Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this particular judgeship. I believe he is accurate in everything he said, and I very much appreciate his stalwart support. I rise to add my support to the nomination of U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen to become a U.S. district judge in the Northern District of California. I recommended Judge Chen to the President, so obviously he has my strong support. I wish to tell my colleagues a little bit about him. He was born and raised in Oakland, and he is the son of Chinese immigrants. His father immigrated to the United States in the 1920s, and that was followed by his mother in the 1930s. He attended public schools in Oakland and then went on to the University of California at Berkeley, where he received his undergraduate degree with great distinction, and then on to Boalt Hall School of Law, where he graduated in the top 10 percent of his class. He was a law clerk to District Judge Charles Renfrew on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as well as to Circuit Judge James Browning on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then began his legal career as a litigator, first at the private law firm of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy, and Bass and later as a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. In 2001, he was appointed to be a U.S. magistrate judge for the Northern District of California, and he has served in that capacity for the past 10 years. So today Judge Chen is a solid, tested, and respected judge with over a decade of experience on the Federal bench. In these 10 years as a judge, he has written more than 350 published opinions. I would point out that not one of those opinions has been criticized by anyone in the 20 months this nomination has been awaiting action in the Senate. Nor has there been any criticism of any of his published opinions. In fact, there is a broad consensus among those who have reviewed his judicial record that he is indeed a very good judge. He was recommended to me by a bipartisan judicial advisory committee. That committee reviewed his record, and spoke with judges, attorneys, and litigants who knew his work as a judge. The committee unanimously recommended that I forward his name to the President, and I did. The San Francisco Bar Association has rated him ``exceptionally well qualified.'' The American Bar Association has rated him ``well qualified''--their highest rating. And in 2009, a merit selection review panel, appointed by the U.S. District Court, thoroughly reviewed his record and recommended him for reappointment as a magistrate judge. That panel consisted of seven lawyers appointed by the district court. They solicited public comments on Chen's work as a judge. Only positive information was forthcoming. They talked to Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Again, the reports were uniformly favorable. Prosecutors called Chen's analytical skills ``exemplary'' and said his rulings were ``balanced and well reasoned.'' Defense attorneys were similarly positive. They described Chen as ``respectful'' and ``considered'' in his judgments. Partners with large law firms called Chen ``prompt,'' ``well- prepared,'' ``very intelligent'' and ``decisive.'' Overall, the panel recommended unequivocally that Chen be reappointed for a second 8-year term as a magistrate judge. Obviously, he has served 2 years of that second term. I have the panel's full report here and would be pleased to share it with any Senator who wishes to review it. Since Chen's nomination for the district court, the reports we have received in the Senate from those who know Chen's work as a judge have been similarly positive. We have received letters urging Chen's confirmation from Republicans and Democrats, public officials and law enforcement, judges, civil rights groups, business leaders, and private lawyers. Let me share a few with you. Judge Lowell Jensen, whom I have followed for decades, was appointed to the U.S. District Court by President Reagan. He also served as second in charge of the Department of Justice during the Reagan administration. He has worked closely with Chen on the Federal bench and had this to say about him, and this is a direct quote: I have found Judge Chen to be both an excellent jurist and a person of high character. He brings a conscientious, careful, and impartial approach to every issue and every party. The decisions he makes reflect not only good judgment but a complete commitment to the principles of fair trial and the application of the rule of law. I support his confirmation without reservation. I can say that Judge Jensen is one of the most distinguished judges in California. Former U.S. District Judge Fern Smith was also appointed by President Reagan to the Federal court. She writes: Both in my own dealings with [Judge Chen] and based on his reputation among my former colleagues, I can attest to his intellectual competence, his respect for the law, his judicial temperament, and his integrity. I have no doubt that Ed Chen would do honor to any of our 94 United States District Courts. We have a letter from the president of the San Francisco Police Commission, a lifelong Republican, Thomas Mazzucco. He published an op- ed in the Roll Call urging the Senate to confirm Chen and calling him ``an experienced judge who understands the distinction between personal preference and judicial obligation, and who has always based his rulings--more than 300 decisions over eight years--solely on the law and the merits of a case.'' The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association said this: Chen has earned a reputation as an evenhanded jurist who is constantly mindful of the role that judges such as himself fulfill in our society: as keepers of the rule of law and public trust in our system of justice. I have over 50 more letters, if anyone wishes to read them. They come from the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; the sheriff, city attorney, former chief of police, and former U.S. Marshal of San Francisco; the last 10 presidents of the bar association of San Francisco; the congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the National Asian Pacific American Bar; and many others. The judgment is clear: Ed Chen is fair. He is impartial. He is an excellent jurist, and has been for 10 years, and he deserves to be confirmed. You come back to Washington and what happens? Here is the story. Despite this long judicial track record and broad bipartisan support, this nomination has been sitting in the Senate for more than 600 days. The President first nominated Chen on August 6, 2009. That was 643 days ago. Since that time, the minority has required the nomination to be sent back to the President three different times. The Senate Judiciary Committee has had to consider the nomination four different times. This is extraordinary--but then the Republicans have an extraordinary search engine. I will talk about that in a minute. This is a district court nominee with 10 years of judicial experience, with not a blemish on it. When other judicial nominees have come before the Senate, they have been criticized because they didn't have judicial experience or because there was no judicial track record to review. Well, here is a nominee who has both. Ten years on the bench; bipartisan support and uniformly positive reviews; more than 350 published opinions, and there has not been a single criticism of a single one. But his nomination has been sitting in the Senate for 600 days and sent back to the President 3 separate times. I find this to be a deeply disappointing testament to the situation we face in the Senate today. Let me pose the question that Police Commissioner Mazzucco--a Republican--asked in his op-ed: If Judge Chen--an experienced judge whose judicial record proves he is committed to the rule of law, without bias or favor, and who is widely respected by the bar that has practiced before him--isn't qualified for the Federal bench, then who is? I echo that. So what happened here? Well, let me take a few moments to address a couple of the attacks that have been made on Judge Chen. First, Judge Chen has been criticized because he worked as a staff attorney for the ACLU long before becoming a judge. No one disputes that. Chen was once an advocate, and that is a fact. But he also has a 10-year record to prove that he has made the transition. He was once an advocate. He is now a judge--and a darn good judge. As a coalition of Northern California Asian American Bar Associations wrote: Chen has made a successful transition from a zealous advocate to a balanced and conscientious adjudicator who is committed to the impartial and active administration of justice. Former Federal prosecutors from the Northern District of California made the same point. They wrote: Judge Chen consistently treats all sides evenly and impartially, and conducts himself with the utmost propriety, as is fitting for a judge. . . . While we are aware of his previous position as a staff attorney at the ACLU of northern California, Judge Chen does not show favoritism toward the parties or issues before him. The record is available. The evidence is in. Chen understands the unique role of the impartial adjudicator. He knows what it means to decide cases evenhandedly. He has been doing it for more than 10 years. Let me turn then to some speeches that the ``search engine'' turned up. Since 2009, the Washington Times and others have used a handful of quotes from speeches Chen has given to try to paint him as someone he is not. As happens far too often, those quotes have been cut, spliced, and taken out of context. Let me give you an example. The effort to label Chen as a ``radical'' is based on a speech he gave to students following the funeral of a man by the name of Fred Korematsu. I want to take a moment to explain Korematsu and the case. Some of you may be too young to remember Mr. Korematsu and his fight against Japanese internment during World War II, but I am not. One of the singular experiences of my lifetime was when my father took me, as a small child, to the Tanforan Racetrack. That racetrack was a few miles south of San Francisco. During World War II, it was taken out of action as a racetrack and turned into an internment camp. It was fenced with barbed wire. Small buildings lined the center portion of the track. This is a photo of it. Here is the racetrack and here are the buildings. This is where Japanese Americans were essentially incarcerated for the remainder of World War II. Let me show you this. This is the order, which is from the Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control Administration-- instructions to all Americans of Japanese ancestry living in the following area, which is the city and county of San Francisco, lying generally west of the north-south line, and it describes that. It says: All Japanese persons, both alien and non-alien, will be evacuated from the designated area by twelve o'clock on Tuesday, April 7, 1942. No Japanese person will be permitted to enter or leave the above-described area after 8 a.m. Thursday, April 7-- That is over half of the city of San Francisco. without obtaining special permission from the provost marshal at the Civil Control Administration. Then they are told where they are to report--to the Civil Control Station--to receive further instructions. This must be done between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Thursday, April 2, or between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Friday, April 3. That is their notice. They turn up, get in a bus, and then this is where they go, and where they remained until the end of the war. One young Californian, Fred Korematsu, challenged the internment. He took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he argued that the U.S. Constitution did not permit loyal American citizens to be forced into these camps solely because of their Japanese-American heritage, which was the case here. The Supreme Court heard his case, but he lost in a decision that is considered by many to be a black stain on the jurisprudence of our Supreme Court. Decades later, in 1983, Korematsu challenged his conviction again. This time, he was represented by a team of volunteer lawyers, including Edward Chen. This team put forward newly discovered evidence that demonstrated that prosecutors in Korematsu's original case had withheld evidence, specifically, U.S. Government intelligence at the time indicating the internment was not justified. This time they won. So four decades after the original internment order, Fred Korematsu's conviction was overturned by the district court, and, four years later in 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act, issuing a formal, national apology for the Japanese internment. So this was the context of the speech in which Chen was speaking to a group of students and reflecting on the funeral of Fred Korematsu. He said in the speech that, at times, he had experienced ``feelings of ambivalence and cynicism when confronted by appeals to patriotism.'' He was referring to the internment of Japanese-American citizens for no cause other than they happened to be of Japanese heritage. I would think you could get a bit cynical about that. People who did not see this do not believe it ever happened. But it did happen, and it happened here. This was the condition in which people were kept. It is not right. But critics have picked out this line--``feelings of ambivalence and cynicism when confronted by appeals to patriotism''--and tried to use to paint Chen as unpatriotic. But they did not know the context. Sometimes things that have monumental importance at the time, such as the internment of Japanese-American citizens without due process, fade too quickly from our historical memory. I thought I would bring it back so this body could understand the total context. This was a very big deal. It was not a proud moment for our country. Congress and President Reagan rightfully issued a formal apology for the injustice that was done years later. To take a quote from a speech after Fred Korematsu's funeral and to use it to try to imply that Edward Chen does not love his country--it is shameful. It is also flatly inconsistent with the rest of the speech. Chen went on to say that when the congregation sang ``America the Beautiful'' at Korematsu's funeral, he was moved to tears because ``the song described the America that Fred envisioned, the America whose promised beauty he sought to fulfill, an America true to its founding principles.'' Fred Korematsu is no longer with us, but his daughter Karen sent me a letter about Edward Chen. Here are some of her words: My father's belief in our Constitution was unwavering, even when he was treated unfairly. Like my father, Judge Chen is adamant about upholding the Constitution, without bias or prejudice. In my view, Edward Chen is a judicial nominee who has been treated extraordinarily unfairly. But he remains steadfast in his commitment to serving our country as a Federal judge, and he has a 10-year unblemished judicial track record to show that he will serve us exceedingly well. