Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today a bill to strike the law commonly known as DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. I want to thank my cosponsors--Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Kerry, Boxer, Coons, Wyden, Lautenberg, Blumenthal, Merkley, Durbin, Franken, Schumer, Murray, Whitehouse, Shaheen, Udall of Colorado, Inouye, and Akaka for working with me on this important bill. Today, there are between tens of thousands of legally married same- sex couples in the United States, and more than 18,000 in my State of California alone. These couples live their lives like all married people. They share financial expenses, they raise children together, and they care for each other in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, until death do they part. But here is the rub. Right now, because of DOMA, these couples cannot take advantage of federal protections available to every other married couple in this country. For example, because of DOMA, these couples cannot file joint Federal income taxes and claim certain deductions; receive spousal benefits under Social Security; take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act when a loved one falls seriously ill; obtain the protections of the estate tax when one spouse passes and wants to leave his or her possessions to another. This has a very real impact. Let me tell you, for example, the stories of a married couple in California. Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper of Tiburon, CA, have been in a committed relationship for more than two decades. In 2008, they were married in California before their family and friends. They have lived in the same house, shared expenses, and raised their son, Christopher, together. The Defense of Marriage Act, however, means that they cannot enjoy the simple conveniences of filing joint tax returns as a married couple or obtaining continuing health coverage under COBRA. They have also told me the story of re-entering the United States at the end of their honeymoon in 2008. They approached a customs agent together but were told that they could not go through the line as a family. When they said that they were legally married, a customs agent reportedly responded with a curt phrase to the effect of: ``Not to the United States you're not.'' Put simply, under DOMA, the Federal government does not treat people equally or fairly. Last year, a Federal District Court declared the law unconstitutional; the Obama Administration has concluded that the law violates fundamental constitutional guarantees of equal protection; and even former President Clinton, who signed the law in 1996, now supports its repeal. The Respect for Marriage Act would right DOMA's wrong. It would strike DOMA in its entirety. It would ensure that the Federal protections afforded to a married couple remain stable and predictable no matter where a couple lives, works, or travels. In my lifetime, I have seen the happiness, stability, and comfort that marriage brings. When two people love each other and decide to enter this solemn commitment, I believe that is a very positive thing. I urge my colleagues to support the Respect for Marriage Act to repeal DOMA and call on our Federal Government to honor the legal, valid marriages of all Americans.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2011. I want to thank Senator Hatch, as well as Senators Leahy, Graham, Reid, Lee, Inouye, Bingaman, Lieberman, and Kerry, for working with me as cosponsors of this important bill. The Federal Judicial Fairness Act is a straightforward bill that would ensure that Federal judges receive cost-of-living adjustments to their salaries on the same terms as other Federal civilian employees. Let me be clear from the outset: This bill would not provide a judicial pay raise. In fact, it would not even guarantee a cost-of- living adjustment for this year, the next year, or the next. Instead, it would simply guarantee that in years in which other Federal civilian employees receive cost-of-living adjustments to their salaries to account for inflation, Federal judges will as well. Under current law, two procedural requirements prevent this from happening. First, the ``linking'' of judicial and Congressional salaries means that judges cannot receive a cost-of-living adjustment unless Congress first votes to provide an adjustment for its own Members. Second, due to a 1981 provision known as ``Section 140,'' even if Congress votes to adjust its own Members' salaries, Congress must pass a second, special provision stating that judges should receive this adjustment as well. The Federal Judicial Fairness Act's would amend this pay structure and provide that Federal judges should receive adjustments on the same term as other Federal civilian employees. Why is this important? Article III of the United States Constitution requires that Federal judges shall ``receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.'' This is a constitutional guarantee, entitled to due respect. Serious concerns arise when, as is the current system, political pressures result in the real value of judicial salaries diminishing and declining over time. Justice Kennedy expressed it this way in his 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Please accept my respectful submission that, to keep good faith with our basic charter, you have the unilateral constitutional obligation to act when another branch of government needs your assistance for the proper performance of its duties. It is both necessary and proper, furthermore, that we as judges should, and indeed must, advise you if we find that a threat to the judiciary as an institution has become so serious and debilitating that urgent relief is necessary. In my view, the present Congressional compensation policy for judicial officers is one of these matters. Additionally, as members of the Senate, I believe we have a responsibility to make every effort to recruit and retain the very best for the Federal bench. Both recruitment and retention become far more difficult when we cannot assure candidates that the salary provided at the beginning of a life appointment will hold its value over time. This assurance is basic for other Federal employees and should be for our Federal judges as well. The Federal Judicial Fairness Act is a commonsense, good government bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2011. I want to thank Senator Hatch, as well as Senators Leahy, Graham, Reid, Lee, Inouye, Bingaman, Lieberman, and Kerry, for working with me as cosponsors of this important bill. The Federal Judicial Fairness Act is a straightforward bill that would ensure that Federal judges receive cost-of-living adjustments to their salaries on the same terms as other Federal civilian employees. Let me be clear from the outset: This bill would not provide a judicial pay raise. In fact, it would not even guarantee a cost-of- living adjustment for this year, the next year, or the next. Instead, it would simply guarantee that in years in which other Federal civilian employees receive cost-of-living adjustments to their salaries to account for inflation, Federal judges will as well. Under current law, two procedural requirements prevent this from happening. First, the ``linking'' of judicial and Congressional salaries means that judges cannot receive a cost-of-living adjustment unless Congress first votes to provide an adjustment for its own Members. Second, due to a 1981 provision known as ``Section 140,'' even if Congress votes to adjust its own Members' salaries, Congress must pass a second, special provision stating that judges should receive this adjustment as well. The Federal Judicial Fairness Act's would amend this pay structure and provide that Federal judges should receive adjustments on the same term as other Federal civilian employees. Why is this important? Article III of the United States Constitution requires that Federal judges shall ``receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.'' This is a constitutional guarantee, entitled to due respect. Serious concerns arise when, as is the current