Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on January 25, I introduced S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. S. 149 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Today, I am reintroducing that legislation with a new, identical bill. This new bill, just as S. 149 would do, will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013. The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013. The sole purpose of reintroducing the measure is to begin the process under Senate rule XIV to place the reintroduced extension bill on the Senate calendar. The three provisions of FISA will sunset in a little more than 3 weeks. One of those weeks is a congressional recess. By placing the extension bill on the Senate calendar, we will, at least, be one procedural step closer to acting. On January 28, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote to urge Congress to grant a reauthorization of sufficient duration to provide intelligence and law enforcement agencies with reasonable certainty and predictability concerning the tools available to them. The FISA sunsets have most recently been the subject of two short- term extensions: a 2-month extension from December 31, 2009 to February 28, 2010, and then a 1-year extension from that date to February 28, 2011. In their January 28 letter, the DNI and the Attorney General expressed their concern about the devolution of FISA sunsets ``into a series of short-term extensions that increase the uncertainties borne by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in carrying out their missions.'' The letter states that ``S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, would avoid these difficulties by reauthorizing the three expiring provisions until December 2013, together with the provisions of Title VII of FISA that are currently scheduled to sunset next year. We look forward to working with you to ensure the prompt enactment of this or similar legislation.'' Yesterday, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees also received a classified report from the Attorney General and the DNI on the important intelligence collection made possible by authority that is subject to the approaching sunset. The Department of Justice and the Office of the DNI have asked for our assistance in making this classified report available, in a secure setting, directly and personally to any Member of the Senate. We did so for a similar report a year ago when Congress considered the last sunset extension. Each Senator is invited to read this classified report in the Intelligence Committee's offices in 211 Hart Senate Office Building. The Attorney General and DNI have offered to make Justice Department and intelligence community personnel available to meet with any Member who has questions. Our Intelligence Committee staff is also prepared to meet with Members. Vice Chairman Chambliss and I are sending a Dear Colleague letter to each Senator conveying this invitation. In concluding, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate and House to heed the Attorney General's and DNI's concern about the uncertainty created by short-term extensions. The 3-year extension that my legislation proposes will give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools and certainty they need in protecting the Nation. It will align the several sunsets so that Congress can review FISA more comprehensively in 2013. In setting that date Congress will wisely be separating that review of FISA from the debates of a presidential election. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2011, with my colleague and friend, Senator Barbara Boxer. This bill strengthens and expands legislation proposed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and it includes many provisions to improve pipeline safety and inspection that Senator Boxer and I proposed last year. In addition, the bill would also mandate that natural gas pipeline operators comply with recently issued urgent recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, which call on operators to create ``a traceable, verifiable and complete'' record of pipeline components in order to verify the ``maximum allowable operating pressure'' of every pipeline segment. NTSB issued these recommendations earlier this month because it discovered very serious problems with Pacific Gas and Electric's recordkeeping during its investigation of the tragic pipeline disaster in San Bruno, California. Pipes were mislabeled. One was labeled as a seamless 30-inch pipe. In fact, there is no such thing as a 30-inch seamless pipe. Pipes that large are manufactured with seams, according to experts. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressures of the pipeline at issue cannot be verified. NTSB's findings are deeply concerning to me. I believe that a utility sending explosive gas under neighborhoods must know what kind of pipe lies under that community. If it does not know what pipe is underground, how can it operate the pipeline at a safe pressure? How can it inspect for faulty seams and welds if inspectors do not know the pipe has welds in the first place? I am very distressed by NTSB's findings, and I call on all pipeline operators to verify their records, including Pacific Gas and Electric. The operators should do this on their own accord. In case they do not, this legislation will mandate it. On September 9th, at 6:11 p.m., a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California, just south of San Francisco, exploded, turning a quiet residential area into something resembling a war zone. The blast in the Crestmoor neighborhood shook the ground like an earthquake. The first reports suggested it was a plane crash, as the blast site was only two miles from San Francisco International Airport. But as the fire raged on it became clear that something was fueling it. Firefighters were powerless, as the water main in the area had been burst in the blast. CalFire helicopters were brought in. The inferno burned for 1 hour and 29 minutes before the gas to the 30-inch transmission pipe could be turned off at two different locations. One of the valves was 1 mile from the blast, and another was 1.5 miles away. They were both in secured locations. To shut each valve, a worker needed to drive through rush hour traffic, use a key to get into the area, and attach a handle to the valve to crank it. It took more than 5 hours to turn off the gas distribution pipelines to the homes on fire. The blaze damaged or destroyed 55 homes, injured 66, and killed eight people. It consumed 15 acres. The next day I called the National Transportation Safety Board Chair. Two days later, I visited San Bruno. I walked through the devastation with Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the NTSB. I saw homes and cars totally incinerated. It was like a bomb had struck. The sections of pipeline that exploded--now a key part of the investigation--appeared to have ripped apart along longitudinal and circular welds, now 55 years old. A gaping crater demonstrated the size of the initial blast. This crater was located at the low point in the valley, where the street and pipeline, that ran down the middle of the street, dipped and rose. This tragedy shows the heavy toll, in death and destruction, when high pressure natural gas pipelines fail. The risk is unacceptably high. To address this risk, I join with my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, to introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2011. The legislation: Doubles the number of Federal pipeline safety inspectors. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration currently has 100 pipeline inspectors, responsible for 217,306 miles of interstate pipeline. Each inspector is responsible for 2,173 miles of pipeline-- the distance from San Francisco to Chicago. NTSB has recently recommended that inspectors ``must establish an aggressive oversight program that thoroughly examines each operator's decision-making process.'' Doubling the number of inspectors will make this possible. Verifies Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure. The bill would mandate that pipeline operators comply with NTSB's urgent recommendation to verify the accuracy of each pipeline's Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure. Specifically, pipeline operators must establish ``a traceable, verifiable and complete'' record of pipeline components in order to verify the ``maximum allowable operating pressure,'' based on the weakest section of the pipeline. Pipelines with incomplete records must be pressure tested or replaced, and must operate at reduced pressure until testing is completed. Requires deployment of electronic valves capable of automatically shutting off the gas in a fire or other emergency. Manual operated valves must be located, accessed, and physically turn off in an emergency. Automatic valves could dramatically reduce damage caused by a pipeline breach. Mandates inspections by ``smart pigs,'' or the use of an inspection method certified by the Secretary of Transportation as equally effective at finding corrosion and weld defects. Accident statistics over the past decade identify corrosion as the leading cause of all reported pipeline accidents, and the NTSB has found substantial defects in weld of the pipes in San Bruno. Prohibits natural gas pipelines from operating at high pressure if they cannot be inspected using the most effective inspection technology. This precautionary approach to pipeline operations assures that pipelines more likely to have undetected problems are operated at lower risk. Prioritizes old pipelines in seismic areas for the highest level of safety oversight. Today, regulators consider a pipeline's proximity to homes and buildings. Other risk factors are not a defining consideration, even though pipe age and seismicity have a clear impact on the risk of a catastrophic incident. Directs the Department of Transportation to set standards for natural gas leak detection equipment and methods. Today there are no uniform national standards for how to detect leaks. Finally, the legislation adopts a number of common-sense provisions proposed by Secretary LaHood to improve pipeline safety, including increasing civil penalties for safety violations; expanding data collection to be included in the national pipeline mapping system; closing jurisdictional loopholes to assure greater oversight of unregulated pipelines; and requiring consideration of a firm's safety record when considering its request for regulatory waivers. Senator Boxer and I introduce this legislation in order to initiate quick action to make our pipeline system safer. We have put forward our best ideas to improve inspection, address old pipes, and advance modern safety technology. We hope to improve these ideas as new information comes forward about the San Bruno tragedy. For instance, just last week, the NTSB issued a new report, which concluded that the welded seams of the San Bruno pipe were imperfect. Microscopic and X-ray evidence turned up 27 defects on that longitudinal seam that fell short of current day standards, including too-shallow welds and both debris and gas bubbles trapped inside welds. For the welds running around the circumference of the pipe, investigators found 166 substandard defects. This pipeline's weld defects were not discovered during 55 years of inspections, even though the Federal Code of Regulations clearly requires utilities to look for such defects, 49 CFR 192.917. I hope the committee will take a serious look at how to develop an effective inspection regime to find and address flaws and weaknesses in pipeline welds. We look forward to working with the Senate Commerce Committee to move and improve this legislation expeditiously. 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 Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2011, with my colleague and friend, Senator Barbara Boxer. This bill strengthens and expands legislation proposed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and it includes many provisions to improve pipeline safety and inspection that Senator Boxer and I proposed last year. In addition, the bill would also mandate that natural gas pipeline operators comply with recently issued urgent recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, which call on operators to create ``a traceable, verifiable and complete'' record of pipeline components in order to verify the ``maximum allowable operating pressure'' of every pipeline segment. NTSB issued these recommendations earlier this month because it discovered very serious problems with Pacific Gas and Electric's recordkeeping during its investigation of the tragic pipeline disaster in San Bruno, California. Pipes were mislabeled. One was labeled as a seamless 30-inch pipe. In fact, there is no such thing as a 30-inch seamless pipe. Pipes that large are manufactured with seams, according to experts. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressures of the pipeline at issue cannot be verified. NTSB's findings are deeply concerning to me. I believe that a utility sending explosive gas under neighborhoods must know what kind of pipe lies under that community. If it does not know what pipe is underground, how can it operate the pipeline at a safe pressure? How can it inspect for faulty seams and welds if inspectors do not know the pipe has welds in the first place? I am very distressed by NTSB's findings, and I call on all pipeline operators to verify their records, including Pacific Gas and Electric. The operators should do this on their own accord. In case they do not, this legislation will mandate it. On September 9th, at 6:11 p.m., a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California, just south of San Francisco, exploded, turning a quiet residential area into something resembling a war zone. The blast in the Crestmoor neighborhood shook the ground like an earthquake. The first reports suggested it was a plane crash, as the blast site was only two miles from San Francisco International Airport. But as the fire raged on it became clear that something was fueling it. Firefighters were powerless, as the water main in the area had been burst