Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to remember the life and to honor the legacy of a remarkable woman--an advocate for breast cancer research and awareness, a philanthropist, a savvy businesswoman, an accomplished photographer and author, a wife, a mother, a grandmother, and a dear friend, Evelyn Lauder. Evelyn lost her courageous battle with ovarian cancer on Saturday. She is survived by her husband of 52 years, Leonard Lauder; her sons, William and Gary; and five grandchildren. In many ways, her life parallels the familiar immigrant story of 20th-century America. It is the story of a woman who escaped Nazi Europe, voyaged to the United States of America, and proceeded to enrich this country in countless ways. Evelyn Hausner was born on August 12, 1936, in Vienna. She was the only child of Ernest and Mimi Hausner. When Hitler annexed Austria in 1938, the family fled to Belgium with just a few sentimental belongings. Later, the family relocated to England during the Blitz. In England, Evelyn's mother was sent to an internment camp on the Isle of Man. Evelyn was sent to live in a nursery. Eventually the family was reunited, and in 1940 they set sail for New York City. Evelyn often told a story about arriving in New York Harbor at the dawn of the Second World War. She said: My mother woke me up really early in the morning to see the Statue of Liberty. That's a sight I will remember all my life. She fell in love with New York that morning and would give back to her adopted city for the next seven decades. She was a proud product of the New York City public school system. As a freshman at Hunter College, she met her future husband on a blind date. Leonard Lauder was the son of Estee and Joseph Lauder, the owners of what then was just a small, family cosmetics business. Evelyn was a public school teacher for several years, and in 1959 she formally joined Estee Lauder, pitching in wherever she was needed. As the company grew to become an international conglomerate, so, too, did Evelyn's role and influence. She held many different positions at the company over the years. One of the earliest projects she tackled was to create the company's training programs. She enhanced the Estee Lauder product lineup by adding new colors and products that appealed to a range of complexions and skin types. She had great instincts about new trends, about the needs of a consumer, and about the development of skin care and cosmetics. In fact, it was Evelyn who helped launch the name ``the Clinique brand.'' In the last 25 years, she focused on fragrance--a lifelong passion she shared with her famous mother-in-law that stemmed from her love of flowers and gardening. In 1999 and again in 2007, she was recognized as one of New York's 100 Most Influential Women in Business by Crain's New York Business. Evelyn was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1989 and soon became a tireless advocate for women's health. True to form, she was reluctant to publicly discuss her own condition. ``My situation doesn't really matter,'' she told a reporter in 1995. Instead, she chose to channel her energy and attention into helping raise money and educate women with less access and information about the disease. In 1989, as a member of the board of overseers at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, she initiated a fundraising drive that raised more than $18 million to establish the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center, the country's first ever breast and diagnostic center. The center opened in 1992 and is a model for similar facilities around the world. In 1992 Evelyn developed the iconic pink ribbon, which we all know today as the worldwide symbol of breast health. She spearheaded the distribution of millions of pink ribbons and breast self-exam instruction cards at Estee Lauder cosmetic counters all across the country. Her efforts elevated breast cancer awareness in the public consciousness, and almost two decades later more than 115 million pink ribbons and millions of educational brochures and bookmarks have been handed out around the world. In 1993 she turned her attention to supporting the world's leading medical and scientific researchers and established the Breast Cancer Research Foundation to address the crucial lack of breast cancer research funding. Under her leadership, the foundation has grown to become the largest national organization dedicated exclusively to funding research relating to the causes, treatment, and prevention of breast cancer. To date, this foundation has raised $350 million, and supports 186 researchers around the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Australia, and China. In 2000, Evelyn Lauder launched the Global Landmark Illuminations Initiative. We have all enjoyed seeing historic landmarks illuminated in pink lights during the month of October. Each year, more than 200 prominent landmarks around the world participate. Evelyn has bathed the Empire State Building, Niagara Falls, the Tower of London, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the Tokyo Tower in pink lights. There was another side to Evelyn. She was an accomplished photographer with a keen eye and ability to capture extraordinary images. I have two of her photographs and treasure them. Her photography included rainbows rising from the Pacific Ocean, snow scenes in Colorado, patterns created by light reflecting on water, and landscapes in Chile, Tuscany, and the south of France, among others. Evelyn's works were featured in exhibitions at art galleries in London, Paris, Jerusalem, Barcelona, and Beijing, and well-received exhibitions in New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and my hometown of San Francisco. She also published two books of photographs and had her work featured in many publications, including American Photo, House & Garden, the Oprah Magazine, and Town & Country. Evelyn was modest and self-effacing, but she donated all proceeds from her photographic exhibitions and royalties from her books to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Evelyn Lauder was one of a kind. She was a beautiful woman. I knew her. I remember Evelyn, her husband, my husband, and me sitting around a small table in a small Italian restaurant in New York City. I looked across that table at this beautiful woman and all that she has done in her lifetime. It is truly amazing. Her life may have begun under challenging circumstances but she became one of the country's most generous philanthropists and accomplished businesswomen. She was fun, she was smart, she was talented. She was a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and friend. She was a remarkable American woman. She will be missed. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as I understand the current situation, we do not know whether we are on three bills or one bill. That is up to the leadership. Senator Alexander and I have worked on the Energy and Water bill. We are very hopeful we can move this bill. It was unanimous in the subcommittee on Appropriations. There was only one dissent in the full committee--which is one of the largest committees in the Senate, in the Appropriations Committee. It is a significant bill. We believe we should move it as quickly as we possibly can. We have been talking. Obviously we are waiting to hear from the leadership. We are hopeful that once we hear we can move very quickly to get this bill passed by this body. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with Senator Alexander. I know he has some comments he wishes to make at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me thank the distinguished ranking member for those comments, and I believe we are in agreement. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I would hope any Democratic amendments could come in just as quickly as possible, and we think we have a good bill. Hopefully there will not be many. I agree with what the Senator said about the Defense bill. We have a CR, and we really need to get cracking. Time is of the essence. We have been sitting here for a couple of hours waiting for amendments. There have been none thus far, and I think the word is out: Now is the time. Please, Members, if you have amendments, please file them. We have had one amendment just filed on the Republican side and know of a couple of others, but that is about it at this stage. Let me thank the ranking member. I guess we just sit here and wait. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise in support of the fiscal year 2012 energy and water development appropriations bill with my ranking member, the distinguished Senator Alexander, with whom I have had the great pleasure of working. I want to say this up front: It has been a pleasure to work with this particular ranking member. He is respected, he is credible, he is direct, and he is reasonable, which I have learned is an endangered species around here. So I very much appreciate that. This Energy and Water bill has an allocation of $31.625 billion, which is $57 million or .1 percent below last year's enacted levels and nearly $3 billion or 9.4 percent below the President's request. The $31.625 billion is split between security and nonsecurity funding, consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Budget Control Act established caps on discretionary spending over 10 years, with separate caps for security and nonsecurity spending. Now, this becomes relevant, as I will explain. The security allocation for energy and water is $11.05 billion. The $11.05 billion funds only four programs under the National Nuclear Security Administration, called NNSA: nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the Administrator. I would like to point out right up front that funding for the NNSA makes up a growing portion of this bill. Last year the NNSA made up 30 percent of the total allocation. This year it has increased to 35 percent. In addition, because of the Budget Control Act, a firewall is created between security and nonsecurity funding so we cannot transfer funding back and forth. No funding from the NNSA can be used to fund energy and water projects, and no funds from energy and water can be used to fund the National Nuclear Security Administration. While funding increases for the National Nuclear Security Administration to help advance national security priorities, it comes at the expense of water and energy projects in the rest of our bill. Our nonsecurity allocation, which funds the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation under the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy, is $20.575 billion. While our security allocation grew by $528 million or 5 percent, the nonsecurity allocation is $584 million or 2.8 percent less than for fiscal year 2011 and $3.5 billion or 17 percent less than for fiscal year 2010. So we can see the crunch that is put on one part of the budget and the other part of our appropriations bill has actually expanded. As I mentioned, the security allocation is $11.05 billion, which is an increase of $528 million or 5 percent over fiscal year 2011. This is an increase of $1.163 billion or close to 12 percent for the security portion of this appropriations bill over fiscal year 2010. To clarify, NNSA is responsible for three primary national security missions: first, maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; second, responsibility for reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism through nonproliferation programs; and third, it designs and builds nuclear reactors for safe and effective nuclear propulsion for aircraft carriers and submarines in the U.S. Navy. Taking into account competing funding priorities for national security activities, I think this bill strikes as good a balance as it can between funding for nuclear weapons modernization and reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation. The Nuclear Weapons Program under the bill would see an increase of $294 million or 4.2 percent above fiscal year 2011. With $7.2 billion, the NNSA, which is the agency of concern, will be able to meet the highest priorities of the Nuclear Posture Review and modernization activities discussed during negotiations of the New START Treaty. These are three primary activities: First, funds will continue for life extension programs for the W76 submarine-launched warhead, the B61 bomb, and the W78 intercontinental ballistic missile warhead. Second, funds allow for completing design work for two aging nuclear facilities that may need to be replaced to meet modern safety standards--one for handling plutonium at Los Alamos National Lab and the other for uranium at the Y-12 facility in Tennessee. Third, funds will maintain the science, technology, and engineering base to continue assessing the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The nonproliferation program would see an increase of $109 million or 4.7 percent above fiscal year 2011. NNSA would stay on track to meet its goals to secure and remove the most vulnerable nuclear materials from around the world by the end of 2013. These are materials that could be used by terrorists to build nuclear devices. The United States has already removed 3,086 kilograms of highly enriched uranium--120 nuclear weapons' worth of material--from dozens of countries. NNSA would also be able to continue deploying portal monitors at seaports and border crossings to detect nuclear smuggling and help countries increase security at nuclear facilities. The United States has installed radiation detection equipment at more than 399 sites across the world. Finally, the security allocation will be used to fund the naval reactors program that provides propulsion for the country's submarines and aircraft carriers. An increase of $141 million or 14.6 percent above fiscal year 2011 is directed to help design a nuclear reactor that will last 40 years for ballistic missile submarines, the most survivable leg of our nuclear deterrent. Turning to nonsecurity funding, as I mentioned earlier, our allocation is $20.575 billion--$584 million or 2.8 percent less than fiscal year 2011. With this significant decrease in funding, the bill focuses its limited nonsecurity funding on the highest priorities: critical water infrastructure projects and accelerating energy technology. Let me speak for a moment about water infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers would receive $4.864 billion. That is an increase of $7 million or one-tenth of 1 percent, above fiscal year 2011 and $291 million or 5.9 percent above the President's request. Here is why. I strongly believe the Corps of Engineers is responsible for such a wide array of projects--building, maintaining, repairing locks, levees, dams, dredging for waterway navigation. Devastating floods and hurricanes in the last few months that have damaged many communities across the United States are a stark reminder of why Corps of Engineers infrastructure projects remain such a high congressional priority. With a ban on congressionally directed projects--or, as they are not so fondly called, earmarks--Congress cannot direct needed funding to projects that may have been overlooked by the administration or to address emerging needs after the President's budget submission. