an ``enemy combatant'' and transferred him to a military prison in South Carolina for detention pursuant to the law of war without charge or trial. Padilla subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the legality of his continued detention and an extended series of appeals ensued. Facing an impending Supreme Court challenge and mounting public criticism for holding a U.S. citizen arrested inside the U.S. as an enemy combatant, President Bush ordered Padilla transferred to civilian custody to face criminal conspiracy and material support for terrorism charges in Federal court. The criminal charges against Padilla were not, however, related to Padilla's alleged involvement in a dirty bomb plot, which had been the basis for his prior detention as an enemy combatant. Padilla was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison. That 17-year sentence has since been vacated and is under reconsideration. Thus, the Padilla case is at best inconclusive as to the President's authority to detain a citizen captured inside the United States as an ``enemy combatant.'' More likely, it evidences the folly of such overreaching assertions of Executive power. Despite my longstanding opposition to the detention provisions in this bill, I will be voting yes on this important legislation. The main reason I support the defense authorization bill is because it ensures our troops deployed around the world--especially those in Afghanistan-- have the equipment, resources, and training they need to defend this Nation. I wish to sum up by quoting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the plurality in Hamdi. Here is what she wrote: As critical as the Government's interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing international conflict, history and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat. This is what Senator Kirk, Senator Lee, Senator Paul, and those of us on the Democratic side who have worked on this truly believe. What about the person captured on the corner who looks a certain way, who gets picked up and put into detention? Does that person have the right to a charge and to a trial? Our system of due process and the Constitution of the United States say, simply, yes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the due process guarantee bill. I wish to defer to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Kirk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help stop criminals from exploiting the Internet to illegally sell prescription drugs. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sessions, Senator Schumer, and Senator Cornyn. I first became concerned about the issue of illegitimate online pharmacies in 2001, when one of my constituents, high school student Ryan Haight, died from an overdose of the controlled substance Vicodin. He had purchased the Vicodin from a rogue online pharmacy after simply filling out an online questionnaire in which he described himself as a 25-year-old male suffering from chronic back pain. The doctor prescribing the drug never met or personally examined Ryan. Ryan's death was a terrible tragedy. He was a remarkable young man, an honors student and an athlete. He looked forward to going to college. Instead, his life was cut short. In response, I introduced legislation, beginning in 2004, to better regulate the online sale of prescription drugs that are controlled substances. In 2008, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, Ryan Haight Act, was enacted into law, and it became effective in April 2009. Senator Sessions was the lead cosponsor on that legislation. The Ryan Haight Act makes it a violation of the Controlled Substances Act to dispense a prescription for a controlled substance by means of the Internet without a practitioner having conducted at least one in- person medical evaluation of the purchaser. The act also requires online pharmacies to register with the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and comply with DEA regulations. The Ryan Haight Act has helped to prevent illegitimate online sales of prescribed controlled substances. However, illegitimate online sellers continue to sell other types of prescription drugs, and stronger laws are needed to stop them. The sale of prescription drugs online by web sites acting unlawfully is a dangerous and widespread problem. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and other non-profit organizations that monitor the Internet have consistently found that about 96 percent of all Internet pharmacies don't require a prescription, aren't appropriately licensed, and sell unregulated drugs. Theses illegitimate online pharmacies continue to cause serious harm. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy reports that from the start of its Internet Drug Outlet Identification Program in April 2008, it has received 509 customer inquiries about online prescription drug sellers, and 21 of those customers have reported injuries. Some of these injuries were very serious leading to hospitalization, with customers suffering worsening symptoms caused by the ailment the medications were intended to treat, as well as severe side effects. The easy accessibility of prescription drugs through illegitimate online drug sellers also contributes to a growing prescription drug abuse problem. A study published in the May 2011 edition of the Journal of Health Affairs suggests that the growth in high-speed Internet access has fueled prescription drug abuse. Conducted by investigators from Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Southern California, the study found that, over a 7-year period, States with the greatest expansion in high-speed Internet access also had the largest increase in admissions for treatment of prescription drug abuse. We should be particularly concerned about this problem when it comes to young people, who