Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall Privacy Act, a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by calls throughout the day and night. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Durbin. In recent years, we have seen an increase in the development of new technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters. This is a good thing. Political speech is essential and should be protected. The vast majority of these developments strengthen the Democratic process by promoting an interchange of information and ideas. One of these developments is the robocall--a prerecorded message that can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through computer automation. With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role in alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls. But the process can be abused. Throughout recent elections, we have continued to hear stories about people being inundated with phone calls throughout the day and night. There is simply no good reason why Americans wanting a good night's sleep should be awakened at 4:30 in the morning by a robocall. Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list, which millions of individuals have registered for. But political calls are specifically exempted from this list. Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some safeguards. Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do. It would ban political robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. It would ban any campaign or group from making more than two robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day. It would prohibit the organizer of any robocall from blocking the ``caller identification'' number and require an announcement at the beginning of the call indentifying the individual or organization making the call, and the fact that it is a prerecorded message. This is to prevent robocalls from misleading the recipient of the call. The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and directed toward stopping the worst of these calls. The bill would create a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law. The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but not receive monetary damages. A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls. Let me briefly describe a few incidents that showcase why the provisions in this bill are so important. On Election Day in 2010, over 110,000 Maryland voters began receiving anonymous robocalls instructing them to ``relax'' and stay home because Governor Martin O'Malley had already won re-election. These calls came a full two hours before the polls would close. Days before the 2010 Midterm elections, voters in Kansas received anonymous robocalls telling them to bring a voter registration card and proof of home ownership to the polls on Wednesday. Not only are these items not required to vote, but as we know, the election was on a Tuesday. Similarly, in my home state of California, about two dozen Los Angeles residents complained of receiving Spanish language robocalls from an unidentifiable source instructing them to vote on Wednesday, November 3--the day after Election Day. Shortly before last year's elections, individuals in St. Louis, Missouri, heard their phones ring and checked the caller ID to find a number belonging to a local hospital. Expecting the worst, they answered the call. The voice on the other end was not a hospital employee, but rather a prerecorded political message from an organization that had been able to manipulate caller ID devices to make it seem as if the calls were coming from emergency officials. In October 2010, 50,000 Nevadans were awoken at 1 a.m. by a robocall regarding a ballot question in the state that would change the judicial selection process. The calls came in the middle of the night due to a programming error--they were supposed to be made at 1 p.m. To be clear, incidences like these involving the malicious or untimely use of robocalls are not unique to the recent election. In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push Organization,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, in part because of the false, late-night call. In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call. I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for political speech, but the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their homes and spreading misleading and outright false information. Something must be done to rein in the robocalls which perpetrate these actions. This bill presents a solution. It does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act. 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 am introducing the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation would provide a much- needed tool for prosecutors to use to combat the exploitative actions of fraudulent lawyers and consultants who take advantage of individuals seeking immigration assistance. The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud immigrants. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to knowingly and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative authorized to represent aliens in immigration proceedings; and to knowingly defraud or receive money or anything of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also work to combat immigration fraud by increasing the awareness of notario fraud to immigrants. The bill would require immigration courts to provide immigrants in removal proceedings with information about notario fraud. The bill would require the Justice Department to compile and make available to the public a list of individuals and organizations that have been convicted of immigration fraud; and permit only people who have, within a 12-month period, represented immigrants pro bono appear on the Justice Department's list of pro bono legal services. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Mr. Ibarra, a Mexican national and father of four, who has resided in Los Angeles since 1988. Mr. Ibarra hired a so-called ``immigration specialist'' and paid him over $7,500. In his apartment, Mr. Ibarra keeps reams of documents that the immigration consultant claimed to have filed on his behalf but never did--as Mr. Ibarra subsequently learned from immigration authorities when he was placed into removal proceedings. I wish I could tell you that this kind of egregious behavior is uncommon, but sadly, that is not the case. Last November, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a lawsuit against a former lawyer who ran an illicit immigration law practice. In the three decades in which the lawyer was licensed to practice law, he was reported on numerous occasions to the California bar for his unethical behavior that included collecting exorbitant fees; representing clients in a negligent manner; and misleading immigrants with assurances of favorable outcomes. Eventually, the lawyer resigned from the legal profession and was prohibited from representing clients before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The terms of his resignation prevented him from practicing law or portraying himself as eligible to practice law. Instead of abiding by these terms, the lawyer proceeded to set up another law practice through which he defrauded over two hundred immigrants, depleting many of these victims of their entire life savings. I am pleased that last month the Federal Government partnered with State prosecutors and immigration advocacy organizations to launch a nationwide campaign to combat these harmful schemes. The enactment of this bill would enhance the government's ability to achieve the goals of this national campaign by providing prosecutors with a tough new Federal criminal law that could be used to convict fraudulent-lawyers and consultants who prey on immigrants. Mr. President, I urge support for the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. 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 am introducing the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation would provide a much- needed tool for prosecutors to use to combat the exploitative actions of fraudulent lawyers and consultants who take advantage of individuals seeking immigration assistance. The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud immigrants. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to knowingly and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative authorized to represent aliens in immigration proceedings; and to knowingly defraud or receive money or anything of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also work to combat immigration fraud by increasing the awareness of notario fraud to immigrants. The bill would require immigration courts to provide immigrants in removal proceedings with information about notario fraud. The bill would require the Justice Department to compile and make available to the public a list of individuals and organizations that have been convicted of immigration fraud; and permit only people who have, within a 12-month period, represented immigrants pro bono appear on the Justice Department's list of pro bono legal services. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Mr. Ibarra, a Mexican national and father of four, who has resided in Los Angeles since 1988. Mr. Ibarra hired a so-called ``immigration specialist'' and paid him over $7,500. In his apartment, Mr. Ibarra keeps reams of documents that the immigration consultant claimed to have filed on his behalf but never did--as Mr. Ibarra subsequently learned from immigration authorities when he was placed into removal proceedings. I wish I could tell you that this kind of egregious behavior is uncommon, but sadly, that is not the case. Last November, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a lawsuit against a former lawyer who ran an illicit immigration law practice. In the three decades in which the lawyer was licensed to practice law, he was reported on numerous occasions to the California bar for his unethical behavior that included collecting exorbitant fees; representing clients in a negligent manner; and misleading immigrants with assurances of favorable outcomes. Eventually, the lawyer resigned from the legal profession and was prohibited from representing clients before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The terms of his resignation prevented him from practicing law or portraying himself as eligible to practice law. Instead of abiding by these terms, the lawyer proceeded to set up another law practice through which he defrauded over two hundred immigrants, depleting many of these victims of their entire life savings. I am pleased that last month the Federal Government partnered with State prosecutors and immigration advocacy organizations to launch a nationwide campaign to combat these harmful schemes. The enactment of this bill would enhance the government's ability to achieve the goals of this national campaign by providing prosecutors with a tough new Federal criminal law that could be used to convict fraudulent-lawyers and consultants who prey on immigrants. Mr. President, I urge support for the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. 