system, political pressures result in the real value of judicial salaries diminishing and declining over time. Justice Kennedy expressed it this way in his 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Please accept my respectful submission that, to keep good faith with our basic charter, you have the unilateral constitutional obligation to act when another branch of government needs your assistance for the proper performance of its duties. It is both necessary and proper, furthermore, that we as judges should, and indeed must, advise you if we find that a threat to the judiciary as an institution has become so serious and debilitating that urgent relief is necessary. In my view, the present Congressional compensation policy for judicial officers is one of these matters. Additionally, as members of the Senate, I believe we have a responsibility to make every effort to recruit and retain the very best for the Federal bench. Both recruitment and retention become far more difficult when we cannot assure candidates that the salary provided at the beginning of a life appointment will hold its value over time. This assurance is basic for other Federal employees and should be for our Federal judges as well. The Federal Judicial Fairness Act is a commonsense, good government bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have introduced legislation, with my colleague Senator Webb, to repeal corn ethanol subsidies and reduce ethanol tariffs. This legislation has two major provisions. First, it repeals the 45 cent per gallon corn ethanol blender subsidies--26 U.S.C. 6426(b) and 26 U.S.C. 40(h)--as of July 1, 2011, eliminating the corn ethanol subsidy six months early and saving approximately $3 billion for American taxpayers. The bill would not affect the credit for noncorn, second generation ``advanced biofuels'' through 2011. Second, the bill would lower the tariff on imported ethanol to the per gallon level of ethanol subsidies, to reestablish parity between the subsidy and the offsetting tariffs. This removes the real trade barrier on imported ethanol, but also prevents foreign producers from benefitting from U.S. subsidies. This legislation is necessary because the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports and the 45 cent-per-gallon corn ethanol subsidy are fiscally irresponsible and environmentally unwise. And their recent, 1-year extension in December 2010 made our country more dependent on foreign oil. Subsidizing blending ethanol into gasoline is fiscally indefensible. If the current subsidy were to exist through 2014 as the industry has proposed, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard already requires them to use under the Clean Air Act. We cannot afford to pay industry for following the law. According to this month's Government Accountability Office report on ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'': The ethanol tax credit and the renewable fuel standard can be duplicative in stimulating domestic production and use of ethanol, and can result in substantial loss of revenue to the Treasury. GAO found that the ethanol tax credit, which will cost about $5.7 billion in 2011, is largely unneeded to ensure demand for domestic ethanol production. The agency recommends that Congress reconsider the necessity of the tax credit, given the effectiveness of the renewable fuel standard, which is administered by EPA. This legislation would simply implement the GAO's recommendation by repealing this wasteful subsidy 6 months early. In addition, this legislation would address the tariffs on ethanol that make our country more dependent on foreign oil. The combined tariffs on ethanol are 11 to 15 cents per gallon higher than the ethanol subsidy it supposedly offsets, and this lack of parity puts imported ethanol at a competitive disadvantage against imported oil. This discourages imports of low carbon biofuel from Brazil, India, Australia, and other sugar producing countries, and it leads to more oil and gasoline imports from OPEC countries that enter the United States tariff-free. Reducing the ethanol tariff will diversify our fuel supply, replace oil imports from OPEC countries with low carbon biofuel from our allies, and expand our trade relationships with democratic states. The data overwhelmingly demonstrate that the costs of the current corn ethanol subsidy and tariff far outweigh the benefits. The Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University recently estimated that a 1-year extension of the ethanol subsidy and tariff would lead to only 427 additional direct domestic jobs at a cost of almost $6 billion, or roughly $14 million of taxpayer money per job. According to a July 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office, ethanol tax credits cost taxpayers $1.78 for each gallon of gasoline consumption reduced, and $750 for each metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduced. The ethanol subsidy and the ethanol tariffs also threaten our environment. They support and protect significantly more corn production in the Mississippi River watershed, which experts believe is a primary cause of a ``dead zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico. The current ethanol subsidy lacks any requirement that the subsidized fuel lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas pollution. And the tariff on ethanol imports also prevents greater use of imported ethanol made from sugarcane. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board agree that putting sugarcane ethanol in our current cars and trucks results in the least greenhouse gas pollution, of all widely available options. In contrast, the legislation I am introducing would--for the first time--limit subsidies only to ``advanced biofuels'' that reduce pollution at least 50 percent and are produced from noncorn biomass, such as cellulose, switchgrass, or algae. And it would level the playing field for low carbon biofuel imports, which must compete against dirty oil from OPEC. Historically our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: subsidize it, protect it from competition, or require its use. To my knowledge, corn ethanol is the only product receiving all three forms of support from the U.S. government at this time. By eliminating ethanol subsidies and trade barriers, this legislation would produce a smaller budget deficit; a healthier Gulf of Mexico ecosystem; less global warming pollution; and reduced dependence on imported oil. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance responsible energy tax policies that reduce pollution, create jobs, and improve our international relationships. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and their unique role in the creation of our National Park system. The Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco and being given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations. Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's first park rangers. In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers. Money procured under the act would be used to determine the feasibility of establishing a national historic trail along the route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers, scout for properties to add to the National Register of Historic Places, and develop educational initiatives and a public awareness campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers after the Civil War. Although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and 20 co-sponsors to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011. Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.'' They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor covering over a half mile radius. But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians. Before I discuss our legislation, I would like to share a few stories that show what these weapons can do. Several months after the end of the Iraq war, Ahmed, 12 years old from Kebala, Iraq, was walking with his 9-year-old brother and picked up what he thought was just a shiny object, but was, in fact, a cluster bomb. It exploded and Ahmed lost his right hand and three fingers off his left hand. He also lost an eye and suffered shrapnel wounds to his torso and head. A young shepherd, Akim, 13 years old, from Al-Radwaniya, Iraq, was playing on his parents' farm when it was hit by a cluster bomb attack. He suffered burns to his lower limbs and multiple fractures to his right leg. His wounds became infected and he developed pressure ulcers. In 2003, 30 years after the Vietnam war, Dan, 9 years old from Phalanexay, Laos, was injured when he picked up and played with a cluster bomb. It exploded. He suffered massive abdominal trauma, multiple shrapnel wounds, and a broken arm and leg. Waleed Thamer, 10 years old, is from Iraq. In 2003, he was wounded by a cluster bomb on his way to the local market. He lost his right hand and suffered shrapnel wounds to his eyes, neck, torso, and thighs. These stories are deeply distressing. But they show us why our legislation is necessary. Our legislation places commonsense restrictions on the use of cluster bombs. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than 1 percent; and unless the rules of engagement specify the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. Finally, our legislation includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than 1 percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so. If the President issues the waiver, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster bombs used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians. If our bill is enacted, it will have an immediate impact. Out of the 728.5 million cluster submunitions in the U.S. arsenal, only 30,900 have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than 1 percent dud rate. Those submunitions account for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. total. So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the 1 percent standard but our arsenal consists overwhelmingly of cluster bombs with high failure rates. Simply put, our bill will help save lives. As the above stories demonstrate, cluster bombs pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. Indeed, the human toll of these weapons has been terrible: In Laos, approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured by U.S. cluster munitions since the Vietnam war ended. In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18. An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991. In the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians. During the 2003 invasion of Baghdad, the last time the U.S. used cluster munitions, these weapons killed more civilians than any other type of U.S. weapon. The U.S. 3rd Infantry Division described cluster munitions as ``battlefield losers'' in Iraq, because they were often forced to advance through areas contaminated with unexploded duds. During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. cluster munitions caused more U.S. troop casualties than any single Iraqi weapon system, killing 22 U.S. servicemen. Yet we have seen significant progress in the effort to protect innocent civilians from these deadly weapons since we first introduced this legislation in the 110th Congress. In December 2008, 95 countries came together to sign the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster bombs and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within 8 years. This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan. It includes 33 countries that have produced and used cluster munitions. To date, 108 countries have signed the convention and 48 have ratified it. It formally came into force on August 1, 2010. In 2007, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a provision from our legislation contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibiting the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than 1 percent. Congress extended this ban as a part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010. These actions will help save lives. But much more work remains to be done and significant obstacles remain. For one, the United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty. The Pentagon continues to believe that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.'' It would prefer that the United States work within the Geneva-based Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, CCW, to negotiate limits on the use of cluster munitions. Yet these efforts have been going on since 2001 and it was the inability of the CCW to come to any meaningful agreement which prompted other countries, led by Norway, to pursue an alternative treaty through the Oslo process. A lack of U.S. leadership in this area has given cover to other major cluster munitions producing nations--China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Egypt--who have refused to sign the Oslo Convention as well. Recognizing the United States could not remain silent in the face of international efforts to restrict the use of cluster bombs, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June 2008 stating that after 2018, the use, sale and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited. The policy is a step in the right direction, but under the terms of this new policy, the Pentagon will still have the authority to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for the next 10 years. That is unacceptable and runs counter to our values. The administration should take another look at this policy. In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions. On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy. The administration should complete this review without delay. Let us not forget that the United States maintains an arsenal of an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions which have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent. What does that say about us, that we are still prepared to use, sell and transfer these weapons with well-known failure rates? The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist, that meet the 1 percent standard. Why do we need to wait 10 years? This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than 1 percent. Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' new policy essentially postpones any meaningful action for another 10 years. That means if we do nothing, by 2018 close to 20 years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians. We can do better. Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by 7 years. For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster bombs with failure rates of more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so. I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster bombs in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002. We introduce this legislation to make this moratorium permanent for the entire U.S. arsenal of cluster munitions. We introduce this legislation for children like Hassan Hammade. A 13-year-old Lebanese boy, Hassan lost four fingers and sustained injuries to his stomach and shoulder after he picked up an unexploded cluster bomb in front of an orange tree. He said: I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of metal. All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play on the main roads or in our homes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We should do whatever we can to protect more innocent children and other civilians from these dangerous weapons. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and their unique role in the creation of our National Park system. The Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco and being given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations. Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's first park rangers. In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers. Money procured under the act would be used to determine the feasibility of establishing a national historic trail along the route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers, scout for properties to add to the National Register of Historic Places, and develop educational initiatives and a public awareness campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers after the Civil War. Although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure. 