Dianne Feinstein

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, together with Senator Snowe, legislation today to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security numbers. The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would protect personal privacy and reduce identity theft by eliminating the unnecessary use and display of Social Security numbers. Since the 106th Congress, I have worked to safeguard Social Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable, threat to Americans' personal privacy. In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program. Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best known and easiest way to identify individuals in the United States. Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose. Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes. They can be found in privately held databases and on public records, including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless other public documents, many of which are available on the Internet. Once accessed, the numbers act like keys, allowing thieves to open credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government benefits. According to the Federal Trade Commission, between 8 and 10 million Americans have their identities stolen by such thieves each year, at a combined cost of billions of dollars. What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts. One thief stole a retired Army Captain's military identification card and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6- month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army Captain realized what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent accounts. A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else, a thief who wanted her refund check. A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even though he had never applied for such a loan. Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen, people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of 300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can destroy finances. It also hurts American businesses. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season because of fears about identity theft. When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict access themselves. Limitations on the display of Social Security numbers are critically needed. In the last Congress, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and I worked together to pass a bill to prevent Federal, State, and local entities from printing social security numbers on government checks and to prohibit government entities from employing prisoners in jobs like data entry that gave them access to people's social security numbers. But comprehensive legislation is still needed. The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled Social Security Numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better Protected and Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could Be Improved, the GAO concluded that current protections are insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain. The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express consent; prevent Federal, State, and local governments from displaying Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; limit the circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties for misuse of Social Security numbers. I believe this legislation could play a critical role in halting the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens. As President George W. Bush's Identity Theft Task Force reported to us now three years ago, ``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the crime.'' Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will continue to grow over time and that action is needed. I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, together with Senator Snowe, legislation today to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security numbers. The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would protect personal privacy and reduce identity theft by eliminating the unnecessary use and display of Social Security numbers. Since the 106th Congress, I have worked to safeguard Social Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable, threat to Americans' personal privacy. In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program. Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best known and easiest way to identify individuals in the United States. Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose. Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes. They can be found in privately held databases and on public records, including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless other public documents, many of which are available on the Internet. Once accessed, the numbers act like keys, allowing thieves to open credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government benefits. According to the Federal Trade Commission, between 8 and 10 million Americans have their identities stolen by such thieves each year, at a combined cost of billions of dollars. What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts. One thief stole a retired Army Captain's military identification card and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6- month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army Captain realized what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent accounts. A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else, a thief who wanted her refund check. A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even though he had never applied for such a loan. Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen, people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of 300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can destroy finances. It also hurts American businesses. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season because of fears about identity theft. When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict access themselves. Limitations on the display of Social Security numbers are critically needed. In the last Congress, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and I worked together to pass a bill to prevent Federal, State, and local entities from printing social security numbers on government checks and to prohibit government entities from employing prisoners in jobs like data entry that gave them access to people's social security numbers. But comprehensive legislation is still needed. The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled Social Security Numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better Protected and Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could Be Improved, the GAO concluded that current protections are insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain. The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express consent; prevent Federal, State, and local governments from displaying Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; limit the circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties for misuse of Social Security numbers. I believe this legislation could play a critical role in halting the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens. As President George W. Bush's Identity Theft Task Force reported to us now three years ago, ``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the crime.'' Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will continue to grow over time and that action is needed. I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act. 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 today in support of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act, which Senator Coburn has offered and I have cosponsored, along with Senators Burr, Cardin, Collins, Corker, Lieberman, Risch, Shaheen, Toomey, and Webb. I know the fact that this amendment is on the floor scheduled to be voted on at 2:15 this afternoon has caused some deep consternation on my side of the aisle. There is objection to the procedures used. I am not going to get into that. I am going to say a vote is a vote, and we are facing a vote at 2:15 unless something changes. To be candid, if there were an offer to bring this to the floor next week or the week after for a time specific and a commitment specific, I believe the author and myself and our cosponsors would certainly agree to that. But in the absence of that offer, it is important that the Senate take a position on a program that has become both gross and egregious, and I want to explain why I feel that way. No other product I know of has the triple crown of government support that corn ethanol enjoys in this country. Its use is mandated by law. Oil companies are paid by the Federal Government to use it, so there is a subsidy, and corn ethanol is protected by a rather high tariff. Consequently, it has been very profitable for farmers. This amounts to almost $6 billion a year of taxpayers' money that goes to support the corn ethanol industry in this country. Put another way, that is $15 million each and every day spent on this subsidy at a time when, candidly, we simply can't afford it. They say there are very few privileges left out there. This is one that is enormous, and I think we have to take a look at it. I think if this amendment passes, nearly $3 billion is saved between July 1 and the end of the year. That is not insignificant. It goes into the general fund and it helps abate the deficit. Since 2005, we have spent $22.6 billion on this subsidy, and it gets more expensive every year. In 2011, the government will spend $5.7 billion; in 2012, $5.9 billion; in 2013, $6.2 billion. And you can see, since the program came into being in 2005--and I voted against it then--it was at $1.5 billion; the next year, $2.6 billion; the next year, $3.3 billion; the next year $4.4 billion, the next year, $5.2 billion; and 2010, $5.7 billion of a trifecta of triple-crown subsidies to go to recompense people for using corn ethanol. It is wrong. On top of this subsidy, we have imposed a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol products from Brazil, India, and Australia and others that could import it more cheaply than it is grown here. This then contributes to making the United States more dependent on oil imports from OPEC. Our amendment is simple. Beginning July 1, we would repeal the 45- cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy, which goes overwhelmingly to large oil companies, and it would eliminate the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. I believe very strongly that we need to act to repeal these subsidies and these tariffs before another $2.7 billion in taxpayer money, which is $15 million a day, is wasted over the remaining 6 months of this year. Let me describe the real-world impact of these unwise subsidies and tariffs to our economy. Last week, I was in the Central Valley at an event and I would say anywhere from six to eight farmers came up to me and said, ``Thank you for trying to end the ethanol business. I can no longer afford feed.'' I began to think, and so we took a look at what the situation is. The fact is this ethanol policy is inflating the price of corn and impacting other sectors of the economy. Today, approximately 39 percent of our corn crop is now used to produce ethanol in this country. Here is where it has gone: The percent of corn for 2000, 7 percent; 2005, 14 percent; and 2010, 39 percent of the entire corn crop goes to produce ethanol. Corn futures reached a record $7.99 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade last week. Prices are up 140 percent in the past 12 months and continue to rise. In 2006, prices were $2 a bushel. Today they are $7.99 a bushel. This has been a real spike in the price of feed. If it continues one can expect major price increases in grain and food as well. The average price of corn has risen 225 percent since 2006. Here it is, here it goes on this chart. It goes down slightly and then it has gone up. In California, the annual feed costs for Foster Farms--this is the largest poultry producer on the west coast--has tripled over the past year, increasing Foster Farms' cost for feed by more than $2 million. This is more than the largest profit the company has ever made. I hear similar stories from small producers, from co-ops, from dairymen and cattlemen throughout California. The price of feed is rising to such an extent that experts are predicting a mass slaughter of hogs and dairy cows this summer. In other words, it is becoming cheaper to slaughter the animals rather than to feed them. That is wrong. Paul Cameroon of Imperial