in the blast. CalFire helicopters were brought in. The inferno burned for 1 hour and 29 minutes before the gas to the 30-inch transmission pipe could be turned off at two different locations. One of the valves was 1 mile from the blast, and another was 1.5 miles away. They were both in secured locations. To shut each valve, a worker needed to drive through rush hour traffic, use a key to get into the area, and attach a handle to the valve to crank it. It took more than 5 hours to turn off the gas distribution pipelines to the homes on fire. The blaze damaged or destroyed 55 homes, injured 66, and killed eight people. It consumed 15 acres. The next day I called the National Transportation Safety Board Chair. Two days later, I visited San Bruno. I walked through the devastation with Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the NTSB. I saw homes and cars totally incinerated. It was like a bomb had struck. The sections of pipeline that exploded--now a key part of the investigation--appeared to have ripped apart along longitudinal and circular welds, now 55 years old. A gaping crater demonstrated the size of the initial blast. This crater was located at the low point in the valley, where the street and pipeline, that ran down the middle of the street, dipped and rose. This tragedy shows the heavy toll, in death and destruction, when high pressure natural gas pipelines fail. The risk is unacceptably high. To address this risk, I join with my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, to introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2011. The legislation: Doubles the number of Federal pipeline safety inspectors. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration currently has 100 pipeline inspectors, responsible for 217,306 miles of interstate pipeline. Each inspector is responsible for 2,173 miles of pipeline-- the distance from San Francisco to Chicago. NTSB has recently recommended that inspectors ``must establish an aggressive oversight program that thoroughly examines each operator's decision-making process.'' Doubling the number of inspectors will make this possible. Verifies Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure. The bill would mandate that pipeline operators comply with NTSB's urgent recommendation to verify the accuracy of each pipeline's Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure. Specifically, pipeline operators must establish ``a traceable, verifiable and complete'' record of pipeline components in order to verify the ``maximum allowable operating pressure,'' based on the weakest section of the pipeline. Pipelines with incomplete records must be pressure tested or replaced, and must operate at reduced pressure until testing is completed. Requires deployment of electronic valves capable of automatically shutting off the gas in a fire or other emergency. Manual operated valves must be located, accessed, and physically turn off in an emergency. Automatic valves could dramatically reduce damage caused by a pipeline breach. Mandates inspections by ``smart pigs,'' or the use of an inspection method certified by the Secretary of Transportation as equally effective at finding corrosion and weld defects. Accident statistics over the past decade identify corrosion as the leading cause of all reported pipeline accidents, and the NTSB has found substantial defects in weld of the pipes in San Bruno. Prohibits natural gas pipelines from operating at high pressure if they cannot be inspected using the most effective inspection technology. This precautionary approach to pipeline operations assures that pipelines more likely to have undetected problems are operated at lower risk. Prioritizes old pipelines in seismic areas for the highest level of safety oversight. Today, regulators consider a pipeline's proximity to homes and buildings. Other risk factors are not a defining consideration, even though pipe age and seismicity have a clear impact on the risk of a catastrophic incident. Directs the Department of Transportation to set standards for natural gas leak detection equipment and methods. Today there are no uniform national standards for how to detect leaks. Finally, the legislation adopts a number of common-sense provisions proposed by Secretary LaHood to improve pipeline safety, including increasing civil penalties for safety violations; expanding data collection to be included in the national pipeline mapping system; closing jurisdictional loopholes to assure greater oversight of unregulated pipelines; and requiring consideration of a firm's safety record when considering its request for regulatory waivers. Senator Boxer and I introduce this legislation in order to initiate quick action to make our pipeline system safer. We have put forward our best ideas to improve inspection, address old pipes, and advance modern safety technology. We hope to improve these ideas as new information comes forward about the San Bruno tragedy. For instance, just last week, the NTSB issued a new report, which concluded that the welded seams of the San Bruno pipe were imperfect. Microscopic and X-ray evidence turned up 27 defects on that longitudinal seam that fell short of current day standards, including too-shallow welds and both debris and gas bubbles trapped inside welds. For the welds running around the circumference of the pipe, investigators found 166 substandard defects. This pipeline's weld defects were not discovered during 55 years of inspections, even though the Federal Code of Regulations clearly requires utilities to look for such defects, 49 CFR 192.917. I hope the committee will take a serious look at how to develop an effective inspection regime to find and address flaws and weaknesses in pipeline welds. We look forward to working with the Senate Commerce Committee to move and improve this legislation expeditiously. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the 5 Delta Counties to prepare this legislation and support their efforts to fully partner with the State, the Federal agencies, and other local governments to improve and care for the Delta. This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area. The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of federal, state, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history. It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it. In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does is impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure. Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States. The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries. These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the state. Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America. The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians, and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally. Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors. Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure. Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure. The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians. The Delta Protection Commission, established under state law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta. This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta. This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and; sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta. The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway. Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. This legislation will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013. The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013. I firmly believe that the United States Government needs these authorities to help prevent against future terrorist attacks against our nation and to collect vital intelligence insights into the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries. We remain a nation under threat and need to remain vigilant in our defense. Let me briefly describe the three expiring provisions. First, court-ordered roving authority is directed against foreign intelligence targets who attempt to thwart FISA surveillance by such actions as rapidly changing cell phones. In a September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice reported to Congress that this authority ``has proven an important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders.'' Second, lone wolf authority allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been identified. In the last Congress, when the Department of Justice advised that it had not yet been necessary for the Government to use this authority, the Department stated that it could foresee circumstances in which a terrorist target had not actually contacted a terrorist group or was known to have severed his association from a terrorist group. From the events of the last several years, we have all become aware that we may be attacked by a lone, unaffiliated terrorist--or one whose links to terrorist groups are only clear after an individual is apprehended. Third, the collection of business records pursuant to court orders. This provision allows the Government to require the production of ``tangible things'' in order to obtain foreign intelligence information as part of an investigation. In the September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice urged reauthorization of that authority because ``[t]he absence of such authority could force the FBI to sacrifice key intelligence opportunities.'' I cannot elaborate into the use of these authorities in this unclassified context. I can say, however, that as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as one who reviews the intelligence on the threats we face, we remain a nation under attack. Providing the authorities to collect intelligence to identify and prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland remains necessary. It is also important to allow Congress, in the future, to conduct a complete review of FISA provisions. By synchronizing the dates when different pieces of the law expire, Congress can consider changes to FISA at once, prior to the end of 2013. In closing, l would like to assure all Members of the Senate and the American public that extending these sunsets does not shield them from oversight. There is a system of review and oversight in place that consists of the FISA Court, Inspectors General in the Department of Justice and in the intelligence community, regular oversight reviews by the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, a new Director of Compliance at the National Security Agency, and reporting to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can assure colleagues that the Senate has placed, and will continue to place, oversight of the Government's surveillance authorities as a major priority. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011,'' a bill that would ban the chemical Bisphenol A, known as BPA, from all children's feeding products. I thank my cosponsors Senators Schumer, Kerry, Sanders, and Franken for their support. I vowed in the last Congress not to give up, and this is why I am introducing a bill that bans the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food containers: the products used to provide food and beverages to the most vulnerable. I have a deep, abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals in the daily lives of Americans. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which means that it interferes with the way hormones work in the body. The evidence against BPA is mounting, especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing. I believe we have an obligation to safeguard babies and children from unnecessary exposure to this chemical that is linked to so many health problems. Over 200 scientific studies show that even at low doses, BPA is linked to serious health problems including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Early puberty, Behavioral problems, Obesity. This chemical is so widespread it has been found in 93 percent of Americans. Babies and children are particularly at risk to the exposure of BPA because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic consequences. It may not surprise you that the chemical industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. According to at least one study, there is reason to be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies. In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA studies funded by industry. The difference is glaring. Ninety-two percent of the government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems. Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm. None of the industry funded studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure. Not one. Clearly, serious questions are raised about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. The results also illustrate why our nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research on their own products. The fact that so many adverse health effects are linked to this chemical, the fact that this chemical is so present in our bodies, and the fact that babies are more at risk from its harmful effects leads me to believe that there is no good reason to expose our children to BPA. This is why we are introducing legislation that protects all babies across the country, no matter which state they happen to live. This bill will ensure that parents no longer have to wonder whether products they buy for their babies and children will harm them now or later in life. This bill: Bans the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 6 months; Bans the use of BPA in baby food within 1 year; Bans the use of BPA in infant formula within 18 months; Requires that the FDA issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and Includes a savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation. This bill makes sense. It's a reasonable step forward to protecting our children's health. Major manufacturers are already phasing out BPA from their food and beverage products for children. Food and beverage products for children all have safe, alternative, BPA-free packaging available right now. Major baby food and formula manufacturers offer BPA-free alternatives including: Nestle's GOOD START, Similac powdered infant formula, Enfamil powdered infant formula, Nestle liquid formula, and Similac liquid formula. At least 14 manufacturers of baby bottles either offer some BPA-free alternatives or have completely banned its use. They are: Avent, Born Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medala, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy Cups, Playtex, Think Baby, and Weil Baby. Many major retailers have taken action and sell BPA-free baby bottles and cups: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods. Eight states have already enacted laws banning BPA from children's products: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Other countries have already moved forward to restrict this chemical. Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, and banned it from all baby bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France have national bans on BPA in certain children's products. The European Commission banned BPA from baby bottles, protecting consumers in the European Union. Clearly, the problem has been recognized and steps are being taken by countries, states, companies, and retailers to remove this harmful chemical. Let me briefly explain what BPA is. BPA is a synthetic estrogen. As I stated previously, it is a hormone disruptor and interferes with how hormones work in the body. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products to harden plastics, line tin cans, and make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets, grocery store receipts, and to make dental sealants. It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. And, as with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without us knowing whether it was safe or not. Alternatives exist because there is growing concern about the harmful effects of BPA. The chemical industry continues to try to quiet criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe. I don't buy it. As I previously stated, over 200 scientific studies show that exposure to BPA, particularly during prenatal development and early infancy, are linked to a wide range of adverse health effects in later life. Because of their smaller size and stage of development, babies and children are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of BPA. These serious effects include: increased risk of breast and prostate cancer; genital abnormalities in males; infertility in men; sexual dysfunction; early puberty in girls; metabolic disorders such as insulin resistant Type 2 diabetes and obesity; and behavioral problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD. It continues to astound me how, even with this extensive list of potentially serious health effects, we continue to allow this chemical to be put in our products. Moreover, additional science continues to be released, confirming the potential for BPA to cause severe problems: Recently, the University of California, San Francisco published a small scale study finding that human exposure to BPA may compromise the quality of a woman's eggs retrieved for in vitro fertilization, IVF. A study of over 200 Chinese factory workers found evidence that high levels of BPA exposure to adversely affect sperm quality in humans. Researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center recently published a study concluding that BPA has biochemical properties similar to human carcinogens. I want to underscore the importance and the urgency of withdrawing BPA from these children's products. Well-known and respected organizations and Federal agencies also have expressed concern about BPA: The President's Cancer Panel Annual Report released in April 2010 concluded that there is growing evidence of a link between BPA and several diseases, such as cancer. The Panel recommended using BPA-free containers to limit chemical exposure. A 2008 study by the American Medical Association suggested links between exposure to BPA and diabetes, heart disease and liver problems in humans. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) linked BPA in high concentrations to cardiovascular disease, and Type II diabetes. Given these conclusions, it is critical we act now to protect the most vulnerable, our infants and toddlers from this chemical. Children receive no benefit by having a baby bottle or cup coated with BPA. In the last Congress, I vowed not to give up in my fight to ban BPA. After working hard for many months to reach an agreement with Senator Enzi on a more limited ban, I was sincerely disappointed that this agreement was blocked by the chemical industry from being included in the food safety bill. I want to reiterate the importance of this legislation. I strongly believe we need to take action on this. I don't think we can take a chance with our children's health. BPA has been linked to developmental disorders, cancer, cardiovascular complications, and diabetes by credible scientific bodies. The evidence that BPA is unacceptably dangerous is mounting. Yet it remains in thousands of household and food products. This is a reasonable, common sense bill. Now, the time comes again for this body to take a stand and move forward to protect the health of America's children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my legislation, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, on March 23, 2010, the 111th Congress made great strides towards protecting consumers from egregious health insurance company practices. However, despite the passage of this historic legislation, the urgent need to protect Americans from unfair health insurance rate increases remains. Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards nationally at out-of-control rates--10, 20, 30 percent every year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits. Without further legislative action, health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people. Over the past decade, family health insurance premiums have more than doubled, growing a shocking 130 percent, while workers' hourly earnings rose by only 38 percent, and inflation rose just 29 percent. From 2000-2008, individuals in the employer-sponsored market saw premiums increase an average of 90 percent. The cost of health insurance continues to outpace income and inflation for other goods and services, and these rapidly escalating costs strain businesses, families, and individuals. In 2009, 57 percent of people attempting to purchase insurance in the individual market found it difficult or impossible to afford coverage. All the while, in the third quarter of 2010, the six-largest investor-owned health insurance companies (Aetna, Coventry Health, United Health, Humana, WellPoint, and Cigna) saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income, putting them on pace to break their own profit record. The problem is that the health reform law did not go far enough to control these unfair premium increases, it leaves a loophole. Simply stated, there is no federal authority to do anything about these rate increases, even if they are unfair. We need to close this loophole. This