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request did not include more than 100 studies and projects for navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration that the administration included in the fiscal year 2011 work plan. Without funding in 2012, these studies and projects will likely be suspended. I think that is important to keep in mind. While our bill does not fund any new projects, our bill provides $291 million above the President's request to support these ongoing studies and projects for the Corps that were either unfunded or underfunded in the President's budget request. The bill also provides the Department of the Interior $1.067 billion, which is $27 million or 2\1/2\ percent less than fiscal year 2011 but still $16 million or 1.4 percent more than the President's request. Funding for the Department of Interior includes the Bureau of Reclamation, which is responsible for oversight and operation of water projects related to irrigation, water supply, and hydroelectric power generation in the 17 Western States. Finally, the bill provides $1.045 billion in disaster relief funding--and I wish to speak about that--this is on top of our base allocation--to repair damaged Corps of Engineers owned, operated, or fixed infrastructure from flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and other natural disasters. This level of funding covers damages the Corps identified when the committee reported this bill. As I mentioned during committee markup, we know this amount is insufficient based on the number and severity of natural disasters that have occurred this year. The Corps has updated their disaster needs. We will be working throughout the floor process to ensure that increased funding to address disaster recovery needs is provided. I think both the ranking member and I, our subcommittee, and the Appropriations Committee as a whole understand that responding to these disaster needs is of the highest priority. Regarding clean energy, the bill provides stable funding to support science, technology, and engineering programs to advance clean energy technologies. It provides the Office of Science $4.84 billion, the same as in 2011. The Office of Science conducts basic research in physics, chemistry, and biology to improve our understanding of energy and matter. New discoveries will advance energy technologies. Our bill focuses the limited resources of the Office of Science toward the highest priorities, which include material support, developing the next generation of biofuels, and maintaining the leadership of the United States in high-performance computing. Our bill continues to fund three hubs, which are research centers made up of scientists and engineers from the national labs, universities, and private industry to address a specific energy challenge. The three hubs focus on developing fuels that can be produced directly from sunlight, improving energy efficiency of existing buildings, and using modeling and simulation tools to improve the operation of nuclear reactors. Our bill also funds a new hub, the fourth hub, to improve batteries for electric vehicles and for storage of wind, solar, and other intermittent power sources--something which the ranking member was very much interested in and which I was very pleased to agree to. In addition to the Office of Science, the bill also provides $250 million for ARPA-E, an increase of $70 million, or 39 percent. ARPA-E funds new and innovative energy technologies that would significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions. ARPA-E's goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of new technology and then find a private company to commercialize the technology. As a sign of early success in attracting private investment, last year ARPA-E awarded a startup company $750,000 to demonstrate its new innovative technology related to energy storage. An early demonstration of this startup's new technology has already attracted $12 million in private investment to help commercialize it. I think that is good news. While the government continues to invest in innovative energy technologies, nuclear energy continues to provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, but it is 70 percent of its carbon-free electricity. This, to me, is a stunning figure, that it is 20 percent of all power but 70 percent of carbon-free power. Currently, nuclear energy will continue to be an important source of energy for us in the future. However, I deeply believe that before we expand nuclear power in the United States, we must address our spent fuel situation in order to limit the government's liability from its failure to take this waste. Today, high-level nuclear spent fuels are stored at 74 locations most directly adjacent to an active reactor. The fuel remains in either spent fuel pools or dry casks meant to be temporary but, in reality, has been stored permanently. There is simply no place to put it. Today, to date, the U.S. Government has paid out $1 billion to the nuclear industry because of its failure to take custody of this fuel as required by law. Few people know this. This liability will grow to $15.4 billion by 2020 and another $500 million for each year of delay after 2020. My distinguished ranking member, we simply have to get cracking and find either regional repositories or a central waste repository where nuclear waste can be stored essentially forever. The United States is responsible for 65,000 tons of spent fuel at these 74 sites. This is enough material to cover one football field 20-feet deep. And our liability continues to grow. According to the blue ribbon commission, if no nuclear reactors are built and the existing fleet of 104 reactors operate until the end of their licenses, the total inventory of spent fuel by 2050 would be 150,000 metric tons. That is 2\1/2\ times as much as we have now. The current absence of a spent fuel policy and repository to store spent nuclear fuel is unacceptable and unsustainable. For these reasons, this bill takes the first step in requiring the Department of Energy to create a strategy for spent fuel storage, including options for consolidating and storing spent fuel at one or more regional sites. With regard to funding for the nuclear energy program, the bill provides $584 million, which is a reduction of $142 million, or 24 percent, available funding that will focus more on safety and the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. For example, the bill provides $52 million--that is an increase of $12 million from 2011--to accelerate development of new cladding materials for nuclear fuel that reduce the likelihood of meltdowns and hydrogen explosions, which were observed at Fukishima. I believe as more becomes available about what actually happened at Fukishima and the aftereffects of Fukishima, cladding material is going to become much more significant. In closing, I again thank my colleague and ranking member, Senator Alexander, for working with me in a cooperative and constructive manner to draft this bill. I believe we have developed a well-balanced and responsible bill that addresses the water, infrastructure, energy, and national security needs of this Nation. I hope every Senator can support the bill, and I hope we can conclude floor action in a timely manner. I yield the floor to my distinguished ranking member.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator. Once again, it has been a great pleasure to work with him. I do think we have a lot of this bill in common, but we do have some points of difference, and I want to say a little bit about my point of difference. I very much want to leave a world for my grandchildren where there is not danger from nuclear weapons or nuclear fuels, and today I don't believe I can say we have achieved that. The ranking member was correct, the head of the NRC did testify in his view the hot rods were safe for 100 years in those spent fuel pools. Well, you know, there were problems with spent fuel pools at Fukushima. I think, as life goes on, we are going to see more of that. We know cladding has to be improved. We know that, perhaps, the design basis of a new nuclear reactor has to meet events which are not necessarily predicted. Who would have thought a 47-foot tsunami would hit Fukushima? But it happened. I am in California. We are in the ring of fire. Sure enough, there have been earthquakes in the southern tip of South America, in Asia, in Christchurch, New Zealand, going right around. These have been very large earthquakes, approaching 9, and the concern is, what happens next. So I think safety is a very real problem, and I think as we appropriate monies we should be concerned with safety. Spent fuel pools were designed to harbor hot rods for a relatively short period of time. The rods can be moved 5 to 7 years out, and then they are generally moved into passive storage and the dry casks. The dry casks, it was thought, would be transported to repositories--either permanent repositories or repositories on a regional basis--under the supervision of the Federal Government. I always felt that affecting that was an extraordinary challenge for us and particularly when I learned we were being fined an egregious amount of money because we can't do that every year. So my view is, we have to get cracking and move that on, and the five things we have in the bill I think all take us to a much safer place with respect to nuclear activities. With respect to the small modular nuclear reactors, what they are is essentially less than 300 megawatts modular small actors. I understand there are still problems with the cladding. But what was asked for was $192 million, not alone but a proposal to essentially subsidize up to 50 percent of the licensing costs of financial and technically viable corporations. These aren't small corporations; they are big corporations, and the Department would have to pick two winners for the subsidy. That would leave at least five American companies out. This is a restricted bid. It doesn't include everybody. It includes only one kind of reactor--light water reactor. Who knows. Maybe others of the five are as viable. So firms not receiving assistance would be substantially disadvantaged. The likely winners include these companies: Babcock and Wilcox, I have nothing against them, 2010 revenues exceeding $2.6 billion--can't they afford their own licensing certification fees?--and Westinghouse, owned by the Japanese conglomerate Toshiba, which has $64 billion in assets and more than 200,000 employees. In other sectors, we don't invest Federal dollars to help profitable private companies obtain safety licenses. We don't help Ford comply with crash test regulations, nor do we pay for Boeing to obtain FAA certification. So before we commit these moneys, we should seriously evaluate whether any company would change its decision about pursuing a license because of this. So I am kind of at a different point in looking at subsidies. I think most subsidies by the Federal Government should just go, wherever they are--oil, gas, nuclear, ag, you name it--at a time when we should not be subsidizing private industry. There is also a fundamental contradiction in the nuclear industry's argument for funding small modular reactor licensing. On one hand, the industry argues that the market will be enormous, and we can't afford to fall behind international competitors. On the other hand, these same industry experts argue they will not develop and license a product unless government pays them to apply for an NRC license. They argue that the United States must provide each firm with more than $200 million to motivate them to pursue this business. The bottom line, the small modular reactor cannot be both a massive economic opportunity, with the potential to change the way we power our economy, and an opportunity that industry will not pursue unless the government pays them to do that. So I have real questions about funding this item. We will have more to say about it as this goes on. I know it is popular. If there were a spent fuel policy, if we knew we were going to go for regional repositories, that there was some limit to the storage of fuel at a site--74 sites now, and with advanced modular reactors this is more because many people think the only way this can be cost competitive is you have to group these two together. So in a given site, you would have five or six small reactors, but you would have the same spent fuel problem. It seems to me we need a place to put spent fuel. I am not opposed to nuclear if we can properly take care of its waste. I wanted to respond when my distinguished ranking member raised this. We have had one meeting with the chairman of the Energy Committee, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Alexander, and myself to discuss how to proceed toward a nuclear storage policy. I think we need to continue this. We are going to ask the Secretary in to talk with us in December, and Senator Alexander has been great in doing this--put forward a little agenda of how to proceed toward this so I know he is, in fact, in good faith suggesting it, and I do. He has always been a straight shooter. But it is just very hard for me to go ahead and say, OK, we are going to promote a whole new class of nuclear reactors when we don't have a place to dispose of hot spent fuels that will be hot and dangerous for literally hundreds of years. If we can move fast, I am all for it. I know the Senator wants to respond, and I welcome the debate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I wish to thank the distinguished ranking member. I believe that completes the opening statements on the bill. I notice the distinguished Senator is on the floor. So if it is agreeable with Senator Alexander, we can yield at this time to him.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I honor the extraordinary life of Gilbert ``Gil'' Cates, a director, producer, mentor, and friend to not only California and New York, but the entire Nation. Born Gilbert Lewis Katz on June 6, 1934, in New York City to Russian Jewish immigrants Nathan and Nina Katz, Gil soared to the top of the entertainment field with a focus in both film and theater. Following his education at DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx, Gil enrolled at Syracuse University, where he majored in theater. In 1961, Gil made his producing and directing debut on the television game show ``Camouflage.'' He accomplished countless artistic achievements during his long career as a producer and director, and in 1990 he produced the ``62nd Annual Academy Award,'' where he made his biggest mark on the industry he cherished so much. Over the next 18 years, Gil served either as the producer or executive producer of 14 Academy Award shows. With broadcasts hosted by Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, and Chris Rock, Gil is credited with restoring the telecast as the entertainment industry's most important and widely watched event. Gil also earned a reputation as an inclusive and creative leader. As a film producer, his credits include ``Oh, God! Book II,'' ``After the Fall,'' and ``I Never Sang for My Father.'' He directed segments of ``The Twilight Zone,'' ``Hobson's Choice,'' ``The Promise,'' and ``Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams.'' As both producer and director, his body of work includes ``Collected Stories,'' ``Confessions: Two Faces of Evil,'' ``Absolute Strangers,'' ``Rings Around the World,'' and ``World's Fair Spectacular.'' Gil made his Broadway debut as the stage manager for ``Shinbone Alley'' in 1957. He made his producing debut on Broadway in 1967 with ``You Know I Can't Hear You When the Water's Running,'' and five years later made his directorial debut in 1972 with ``Voices,'' an original play with music. In total, he was involved with nine Broadway shows. The most recent, ``Time Stands Still,'' closed on January 30, 2011. Beyond his film, television, and theater work, Gil served the entertainment industry in many leadership capacities. He was a two-term president of the Directors Guild of America, DGA, from 1983 to 1987. From 1990 to 1998, he served as founding dean of the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, and then as a mentor and professor. He was also the founding and producing director of the renowned Geffen Playhouse in Westwood, CA. During his diverse career he served in various roles on the Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Gil received many honors from the entertainment industry throughout his extensive career, including an Emmy Award for producing the ``63rd Annual Academy Awards'' in 1991. Gil was also Emmy-nominated for directing two television movies, ``Consenting Adult'' in 1985 and ``Do You Know the Muffin Man?'' in 1989. As a result of his service to the DGA, he received the Directors Guild President Award, the DGA's Robert B. Aldrich Award for Service, and an Honorary Life Membership. He also received the Jimmy Dolittle Award for Outstanding Contribution to Los Angeles Theater, the Ovation Award for best play ``Collected Stories,'' and finally, a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame. The showman who was known for his undeniable charisma and witty ways, as well as his contributions to the entertainment industry, was above all an extraordinary person who was in a class all his own. Please join me in expressing the sympathies of this body to Gil Cates' family, including his wife, Dr. Judith Reichman; his sister, Florence Adler; his children, David, Jonathan, Gil Junior, Melissa, and Anat and Ronit Reichman; and six grandchildren. Gilbert Cates was larger-than-life and his legacy of remarkable talent, leadership, humor, and dedication to art will no doubt live on within the entertainment industry.