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 with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and 20 co-sponsors to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011. Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.'' They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor covering over a half mile radius. But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians. Before I discuss our legislation, I would like to share a few stories that show what these weapons can do. Several months after the end of the Iraq war, Ahmed, 12 years old from Kebala, Iraq, was walking with his 9-year-old brother and picked up what he thought was just a shiny object, but was, in fact, a cluster bomb. It exploded and Ahmed lost his right hand and three fingers off his left hand. He also lost an eye and suffered shrapnel wounds to his torso and head. A young shepherd, Akim, 13 years old, from Al-Radwaniya, Iraq, was playing on his parents' farm when it was hit by a cluster bomb attack. He suffered burns to his lower limbs and multiple fractures to his right leg. His wounds became infected and he developed pressure ulcers. In 2003, 30 years after the Vietnam war, Dan, 9 years old from Phalanexay, Laos, was injured when he picked up and played with a cluster bomb. It exploded. He suffered massive abdominal trauma, multiple shrapnel wounds, and a broken arm and leg. Waleed Thamer, 10 years old, is from Iraq. In 2003, he was wounded by a cluster bomb on his way to the local market. He lost his right hand and suffered shrapnel wounds to his eyes, neck, torso, and thighs. These stories are deeply distressing. But they show us why our legislation is necessary. Our legislation places commonsense restrictions on the use of cluster bombs. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than 1 percent; and unless the rules of engagement specify the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. Finally, our legislation includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than 1 percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so. If the President issues the waiver, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster bombs used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians. If our bill is enacted, it will have an immediate impact. Out of the 728.5 million cluster submunitions in the U.S. arsenal, only 30,900 have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than 1 percent dud rate. Those submunitions account for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. total. So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the 1 percent standard but our arsenal consists overwhelmingly of cluster bombs with high failure rates. Simply put, our bill will help save lives. As the above stories demonstrate, cluster bombs pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. Indeed, the human toll of these weapons has been terrible: In Laos, approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured by U.S. cluster munitions since the Vietnam war ended. In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18. An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991. In the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians. During the 2003 invasion of Baghdad, the last time the U.S. used cluster munitions, these weapons killed more civilians than any other type of U.S. weapon. The U.S. 3rd Infantry Division described cluster munitions as ``battlefield losers'' in Iraq, because they were often forced to advance through areas contaminated with unexploded duds. During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. cluster munitions caused more U.S. troop casualties than any single Iraqi weapon system, killing 22 U.S. servicemen. Yet we have seen significant progress in the effort to protect innocent civilians from these deadly weapons since we first introduced this legislation in the 110th Congress. In December 2008, 95 countries came together to sign the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster bombs and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within 8 years. This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan. It includes 33 countries that have produced and used cluster munitions. To date, 108 countries have signed the convention and 48 have ratified it. It formally came into force on August 1, 2010. In 2007, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a provision from our legislation contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibiting the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than 1 percent. Congress extended this ban as a part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010. These actions will help save lives. But much more work remains to be done and significant obstacles remain. For one, the United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty. The Pentagon continues to believe that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.'' It would prefer that the United States work within the Geneva-based Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, CCW, to negotiate limits on the use of cluster munitions. Yet these efforts have been going on since 2001 and it was the inability of the CCW to come to any meaningful agreement which prompted other countries, led by Norway, to pursue an alternative treaty through the Oslo process. A lack of U.S. leadership in this area has given cover to other major cluster munitions producing nations--China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Egypt--who have refused to sign the Oslo Convention as well. Recognizing the United States could not remain silent in the face of international efforts to restrict the use of cluster bombs, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June 2008 stating that after 2018, the use, sale and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited. The policy is a step in the right direction, but under the terms of this new policy, the Pentagon will still have the authority to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for the next 10 years. That is unacceptable and runs counter to our values. The administration should take another look at this policy. In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions. On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy. The administration should complete this review without delay. Let us not forget that the United States maintains an arsenal of an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions which have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent. What does that say about us, that we are still prepared to use, sell and transfer these weapons with well-known failure rates? The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist, that meet the 1 percent standard. Why do we need to wait 10 years? This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than 1 percent. Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' new policy essentially postpones any meaningful action for another 10 years. That means if we do nothing, by 2018 close to 20 years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians. We can do better. Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by 7 years. For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster bombs with failure rates of more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so. I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster bombs in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002. We introduce this legislation to make this moratorium permanent for the entire U.S. arsenal of cluster munitions. We introduce this legislation for children like Hassan Hammade. A 13-year-old Lebanese boy, Hassan lost four fingers and sustained injuries to his stomach and shoulder after he picked up an unexploded cluster bomb in front of an orange tree. He said: I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of metal. All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play on the main roads or in our homes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We should do whatever we can to protect more innocent children and other civilians from these dangerous weapons. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as a Senator from California to speak about how damaging I believe the House continuing resolution would be for the people and economy of my State. I would first like to begin by expressing my approval that Congress is finally talking about controlling the deficit. I have been on the record for many years about our need to rein in spending, and we are finally moving in the right direction. I believe that government--in some ways--must adopt some of the discipline of a business. Businesses face tough choices about how to allocate resources. Businesses thrive when there is consistency and a commitment to planning for the future. These are things that have been lacking in our budget process of late. And that needs to change. The 2-week continuing resolution under which we are currently operating would not work for any business in California, and it does not work for the Federal Government. That being said, I must add this warning: we cannot balance the budget on the backs of California's families and businesses. And that, unfortunately, is precisely what the House-passed continuing resolution does. In short, H.R. 1 is budget-cutting by ideology. If our friends on the other side of the Capitol did not like a program, they cut it. Unfortunately, cutting by this sort of political bias left us with a bill that will slash hundreds of thousands of jobs--700,000 jobs by some economic estimates--and many of those in the private sector. Even worse for my home State of California, the programs that House Republicans chose to cut form the backbone of our job-creation strategy and the heart of many programs on which our working families rely. Public health and education programs will be especially hard hit. The budget for community health centers is cut by more than half. In California, these clinics serve 2.8 million patients every year--and for many, they are the only health care option available. These cuts would force clinics to fire 28,000 doctors and staff. Funding for Head Start is slashed by 14 percent, depriving 24,000 low-income children in California access to early childhood services. Thousands of teachers and staff will lose their jobs and parents will lose a reliable child care option. And the title X Family Planning Program is completely eliminated. For California, that means 1.2 million individuals lose health care, counseling and education services. And this ends the program that has been credited with preventing more than 400,000 abortions in 2008 more than 80,000 of those in California. H.R. 1 would also sacrifice tens of thousands of California jobs. We have the second-highest unemployment rate in the Nation, and this bill will send us in the wrong direction. Two key priorities for California are in the crosshairs: our clean energy sector and the modernization of our aging infrastructure. And both of these are proven job-creators. A vital Energy Department loan program will be lost, cutting $40 billion worth of investment. By ending this one program, California developers will be forced to halt 24 projects, killing 76,000 jobs. Funding for energy research and development will be slashed by $1.9 billion, meaning a loss of more than $200 million for California's laboratories and universities. That means a direct loss of 9,400 jobs and enduring damage to our leadership as a global innovator. Funding for a high-speed rail initiative will be eliminated, and $1 billion already sent to California will be rescinded. This would likely end California's hopes for a high-speed rail line, and in the process eliminate 20,000 future jobs. The bill also rescinds funding for nationally significant transportation infrastructure investments. For California, this ends six projects totaling $59 million, including a Los Angeles metro line and a rail project at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As the economy continues its fragile recovery, we simply cannot afford to make dramatic spending cuts driven purely by political ideology. Unfortunately, this is the approach employed by House Republicans. I support a different course in the Senate. I believe we must pair responsible, targeted spending cuts with smart investments that will support California and the Nation's economic recovery, preserve jobs and protect families. The Senate bill, introduced last week, takes a more pragmatic approach. Like the Republican plan, the Senate bill imposes significant spending cuts, but it does so through prudent action that will not jeopardize our Nation's economic recovery. The Senate bill cuts $51 billion from the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request, eliminates earmarks and advances additional spending cuts proposed by the President for fiscal year 2012. However, in contrast to the House bill, this legislation continues support for critical health, infrastructure, education, and energy investments, and provides necessary funding for essential services the American people depend upon every day. Yes, Mr. President, we need to rein in spending. But we can't do that if we use a political litmus test to pick and choose which programs to cut. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in opposition to these short-sighted and damaging budget cuts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to remove the encumbrances from land patents for a dam project that will never be built. This will enable the current owner of the land to sell or bequeath his land more easily. Donald Smith and his family acquired two parcels of undeveloped public land in Madera County, California by patent of the United States in 1983 and 1987. These parcels, comprising 103.26 acres and 41.323 acres, respectively, are adjacent to U.S. Forest Service land. In the early 1980s, the U.S. Government anticipated that a hydroelectric power project might someday be built in the vicinity, causing all or a portion of these lands to be inundated with water. Accordingly, when it issued the 1983 patent to Mr. Smith, the Bureau of Land Management included a ``flowage easement'', reserving the right of the government to flood the lands for a power dam. In the mid-1980s, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that this reservation and others like it were ``non-essential'', and that no dam would be built. Accordingly, no easement was included in the 1987 patent, although some believe it was erroneously omitted. Flowage easements constitute a cloud on the title to land, restricting its market value and the orderly disposition of his estate. Since FERC, and all potentially interested parties, including BLM, Southern California Edison and the U.S. Forest Service, have agreed that the easement in this instance serves no purpose, and no dam will be built, clear title should be restored. The Solicitor of the Department of the Interior has decided this requires an Act of Congress. Mr. Smith is now a senior citizen, and seeks to assure that his heirs will not be burdened by this matter and will benefit from the full fair market value of these now-verdant and recreational lands. Through enactment of this simple bill, the Congress will finally affirm a decision made by FERC in 1986, and restore ``clean'' title for benefit of Mr. Smith, his heirs and assigns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to remove the encumbrances from land patents for a dam project that will never be built. This will enable the current owner of the land to sell or bequeath his land more easily. Donald Smith and his family acquired two parcels of undeveloped public land in Madera County, California by patent of the United States in 1983 and 1987. These parcels, comprising 103.26 acres and 41.323 acres, respectively, are adjacent to U.S. Forest Service land. In the early 1980s, the U.S. Government anticipated that a hydroelectric power project might someday be built in the vicinity, causing all or a portion of these lands to be inundated with water. Accordingly, when it issued the 1983 patent to Mr. Smith, the Bureau of