is why today I am introducing, with Senators Boxer and Inouye, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011. Representative Schakowsky is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation creates a federal fallback rate review process, and grants regulatory authority to block or modify rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. This legislation is a simple, common-sense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or use authority to block unfair rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so. On March 4, 2010, I introduced similar legislation to what I am introducing today. I worked with the Administration and the Finance Committee in putting it together, and with Representative Schakowsky. President Obama included it in his health reform proposal, but unfortunately, it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation. The time has come now to take action. This legislation is necessary in order to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of insurance companies, especially before the majority of the consumer protections included in health reform are fully in place in 2014. It is disturbing that year after year, health insurance premiums spiral out control, all while insurance companies enjoy increasing profits. Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, meaning that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education. This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers. Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem/Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians. It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate health insurance premium increases to hundreds of thousands of policyholders in California, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary. According to an independent analysis, the 25 percent average increase proposed by Anthem should have only been 15.2 percent. What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it. This is not a problem unique to California. In the spring of 2010, health insurance companies pursued rate hikes in a number of States: as much as 60 percent in Illinois; 72 percent in Georgia; 50 percent in New Jersey; and 40 percent in Virginia, to name a few. The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation, with substantial geographic variation. For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared to a 145 percent increase in Alaska. A report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that this summer, WellPoint pursued double digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available, but right now, comprehensive data on the premium increases insurers are imposing does not exist. In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., set a full-year profit record. These companies saw a 56 percent increase in profits from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Furthermore, when many Americans were experiencing double-digit premium increases in 2009, high unemployment, and an average wage growth of only 2 percent, insurance CEOs gave themselves a 167 percent raise. CEO pay for the 10 largest for-profit health insurance companies was $228.1 million in 2009, up from $85.5 million in 2008. This doesn't even include the tens of millions more dollars in exercised stock options, and means that these CEOs raked in nearly $1 billion in total compensation. In the first three months of 2010, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion--a 31 percent jump over the same period in 2009. Meanwhile, large insurance companies now insure 2.8 million fewer Americans than they did on December 31, 2008. An estimated 59.1 million Americans were uninsured in the first quarter of 2010. The California HealthCare Foundation reported that 6.8 million California residents lack health coverage. That is 20 percent of the State's residents who are not able to afford health insurance. All the while, insurance companies have been reducing the amount they spend on actual health care. As profits and CEO pay increased, the amount of money insurers spent on medical care went down. The top six insurers drove down the portion of premiums spent on medical care. For example, the share of premium dollars that CIGNA spent on medical care decreased 6.4 percent in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the prior year, and Humana's decreased 7.4 percent. Now, because of legislation in the health reform law, insurance companies have to spend 80-85 percent of premiums on medical care and quality improvement services, not on profits. This will go a long way to keeping insurance company greed in check, but we need to go farther. Clearly without additional legislative requirements, health insurance companies are not going to change. The Department of Health and Human Services recently published proposed rules defining the rate review process. These regulations are a first step towards protecting consumers and keeping insurers in check. But they fall short of creating a strong rate review system, and rely too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior. The regulations do not grant explicit regulatory authority--either State or Federal--to deny, modify, or block rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. The health reform law requires insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and post them on their Web sites. The regulations subject rate increases of 10 percent or greater to additional scrutiny and review, but the State-specific thresholds in 2012 could sanction increases higher than 10 percent. Transparency and increased scrutiny are steps forward, but there is still this loophole where there is no authority to block or modify even excessive, unjustified, and unfairly discriminatory increases. This is why I am again introducing my rate review legislation, which will grant this authority. I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them. In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5-percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase. In at least 17 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive prior approval for rate increases before they take effect. In these States, the Secretary would review potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rate increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase. Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect them. However, for the consumers in the other 17 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided. Given the variation in State rate review authority and process, I think this proposal strikes the right balance. There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I am introducing simply provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line. This legislation is particularly important given a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that many States lack the capacity and resources to conduct adequate rate review, regardless of the State's statutory authority to review rates. I strongly believe that we need to take action on this. The health reform law made great strides towards holding companies and shareholders accountable for providing health care at a reasonable rate. However, there is this loophole. So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many States have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair. There needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. In States where the Insurance Commissioner is not equipped to review, modify, and block unreasonable rates, my legislation would grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011, which will close this loophole. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. 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 California Desert Protection Act of 2011. This bill is an effort to plan for the competing uses--such as conservation, off-highway vehicle recreation, development, and military training--that are now being proposed for the desert. These uses of our public lands can coexist through comprehensive planning, but in the absence of such planning, it's quite possible that none will thrive. During the previous Congress I introduced similar legislation to help preserve pristine desert lands that were donated to the Federal Government for permanent conservation a decade ago, but that more recently have come under threat of development because of a flawed bureaucratic process that failed to protect them. Over the last year the bill was endorsed by more than 100 organizations and agencies, and it had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I am grateful to Senator Bingaman and his staff for working with me to prepare the bill for further action in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe we can revise the bill to address further the needs of renewable energy developers, the Department of Defense, off-road recreation enthusiasts, local government and others, and I look forward to continuing that effort in the new Congress. I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California Desert--and this legislation strikes a carefully conceived balance between these sometimes competing concerns. The key provisions of this bill would designate two new national monuments--the Mojave Trails and the Sand to Snow National Monuments; add adjacent lands to the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve; designate 5 new BLM wilderness areas and protect 4 important waterways--including the Amargosa River and Deep Creek--as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and enhance recreational opportunities in the desert and ensure that the training needs of the military are met. This bill is the product of painstaking discussions with key stakeholders including environmental groups, local and State government, off-highway recreation enthusiasts, hunters, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Department of Defense, wind and solar energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. I am grateful for all of their efforts. The previous version of my bill proposed specific improvements to the Department of the Interior's rules governing the development of renewable energy on public lands. I'm pleased that the Department has instituted a number of new policies over the last year which have greatly improved the process. Consequently, the current bill focuses primarily on conservation, recreation and other important uses of the California desert. However, I intend to work with my colleagues from the West on separate legislation to further expedite the development of wind and solar energy in California and the West. The California Desert Protection Act, which was enacted in 1994, was a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at conserving some of the most beautiful and ecologically significant lands in my home State. The law created Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, as well as 69 desert wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM. Collectively, it protected more than 7 million acres of desert lands, making it the largest land conservation bill in the lower 48 States in U.S. history. To this day, it remains one of my proudest accomplishments since joining this body. Much has changed since the passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Many of the impediments that prevented conservation of other pristine desert lands in the area no longer exist. For example the Department of Defense concerns with designating some wilderness areas near Fort Irwin have been resolved; many mining areas inside national parks and potential wilderness have closed; grazing allotments on both BLM and National Park Service land have been retired by willing sellers; hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned land have been donated to or acquired by the Federal Government. Yet even as these issues were resolved, new challenges have emerged. There are now competing demands over how best to manage hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the desert. Some believe the lands should be used for large-scale solar and wind facilities and transmission lines. Others would like to conserve critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. Some would like more acreage available for grazing or for off-road recreation. Finally, some would like to see additional lands made available for military training and base expansion. Two years ago, I learned that BLM had accepted applications to build vast solar and wind energy projects on former railroad lands previously owned by the Catellus Corporation. These lands had been donated to the Federal Government or acquired with taxpayer funds with the explicit goal of conservation. Approximately $45 million of private donations--including a $5 million land discount from Catellus Corporation--and $18 million in Federal Land and Water Conservation grants was spent to purchase these lands, with the intent of conserving them in perpetuity. As the sponsor of the legislative provisions that helped secure the deal to acquire the roughly 600,000 acres of former private land, I found the BLM's actions unacceptable. We have an obligation to honor our commitment to conserve these lands--and I believe we can still accomplish that goal while also fulfilling California's commitment to develop a clean energy portfolio. I believe the development of these new cleaner energy sources is vital to addressing climate change, yet we must be careful about selecting where these facilities are located. I plan to work with senators from Western States to improve the renewable energy permitting process to allow quicker development of renewable energy projects on private and disturbed public land. This effort likely requires separate legislation and improved regulation. I applaud the Department of the Interior's efforts over the last year to address this problem, especially Interior's proposed designation of 24 solar energy zones encompassing 677,000 acres of public land in 6 Western States. By designating these zones in appropriate areas and streamlining the permitting process for projects proposed there, the Department has helped ensure that sensitive areas of the desert can be