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011. This legislation will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area, safeguarding many thousands of homes and businesses. There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento, a city that is perpetually cited as one of our Nation's most at-risk for severe flooding. But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. Natomas, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control. More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding. The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with over 10 feet of water should a levee break. In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet. The risk is clear. Estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers put the risk of levee failure at 1 in 3. Damages from a single flood could top $7 billion. Recognizing the need to upgrade the levees in Natomas, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified $1.1 billion in essential levee improvements. According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99. In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of Marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act. The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared. The Chief's Report recommends that the costs of the improvements be split between the federal government and state and local stakeholders. The report recommends roughly a 65 percent federal share and a 35 percent state and local share. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have taken the cost-share agreement to heart and are outpacing the Corps of Engineers. They have begun their work on the project even before the federal work has been authorized. SAFCA and California have already invested more than $320 million in the Natomas Basin project and repaired about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees. By the end of 2012, this amount will increase to $370 million. I want to take a moment to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for their efforts. They have put their money where their mouth is. This project would not be possible without the significant leadership and resources they have already committed. County voters twice approved special tax assessments, in 2007 and 2011, to raise local funds needed to improve the levee system. These assessments will provide more than $80 million of local funds for flood control projects. In addition, local interests have provided an additional $40 million in advance of federal participation for which credit will be sought, that is a total commitment thus far of $120 million The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly, 84.5 percent of voters supported the measure. Sacramento residents and homeowners understand that this levee improvement project is critical to the safety and viability of their community. Even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, voters stood together, passed the measure and sent a definitive message to Congress. I also want to recognize Representative Doris Matsui, author of companion legislation in the House and a champion on this issue. I have had the pleasure of working with my good friend from Sacramento on flood control for nearly a decade, and her commitment and advocacy is unparalleled. I want to reinforce the importance of this legislation. If Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater. Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day. Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized. Flooding in Sacramento is not a question of if, but when. Recordbreaking storms hit the region in 1951, 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997. During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damages. An even more devastating flood occurred in 1861 when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration and the state capital was temporarily moved to San Francisco. In January of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study entitled ``ARkStorm'' that examined the impacts of an atmospheric river storm event in California. This storm scenario produced rainfall levels seen once every 500 to 1,000 years. In this model, the Central Valley would experience 300 miles of flooding, 20 or more miles wide. Evacuations could involve 1.5 million residents, with hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes. There is a statistical possibility that the cataclysmic scenario run by the U.S.G.S. will occur in our lifetime. The possibility is small, but it could happen. So we must be prepared if it does. The Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward achieving that. This legislation addresses the needs of one of the highest-risk communities in our Nation. While this legislation isn't cheap, the cost-share relieves a sizable share of the Federal responsibility. 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 the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011. This legislation will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area, safeguarding many thousands of homes and businesses. There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento, a city that is perpetually cited as one of our Nation's most at-risk for severe flooding. But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. Natomas, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control. More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding. The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with over 10 feet of water should a levee break. In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet. The risk is clear. Estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers put the risk of levee failure at 1 in 3. Damages from a single flood could top $7 billion. Recognizing the need to upgrade the levees in Natomas, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified $1.1 billion in essential levee improvements. According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99. In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of Marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act. The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared. The Chief's Report recommends that the costs of the improvements be split between the federal government and state and local stakeholders. The report recommends roughly a 65 percent federal share and a 35 percent state and local share. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have taken the cost-share agreement to heart and are outpacing the Corps of Engineers. They have begun their work on the project even before the federal work has been authorized. SAFCA and California have already invested more than $320 million in the Natomas Basin project and repaired about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees. By the end of 2012, this amount will increase to $370 million. I want to take a moment to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for their efforts. They have put their money where their mouth is. This project would not be possible without the significant leadership and resources they have already committed. County voters twice approved special tax assessments, in 2007 and 2011, to raise local funds needed to improve the levee system. These assessments will provide more than $80 million of local funds for flood control projects. In addition, local interests have provided an additional $40 million in advance of federal participation for which credit will be sought, that is a total commitment thus far of $120 million The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly, 84.5 percent of voters supported the measure. Sacramento residents and homeowners understand that this levee improvement project is critical to the safety and viability of their community. Even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, voters stood together, passed the measure and sent a definitive message to Congress. I also want to recognize Representative Doris Matsui, author of companion legislation in the House and a champion on this issue. I have had the pleasure of working with my good friend from Sacramento on flood control for nearly a decade, and her commitment and advocacy is unparalleled. I want to reinforce the importance of this legislation. If Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater. Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day. Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized. Flooding in Sacramento is not a question of if, but when. Recordbreaking storms hit the region in 1951, 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997. During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damages. An even more devastating flood occurred in 1861 when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration and the state capital was temporarily moved to San Francisco. In January of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study entitled ``ARkStorm'' that examined the impacts of an atmospheric river storm event in California. This storm scenario produced rainfall levels seen once every 500 to 1,000 years. In this model, the Central Valley would experience 300 miles of flooding, 20 or more miles wide. Evacuations could involve 1.5 million residents, with hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes. There is a statistical possibility that the cataclysmic scenario run by the U.S.G.S. will occur in our lifetime. The possibility is small, but it could happen. So we must be prepared if it does. The Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward achieving that. This legislation addresses the needs of one of the highest-risk communities in our Nation. While this legislation isn't cheap, the cost-share relieves a sizable share of the Federal responsibility. 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 support the confirmation of the President's nominee to be the first inspector general of the intelligence community, Irvin Charles McCullough III. The position of Inspector General of the Intelligence Community--or ICIG--was created in the fiscal year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act, after several years of effort to have the position enacted. The reason to have a Community-wide inspector general is similar to the reason to have a Director of National Intelligence. The ICIG is intended to review, and conduct oversight on, intelligence activities across the 16 agencies that make up the intelligence community, as well as the Office of the DNI, instead of having every agency--and its IG--operate within its own stovepipe. In recent years, the intelligence agencies have worked more closely together. This has improved performance and reduced duplication, but it has also made the oversight work of individual agency inspectors general more difficult. The Intelligence Committee saw there was a need to create an inspector general with authority and oversight of the entire intelligence community, and one who could look at issues that cut across individual agencies. That view was reinforced by the relative weakness of the inspector general position in the Office of the DNI that was authorized as part of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Thus, the committee pushed to have created the inspector general of the intelligence community, to be confirmed by the Senate and given the statutory authorities and independence of other Senate-confirmed inspectors general. Mr. McCullough is well-qualified to be this first ICIG. He has long experience conducting investigations both as an inspector general and a FBI agent. He is an attorney and is well-familiar with the intelligence community. Mr. McCullough currently serves as the deputy inspector general of the DNI's Office of the Inspector General. From 2003 to 2010, he was an assistant inspector general for the National Security Agency. He served from 2001-2003 as senior counsel for law enforcement and intelligence in the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury and was for 10 years in the Federal Bureau of Investigation as attorney, special agent and supervisory special agent. The Intelligence Committee received Mr. McCullough's nomination in August. After Mr. McCullough answered the committee's questionnaire and prehearing questions, we held a public hearing with him on September 22. On October 4, the Intelligence Committee voted out Mr. McCullough's nomination on a rollcall vote of 15 to 0. His nomination was also considered in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and has moved forward by unanimous consent. This important post will now be filled, and Mr. McCullough is qualified and prepared to take on the responsibilities and authorities of the position. I support his confirmation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Massachusetts. I happened to hear their comments, and they are both very good and they are both right on. I was thinking while Senator Wyden spoke about the fact that in the past 6 months those of us on this side have tried on four different occasions to pass legislation related to jobs. We began on May 4 to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which would direct grants to small businesses to develop technologies. That fell on a cloture vote. It did not get 60 votes. It only got 52. We then tried to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, which I think most of us know essentially is a cost share for communities in distress. That didn't get cloture. It fell 49 to 51. We then tried the President's big jobs act on October 11. That vote fell. It did not get cloture. It only got 50 votes. We then tried taking a part of that on October 20, in order to fund 400,000 school jobs and thousands of jobs for police and fire departments--first responders--throughout the Nation. That was paid for with a .5 percent surtax on people who could well afford to pay for it and probably would want to pay