Land Management included a ``flowage easement'', reserving the right of the government to flood the lands for a power dam. In the mid-1980s, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that this reservation and others like it were ``non-essential'', and that no dam would be built. Accordingly, no easement was included in the 1987 patent, although some believe it was erroneously omitted. Flowage easements constitute a cloud on the title to land, restricting its market value and the orderly disposition of his estate. Since FERC, and all potentially interested parties, including BLM, Southern California Edison and the U.S. Forest Service, have agreed that the easement in this instance serves no purpose, and no dam will be built, clear title should be restored. The Solicitor of the Department of the Interior has decided this requires an Act of Congress. Mr. Smith is now a senior citizen, and seeks to assure that his heirs will not be burdened by this matter and will benefit from the full fair market value of these now-verdant and recreational lands. Through enactment of this simple bill, the Congress will finally affirm a decision made by FERC in 1986, and restore ``clean'' title for benefit of Mr. Smith, his heirs and assigns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2011. For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavoring and marketing their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate products, or flavoring or coloring them with the intent to sell them to minors. Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. The Santa Cruz Sentinel had an article earlier this month about someone who is planning to market sodas laced with THC, the psychoactive component in marijuana. Some of his planned sodas include orange-flavored ``Orange Krush'' and grape-flavored ``Grape Ape'' which actually was the name of a children's cartoon character! Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods of luring kids to try many dangerous drugs. For example, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California, that had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon and strawberry. Similarly, there have been many incidents involving methamphetamine. In a 2007 article entitled Flavored Meth Use on the Rise, USA Today stated that ``reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' The size and sophistication of some of these operations is particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and Oakland, California. Thousands of marijuana plants, and thousands of marijuana-related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way'' candy bars. Current law already provides an enhanced penalty if someone distributes drugs to a minor. Under this provision, the maximum sentence for the underlying distribution offense is doubled, and tripled if it is a repeat offense. Similarly, this bill would provide an enhanced penalty in those situations where drug dealers are altering controlled substances in ways that could make them more appealing to minors. Someone who is altering a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation would be subject to a penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone commits a second offense prohibited by the act, they would be face an additional penalty of up to 20 years. This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they don't. The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation in the last Congress, but it was not considered in the House. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2011. For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavoring and marketing their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate products, or flavoring or coloring them with the intent to sell them to minors. Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. The Santa Cruz Sentinel had an article earlier this month about someone who is planning to market sodas laced with THC, the psychoactive component in marijuana. Some of his planned sodas include orange-flavored ``Orange Krush'' and grape-flavored ``Grape Ape'' which actually was the name of a children's cartoon character! Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods of luring kids to try many dangerous drugs. For example, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California, that had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon and strawberry. Similarly, there have been many incidents involving methamphetamine. In a 2007 article entitled Flavored Meth Use on the Rise, USA Today stated that ``reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' The size and sophistication of some of these operations is particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and Oakland, California. Thousands of marijuana plants, and thousands of marijuana-related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way'' candy bars. Current law already provides an enhanced penalty if someone distributes drugs to a minor. Under this provision, the maximum sentence for the underlying distribution offense is doubled, and tripled if it is a repeat offense. Similarly, this bill would provide an enhanced penalty in those situations where drug dealers are altering controlled substances in ways that could make them more appealing to minors. Someone who is altering a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation would be subject to a penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone commits a second offense prohibited by the act, they would be face an additional penalty of up to 20 years. This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they don't. The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation in the last Congress, but it was not considered in the House. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the nomination of Magistrate Judge Tony Battaglia to be a Federal district judge in the Southern District of California. Judge Battaglia is a highly regarded jurist in the San Diego area. For more than 17 years, he has served as a magistrate judge. He has seen more than 20 cases to verdict or judgment, has managed both individual and large class action suits, and has presided over matters ranging from environmental claims to commercial contract disputes to criminal and civil rights cases. Outside of the courtroom, Judge Battaglia has generously given his time to train and educate other lawyers and judges by, for example, writing extensively in local bar journals and leading instructional workshops and seminars across the country. He has been appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to represent magistrate judges across the country on the Judicial Conference. He has served as president of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association. And he has been president of the San Diego County Judges Association. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Battaglia was an equally well regarded litigator--first with the law offices of John Marin, then as a sole practitioner, and finally as a partner in the firm of Battaglia, Fitzpatrick, & Battaglia. During almost two decades in private practice, he tried 23 cases to verdict and handled more than 125 arbitrations. His accolades as an attorney included serving as president of the San Diego Bar Association and president of the San Diego Trial Lawyers Association, as well as being named Outstanding Trial Lawyer by the San Diego Trial Lawyers Association. Judge Battaglia will bring to the district court a wealth of experience as an attorney, as well as a top-notch record as a judge. I commend Senator Boxer for recommending him for this position, and I am very pleased to support his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank and honor David Kris, who is leaving his position this week as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice, DOJ. Many of us in Congress--especially those of us on the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee who work closely with the administration on national security issues--are very sorry to see David Kris leave DOJ. As one of the Nation's leading experts