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to be a district judge for the Northern District of California. I yield the floor. 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. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this resolution and offer my congratulations to the men and women responsible for developing the intelligence and carrying out the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden on Sunday, May 1. This is perhaps the most important, and certainly the most stunning, intelligence operation I have seen in my 10 years on the Intelligence Committee. I wanted to congratulate, first and foremost, President Obama. As he stated in his Sunday night address to the Nation, he directed Leon Panetta shortly after taking office to ``make the killing or capture of bin Ladin the top priority of our war against al-Qaida.'' When the effort to collect and analyze intelligence on this compound in Abbottabad bore fruit, President Obama made a courageous and very gutsy decision to order the strike, even though the intelligence community could not assure him with certainty that bin Ladin was there. At the operational level, the hunt for bin Laden and the read on his compound has shown the greatly improved collaboration and cooperation across the intelligence community and, of course, the Department of Defense. The CIA has received and well deserved the lion's share of the credit. The agency collected the human intelligence and carried out other missions that found and characterized the Abbottabad compound, and CIA analysts took the lead in analyzing and reanalyzing that information. The CIA's Counterterrorism Center has a banner on the wall that reads, ``Today is September 12, 2001.'' It has been nearly 10 years, but their perseverance and dedication has truly paid off. I also want to recognize the efforts of the National Security Agency which provided signals intelligence and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency which conducted the imagery analysis on the compound. It was truly a team effort. I also commend and give thanks to the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, the team that flew to the compound under cover of night and conducted the raid. It was not a picture perfect operation, and changes to the plan were necessary as the lead helicopter was forced to land unexpectedly. But the highly trained and skilled members of the Navy SEAL team adjusted, reached their target, and they killed Osama bin Laden without taking any casualties themselves. I was first briefed on the compound and the possibility that it housed Osama bin Laden in the beginning of last December along with Senator Kit Bond who was vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee at that time. Since then, the current vice chairman, Senator Saxby Chambliss, and I have been regularly briefed and updated on the intelligence. I thank Director Panetta and his team for keeping the Intelligence Committee leadership informed. As one who is regularly critical of our government's inability to keep secrets, it is very reassuring that this highly sensitive and sensational intelligence was kept under wraps for months. There is no doubt that Sunday's operation gives rise to a number of questions. Among the most important of them are, one, what did Pakistan know about bin Laden's presence and this compound in the up to 6 years he was there? It has to be pointed out that this compound was eight times bigger than any home in the vicinity. It was just a quarter of a mile away from another home. It was a mile away from a major military academy. It had razor wire on the top of very large walls, and it was very large in itself. Trash was not picked up, it was burned. No one really came in and out except the two couriers who went about delivering messages from a distance from the compound. It should have been an issue of curiosity, and neighbors surely would have been interested in who lived there. Why is it so big? What is going on there? But there was virtually no reaction. The second point is, what does bin Laden's death mean for al-Qaida and for the affiliate groups and lone wolves he has inspired and led? As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I will be looking for answers to those questions and get more of the details of the operation itself. Tomorrow morning, in a joint classified hearing with the Armed Services Committee, we will be looking into these and other issues. But this resolution is about commending the men and women of our intelligence community and the U.S. military for their dedication and years of work that led to 40 minutes of incredible success. It should also recognize the fact that since 9/11, intelligence has been streamlined, stove pipes have been taken down, and analysts have greatly improved in their trade craft. As a matter of fact, the intelligence having to do with this one facility was red-teamed once, red-teamed twice, and red-teamed at least a third time. The red-teaming process gives the ability of our analysts to debunk the intelligence, to try to indicate what might be a lapse, an ``inconclusion,'' a false judgment. It is a very valuable process. This resolution also recognizes the measure of justice now delivered to those who mourn and remember the thousands of men, women, and children claimed as victims on 9/11 and in the other attacks carried out by al-Qaida under Osama bin Laden both here and around the world. This will not end terror as we know it today, but it surely is a monumental step to be able to put an end to the man who championed the cause, the man who provided the inspiration, the man who raised the money, and the man who was purely and simply the major leader. Osama bin Laden is no more, and the time is upon us. I hope the world will be listening to try to consider a better path, to move away from acts of terror, move away from the killing of innocent men, women and children, and become part of the councils of government, whatever they may be, across the world, to debate, to discuss, to vote, and to put forward principled policies. I very much appreciate the efforts of the majority leader and the Republican leader in bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge its adoption. I notice my distinguished vice chairman on the Senate floor. I particularly want to thank him, Senator Chambliss, for all of the cooperation we have been able to effect together. You truly have been wonderful. It has been a great joy for me to work with you, and I only wish I could give you a glass of California wine to salute this very special day. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act. This legislation will ensure that regular process under Federal law is followed when Native American tribes take land into trust for operating gaming facilities. Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000, which included a provision to re-recognize the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and allow them to acquire trust land in the San Francisco Bay area. The Lytton Band has had a long and difficult history in my state, and by all accounts the Tribe deserved to be recognized and have a homeland. But the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act did so in a way that was both controversial and unfair in how it granted an individual tribe an unprecedented exemption to the law. The land taken into trust for the Lytton Band was miles away from their historical homeland and it treated the acquisition as if it was completed before 1988. Why would something like that matter? The answer is simple: the land the tribe acquired was home to an existing casino and 1988 is the year that Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Therefore, by treating the land as if it were taken into trust before 1988, the Tribe is able to operate the casino outside the framework set up by Congress to govern how and where tribes may open casinos. The Omnibus Indian Advancement Act set aside well-established rules and procedures, and left the government with little ability to regulate the Lytton Band's gaming operation. The result: the Lytton Band acquired land and a casino without having to go through the normal oversight process. No local input. No community feedback and no consideration for the best interest of the region. The Lytton Gaming Oversight Act would implement a reasonable solution to this problem. It does so by taking two simple steps. It protects the sovereignty of the Tribe by allowing continued operation of existing gaming activities, provided the tribe follows standards established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the future. Secondly it protects the interest of the surrounding community by precluding any physical or operational expansion of the Tribe's current gaming facility unless the Tribe consults with locals and obtains the consent of the Governor and the Secretary of the Interior as required by current law. The bill does not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status. It does not alter the trust status of the Tribe's land. It does not take away the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by current law. Circumventing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act process deprives local and tribal governments the ability to weigh in on this incredibly important issue. A 2006 report entitled Gambling in the Golden State found serious problems associated with gambling establishments; casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime, a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates, and a per capita increase of $15.34 for law enforcement. If this bill is not approved, the Lytton Tribe could take the existing casino that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large Nevada-style gambling complex. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004. I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned the plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse their decision at any time. Identical legislation passed this body in the past two Congresses. It had unanimous approval from both Democrats and Republicans. This is in large part because I have worked and negotiated with the Tribe to ensure that this legislation is fair and balanced. The bill is simple, straightforward, and reasonable. It restores the intent of Congress and preserves the sovereignty of the Lytton Band. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and look forward to working with you to ensure its passage again in the coming year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act. This legislation will ensure that regular process under Federal law is followed when Native American tribes take land into trust for operating gaming facilities. Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000, which included a provision to re-recognize the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and allow them to acquire trust land in the San Francisco Bay area. The Lytton Band has had a long and difficult history in my state, and by all accounts the Tribe deserved to be recognized and have a homeland. But the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act did so in a way that was both controversial and unfair in how it granted an individual tribe an unprecedented exemption to the law. The land taken into trust for the Lytton Band was miles away from their historical homeland and it treated the acquisition as if it was completed before 1988. Why would something like that matter? The answer is simple: the land the tribe acquired was home to an existing casino and 1988 is the year that Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Therefore, by treating the land as if it were taken into trust before 1988, the Tribe is able to operate the casino outside the framework set up by Congress to govern how and where tribes may open casinos. The Omnibus Indian Advancement Act set aside well-established rules and procedures, and left the government with little ability to regulate the Lytton Band's gaming operation. The result: the Lytton Band acquired land and a casino without having to go through the normal oversight process. No local input. No community feedback and no consideration for the best interest of the region. The Lytton Gaming Oversight Act would implement a reasonable solution to this problem. It does so by taking two simple steps. It protects the sovereignty of the Tribe by allowing continued operation of existing gaming activities, provided the tribe follows standards established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the future. Secondly it protects the interest of the surrounding community by precluding any physical or operational expansion of the Tribe's current gaming facility unless the Tribe consults with locals and obtains the consent of the Governor and the Secretary of the Interior as required by current law. The bill does not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status. It does not alter the trust status of the Tribe's land. It does not take away the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by current law. Circumventing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act process deprives local and tribal governments the ability to weigh in on this incredibly important issue. A 2006 report entitled Gambling in the Golden State found serious problems associated with gambling establishments; casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime, a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates, and a per capita increase of $15.34 for law enforcement. If this bill is not approved, the Lytton Tribe could take the existing casino that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large Nevada-style gambling complex. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004. I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned the plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse their decision at any time. Identical legislation passed this body in the past two Congresses. It had unanimous approval from both Democrats and Republicans. This is in large part because I have worked and negotiated with the Tribe to ensure that this legislation is fair and balanced. The bill is simple, straightforward, and reasonable. It restores the intent of Congress and preserves the sovereignty of the Lytton Band. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and look forward to working with you to ensure its passage again in the coming year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, since 1978 we have set aside the month of May to honor Americans who are of Asian and Pacific Islander descent. Today I am pleased to join the celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and the many accomplishments and contributions of such an inspiring, spirited, and industrious group of people. Efforts to establish an Asian Pacific American Heritage Month first took shape in 1977 when U.S. Representatives Frank Horton and Norman Y. Mineta introduced a resolution calling on the President to declare a weeklong commemoration. Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga followed suit in the Senate. Both resolutions were ultimately passed, and President Carter in 1978 officially designated a weeklong celebration to honor the first Japanese immigrants to the United States and the Chinese laborers who completed the Transcontinental Railroad. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush extended the event to a month- long celebration, and in 1992 the designation of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month was signed into law. More than 17 million Asian Pacific Americans live in the United States today, with more than 5 million living in California. Together, these Americans represent more than 30 countries and ethnic groups and enhance the diversity that is a hallmark of our Nation. Asian Pacific Americans enrich California through their famous and iconic communities including Chinatown in San Francisco, Filipino Town and Little Tokyo in Los Angeles, Little Cambodia in Long Beach, and Little Saigon in Westminster. Asian Pacific Americans have also left a large imprint on the economy of the United States, although in this time of economic challenge, it is important that we offer as much support as possible to keep those businesses thriving. This is why I support the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, which is focused on increasing Asian Pacific American participation in areas such as commerce, labor and employment, and economic and community development. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that will help create small businesses and improve small business owners' access to capital. This year's theme, ``Leadership to Meet the Challenge of a Changing World,'' is especially fitting given the many challenges we face today. The leadership of many Asian Pacific Americans who have dedicated their lives to public service is especially notable. These trailblazers have been a strong voice for the community and have empowered Asian Pacific Americans to break barriers and pursue the American dream. Among these respected Americans are my esteemed colleagues in Congress, Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, and nine Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including California Representatives Judy Chu, Doris Matsui, and Mike Honda. In the executive branch, we are lucky to have the services of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki. In particular, I would like to recognize Representative Chu on her new position as chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. I would also like to congratulate Secretary Locke on his recent nomination by President Obama to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. These individuals are all leaders in the Asian Pacific American community, and their service inspires future generations to follow in their footsteps. In addition to their cultures, entrepreneurial skills and dedication to public service, Asian Pacific Americans have also made great sacrifices to ensure our nation remains strong and secure. There are thousands of Asian Pacific Americans serving overseas in our Armed Forces and here at home in our law enforcement agencies. These admirable citizens risk their lives every day to protect their communities. They deserve our thanks. I also want to praise the leadership and hard work of the Asian Pacific American legal community. Since the beginning of 2009, we have made significant progress in our work to diversify Federal courts. Six new Asian Pacific American judges have been confirmed to the Federal bench. These include U.S. District Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Dolly Gee in Los Angeles and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose. Two highly qualified nominees still await votes--Professor Goodwin Liu, nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen, nominated for the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. I will continue to do what I can to further diversify the judiciary and ensure that qualified Asian Pacific American judges are nominated and confirmed to the Federal bench. Unfortunately, this month also brings with it the reminder that my good friend and political strategist Mr. Kam Kuwata is no longer with us. Kam was well known and well respected by those in California politics and journalism. He tirelessly pursued civil rights and achieved remarkable success in campaigns and State initiatives. He carried with him many of the difficulties Asian Pacific Americans have faced, as his mother's family was interned during World War II. But he also embodied the many accomplishments that Asian Pacific Americans have achieved. Kam was truly one of the most intelligent and sharp people I have ever met. I would like to extend my heartfelt and deepest condolences to his family and friends. He will be dearly missed by all of us whose lives he touched. Today, it is my honor to acknowledge the remarkable strength, character, and accomplishments of Asian Pacific Americans during Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2011. This legislation will make it easier for communities to build infrastructure and grow by allowing to access federal loan guarantees when they conserve land to mitigate the impacts to the environment and endangered species. This bill creates a ten year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''. More than 500 such plans have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, providing protection for nearly 50 million acres of habitat nationwide and allowing development and infrastructure to proceed. Equally important, HCPs are very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going infrastructure construction and development activity. In California, the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. At the same time, it is building its infrastructure and transportation needs for the next century. To date, more than 40,000 acres of property have been conserved. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure. Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained. Owing to the economic downturn, however, the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities has slowed to a crawl. Revenue which had been generated to finance acquisition of habitat during periods of robust development has also slowed to a trickle, at just the moment when real estate values are at historic lows. Ready access to capital during this period would enable Western Riverside to complete its habitat acquisition program for half of what it was estimated to cost in 2008, for a savings of $2 billion. Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted a very rare occurrence. The Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling these communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage development and growth and conservation of land and protection of endangered species, at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the Federal local partnership that we need to use to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Ramon C. Cortines, his distinguished career and his dedication to improving our Nation's schools. Cortines is retiring today after 55 years in public education. I know Ramon, or ``Ray,'' as the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District in Los Angeles, CA--the Nation's second largest school district. I applaud Ray for being a zealous advocate on behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District and the State of California. His tireless efforts helped to bring Federal funding and reform to its schools, especially during this difficult time of budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Ray has committed himself to educating young minds. His career started with humble beginnings as a teacher in elementary, middle and high schools. After his first teaching job in Aptos, Ray became a teacher and administrator in Covina, CA. His career flourished, taking him to administrative positions of principal, assistant superintendent, administrative director and superintendent. Ray became an administrator for 4 years and superintendent of schools for 11 years in Pasadena, CA; superintendent in San Jose, CA, for 2 years; superintendent in San Francisco for 6 years; and New York City Schools chancellor for 2 years. Ray also recognizes the importance of higher education. He has acted as a consultant to the University of California, the California State University and the California Community College systems. Ray's leadership didn't stop at the local level. In December 1992, he chaired a U.S. Department of Education transition team for then- President-elect Clinton. Ray served as a senior adviser to former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley. He was also nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of Education for Intergovernmental Affairs by President Bill Clinton. He served on numerous task forces and committees with the California Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Ray isn't afraid to fight for California schools. He has advocated on behalf of teachers and students in California by testifying on Capitol Hill about the importance of increasing funding for title I and special education programs, as well as saving teachers' jobs. Ray dedicated himself to serving his country in other ways. He served in the U.S. Army from 1953 to 1955. I admire Ray's hard work, dedication and commitment to raising academic achievement and turning around low-performing schools. As Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent, Ray concentrated on improving instruction and teacher quality. Under his leadership, the district experienced a 16-point increase on the 2010 California Academic Performance Index. The district's overall score topped the 700 threshold for the first time. Ray restructured the first school in the district--Fremont High School. Ray's leadership style is no-nonsense and I applaud him for what he has accomplished. All of us who care about providing every student with a quality education will miss him. I congratulate Ray on his years of remarkable service to our Nation and to our State's education system. We are grateful to him for his leadership and commitment to making the classroom a better place for our students. I am sure that his students and colleagues will always remember the impact he made on their lives and their communities.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2011. This legislation will make it easier for communities to build infrastructure and grow by allowing to access federal loan guarantees when they conserve land to mitigate the impacts to the environment and endangered species. This bill creates a ten year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''. More than 500 such plans have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, providing protection for nearly 50 million acres of habitat nationwide and allowing development and infrastructure to proceed. Equally important, HCPs are very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going infrastructure construction and development activity. In California, the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. At the same time, it is building its infrastructure and transportation needs for the next century. To date, more than 40,000 acres of property have been conserved. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure. Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained. Owing to the economic downturn, however, the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities has slowed to a crawl. Revenue which had been generated to finance acquisition of habitat during periods of robust development has also slowed to a trickle, at just the moment when real estate values are at historic lows. Ready access to capital during this period would enable Western Riverside to complete its habitat acquisition program for half of what it was estimated to cost in 2008, for a savings of $2 billion. Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted a very rare occurrence. The Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling these communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage development and growth and conservation of land and protection of endangered species, at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the Federal local partnership that we need to use to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the war on women's health and Planned Parenthood. To be clear, to end Federal funding for Planned Parenthood is to stop providing critical health care to millions of Americans, the majority of them who are poor and simply cannot afford services anywhere else. This effort will strip the poor and middle classes of their right to preventive healthcare. Through 800 nationwide locations, Planned Parenthood provides cancer screening, HIV and STD tests, contraceptives, education and empowerment. Planned Parenthood estimates it prevents over 620,000 unintended pregnancies and 220,000 abortions each year. Seventy-five percent of its clients are at or below the poverty line. Abortions account for just 3 percent of its overall activities. What House Republicans seem to have forgotten is that by existing law, taxpayer funding cannot be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger. A ban on Federal spending for abortions has been in place since 1976. That is 35 years this ban has been in place. Yet today House Republicans continue to try to strip Planned Parenthood of its Federal funding and continue to use this issue as a bargaining chip in a debate over the budget. But the vote the Senate will have to take is clearly not about the budget, it is a war on women's health. This effort would essentially turn back the clock on women's health. I said this last week, and I will say it again. This is simply an opportunity for the right wing in the House to really sock it to American women. Let's talk about the facts. Over 90 percent of care provided by Planned Parenthood is preventive. Planned Parenthood provides care to almost 3 million patients nationwide every year, many of whom have no other place to go. Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's total services are abortion services. And that 3 percent is not made up of Federal funds. Every year, Planned Parenthood provides affordable contraception for nearly 2.5 million patients, nearly 1 million cervical cancer screens, 830,000 breast exams, and 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including half a million HIV tests. These critical preventive services include annual exams, flu vaccines, smoking cessation, and well baby care. Planned Parenthood helped to prevent 612,000 unintended pregnancies in 2009 alone. Every dollar invested in helping women avoid unintended pregnancies saves $4 in public funds. And House Republicans want to eliminate Federal funding for this program? These cuts are biased, politically motivated, and hurts women-- particularly low-income women. Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood's clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. In California alone, Planned Parenthood serves over 750,000 patients, over 680,000 of them through federal funds. This program is necessary, effective, and oftentimes a last resort. Let me share a story from one woman from my home State of California. Mary couldn't afford annual visits to her regular OB/GYN office during college. So a friend suggested she visit Planned Parenthood for a free exam. Mary said, ``After some hesitation I went. Thank god that I did. During my visit they found that I had the first signs of cervical cancer. I was 19 and terrified. ``The staff at Planned Parenthood was so supportive and understanding. One doctor in particular was amazing, I wish I could find her and thank her personally. She went out of her way to call and check up on me once a week until I had recovered completely from the procedure that got rid of the cancerous cells.'' Six years later, Mary is still healthy and still so grateful for the excellent and compassionate care she received at Planned Parenthood. There are thousands of other stories like Mary's. I have heard from these young women who went to Planned Parenthood for STD screening and birth control, when they had no other place to go. I have heard from women pleading with me to preserve Federal funding to Planned Parenthood; telling me that the cancer screenings they received saved their lives. The House Republicans also want to defund the Affordable Care Act, and block critical consumer protections in the law. This too targets women. House Republicans want to go back to the days where women could be denied insurance coverage for the ``preexisting condition'' of being pregnant. They want to reinstate gender rating, where insurance companies charge women higher premiums simply because of gender. House Republicans want to remove maternity care as an essential health benefit. Currently only 12 percent of health plans in the individual market offer any maternity coverage. So you see, defunding Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act is not about reducing the deficit or balancing the budget. It is about harming women. We need to look carefully at our spending and we need to make cuts, but not at the expense of the women in our country. It is a shame that the budget debate has turned into an ideological war. It is a shame that funding for health care and family planning is considered ``government waste'' by some Republicans. When in reality, it is an ideological assault on women's health. I do not support any cuts that harm women and children. I urge my colleagues return to the issue at hand so we can seriously discuss the Federal deficit, absent an ideological agenda.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are considering the nomination of Judge John Kronstadt to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California here today. I had the privilege of recommending Judge Kronstadt's nomination to President Obama. Since 2002, he has served as a judge on the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. Judge Kronstadt first came to my attention through the Judicial Advisory Committee that I have set up in California. This is a bipartisan committee that reviews judicial candidates for me based on their legal acumen, reputation for skill and professionalism, breadth of personal experience, temperament, and overall commitment to excellence in the field of law. Judge Kronstadt stood out from among the candidates for the vacancy on this court because he has all of these qualities in spades. He has an outstanding academic record, with a bachelor of arts degree from Cornell University and a law degree from Yale Law School. He started his legal career on the very court to which he is now nominated, serving as a law clerk to Judge William Gray of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Kronstadt also brings a distinguished background in private practice. Prior to becoming a judge, he spent roughly two dozen years as a litigator trying complex civil cases before Federal courts, State courts, and administrative agencies. He started as an associate and then became a partner at the law firm of Arnold & Porter--first in Washington, DC, and then in Los Angeles. Between years with that firm, he also spent 15 years managing his own firm with three colleagues. That was the firm of Blanc, Williams, Johnston, & Kronstadt. On the Los Angeles County Superior Court, his docket consists primarily of civil cases, ranging from employment litigation to contract disputes to intellectual property and other commercial matters. He has overseen some 250 trials, as well as countless pretrial proceedings. He has amassed a stellar in his almost 9 years on the court: only one of his decisions has ever been reversed. Within the Los Angeles area, Judge Kronstadt is regarded as one of the finest judges on the bench. Fellow judges, litigants, and local lawyers describe him as ``incredibly smart,'' ``very fair,'' ``even-tempered,'' and a ``hard worker'' who ``cares an incredible amount about the jury system.'' He has been a leader on the bench, serving on the court's executive committee, and chairing its Community Outreach Committee, among other positions. Beyond his educational and professional qualifications, Judge Kronstadt has also shown an impressive dedication to education and the teaching of students throughout his career. Since 2002, he has spent roughly 1,500 hours as a volunteer with the Constitutional Rights Foundation, including serving as the foundation's president. This is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization in Los Angeles that seeks to ``educate young people to become active and responsible participants in our society'' and to teach them about ``the importance of civic participation in a democratic society.'' Judge Kronstadt developed a program for the Foundation known as ``Courtroom to Classroom.'' This program facilitates visits by judges to eighth and eleventh grade public school classrooms throughout the Los Angeles area. Judges who volunteer provide copies of the Constitution to the students and organize mock trial activities to allow them to experience constitutional law and the courtroom at a young age. And while in private practice, he developed a training program for the Los Angeles County Bar Association that reached over 1,000 new attorneys. I am very pleased to support Judge Kronstadt's nomination. He has shown a firm commitment to the rule of law, and a dedication to public service in a variety of ways. I believe he is eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his nomination last month, and he is much-needed on the central district bench--that court has been designated as a judicial emergency district by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. I thank the leader for bringing his nomination to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl. This bill requires that Indian tribes demonstrate both an aboriginal and a modern connection to the land before it can be used for gaming. The bill responds to growing concerns and frustrations about the number of ``off-reservation'' casinos proposals in California and across the nation. As of May 2010, the U.S. Department of Interior was considering 35 of these proposals. Eleven of them are in my home State. Casinos strain local governments, increase violent crime, and increase bankruptcies. Gambling regulations are poorly enforced, largely because deficit-plagued state governments have cut enforcement staff down to the bone. Even when enforcement officials are present, highly protective ``State Compacts,'' protect tribal casinos from true scrutiny and legitimate oversight. The fact is that some tribes have abused their unique right to operate casinos by taking land into trust miles away from their historical lands and miles away from where any tribal member resides. This is done to produce the most profitable casino, often with little regard to what is most beneficial to tribal members. This unbridled reservation shopping is occurring with little to no input from local governments or neighboring tribes. The result: 58 casinos in California; 11 more in the approval process; and a very real potential for an additional 50 casinos in the coming years. That is why I am introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act. This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off-reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions if they wish to game on lands acquired after the passage of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern connection to the land.'' Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal connection to the land.'' Simply put, tribes must demonstrate that both they and their ancestors have a connection to the land in question. In 2000, California voters thought they settled the question of casino gaming when they passed Proposition 1A. This proposition authorized the governor to negotiate gambling compacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for ``federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands.'' The words ``on Indian lands'' were key to Proposition 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote. But fast-forward 10 years and this agreement is being put to the test. In the last decade, the Department of the Interior has received dozens of gaming applications; some for casinos nowhere near a tribe's historic lands. Many of these requests have been granted and California has become ground zero for tribal casinos. We have 58 Las Vegas style casinos all across the State--from within miles of the Mexican border, to within miles of the Oregon border. The problem is only going to get worse. There are 67 tribes currently seeking Federal recognition in California who will have the ability to take ``initial lands'' into trust for gaming. This ``initial lands'' exemption gives landless tribes carte blanche when it comes to picking a spot for their casino--urban areas, environmentally sensitive areas, you name it! That is a real concern to me and my constituents. As of May 2010, there were 11 applications for off-reservation or restored lands casinos in California pending at the Department of the Interior. These include projects near San Francisco, Barstow, and Sacramento. It also includes applications for casinos in San Diego and Riverside Counties, where there are already 21 existing casinos. By seeking to open casinos in urban areas close to the greatest number of potential gamblers, instead of on historical lands, these tribes are ignoring the will of California voters and the intent of Congress when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Unfortunately, without a legislative fix such as the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act, Californians have no power to stop these tribes from opening unwanted casinos in their back yards. But voters are still trying to make their voices heard, rejecting the idea of reservation shopping. At one location, in Richmond, CA, a city of nearly 100,000 in the middle of the Bay Area--a tribe proposed taking land into trust to open a 4,000-slot-machine casino. Proponents tout it as a major economic engine for a depressed area. On November 2, Richmond voters made it clear how they feel: by a margin of 58 to 42 percent, voters overwhelmingly rejected the advisory Measure U on the Richmond casino and they elected two new city council members who strongly oppose the casino. It was an unambiguous rejection of this off-reservation gaming proposal. Some people have tried to tell me that this is just a California problem, and that we just need a California-solution. I am afraid this is not the case. The Department of the Interior is considering gaming applications for tribes in Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada, and Massachusetts just to name a few. I urge my colleagues to ask your constituents and your community leaders if they have were consulted about these proposals. Did they have any input? Were the needs of the cities, counties, and neighboring tribes considered? As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to support large casinos can be strong. But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public services and increased traffic congestion. Some Indian gaming proponents, often backed by rich out-of-state investors and gambling syndicates, would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming establishments are a sign of growth and economic development. In 2006 the California Research Bureau compiled research on the effects of casinos on communities, and they released a report entitled Gambling in the Golden State. The results were staggering. The development of new casinos is associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates. New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement expenditures of $15.34 per person. California already spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem-gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian casinos as their primary gambling preference. This report confirmed what many local elected officials and community activists already knew: casinos may create a few jobs, but they come with a tremendous cost. One reason for the high costs casinos is the woefully inadequate oversight at Indian gambling facilities. In California, gaming oversight officials are responsible for over twice as much economic activity per inspector compared to their counterparts in states with legalized commercial gambling. Using the most recent data available from 2006: California employed 180 gambling oversight officials to regulate $5.2 billion dollars in economic activity. This means the State only employed 1 official for every $28.9 million dollars of economic activity in the gambling industry. By comparison, the 11 States that had legalized commercial gambling averaged 1 oversight official per $12.1 million dollars of activity. Furthermore, closed-door gaming compacts limit what little