for it, but that fell on a 50-50 vote. We did not get the 60 votes for cloture. Today, we are trying for a fifth time on a part of the President's bill which has to do with infrastructure. Again, there is a pay-for. It is paid for by a .7 percent tax on people who can well afford to pay that .7 percent. And I think Senator Wyden and I both know the value of keeping this Nation No. 1, because we come from the West. We are on a burgeoning trade basin. We seek competition with countries that have a blooming infrastructure, and we see the plugs and the bumps and the stoppages in this country because of an absence of adequate infrastructure. I am delighted the Senator is here and that we share this same cause. Hopefully, there is going to be some change in the mindset on the other side of this great Hall and people will realize if we are going to remain No. 1--and we are not No. 1, and I will go into that in my speech--then we have to pass this segment of the President's bill. So I thank Senator Wyden very much for his comments. As I said, this legislation offered by the majority leader includes the key infrastructure provisions of the President's Jobs Act. It is $50 billion for our roads, bridges, airports, and transit systems, and it capitalizes a freestanding infrastructure bank with $10 billion. This bill makes the investment without increasing the deficit. Funds appropriated are offset by a .7 percent surcharge only on people who can afford it. I come from a State where unemployment is high--11.9 percent--and employment in our construction sector is down 44 percent, as you can see from this chart. This is actually California's construction jobs, and you can see where it was in 2000. You see it rise to 900,000 in 2006, and since that time it has plummeted. The fact of the matter is, construction, to a great extent, drives the economy in a number of States, and I think California heads that list. So infrastructure and employment go directly together. Last week, this body passed legislation authorizing the sale of power from the Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam is on the border between Nevada and Arizona, and it was built in the 1930s. But it reminds me of the invaluable contribution that infrastructure investments have made in generations past. During the depths of the Great Depression, we stepped forward to help build Hoover Dam. 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. This is kind of a working picture of Hoover Dam being built. At the time, many in Congress argued the cost of this engineering marvel was too high and the investment of taxpayer dollars too risky. They opposed efforts to invest in an unproven energy technology like hydropower. The debate was strikingly similar to the debate we hear today. Luckily for the people of California, believers in American infrastructure and technology won the Hoover Dam debate. As the years have passed, the investment has been repaid and the wisdom of Congress' investment remains clear. Today, Hoover Dam, all these years later is still owned by the American people. It produces power for the Southwestern United States at less than one-quarter of the market price. It is the quintessential example of why infrastructure spending and investment makes sense. During the depths of the Depression, it gave people jobs and hope. But its benefits were permanent, not fleeting. The investment made in the 1930s is still paying dividends for the economy of the Southwest. Today, this legislation invests $50 billion in America's transportation infrastructure. That is specifically $27 billion for highways, $9 billion for transit, $4 billion for high-speed rail, $2 billion for Amtrak rail improvements, $3 billion for airports and air traffic control modernization, and $5 billion for discretionary grants and TIFIA loans to multimodal projects. These funds are actually in addition to funding levels in the surface transportation bill which authorizes $52 billion annually and the FAA authorization which authorizes $16 billion annually. The proposal also appropriates $10 billion to capitalize an infrastructure bank. With its own appointed board and CEO, this bank would have the power to issue loan guarantees and loans, at the Federal funds rate, to large projects in water, transportation, and energy. The bank's authority is similar to the functions performed by EPA's State Revolving Fund, the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program, and the Department of Transportation's TIFIA and RRIF Programs. In the long term, centralizing these functions in a single infrastructure bank will establish more consistent lending rules and policies. So I think a lot of us have gotten together from time to time to see what could be done to fund a real infrastructure bank. Presently, when we build infrastructure, we have no way of financing it. We put up the whole cost upfront. Most States and cities don't fund their infrastructure that way. They float bonds, and they are amortized over time. So the ability to have an infrastructure bank to loan money, to look at various instruments, to move infrastructure production throughout this country I think is vital. Because the bank will lend, not grant, funds, it will leverage $10 billion into approximately $100 billion in actual investment dollars. The bank would be particularly beneficial to California--I must say that--and we lead the application list for Federal financing assistance. For example, Los Angeles citizens voted to tax themselves by raising the sales tax in order to build a desperately needed subway and transit system. They seek a Federal loan. They have the money to pay it back; it comes every year due in sales taxes, but they seek a Federal loan to build the system in 10 years, not 30 years because they need it sooner rather than later. The County of Riverside seeks a Federal loan to build a toll road on the Highway 91 goods movement corridor, through which millions of containers move from the Ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach to every community in America. I think most people in this body don't understand that approximately 50 percent of all the containers that come into this country, east coast, west coast, come in at Los Angeles-Long Beach, 40 to 50 percent, and they go out in multimodal areas in stacked trains into the Midwest. But they run into all kinds of impediments. There is not separated grades. There is not the ability to move these trains as rapidly as they should be. So if we are going to keep up with the delivery of cargo into the heartland of this country, most of which comes from Asia, we need to do something. California's communities are prepared to repay these loans, but they need help in the beginning. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 billion of Federal transportation spending, 27,822 jobs are produced. It is one of the biggest bang for the buck programs I know of. For every $1 billion in spending, nearly 30,000 jobs are generated. So this bill is a job generator. For every $1 spent on infrastructure projects, it also spurs economic activity, raising the level of gross domestic product by $1.59. So what is the conclusion? Investing in infrastructure is essential to addressing our nationwide unemployment crisis. Oh, I only wish we could see this. Congestion is a big problem in this country. I told you about Los Angeles-Long Beach. What I should also tell you is that the average Los Angeles commuter spends 63 hours per year stuck in traffic. That costs $1,400 a person. In Greater Los Angeles, commuters spend 515 million hours stuck in traffic every year. They waste 407 million gallons of fuel, at a total economic cost of $12 billion. That is just L.A. I see the Senator from Illinois is on the floor. That is just L.A. I wonder what the Chicago numbers would be. They have to be large. San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, and Riverside County face all the similar congestion. In each area, the average commuter spends more than 30 hours a year stuck in traffic. That costs us $6.4 billion, and nationwide, congestion is causing Americans to travel 4.8 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 3.9 billion gallons of fuel, for a congestion cost of $115 billion in 1 year. That year happens to be 2009. This is the equivalent of wasting 130 days of flow from the Alaska pipeline each year. It is enormous. So is this bill necessary? The answer is clearly a resounding yes. In my State, 66 percent of our major roads are in poor condition, 68 percent of our urban interstates are congested, vehicle travel on our highways increased by 27 percent from 1990 to 2007, and 30 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. One of the best infrastructure projects in the Nation is the repair of Doyle Drive going onto the Golden Gate Bridge. Senator, I wish you could see it because this is a stimulus project and it is amazing because you actually see these dollars at work. Huge ramps are being rebuilt going down to ground level, this great icon of America. The Golden Gate Bridge would never be built today. We just wouldn't build it. If we did, it would take 100 years to do it with all the permits we need. But it is there, it is an icon, and there is a major infrastructure package working on it. Our Nation's deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure is going to cost the economy more than 876,000 jobs. It is going to suppress GDP growth, it is estimated, by $897 billion by 2020. Poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs--$333 per motorist. Failing infrastructure will drive the cost of doing business in this country up by $430 billion in the next decade, as the costs to ship goods and raw materials will increase due to bottlenecks and roads that beat up vehicles. There was a time when America built big things. In the 1800s, we built the transcontinental railroad in one of the great private-public partnerships of all time. We built projects such as the Bay Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam in the 1920s and the 1930s. In the 1950s and 1960s, we built an interstate highway system unlike anything else anywhere on the planet. In the 1970s, we built the Bay Area Rapid Transit system in San Francisco. This multidecade investment gave America an economic advantage over every country around the world. Now listen to this. As recently as 2005, the World Economic Forum rated U.S. infrastructure as No. 1 for economic competitiveness--No. 1 in 2005 for economic competitiveness. But in just 5 years, we have slipped to No. 15--not 5, not 10 but 15 in 5 years because we haven't kept up what is a deteriorating infrastructure caused by overuse. The argument is so solid to pass this bill, I can't understand how anyone could vote against it. China is spending today 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. They are our competition. I live on the Pacific Rim. I can tell you, every time any one of us goes to China they will look around the city, whether it is Beijing or Shanghai, and you will count 20 to 50 cranes building in that city, improving infrastructure. I stood in Shanghai when the head of the government told me: In 10 years, we will build 375 kilometers of underground subway and 25 stations. Guess what. They did and are doing it. We can't do that. It is a problem. Of course, China doesn't have NEPA, it doesn't have CEQA, it doesn't have three dozen permits you have to get. It is easy to write a letter to Mrs. Lee or Mrs. Chu and say: You will move in 30 days because your apartment building is going to be destroyed. That doesn't happen here. But there is no excuse not to do what is in this bill. There is no impediment to do what is in this bill. It might not take us back to No. 1, but it might take us back to No. 3 or No. 4. China spends 9 percent. Do you know what we spend? I will tell you. According to the Economist, on April 28, we spent 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure. A lot of people are doing columns on whether America remains No. 1 in the world, whether we have lost our clout, whether we have lost our competitiveness, whether we have lost our ability to invest in the future. This bill is a good testing ground because this measure is all infrastructure, with the ability to get it done in the future by a bank that can specialize in the arena. So it is a good test. It seems to me, if we want this country to be No. 1, we have to vote yes. I believe the will is on this side of the aisle and I send a challenge to the other side of the aisle. There is no reason not to vote for this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Senator Rockefeller very much. Mr. President, I believe John Bryson is well suited for this important role, particularly at a time when our economy is fragile and job creation is not occurring fast enough. He has a lot of experience. Senator Kerry just pointed this out. He has run a multibillion-dollar company, he has been a strong advocate for business, he is ready to advance a jobs agenda--and all of that makes him a perfect fit for Commerce Secretary. I first got to know John when he served for 18 years as CEO of Edison International, one of the 200 largest corporations in the United States, with more than 20,000 employees. Edison International is the parent company of Southern California Edison, which provides power to 14 million Californians and nearly 300,000 businesses. As my colleagues may recall, in 2000 and 2001, California was gripped by an energy crisis that resulted in rolling blackouts that left millions of Californians in the dark. The period marked the most turbulent era ever for the California power sector. Price caps, manipulation, rolling blackouts, deregulation, and Enron became the focus of our attention. During that difficult time, John's company was under siege. I watched closely as he successfully fended off financial disaster, even as other California utilities were swept into bankruptcy. I met and spoke with John often during that energy crisis and remember well his intelligence and pragmatism, as utilities, State officials, and Washington worked our way through the crisis. Some say that a crisis serves as the best test of a person's character. If that is so, John Bryson is a man of exceptional character. In my observation, he worked hard to hear from the people of California, his shareholders, and the many businesses that relied on a stable power grid. After emerging from the crisis, from 2003 to 2007, John turned Edison around completely. The firm was No. 1 among investor-owned utility companies for returning value to its shareholders. I believe he will carry this same thoughtful, sensible leadership style with him to the Commerce Department. In addition to his time at Edison, he has served as director, chairman, or adviser for a wide array of companies, schools, and nonprofit organizations, including many institutions with deep roots in my home State of California, such as the Walt Disney Company, BrightSource Energy, Boeing, and the asset manager KKR; the California Business Roundtable, the Public Policy Institute of California, and the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine; the Council on Foreign Relations, Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology, and the California Endowment. I am also proud to note that John and I share the same alma mater-- Stanford--where John earned his undergraduate degree. Later he attended Yale Law School before returning to California. John Bryson's experience paints a picture of a leader who focuses on the practical and the achievable. I believe, if confirmed, he will support measures that meet those