on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, I will personally miss hearing from David, especially as the Congress moves to extend the sunsets on important provisions of FISA this spring. He testified with clarity and precision on issues of great complexity in all of his appearances before the Senate. I valued his insights. Congress created the position of Assistant Attorney General for National Security in 2006 to bring together the intelligence and the counterterrorism and counterespionage prosecution functions of the Department of Justice. Over the past 2 years, building on the professional, nonpolitical foundation established by his predecessors, Kenneth Wainstein and Patrick Rowan, David has managed the National Security Division in what has been, arguably, the most dangerous period since the September 11 attacks. Since David was sworn in at DOJ on March 25, 2009, terrorism investigations and prosecutions have been unfolding at an unprecedented scale and pace. Consider the following high profile counterterrorism arrests and prosecutions involving the National Security Division: the al-Qaida plot to bomb the New York subway system by Najibullah Zazi; the attempted bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad; the attempted bombing of flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; the arrest and prosecution of David Headley, an American who helped plot the Mumbai attacks; and the arrest and prosecution of Hosam Smadi who was sentenced to 24 years in prison last year for plotting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper. Under David's leadership, the National Security Division also played an important role in the investigation and prosecution of a number of significant espionage, export control enforcement, and leak cases. In the summer of 2010, David played a prominent role in the arrest and swap of illegal Russian agents. He directed the prosecutions of Cuban spies, illegal exports of fighter jet engines and parts to Iran, and assistance to China in designing stealth cruise missiles. During his tenure, the National Security Division joined the Criminal Division in prosecuting more leak cases than ever before. David Kris joined DOJ in March 2009 after being confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate. He had previously served in the Justice Department from 1992 to 2003 as an attorney in the Criminal Division and as Associate Deputy Attorney General. I know that prior experience at DOJ served David well because once he was sworn in, he went to work right away to develop partnerships with the Intelligence community, the National Security Council, and Congress. And I know David worked hard to ensure that the relevant agencies and entities were aware of the National Security Division's activities and that its activities were properly coordinated with the intelligence community and the Defense Department. It has been clear to us that David made it a priority to ensure that FBI national security investigations were conducted in accordance with the Constitution, statutes, and applicable guidelines. David also expanded the number of oversight attorney staff in his division and, as a result, the division's oversight section exceeded its annual goal for national security reviews for the first time in its history. I wish David Kris well in his future endeavors in the private sector. His replacement will have big shoes to fill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that our 3\1/2\ minutes be extended so that Senator Risch, who will speak next, has the time he requires, and I have the time for a few brief closing remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be very happy to--I was here yesterday. I did speak on the floor, Mr. Chairman. I did, in a rather lengthy speech, indicate the arguments. I have asked for just a short period of time. My remarks are no more than five pages, which should take me 1\1/2\ more minutes to conclude. I hope I would be offered that time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Fine. Then I would ask that my time on this side be extended for another 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her comments. We welcome her support. I was pleased to be able to listen to her comments. What is the current status of the time allocation?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President. I thank Senator Risch for his cosponsorship, and, of course, I agree exactly with his statement. At this time I wish to briefly summarize the arguments in favor of our amendment to strike the first-to-file provisions from this bill. This amendment is cosponsored, as I said, by Senator Risch, Majority Leader Reid, Senators Crapo, Boxer, Ensign, and I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Begich.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam President. Proponents of the first-to-file argue that the rest of the world follows this system and making this change will harmonize our system with theirs, and that is true. But under our first-to-invent system, our Nation has been by far the leader in the field of innovation, the leader in the field of new patents, new discoveries, new inventions. The other first-to-file countries have been playing catchup with our technological advances. I wouldn't trade our record of innovation for any of theirs, and I doubt many Members of this body disagree with me if they really think about it. Think about the history of innovation. What sets America apart is so many of our great inventions start out in small garages and labs, with driven, inspired people who have great ideas, develop them, and then they take off. I mentioned companies that have started this way yesterday, including Hewlett Packard, Apple, and Google, and there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of others. They started from humble beginnings, and they grew spectacularly, creating jobs for millions of Americans and lifting up our economy and standard of living. I know an inventor who invented Skyy vodka. The vodka he drank disturbed his stomach, so he figured out biologically and chemically what it was, and he invented a vodka called Skyy vodka--a small inventor. I think that company was subsequently sold for a great deal of money. But it started with one man who had a stomachache from drinking vodka. Now, this may be just one type of example, but Apple is certainly another example. It started in a garage many years ago in California, and out of that emerged this giant company. So these companies started from humble beginnings. They grew. This created jobs for millions of Americans. They lifted our economy and our standard of living. The National Small Business Association is a supporter of this amendment, and just last week other small business inventor groups have joined them in saying that first-to-file ``disrupts the unique American start-up ecosystem that has led to America's standing as the global innovation leader.'' First-to-invent has served our country well. Here are the main problems, as I see them, with the bill's first-to-file system: First, the grace period. It ``guts'' the current grace period, in the words of a letter from 108 startups and small businesses that protect inventors' rights to their inventions for 1 year from offering them for sale or making a public use of them, among other things, before they have to file a patent application with the Patent Office. So there is this 1- year grace period for them to get their act together. Now, under the present system, instead of preparing a costly patent filing, they can concentrate on developing their invention and obtaining necessary funding. The majority leader just circulated a statement to Members which speaks to this grace period. I wish to quote one part of that statement: The grace period comports with the reality of small entity financing through friends, family, possible patent licensees, and venture capitalists. The grace period allows small inventors to have conversations about their invention and to line up funding before going to the considerable expense of filing a patent application. The grace period allows them to not have to race to the