County, CA, recently wrote to me: As a cattle producer who has never asked for a subsidy of any kind, I only ask that ethanol production stand on its own and allow true supply and demand to dictate the real price of corn. It seems to me he is spot on. It seems to me when we look at charts like this on grain prices, on the huge subsidy that oil companies get, on the protective tariff, we have to say enough is enough. The USDA predicts that continued demand from the livestock, ethanol, and food industry will reduce corn reserves to the lowest level since the mid- 1990s. These low grain reserves will have repercussions globally. We know rising food prices exacerbate global poverty and could intensify political unrest in some parts of the world. But the bottom line is, diverting 39 percent of our crop toward ethanol is artificially driving up corn prices, which in turn is straining people and industries that depend on affordable corn. In addition to impacting the price of corn, the $6 billion annual ethanol subsidy is fiscally irresponsible. If the current subsidy were to exist through 2014, as the industry has proposed, the Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the Federal renewable fuels standard already requires them to use under the Clean Air Act. The biggest recipient receiving money is BP. According to reports, it receives $55 million. We cannot afford and should not pay oil companies such as ExxonMobil and BP to follow the law to the tune of $6 billion a year. As the GAO has found, the mandate for the use ``is duplicative in stimulating domestic production and use of ethanol, and can''--and is--``resulting in substantial loss of revenue to the Treasury.'' Let me just say one thing about the tariff. The tariff on low-carbon sugarcane ethanol, which I proposed repealing in 2006, makes our Nation more dependent on foreign oil. How? The combined tariffs on ethanol are 60 cents per gallon, at least 15 cents per gallon higher than the ethanol subsidies they supposedly offset. So this is essentially a major trade barrier. We have a real problem with this triple crown: We mandate its use, we pay people to use it, and then we set a large tariff barrier to prevent anybody from importing any ethanol, whether it is corn or sugar, that is cheaper. This is expensive, $15 million a day, $6 billion, as I said, a year. I know many of my colleagues agree with the substance of this legislation, and I appreciate very much that the amendment is being considered under somewhat unusual circumstances and procedures. I hope we can have a fair vote. I hope Members will not disregard the import of what we are doing. We are essentially saving the government nearly $6 billion a year by simply repealing the subsidy, repealing the mandate, and repealing the tariff. I believe the time has come. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I think everybody in this body now knows that I am strongly for this measure. Unfortunately, I think it has created a lot of feelings that really do not work to the benefit of this body. It is my understanding there is an offer from the leader that we will have a vote by Friday next, which means a week from this Friday. I tend to just say what I think. On our side, I think there are real concerns about the process used to bring this amendment to the floor. I think that has created some, unfortunately, very bad feelings which even are enough to affect people's votes. My view has been a little different. I have watched this ethanol amendment go from $1.5 billion in the early part of the 2000s to where it costs $5.7 billion now. It is a triple crown. It is a subsidy, it is a mandate, it is a protective tariff. It should go. I have no question about that. I also want to see this body have an ability to work together. It also gives us a little bit of time to see if we can negotiate some agreement between the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from South Dakota. That would be the best of all worlds. Whether we can do this, I do not know, but I am certainly willing to try. What I hate to see is this vote get so caught up--which it is now caught up in process--that we have no chance of sorting it out. I have asked the Senator from Oklahoma would he consider withdrawing this amendment so we can try and see if we could----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would ask unanimous consent for a couple of seconds more.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN.--so that we could try and see if we can work something out with Senators Klobuchar and Thune. I would implore him once again, I think for the best interests of our body as a whole, both sides, we ought to take the time to try to work it out. I think we lose votes right now on the basis of the process alone that we would not lose on just a straight vote. I believe if it were not for the process, we would have 60 votes. That is my belief. So I want the Senator from Oklahoma to know that right up front. I would implore him to let us withdraw the amendment, try to negotiate a solution, and then take this up, as the leader has pledged, by Friday next.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator Tester's amendment on debit card swipe fees. Like many of my colleagues, I have received countless letters on this issue, from consumers, financial institutions, retailers, labor unions, and other interested parties. As a Member of the Senate, I take very seriously our duty to ensure that the Nation's financial system functions fairly. I am deeply concerned about protecting consumers and small banks from financial harm. This is a tough economy. I know that. I will do everything I can to make sure they are protected. But my position on this issue has been unchanged from the beginning. The Federal Reserve issued a proposed rule last December, and is in the process of considering over 11,000 comments submitted on that rule. Chairman Bernanke has said those comments have been informative, and the Federal Reserve will soon issue a final rule that should take into account concerns some have raised. My position for a long time has been that we should not jump in the middle of that process. We should wait to see what the professionals at the Federal Reserve come out with, and then evaluate whether or not the final rule is fair and equitable for merchants, banks, and especially consumers. It would be bad precedent for Congress to start cutting off that process in the middle. We don't want to go down that road. The Federal Reserve is devoting substantial resources to this issue and are giving the comments careful consideration. We should let them finish their work. Senator Tester's legislation also is flawed in other respects. The study it proposes only involves banking agencies. It excludes consumer protection agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission. The intent of existing law is to benefit consumers. If the law is going to be studied, consumer agencies should be involved too. We need to make sure consumers' interests are protected. Senator Tester's legislation also requires that regulators evaluate whether the proposed rule meets certain tests. As I see it, the tests are so easily met that the final rule is almost guaranteed to be thrown out without being considered. This is a problem for me. If a study is to be done, it should be fair, impartial, and consider the interests of all affected parties. The bottom line is that we don't know what the final rule issued by the Fed will be. I have heard a lot of conjecture from both sides on this issue, but no one has been able to convey any certainty. I have heard from a number of constituents and national groups on this issue. They have expressed their views passionately, and I am grateful for their participation in this process. I remain deeply committed to ensuring that small banks and consumers are protected. When the final rule is released, we should look at it carefully. And we should conduct a fair study of the rule if we need to do so. But until that rule is released, we should allow the experts at the Federal Reserve to complete their work before we take any action.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank both Senator Wyden and Senator Udall for their comments. We did have a meeting last night. We did discuss this thoroughly. The decision was that we would enter into this colloquy, so I will begin it, if I may. These Senators and I, along with the junior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Mark Udall, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse met last night to discuss this amendment, the legal interpretation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provisions and how these provisions are implemented. I very much appreciate the strong views Senator Wyden and Senator Udall have in this area, and I believe they are raising a serious and important point as to how exactly these authorities are carried out. I believe we are also all in agreement that these are important counterterrorism authorities and have contributed to the security of our Nation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may respond, I have agreed that these are important issues and that the Intelligence Committee, which is charged with carrying out oversight over the 16 various intelligence agencies of what is called the intelligence community, should be carried out forthrightly. I also believe the place to do it is in the Intelligence Committee itself. I have said to these distinguished Senators that it would be my intention to call together a hearing as soon as we come back from the Memorial Day break with the intelligence community agencies, the senior policymakers, and the Department of Justice to make sure the committee is comfortable with the FISA programs and to make changes if changes are needed. We will do that. So it would be my intention to have these hearings completed before the committee considers the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill so that any amendments to FISA can be considered at that time. The fact is, we do not usually have amendments to the intelligence authorization bill, but I believe the majority leader will do his best to secure a future commitment if such is needed for a vote on any amendment. I have not agreed to support any amendment because at this stage it is hypothetical, and we need to look very deeply into what these Senators have said and pointed out last night with specificity and get the response to it from the intelligence committee, have both sides hear it, and then make a decision that is based not only on civil liberties but also on the necessity to keep our country safe. I believe we can do that. I am very appreciative of their agreement to enter this colloquy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues very much. I believe this concludes our colloquy. I thank the Acting President pro tempore, and we yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise again today with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to submit the joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year. We are proud to be joined in this effort by two champions for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Burma, Senators McCain and Durbin, and we look forward to swift action by the Congress and the President on this important matter. Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Peter King are introducing this resolution in the House and I appreciate their leadership and support. Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have received one bit of good news, but also, sadly, more confirmation on the urgent need to keep the pressure on the ruling military regime. On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house arrest. While her latest detention lasted more than 7\1/2\ years, she had spent the better part of the past 20 years in prison or under house arrest. Her release was wonderful news for those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy for the people of Burma. Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days after fraudulent and illegitimate elections for a new parliament based on a sham constitution. The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of Burma silent long enough until they could solidify their grip on power using the false veneer of a democratic process. Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were fooled. We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in 1990 but annulled by the military junta. This new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy. It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of Representatives for the military. This would be in addition to the seats won by the ``Union Solidarity and Development Party'' founded by the military junta's Prime Minister Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet members who resigned from the army to form the ``civilian'' political party. It barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary elections. And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party. It should come as no surprise that the military backed party won nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament. In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma. President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections.'' The National League for Democracy described the elections and the formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to a parody.'' Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last prime minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's new president. He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe. So, the names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and Development Party--but the faces, and the lack of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, remain the same. So, while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize that Burma is not yet free and the regime has failed to take the necessary actions which allow for the import ban to be lifted. As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military regime to end violations of internationally recognized human rights; release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press; allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion; and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the restoration of a democratic government. Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive, democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import ban as a part of a strong sanctions regime. This also includes tough banking sanctions. I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act. Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of Burma. I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma. But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma about the sanctions policy of the United States and the international community. A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy argues that these sanctions are not targeted at the general population and are not to blame for the economic ills of the country. Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism, corruption and the lack of the rule of law. The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted, the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It concludes: Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the democratization process, firmly grounded in national reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions policies. I agree. So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise again today with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to submit the joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year. We are proud to be joined in this effort by two champions for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Burma, Senators McCain and Durbin, and we look forward to swift action by the Congress and the President on this important matter. Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Peter King are introducing this resolution in the House and I appreciate their leadership and support. Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have received one bit of good news, but also, sadly, more confirmation on the urgent need to keep the pressure on the ruling military regime. On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house arrest. While her latest detention lasted more than 7\1/2\ years, she had spent the better part of the past 20 years in prison or under house arrest. Her release was wonderful news for those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy for the people of Burma. Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days after fraudulent and illegitimate elections for a new parliament based on a sham constitution. The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of Burma silent long enough until they could solidify their grip on power using the false veneer of a democratic process. Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were fooled. We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in 1990 but annulled by the military junta. This new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy. It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of Representatives for the military. This would be in addition to the seats won by the ``Union Solidarity and Development Party'' founded by the military junta's Prime Minister Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet members who resigned from the army to form the ``civilian'' political party. It barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary elections. And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party. It should come as no surprise that the military backed party won nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament. In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma. President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections.'' The National League for Democracy described the elections and the formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to a parody.'' Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last prime minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's new president. He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe. So, the names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and Development Party--but the faces, and the lack of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, remain the same. So, while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize that Burma is not yet free and the regime has failed to take the necessary actions which allow for the import ban to be lifted. As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military regime to end violations of internationally recognized human rights; release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press; allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion; and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the restoration of a democratic government. Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive, democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import ban as a part of a strong sanctions regime. This also includes tough banking sanctions. I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act. Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of Burma. I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma. But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma about the sanctions policy of the United States and the international community. A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy argues that these sanctions are not targeted at the general population and are not to blame for the economic ills of the country. Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism, corruption and the lack of the rule of law. The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted, the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It concludes: Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the democratization process, firmly grounded in national reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions policies. I agree. So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Scott Brown, in submitting a resolution that expresses the regret of the U.S. Senate for the passage of discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants. These laws are no longer in effect today. However, I believe it is important for Congress to express regret for the many injustices that were experienced by Chinese immigrants as a result of these policies, and for all of us as Americans to learn from this difficult chapter in our Nation's past. Let me begin by offering a brief history of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In the 1870s, an economic downturn created political pressure to slow the growing population of Chinese immigrants who were coming to the United States to pursue a better way of life. In California, State laws and local ordinances were enacted that denied the Chinese basic rights and privileges such as the right to own land and the ability to access public schools. At the urging of some California lawmakers, the U.S. Congress subsequently passed laws that further denied the rights of Chinese immigrants. The harshest of those measures was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that explicitly prohibited all State and Federal courts from naturalizing Chinese persons. This legislation was the first federal law ever enacted to exclude a group of immigrants solely on the basis of race or nationality. The Chinese Exclusion Act was followed by the passage of the Geary Act in 1892, which extended the Chinese Exclusion Act for 10 years and required all Chinese persons in the United States to register with the Federal Government to obtain certificates of residence to prove their right to be in the U.S. In order to fully understand this Nation's deep-rooted hostility toward the Chinese during this time period, it is important to contrast the U.S. Government's vastly different treatment of European immigrants who entered the United States through Ellis Island. European immigrants were not subjected to the same burdensome and humiliating screening requirements as the Chinese. Most are familiar with the stories of those coming to Ellis Island and seeing the Statute of Liberty in New York Harbor. However, often forgotten are the experiences of Chinese immigrants who made it to America by way of Angel Island in California. In 1910, the U.S. Government opened the Angel Island Immigration Station as a way to isolate Chinese immigrants from the city of San Francisco and the remainder of the bay area in northern California. These immigrants were brought to Angel Island Station where they were separated from family members, subjected to embarrassing medical examinations and grueling interrogations, and detained for months or sometimes years. Despite these hardships, Chinese immigrants persevered, and they continue to make invaluable contributions to the development and success of our Nation. The enactment of Chinese exclusionary laws is a shameful part of our history that must not be forgotten. It is my hope that this resolution will serve to enlighten those who may not be aware of this regrettable chapter in our Nation's history. In addition, I hope the resolution will help heal and bring some closure for those who lived through this difficult time and are still with us today. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate will be passing the fiscal year 2011 intelligence authorization bill today. This is now the second year in a row that we have been able to pass an authorization bill, after 6 years without doing so. The bill authorizes funding for fiscal year 2011 for the 16 different agencies across the U.S. Government that make up the intelligence community. Unlike the fiscal year 2010 bill, which was enacted last October, this bill also contains a classified annex, which is the main mechanism the Intelligence Committee has to set the level of intelligence spending and direct how it is used. The bill adds hundreds of millions of dollars above the President's request for intelligence activities for fiscal year 2011. However, in anticipation of tighter future budgets, the bill also takes some initial steps to prepare the intelligence community for likely smaller budgets and personnel decreases in the coming years. The bill includes a number of legislative provisions, including: A section requiring the intelligence community to prevent another security disaster, such as the recent leaks of classified information to Wikileaks, through the implementation of automated information technology threat detection programs that must be fully operational by the end of 2013; A provision improving the ability of government agencies to detail personnel to needed areas of the intelligence community; A commendation of intelligence community personnel for their role in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice and reaffirming the commitment of the Congress to use the capabilities of the intelligence community to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and affiliated organizations. With the passage of this legislation, I believe we have restored the committee's ability to do oversight, and we are now on track to pass intelligence authorization bills each year. I very much appreciate the close collaboration of Senator Chambliss, the