criteria. At this time in our economic history, our No. 1 priority as a government must be to grow the economy and get people back to work. I know my Senate colleagues agree. In my view, John Bryson's combination of pragmatism, experience in the boardroom, and understanding of the public sector will make him an outstanding Commerce Secretary. I expect he will be a powerful voice inside the administration and a partner with the business community to grow our economy and open international markets for American manufacturers. I make these remarks on behalf of my colleague Senator Boxer as well. We have a California candidate for Secretary of Commerce. We are the largest State in the Union. We have 12.1 percent. We need job generation. So I trust that John Bryson is going to provide this, and provide it as expeditiously as is humanly possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express strong support for the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, a bill that provides funding to hire and prevent the layoff of tens of thousands of teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Difficult economic times have devastated the ranks of these critical positions. Since 2008, California alone has seen more than 70,000 educators laid off. The resources in this bill will help cities and towns across the country avoid more layoffs and start rebuilding their workforce. Nationwide, some 300,000 education jobs have been lost in the past 3 years, and State and local budget cuts will endanger as many as 280,000 teacher jobs next year. The difficult economy has also strained police departments across the country. In the past 18 months, 10,000 police officers have been laid off around the country, while 30,000 vacancies have gone unfilled. I have heard from many police departments in my home State of California that fear that this understaffing will jeopardize public safety. They are concerned that with fewer officers for patrols, investigations and other critical tasks, crime will increase. Fire departments face similar problems. Thousands of firefighters were laid off in 2009 and 2010, and another 7,000 face layoffs this year. This legislation will help communities address staffing shortages in these critical positions. To help our schools, the bill would provide $30 billion to States and school districts to protect and create up to 400,000 education jobs nationwide, which would prevent the layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers and hire tens of thousands more. In my home State of California, this will safeguard more than 37,000 education jobs. According to the Government Accountability Office, 72 percent of school districts expect to have less funding in the 2011-2012 school year as compared to last year. In California, public schools are suffering from State budget cuts. I have heard from thousands of teachers in my State who have received pink slips each spring over the last several years warning that their jobs are in danger. Many teachers wait for months to find out whether they will still be teaching the following year. Many pink slips are rescinded, sparing jobs, but others are not as lucky. Our teachers should not have to deal with such uncertainty, and this bill helps safeguard those jobs. With so many teachers losing their jobs in California, classrooms are becoming crowded and the school year is becoming shorter. On average, K-3 classrooms in California are up to 25 students, up from 20 students 2 years ago. Average class sizes for higher grades have risen from 28 students to 31. The more we squeeze students into one classroom, the more difficult it is to provide standards-based instruction, and the harder it is for students to focus on their education. This bill invests in education to keep educators on the job, continuing to provide students with a supportive learning environment. In a country that prides itself on providing children with every opportunity, it does not make sense to lay off the very teachers who prepare our children for the future. Another casualty of budget cuts is the many talented individuals who are being driven away from the teaching profession because of the lack of job stability. I fear that a deteriorating education system means more children will slip through the cracks and be unprepared for college or to compete in the global economy. The quality of education is a direct reflection of how firmly we support our teachers. In addition to supporting thousands of teaching jobs, the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act also provides $4 billion for communities to hire police officers. These funds will support more than 17,000 positions over the next 3 years, including about 2,600 in my home State of California. There is also $1 billion for firefighters, supporting about 6,300 positions nationwide. These funds go to support the dedicated first responders we depend upon in emergencies--the firefighters who enter burning buildings to save lives and the police officers who risk everything to keep our streets and homes safe. In recent years, firefighters and police officers have taken on even more responsibilities as they prepare for--and respond to--terrorist attacks. We are reminded of the importance of these first responders when we remember the brave men and women who worked so heroically to save lives after the 9/11 attacks, including more than 400 firefighters, police, and other emergency personnel who lost their lives that day. Now is the time to stand with our first responders and give them the support they need. We must make sure our emergency personnel are not risking their lives because too many of their colleagues have been laid off. While this legislation will strengthen our schools and protect our streets and homes, it will not add a penny to the deficit. This is accomplished by paying for the bill with a half-percent tax on Americans with an adjusted gross income over $1 million. I have long said that those people who have benefited from this economy and can help out should do so. Millionaires can afford to help build a smarter, safer, stronger nation. It is not the wealthiest Americans who have been bearing the brunt of this recession; it is the middle class and the poor who have suffered. Our Nation continues to face serious economic difficulties. The unemployment rate is over 9 percent, and remains stuck at 12 percent in California. This lack of employment is causing severe financial strain with too many families losing their homes and too many families struggling to make ends meet. Congress needs to help Americans get back to work and get our economy moving forward. And this bill will help. With the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, we will strengthen our schools, help our children get the education they deserve and give our first responders the support they need to keep our communities safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the importance and many achievements of credit unions worldwide in celebration of the 63rd annual International Credit Union Credit Day. The difference credit unions make in the United States by providing affordable and safe financial services to many Americans of moderate means has been significant and widely recognized. However, the contributions credit unions have made on an international scale are equally notable. Since the mid-1800s, credit unions have established themselves in communities around the world struggling with social dislocation, political unrest, and economic depression as a means to promote economic growth and democratic practices at the local level. Today, more than 54,000 credit unions provide financial services to more than 186 million members in 97 nations. Nationally, credit unions provide financial services to more than 93 million Americans. Credit unions make a difference on a global scale by providing access to affordable financial services for those who otherwise would have been excluded from the financial sector. Such financial services include the provision of small savings and loans, which enable some of the poorest individuals in the world to start their own microenterprises, improve household stability and stimulate growth in their communities. Credit unions are the largest source of these microfinance services in countries as diverse as Colombia, Kenya, Russia, Mexico, Thailand, and Rwanda. Credit unions are also at the forefront of expanding access to finance for people living in rural areas who can't afford the time or money it takes to visit a financial institution. Credit unions are working with the World Council of Credit Unions, WOCCU, to introduce a variety of innovative technology solutions to bank the unbanked in rural areas. In Mexico, credit union officers carry hand-held personal digital assistant, PDA, devices to conduct financial transactions with members in communities located up to 90 minutes from the credit union office. In Kenya, Peru, and Mexico, point-of-sale devices enable credit unions to partner with local merchants in rural areas, allowing members to deposit and withdraw money from their credit union accounts. Finally, mobile banking capabilities in Mexico will enable members to check their balances and transfer funds without leaving their homes. In addition, credit unions throughout the world are filling the agricultural lending gap that has kept the vast majority of small farmers stuck in low-production, low-return cycles. In countries such as Peru, Kenya, and Colombia, credit unions are taking an integrated, value-chain approach to financing that includes access to agricultural training and markets for farmers to sell their products. As a result, farmers are not only increasing their incomes and producing more food for their families, they are also playing a role in securing their nations' food supply. U.S. credit union members, staff and leagues, along with the Credit Union National Association and the U.S. Government support the global work of credit unions and WOCCU. Through WOCCU's International Partnerships Program, 25 U.S. credit union leagues are matched with developing credit union movements overseas to encourage the direct transfer of technology, skills, and experience among peers across borders. I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending the work of credit unions, both domestically and internationally, for providing vital financial services that improve the lives of people demonstrating the greatest need around the world. By providing the world's poor with the most basic financial services, credit unions help expand job opportunities, improve local economies and promote democracy. In short, credit unions offer a sustainable development solution to some of the world's poorest countries, and this is the ``credit union difference.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about amendment No. 855, which I filed with Senators Coburn, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Brown. This amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to enforce adjusted gross income limits on farm subsidies that were established in the last farm bill by: Pursuing thousands of individuals flagged by the IRS as potentially illegal recipients of farm subsidies; reclaiming subsidies from millionaires and other illegal recipients; and auditing subsidy recipients who claim they are in compliance with income limits but whose IRS tax returns suggest otherwise. I do not intend to ask for a vote on this amendment at this time, but I would like to explain to my colleagues why I am calling upon the USDA to more vigorously enforce the adjusted gross income limits in law. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress capped the income of farm bill subsidy payment recipients at $500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000 for farm income. The limits were imposed because there had been increasing concerns that direct payments, countercyclical payments, and marketing loan benefits had been going to corporate agriculture and millionaires. These subsidy programs are designed to provide a safety net to farmers whose industry suffers from dramatic swings in prices from year to year. Congress intended to prevent individuals who could provide their own safety net from drawing funds they didn't need from taxpayers. The final enacted limits--$500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000 for farm income--prevent payments only to farmers and absentee farm- owners who are doing extremely well financially. Less than 2 percent of Americans make this much money in a given year. And Congress applied the caps flexibly. Income can be averaged over a 3-year period, standard income tax deductions apply, and farmers can deduct their expenses related to their entire farm operation. Congress gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture clear direction to investigate and enforce the income caps. But the USDA has been very slow to enforce this provision. First, USDA did not thoroughly review subsidy recipients to prevent illegal payments from going out the door in 2009, 2010, or 2011, even though the farm bill instructed that ``the Secretary shall deny the issuance of applicable payments and benefits'' to farmers who fail to certify compliance. Second, the USDA has not yet aggressively pursued thousands of payment recipients that the IRS has identified as likely violators. Third, the USDA has not conducted a single audit of a subsidy recipient, even though the farm bill states: The Secretary shall establish statistically valid procedures under which the Secretary shall conduct targeted audits of such persons or legal entities as the Secretary determines are most likely to exceed the limitations . . . Finally, USDA has made no attempt to identify those who lied about or concealed their income in order to receive subsidy payments. Such an act would constitute fraud against the U.S. government. USDA has taken the initial step by working with the IRS to identify potentially illegal payments in 2009 and 2010, and I commend them for this action. The preliminary results of their investigation are staggering: The IRS ``flagged'' 13,000 individuals in USDA's database with tax returns that suggest they exceed congressionally mandated income caps. When USDA reached out to 200 randomly selected ``flagged'' individuals, more than 15 percent returned the money--with no questions asked. Another 30 percent of those contacted by USDA didn't bother to respond, suggesting a lack of respect among payment recipients for USDA's enforcement ability. This preliminary effort demonstrates that enforcing this law is both fair and fiscally responsible. Thousands of recipients could be receiving tens, even hundreds, of millions of Federal dollars each year, illegally. Wealthy farmers--and absent farm owners--are still claiming payments from the farm bill's safety net programs, and the USDA is not doing enough to stop them. Some of my colleagues believe we should wait for the next farm bill to address this problem. But I doubt they recognize that failing to enforce this provision wastes this much money. Furthermore, the next farm bill is likely to include some form of payment regime, as every farm bill has for more than 50 years. It might not be direct payments, but some form of subsidy payment regime is expected to remain. Vigorous income limit enforcement makes the farm safety net stronger, not weaker. It assures that funding is available for those who need it, even in a time of severe cuts. Our constituents are suffering through the longest economic downturn in a generation. And government resources to help those truly in need are dwindling. And yet despite congressional direction to conduct audits and oversight of fraudulent payments to individuals already making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, the Department of Agriculture has not done enough to ensure that our limited resources are being spent wisely. I urge our colleagues to join me in speaking out about this issue. I urge them to demand that the USDA enforce the law. We need to send a clear message that fraudulent claims and subsidies to the rich are unacceptable.