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 recognize Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center and a good friend of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This is Mike's last week and I want to thank him for his service and wish him the very best in the next steps in his career. Director Leiter has been at the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, for most of its existence. He was the principal deputy director from February 2007 to November of that year when he became the acting director. President Bush nominated him to be the Director on March 31, 2008, and he was confirmed by the Senate on June 10, 2008. Mike has served in both the Bush and Obama administrations which speaks to his bipartisan and professional approach to the Nation's security, and the support that he has earned from the Congress and within the executive branch. His leadership at the NCTC has brought stability and continuity to our Nation's counterterrorism efforts, and he should take pride in the fact that under his tenure, there have been no successful attacks against the United States homeland by foreign terrorists. In this threat environment, that is an impressive accomplishment indeed. As is often the nature of the intelligence business, much of the successes of the National Counterterrorism Center go unrecognized. Terrorists plotting and carrying out attacks are captured through good intelligence and law enforcement work, and through strong cooperation with allies and partners around the world. Often, terrorist plots fail to proceed because of the barriers to recruit, travel, raise funds, get training, or gain access to destructive materials that have been erected through the efforts of the United States and other nations. Even in counterterrorism victories that become known, such as the cases of Najibullah Zazi in the United States or the identification of Usama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, the National Counterterrorism Center's important--sometimes absolutely critical role--is often not well known. So I am pleased today to be able to recognize Mike Leiter for his work in keeping our Nation safe for the past 4\1/2\ years. As a member, and now as chair of the Intelligence Committee, I have come to rely on Mike's analysis and judgment. He has been willing to admit that at times our counterterrorism policies or practices haven't been what they should be. He has appeared regularly before the committee and has been very accessible for the committee's staff as well. In addition to the regularly scheduled meetings we hold, I have received secure calls from Mike often, apprising me on new threats and the status of investigations. He is, without fail, available to provide updates and assessments, and I appreciate the importance he has placed on keeping the committee, and me personally, fully informed. Director Leiter has also worked tirelessly to achieve the goals set out for the National Counterterrorism Center in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The NCTC was established to bring together information and officers from across the intelligence community and from other parts of the government involved in the spectrum of counterterrorism, including counter-radicalization, detection, and prevention of attacks. Even after the experiences of 9/11 and the findings of the 9/11 Commission, it was a difficult and enormously frustrating challenge to truly integrate the Nation's counterterrorism efforts. It speaks to Director Leiter's energy and dedication that he was, eventually, able to bring together analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and military services to share the threat streams that each one collected and assessed. The result has been the ability to better connect the intelligence information that points to suspicious activity, to develop the case when a terrorist or a terror plot is identified, and to take coordinated action to disrupt that plot. The NCTC now produces, on a daily basis, its own counterterrorism analysis that provides Intelligence Community-wide assessments and warning. Analysts at the NCTC are among the finest we have, and Director Leiter has fostered a productive environment through analytical roundtables and weekly forums in which analysts share information, provide briefings, and develop improved analytic tradecraft. In fact, I recently learned that as the CIA was developing its assessment that Usama bin Laden was in the Abbottabad compound, it turned to NCTC analysts to ``red-team'' the intelligence case and give their assessments. And Director Leiter was involved in the briefings and discussions with the President that led to the decision to carry out the operation. Director Leiter has demonstrated leadership in hard times, as well. After the failed terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner on December 25, 2009, investigations uncovered significant failures and shortcomings in our counterterrorism efforts. The Senate Intelligence Committee's review found 14 specific ``points of failure'' across the government that enabled Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to come so close to carrying out a major attack. While several of our conclusions and recommendations fell to other agencies, Director Leiter moved quickly to implement the changes that we and others suggested. Since early 2010, the NCTC has vastly improved its methods for screening counterterrorism data and watchlisting individuals who pose a threat to our Nation. In response to the finding that no agency in the government was ensuring that all terrorist leads were pursued, Mike implemented ``Pursuit Groups'' at NCTC, teams of highly skilled analysts who sift through massive amounts of data to identify disparate pieces of intelligence and find linkages that identify terrorists, their plans, and their networks before they reach the point of plot execution. In addition to his service at the National Counterterrorism Center, Mr. Leiter helped establish the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as its deputy chief of staff, having previously served as the deputy general counsel and assistant director of the very well- regarded WMD Commission led by Senator Chuck Robb and Judge Laurence Silberman. From 2002 to 2005, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the most active jurisdictions for national security cases. He clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer and for Chief Judge Michael Boudin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Most people do not know that Mike was also a naval aviator, flying EA-6B Prowlers with action in operations in the former Yugoslavia and in Iraq. In short, he has served the Nation in a wide variety of capacities over the past 20 years I thank Mike for his exemplary service in keeping this Nation safe and for his very positive relationship with the Intelligence Committee as we have carried out our oversight duties. I expect that this will not be Mike's last service to the Nation, and I wish him all the best.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2011. This bill would close a loophole in current law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. We must close this gap in our laws before it is exploited by terrorists, drug gangs, and other dangerous criminals who threaten our communities. Under current Federal law, people who are convicted in the United Sates of violent felonies like rape, murder and terrorism are prohibited from possessing firearms. But, shockingly, Federal law does not bar criminals convicted of these same violent crimes in foreign courts from possessing guns. This outrageous loophole for foreign convicts is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Small v. United States. In that case, the Court analyzed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which states that anyone who has been convicted of a felony ``in any court'' cannot possess firearms. The Court concluded that the phrase only applied to American courts, despite the fact that the Gun Control Act had been applied to foreign felonies since 1968, the year it took effect. At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could have serious consequences. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' But whatever one may think of the Court's ruling, it is now the law of the land. We must make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the bill I am introducing today would do just that. Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18 would be amended to state that ``[t]he term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act. Where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law,'' the bill would expand these terms to include convictions of offenses under foreign law. In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone was convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a gun in the U.S., then they will be disqualified from gun possession under U.S. law. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' under the Gun Control Act, if either: the foreign conviction resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the United States. I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. In any event, it is clear that we should not keep in place a dangerous policy which essentially treats every foreign conviction as invalid. Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign- convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States. With each passing day, we run a risk that foreign felons are exploiting this loophole in our law. This is unacceptable. Criminals convicted in foreign courts should not be able to have guns when U.S. law forbids those convicted of the same crimes on U.S. soil from possessing guns. We should not wait for lives to be lost before we act to close this loophole. 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 am pleased to introduce the No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2011. This bill would close a loophole in current law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. We must close this gap in our laws before it is exploited by terrorists, drug gangs, and other dangerous criminals who threaten our communities. Under current Federal law, people who are convicted in the United Sates of violent felonies like rape, murder and terrorism are prohibited from possessing firearms. But, shockingly, Federal law does not bar criminals convicted of these same violent crimes in foreign courts from possessing guns. This outrageous loophole for foreign convicts is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Small v. United States. In that case, the Court analyzed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which states that anyone who has been convicted of a felony ``in any court'' cannot possess firearms. The Court concluded that the phrase only applied to American courts, despite the fact that the Gun Control Act had been applied to foreign felonies since 1968, the year it took effect. At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could have serious consequences. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' But whatever one may think of the Court's ruling, it is now the law of the land. We must make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the bill I am introducing today would do just that. Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18 would be amended to state that ``[t]he term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act. Where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law,'' the bill would expand these terms to include convictions of offenses under foreign law. In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone was convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a gun in the U.S., then they will be disqualified from gun possession under U.S. law. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' under the Gun Control Act, if either: the foreign conviction resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the United States. I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. In any event, it is clear that we should not keep in place a dangerous policy which essentially treats every foreign conviction as invalid. Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign- convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States. With each passing day, we run a risk that foreign felons are exploiting this loophole in our law. This is unacceptable. Criminals convicted in foreign courts should not be able to have guns when U.S. law forbids those convicted of the same crimes on U.S. soil from possessing guns. We should not wait for lives to be lost before we act to close this loophole. 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. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Lisa O. Monaco to be the Assistant Attorney General for National Security that is before the Senate. The Assistant Attorney General for National Security is a fairly new position but a very important one, especially in a time of rapidly evolving threats to our nation and increasingly challenging legal questions about how to prepare for and combat those threats. As the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Ms. Monaco would represent the government in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, proceedings and sign off on applications to allow the government to move quickly to track down terrorists and spies operating against the United States. She will be the principal official in the Department of Justice for engaging with the intelligence community as agencies determine the authorities and limitations under the law. Ms. Monaco's confirmation is long overdue. She was approved unanimously by both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees last month after the May 1 strike against Osama bin Laden. Importantly for the Assistant Attorney General for National Security position, that operation netted a large cache of al-Qaida documents, communications, and videos that will, no doubt, lead to new counterterrorism leads. On May 8 National Security Adviser Tom Donilon was on ``Meet the Press,'' and he said, ``This is the largest cache of intelligence derived from the scene of any single terrorist. It's about the size, the CIA tells us, of a small college library.'' In the past 2 months, intelligence and law enforcement professionals have been scouring that information for new threats, leads, and insights into al-Qaida and global terrorism. As the intelligence gained is turned into counterterrorism actions, Lisa Monaco will oversee those activities. The bottom line is that at this time of heightened potential threat of terrorism, the Attorney General, the intelligence community, and the entire administration need to have their team in place. Ms. Monaco was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 9 and by the Senate Intelligence Committee on May 24, in both cases by unanimous vote. Both committees held nomination hearings for Ms. Monaco and for both committees, she completed prehearing and post-hearing questions. I know Ms. Monaco also had a chance to meet with members of both committees and it is clear she is impressive and well-qualified. There is no doubt that Ms. Monaco has the experience to be an effective Assistant Attorney General for National Security. Let me describe her background in more detail. Since February 2010, Lisa Monaco has served as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General or acted in that capacity, and she served as Associate Deputy Attorney General from January 2009 through February 2010. She also has considerable experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, having served as chief of staff to Director Robert Mueller, September 2007-January 2009. Ms. Monaco spent 6 years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia when she received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service, the Department of Justice's highest award. She also received Department of Justice Awards for Special Achievement on three occasions, in 2002, 2003, and 2005. She received her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School, 1997, and her B.A. from Harvard University, 1990. Ms. Monaco's nomination has received support from a range of former senior officials of the FBI and Department of Justice, including former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and former Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein. So we see that Ms. Monaco's background and qualifications are impeccable. I strongly urge the Senate to approve her nomination to be the Assistant Attorney General and wish her success in this position. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood Protection Fairness Act of 2011. This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure. The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on Federal tax dollars to build their levees. The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise. The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards. The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back yards. In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy. In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood insurance bill. These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid to build their levee. That is not sound policy. Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California. A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of insurance. However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year. That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless of your economic situation. I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to undermine the National Flood Insurance Program. I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new construction in hazardous areas. But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the NFIP are antiquated. To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, and until recently, were unaware of it. Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were built by the Federal Government. The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for reduced rate flood insurance zones. FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by federally funded levees. Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not being paid for by the Federal Government. The original idea behind this requirement was that information on non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they really were. That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized. Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are seeking this change. At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense modifications. I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope to see these changes enacted quickly. There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her effective advocacy on this issue. On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not trivial accomplishments. But a little fine tuning is in order. Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should not be penalized for paying for it themselves. Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home. The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage. 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 Flood Protection Fairness Act of 2011. This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure. The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on Federal tax dollars to build their levees. The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise. The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards. The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back yards. In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy. In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood insurance bill. These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid to build their levee. That is not sound policy. Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California. A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of insurance. However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year. That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless of your economic situation. I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to undermine the National Flood Insurance Program. I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new construction in hazardous areas. But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the NFIP are antiquated. To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, and until recently, were unaware of it. Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were built by the Federal Government. The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for reduced rate flood insurance zones. FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by federally funded levees. Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not being paid for by the Federal Government. The original idea behind this requirement was that information on non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they really were. That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized. Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are seeking this change. At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense modifications. I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope to see these changes enacted quickly. There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her effective advocacy on this issue. On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not trivial accomplishments. But a little fine tuning is in order. Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should not be penalized for paying for it themselves. Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home. The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with Senator Kerry, the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011. We are joined by Senators Reid, Leahy, and Durbin. This bill would take important steps to improve veterans' access to voter registration services. Our veterans have served our Nation at great risk and sacrifice. I believe we should do everything in our power to ensure that they play a central role in our democratic process, that their votes are cast and their voices heard. Almost 4 years ago, during the previous administration, I learned that a Department of Veterans Affairs facility in California had been barring voter registration groups from accessing veterans in the facility. Similar reports emerged in Connecticut and other parts of the country. Since that time, Senator Kerry and I have been working, together with our cosponsors, to make sure that our Government works to provide veterans with voter registration services, not to prevent them from receiving election-related materials. We have written letters and our staffs have held meetings with the VA to establish a fair, nonpartisan policy to facilitate voter registration for veterans who receive services from VA facilities. We have made significant progress. After much negotiation, in 2008, the VA established a new and substantially improved policy that allows state and local election officials, as well as nonpartisan groups, to access VA facilities for voter registration under terms and conditions set by the facility. This is an improvement, and we have not heard serious complaints in recent years. However, legislation remains necessary. First, this voluntary policy could be rescinded or rolled back in the future; Federal law cannot. Second, more should be done to ensure not only that outside groups can register voters in a nonpartisan manner in VA facilities but also that veterans who live in and use these facilities have easy access to voter registration and absentee ballot forms, even when no group or official comes by. The Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011 would require the VA to provide voter registration forms to veterans when they enroll in the VA health care system, or change their status or address in that system. The bill would also ensure that veterans who live in VA facilities have access to absentee ballots when they want to cast votes, and that VA employees assist veterans with election-related forms if necessary, in the same way that these employees assist veterans with other forms. It would allow nonpartisan voter groups and election officials to provide voter information and registration services to veterans in a time, place, and manner that makes sense for the facilities. It would give the Attorney General authority to enforce these provisions. It is a cornerstone of our democracy that every eligible citizen is able to register and cast their vote. These rights should never be denied, by fiat or as a matter of practicality, to those who have given the very most for our country. I believe it is time that the VA provides veterans with the support they need and deserve to register, cast their votes, and have those votes counted. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with Senator Kerry, the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011. We are joined by Senators Reid, Leahy, and Durbin. This bill would take important steps to improve veterans' access to voter registration services. Our veterans have served our Nation at great risk and sacrifice. I believe we should do everything in our power to ensure that they play a central role in our democratic process, that their votes are cast and their voices heard. Almost 4 years ago, during the previous administration, I learned that a Department of Veterans Affairs facility in California had been barring voter registration groups from accessing veterans in the facility. Similar reports emerged in Connecticut and other parts of the country. Since that time, Senator Kerry and I have been working, together with our cosponsors, to make sure that our Government works to provide veterans with voter registration services, not to prevent them from receiving election-related materials. We have written letters and our staffs have held meetings with the VA to establish a fair, nonpartisan policy to facilitate voter registration for veterans who receive services from VA facilities. We have made significant progress. After much negotiation, in 2008, the VA established a new and substantially improved policy that allows state and local election officials, as well as nonpartisan groups, to access VA facilities for voter registration under terms and conditions set by the facility. This is an improvement, and we have not heard serious complaints in recent years. However, legislation remains necessary. First, this voluntary policy could be rescinded or rolled back in the future; Federal law cannot. Second, more should be done to ensure not only that outside groups can register voters in a nonpartisan manner in VA facilities but also that veterans who live in and use these facilities have easy access to voter registration and absentee ballot forms, even when no group or official comes by. The Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011 would require the VA to provide voter registration forms to veterans when they enroll in the VA health care system, or change their status or address in that system. The bill would also ensure that veterans who live in VA facilities have access to absentee ballots when they want to cast votes, and that VA employees assist veterans with election-related forms if necessary, in the same way that these employees assist veterans with other forms. It would allow nonpartisan voter groups and election officials to provide voter information and registration services to veterans in a time, place, and manner that makes sense for the facilities. It would give the Attorney General authority to enforce these provisions. It is a cornerstone of our democracy that every eligible citizen is able to register and cast their vote. These rights should never be denied, by fiat or as a matter of practicality, to those who have given the very most for our country. I believe it is time that the VA provides veterans with the support they need and deserve to register, cast their votes, and have those votes counted. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011. 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 in strong support of the nomination of Leon Panetta to be the 23rd Secretary of Defense. Mr. Panetta, who currently serves as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was nominated by President Obama on April 28. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on his nomination on June 9, and I was honored to introduce him at that hearing. His nomination was approved unanimously by the committee on June 14. I would like to speak briefly about Director Panetta's career, and in particular his time at the Central Intelligence Agency. In his 47 years of public service, Director Panetta has held the positions of Congressman, chairman of the House Budget Committee, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, chief of staff to the White House, codirector, with his wife, of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, which I have had the pleasure of speaking before, member of the Iraq Study Group, and Director of the CIA. His career and service started in 1964 as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, and now 47 years later he has come full circle to be nominated to lead the Department of Defense and U.S. Armed Forces. In the course of 2 years as Director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta has mastered the intelligence field, led the CIA through a very tumultuous time, restored badly damaged relationships with Congress and with the Director of National Intelligence, and carried out President Obama's personal instruction to him to find Osama bin Laden. It has been my pleasure to serve as the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during this time and to be able to work closely with Mr. Panetta. I have no doubt that his past experience and his capabilities prepare Leon Panetta to meet the major challenges before the Department of Defense. With knowledge of CIA operations and analysis, he will come to the Pentagon with a thorough understanding of the situation in Afghanistan as well as the aggravating factors of our relationship with Pakistan. Through CIA analysis and operations, he is also well aware of the other contingencies around the globe where the U.S. military may be called to deploy. Director Panetta is also well positioned to guide the Department through the constrained budget environment. The budget cuts to the Pentagon have already begun, for the first time in 10 years, with the appropriations bills now moving through the Congress. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on which I serve, held a hearing last week with Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. Both of them expressed concerns that budget cuts not lead to a ``hollow force'' or deprive the Department and the Nation of needed capabilities. I am confident that Leon Panetta possesses the credentials and experience to make cuts where needed and where prudent, but that he will do so in a way that keeps the military strong and capable, and in a way that maintains the cohesion of the Department and its services. Beyond Director Panetta's experience is his leadership style, his character, and a deft personal touch. As we all know, personal relationships and the way one approaches things matter a great deal, whether within Cabinet meetings or negotiating with foreign counterparts. Mr. Panetta's approach is effective, and it provides for a very good working relationship with the Congress. Positions like the Director of the CIA or the Secretary of Defense require a strong character and a strong moral compass, qualities that this nominee possesses. Let me give you an example. Early in his tenure at the CIA in 2009, Director Panetta was briefed on a number of active and recent intelligence programs. One of them, which I can't describe here, was particularly sensitive and provoked questions and concern. Director Panetta asked the CIA staff if the congressional intelligence committees had been briefed on this program. He was told they had not. Mr. Panetta immediately requested an urgent meeting with the Intelligence Committee to brief us. He said he found it unacceptable that this program had been withheld from Congress, and terminated it in large part on that basis. In the 2 years since, he has never declined to answer a question or provide us with his candid views. He has been completely forthright, and motivated only by what is best for the CIA, and more importantly, this nation. The Department of Defense is the largest Department in the Federal Government. As Secretary Gates recently noted, the health care budget of the Department of Defense is bigger than the entire budget of the CIA. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for thousands of young men and women serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and deployed around the world, and bears the burden of every death and casualty we suffer. I agree with Secretary Gates that no other position can fully prepare someone to be Secretary of Defense. But I believe that Leon Panetta, who has served honorably and successfully in Congress, at the Office of Management and Budget, at the White House, and now the CIA, is uniquely qualified to be another outstanding Secretary of Defense in this very challenging time. I urge his confirmation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address S. 978, legislation passed by the Judiciary Committee last week that would increase the penalties for willful copyright infringement by ``streaming.'' I would like to explain why I voted ``pass'' on the bill at the Judiciary Committee markup, and to express what my concern is. First, I very much appreciate the intent behind this legislation, and commend Senators Klobuchar and Cornyn for bringing it forth. Online infringement of copyrights has had a very serious, detrimental, effect on the entertainment industry, which is based in large part in my State of California. Those who willfully infringe copyrights for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain deserve to be punished like the thieves that they are. But in doing this, we must make sure that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. This bill simply copies the penalty structure from the current law that makes larger scale illegal downloading a felony. That law makes ``the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means''--i.e. downloading--a felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment, if it involves: 10 or more copies; with a total retail value of more than $2,500; and within a 180-day period. This bill just replicates that penalty structure, with the additional element of an alternative ``fair market value'' threshold. It makes willful infringement through ``public performances by electronic means''--i.e. streaming--also a felony, subject to the same 5-year maximum sentence, if it involves: 10 or more public performances; within a 180-day period; with either a total retail or economic value of more than $2,500; or total fair market value of licenses of more than $5,000. As I stated at the beginning, I have no problem with increased punishment for large-scale infringers, whether they infringe through downloads or through streams. The problem, though, with this structure is that it treats streaming as being as serious as downloading. But a download, in my view, is obviously much more serious, because it makes a permanent copy of the song or movie or show, as opposed to the one- time viewing or listening that streaming creates. This is very likely why downloading was made a felony to begin with, while streaming wasn't. Given that downloading is much more serious and damaging, to have a moral consistency with the downloading penalties, the streaming thresholds, at least in quantity, should be much higher. Therefore, I hope to work with the bill's sponsors before this legislation goes to the floor, to craft a more appropriate threshold, which reflects the differences between downloading and streaming. As the sponsors and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, have stated, there are other outstanding issues that they are committed to addressing before this bill comes to the floor, and I hope this concern that I have can be resolved in the same way.