vice chairman of the committee, in this effort. We have worked closely together to craft this legislation, and to secure its passage. I also thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their efforts on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We worked well together on the fiscal year 2011 legislation to bring forward coordinated bills to the House and the Senate, and I look forward to continue to work together to enact the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the devastating impact that the House Republican budget would have on seniors, women, children, and families nationwide. On April 15, 2011, House Republicans passed H. Con. Res. 34, Chairman Ryan's budget. Under the guise of entitlement reform and deficit reduction, House Republicans would instead ensure that the elderly, the poor, pregnant women, and children will be unable to afford health care. The House Republican budget essentially ends the important entitlement programs Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, all while 72 percent of the budget cuts go to fund tax cuts for the rich. The budget claims $1.5 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are already savings that will happen. If you discount those savings, the House Republican budget cuts $4.3 trillion over 10 years, while spending $4.2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy, resulting in only $100 billion in deficit reduction. To be blunt, House Republicans are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and our children while rewarding the wealthy. This budget changes Medicaid from a State-Federal matching program that can adjust to changes in unemployment, poverty, or aging of the population, to a capped amount of Federal funds per State--a block grant. The budget also repeals the health reform law. Medicaid is the health insurance program for low-income or disabled individuals and families, many of whom are parents in working families. This is not a population who can easily access health insurance elsewhere if their benefits are cut. If Medicaid was converted to a block grant and the health reform law repealed, California stands to lose an estimated $147.8 billion over the next decade--$87.7 billion through Federal investments in Medi-Cal and $60.1 billion from the Medicaid expansion in health reform. Under the House Republican budget, California would see a 31-percent reduction in Federal dollars over the first 10 years, and by 2021 there would likely be a 41-percent cut in Medicaid enrollment. Mr. President, 7.2 million Medicaid beneficiaries in California could see either reduced benefits or increased out-of-pocket costs, and at least 2 million poor Californians could be kicked off the program. Low-income pregnant women who depend on Medicaid as a key source of health coverage could be dropped from the program. By converting Medicaid into a block grant, House Republicans would inevitably force States to drop coverage or change eligibility levels, and many more babies could be at risk. Without Medicaid, pregnant women who rely on the program would likely be uninsured and forgo critical prenatal care. This is a serious concern for the health of both the mother and the baby. Babies born to mothers who do not receive prenatal care are three times as likely to be born at a low birth weight and five times more likely to die. A block grant could also result in States dropping coverage for children who need it the most, such as those receiving special needs care. In California alone, Medicaid care for seniors and the disabled, including nursing home care, would be slashed by almost $54 billion over 10 years. This budget hurts women, it hurts children, and it hurts the elderly. The House Republican budget also eliminates Medicare as we know it. Instead of a guaranteed set of health benefits, seniors would receive roughly $8,000 to purchase insurance on the private market. This sounds good, but the bottom line is that it won't cover the costs. Our current Medicare Program has been more effective than the private insurance market at keeping costs down. This means that for an equivalent package of benefits in 2022, under this budget, health care costs for an average 65-year-old will be 40 percent higher. Because the $8,000 will be insufficient to cover the increased cost of care, annual costs the seniors pay out of their own pocket for health care will more than double in 2022, from an estimated $6,150 to $12,500. Essentially, seniors would be getting less money to purchase more expensive care. In 2010, half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes less than $21,000. You can see the problem. Furthermore, the House GOP budget would repeal the health reform law. Repealing the health reform law would reopen the drug-coverage Medicare drug-coverage gap or doughnut hole, that is closed in health reform. This gap forced beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their drug costs after they exceeded an initial coverage limit. Over 381,000 California seniors are in this coverage gap. House Republicans want these seniors to have to pay $214 million more for prescriptions next year and $4.3 billion more in 2030. Furthermore, there would no longer be free annual wellness exams under Medicare, meaning over 106,000 Californians could pay over $11.1 million more for annual wellness visits in 2012. Repealing the health reform law also hurts women. Women in Medicare would no longer receive free mammograms--an important measure to find breast cancer early. Because of the new health care reform law, in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate based on preexisting health conditions and will no longer be able to charge different premiums for women and men. House Republicans want insurance companies to get back in the driver's seat and be able to charge higher rates based on gender and deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. About 80 percent of Americans age 65 and older have at least one chronic health condition, meaning it would be more difficult for them to find insurance coverage. Under this budget, pregnancy would once again be considered a preexisting condition. We all know how difficult it is to get coverage. It is a travesty to deny health insurance to women for this reason. With these and other benefits in the law, women make great strides toward equality in the insurance market. But House Republicans want to eliminate these strides. The House Republican budget also targets a critical nutrition program for low-income families. It would cut $127 billion, or 20 percent, to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, in the next 10 years alone. In my State alone, 3.7 million individuals are expected to receive food stamps in 2012. Under the House Republican budget, California would lose over $10 billion in food stamp benefits over the next 10 years. As a result, families would see their benefits cut. Low- income families, with average salaries of $28,000 a year, would see their benefits cut by $147 a month. The continued assault on health care for the poor, the elderly, women, and children is astounding to me. We need to look carefully at our spending and we need to make cuts, and I believe we need to include entitlement programs in the discussion. But changes to these programs and any cuts we make have to be carefully crafted to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive the least amount of harm. The House Republican budget does not follow this philosophy; instead, it attacks the poor and elderly in the guise of deficit reduction. I will be voting against this budget when it comes before the full Senate for a vote. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I wish to point out that as of Friday, there are three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which are going to expire. Those three provisions are something called roving wiretaps, the ``lone wolf'' provision, and the business records authority. Because of prior discussions, let me point out up-front that this does not include national security letters, just these three provisions: ``roving wiretaps,'' the ``lone wolf,'' and the ``business records'' authorities. I very much appreciate that the majority leader and the Republican leader have come together in agreement to bring this legislation to the Senate floor. Because of its importance, particularly at this point in time, I hope we will be able to conclude this business and see that those provisions are extended for 4 years before Friday. Many of us strongly believe when it comes to national security there should be no partisan divide, only strong bipartisan support. So this measure should receive a substantial vote this afternoon, and the Senate will pass it quickly this week before these key authorities expire. But before talking about the substance of the legislation, let me describe the context in which this debate occurs. Three weeks ago, on May 1, the United States carried out a risky, complicated but ultimately successful strike against Osama bin Laden, in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The strike was the culmination of nearly a decade-long intelligence operation to locate bin Laden. Similar to most complex intelligence challenges, finding bin Laden was the product of multiple intelligence sources and collection methods. It was a seamless effort led by the CIA, with important contributions from the National Security Agency--known as the NSA--and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency as well. The intelligence mechanisms that are employed in counterterrorism operations are carefully and regularly reviewed by the Senate's Intelligence Committee, which I have the honor to chair. Some are also overseen by the Judiciary Committee, on which I also have the pleasure to serve. These intelligence tools include the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and in particular the three provisions that will, if not reauthorized, expire on May 27. Again, they are the ``roving wiretap,'' the ``lone wolf,'' and the ``business records'' authorities. The point is, we as a nation rely on certain secret sources and methods to protect our national security. Most other nations do as well. It is also important to note that the strike against bin Laden, while a critical strategic blow to al-Qaida, is also very likely to lead to reprisal attempts. There have been calls for attacks against the United States after the bin Laden strike from al-Qaida in Pakistan, from al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen and North Africa. There is a very real concern that radicalized Americans here at home may contemplate violence in response to extremists' calls for retribution. So this is a time of heightened threat--maybe no specific threat, but certainly heightened threats. We are seeing attacks in Pakistan carried but by the Taliban in reprisals for this attack as well. Therefore, this is a time when our vigilance must also be heightened. Key officials from the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security recently described to the Intelligence Committee in closed session how their respective agencies have heightened their defensive posture over these very concerns. Clearly, this is a time where every legal counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering mechanism should be made available. It is also a time to seize the opportunity to further disrupt al- Qaida. The assault on the bin Laden compound netted a cache of valuable information: papers, videos, computer drives, and other materials about al Qaeda's vision and al-Qaida's plans. The intelligence community established an interagency task force to go through that material as quickly as possible. I am hopeful that previously unknown terror plots will be identified and information leading to the location of terrorists will be found. Authorities such as the three provisions set to expire this Friday may well prove critical to thwarting new plots and finding terrorists. They must be renewed. Let me describe the three provisions in more detail. First, the roving wiretap provision. Roving wiretap authority was first authorized for intelligence purposes in the PATRIOT Act in 2001. But, as you know, it has been used for years in the criminal context. This provision, codified in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, provides the government with the flexibility necessary to conduct electronic surveillance against elusive targets. Let me explain. In most cases under FISA, the government can go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court--which I will describe in detail later--and present an application to tap the telephone of a suspected terrorist