Patent Office because they are afraid somebody else might have heard the conversation, might have stolen it from them, and moved on. Senator Reid goes on: In fact, in many ways, the one-year grace period helps improve patent quality--inventors find out which ideas can attract capital, and focus their efforts on those ideas, dropping along the way other ideas and inventions that don't attract similar interest and may not therefore be commercially meaningful. So this first-to-file essentially replaces this critical innovation- protecting provision with a more limited and murky grace period that only runs from the undefined term of ``disclosure.'' There is no discovery. Litigation is sure to ensue as courts interpret this term, creating uncertainty that I believe will chill investment in startups which in turn will damper innovation and job growth. Unfortunately, first-to-file incentivizes inventors to race to the Patent Office, to protect as many of their ideas as soon as possible, so that they are not beaten to the punch by a rival. Thus, first-to- file will likely result in significant overfiling of dead-end inventions, unnecessarily burdening both the Patent Office and especially small inventors. The third reason, difficulty of proving copying. The third major problem with this bill's system is the difficulty of proving that someone copied an invention. Currently, you as a first inventor can prove that you were first by presenting evidence that is in your control--this is under first-to-invent--your own records contemporaneously documenting the development of your invention. But under this bill, to prove that someone else's patent application came from you, was derived from you, you would have to submit documents showing this copying. Because there is no discovery, you wouldn't have those documents in your possession, so it makes proving your invention much more difficult. The bill doesn't provide for any discovery in these ``derivation proceedings.'' Therefore, the first inventor can't prove his or her claim because he or she does not have access to the documents of the alleged copier.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the devastating impact that H.R. 1, the House Republican continuing resolution, would have on women, children, and families nationwide. House Republicans would eliminate the $317 million title X Family Planning Program, which provides critical health care services to over 5 million Americans each year, including 1.2 million in California. House Republicans would also exclude Planned Parenthood, which serves over 2.9 million women annually, from Federal funds. These services provide necessary preventive health care including: contraceptive services, education, cancer screening, annual exams, STD and HIV testing, smoking cessation, flu vaccines, and well baby care. It is ironic for people who do not believe in abortion to propose these cuts, when in fact, through family planning, contraception, and education, title X programs prevented 406,000 abortions nationwide in 2008 alone; 83,600 of those were prevented in California. So by cutting these programs, the numbers of unplanned pregnancies and abortions will increase. How does this make sense? These cuts are not about deficit reduction. They are biased, politically motivated cuts that will result in increased Federal spending. These cuts hurt women. In California alone, these programs helped save $581 million in public funds in 2008. Nationwide, title-X supported family planning centers saved taxpayers $3.4 billion in 2008. Every dollar invested in helping women avoid unintended pregnancies is estimated to save taxpayers $4.02. Some might not think these programs are important, but I judge they are. In the past 3 weeks alone, I have received 28,000 letters urging me to oppose eliminating title X and Planned Parenthood. Over 153,000 Californians have signed a petition to express their opposition towards defunding Planned Parenthood. I have heard from uninsured college students, who only make $10,000 a year and cannot afford basic preventive care without title X and Planned Parenthood. I have heard from outraged constituents who point out title X family planning programs have been in place since 1970, and have provided cancer screening, annual exams, and prenatal care for millions of women. I have heard from young women who went to Planned Parenthood for STD screening and birth control, when they had no other place to go. Half of all pregnancies in the United States every year--about 3 million pregnancies--are unplanned. 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. I have heard from women all over my State, whose primary source of health care is a women's health center like Planned Parenthood. Eliminating this funding will also cause a rise in another epidemic: teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy costs taxpayers an estimated $9.1 billion annually. Without title X programs in California, teen pregnancy levels would have been almost 40 percent greater. House Republicans would also eliminate the $110 million Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which has the potential to serve 800,000 teens by 2014. In California, the estimated cost from teen pregnancy to taxpayers in 2004 was at least $896 million. From 1991-2004, unintended teen births in California cost taxpayers a total of $17.3 billion. California has managed, through programs like the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, to reduce the rate of teen birth in the State by 46 percent from 1991 to 2004. This saved California taxpayers an estimated $1.1 billion in 2004 alone. The House Republicans plan to slash funding all but guarantees the rate of teen pregnancy will go up, and costs for taxpayers will increase. Almost 9 in 10 adults believe there should be direct efforts in communities to prevent teen pregnancy. Once again, this is not about deficit reduction; it is about harming women's health, and taking away comprehensive education. House Republicans would also cut $1.3 billion from Community Health Centers, which is 45.8 percent below fiscal year 2010 levels. Community Health Centers serve over 20 million patients nationwide, who otherwise cannot receive care. Almost one-third of patients are women of childbearing age, 37 percent are age 19 and under, and 13 percent are children under 6. Ninety two percent of this patient population is low income, meaning they may not have anywhere else to go. With these cuts, 11 million patients are at risk of losing access to primary and preventive care provided by these health centers. In California, almost 458,000 patients would immediately lose access to care, and $31.8 million in funding would be immediately lost. By defunding the health reform law, House Republicans block critical consumer protections in the law. The health reform law will decrease costs for everyone, but particularly for women who have been charged more for insurance, simply because of gender. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men. Additionally, the medical loss ratio requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 or 85 percent of premium dollars on actual medical care, not on profits. With these and other benefits in the law, women make great strides towards equality in the insurance market. The House Republicans plan would allow women to be charged more for insurance than men, and prohibit enforcement of this medical loss ratio requirement. This would allow insurance companies to discriminate against women, charging more for health premiums simply because of gender, while companies continue to rake in enormous profits. The assault on women's health from Republicans in the House is astounding to me. Obliterating family planning services that have been around for 40 years, slashing teen pregnancy prevention, prohibiting funds for primary health services is nothing short of irresponsible. We need to look carefully at our spending and we need to make cuts, but those cuts can't be politically motivated and they shouldn't put us at risk of another recession. I do not support any biased cuts that harm women and children.