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Gerry Counihan, an extraordinary man and a wonderful example for us all. Gerry is a familiar face and a friend to the Members of this body. Each of us who have made the trip into this historic Capitol Building and boarded the elevator to cast a vote on this floor has been warmly welcomed or helped in some way by Gerry. Gerry's life has had its share of challenges. He was born with a learning disability, but with his trademark determination and optimism he beat the odds and graduated from Franciscan University in 1988. Gerry first came to work here on Capitol Hill in 1991, and he returned in 1997 to take a job as a tour guide. His enthusiasm and his love of American history made him an outstanding guide and a dedicated public servant. Gerry also helped many visitors to our Capitol cope during a time of tragedy. He gave the first public tour of the Capitol after two police officers were killed in 1998. In 2001, Gerry gave the first tour when the Capitol reopened following the terrorist attacks of September 11. In my opinion, this is a testament to the dedication and the patriotism Gerry has shown during his many years of service to our country. In May 2007, Gerry was the victim of a brutal home invasion and assault. After this senseless act of violence, he was told by his doctors that he may never walk again. But Gerry has never taken no for an answer. After months in the hospital and grueling rehabilitation, Gerry returned to the Capitol, eventually taking a job as an elevator operator. Again, Gerry impressed all of us in the Senate with his dedication and his generous spirit. Gerry will soon begin a job at the Department of Health and Human Services. I know I speak for all of us when I say that HHS is lucky to have him. Gerry makes the Senate a brighter place, and I am truly sorry to see him go. I admire his optimism, his dedication, and especially his courage in the face of adversity. I wish Gerry well as he moves onto this exciting new challenge.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator Claire McCaskill. This bill will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with important tools to locate border tunnels, identify criminals and punish those involved. As the U.S., Mexico border has become more secure, criminals have sought out new ways to transfer drugs and people across the border. For years, smugglers have tried to go around our border checkpoints. Now, they are trying to go under them to evade border enforcement. There is an increasing number and sophistication of tunnels along the Southwest border. Tunnels range from anything from a shallow dirt crawl way to sophisticated concrete structures with shoring, ventilation and electricity. One tunnel found in San Diego even had a makeshift elevator. Underground tunnels present a serious national security threat. The first tunnel was discovered in May of 1990. However, beginning in 2001, tunnels began to increase dramatically. Between September 2001 and today, an astonishing 125 completed tunnels have been discovered making a total of 137 completed tunnels since 1990. Border tunnels are most often used to transport narcotics from Mexico to the United States, but assumingly are also used to smuggle weapons and people. Just as tunnels can be used to transport drugs across the border, they could be used to smuggle a terrorist into the United States. In recent years, there has been a striking increase in the sophistication of these tunnels. To date, authorities have discovered 61 sophisticated tunnels, 37 of which were constructed in California. In San Diego in February of 2006, I had the occasion to visit a very sophisticated tunnel discovered by the multi- agency San Diego Tunnel Task Force, led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security has established these tunnel task forces in San Diego, El Paso, Nogales, Yuma and Imperial Valley. The tunnel was 2,400 feet long, close to half of a mile, stretching from an abandoned warehouse near the southern border of California through to Tijuana, Mexico. It remains the longest cross-border tunnel discovered in U.S. history, more than nine stories below ground at its deepest point, and had ample ventilation and groundwater drainage systems, cement flooring, lighting, and a pulley system. Authorities seized over 4,200 pounds of marijuana in the tunnel, and have attributed the operation to the Arellano Felix Organization. The exit of the tunnel in the United States was concealed in a small office inside a massive empty warehouse, covered only by four square tiles. After seeing this tunnel, I introduced the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006. The bill became law in 2007 and criminalized the construction, financing or use of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States. It also imposes a punishment for anyone who negligently permits others to construct or use an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage on their land. The first prosecution under this law was in connection to a December 2009 partially-built tunnel found in Calexico, California. An investigation resulted in the arrest of Daniel Alvarez, a United States citizen. Alvarez eventually pled guilty to criminal violations put into place by the Border Tunnel Prevention Act and was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison. Today, I am introducing a bill to enhance the 2007 law. Specifically, it will make the use, construction or financing of a border tunnel a conspiracy offense. This would punish the intent to engage in tunnel activity, even in cases where a tunnel was not fully constructed. The bill will include illegal tunneling as an offense eligible for Title III wiretaps even when there are not drugs or other contraband to facilitate a wiretap; specify border tunnel activity as unlawful under the existing forfeiture and money laundering provisions to allow authorities to seize assets in these cases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator Claire McCaskill. This bill will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with important tools to locate border tunnels, identify criminals and punish those involved. As the U.S., Mexico border has become more secure, criminals have sought out new ways to transfer drugs and people across the border. For years, smugglers have tried to go around our border checkpoints. Now, they are trying to go under them to evade border enforcement. There is an increasing number and sophistication of tunnels along the Southwest border. Tunnels range from anything from a shallow dirt crawl way to sophisticated concrete structures with shoring, ventilation and electricity. One tunnel found in San Diego even had a makeshift elevator. Underground tunnels present a serious national security threat. The first tunnel was discovered in May of 1990. However, beginning in 2001, tunnels began to increase dramatically. Between September 2001 and today, an astonishing 125 completed tunnels have been discovered making a total of 137 completed tunnels since 1990. Border tunnels are most often used to transport narcotics from Mexico to the United States, but assumingly are also used to smuggle weapons and people. Just as tunnels can be used to transport drugs across the border, they could be used to smuggle a terrorist into the United States. In recent years, there has been a striking increase in the sophistication of these tunnels. To date, authorities have discovered 61 sophisticated tunnels, 37 of which were constructed in California. In San Diego in February of 2006, I had the occasion to visit a very sophisticated tunnel discovered by the multi- agency San Diego Tunnel Task Force, led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security has established these tunnel task forces in San Diego, El Paso, Nogales, Yuma and Imperial Valley. The tunnel was 2,400 feet long, close to half of a mile, stretching from an abandoned warehouse near the southern border of California through to Tijuana, Mexico. It remains the longest cross-border tunnel discovered in U.S. history, more than nine stories below ground at its deepest point, and had ample ventilation and groundwater drainage systems, cement flooring, lighting, and a pulley system. Authorities seized over 4,200 pounds of marijuana in the tunnel, and have attributed the operation to the Arellano Felix Organization. The exit of the tunnel in the United States was concealed in a small office inside a massive empty warehouse, covered only by four square tiles. After seeing this tunnel, I introduced the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006. The bill became law in 2007 and criminalized the construction, financing or use of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States. It also imposes a punishment for anyone who negligently permits others to construct or use an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage on their land. The first prosecution under this law was in connection to a December 2009 partially-built tunnel found in Calexico, California. An investigation resulted in the arrest of Daniel Alvarez, a United States citizen. Alvarez eventually pled guilty to criminal violations put into place by the Border Tunnel Prevention Act and was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison. Today, I am introducing a bill to enhance the 2007 law. Specifically, it will make the use, construction or financing of a border tunnel a conspiracy offense. This would punish the intent to engage in tunnel activity, even in cases where a tunnel was not fully constructed. The bill will include illegal tunneling as an offense eligible for Title III wiretaps even when there are not drugs or other contraband to facilitate a wiretap; specify border tunnel activity as unlawful