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to introduce the America's Cup Act of 2011. This legislation will enable foreign ships to compete for the 34th America's Cup, scheduled to begin in November. I am happy to be joined by Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse as original cosponsors. The America's Cup is one of the oldest global sporting competitions. Its economic impact is surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup of soccer. The event will begin in San Diego on November 12th. Next year the events continue in Italy and Newport, Rhode Island, and they conclude in San Francisco in September 2013. But the events in San Diego, Newport and San Francisco cannot take place unless we waive certain laws that prohibit foreign vessels from operating in U.S. waters. My legislation waives the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act for all vessels participating in or supporting the America's Cup events. However, this waiver is limited and narrow. It was carefully crafted to protect our domestic industry and passenger service operators. The legislation specifically states that the authority to operate in U.S. waters is strictly limited to activities that occur during and related to America's Cup Events. The vessels are prohibited from transporting more than 25 individuals or from receiving compensation for transportation. The vessels are prohibited from transporting merchandise between ports. I understand that Jones Act waivers can be sensitive subjects for many, but I want to assure my colleagues that this is a noncontroversial bill. The waiver is widely supported by local governments and business groups in California and Rhode Island. Equally important, it is not opposed by the American Maritime Partnership, AMP. Like many of us, the AMP's neutrality was critical to me before I decided to pursue this legislation. As many of my colleagues know, the American Maritime Partnership, formerly called the American Cabotage Task Force, is the voice of the U.S. domestic maritime industry. The group represents more than 450 member organizations ranging from vessel owners and shipboard unions to shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers. These diverse interests recognize the importance of a strong domestic maritime industry and share my belief that the continued success of this industry is critical for America's economic security and independence. Needless to say, Jones Act waivers are not an issue the AMP takes lightly, so I thank them for their willingness to work with me to bring this great event back to the United States. The reason the American Maritime Partnership and so many other organizations support this legislation is that it will create jobs and stimulate the economy. As I mentioned, the first event in the America's Cup World Series will occur in San Diego. This event alone is expected to bring $20 million to local businesses. When the larger America's Cup Finals take place in San Francisco, the economic impacts are expected to be far greater. According to a recent study by Beacon Economics and the Bay Area Council the increase in economic activity in San Francisco could be nearly $1.4 billion. This is three times the estimated impact of hosting a Super Bowl, $300-$500 million. The event could create as many as 8,840 jobs in San Francisco. Local Governments could generate an additional $85 million in revenue. Nationwide, the event is expected to increase domestic economic activity by $1.9 billion and create 11,978 jobs. The economic impacts of these events are significant. The waiver is widely supported by labor, business and members of both parties. This is straightforward, common sense legislation that will facilitate international participation in a globally recognized sporting event. 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, today I wish to introduce the America's Cup Act of 2011. This legislation will enable foreign ships to compete for the 34th America's Cup, scheduled to begin in November. I am happy to be joined by Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse as original cosponsors. The America's Cup is one of the oldest global sporting competitions. Its economic impact is surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup of soccer. The event will begin in San Diego on November 12th. Next year the events continue in Italy and Newport, Rhode Island, and they conclude in San Francisco in September 2013. But the events in San Diego, Newport and San Francisco cannot take place unless we waive certain laws that prohibit foreign vessels from operating in U.S. waters. My legislation waives the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act for all vessels participating in or supporting the America's Cup events. However, this waiver is limited and narrow. It was carefully crafted to protect our domestic industry and passenger service operators. The legislation specifically states that the authority to operate in U.S. waters is strictly limited to activities that occur during and related to America's Cup Events. The vessels are prohibited from transporting more than 25 individuals or from receiving compensation for transportation. The vessels are prohibited from transporting merchandise between ports. I understand that Jones Act waivers can be sensitive subjects for many, but I want to assure my colleagues that this is a noncontroversial bill. The waiver is widely supported by local governments and business groups in California and Rhode Island. Equally important, it is not opposed by the American Maritime Partnership, AMP. Like many of us, the AMP's neutrality was critical to me before I decided to pursue this legislation. As many of my colleagues know, the American Maritime Partnership, formerly called the American Cabotage Task Force, is the voice of the U.S. domestic maritime industry. The group represents more than 450 member organizations ranging from vessel owners and shipboard unions to shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers. These diverse interests recognize the importance of a strong domestic maritime industry and share my belief that the continued success of this industry is critical for America's economic security and independence. Needless to say, Jones Act waivers are not an issue the AMP takes lightly, so I thank them for their willingness to work with me to bring this great event back to the United States. The reason the American Maritime Partnership and so many other organizations support this legislation is that it will create jobs and stimulate the economy. As I mentioned, the first event in the America's Cup World Series will occur in San Diego. This event alone is expected to bring $20 million to local businesses. When the larger America's Cup Finals take place in San Francisco, the economic impacts are expected to be far greater. According to a recent study by Beacon Economics and the Bay Area Council the increase in economic activity in San Francisco could be nearly $1.4 billion. This is three times the estimated impact of hosting a Super Bowl, $300-$500 million. The event could create as many as 8,840 jobs in San Francisco. Local Governments could generate an additional $85 million in revenue. Nationwide, the event is expected to increase domestic economic activity by $1.9 billion and create 11,978 jobs. The economic impacts of these events are significant. The waiver is widely supported by labor, business and members of both parties. This is straightforward, common sense legislation that will facilitate international participation in a globally recognized sporting event. 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 as chairman of the Intelligence Committee to speak against amendment 753 to this appropriations bill. In sum, this amendment will require members of al-Qaida to be prosecuted only by military commissions. It will cripple executive authority and flexibility to go after terrorists. Of all things in this area where we should be agreed and the President should have maximum flexibility, it is with the disposition of people who commit acts of terror in this country. I feel very strongly about this. The military commission system has been in effect since 2006. It has had six convictions. By comparison, terrorists have been tried by previous administrations, including the Bush administration, in article III courts, and more than 400 of them have been convicted and are serving time in Federal prisons. One case may be brought up where somebody disagrees with a verdict. You can disagree with a Federal jury, but you cannot disagree with the record of conviction and the strong sentences imposed. I will go into this in a little more detail in a few minutes. Just to say again, I have never seen a time when Congress has tried so much to constrain the power of the president and our professionals in law enforcement in their efforts to defeat terrorism. As has been the policy of Republican and Democratic Presidents, the decision about how to prosecute a suspected terrorist should be based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests, not politics. Some of the most well-known terrorists of the past decade--``Shoe Bomber'' Richard Reid, ``Blind Sheik'' Omar Abdel Rahman and the ``20th Hijacker'' Zacarias Moussaoui--are serving life sentences after being tried in Article III criminal courts. Prosecuting terrorists in military commissions makes sense in some cases, but requiring it for all AI-Qaeda terrorists in each and every case is not in the national security of the U.S. In fact, that would severely limit our ability to handle some of the biggest threats. To understand why this proposed amendment would be such bad policy, consider the two recent cases where al-Qaida tried to use operatives to attack our Homeland, but we captured and arrested the terrorists instead. First, Najibullah Zazi, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., was arrested in September 2009 as part of an al-Qaida conspiracy to carry out suicide bombings on the New York City subway system. Then on Christmas 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 before it landed in Detroit, Michigan. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula--AQAP--claimed responsibility for the attempted attack and said that Abdulmutallab had trained with and been tasked to carry out the plot for AQAP. In both cases, the FBI arrested each Al Qaeda operative in the midst of the unfolding terrorist plot, and was able to obtain useful intelligence through interrogation. Most recently the DEA and the FBI, through shared intelligence, were able to interrupt an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador right here in Washington, DC. That man will be tried in Federal court. That man was successfully interrogated by the FBI. That man spilled his guts to the FBI, as they say in the vernacular. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty last week to all counts of an eight-count criminal indictment charging him for his role in the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253. He cooperated, provided intelligence, and will probably spend the rest of his life behind bars when he is sentenced in January. By comparison, two of six of the individuals convicted in military commissions are already out of prison living freely in their home countries of Yemen and Australia. Consider all of the following relatively light sentences handed down by military commissions since 9/ 11: Bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan--acquitted of conspiracy and only convicted of material support for terrorism--received a five-month sentence and was sent back to his home in Yemen to serve the time before being released in January 2009. Australian David Hicks--the first person convicted in a military commission when he entered into a plea agreement on material support for terrorism charges in March 2007--was given a 9-month sentence, which he mostly served back at home in Australia. Omar Khadr pleaded guilty in a military commission in exchange for an 8-year sentence, but he will likely be transferred to a Canadian prison after 1 year. Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi pleaded guilty to conspiracy and material support to terrorism in July 2010. In August 2010, a jury delivered a 14-year sentence, but the final sentence handed down in February 2011 was 2 years pursuant to his plea agreement. Noor Uthman Muhammed pleaded guilty to conspiracy and material support to terrorism in February 2011. A jury delivered a 14-year sentence, but the final sentence will be less than 3 years pursuant to his plea agreement. These are military commission trials. Ali Hamza al-Bahlul received a life sentence after he boycotted the entire military commission process and was convicted of soliciting murder and material support for terrorism without mounting a defense. In the Zazi case, what the Senator from New Hampshire was suggesting would actually require the government to split up co-defendants even where they would otherwise be prosecuted as part of the same conspiracy. For example, Zazi's alleged co-conspirators Zarein Ahmedzay and Adis Medunjanin would be prosecuted on terrorist charges in criminal court, but Zazi himself would have to be transferred to a military commission. Splitting up co-conspirators into two different detention and prosecution systems might prevent prosecutors from achieving the guilty pleas and likely long prison sentences that will be secured in the Zazi conspiracy case. Prosecutors have already obtained convictions against six individuals, including Zazi and Ahmedzay, who face life in Federal prison without parole. Importantly, we have heard from intelligence officials and others that a mandatory military commission policy will reduce our allies' willingness to extradite terror suspects to the United States for interrogation or prosecution, or even provide evidence about suspected terrorists if they will be shipped off to military commissions in all cases. You might say why would our allies do that? I will tell you why: Because our allies--who know about the past five years and know about the opposition to military commissions in their countries--are very reluctant to give evidence to a judicial process that does not adhere to the rule of law as much as our tried and tested Federal court system does. Take the 9/11 commission report, which recommends the following on page 380: [t]he United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. If Congress rejects the views of our allies and mandates military commission prosecutions for al-Qaida terrorists, it will also be a rejection of a recommendation from the 9/11 commission. Moreover, we will be undermining international law enforcement cooperation and dangerous terrorists could be set free as a result. Every single suspected terrorist captured on American soil, before and after September 11, has been taken into custody by law enforcement--not the U.S. military. This should never change. If somebody commits an act on our soil, they should be prosecuted in an article III court. This doesn't mean that we are soft on terrorism in any way, but it does mean that terrorists should be brought to justice, forced to stand trial and given a very serious sentence. As John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, stated in a March speech: Terrorists arrested inside the United States will, as always, be processed exclusively through our criminal justice system. As they should be. The alternative would be inconsistent with our values and our adherence to the rule of law. Our military does not patrol our streets or enforce our law in this country. Nor should it. I could not agree more. In summary, amendment No. 753, authored by the Senator from New Hampshire, will severely and seriously undermine our ability to incapacitate dangerous individuals and protect the American people. I believe this is something we cannot afford and I hope this body will do everything it can to protect the executive branch's flexibility. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of Justice, dated March of 2010 which describes the more than 400 terrorist convictions in article III courts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise to introduce legislation which would provide clarification to schools and school districts that wish to donate excess food to food banks and charitable organizations. In 1996, Congress passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act to encourage the donation of food and grocery products to nonprofit organizations such as homeless shelters, soup kitchens and churches for distribution to needy individuals. The law limits the liability of donors to instances of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. However, because the law does not explicitly include schools as having limited liability, many schools and school districts have been hesitant to donate excess food. This legislation would amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to clarify that schools and local education agencies participating in the school lunch program under the act are authorized to donate excess food to local food banks or charitable organizations. It would clarify that schools and local education agencies making donations would be exempt from civil and criminal liability to the extent provided under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act. Schools interested in donating excess food would be encouraged and better informed with the passage of this legislation. The Secretary of Education would provide schools with guidance to assist schools with food donations. Given the current economy and high unemployment rate, more and more individuals are becoming dependent on food banks and charities. This legislation would help to address the needs of those living in poverty by increasing support for food donations. 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 express my support for the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These agreements will eliminate tariffs and nontariff barriers to U.S. exports and protect intellectual property and investment with three key trading partners. At a time when the national unemployment rate stands at almost 10 percent--and tops 12 percent in my home State of California--I believe it is vital that we promote job growth by securing new opportunities for U.S. manufacturers, farmers and service providers in expanding foreign export markets. These three agreements are a good place to start. They are critical to the President's goal of doubling exports over 5 years, which could create 2 million new jobs. This is from a L.A. Times editorial of August 12, 2010. It is simple: export growth as a result of these trade agreements will mean more jobs. And we have no time to lose. Other trading partners have signed or are in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The European Union has already signed free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The EU-South Korea agreement came into effect in July. Korea now has or is negotiating 13 free trade agreements involving 50 nations. Canada concluded a trade agreement with Panama in 2010 and will gain preferential access to Colombia's market in August 2012. Argentina and Brazil already have preferential access to the Colombian market. We cannot afford to let our exporters lose market share to our competitors. If we are left out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that we could lose up to 380,000 jobs and $40 billion in exports. The best estimate is that these agreements will, in fact, create jobs. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, these agreements will create at least 70,000 U.S. jobs. U.S. exports to South Korea will increase by $11 billion and raise U.S. GDP by $12 billion. The Colombia trade agreement will increase U.S. exports by more than $1.1 billion and increase U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion. U.S. exports to Panama grew by 41 percent in 2010 to $6.1 billion and will continue to rise with passage of the free trade agreement. The Business Roundtable puts the number even higher at 250,000 jobs created with passage of the three agreements. Let me speak to the effects these agreements would have on my home State of California. As one of the 10 largest economic engines in the world with a $1.9 trillion economy, California is a leader in U.S. and global markets with products ranging from agriculture to high-tech products and manufacturing. In 2008, approximately 60,000 California companies exported products abroad, with manufactured good exports supporting 738,000 California jobs. South Korea, Colombia and Panama already represent growing markets for California exporters. In 2010, South Korea was California's fifth largest export market with exports totaling more than $8.1 billion, up from $5.9 billion in 2009. In 2010, Colombia was California's 34th largest export market with exports totaling $408.7 million--a 24- percent increase over the previous year. In 2010, Panama, with a growth rate of 7.5 percent, was California's 42nd largest export market with exports totaling $252 million. Passage of these agreements will provide important openings for California exports which will help create jobs. According to Business Roundtable, more than 66 percent of California exports to Colombia will be duty-free after passage of this agreement, saving $27.2 million for California businesses and farmers, and more than 80 percent of California exports to South Korea will be duty free following implementation of the agreement, saving exporters $66 million. In Panama, California high-quality beef, other meat and poultry products, soybeans, wines and most fresh fruit and tree nuts will become duty free upon enactment. According to the California Chambers of Commerce Council for International Trade, California manufacturers will also gain significant access to the $5.25 billion Panama Canal expansion project as the agreement eliminates the 5 percent duty on construction equipment and infrastructure machinery. The project will ultimately reduce transportation costs for California exports. Make no mistake, South Korea, Colombia and Panama represent significant opportunities for all U.S. exporters. South Korea is our 7th largest trading partner, our 8th biggest export market and the 15th largest economy in the world. The agreement represents the largest free trade agreement since the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. While Colombia and Panama have smaller economies, they are both emerging trading partners. In 2010, U.S. exports to Colombia grew by 34 percent to $12 billion, while exports to Panama grew by 41 percent to $6.1 billion. Again, export growth will lead to job growth. Some critics of these agreements argue that benefits gained by lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers to U.S. exports will be offset by benefits gained by our trading partners. The fact is, our trading partners already have substantial access to the U.S. market while our exports continue to face significant barriers. Currently, the average Korean applied tariff on U.S. non-agricultural products is 7 percent. In contrast, the average U.S. tariff on Korean nonagricultural imports is 3.7 percent. The average Korean applied tariff on U.S. agricultural products is 52 percent. The average U.S. tariff on Korean agricultural products is 12 percent. Approximately 90 percent of Colombian exports and 98 percent of Panamanian exports enter the United States duty free under existing trade preference programs. In contrast, over 90 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia face tariffs averaging 12.5 percent, and less than 40 percent of U.S. exports to Panama enter duty free with industrial exports facing an average tariff of 7 percent and agricultural exports facing an average tariff of 15 percent. So, these agreements will only serve to enhance U.S. competiveness by leveling the playing field for our exporters and give them opportunities our trading partners already enjoy here in the United States. And I know our manufacturers, farmers and service providers can compete and succeed against anyone. Let me briefly discuss the key benefits of these agreements. Upon enactment of the agreement with South Korea, approximately 95 percent of bilateral trade in industrial and consumer products will become duty-free within 5 years of the enactment of the agreement, including industrial and consumer electronic machinery, most chemicals, motorcycles and certain wood products. Most remaining tariffs will be eliminated within 10 years. More than half of current U.S. agricultural exports to Korea will become duty free immediately, including wheat, feed corn, soybeans for crushing, hides and skins, cotton, almonds, pistachios, bourbon whiskey, wine, raisins, grape juice, orange juice, cherries, frozen French fries and pet food. Approximately 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia will be duty-free upon the enactment of the agreement. Most remaining tariffs will be removed after 10 years. Both parties will grant certain farm products duty-free treatment immediately upon enactment of the agreement including high-quality beef, cotton, wheat, soybean meal, apples, pears, peaches, cherries and processed food products. Colombia will phase out quotas and over-quota tariffs on standard beef, chicken leg quarters, dairy products, corn, sorghum, animal feeds, soybean oil and rice within the next three to 19 years. Over 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Panama will become duty free upon enactment of the agreement, with the remaining tariffs phased out within 10 years. Panama will provide immediate duty-free access for more than half of U.S. agricultural exports including high-quality beef, poultry products, soybeans, cotton, wheat, fruits and vegetables, corn oil and many processed foods. I understand the concern some of my colleagues have about the effects free trade agreements may have on domestic jobs. While I firmly believe that past free trade agreements have an overall positive impact on the economy and job growth, there is no doubt that some Americans have lost jobs due to increased trade. That is why I remain a strong supporter of the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, Program, which has helped these American workers transition to new opportunities in emerging job markets. TAA has proven to be a wise investment by ensuring that workers who lose their jobs remain productive and tax-paying members of our society, free of government assistance. I am pleased that we voted to renew this critical program before the vote on the three trade agreements. Now, I would like to address specific concerns raised about the agreements with Colombia and Korea. Critics have argued that, given Colombia's weak labor laws and violence against labor leaders and union organizers, it should not be rewarded with a free trade agreement. First, under the terms of the free trade agreement, Colombia has agreed to: reaffirm its obligations as a member of the International Labor Organization, ILO, and adopt and maintain in its laws and practice core labor rights and ILO labor standards; refrain from waiving or otherwise weakening the laws that implement this obligation in a manner affecting trade or investment; effectively enforce labor laws related to the fundamental rights, plus acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health; and ensure that workers and employers will have fair, equitable and transparent access to labor tribunals or courts. All labor obligations are subject to the agreement's dispute settlement procedures. Colombia in April also agreed to an action plan related to labor rights to prevent violence against labor leaders, prosecute antilabor violence and protect internationally recognized worker rights. Among other things, this plan requires Colombia to: create a specialized Labor Ministry to improve the enforcement of labor rights; criminalize actions or threats that could affect fundamental workers' rights including the right to organize; eliminate the backlog of requests from union members for protection; expand the scope of a protection program for union leaders to additional labor activists and union organizers; assign 95 police investigators to support the prosecution of crimes against union members; double the number of labor inspectors by hiring 480 inspectors over the next 4 years including 100 new inspectors in 2011; and seek the assistance of the International Labor Organization to implement and enforce these pledges. Colombia has met the first two deadlines for implementation of the action plan and I look forward to the successful completion of the remaining commitments. There was also great concern about the auto provisions in the original 2007 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Currently, South Korea maintains an 8-percent tariff on U.S. autos. The United States maintains a 2.5-percent tariff on Korean autos and a 25-percent tariff on Korean trucks. Under the 2007 agreement, South Korea and the United States agreed to eliminate their respective duties on priority passenger vehicles immediately, to phase out their duties on other cars over 3 years and to phase out their duties on trucks over 10 years. In addition, South Korea agreed to eliminate the discriminatory aspects of its special consumption and annual vehicle taxes; not impose any new engine displacement taxes and to maintain non-discriminatory application of its existing taxes; and address several other non-tariff barriers to ensure that they do not impede the market access of U.S. autos. The U.S. auto industry and labor unions argued that the United States should not expand Korean access to the U.S. market until U.S. manufacturers are able to significantly increase their market share in South Korea and South Korea makes more concrete assurances that it will dismantle nontariff barriers. President Obama responded to their concerns and secured additional concessions from Korea that will expand U.S. access to the Korean auto market. Under the terms of the December, 2010 agreement the U.S. will keep its 2.5-percent tariff on Korean imports until the 5th year following enactment of the agreement while Korea will immediately cut its tariff on U.S. autos in half--from 8 percent to 4 percent--and fully eliminate the tariff in the fifth year; and the U.S. will keep its 25-percent tariff on trucks until the 8th year and eliminate it by year 10 while Korea will keep its original commitment to eliminate its 10 percent tariff on U.S. trucks immediately. The agreement also contains new provisions to eliminate nontariff barriers to U.S. auto exports to Korea and increase protection against surges of Korean auto imports in the U.S. I applaud the administration for listening to the concerns of U.S. automakers. These additional provisions strengthen the overall agreement and will provide new benefits for U.S. autos in an expanding foreign market and create more jobs. Due to President Obama's efforts, the United Auto Workers union and U.S. automakers now support the Korea agreement. In these difficult economic times, our constituents are sending us a clear message: they want Congress to focus on jobs. In this effort, we should leave no stone unturned. Expanding access for U.S. exports to the growing markets of Korea, Colombia and Panama will help create new jobs and increase economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support these agreements.