are frequently online unsupervised and vulnerable to rogue drug sellers on the Internet. Not surprisingly, there is also a significant amount of fraud associated with illegitimate online drug sellers. Some of these websites simply take money without providing anything in return. Web sites that dispense counterfeit drugs are an even more dangerous problem. These counterfeit drugs are frequently manufactured in unsanitary conditions and may contain contaminated ingredients, or the wrong ingredients. A recent CBS News story found that counterfeit drugs can contain paint, floor wax, and boric acid. So, instead of the appropriate medicine needed for their health problem, online consumers are receiving substances that may harm or even kill them. The legislation I am introducing today will address these problems, and help stop illegitimate online drug sellers. There are two main components to the legislation. First, it amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to add a definition of ``valid prescription,'' requiring at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient. This is the same approach taken in the Ryan Haight Act with prescription drugs that are controlled substances. It will prevent illegitimate online pharmacies from selling drugs over the Internet with sham prescriptions. The second critical element is the establishment, by the Food and Drug Administration, of a registry of legitimate online pharmacy websites. This will protect consumers who will know that they are dealing with lawful online pharmacies and help law enforcement crack down on the illegitimate websites. The exploitation of the Internet by rogue online drug sellers continues to be a dangerous and deadly problem and we should not wait for more lives to be lost or ruined before we act. Consumers deserve access to safe and legitimate online pharmacies and protection from illegitimate websites that sell counterfeit or otherwise illegitimate medication, and I urge my colleagues to support 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 rise today to introduce legislation that will help stop criminals from exploiting the Internet to illegally sell prescription drugs. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sessions, Senator Schumer, and Senator Cornyn. I first became concerned about the issue of illegitimate online pharmacies in 2001, when one of my constituents, high school student Ryan Haight, died from an overdose of the controlled substance Vicodin. He had purchased the Vicodin from a rogue online pharmacy after simply filling out an online questionnaire in which he described himself as a 25-year-old male suffering from chronic back pain. The doctor prescribing the drug never met or personally examined Ryan. Ryan's death was a terrible tragedy. He was a remarkable young man, an honors student and an athlete. He looked forward to going to college. Instead, his life was cut short. In response, I introduced legislation, beginning in 2004, to better regulate the online sale of prescription drugs that are controlled substances. In 2008, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, Ryan Haight Act, was enacted into law, and it became effective in April 2009. Senator Sessions was the lead cosponsor on that legislation. The Ryan Haight Act makes it a violation of the Controlled Substances Act to dispense a prescription for a controlled substance by means of the Internet without a practitioner having conducted at least one in- person medical evaluation of the purchaser. The act also requires online pharmacies to register with the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and comply with DEA regulations. The Ryan Haight Act has helped to prevent illegitimate online sales of prescribed controlled substances. However, illegitimate online sellers continue to sell other types of prescription drugs, and stronger laws are needed to stop them. The sale of prescription drugs online by web sites acting unlawfully is a dangerous and widespread problem. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and other non-profit organizations that monitor the Internet have consistently found that about 96 percent of all Internet pharmacies don't require a prescription, aren't appropriately licensed, and sell unregulated drugs. Theses illegitimate online pharmacies continue to cause serious harm. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy reports that from the start of its Internet Drug Outlet Identification Program in April 2008, it has received 509 customer inquiries about online prescription drug sellers, and 21 of those customers have reported injuries. Some of these injuries were very serious leading to hospitalization, with customers suffering worsening symptoms caused by the ailment the medications were intended to treat, as well as severe side effects. The easy accessibility of prescription drugs through illegitimate online drug sellers also contributes to a growing prescription drug abuse problem. A study published in the May 2011 edition of the Journal of Health Affairs suggests that the growth in high-speed Internet access has fueled prescription drug abuse. Conducted by investigators from Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Southern California, the study found that, over a 7-year period, States with the greatest expansion in high-speed Internet access also had the largest increase in admissions for treatment of prescription drug abuse. We should be particularly concerned about this problem when it comes to young people, who are frequently online unsupervised and vulnerable to rogue drug sellers on the Internet. Not surprisingly, there is also a significant amount of fraud associated with illegitimate online drug sellers. Some of these websites simply take money without providing anything in return. Web sites that dispense counterfeit drugs are an even