under the existing forfeiture and money laundering provisions to allow authorities to seize assets in these cases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Then there is a very long list in a letter to Senators Reid and McConnell from a couple dozen agencies, both agricultural and environmental, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that letter as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Also, from the Western United Dairymen Association and from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do this not because I want to run through it all but because I think it is evidentiary testimony to what is happening as a result of what is very bad and egregious public policy. At a time of debt and deficit, where we are looking to find a compromise solution, which is going to be very difficult. If we reach one, it will have a dramatic impact on this Nation. To continue a program which has the potential to cost tens of billions of dollars makes no sense to me at all. This summer, experts are predicting a mass slaughter of hogs. The USDA predicts that U.S. corn reserves will sink to their lowest level since the mid-1990s this summer, and rising food prices are contributing to global poverty and instability. So we are faced with a vote today that is very simple. The vote says: End this trifecta of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff. It says: Do not wait for it to expire at the end of the year, but do it as of July 1. If we do it as of July 1, we will produce approximately $2.7 billion to the Treasury to ameliorate debt and deficit. I think this is an easy $2.7 billion to save. Now, someone might say: Well, what are you doing to all of the producers of ethanol? Shouldn't we protect them? Well, this has been going on for a very long time--since 2005. To have an industry develop that then becomes dependent on this trifecta of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff is only going to increase costs in the future. I understand beginning an industry with some help, giving them a leg up, giving them a toehold. That toehold becomes a foothold, and then they go on their own. The ethanol industry instead wants a continuation of the subsidy that effectively goes to the oil companies--the most profitable industry in the United States--continue the subsidy, continue the mandate, and continue to protect ethanol. You can be sure that if we don't do this now and we wait for it to end at the end of 2012, there will be a fight to continue it. We are all talking about saying no. We are all talking about that the time has come when we have to do business differently. We have a lot of major problems out there. We have a lot of people who need help. Would I rather help those people or would I rather help Big Oil do essentially what they are mandated to do anyway? The choice is easy. The choice is clear. Would I want to continue a high, protective tariff on the least environmentally friendly commodity, corn ethanol? It is not even algae. It is not cellulosic. It is not sugar cane. It is the least environmentally friendly feedstock used to produce ethanol. I have opposed this from the beginning because I am not that prescient, I just knew that once we started this it wasn't going to end. Once we started it, it was going to be more, more, more. That is the beat. If we can sell it in the next few hours with the proposal that meets the strictures of both sides of this great institution--we are trying to do that, but there are people who strongly believe it should be ended quickly, and that is what this cloture vote this afternoon will show. It would be the first consequential vote of the Senate to say that major subsidies to oil companies, to do what they are mandated to do, have come to an end. Protective tariffs of the least environmentally friendly source of ethanol will come to an end, and they will come to an end in a timely way. This is what the government should be doing. I would like to yield the floor at this time. I know this has been tough. The big surprise to me has been how emotional our caucus on the Democratic side has been, and I understand the other side's caucus, the Republican side, was emotional as well. This appears to be much more major than the legislation itself might signal. I am very hopeful we will have 60 votes. That would send a very loud message from the Senate. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Hon. Tom Coburn, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Coburn and Feinstein, The undersigned livestock and poultry groups appreciate your leadership with the introduction of ``The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act,'' which would end 30 years of tax credits for conventional ethanol and end the tariff on imported ethanol on July 1st. At a time when animal agriculture is facing pressures on many fronts, this legislation would ease the economic strain that is heavily affecting the industries that rely so heavily on corn to feed livestock and poultry. Corn-based ethanol has distorted the corn market, and stretched corn supplies to the point production costs have been increased significantly. Additionally, the current import tariff on foreign sources of ethanol harms U.S. consumers by retarding the development of a robust and sustainable biofuels market. If enacted, your legislation would save taxpayers nearly $3.3 billion in 2011. Experts such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have already concluded that the subsidy is unnecessary and leading economists agree that ending it would have little impact on ethanol production, prices, or jobs. This legislation will help American consumers by ending the costly and unnecessary protection and subsidization of converting corn into fuel. We applaud you for your leadership on the issue and strongly encourage Congress to pass this legislation promptly. Sincerely, American Meat Institute. California Dairies, Inc. National Chicken Council. National Cattlemen's Beef Association. National Meat Association. National Pork Producers Council. National Turkey Federation.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act, which Senator Coburn and I are offering as an amendment to pending legislation. The other cosponsors on this amendment are Senator Webb and Senator Collins. This is identical to a bill that we have submitted. On that bill there are more cosponsors. They are Coburn, Cardin, Webb, Corker, Lieberman, Collins, Shaheen, Burr, Risch, and Toomey. I want to have the record straight that this amendment is in response to a bill which we have crafted. On Tuesday the Senate voted on the proposal but unfortunately we saw a process battle, which I spoke to on the floor, which I think overwhelmed, in some respects, the debate. That is not the case today. There are ongoing negotiations to see if it is possible to put together a solution which can bring all sides together on this amendment that we will be voting on at 2 o'clock. Thus far we do not have an agreement. However, at least one of our cosponsors of this has said to me--this is Senator Webb--that he would very much appreciate a straight up-or-down vote on Coburn-Feinstein so we know exactly where the Senate stands. It is still possible, even after that cloture vote, if we can reach a successful conclusion to the negotiation that we could have another vote and change that. Today, this is the first vote that the Senate has taken based on the merits of repealing the ethanol subsidy and tariff. In a nutshell, let me give the reasons. I know of no other product in the United States that has a triple crown of benefits: It is a mandate: oil companies must buy this ethanol; there is a subsidy: oil companies are paid for buying this substance; and this substance known as corn ethanol is protected by a protective tariff which prevents other nations, such as Brazil, from importing ethanol which actually has more beneficial environmental effects. As a matter of fact, corn ethanol is the least environmentally proficient form of ethanol. Everything else is better than corn; cellulosic is better, algae is better, and sugar is better. The bottom line is we have a triple crown of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff on the least effective, least environmentally sound ethanol there is. More importantly, corn ethanol is now used to such an extent that it is having a major impact on food commodity prices and in particular on feed prices. This is particularly true in the poultry industry. I will get to that in a few minutes. I do want to thank Senators Klobuchar and Thune for good-faith efforts to try to reach a compromise. As part of this compromise, at least from my point of view, a substantial amount of the revenue must be used to reduce the debt and deficit in addition to eliminating wasteful ethanol subsidies and tariffs. These negotiations have been ongoing since Tuesday. We have not yet reached an agreement. The vote at 2 o'clock will not end these talks. I am perfectly willing to continue to talk but I do think it is important that we have a clean up-or-down vote on the Coburn-Feinstein amendment. The issue at hand is a simple issue. The subsidy given to these oil companies costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year and the tariff actually has the effect of making us more dependent on foreign oil. Let me explain. In 2005, the ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. This year that number is nearly $6 billion. In just 6 years it has gone from a cost of $1.5 billion to a cost of nearly $6 billion. There is a reason for it, and I will get to that in a moment, but since 2005, the total cost of this subsidy has been $22.6 billion. Here is the increase every year: $1.5 billion in 2005; 2006, $2.6 billion; 2007, $3.3 billion; 2008, $4.4 billion; 2009, $5.2 billion; 2010, $5.7 billion; and the all-time high in these last 2 years of $5.7 billion. However, it continues to rise. The proposal that has been made for an extension to 2015, by some, would cost another $31 billion. Let me be clear. The subsidy is wasteful and duplicative. It does very little to promote the use of ethanol which oil companies already must use under current law. The renewable fuels standard dictates oil companies use 14 billion gallons of biofuels this year, 20.5 billion gallons by 2015, to 36 billion gallons by 2022. These volumes, by law, increase every year. It more than doubles by 2022. It is that doubling in volume that will ultimately cost us; we are currently paying oil companies to follow this law. Let me speak briefly about the tariff. The 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports makes our Nation more dependent on foreign oil. The tariff acts as a trade barrier, placing clean sugarcane ethanol imports from friendly nations at a competitive disadvantage to oil imports from OPEC. This discourages imports of low-carbon ethanol from our allies and leads to more oil and gasoline imports from OPEC countries, which enter the United States tariff free. So you have a high tariff on ethanol imports but a very low tariff on oil. Sugarcane ethanol, one of the lowest carbon fuels that is widely available, suffers from this tariff. This tariff makes no sense and it should be repealed. I believe that there is very strong consensus in this body on the tariff issue. The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act repeals the 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol blending subsidy known as