power these investigators actually have. They cannot conduct unannounced visits, they have little discretion on what penalties to enact, and they cannot enforce their punishments when they are handed down. Quite simply, it is a broken system. I know that some may try to mischaracterize my legislation and say that I am trying to limit the sovereignty of Native American tribes or destroy their ability to undertake much needed economic development. But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately placed--on historical tribal lands--and there is no need to argue about the legitimacy of these establishments. My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl. This bill requires that Indian tribes demonstrate both an aboriginal and a modern connection to the land before it can be used for gaming. The bill responds to growing concerns and frustrations about the number of ``off-reservation'' casinos proposals in California and across the nation. As of May 2010, the U.S. Department of Interior was considering 35 of these proposals. Eleven of them are in my home State. Casinos strain local governments, increase violent crime, and increase bankruptcies. Gambling regulations are poorly enforced, largely because deficit-plagued state governments have cut enforcement staff down to the bone. Even when enforcement officials are present, highly protective ``State Compacts,'' protect tribal casinos from true scrutiny and legitimate oversight. The fact is that some tribes have abused their unique right to operate casinos by taking land into trust miles away from their historical lands and miles away from where any tribal member resides. This is done to produce the most profitable casino, often with little regard to what is most beneficial to tribal members. This unbridled reservation shopping is occurring with little to no input from local governments or neighboring tribes. The result: 58 casinos in California; 11 more in the approval process; and a very real potential for an additional 50 casinos in the coming years. That is why I am introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act. This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off-reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions if they wish to game on lands acquired after the passage of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern connection to the land.'' Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal connection to the land.'' Simply put, tribes must demonstrate that both they and their ancestors have a connection to the land in question. In 2000, California voters thought they settled the question of casino gaming when they passed Proposition 1A. This proposition authorized the governor to negotiate gambling compacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for ``federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands.'' The words ``on Indian lands'' were key to Proposition 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote. But fast-forward 10 years and this agreement is being put to the test. In the last decade, the Department of the Interior has received dozens of gaming applications; some for casinos nowhere near a tribe's historic lands. Many of these requests have been granted and California has become ground zero for tribal casinos. We have 58 Las Vegas style casinos all across the State--from within miles of the Mexican border, to within miles of the Oregon border. The problem is only going to get worse. There are 67 tribes currently seeking Federal recognition in California who will have the ability to take ``initial lands'' into trust for gaming. This ``initial lands'' exemption gives landless tribes carte blanche when it comes to picking a spot for their casino--urban areas, environmentally sensitive areas, you name it! That is a real concern to me and my constituents. As of May 2010, there were 11 applications for off-reservation or restored lands casinos in California pending at the Department of the Interior. These include projects near San Francisco, Barstow, and Sacramento. It also includes applications for casinos in San Diego and Riverside Counties, where there are already 21 existing casinos. By seeking to open casinos in urban areas close to the greatest number of potential gamblers, instead of on historical lands, these tribes are ignoring the will of California voters and the intent of Congress when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Unfortunately, without a legislative fix such as the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act, Californians have no power to stop these tribes from opening unwanted casinos in their back yards. But voters are still trying to make their voices heard, rejecting the idea of reservation shopping. At one location, in Richmond, CA, a city of nearly 100,000 in the middle of the Bay Area--a tribe proposed taking land into trust to open a 4,000-slot-machine casino. Proponents tout it as a major economic engine for a depressed area. On November 2, Richmond voters made it clear how they feel: by a margin of 58 to 42 percent, voters overwhelmingly rejected the advisory Measure U on the Richmond casino and they elected two new city council members who strongly oppose the casino. It was an unambiguous rejection of this off-reservation gaming proposal. Some people have tried to tell me that this is just a California problem, and that we just need a California-solution. I am afraid this is not the case. The Department of the Interior is considering gaming applications for tribes in Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada, and Massachusetts just to name a few. I urge my colleagues to ask your constituents and your community leaders if they have were consulted about these proposals. Did they have any input? Were the needs of the cities, counties, and neighboring tribes considered? As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to support large casinos can be strong. But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public services and increased traffic congestion. Some Indian gaming proponents, often backed by rich out-of-state investors and gambling syndicates, would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming establishments are a sign of growth and economic development. In 2006 the California Research Bureau compiled research on the effects of casinos on communities, and they released a report entitled Gambling in the Golden State. The results were staggering. The development of new casinos is associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates. New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement expenditures of $15.34 per person. California already spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem-gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian casinos as their primary gambling preference. This report confirmed what many local elected officials and community activists already knew: casinos may create a few jobs, but they come with a tremendous cost. One reason for the high costs casinos is the woefully inadequate oversight at Indian gambling facilities. In California, gaming oversight officials are responsible for over twice as much economic activity per inspector compared to their counterparts in states with legalized commercial gambling. Using the most recent data available from 2006: California employed 180 gambling oversight officials to regulate $5.2 billion dollars in economic activity. This means the State only employed 1 official for every $28.9 million dollars of economic activity in the gambling industry. By comparison, the 11 States that had legalized commercial gambling averaged 1 oversight official per $12.1 million dollars of activity. Furthermore, closed-door gaming compacts limit what little power these investigators actually have. They cannot conduct unannounced visits, they have little discretion on what penalties to enact, and they cannot enforce their punishments when they are handed down. Quite simply, it is a broken system. I know that some may try to mischaracterize my legislation and say that I am trying to limit the sovereignty of Native American tribes or destroy their ability to undertake much needed economic development. But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately placed--on historical tribal lands--and there is no need to argue about the legitimacy of these establishments. My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988. 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 call for a new effort to combat an often deadly form of cancer--by re-introducing the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act. I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry on this very important bill. This bill will renew and improve Federal government's efforts to combat lung cancer. It will: set a goal to reduce lung cancer mortality by 50 percent by 2020; establish a Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program, with comprehensive interagency coordination, to develop and implement a plan to meet this goal; improve disparity programs to ensure that the burdens of lung cancer on minority populations are addressed; create a computed tomography screening demonstration project based on recent science; and establish a Lung Cancer Advisory Board, which will provide an annual report to Congress on the progress of the Mortality Reduction Program. We have made great strides against many types of cancer in the last several decades. However, these gains are uneven. When the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971, lung cancer had a 5- year survival rate of only 12 percent. After decades of research efforts and scientific advances, this survival rate remains only 15 percent. In contrast, the 5 year survival rates of breast, prostate, and colon cancer have risen to 89, 99 and 65 percent respectively. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, accounting for 28 percent of all cancer deaths. Lung cancer causes more deaths annually than: colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer combined. A National Cancer Institute study in 2009 indicated that the value of life lost to lung cancer will exceed $433 billion annually by 2020. A four percent annual decline in mortality would reduce this amount by more than half. A lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating. The average life expectancy following a lung cancer diagnosis is only 9 months. This is because far too many patients are not diagnosed with lung cancer until it has progressed to the later stages. Lung cancer can be hard to diagnose, and symptoms may at first appear to be other illnesses, such as bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma. As a result, only 16 percent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed when their cancer is still localized, and is the most treatable. When I introduced this legislation in 2009, lung cancer lacked early detection technology, to find the cancer when it was most treatable. Now, however, preliminary results show a screening method with a demonstrated reduction in mortality for lung cancer. In 2010, the National Cancer Institute released initial results from the National Lung Screening Trial, a large-scale study of screening methods to detect lung cancers at earlier stages. The National Lung Screening Trial found a 20 percent reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with the computed tomography screening versus a traditional X-ray. This is the first time that researchers have seen evidence of a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a screening test. This is why this legislation also includes the creation of a computed tomography screening demonstration project, to assess public health needs of screening for lung cancer, and develop the most effective, safe, equitable, and efficient process to maximize the benefit of screening. Efforts to fight lung cancer lag behind other cancers, in part, due to stigma from smoking. Make no mistake, tobacco use causes the majority of lung cancer cases. Tobacco cessation is a critical component of reducing lung cancer mortality. Less smoking means less lung cancer. Period. But tobacco use does not fully explain lung cancer. Approximately 20 percent of lung cancer patients never smoked. Two-thirds of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer who have never smoked are women. 60 percent of lung cancer patients are former smokers who quit, often decades ago. These patients may have been exposed to second hand smoke, or they may have been exposed to radon, asbestos, chromium, or other chemicals. There could be other causes and associations that have not yet been discovered, genetic predispositions or other environmental exposures. The President's National Cancer Advisory Board Report of 2010 identified radon as the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking and listed 15 other environmental contaminants strongly associated with lung cancer. I believe that we have the expertise and technology to make serious progress against this deadly cancer, and to reach the goal of halving lung cancer mortality by 2020. We need this legislation to ensure that our government's resources are focused on this mission in the most efficient way possible. Agency efforts must be coordinated, and all sectors of the federal government that may have some ideas to lend should be participating. That is what the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program will accomplish. In this bill the Secretary of Health and Human Services is tasked to work in consultation with Secretaries and Directors from the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities. This means that each agency with an expertise on lungs, imaging, and cancer will be included in this long overdue process. We can do better for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to call for a new effort to combat an often deadly form of cancer--by re-introducing the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act. I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry on this very important bill. This bill will renew and improve Federal government's efforts to combat lung cancer. It will: set a goal to reduce lung cancer mortality by 50 percent by 2020; establish a Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program, with comprehensive interagency coordination, to develop and implement a plan to meet this goal; improve disparity programs to ensure that the burdens of lung cancer on minority populations are addressed; create a computed tomography screening demonstration project based on recent science; and establish a Lung Cancer Advisory Board, which will provide an annual report to Congress on the progress of the Mortality Reduction Program. We have made great strides against many types of cancer in the last several decades. However, these gains are uneven. When the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971, lung cancer had a 5- year survival rate of only 12 percent. After decades of research efforts and scientific advances, this survival rate remains only 15 percent. In contrast, the 5 year survival rates of breast, prostate, and colon cancer have risen to 89, 99 and 65 percent respectively. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, accounting for 28 percent of all cancer deaths. Lung cancer causes more deaths annually than: colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer combined. A National Cancer Institute study in 2009 indicated that the value of life lost to lung cancer will exceed $433 billion annually by 2020. A four percent annual decline in mortality would reduce this amount by more than half. A lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating. The average life expectancy following a lung cancer diagnosis is only 9 months. This is because far too many patients are not diagnosed with lung cancer until it has progressed to the later stages. Lung cancer can be hard to diagnose, and symptoms may at first appear to be other illnesses, such as bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma. As a result, only 16 percent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed when their cancer is still localized, and is the most treatable. When I introduced this legislation in 2009, lung cancer lacked early detection technology, to find the cancer when it was most treatable. Now, however, preliminary results show a screening method with a demonstrated reduction in mortality for lung cancer. In 2010, the National Cancer Institute released initial results from the National Lung Screening Trial, a large-scale study of screening methods to detect lung cancers at earlier stages. The National Lung Screening Trial found a 20 percent reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with the computed tomography screening versus a traditional X-ray. This is the first time that researchers have seen evidence of a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a screening test. This is why this legislation also includes the creation of a computed tomography screening demonstration project, to assess public health needs of screening for lung cancer, and develop the most effective, safe, equitable, and efficient process to maximize the benefit of screening. Efforts to fight lung cancer lag behind other cancers, in part, due to stigma from smoking. Make no mistake, tobacco use causes the majority of lung cancer cases. Tobacco cessation is a critical component of reducing lung cancer mortality. Less smoking means less lung cancer. Period. But tobacco use does not fully explain lung cancer. Approximately 20 percent of lung cancer patients never smoked. Two-thirds of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer who have never smoked are women. 60 percent of lung cancer patients are former smokers who quit, often decades ago. These patients may have been exposed to second hand smoke, or they may have been exposed to radon, asbestos, chromium, or other chemicals. There could be other causes and associations that have not yet been discovered, genetic predispositions or other environmental exposures. The President's National Cancer Advisory Board Report of 2010 identified radon as the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking and listed 15 other environmental contaminants strongly associated with lung cancer. I believe that we have the expertise and technology to make serious progress against this deadly cancer, and to reach the goal of halving lung cancer mortality by 2020. We need this legislation to ensure that our government's resources are focused on this mission in the most efficient way possible. Agency efforts must be coordinated, and all sectors of the federal government that may have some ideas to lend should be participating. That is what the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program will accomplish. In this bill the Secretary of Health and Human Services is tasked to work in consultation with Secretaries and Directors from the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities. This means that each agency with an expertise on lungs, imaging, and cancer will be included in this long overdue process. We can do better for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business. This afternoon, quite possibly, or another time, quite possibly, we will have very significant amendments that will strip EPA of its mandate to protect the American public from pollution which threatens our public health and welfare by inducing climate change. Specifically, I strongly oppose the McConnell amendment, which would be a complete stop-work order for the EPA to reduce carbon pollution. I also oppose Senator Stabenow's amendment number 265, which would strip California of its right to impose tailpipe emission standards beyond Federal standards. California has had the right to go beyond the Federal standards to protect its citizens from dangerous pollution since 1970. That is 40 years. I oppose Senator Rockefeller's proposal to prevent EPA from studying, developing, improving, or enforcing Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations for at least 2 years. I oppose these amendments because they would allow polluters to keep polluting, they would endanger public health and welfare, and they would increase our dependence on oil. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. As the lead author of the bipartisan Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, with Senator Snowe and Senator Ted Stevens, which passed this body by voice vote, I would like to explain why the McConnell amendment would undermine fuel economy and lead to less efficient vehicles in the United States. The amendment would legislatively prevent EPA from acting to reduce vehicle emissions that threaten our public health after 2016, and it would also strip California of its right to protect its own citizens from dangerous pollution. The prohibition would undermine the bill we sought to pass and did pass, and it was signed by President Bush; that is, 10 miles of increased fuel efficiency in 10 years. It directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to work cooperatively to increase fuel economy and decrease pollution. This was a big win. I began in 1993 with Senators Slade Gorton and Dick Bryan--no longer in the Senate; one from Washington and one from Nevada--and we sat right over there and tried to draft some language for a sense of the Senate--something as benign as a sense of the Senate--to begin to work on automobile fuel efficiency, and we could not get it passed. Then Senator Snowe and I got together on an SUV loophole closure bill. That went on for several years, and we could not get that passed. Then there was the ten-in-ten fuel efficiency bill, and, voila, we were able to get it passed. It is going well. Cars are more fuel efficient, and the corporate average fuel-efficiency standards are being established in a much more constructive way based on science. As a result of the law, the administration has put forward the most aggressive increases in vehicle efficiency since the 1970s, increasing fleetwide fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. The final rules will save about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 1 billion tons over the lives of the vehicles covered. It seems to me that is very good public policy. As a result, American consumers benefit. They will have more efficient vehicles, and they will pay less for gas. And those savings are considerable. This single program to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions under the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act and the Clean Air Act results in an aggressive policy to advance the goals of both laws. The regulations also demonstrate that strong Federal standards are the best means to ensure that California and other States are not legally obligated to enforce more aggressive standards to protect the health of their citizens--a right Californians have had since 1970. Bottom line: These harmonized standards demonstrate the success of ten-in-ten fuel economy. Despite the tremendous success of this first round of joint fuel economy and tailpipe regulations, the McConnell amendment would prevent the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and California from pursuing cooperative and coordinated standards again. Similarly, the Stabenow amendment number 265 would prevent California from participating in this process. This would halt an ongoing cooperative process to set a single set of cost-effective standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs from 2017 to 2025 which will increase fuel economy, which will reduce pollution, and which will save Americans billions of dollars. It is backward public policy. EPA and the Department of Transportation have already conducted the technical assessment which demonstrates the significant increases in fleetwide fuel economy--6 percent annually--which is both technically feasible and cost effective for consumers. They are working to complete a single set of standards in full cooperation with California. But the McConnell amendment and Senator Stabenow's amendment number 265 would stop this effort because the auto industry would prefer to sell gas guzzlers that continue our dependence on oil, and the amendments prevent waivers that have been a part of the Clean Air Act for decades, preventing leading States such as California from doing anything beyond the national standard. So it both handcuffs and cripples corporate average fuel efficiency. It stymies it. It stops it. California has 38 million people. We are our own pace setter. We want to work with the rest of the States to have a unified standard so that we are not our own economy, so to speak, with fuel efficiency. That is the right thing to do, and it is happening now. This would put an end to it. The amendments prevent waivers, as I said, that have been part of this act for decades. That means that never again, no matter what the situation is, can there be a waiver for greenhouse gas emissions. It would turn back the clock on historic efforts to improve the efficiency of the Nation's automobiles and slow any future effort to reduce pollution and improve fuel economy. Bottom line: A vote for this amendment is a vote to increase our susceptibility to oil market price spikes, let there be no doubt, a vote to increase how much Americans will spend at the pump for decades to come--it will be much more--and a vote to increase pollution that threatens our public health. Unfortunately, these amendments not only stop the vehicle rules, the McConnell amendment strips EPA of its authority to enforce the Clean Air Act with regard to pollutants that EPA scientists have conclusively determined endanger public health, an endangerment finding that the Supreme Court ordered EPA to make in the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA decision. The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendments similarly delay this action. Polluters would be able to continue to pollute, and the agency charged with protecting us from this pollution would be powerless to stop it or even limit it. Blocking the Clean Air Act and its lifesaving protections makes no sense. This act has had a long and successful track record of reducing pollution and protecting the health of our children and our families. Since its passage in 1970, the act has sharply reduced pollution from automobiles, industrial smokestacks, utility plants, and major sources of toxic chemicals and particulate matter. In its first 20 years, the act made real strides in reducing pollution, and that provided enormous benefits for public health. In 1990 alone, the act prevented 205,000 premature deaths, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of heart disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million child respiratory illnesses. The Clean Air Act continues to provide benefits for our children and our families. Emissions of six common pollutants have dropped 40 percent. In 2010, 1.7 million asthma attacks were prevented and 130,000 heart attacks and 86,000 emergency room visits. That is in 1 year alone, this past year. And it provides economic benefit to the United States. Thoroughly peer-reviewed studies have found that for every one dollar spent on clean air protections, we get $30 of benefits in return. In 2020 alone, the annual benefit of the Clean Air Act's rules is estimated to be nearly $2 trillion. Advocates for these amendments argue the United States cannot afford environmental protection. They continue to say we must poison our air and water in order to develop our country. I don't believe that. Pollution is a burden on our economy. It is not a force for good. Cost- effective reduction makes our Nation stronger, not weaker. We harm our economy when we ignore pollution. Time and time again, the people of California have demonstrated that we are unwilling to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy, because we choose both. And so should the United States. I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject these misguided amendments, whether they come up this afternoon at 4 o'clock or another time, that would let polluters off the hook, that would increase our dependence on oil, that would decrease the mileage efficiency of automobiles and light trucks and would harm the environment. I yield the floor and 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, I would like to recognize and honor the incredible life of Elizabeth Taylor, a true Hollywood movie star, a dedicated social activist, and a legendary figure in American history. Elizabeth Taylor was born on February 27, 1932, in Hampstead, London, England, to Americans Francis Lenn Taylor and Sara Viola Warmbrodt. In a career that spanned 70 years, Elizabeth Taylor remarkably appeared in over 50 films. However, it was her philanthropy and dedication to her fellow humankind that have earned my deepest gratitude. Many will remember Elizabeth Taylor for her film career, with overwhelming hits such as ``National Velvet,'' which catapulted her to stardom and solidified her as Hollywood's newest star. I personally recall this film as one of my childhood treasures, and it remains a classic to this day. Ms. Taylor was a pioneer for women, in film and in society. When she signed a $1 million contract for the film ``Cleopatra,'' it boldly declared her status to Hollywood and the world. She also expanded her body of work to include Broadway, where she debuted in the revival of Lillian Hellman's 1939 play ``The Little Foxes'' and returned in the revival of Noel Coward's 