more dangerous problem. These counterfeit drugs are frequently manufactured in unsanitary conditions and may contain contaminated ingredients, or the wrong ingredients. A recent CBS News story found that counterfeit drugs can contain paint, floor wax, and boric acid. So, instead of the appropriate medicine needed for their health problem, online consumers are receiving substances that may harm or even kill them. The legislation I am introducing today will address these problems, and help stop illegitimate online drug sellers. There are two main components to the legislation. First, it amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to add a definition of ``valid prescription,'' requiring at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient. This is the same approach taken in the Ryan Haight Act with prescription drugs that are controlled substances. It will prevent illegitimate online pharmacies from selling drugs over the Internet with sham prescriptions. The second critical element is the establishment, by the Food and Drug Administration, of a registry of legitimate online pharmacy websites. This will protect consumers who will know that they are dealing with lawful online pharmacies and help law enforcement crack down on the illegitimate websites. The exploitation of the Internet by rogue online drug sellers continues to be a dangerous and deadly problem and we should not wait for more lives to be lost or ruined before we act. Consumers deserve access to safe and legitimate online pharmacies and protection from illegitimate websites that sell counterfeit or otherwise illegitimate medication, and I urge my colleagues to support 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 rise today in support of the Senate's passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012. I understand that the House of Representatives intends to consider this legislation on the suspension calendar later this week, so it should be enacted prior to the end of this session. This will be the third time in less than 15 months that the Congress will enact an intelligence authorization bill--including bills for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012--after a 6 year hiatus in passing such legislation. What this means is that Congress, through the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, is restoring oversight over the intelligence community and fulfilling our responsibility to thoroughly examine intelligence policies and budgets. Unlike the last two authorization bills, this bill was completed contemporaneously with, instead of after, the appropriations process that funds intelligence efforts. The classified annex to this legislation authorizes appropriations for intelligence activities and has helped guide the work of the appropriations committees as they considered intelligence spending. The days when the intelligence community can bypass the intelligence committees and deal solely with the appropriations committees are over. Since receiving the President's budget request for the intelligence community in February, the Intelligence Committee has recognized that the massive increase in intelligence spending over the past decade has come to an end. Our original bill, reported to the Senate in August of this year, reduced intelligence spending below the President's request. Since then, we have worked closely with the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the executive branch to reflect the spending reductions set in the Budget Control Act of 2011. The legislation we are approving today keeps funding for intelligence essentially flat from fiscal year 2011, representing the a meaningful reduction from the President's request. As we look to 2013, many more difficult decisions will need to be made to make further reductions to intelligence spending. It is my belief that real reductions in intelligence spending can be accomplished without sacrificing capability, but this will require a rigorous review and the executive branch being more forthcoming than it has been to date about where it believes cuts are possible. Of course, the bill also provides significant legislative provisions to give the intelligence community the authorities and flexibilities it needs to continue protecting our national security and providing policymakers the information they need to make foreign policy and security decisions; and other provisions for the effective and appropriate functioning of our intelligence apparatus. I note that passage of the last intelligence authorization bill occurred shortly after the strike leading to the death of Usama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Since then, the intelligence community has had continued success in tracking and removing terrorist threats to the United States. Senior leaders and commanders of al-Qaida, including all of its affiliate groups as well as militant organizations involved in the Afghan war, have been removed from the fight, and terrorist plots and plotting have been disrupted. Among them, a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States was thwarted due to the skillful and cooperative efforts of the FBI, DEA, CIA, and others. Intelligence has factored into significant policy decisions and U.S. actions, including with respect to interdicting the proliferation of weapons, setting economic sanctions, protecting ISAF forces in Afghanistan, blocking cyber attacks against our government and certain critical infrastructure companies, and contributing to the NATO effort in Libya. It is my hope that the provisions in this bill will continue to aid the intelligence community as it conducts its missions; ensure better stewardship of taxpayer dollars; and support its thousands of civilians and military employees. Among other things, this bill includes: A section that provides for burial allowances for