or spy. The FISA Court reviews the application and can issue an order--basically a warrant--to allow the government to tap a phone belonging to that target. We all know in this day and age there are disposable or ``throw away'' cell phones that allow foreign intelligence agents and terrorists not only to switch numbers but also to throw away their cell phone and replace it with another. This roving wiretap authority allows the government to make a specific showing to the FISA Court that the actions of a terrorist or spy may have the effect of thwarting intelligence. In other words, they make one appearance, and the government can thus seek, and the FISA Court can authorize, a roving wiretap so that the FBI, for example, can follow the target without having to go back to the Court for each cell phone change. Instead, the FBI in this case would report to the FISA Court, normally within 10 days of following the target to a new cell phone, with information on the fact justifying the belief that the new phone was or is being used by the target. The Justice Department has advised Congress that the authority to conduct roving electronic surveillance under FISA has proven to be operationally useful in some 20 national security investigations annually. So this provision is both used and very necessary in this day of throw away cell phones. ``Lone wolf'' authority allows the government to request, and the FISA Court to approve, intelligence collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist organization may not yet be known. Let me explain that more clearly. All other FISA surveillance and searches must be focused on a target who the government can prove is tied to a foreign power. Before the government can tap a phone or search a residence, it needs to demonstrate that the person it is after is an employee or spy or otherwise working for, or on behalf of, another country or terrorist group. The ``lone wolf'' provision, which was added to FISA in 2004, recognizes that there may be cases where the government suspects an individual inside the United States of plotting a terrorist attack, but it has not been able to link that individual to al-Qaida or al Shabaab or another group. The ``lone wolf'' authority allows the government to go to the FISA Court, show why it believes a non-U.S. person is engaging in terrorist activity, and get a warrant to begin surveillance. This is not done without a warrant from the court. It also allows for court-ordered collection against a non-U.S. target who may have broken with a terrorist organization while continuing to prepare for an act of international terrorism. The Justice Department has advised Congress that although to date it has not used this authority, the ``lone wolf'' authority nevertheless fills an important gap in U.S. collection capabilities, and we have it if we need it. The recent case of Khalid Aldawsari, a Saudi national arrested in Texas this past February, shows why the ``lone wolf'' authority is necessary. Aldawsari was arrested after the FBI learned he had purchased chemicals and conducted research needed to make improvised explosive devices. He had also researched bomb targets, including dams in California and the Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush. Unlike other recent terrorists such as Najibullah Zazi, David Headley, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Aldawsari was not identified on the basis of his connections to foreign terrorist organizations or known at the time of his capture to be working with one. He is better described as one of the most recent cases of individuals already inside the United States who became radicalized and committed to carrying out terrorist attacks. So it is for this kind of threat that the ``lone wolf'' authority is important and why we should extend this mechanism. It is also this kind of threat that the Intelligence Community is now especially worried about, as people inside the United States may be spurred to action in retaliation for the strike against bin Laden. If the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, or a State or local police officer identifies someone building bombs, it is necessary to move quickly and not take time to research a possible connection to al- Qaida before we use FISA authorities to learn what they are up to and when and how they might strike. Business records. The third authority covered by this legislation is known as the business records provision and provides the government the same authority in national security investigations to obtain physical records that exist in an ordinary criminal case through a grand jury subpoena. Business records authority has been used since 2001 in FISA to obtain driver's license records, hotel records, car rental records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, among other business records. This is the way in which you track a target. Let me note that while the debate over this provision has often focused on library circulation records, the Justice Department has advised the Congress that this authority has never--let me stress, never--been used to obtain library circulation records. We had a big debate on this issue when this came up before. In fact, this authority has never been used for library circulation records. The Department has informed Congress that it submitted 96 applications to the FISA Court for business record orders last year. The Justice Department has further stated that some business records orders have been used to support critically important and highly sensitive intelligence collection activities. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been fully briefed on that collection. Information about this sensitive collection has also been provided to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and information has been available for months to all Senators for their review. The details on how the government uses all three of these authorities are classified and discussion of them here would harm our ability to identify and stop terrorist attacks and espionage. But, if any Senators would like further details, I encourage them to contact the Intelligence Committee, or to request a briefing from the Intelligence Community or the Department of Justice. I have mentioned several times the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Let me describe what it is and how it operates. The FISA Court is a special court. It is a set of 11 Federal district judges, each of whom is appointed by the Chief Justice to specifically serve in this role. At least one of these judges is available at all times--24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--for the purpose of reviewing government applications to use FISA authorities and, if those applications are sufficient, approving them by issuing an order, or what we call in the criminal law, a warrant. The FISA Court judges meet in closed session to review classified declarations, and they provide very careful judicial review of the government's applications. They are expert in this specialized area of the law, as is their expert staff. The Department of Justice officials who come before them take all care in making their case and presenting their facts, as they do in public court. The American people should understand that these FISA authorities we are discussing now--the ability to conduct electronic surveillance and obtain records--are subject to strict oversight. A Senate-confirmed official in the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for National Security--one of these three must, and I stress ``must''--sign off on every application before it goes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Federal judges, also confirmed by the Senate, must approve the applications. Inspectors General conduct regular audits and oversight as well. The Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees receive regular reports from the Department of Justice on the use of all FISA authorities, as well as receiving briefings from the FBI and NSA on the implementation of the FISA statute. The three authorities reauthorized by this legislation have been debated extensively on this floor and in this Congress since it came up for reauthorization in 2009. Every single national security official to come before the Congress in the past 2 years has testified that these provisions are vital to protect America and has urged their reauthorization. It is very hard, I think, to vote no in the face of what we have been told in classified intelligence briefings and in hearings by officials from the Attorney General's office and the FBI. In fact, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence wrote a letter to Leaders Reid and McConnell today, May 23, expressing their strong support for immediate enactment of the legislation we are now considering. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to Leaders Reid and McConnell.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me point out there are no recent cases of abuse of these authorities. The oversight system in place is working well, I believe, to ensure they will not be misused in the future. Other Senators may come to this floor and talk about abuses of these authorities, but I ask: Listen carefully. Chances are they are talking about a section not involved here, and that is the section on national security letters. Again, national security letters are not touched by these three sections we are renewing today. And I would say, yes, they were abused or misused in years past, according to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. But corrections have been made since then. More important, for today's debate, there is nothing we are taking up today that affects or mentions national security letters at all. I have referred to this now four times. I hope I get it across because that is what happened last time. People came to the floor and what they were talking about was not in the legislation we were considering. Earlier this year, I was pleased to support legislation authored by Senator Leahy that would have made several improvements in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to better protect privacy rights and civil liberties. But the point I made during the debate in the Judiciary Committee, which I will repeat again today, is that many of these changes were in fact codifying practices the Department of Justice and the FBI have already implemented. For example, minimization. That was one of the issues that was discussed. It has been implemented. The departments are listening and they have taken action where there have been problems. I wish to say to my colleagues that the Executive Branch has heard and has acted to address concerns about intrusions into Americans' civil liberties. The Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Justice has indicated that it intends to conduct audits and inspections to ensure that the implementation of FISA is in full compliance with the law, and its reports will be carefully reviewed by this Congress and by the concerned Committees. A major priority of the Intelligence Committee in this house is to conduct regular oversight on the use of FISA authorities, and we will continue to do so after passage of this legislation. Just about every administration official to testify on the use of FISA authorities has also noted the importance of having the stability that comes with a long-term extension. Since December of 2009, when we reauthorized it, the Congress has passed three short-term extensions-- one for 2 months, one for 1 year, and one for 3 months. By lurching from one sunset to another, we run the risk that these intelligence authorities are going to expire. And here we are, once again, because they expire this Friday. I hope Members will think about that. I hope Members who want to produce an amendment will think about the following: if they expire, what if NSA and other agencies have to stop, what if they miss something, what if something happens? That is a responsibility that rests on the heads of everyone in these two bodies--both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. Even short of that, by providing one short-term extension after another--2 months here, 1 year there--we create significant uncertainty in the Intelligence Community as investigators are not sure whether these tools will continue to be available to them. I can tell you as one who tries to read the intelligence rather assiduously, we are not out of harm's way, and no one should believe that. People are plotting every day as to how they can send someone into the United States or convince someone in the United States to attack this country. The only thing we have to prevent this from happening is intelligence and an FBI that is now able to institute surveillance and tracking on possible targets in this country. We have come, in my judgment, a long way since 9/11, but we cannot leave this country vulnerable. We must keep our guard up, and we must see that the intelligence mechanisms that are available to this country are able to be utilized. This legislation now extends the use of these sunsetting authorities for 4 years, to June 1, 2015. In view of the times we are living in, I believe this is appropriate, it is keeping with past practice, and it is vital to the protection of the United States of America. The PATRIOT Act was enacted in October 2001, and several provisions were up for review and reauthorization 4 years later in December of 2005. After some significant debate, some of the original PATRIOT Act provisions were made permanent and some were reauthorized for another 4 years until the end of 2009. The lone-wolf authority that expires later this week was first enacted in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and placed in the same sunset cycle as the roving wiretap and business records authorities. Under the model established in the PATRIOT Act and a subsequent reauthorization, a 4-year extension from the end of May 2011 to June 2015 is based on sound congressional practice. These issues have been debated and re-debated and should be very familiar to Members, especially those on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I hope we are now going to act in the best interests of protecting the people of this country from another terrorist attack by passing this legislation so our intelligence professionals can continue to keep this Nation secure. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent I might be given permission to speak for one-half hour.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have been on the Judiciary Committee for 18 years. I have never heard a harsher statement about a brilliant young man than I have just heard. During those 18 years, I have seen the standards for appointment change rather dramatically. I have seen a search engine develop on the Republican side to go out and find anything and everything an individual may have written, and then compile a dossier, almost like one would of a criminal, and then characterize and depict the individual in the terms they wish to do. I regret this, and I hope to lay out how the Democratic side, with a number of nominees, has not done the same thing. But to see a young man with the credentials Goodwin Liu carries belittled in the way he has been belittled in these hearings and also on this floor really upsets me. This man is a professor of law and the former associate dean of one of the 10 best law schools in America. He is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar. He is a truly brilliant legal mind. I have every confidence in his intellectual firepower, his integrity, and his even-keeled demeanor, and I believe it will make him a fine judge. Let me tell my colleagues a little about his background. He was born in Augusta, GA. He is the son of Taiwanese immigrants who were recruited to America to provide medical services in rural areas. He attended public schools in Clewiston, FL, and in Sacramento, CA. He first struggled to learn English and master vocabulary but, ultimately, he graduated co-valedictorian from Rio Americano High School in Sacramento. He was admitted to Stanford University, my alma mater. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He received numerous awards for his contributions to the university, and he was elected co-president of the student body. Pretty good. He received a Rhodes scholarship. He graduated with a master's degree from Oxford University. He attended Yale Law School. Once again, he was at the top of his class. He was editor of the Yale Law Journal. He won the prize for the best team argument in the moot court competition and won awards for the best academic paper by a third-year law student and the best paper in the field of tax law. He received prestigious judicial clerkships with Circuit Judge David Tatel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and then with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. He worked in the Department of Education as a special assistant to the Deputy Secretary of the United States of the U.S. Department of Education. He spent 2 years in private practice at O'Melveny & Myers, which is a prestigious law firm--not a minor firm, a major firm--where he handled commercial matters, including antitrust, insurance, and class action cases. Appellate law comprised roughly half his practice. Finally, in 2003, he accepted a tenure-track position on the faculty of Boalt Hall School of Law. At Boalt, he quickly established himself as one of our most astute legal scholars, with specialties in constitutional law, the Supreme Court, education law, and education policy. He published articles in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the California Law Review, the Iowa Law Review, the Harvard Law and Policy Review, and many other academic journals. He received the Education Law Association's Steven S. Goldberg Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Education Law, and he was elected into membership of the American Law Institute. In 2008, his colleagues on the faculty of Boalt selected him as their associate dean. In 2009, the University of California at Berkeley awarded him their Distinguished Teaching Award, the highest award for teaching across the entire university. I believe he holds a deep appreciation for what opportunities our country affords. I believe his background and his legal prowess are fitting for him to become an appellate court judge. When one speaks with him about his family and upbringing, one gains a sense of him as someone who loves this country and bears an abiding belief that ours is a land of opportunity and a place where everyone has a chance to learn and grow and to thrive. Some of my colleagues have questioned a number of his writings and his temperament, and what figures very formidably, as I have talked to the Republican side, is particularly testimony he gave on the confirmation of Justice Alito. What he did was provide a long analysis of Alito's opinions and then at the end he used a rhetorical flourish that was, quite frankly, misguided. He strung together a series of facts from cases Alito had decided and then made a statement that I believe he very much regrets. It was over the top. But he has acknowledged it, he has been forthright, and he has apologized. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee he said: What troubles me most is that the passage has an ad hominem quality that is unfair and hurtful. I regret having written this passage. He said if he had to do it again: ``I would have deleted it.'' It was a mistake--no question about it--but a mistake should not color this man's entire record. I wish to read from two letters we received in the Senate from people who knew and know Goodwin Liu well, not just for a moment but for years. The first was sent to us jointly by three successive presidents of Stanford University. I have never seen a letter on behalf of a nominee from three different presidents of a university of the quality of Stanford. Donald Kennedy was president when Goodwin Liu was a student at Stanford. He worked with Liu at the Haas Center for Public Service and was present when Liu won not only the Dinkelspiel Award, which is the university's highest award for undergraduate service, but also the James W. Lyons Dean Award for Service and the President's Award for Academic Excellence. Gerhard Casper is president emeritus of Stanford and currently provost at the University of Chicago. He knows Liu both as a Stanford alum as well as a colleague in the field of constitutional law. He is familiar with Liu, as, in his own words, ``a measured interpreter of the Constitution.'' Finally, John Hennessy is Stanford's current President. He describes Liu as insightful, hardworking, collegial, and of the highest ethical standards. Together, these three presidents of the university wrote the following: Goodwin Liu as a student, scholar and trustee, has epitomized the goal of Stanford's founders, which was to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty, regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a fitting and, I believe, an accurate tribute. We have one of the most brilliant legal scholars of our time. There is a majority here to confirm him. We know that. But, unfortunately, the minority is trying to use cloture to prevent us from ever casting a vote to confirm him. Let me turn to another letter. This one is from eight top executives of major American companies, including Yahoo, General Atlantic, Morgan Stanley, and Google. They have all worked closely with Liu on the Stanford board of trustees. They wrote to say the following: Even in a room full of highly accomplished leaders, Goodwin is impressive. He is insightful, constructive, and a good listener. Moreover, he possesses a remarkably even temperament. His demeanor is unfailingly respectful and open- minded, never dogmatic or inflexible. Goodwin's strengths, they said: . . . are exactly what we expect in a judge: objectivity, independence, respect for differing views, sound judgment. We know the American Bar Association has unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' for the U.S. court of appeals, and his background is similar to many who have been confirmed to the circuit court in the past. But some on the other side, nevertheless, say he is too young and he doesn't have judicial experience, or his credentials are not right. For those who ask for a judicial record to review, I would ask, what about Edward Chen? We considered Judge Chen's nomination last week. He was a district court nominee with a 10-year judicial record. He had written more than 350 published opinions, and the minority didn't criticize one. But most in the minority voted against his nomination anyway. So a judicial record doesn't get it done. Then there is the criticism based on age or other qualifications. But Liu's qualifications surpass those of many we have confirmed under Republican Presidents. Since 1980, the Senate has confirmed 14 circuit court nominees who were under the age of 40. That means they were all younger than Liu is now. All 14 were nominated and confirmed during Republican administrations. Let me give two examples. Judge Kimberly Moore sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She was nominated by President Bush at the age of 38. She had 2 years of experience as a law clerk, less than 4 years in private practice, and 6 years as a professor at three different law schools. The Senate confirmed her unanimously. Judge Harvey Wilkinson is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was nominated by President Reagan at the age of 39. He had 1 year experience as a law clerk, 3 years as a newspaper editor, 1 year of government practice, and 5 years as a professor. He was confirmed. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, also comes to mind. He was 38 when he was nominated. Unlike Liu, he had little track record to review and much of the record that did exist was partisan. He had been a law clerk for 3 years, spent 3 years in private practice, and spent the remainder of his career in the Solicitor General's Office, Ken Starr's Office of Independent Counsel, and the Bush White House. When the ABA conducted its reviews, many troubling reports were received, but I voted for cloture, as did many of my colleagues on this side, and he was confirmed. Professors are hardly a new game for us when it comes to judicial nominees. John Rogers is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. At the time President Bush nominated him, he had only 4 years of practice experience, no appellate clerkships, and had spent the remainder of his career as a professor. He was confirmed by the Senate by a voice vote. Finally, there is Michael McConnell from the State of Utah. President Bush nominated Professor McConnell for the Tenth Circuit. At the time, he had been a constitutional law professor for 16 years and his writings contained scores of controversial thoughts, ideas, and provocations. In reviewing McConnell's record, many of us on the Democratic side found writing after writing that we strongly disagreed with. McConnell had repeatedly stated that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. He called the Supreme Court decision ``a grave legal error'' and ``an embarrassment.'' He wrote that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional. He criticized a Supreme Court decision barring racial discrimination at tax-exempt schools and one prohibiting sex discrimination in civic associations. He called the fundamental guarantee of one person, one vote ``wrong in principle.'' But similar to Professor Liu, he made clear in the Senate confirmation process that he understood the difference between the role of a professor and the role of a judge. Here is what he said when asked about all of his writings: I have a whole bunch of writings out there that were provocative, and innovative, and taking a different view. Well, within--my academic colleagues understand that that's what we do. If you try to make those look as though they are legal analysis, as if they were what a lawyer thinks the law is, of course they don't reflect the law. They're not meant to. They're not a description of the law. Professor Michael McConnell, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 18, 2002. He then assured us he would apply the law as written, not as put forward in academic theory. Guess what. He was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit by voice vote. There was no cloture vote. He was confirmed by voice vote because the Democrats on this side of the aisle believed he would do just what he said. I don't understand why this same situation is not accorded to this brilliant young American. Today, we have Professor Liu before us. He has also written article after article as a law professor and people have disagreed with some of what he has written. Here is what he said: I think that there's a clear difference between what things people write as scholars and how one would approach the role of a judge. And those two are very different things. As scholars, we are paid, in a sense, to question the boundaries of the law, to raise new theories, to be provocative in ways that it's simply not the role of a judge to be. The role of the judge is to faithfully follow the law as it is written and as it is given by the Supreme Court. And there is no room for invention or creation of new theories. That's simply not the role of the judge. A very similar statement. It was made by Goodwin Liu before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 16, 2010. Professor McConnell went through by voice vote. The same kind of situation--voice vote--yet we may be prevented from even taking a vote on Professor Liu's nomination because he may not get a supermajority for cloture. I must say, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Professor Liu, like Professor McConnell, is a brilliant legal mind. He has written extensively. He has been absolutely clear that if confirmed he would follow not any academic theory or writing, but the law as it is written and handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. We took Professor McConnell at his word. Professor Liu deserves the same treatment. (Mr. WHITEHOUSE assumed the chair.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What is interesting to me is how much things have changed on this committee--and we have a new Presiding Officer who also is on the committee--since before the Presiding Officer came on, when we would look at a person's personal record, what they have said, what they think the kind of judge they will be, and make a decision. So I do not understand, if we can confirm Professor McConnell by unanimous consent, why can't we grant cloture to a man who has distinguished himself as one of the great legal scholars of our country? Let me address one particular criticism that has been made of Professor Liu's writings, and that is his writings on constitutional interpretation and fidelity to the Constitution. Some in the Senate have harshly criticized his book ``Keeping Faith with the Constitution'' because he says at one point that the Supreme Court has taken ``social practices, evolving norms, and practical consequences'' into account when interpreting the Constitution. This, some colleagues say, means he will be an activist. First, Liu has said this book was written as a professor, as an academic, that it is in no way a roadmap for how he would decide cases as a judge. He said, in his own words: The duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the Supreme Court's instructions on matters of constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. And so that is exactly what I would do, is I would apply the applicable precedents to the facts of each case. But I think some are using this nomination to try to set a new standard, to say that the only valid theory of constitutional interpretation is originalism. So I want to point out that Liu's comments about constitutional interpretation are hardly exceptional. In fact, they echo statements made by some of our very best jurists across the span of American history: Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to name a few. The most famous example: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, in 1819, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland: We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding. . . . This provision is made in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. Chief Justice John Marshall. We are not all originalists here, and originalism does not define the legal mainstream. In an interview, published in the California Lawyer in January, Justice Scalia made the shocking statement that he does not believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees women equal protection of the law. This came out this January. This is a sitting Supreme Court Justice saying the Constitution does not guarantee women equal protection under the law. The text of the 14th amendment says no ``person'' shall be denied equal protection of the law--and after decades of precedent, unanimous Supreme Court decisions agree that women are protected. But regardless of text and precedent, Justice Scalia says it cannot be so because that is not what the drafters of the 14th amendment intended. This is not the American mainstream. Following this line of reasoning, the minimum wage would be unconstitutional, schools could still be legally segregated, States could prohibit married couples from using birth control, and I, as a woman, could be prohibited from standing here today as an elected Member of the Senate. That kind of thinking cannot be a criterion for acceptance onto our Federal courts. So some may disagree with Liu's statement about constitutional interpretation, but it is hardly far afield of the legal mainstream today. Let me tell you what others who are familiar with Liu's full record-- full record--have said about his work. Richard Painter, a chief ethics officer for President George W. Bush, relayed similar thoughts after reviewing Liu's record. Here is a quote: Liu's ``views are part of the legal mainstream'' and that the ``independence, rigor, and fair-mindedness of his writings support a confident prediction that he will be a dutiful and impartial judge.'' ``Liu respects the law, which is what we should expect of a judge.'' Yet the Senate may well not give him cloture even to come to a vote on his confirmation. That is unfair. Jesse Choper, who reviewed all of Liu's writings as the chair of his tenure committee, has similarly said, ``in addressing a wide range of issues, Liu demonstrates rigor, independence, fair-mindedness, and-- most importantly for present purposes--sincere respect for the proper role of courts in a constitutional democracy.'' ``One thing is clear,'' he says, ``Liu's interpretive approach is part of mainstream legal thought.'' Finally, someone who has been quoted often here today, Kenneth Starr, a prominent conservative and former Reagan appointee to the DC Court of Appeals, has written to us together with Professor Akhil Amar to say, Goodwin Liu is ``a person of great intellect, accomplishment, and integrity, and he is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the court of appeals.'' Continuing to quote: In our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily in the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee such as Goodwin are professional integrity and the ability to discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law. Because Goodwin possesses those qualities to the highest degree, we are confident that he will serve on the court of appeals not only fairly and competently, but with great distinction. I have a very hard time understanding why people would do this: we listened to and read Judge McConnell's views, which were antithetical to many of us on this side, but we believed he would be a fair and good judge, and he was confirmed by voice vote; but today someone who has the finest education America has to offer, who is supported by scholars on both sides of the political aisle, who is truly scholastically exceptional, who could quote case after case after case in his hearings, may be denied cloture. If he is, this is not the Senate of the United States of which I am most proud. I hope I am wrong. I hope he will be granted cloture because he deserves a vote up or down. A majority vote--that is America--a majority vote on his confirmation. We will see what happens.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, and in strong opposition of the Offshore Production and Safety Act. I support the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act because it would repeal unnecessary subsidies and incentives to oil companies that will cost taxpayers $21 billion over the next 10 years. That $21 billion must be made up through taxes in other areas, such as individual income taxes. These tax incentives for big oil, unfortunately, go toward corporate salaries and profits--they do not lead to lower gas prices for American consumers. And I oppose the poorly named Offshore Production and Safety Act. Instead of implementing the recommendations of The National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, this legislation attempts to irresponsibly increase production by shortcircuiting safety and environmental reviews, rigging the courts in favor of the oil companies, and forcing oil leasing in offshore areas without further review. The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, introduced by Senator Menendez, was written to end unnecessary and expensive tax subsidies. Is does so in the following ways: It modifies the foreign tax credit that allows major oil companies to deduct royalty payments dollar-for-dollar from their U.S. tax bill. It limits the ability of oil companies to claim the domestic manufacturing tax deduction. This deduction was created in 2004 to assist exporting manufacturers, not to subsidize oil companies. It limits the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs. It limits the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells: Firms will no longer be able to calculate this deduction using the percentage depletion calculation method, under which they often take claims that exceed the capital that was actually invested. It limits the deduction for tertiary injectants, which are fluids and gases that oil companies pump underground to drive more oil from an existing well, sometimes with negative environmental repercussions. Finally, the bill includes a provision I introduced in February to repeal Outer Continental Shelf deep water royalty relief provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These 2005 provisions created a financial incentive for oil companies to drill in the deepest parts of the ocean, where the environmental and technical risks are greatest. If we learn anything from the BP oilspill, it is that we should not be encouraging oil drilling in ocean waters so deep that it is beyond our technical capacity to address a spill. Yet that is exactly what the law does today. Last week, at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, CEOs of the big oil companies argued that they deserve to continue receiving these subsidies. ConocoPhillips's James Mulva went as far as to argue that raising taxes on an industry that can afford to pay those taxes in order to help those who cannot is ``un-American.'' He argued it would lead to a parade of horribles: lost jobs, higher gas prices and less investment. I could not disagree more strongly. Gas is at $4 a gallon, oil is about $100 a barrel and oil company profits are at near-record levels. Their claims are unfounded and absurd. Let me start with investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives testified that the companies did not need tax breaks to continue oil exploration efforts. But Congress left them in place. How can a drilling incentive unnecessary at $60 a barrel become essential at $100 per barrel? Big Oil claims about gas prices are also unfounded. A recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. A