the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit on July 1. The 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol tariff is also repealed beginning on July 1. Two parts of the three-part triple crown of government support are covered in our bill. The third part of the triple crown is that refineries are already required to use ethanol under the Renewable Fuel Standard. The subsidy pays them to use that mandated ethanol, and ethanol, again, is protected from competition by a very high import tariff. I think we need to address this quickly because the effects are harmful and the costs are great. At highest risk are increased costs for feed, corn, and other food. Today, 39 percent of the U.S. corn crop is used to produce ethanol, according to the Congressional Research Service. Well over a third of the corn crop is used to produce ethanol. Corn futures reached a record $7.99 a bushel last week, this is an increase of 140 percent over 12 months. In this graph you can see the rise, from $2 in 2005 to $3 in 2006, going up over 2007, 2008 to over $4, beginning to come down slightly in 2009, continues down in 2010, and then in 2010 to 2011, and 2011 to 2012, it has shot up to well over $6. This is devastating, to poultry farms all over the country. This is devastating to cattle and this is devastating to food commodity prices. These prices will continue to go up if we let these subsidies continue. The annual average price of corn has risen 225 percent since 2006. So from 2005 to today, there has been a 225-percent increase in corn prices. Does anybody think that is good for this Nation? Is it good for farmers who depend on corn feed? I don't think so. Let me give you some examples. The annual feed cost for Foster Farms tripled over the past year, increasing costs by more than $200 million. That is greater than the firm's largest ever annual profit. Zacky Farms, which is a large farm, has lost $35 million over the last 3 years due to increased corn costs. I want to read to you for a moment a summary of the impacts on Zacky Farms. Here is the background. Zacky Farms is a family-owned, vertically integrated producer of quality turkey products for consumers in the retail and food service markets. The company is 55 years old but has roots in supplying poultry products to consumers that reach back all the way to 1928, representing three generations of commitment to the business. Zacky currently employs over 1,000 and supplies approximately 2 percent of the turkey consumed in the United States. During the past 3-plus years, the growing use of corn for ethanol has been nothing less than devastating on Zacky Farms. Why? The cost of turkey feed represent about 60 percent of the final price of turkey products that consumers buy in stores. Corn is roughly 50 percent of the turkey feed formulation, making corn one-third of the cost of a turkey. Soybean meal, usually the second largest ingredient in turkey feed, competes for the same acreage as corn, and consequently the pricing of soybean meal often moves in tandem with corn. The government is sitting on acres and paying farmers not to plant soybeans, thereby encouraging costs to rise. I didn't know that. We are paying farmers not to plant soybeans. Recent reports show that since 1990, there are essentially no new acres available. Ethanol use of corn is therefore driving up other turkey feed ingredient prices also. The increasing use of corn in ethanol--now nearly 40 percent of the Nation's corn supply--has been a major factor in driving the price of corn from $2 a bushel, to $4 a bushel, to $6 a bushel, and currently $7.75 a bushel. That is what Zacky is currently paying. This dramatic increase has all occurred since the fourth quarter of 2006. The turkey industry has been unable to pass these cost increases along fast enough to maintain profitability. We were in the caucus on Tuesday, and we heard one Senator talk about how a farm has actually collapsed because of these prices in his State, and a second Senator reiterated his deep concern about what is happening to the poultry interest in his State. So this is not just Foster Farms and Zacky Farms, which happen to be in California, it is all over. They then go into the impact of corn for ethanol on employees, suppliers, customers, consumers, and family ownership, and they say they have suffered significant losses during the past 3 years, and it has been estimated to be as much as $35 million in losses from 2008, 2009, and 2010, and their banking relationships have been shattered after 60 years of banking. Bank of America told the company to find another bank. In 2008, the company was forced to implement across-the-board salary freezes and other measures to help control these costs. Turkey prices have jumped dramatically and will continue to increase--in other words, the market is becoming such that turkey is going to become an endangered species, particularly in a down market. And they stopped promotions, such as the free Thanksgiving turkey with the purchase of a certain dollar amount. It goes on and on. This is a very serious issue. Let me give you another one. Paul Cameron is a commercial cattle feeder from the Imperial Valley. He says: My company employs 32 hard-working men and women. Many of these employees are second and third generation to the livestock business. Our cattle rely primarily on Midwestern grown corn as their primary source for grain. This is the conflict here: This year 41 percent of our Nation's corn crop will be used up by a heavily subsidized ethanol industry. In a year where nationally our grain inventories have already been reduced by adverse weather, corn has risen in price by 140 percent. Because of this, any chance of profitability in all protein industries has vanished. The cattle inventory in our own operation is being reduced and we have begun the process of laying off many of our employees. Coming from a county with 27.9 percent unemployment (April EDD), these good, hard-working people will be relegated to trying to find jobs where there are none. These are the very people that take great pride in the fact that they not only feed a Nation, but also feed the world. This is what these subsidies are doing. This is actual testimony read verbatim. I have a letters from the American Meat Institute, California Dairies, National Chicken Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Meat Association, National Pork Producers Council, and the National Turkey Federation essentially saying the same thing: Corn-based ethanol has distorted the corn market, and stretched corn supplies to the point production costs have increased significantly. Additionally, the current import tariff on foreign sources of ethanol harms United States consumers by retarding the development of a robust and sustainable biofuels market. That is a direct quote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this testimony following my remarks.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I could briefly respond to the Senator's comments. Senator Coats and I work together on Intelligence. I have great respect for him. I understand the regional issues involved, so I understand the Senator's thinking. My thinking is, we get a strong vote on this today. This is simply a cloture vote. We have 60 votes. We have some time to see if we can work something out. One thing I have learned in this whole line of pursuit is, if you give your word, keep it. The only thing you have is your integrity, and I give you my word that we will continue to try to bring both sides together. I know this is a long journey. I know we will be blue-slipped and we have to come back and we will have to have a bill we can put a tax matter on. That is for a later day. I think we are into this, and so many people want kind of a clean vote, that if we have that, I am prepared to give you my word to continue to try to discuss this. My own view on these things is to do the very best we can, try to reach a compromise when issues are like this, and march on to the next thing. This has become far harder than I anticipated. I think we are relatively close to a solution, to a compromise. Whether Senator Coburn will accept it, I do not know. But I know these discussions are going on, and all I can do is pledge you my best effort to try to get to something that satisfies everybody. If you come from a large ethanol-producing State, I understand what this means. On the other hand, I also understand this is going to be the first of many coming down the line. We have to change the way we do business if we are going to carry out the mandate of a prudent government, we have to make a lot of changes. None of it is going to be easy, so we might as well get used to it now. But for whatever it is worth, you have my word I will continue to try.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2011. Introducing this bill today is bittersweet. As my colleagues know, we have been working to pass this bill for almost a decade now. But for all those years it was one of our dearest colleagues, Senator Ted Kennedy, who stood before this body to introduce the legislation. We certainly miss Senator Kennedy's leadership, his passion, his dedication and his political skill. But as I stand here today to introduce the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, I know that he would be proud to see the continued work and support for this bill. Today, I am joined by Senator Collins, Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Boxer as original cosponsors of this legislation. It is my hope that in this Congress we can make some positive changes in this important area. Let me start by explaining what the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act does. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act directs the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture. It requires drug companies and producers to demonstrate that they are using antibiotics to treat clinically diagnosable diseases in farm animals. It requires that companies defend the process of adding gross amounts of antibiotics to the feed and water of livestock and it requires them to prove that this practice does not contribute to antibiotic-resistance among humans. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice in industrial agriculture to use antibiotics for ``growth promotion.'' This practice allows for animals kept in cramped quarters to grow artificially fast, and artificially fat. The most concerning part is that the low doses of antibiotics fed to these animals breed antibiotic resistant pathogens. These pathogens make their way into our food, our water, and our communities. Antibiotic resistance is one of the most significant public health challenges facing us today, and numerous peer-reviewed studies have concluded that the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture is making the problem worse. A recent study published in the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly 50 percent of grocery store meat was contaminated with antibiotic resistant pathogens. Even more concerning, 25 percent of all meat was contaminated with pathogens that were resistant to three or more types of antibiotics. I have heard for years that antibiotics were the closest thing to a ``silver bullet'' in human medicine. But today, tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die each year from antibiotic resistant infections. So unfortunately we are learning the hard way that these precious, life saving drugs no longer work as well as they once did. Antibiotic resistance is a real and growing problem, and its causes are man-made. As our use of antimicrobial drugs has increased, so has the ability of bacteria to withstand their effects. The only way to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics is to use them responsibly. In human medicine, this means that doctors must use better discretion when prescribing antibiotics. As patients, we must do our part and finish the prescriptions given to us. But antibiotics are also used in animal medicine, so veterinarians and farmers must also ensure that antibiotics are used responsibly. I was surprised to learn that the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 84 percent of all antibiotic usage in this country is in animals such as chickens, pigs, and cattle. Even more surprising is the vast majority of antibiotic consumption by livestock is by animals that show no clinical signs of illness. This type of treatment, referred to by doctors and veterinarians as non-therapeutic, creates the perfect breeding ground for antibiotic resistant bacteria. Unlike therapeutic doses of medicine that are prescribed when we, or any other animal gets sick, non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics are routinely added to the food or water of livestock that are not ill. These doses are not large enough, or powerful enough, to eliminate all the bacteria inside their bodies. Instead, the small dose of antibiotics only kills off the weakest bacteria; leaving the strongest, most resistant bacteria behind to reproduce. Recognizing the impending health crisis, some have taken dramatic action. In 1998, Denmark became the first country to ban the routine use of antibiotics in the food and water of livestock. The entire European Union followed suit in 2006. Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan have also implemented full or partial bans on non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics. But the majority of producers in the U.S. have not followed suit; and it is time for a wakeup call. That is why I am reintroducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. This legislation implements a precautionary principle when it comes to using antibiotics and requires that producers and drug companies affirmatively demonstrate that the non- therapeutic antibiotics in livestock production do not contribute to the incidence of antibiotic resistant infections in humans. Put simply, if growth promoting antibiotics can't be used safely, they shouldn't be used at all. The real strength of this legislation is that it takes an incremental approach. The new regulations regarding antibiotic use under PAMTA would only apply to the limited number of antibiotics that are critical to human health and are used non-therapeutically. This means that any drug not used in human medicine is left untouched by this legislation. PAMTA also preserves the ability of farmers to use all available antibiotics to treat sick animals. By focusing on only the most egregious misuses of medically important antibiotics, PAMTA tackles the problem of antibiotic resistance where we know we can make the most difference. I understand that some question the need for this legislation; they say that there is no evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to infections in humans. Unfortunately they are wrong. Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH, Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently testified in front of the House Energy Committee that ``studies related to Salmonella as both a human and animal pathogen, including many studies in the United States, have demonstrated that use of antibiotic agents in food animals results in antibiotic resistant bacteria in food animals, resistant bacteria are present in the food supply and are transmitted to humans, and resistant bacterial infections result in adverse human health consequences, e.g., increased hospitalization. Doctor Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration also testified at the hearing and agreed with Rear Admiral Khan. The FDA, he said, ``supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production purposes is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.'' Quantitative evidence from the EU and Canada also support these conclusions. In response to public health concerns about the rise of cephalosporin, an antibiotic, resistance in Salmonella and E. coli, chicken hatcheries in Quebec voluntarily stopped using the drug in February 2005. Following the ban, the public health agency of Canada reported a dramatic 89 percent decrease in the incidence of resistant salmonella in chicken meat and 77 percent decrease in related human infections. Once the drug was partially reintroduced in 2007, antibiotic resistant infections in people jumped back up 50 percent. Unfortunately we are fighting an uphill battle with antibiotic resistant infections. Our tools and resources are diminishing even while the number and severity of these infections are increasing. One example is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, MRSA infections in 1974 accounted for only two percent of the total number of staph infections; in 1995 it was 22 percent; and by 2004 it was 63 percent. CDC estimates that by 2005, there were 94,360 MRSA infections in the United States. Tragically, about 19,000 of them, 20 percent, were fatal because MRSA is nearly immune to almost every antibiotic used in modern medicine. By comparison, in 2005 there were 17,011 deaths due to AIDS; so the scope and consequence of this problem is stunning. Of course not all MRSA is derived from the overuse of antibiotics on the farm. Many infections are acquired in the hospital, and it is believed that these bacteria became resistant to antibiotics due to the misuse of drugs in human medicine. But MRSA is also infecting individuals who have not been in a hospital setting. There is strong evidence that at least one strain of MRSA infecting people is coming directly from livestock. This strain, known as ST398, has been shown to disproportionately infect farmers and their families. Like all MRSA, ST398 is resistant to the antibiotics methicillin and oxacillin. But resistance to other antibiotics is also common among ST398 strains, which makes treatment especially challenging. A recent study by the CDC in December 2009 showed that hospital acquired strains of MRSA and community acquired MRSA strains such as ST398 are trending in opposite directions. The study found that community acquired MRSA, a type of MRSA that did not emerge in the hospital setting and is not contracted there, increased 700 percent between 1999 and 2006. By contrast, hospital acquired MRSA cases declined roughly 10 percent over this same time period. Over the past decade, it has become clear that MRSA is not just a problem for hospital administrators. More and more individuals are acquiring this devastating infection in their homes, at their gyms or in restaurants. While it is exceedingly difficult to determine the exact extent that antibiotic use in agriculture influences individual MRSA cases, we know for certain that statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases. Since the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 84 percent of all antibiotic usage in this country is in veterinary medicine, one can reasonably conclude that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases. The reason I am so committed to this legislation is that a reduction in highly resistant infections will save lives. One of my constituents shared a truly heartbreaking story. The Don family, from Ramona, California, is a tight knit family. They are active in the community, and loved by their neighbors. Until recently, like most happy, healthy families, antibiotic resistant infections just wasn't a subject that came up much. So when Mr. and Mrs. Don sent their son Carlos off to sixth grade camp in 2007, they never expected that an antibiotic resistant infection would change their lives. Carlos was the picture of health. He was a bright, vibrant, athletic 12-year old, who loved to play football. When he returned home from camp, he had a 104 degree fever and could barely walk. It was the sickest his parents had ever seen him. When Carlos didn't get better the next day, they took him to Urgent Care. He was given a dose of antibiotics that the doctors said would knock the bug out in a few days. But the drugs didn't work. The next day Carlos was in even worse shape and he had to be rushed to the hospital by an ambulance. His new doctors put him on every single antibiotic the hospital had to offer. Even at the extremely high levels prescribed to Carlos, the drugs still didn't work. It took doctors 48 hours to find and acquire an antibiotic that was strong enough to kill the infection. By that time Carlos' lungs, kidneys, liver, intestines and heart had all failed. The only thing left, doctors told his parents, was his brain. The doctors said that Carlos knew his body was failing and that he was in a fight for his life. It pains me to say that this story does not have a happy ending. Carlos lost his life because the antibiotics that we have relied on for 80 years didn't work. No parents should ever have to undergo the heartbreak and the tragedy that the Dons went through in 2007. Their son was as healthy and happy as any 12-year-old could be, but he was cruelly taken away from them because of a disease that we could not fight. I believe that with this bill we have an opportunity to prevent other families from suffering from this same tragic story. There are some who believe this legislation may actually make our food supply less safe. Their argument is that antibiotics keep our animals healthy, and healthy animals make for healthy food. But research shows us that these concerns are misguided. Over 375 public, consumer, and environmental health groups including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, support the legislation because they believe that reducing antibiotic use in agriculture will protect the health and safety of Americans. It is not just health groups that support this approach. The fact is that farmers and meat producers can keep their animals healthy without adding hundreds of pounds of antibiotics to the food and water of their animals. In Denmark, one of the world's largest exporters of pork, producers have made modest changes to their husbandry practices and reduced overall antibiotic use by over 50 percent. Pork production has grown, and other animal health indicators such as litter size and average daily weight gain have improved. In Iowa, hog farmers like Paul Willis and Jude Becker have shown that antibiotic-free production is possible in the heartland of America too. In California, companies like Niman Ranch in Alameda have proved that Beef, Pork, Poultry and Lamb can be produced profitably in America on a large scale without the routine use of antibiotics. In fact, fast-food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill has grown a highly successful business based on meats raised without antibiotics, much of it supplied by Niman Ranch. This bipartisan bill makes incremental changes to ensure that our actions on the farm do not negatively impact the health and well being of our farmers, their families, and every one of us who consumes the food they produce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass these critical reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.