intelligence employees killed in the line of duty, similar to those for members of the U.S. military; New procurement authorities that enable intelligence agencies to protect against supply chain risk to information technologies; a measure authorizing new accounts at the Department of Treasury that will enable defense intelligence agencies to become financially auditable; Provisions that strengthen congressional oversight of the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay; a section that will improve the accuracy of intelligence community cost estimates; and Provisions that provide the Director of National Intelligence with needed personnel management authorities. As I noted, the bill contains a 275-page classified schedule and annex that authorizes intelligence funding and implements the committee's oversight findings over the past year. That annex is available to all Senators in the intelligence committee's offices. Mr. President, let me note my sincere appreciation for the close collaboration of Senator Chambliss, the vice chairman of the committee, throughout the legislative process. He and his staff--in particular Martha Scott Poindexter and Jacqueline Russell--have continued the bipartisan approach that the committee followed in the last Congress, and we have together agreed to every provision in the bill. As can be imagined, it has taken enormous effort to produce a third bill in such a short time frame. I sincerely thank the efforts of the staff to review the President's requested funding levels and legislative provisions, to draft legislation, and to negotiate a final product. In particular, I thank Lorenzo Goco, the Deputy Staff Director who has overseen the legislative efforts, Michael Davidson, the general counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee until this past Labor Day, and Christine Healey, who has carried the load of the legislative work throughout and who replaced Mr. Davidson as general counsel. I also extend my appreciation for the work of Eric Losick and Mike Buchwald, majority counsel on the Committee, and Jack Livingston and Kathleen Rice, the minority counsel. Similarly, the Committee's budget staff has worked diligently and expertly in their preparation of the classified annex to this bill and in working with intelligence agencies to understand and guide their efforts. I thank the committee's budget director, Peggy Evans, and the budget staff through this period: Hayden Milberg, Randy Bookout, Andrew Kerr, John Dickas, Paul Matulic, Matt Pollard, Amy Hopkins, Jamal Ware, Iram Ali, Jeffrey Howard, Andy Grotto, Jim Smythers, Brian Miller, Eric Chapman, John Maguire, Tyler Stephens, Evan Gottesman, Brian Walsh, Ryan Tully, and Christian Cook. I also appreciate the work and relationship with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The version of the legislation approved today builds on the House legislation, and our two committees have consulted closely throughout this process. We held a joint open hearing on the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2011, attacks and I look forward to continuing to work together next year to enact the fiscal year 2013 intelligence authorization bill. Let me also note my appreciation for two other Senate committees. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has closely followed our authorizations as it drafted its appropriations bill. This underscores the work done in our bill, and limits to a minimum the cases where the authorization and appropriations levels do not match. We have also worked over the past week with the Senate Armed Services Committee to include language in the classified annex to this bill concerning the Military Intelligence Program and a military construction program authorized for the National Security Agency. The Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee both exercise jurisdiction over military construction projects with intelligence funding; in this instance, the two committees have both included authorizations for the High Performance Computing Center II, and have jointly agreed to the language included in this annex. Finally, Mr. President, I note that while there is no committee report or conference report associated with the text that we are approving today, the Intelligence Committee issued a report to accompany the bill it reported to the Senate in August. As the legislation has changed since House passage of its authorization bill and consideration today of this amendment, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a section-by-section analysis of the legislation so as to provide for the legislative history needed to explain the authors' intent and better clarify the effects of the provisions included.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011, of which I am a cosponsor. This legislation passed the Congress after a multiyear effort led by Senator Harry Reid, the bill's lead author, and I thank him for his work. Upon enactment, Californians will be able to continue buying Hoover Dam's power at the cost of production for the next 50 years. The legislation allows the people of southern California whose local governments and utilities signed the 50-year contracts that made building Hoover Dam possible to receive 56 percent of the energy produced by the dam for another five decades. For the people of my State, the Hoover Dam has been a consistent supply of affordable, pollution-free power for decades. The Hoover Dam is one of the largest power plants in the United States, with a capacity of 2,080 megawatts approximately the size of each of California's nuclear powerplants. Its average production between 1999 and 2008 was about 4.2 billion kilowatt-hours per year, approximately 2.4 billion kilowatt hours of which goes to southern Californians who buy their power from Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, or