1930 comedy ``Private Lives.'' Though Elizabeth Taylor earned her household name through her accomplishments in the film industry, it was her charitable work to combat AIDS that was truly outstanding. Never one to shy away from opposition or controversy, Ms. Taylor wholeheartedly fundraised, supported, and raised awareness for AIDS. Her ability to mobilize a new audience was remarkable. In addition to fundraising and contributing millions of dollars to addressing AIDS, Ms. Taylor was a principal founder in the American Foundation for AIDS Research, amfAR, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation. Elizabeth Taylor received many accolades throughout her career, including her appointment as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her illustrious film career and humanitarian work. Ms. Taylor received two Academy Awards for best actress for her performances in ``Butterfield 8'' and ``Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.'' Later, she was inducted into the California Hall of Fame at the California Museum for History, Women, and the Arts, by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. While these honors are notable, it was Ms. Taylor's intangible qualities of perseverance, altruism, and grace that were even more remarkable. Beyond her film career and role as an activist, Elizabeth Taylor was an individual with an entrepreneurial spirit. She authored a self-help book, designed jewelry for The Elizabeth Collection by Piranesi, and created the popular perfumes ``Passion,'' ``White Diamonds,'' and ``Black Pearls.'' As a reflection of herself, Ms. Taylor's ventures always evoked a sense of class, eternal elegance, and beauty. Please join me in expressing the sympathies of this body to Elizabeth Taylor's family, including her children, Michael Howard and Christopher Edward Wilding, Elizabeth ``Liza'' Todd, and Maria Burton, 10 grandchildren, and 4 great-grandchildren. I have no doubt she will be so dearly missed by the many friends, family, and countless individuals whose lives she touched. On this day, we celebrate her, her life, her legacy, and her extraordinary contributions to our Nation and the world as a whole. Elizabeth Taylor will be remembered as a dazzling actress, a friend, a noble philanthropist, and as Hollywood's ultimate leading lady.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to reflect on the life and legacy of Geraldine Ferraro who lost her heroic battle with cancer on Saturday. Geraldine Ferraro was first elected to public office in 1978 to represent Queens in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, she pushed to improve mass transit around La Guardia Airport. Later, she would cosponsor the Economic Equity Act, which was intended to accomplish many of the aims of the never-ratified equal rights amendment. In 1984, former Vice President and a distinguished Member of this body, Walter Mondale, chose Gerry to join him as his Vice Presidential running mate, the first woman to be placed on a national ticket. I was privileged to serve as the mayor of San Francisco in 1984 where the Democratic Party held its convention that election year. Twenty-seven years later, as I look back on that time, I realize what an important and historical moment her selection was to American politics. I recall the emotion and enthusiasm of people--men and women--at the Moscone Center in San Francisco when Gerry took the podium. Sixty-four years after women won the right to vote, Geraldine Ferraro represented a new beginning for our politics. It was an amazing feeling. While the election didn't go the Democrats' way that year, Gerry's selection was a victory for a generation of young women who saw that anything is possible and no position in government has a ``men only'' sign on the door. As the first Vice Presidential nominee of a major party, she not only put a crack in the glass ceiling that year, she demonstrated the dedication and the competence of women in the political arena. I didn't know her well, but I do know her experiences well. I know how tough it was as a woman running for political office--only to find out everyone else was discussing the style of your outfit. I know how tough it was to be one of the first elected officials to speak using phrases like, ``As a mother,'' or ``If I were pregnant . . .'' I know how tough it was as a woman debating men in political debates and then when it was over, debating a dozen reporters. I know how tough it was as a woman who fought and won for change to live to see other women make a dozen other cracks in that glass ceiling. But the same ideals Geraldine Ferraro fought for during her public life are the same ideals we fight for today. It would be another 24 years after that night in San Francisco before another woman from a major party was nominated for Vice President. And even though Hillary Rodham Clinton came close to being nominated in 2008 as the Democratic Presidential candidate, a woman has yet to occupy the Oval Office. There are only 16 other women besides myself serving in the U.S. Senate. In the 435 Member House, just 71 are women. And just six States have women Governors. Despite these statistics today, Geraldine Ferraro's career and example gave women across the country hope and heart. At the time when Gerry Ferraro and I were in office, people had reservations about women in office. So the press pushed you further and further--just to see how smart you were or how you would react. When I was mayor, I had to do more homework than my counterparts; I had to be prepared for every possible question--more questions and detail than my counterparts. There was a judgment that women were not effective. But that judgment of effectiveness has changed. It took some time, but women in office have shown we are capable of offering legislation, working to pass it, and being just as effective as our male counterparts. Geraldine Ferraro gave it her all. She gave women everywhere an example of determination. She continued that drive when she supported other women in national office. And she will continue to give us all hope and heart for decades to come in her place in history.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This bill makes important changes that will increase availability and reduce cost of catastrophic insurance for homeowners in California and other earthquake-prone Sstates. The tragedy and devastation of the recent 9.0 earthquake in Japan was a real wakeup call for many of us. You see, the people of Japan are keenly aware of the risks of earthquakes. Every year, thousands of people participate in earthquake drills, and their building codes are the most advanced in the world. Japanese seismologists have the most sophisticated technology and monitoring systems. But all of this did little to protect them from an earthquake of this magnitude. The people of California and much of the West Coast face a similar risk. The United States Geological Survey predicts a 99.7 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike in California in the next 30 years. The agency also predicts a 46 percent chance that a magnitude 7.5 percent or higher earthquake will strike California in the next 30 years. The 2008 ShakeOut Scenario conducted by the US Geological Survey and FEMA modeled a 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andres Fault. Though that quake was only 1/10th the size of the recent event in Honshu, Japan, FEMA estimated that a 7.8 earthquake in Los Angeles would result in 2,000 deaths and an economic loss of $213.3 billion. The simple fact is that we cannot prevent earthquakes, so we must be prepared in the event one does occur. That is the only way we will be able to respond and recover quickly. That is why I am introducing the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This legislation allows non-profit state-run disaster insurance programs to receive federal guarantees if they need access to credit in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster. Access to credit is critical in the immediate aftermath of disasters because the market will likely be disrupted and private institutions will be reluctant to lend the large sums necessary to facilitate a quick and meaningful recovery. This Federal guarantee will be limited. The Secretary of Treasury must certify that recipients of each of the loan guarantee are able to repay debts within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, my legislation ensures that the cost of the program is born by state programs, not the federal taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that my bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer. But this legislation is about more than just access to credit--it will guarantee homeowners have access to affordable earthquake insurance coverage. This means homeowners will be able to quickly rebuild in the aftermath of an earthquake. This legislation is necessary because most homeowner insurance policies do not cover earthquakes. In California, for instance, most homeowner insurance policies cover fire damage but not damage caused by earthquakes. As a result, homeowners are often put in the position of either having to purchase expensive supplemental insurance or leaving their homes uninsured against these risks. In order to help promote coverage for these risks, many states and the Federal Government have set up supplemental insurance programs that offer this coverage at affordable rates. At the Federal level, the National Flood Insurance Program offers flood insurance to residents living in flood plains where private insurance is unavailable or too expensive. Similar State-level programs exist in California, Florida, Texas, and other states to help residents protect their homes against catastrophic disasters. In my state, The California Earthquake Authority, CEA, was set up after the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake to make earthquake insurance more affordable. Unfortunately, many of these programs are not fully utilized. The California Earthquake Authority insures 70 percent of homeowners who purchase earthquake insurance in my state, but only 770,000 homeowners in California opted to buy such insurance. That means only 12 percent of Californians will be covered up if an earthquake hits. The reason for such low use in that premiums and deductibles remain too high for the average consumer. A policy covering a $400,000 home and $60,000 of its contents costs an additional $1,105 per year, and that's on top of normal homeowners insurance. Even worse, with such high deductibles, policyholders must suffer near total collapse before they receive any payout. For most, this just isn't a good deal. The reason for high-cost, high-deductible policies is that the CEA is forced to spend nearly $200 million each year to purchase reinsurance. This ensures that in the event of a major catastrophe, the CEA will still be able to pay out all of its claims. It is good policy for the CEA to incur this expense, and I commend their responsible business practices. However, since 1994 the California Earthquake Authority has paid $2.5 billion in reinsurance premiums and only received back $250,000 in claims. It doesn't take a savvy businessman to see this isn't a good investment. But with minimal changes to federal law, the CEA and other state-run insurance programs can drastically reduce the need for expensive reinsurance and substantially decrease the cost of their products. The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act makes these changes, allowing programs like the California Earthquake Authority to access sufficient capital following a disaster. Let me be clear: this is not a bailout or a handout for states. The California Earthquake Authority is independent from the state and financially stable. This bill would increase insurance coverage in California and the rest of the country and help consumers deal with losses that will occur when the next major disaster strikes. Over the first 5 years this legislation is in effect, nearly half a billion dollars in reinsurance costs would be saved and passed along to consumers. The California Earthquake Authority could cut premiums by 30 percent or deductibles by 50 percent. This could result in at least 700,000 new California homeowners purchasing earthquake insurance. Following major disasters, the federal government spends millions of dollars, and often billions, cleaning up the mess. Katrina cost FEMA $7.2 billion. The Northridge earthquake cost FEMA $7 billion. Hurricane Andrew cost FEMA $1.8 billion. By enacting the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act and increasing the number of individuals with insurance, the cost of disaster recovery to the Federal Government could be substantially lower. This is because FEMA cannot make payments to individuals who have insurance coverage. Therefore, every family that purchases earthquake insurance as a result of this bill, is one less family that FEMA may have to support when disaster strikes. The bottom line is this: the next big earthquake is coming and we are not prepared for it. Families need to make sure they have earthquake preparedness plans, and homeowners need to evaluate the best ways to protect their homes. Structures need to be strengthened and all new buildings must be built to the highest standards. The Federal Government must also do its part, to help facilitate this preparedness. The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will make great strides to help our country prepare for a major earthquake, and it does so without burdening the federal taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt this critical piece of legislation and help us better prepare for tragedy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Kyl and I are introducing two bills that will assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration for State and local governments--the SCAAP Reauthorization Act and the SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011. We are joined by Senators McCain, Schumer, Boxer, and Hutchison. Immigration is a federal responsibility, as is securing the Nation's borders. When the Federal Government fails to prevent illegal immigration, as it has for some time now, it needs to take responsibility for the consequences of this failure. However, the burden of incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes in our country has fallen largely to the States, and it weighs heavily on them, especially during this time of economic uncertainty. Last year, the State of California spent an estimated $1 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens. Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, and was last reauthorized in 2006 as part of a Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. The SCAAP Reauthorization bill that I am introducing today will reauthorize the program for an additional four years, until fiscal year 2015. The second bill that we are introducing today is necessary to fix a switch in interpretation by the Justice Department. Prior to 2003, the Department of Justice interpreted the SCAAP statute to include reimbursement to States and localities for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of State and local offenses, and have been incarcerated for a minimum of 72 hours. However, in 2003, DOJ changed its interpretation, and began limiting reimbursement to the amount States and localities spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens for at least 4 consecutive days. Reimbursing States and localities only for the costs when a criminal alien is convicted and incarcerated for 4 consecutive days significantly undermines the goal of SCAAP that States and localities should not bear the burden of a broken Federal immigration system. The actual costs of this failed Federal system begin when these aliens are charged with a crime, transported, and incarcerated for any length of time. This narrow interpretation by the Justice Department is even more devastating because SCAAP is consistently under-funded. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for SCAAP represents a 59 percent reduction below the fiscal year 2010 level and is far short of meeting the actual reimbursement costs of most States. As a result, SCAAP only reimburses States for a fraction of the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. In 2009, Los Angeles County alone spent $116.6 million to house undocumented felons and received only $15.4 million in reimbursement payments. The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011 will fix this problem by making it clear that States can be reimbursed for the full costs of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors. When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of local services and law enforcement. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies. 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 to express my continuing concern about the current situation in Tibet. Before I do so, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a recent statement made by His Holiness the Dalai Lama on his political future. In his March 10 statement marking the 52nd anniversary of the Tibetan uprising, His Holiness announced his intention to propose amendments to the Charter for Tibetans in Exile, handing over his formal authority to an elected leader. Let me read a portion of his message to the Fourteenth Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies: The essence of a democratic system is, in short, the assumption of political responsibility by elected leaders for the popular good. In order for our process of democratization to be complete, the time has come for me to devolve my formal authority to such an elected leadership. I applaud His Holiness for this decision and I stand ready to do my part to help the Tibetan community in exile transition to a new political structure. I take great comfort in the knowledge that His Holiness will continue his role as spiritual leader to the Tibetan people and will work tirelessly to preserve the Tibetan culture both inside and outside of Tibet. I also support His Holiness' call for fact-finding delegations to Tibet, including representatives of international parliamentarians, to see for themselves the current situation on the ground. As His Holiness pointed out, similar delegations visited Tibet in the late 1970s and early 1980s and I strongly encourage China to allow them again. I believe such delegations could increase awareness about the challenges facing Tibetans and Tibetan culture and enhance dialogue and cooperation with China on finding mutually beneficial solutions. Indeed, as a friend of His Holiness and as a friend of all Tibetan people, I remain deeply concerned about the situation in Tibet. In 2008, a wave of violence swept across Tibet which was met with violence by the Chinese government. Reports out of Tibet continue to paint a picture of the suppression the Tibetan culture and people are confronted with. And despite nine rounds of talks between the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China and envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a comprehensive solution to the Tibetan issue remains out of reach. As a friend of China and the Dalai Lama, I am saddened to see the situation in Tibet further deteriorate. The Dalai Lama has been trying to engage the Chinese leadership for more than 50 years. In the 1990s, I carried three letters to President Jiang Zemin from the Dalai Lama requesting a face-to-face meeting. In my view, the Dalai Lama's concerns are driven by the fact that the Chinese Government continues to suppress the Tibetan way of life. Yet he has made it clear that he does not support independence for Tibet, but rather meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people within the People's Republic of China. This can only come about through meaningful dialogue and negotiation, not actions that would undermine Tibetan culture. As such, I urge the administration to support fact-finding delegations to Tibet and work with our friends and allies in the international community to call on the Chinese Government to begin a substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama on national reconciliation, respect for the Tibetan culture, and meaningful autonomy for Tibet. I have been blessed to call the Dalai Lama a friend for more than 30 years. I first met him during a trip to India and Nepal in the fall of 1978. During that trip I invited His Holiness to visit San Francisco--where I was mayor at the time--and he accepted. In September 1979, I was delighted to welcome the Dalai Lama to San Francisco to receive his first public recognition in the United States. During our many conversations, His Holiness often reiterates that, at its core, Buddhism espouses reaching out to help others, particularly the less fortunate. And it encourages us all to be more kind and compassionate. His teachings truly cross all religions, cultures, and ethnic lines. Over the decades, his principled beliefs have never wavered, yet his teachings have become more expansive. His message of peace and understanding has never been more relevant than it is today. In the midst of war and bloodshed, the Dalai Lama has been a champion for peace and nonviolence. In his quiet but undeniably firm manner, he challenges all of us to look beyond conflict and harmful rhetoric to seek positive change by embracing dialogue, cooperation, and negotiated solutions. In the face of hatred and intolerance, he has faith in love, compassion, and respect. He reminds people from all corners of the globe to move beyond our ethnic, religious, and racial divisions and embrace our common humanity. He encourages us to believe in something bigger than ourselves and work together for a better future. He sets a wonderful example for all of us, and I am proud to call him friend. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Dalai Lama in working toward a humanitarian solution to the problems plaguing Tibet and the Tibetan people.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This bill makes important changes that will increase availability and reduce cost of catastrophic insurance for homeowners in California and other earthquake-prone Sstates. The tragedy and devastation of the recent 9.0 earthquake in Japan was a real wakeup call for many of us. You see, the people of Japan are keenly aware of the risks of earthquakes. Every year, thousands of people participate in earthquake drills, and their building codes are the most advanced in the world. Japanese seismologists have the most sophisticated technology and monitoring systems. But all of this did little to protect them from an earthquake of this magnitude. The people of California and much of the West Coast face a similar risk. The United States Geological Survey predicts a 99.7 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike in California in the next 30 years. The agency also predicts a 46 percent chance that a magnitude 7.5 percent or higher earthquake will strike California in the next 30 years. The 2008 ShakeOut Scenario conducted by the US Geological Survey and FEMA modeled a 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andres Fault. Though that quake was only 1/10th the size of the recent event in Honshu, Japan, FEMA estimated that a 7.8 earthquake in Los Angeles would result in 2,000 deaths and an economic loss of $213.3 billion. The simple fact is that we cannot prevent earthquakes, so we must be prepared in the event one does occur. That is the only way we will be able to respond and recover quickly. That is why I am introducing the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This legislation allows non-profit state-run disaster insurance programs to receive federal guarantees if they need access to credit in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster. Access to credit is critical in the immediate aftermath of disasters because the market will likely be disrupted and private institutions will be reluctant to lend the large sums necessary to facilitate a quick and meaningful recovery. This Federal guarantee will be limited. The Secretary of Treasury must certify that recipients of each of the loan guarantee are able to repay debts within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, my legislation ensures that the cost of the program is born by state programs, not the federal taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that my bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer. But this legislation is about more than just access to credit--it will guarantee homeowners have access to affordable earthquake insurance coverage. This means homeowners will be able to quickly rebuild in the aftermath of an earthquake. This legislation is necessary because most homeowner insurance policies do not cover earthquakes. In California, for instance, most homeowner insurance policies cover fire damage but not damage caused by earthquakes. As a result, homeowners are often put in the position of either having to purchase expensive supplemental insurance or leaving their homes uninsured against these risks. In order to help promote coverage for these risks, many states and the Federal Government have set up supplemental insurance programs that offer this coverage at affordable rates. At the Federal level, the National Flood Insurance Program offers flood insurance to residents living in flood plains where private insurance is unavailable or too expensive. Similar State-level programs exist in California, Florida, Texas, and other states to help residents protect their homes against catastrophic disasters. In my state, The California Earthquake Authority, CEA, was set up after the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake to make earthquake insurance more affordable. Unfortunately, many of these programs are not fully utilized. The California Earthquake Authority insures 70 percent of homeowners who purchase earthquake insurance in my state, but only 770,000 homeowners in California opted to buy such insurance. That means only 12 percent of Californians will be covered up if an earthquake hits. The reason for such low use in that premiums and deductibles remain too high for the average consumer. A policy covering a $400,000 home and $60,000 of its contents costs an additional $1,105 per year, and that's on top of normal homeowners insurance. Even worse, with such high deductibles, policyholders must suffer near total collapse before they receive any payout. For most, this just isn't a good deal. The reason for high-cost, high-deductible policies is that the CEA is forced to spend nearly $200 million each year to purchase reinsurance. This ensures that in the event of a major catastrophe, the CEA will still be able to pay out all of its claims. It is good policy for the CEA to incur this expense, and I commend their responsible business practices. However, since 1994 the California Earthquake Authority has paid $2.5 billion in reinsurance premiums and only received back $250,000 in claims. It doesn't take a savvy businessman to see this isn't a good investment. But with minimal changes to federal law, the CEA and other state-run insurance programs can drastically reduce the need for expensive reinsurance and substantially decrease the cost of their products. The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act makes these changes, allowing programs like the California Earthquake Authority to access sufficient capital following a disaster. Let me be clear: this is not a bailout or a handout for states. The California Earthquake Authority is independent from the state and financially stable. This bill would increase insurance coverage in California and the rest of the country and help consumers deal with losses that will occur when the next major disaster strikes. Over the first 5 years this legislation is in effect, nearly half a billion dollars in reinsurance costs would be saved and passed along to consumers. The California Earthquake Authority could cut premiums by 30 percent or deductibles by 50 percent. This could result in at least 700,000 new California homeowners purchasing earthquake insurance. Following major disasters, the federal government spends millions of dollars, and often billions, cleaning up the mess. Katrina cost FEMA $7.2 billion. The Northridge earthquake cost FEMA $7 billion. Hurricane Andrew cost FEMA $1.8 billion. By enacting the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act and increasing the number of individuals with insurance, the cost of disaster recovery to the Federal Government could be substantially lower. This is because FEMA cannot make payments to individuals who have insurance coverage. Therefore, every family that purchases earthquake insurance as a result of this bill, is one less family that FEMA may have to support when disaster strikes. The bottom line is this: the next big earthquake is coming and we are not prepared for it. Families need to make sure they have earthquake preparedness plans, and homeowners need to evaluate the best ways to protect their homes. Structures need to be strengthened and all new buildings must be built to the highest standards. The Federal Government must also do its part, to help facilitate this preparedness. The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will make great strides to help our country prepare for a major earthquake, and it does so without burdening the federal taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt this critical piece of legislation and help us better prepare for tragedy.