report from the Joint Economic Committee came to the same conclusion, stating: In reality, most of the so-called incentives have no impact on near-term production decisions, and thus repealing them would have no effect on consumer energy prices in the immediate future. Even in the longer term, the current proposed changes to these tax provisions would have little impact on global production and a negligible effect on consumer energy prices. The CRS report also addressed another industry claim: that ending tax breaks just for oil companies would be discriminatory. Most of those tax breaks--such as the deductions for well depletion and intangible drilling costs--are unique to the industry. The only exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage manufacturing companies to build factories here and export their goods. But as CRS pointed out, there will be no cessation of drilling on American territory as long as the oil and profits exist. Therefore, this is a huge cost to taxpayers with zero effect. Even the effect on industry profits--the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone--would be trivial, according to CRS. But this is simple arithmetic. The bill before us would repeal approximately $2 billion in subsidies annually, from five firms that made $35 billion in profit in a single quarter earlier this year. This represents a scant 1 to 2 percent of their annual profit! Bottom line: these subsidies are unnecessary, and returning $21 billion over 10 years to the Treasury would be a good thing. I encourage all of my colleagues who share my concern about the deficit to vote yes on this bill. Unfortunately, the minority leader has not chosen to address the deficit in his legislation. Instead, he has brought forward the Offshore Production and Safety Act. This bill appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It attempts to make ``Drill Baby Drill'' a national policy, without respect for the environment or the livelihoods that depend on a healthy ocean. Its introduction demonstrates that some in this body believe we can drill our way to energy independence, and the only things standing in the way are pesky environmental and safety regulations. Unfortunately, the facts don't back that up: The United States has only 3 percent of global oil reserves, but we use more than 20 percent of supply. Fifty-one new shallow-water permits have been issued since the administration implemented stronger safety standards to ensure that an oilspill similar to Deepwater Horizon will never happen again. Thirteen deepwater wells have been permitted since February, when the industry finally demonstrated it was capable of containing an undersea spill. In 2010, the United States produced more than 2 billion barrels of oil, the highest level of domestic production since 2003. Oil production has increased every year under President Obama. Despite these facts, we are being asked to consider a bill that would further reduce safety standards. The Republican bill repeals the 2010 drilling plan that protects southern California's coast from new drilling; establishes a 60-day deadline for the Federal Government to review and grant drilling permits. If that deadline cannot be met, a permit would be automatically issued even if the delay is the fault of the applicant. Authorizes leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts and Alaska, including Bristol Bay, without any further review. And overrides the ordinary rules of venue for court cases, engaging in preemptive ``forum-shopping'' by directing all court cases related to Gulf of Mexico energy production to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit--even though that circuit doesn't include Florida, the State with the longest coast on the Gulf of Mexico, nor Alabama. Finally, the bill sets up all kinds of special rules, appearing to try to ensure that the oil companies cannot lose in the fifth Circuit, by requiring challenges to be filed in 60 days, adding additional burdens of evidentiary proof, and prohibiting the courts from awarding attorneys' fees or other court costs even to the winning parties. That pretty much ensures that the fishermen, shrimpers, and small businessmen who depend on the gulf for their livelihoods will be unable to defend their rights in court. It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened. Three-fourths of Americans recently polled by the Wall Street Journal supported ending oil subsidies. Americans recognize that this is a question of fairness. While the oil companies are making huge profits, people are suffering and deficits are growing. We have an obligation to ask whether these tax giveaways are right, whether they are smart and whether we really need them at all. The answer is no. I encourage my colleagues to join me in fighting to end them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with my colleague and friend Senator Kyl, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011. This bill would create a total of ten District judgeships in five courts across the country that are facing true emergency situations. I want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Boxer, McCain, Hutchison, and Franken, for working with Senator Kyl and me on this bill. As a member of the Senate, I take very seriously our duty to ensure that the Nation's Federal courts have the resources they need to administer justice for the American people. Our Federal courts bear responsibility for adjudicating criminal cases, deciding civil rights and employment cases, and resolving commercial disputes between companies. When our courts become overburdened, we leave crime victims and criminal defendants in limbo and civil litigants without resolution to their problems. In the Eastern District of California, the need for additional judges is acute. This District, which extends over 87,000 miles and encompasses California's Central Valley, faces far and away the worst caseload crisis in the Nation. The District is home to more than eight million Californians, but it has only 6 active District Judges. For three decades, the District's population has been steadily growing, but the size of the Court has been unchanged. Congress has not created a permanent judgeship in the Eastern District since 1978 and the only temporary judgeship created was allowed to expire and never renewed despite repeated attempts by myself and Senator Leahy. The result is unacceptable. As of December 31, 2010, the District was managing 1,133 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, a caseload that is not only the highest in the Nation, but also 300 weighted filings per judge higher than any other District Court in the country and almost three times the threshold at which the Judicial Conference recommends additional judgeships. For everyday life, what this means is that individuals and businesses must wait months, or even years to have their disputes resolved. According to the most recent statistics, criminal felony cases remained pending in this court for a median of 12.7 months; and more than 10 percent of all civil cases were taking more than 3 years from the date of filing to be decided. The delay is not for lack of effort. As Judge Lawrence O'Neill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009, the Eastern District's judges are among the most productive in the Nation, and the court is utilizing every resource currently at its disposal. The caseloads are simply unmanageable. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly remarked on the problems in the District; so has Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy; and the Judicial Conference of the United States has formally called on Congress to create more judgeships here. The Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011 would provide a narrow, targeted solution. The bill would create new judgeships in five Districts across the country where the need is most staggering, four in the Eastern District of California, two in the District of Arizona; two in the Western District of Texas; one in the Southern District of Texas; and one in the District of Minnesota. Additionally, the bill would convert a temporary judgeship in the District of Arizona and one in the Central District of California to permanent status. The bill would be offset by raising civil filing fees $10, from $350 to $360. Let me be clear. California needs far more judgeships than this bill would create, and I will work with my colleagues to create those badly needed judgeships. In the meantime, this bill is a narrow, emergency measure to provide relief in the handful of Districts that need it the very most. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this commonsense, good government bill. 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 my colleague and friend Senator Kyl, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011. This bill would create a total of ten District judgeships in five courts across the country that are facing true emergency situations. I want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Boxer, McCain, Hutchison, and Franken, for working with Senator Kyl and me on this bill. As a member of the Senate, I take very seriously our duty to ensure that the Nation's Federal courts have the resources they need to administer justice for the American people. Our Federal courts bear responsibility for adjudicating criminal cases, deciding civil rights and employment cases, and resolving commercial disputes between companies. When our courts become overburdened, we leave crime victims and criminal defendants in limbo and civil litigants without resolution to their problems. In the Eastern District of California, the need for additional judges is acute. This District, which extends over 87,000 miles and encompasses California's Central Valley, faces far and away the worst caseload crisis in the Nation. The District is home to more than eight million Californians, but it has only 6 active District Judges. For three decades, the District's population has been steadily growing, but the size of the Court has been unchanged. Congress has not created a permanent judgeship in the Eastern District since 1978 and the only temporary judgeship created was allowed to expire and never renewed despite repeated attempts by myself and Senator Leahy. The result is unacceptable. As of December 31, 2010, the District was managing 1,133 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, a caseload that is not only the highest in the Nation, but also 300 weighted filings per judge higher than any other District Court in the country and almost three times the threshold at which the Judicial Conference recommends additional judgeships. For everyday life, what this means is that individuals and businesses must wait months, or even years to have their disputes resolved. According to the most recent statistics, criminal felony cases remained pending in this court for a median of 12.7 months; and more than 10 percent of all civil cases were taking more than 3 years from the date of filing to be decided. The delay is not for lack of effort. As Judge Lawrence O'Neill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009, the Eastern District's judges are among the most productive in the Nation, and the court is utilizing every resource currently at its disposal. The caseloads are simply unmanageable. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly remarked on the problems in the District; so has Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy; and the Judicial Conference of the United States has formally called on Congress to create more judgeships here. The Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011 would provide a narrow, targeted solution. The bill would create new judgeships in five Districts across the country where the need is most staggering, four in the Eastern District of California, two in the District of Arizona; two in the Western District of Texas; one in the Southern District of Texas; and one in the District of Minnesota. Additionally, the bill would convert a temporary judgeship in the District of Arizona and one in the Central District of California to permanent status. The bill would be offset by raising civil filing fees $10, from $350 to $360. Let me be clear. California needs far more judgeships than this bill would create, and I will work with my colleagues to create those badly needed judgeships. In the meantime, this bill is a narrow, emergency measure to provide relief in the handful of Districts that need it the very most. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this commonsense, good government bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.