members of the Southern California Public Power Agency. Hoover's power also plays an essential role moving water into parched and populous southern California. The Metropolitan Water District uses Hoover's power to move its 550,000 acrefeet annual allocation of water from the Colorado River, over five desert mountain ranges, to Los Angeles. Without Hoover's power, the Metropolitan Water District's cost of moving that water would be inordinately more expensive. And if California rate payers had to buy that much power at market rates instead of Hoover Dam's 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour cost of production, it would cost approximately $180 million more each year. And that power would likely come from dirtier, more distant sources, including coal plants. Instead, continued access to Hoover's low-cost, renewable hydropower will keep rates low as California's utilities bring on new, more expensive renewable power to comply with the State's 33-percent renewable portfolio standard. The legislation also sets up a process through which new power recipients in California will be determined by the Western Area Power Administration. As explained in the House committee report accompanying this bill, Congress expects the agency to conduct an open hearing and review the process to determine power allocations fairly and equitably. The process should provide the opportunity for irrigation districts, rural electric cooperatives, and other eligible entities to receive allocations. Congress also expects that Western Area Power Administration will evaluate the relevant power requests of potential new Hoover power recipients in an open, thorough, and transparent process to assess both the applicants' power needs and the classes of customers they serve. The agency should make allocation determinations in an impartial, unbiased, and objective manner, consistent with State and Federal preference standards, and in a way that provides the most benefit to the most Californians. My colleagues and I also expect that the process and analytical results will be documented and made available for review. Finally, no discussion of Hoover Dam would be complete without acknowledging efforts to protect endangered species. Hoover contractors have committed to providing more than $150 million over 50 years to support the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program for the protection of 26 endangered, threatened and sensitive species. The legislation authorizing the MSCP was enacted in the 111th Congress and signed into law on March 30, 2009. I thank the parties for reaching this agreement. The Hoover Dam is an American success story. And it is a renewable energy success story. During the depths of the Great Depression, Americans stepped forward to help build one of the great engineering marvels of all time. Between 1931 and 1936, our Nation made a massive effort involving thousands of workers more than 100 of whom lost their lives to build a powerplant unlike anything the world had ever seen. Many in Congress at the time argued the cost of Hoover Dam was too high. They argued that government should not be making such large investments in infrastructure. They opposed efforts to invest in an unproven energy technology like hydropower. The debate was strikingly similar to debates we are having in this body today. Luckily for the people of California, believers in American infrastructure and technology won the Hoover Dam debate. The U.S. Congress provided Federal funds, but only after the Department of the Interior arranged power contracts at prices sufficient to both, No. 1, cover the operating and maintenance charges and, No. 2 repay the capital appropriated by the U.S. Congress within 50 years. When the communities and utilities of California, led by the City of Los Angeles, stepped forward to sign those contracts, construction began. As the years have passed, the investment has been repaid and the wisdom of Congress's decision has become apparent. And now we have enacted a law that continues the legacy of Hoover Dam. I thank the generations before us for having the foresight to fund the Hoover Dam, and I hope we can again rekindle the spirit and invest in America.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize and thank Ms. Lorelei Shepard, who will be retiring from the United States Senate at the end of the year. Lorelei began her career on the Hill in 1993, working for the Secretary of the Senate as an elevator operator in the Capitol. She eventually became a supervisor where she was responsible for managing the weekly schedule of 20 operators and supervising their day to day duties. Her pleasant demeanor and calm nature served her well as she guided and delivered confused visitors and harried staff and Senators to their destinations in the Capitol. She joined the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1995, as the Committee's receptionist, where once again her calm and friendly approach and knowledge of the Capitol served her well. In 2000, Lorelei decided to pursue one of her dreams and she moved to a beautiful home in a little town in Vermont. As a Californian, I think it is safe to say that although beautiful, the winters in Vermont leave something to be desired. Thanks to that New England winter, Lorelei decided she needed to thaw out and she soon returned to Washington. Through a combination of good luck and timing, the Committee was able to have Lorelei join the Committee staff again, at the end of 2001. She has served for the last 10 years on the Committee's staff, including for the last 5 years as our security assistant, making sure that classified documents are logged and distributed appropriately, handling classified correspondence, and keeping track of the secrets entrusted to the Committee. It is the Intelligence Committee's constitutional responsibility to oversee the intelligence activities of our nation. Through her many years of service on the Committee, Lorelei has made a quiet but critical contribution to this effort. For that, I thank her. Though Lorelei will be leaving, the Shepard family still remains a part of the Senate community. Lorelei's daughter, Lori, and son, Peter, have followed in their mother's footsteps and both work in the Senate today. This is quite a testament to their family's commitment and dedication to our nation and one for which they should be proud. I wish Lorelei all the best as she retires and eventually returns to Vermont. I know she will enjoy the new-found time she will have to pursue her love of quilting, writing and the myriad of other talents with which she has been blessed. On behalf of the Intelligence Committee, many thanks Lorelei, best wishes, and stay warm.