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Act of 2011. Before I get into the bill, I want to say this is not an easy vote for me. It is a difficult vote because, beginning in 1979, I developed a relationship as mayor of San Francisco with China. Over these 30-plus years, I have seen China make the greatest changes of virtually any large country in the world. I know China has wanted to reach out, and the United States has reached out. On the Pacific Coast we have developed a century of trade which long ago overtook the Atlantic Coast. This trade between Asia and this country is, indeed, large and prized. During that time, I have had occasion to have meetings with the former President of China, the former Premier of China, and the latest Foreign Minister on the subject of currency. I have urged each to let the renminbi float freely. In every conversation, they have indicated that Beijing is aware of the situation and the need to allow the renminbi to respond to market forces, and there has been some progress. From July 2005 to July of 2008, the renminbi appreciated by 21 percent against the dollar, and since 2010 it has risen by an additional 7 percent. Unfortunately, action on this matter has not been sufficient, and China continues to resist a free-floating currency. My last conversation with a major government official took place last Friday evening in San Francisco. On Saturday, I pulled out my binoculars. Our home is situated on a hill, and it overlooks San Francisco Bay. I watched the big cargo ships pulling out of the Port of Oakland going through the Golden Gate. I watched five of them, and I saw they were half loaded. Half-loaded cargo ships leaving the ports of America, going to Asia and particularly China, have become more and more a part of daily routine. Most are loaded with scrap paper, but equal trade is missing. We import huge amounts of goods from China, and the same amount--with the exception of some high-valued goods--does not go back to China. I believe if we are going to have this great trading basin on the Pacific Ocean, everybody has to play by the same rules. In my view, this bill is not about putting sanctions on China. It is not about imposing retaliatory tariffs. It is about sending a clear message to Beijing that we are serious about the need to let the renminbi respond fully to market forces. Let me point out that China is not specifically mentioned in this bill. The aim is to address misaligned exchange rates whenever we find them. This does not talk about manipulation of rates. The bill has three fundamental purposes. First, it requires Treasury to report to Congress which currencies are fundamentally misaligned-- not manipulated, but misaligned--including those currencies that require priority action. Secondly, the legislation provides a mechanism for the Commerce Department at the request of a U.S. industry to investigate whether an undervalued currency constitutes a subsidy subject to retaliatory tariffs. Finally, the bill triggers certain penalties. If a priority country fails to realign its currency immediately upon designation, additional consequences take effect after 90 and 360 days subject to a Presidential waiver. What does this all mean? What it means is that for the first time we are going to monitor exchange rates and determine whether any currency is misaligned. If that currency, in fact, is misaligned, then the bill triggers a period of time to remedy that misalignment. If it is not remedied within 3 months, it provides additional action. Again, all of this is subject to a Presidential waiver. In effect, what you have is the Senate of the United States speaking out and saying enough is enough. The time has come to let the renminbi float freely, just as the dollar floats freely, and we take the upside along with the downside. If that is the case, then you have an equal and fair trading community. If it is not the case, you have a downward sloping trading community. The penalties include a prohibition on OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, loans; increasing antidumping duties on imports from countries with undervalued currencies; a prohibition on Federal procurement; opposition to any new financing from multilateral banks. There is little doubt that the renminbi is undervalued. The Chinese leadership understands it, the Chinese people understand it, and the American people understand it. In April 2011, in a study by William Cline and John Williamson at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, it was argued that the renminbi is undervalued by approximately 28.5 percent. Other studies provide different estimates, but the conclusion that the renminbi is undervalued is constant in virtually every study that has been done. This gives Chinese goods a steep advantage over U.S. goods. It results in a loss of U.S. jobs, and it results in my putting on my binoculars and watching huge cargo ships leave the large port of Oakland going under the Golden Gate Bridge only half full. When it is half full, it is usually waste paper. You can only take so much of this. In my own way, I have been importuning the Chinese for over a decade. They are always polite, they always say, yes, they understand, but they also say, China has to take steps as China can take steps. Well, the United States is now at a pivotal point. In the great State of California, our unemployment rate is over 12 percent, and the half-empty cargo ships have to be filled up if we are going to have a fair trading community. As I look at it, letting the renminbi float free is what is necessary to do this. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in September of 2010, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner argued this: The undervalued renminbi helps China's export sector and means imports are more expensive in China than they otherwise would be . . . It encourages outsourcing of production and jobs from the United States. And it makes it more difficult for goods and services produced by American workers to compete with Chinese-made goods and services in China, the United States, and third countries. Every economic report agrees with our Treasury Secretary's conclusion. History indicates that is correct. Just using one's eyes indicates that is happening. Indeed, cheaper Chinese goods lead to bigger trade deficits with the United States, and that leads to fewer U.S. jobs. Here's another report by economist Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute, and he found that between 2001 and 2010, the trade deficit with China cost the United States 2.8 million jobs, of which 1.9 million were in manufacturing. Nothing makes up for it. We have gained in education jobs, health care jobs, but they are minuscule in comparison with the loss of manufacturing jobs. The report also argues that this trade deficit has been compounded by China's decision to keep the renminbi artificially low, essentially subsidizing Chinese exports at the expense of their American competitors. Regardless of whether the number of job losses is as high as the Economic Policy Institute estimates, or as I have just said, at a time when we have got this national unemployment rate at almost 10 percent and 12 percent in California, we have to use every tool at our disposal to put Americans back to work. That means, quite simply stated, that the Senate can no longer afford to ignore the devastation of the manufacturing sector in this country. A July 2009 article from the Harvard Business Review by Gary Pisano and Willy Shih argues that the decline in manufacturing will negatively impact our status as a leader in innovation. I agree that in order for the United States to address these ills and promote economic growth, we have got to reclaim our leadership in research, development, and high- tech manufacturing. In order to do so, we have to address the undervaluation of the renminbi. A market-based exchange rate between the renminbi and the dollar is not going to solve all of our problems, and nobody should believe it will, but it will create a level playing field. Trading communities cannot long exist on an unlevel trading field. So this is very important for America at this time. In a sense--and I don't like to say this, but in a sense--the legislation is a ``shot across the bow.'' It gives the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department clear authority to take actions against undervalued currencies wherever they may occur, and particularly for high priority currencies. But it is also important that this bill is not merely about imposing penalties. It is very well drafted, in my view, and I read it cover to cover. It mandates consultations with priority countries, the International Monetary Fund, and key trading partners. In other words, it continues to place an emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy. The bill provides another tool for U.S. companies that have been affected by cheaper Chinese imports due to an undervalued renminbi. It makes it clear that Congress has the authority to investigate whether an undervalued currency is a subsidy subject to countervailing duties, and it provides two well-known methodologies to determine the value of the benefit conferred on exports by an undervalued currency. Let me be clear. This bill does not mandate any countervailing tariffs due to an undervalued currency. It simply restates that Commerce has the authority to investigate whether such duties are appropriate if a domestic company provides the proper documentation. Over the past 30 years, in visit after visit, I have seen how dialogue and cooperation have solidified ties between the United States and China, and Sino-American cooperation is very important. I watched the process becoming the foundation for what I believe is our most important bilateral relationship. Indeed, in my view, this relationship can positively impact the security and economic well-being of both countries. As such, when addressing disputes that may arise between Washington and Beijing, I believe it is in the interests of both nations to use diplomacy and negotiation to find commonsense solutions. Yet, on this matter, I believe the time has come. We are past the polite talks where people say ``I realize, I know, I understand,'' and not much happens. In the last 10 years, it looked as if China were going to take action, and then China has retrenched on that action. So I believe we must send a clear signal to China that it has to move faster to a market-based exchange rate. I know China doesn't like this. I know it has serious concerns about the bill. I understand that many U.S. companies and national organizations that do business in China are concerned about the impact this bill will have on our bilateral economic relationship. But I also know over the 20-year period I have been following the currencies of both countries, the improvement is small, and the impact on the United States has been great. So as a friend of China and a strong supporter of United States-China ties, I hope this vote will demonstrate our deep concern. I hope it will give the administration the leverage it needs to encourage Beijing to work with us and our partners in the international community to bring the renminbi into alignment with market forces. I do not say this in a hostile way. I say it in friendship and with hope that there is a future where trading between China and the United States can be on equal terms. I also wish to salute the authors of this legislation because I think they have done a very good job. Senator Brown, who is on the floor, Senator Schumer, Senator Graham, and others have put forward, I think, a carefully worded bill which carries with it the real opportunity for change between the trading relationships of our two great countries. So I thank them, and I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011. The act would eliminate inequities in current law by allowing court-martialed servicemembers who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to seek review by the United States Supreme Court. In our civilian courts today, all persons convicted of a crime, if they lose on appeal, have a right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review. Even enemy combatants have the right to direct appellate review in the Supreme Court. In contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right. Our military personnel have a limited right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, CAAF, actually conducts a review of their case or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. In other words, if the CAAF refuses to take their case, or denies their extraordinary relief petition, the servicemember has no right to further review in the Supreme Court. For fiscal years 2008 through 2010, the CAAF denied a total of 2230 petitions for review. The CAAF also averages about 20 denials of extraordinary relief petitions every year. Taken together, this means that there are more than 750 court-martial decisions per year in which servicemembers are denied the opportunity to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court. In addition to this disparity between our civilian and military court systems, there is another disparity within the military court system itself. The government may petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But servicemembers do not have the same rights to petition the Supreme Court that the military prosecutors on the other side of the aisle have. The bill I am introducing today is a simple one, which would correct these inequities. It would allow servicemembers whose appeals are denied review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or who were denied extraordinary relief, the opportunity to seek review of those decisions by writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. While this legislation would provide a fairer legal process for servicemembers, it would not unduly burden the military or the Supreme Court. As noted in the 2010 House Judiciary Committee Report on the legislation, the expanded Supreme Court review of court-martial decisions authorized by the legislation would result in only about 80- 120 additional petitions for certiorari each year. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the increased workload for Department of Defense attorneys and Supreme Court clerks would cost less than $1 million each year. Every day, our U.S. service personnel place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform of one of those rights-- the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief. It is a right given to common criminals in our civilian courts, to the Government, and even to some of the terrorists who we hope to prosecute as war criminals. It is long past time we give them the same rights as the American citizens they fight, and sometimes die, to protect. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.