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As the first woman to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee--a committee on which I have served for 18 years--it is my great pleasure to speak in support of Ms. Halligan, who has excelled at every turn during her distinguished legal career. She graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1988. She received her law degree, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center, where she was managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal and inducted into the Order of the Coif. She began her legal career with a clerkship with Judge Patricia Wald on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit--the first woman to serve on that Court. She then spent a year in private practice at the Washington, DC firm, Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, followed by a clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. After another year in private practice, Ms. Halligan began work in the office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, first as Chief of the Internet Bureau. She rose to become Solicitor General of the State of New York, the State's top appellate lawyer. She served in that role from 2001 through 2007. During nearly all of Ms. Halligan's time as Solicitor General, George Pataki--a Republican--was Governor. Her job was to represent the State of New York zealously, and by all accounts she did so with skill and dignity. Judith Kaye, the former Chief Judge of New York's highest court, writes on behalf of the Court's entire bench that ``it was invariably a treat'' to have Ms. Halligan argue before the Court. In fact, the National Association of Attorneys General awarded Ms. Halligan the ``Best Brief Award'' for five consecutive years, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Ms. Halligan left the Solicitor General post in 2007 to become the head of the appellate practice at the prestigious New York law firm, Weil, Gotshal, and Manges. She has now returned to public service as the General Counsel of the New York County District Attorney's Office--one of the largest prosecutor's offices in the country. Over the course of her distinguished career, Halligan has served as counsel for a party or amicus in the Supreme Court more than 45 times. She has argued in the Supreme Court herself in five cases, most recently in March of this year. She also has argued or participated in numerous other cases before State and Federal appellate courts, including the New York Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In short, Ms. Halligan is an accomplished woman whose sterling qualifications for the bench are unassailable. Ms. Halligan was first nominated more than 14 months ago. She was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee nearly 9 months ago. She has been waiting for an up-or-down vote on the floor ever since. It is an unfortunate sign of the times that my colleagues on the other side have held up her confirmation. I understand that the National Rifle Association is opposed to Ms. Halligan's confirmation. Behind the NRA's opposition is the fact that, while she was New York's Solicitor General, the State of New York pursued public nuisance litigation against gun manufacturers. Think about that--any time a person represents a State or local government, or the Federal Government, and takes a controversial position, that may jeopardize a later confirmation vote. That is not fair. A government lawyer's job is to pursue the government's interest vigorously and to do justice. Ms. Halligan was appointed by the Attorney General to represent the State of New York, while the State had a Republican Governor, George Pataki. Her job was to advance New York's interest, and she did so with vigor. She should not be penalized for it. Senator Sessions made this point when the Senate was considering Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. He said that ``[s]uggesting that service in an elective branch of Government somehow tarnishes a lawyer's reputation would be a terrible message for this body to send to the legal community and to all citizens.'' I couldn't agree more. My Republican colleagues might also say that the D.C. Circuit's caseload does not support another judge, but they have short memories. There are now three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. That means that Ms. Halligan would only fill the ninth seat, out of 11 on the Court. Two seats would remain vacant. However, my colleagues were not so concerned about this issue when President Bush's appointees were before the Senate. In fact, my Republican colleagues supported filling the 10th seat on the Court twice, and the 11th seat once. I will conclude by simply saying that Ms. Halligan is a woman with sterling credentials, an exemplary record, and a wealth of experience. She is President Obama's first and only nominee to the D.C. Circuit. She should be confirmed. Nominations of Edgardo Ramos and Andrew Carter, SDNY