preserved. As BLM finalizes the creation of these Zones and its new Solar Energy Program, I will push BLM to create a development zone in the West Mojave, conduct sufficient study of zones to ensure projects in these locations can be permitted quickly, and establish the program's rules as expeditiously as possible. I will continue to suggest ways that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can improve permitting on private lands, the Defense Department can welcome development on its bases, and the Forest Service can utilize its own lands. These matters may require legislation. There is enough land in California's desert to protect the most precious areas of the Mojave and aggressively develop renewable resources where permitting will be rapid. California must develop 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts of renewable power to meet its climate goals by 2020, and the current permitting process will need to vastly improve for the state to meet this goal. First, this bill will ensure that hundreds of thousands of acres of land donated to the federal government for conservation will be protected by creating the Mojave Trails National Monument. This new monument would cover approximately 941,000 acres of federal land, which includes approximately 266,000 acres of the former Catellus-owned railroad lands along historic Route 66. I visited the area and was amazed by the beauty of the massive valleys, pristine dry lakes, and rugged mountains. In addition to its iconic sweeping desert vistas and majestic mountain ranges, this area of the Eastern Mojave also contains critical wildlife corridors linking Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. It also encompasses hundreds of thousands of acres designated as areas of critical environmental concern, critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise, and ancient lava bed flows and craters. It is surrounded by more than a dozen BLM wilderness areas. The BLM would be given the authority to both conserve the monument lands, and also to maintain existing recreational uses, including hunting, vehicular travel on open roads and trails, camping, horseback riding and rockhounding. The bill also creates an advisory committee to help develop and oversee the implementation of the monument management plan. It would be comprised of representatives from local, state and federal government, conservation and recreation groups, and local Native American tribes. Before I go on to the other conservation provisions in the bill, I would like to address one important issue--and that is what should be done about some of the proposed renewable energy development projects proposed for lands included in this monument. Although it is true that the monument will prevent further consideration of some applications to develop solar and wind energy projects on former Catellus lands or adjoining lands in the monument, it is important to note that of the proposals in question, not a single one has been granted a permit, nor is a single one under review at the California Energy Commission or under formal NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, review at BLM. To ensure that creation of the monument does not unnecessarily harm the firms that worked in good faith and invested substantial time and resources to produce renewable energy in California, the legislation will offer these companies an opportunity to relocate their projects to federal renewable energy zones currently being developed by the Department of the Interior. Additionally, the monument would not prevent the construction or expansion of necessary transmission lines critical to linking renewable energy generation facilities with the electricity grid. Second, the bill would establish the ``Sand to Snow National Monument,'' encompassing 134,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley up to the top of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California. The boundaries of this second, smaller new monument would include two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service San Gorgonio Wilderness, the Wildlands Conservancy's Pipe's Canyon and Mission Creek Preserves, and additional public and private conservation lands, including two wildlife movement corridor areas connecting the Peninsular Ranges with the Transverse Ranges. This area is truly remarkable, and would arguably be the most environmentally diverse national monument in the country. It serves as the intersection of three converging ecological systems--the Mojave Desert, the Colorado Desert, and the San Bernardino mountains--and is one of the most important wildlife corridors in Southern California. This monument designation would protect 23.6 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and the habitat for approximately 240 species of migrating and breeding birds, the second highest density of nesting birds in the United States. It also serves as a home and a crucial migration corridor for animals traveling between Joshua Tree National Park, the oasis at Big Morongo, and the higher elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains. I'd like to make one additional point, and that is that despite its ecological significance, this area is not particularly well-known-- largely because it is managed by a number of distinct entities, including the BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service and private preserves and conservation agencies. So, the monument designation would help to attract more attention to one of California's natural gems. Third, the bill establishes new wilderness areas and allows more appropriate use of lands currently designated as Wilderness Study Areas. The 1994 California Desert Protection Act extended wilderness protection to many areas in the desert, yet several areas near Fort Irwin were designated as wilderness study areas in order to allow the base to expand. Now that Fort Irwin's expansion is complete, it is time to consider these areas for permanent wilderness designation. The bill protects approximately 250,000 acres of BLM land as wilderness in five areas. These areas contain some of the most pristine and rugged landscapes in the California desert. Beyond Fort Irwin, the bill also expands wilderness areas in Death Valley National Park, 90,000 acres, and the San Bernardino National Forest, 4,300 acres, inside the Sand to Snow National Monument created by this bill. The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes. Fourth, this bill would create the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area. The agreed-upon designation for this area in Imperial County, near the Colorado River, was reached after careful discussion with key stakeholders. Although the land possesses some wilderness characteristics, there are also competing interests. The Navy Seals currently use some of this area for occasional training. Additionally, many local residents enjoy touring the rolling hills in the area by jeep. Through the combined efforts of conservation groups, local residents and county government, and the Department of Defense, a compromise conservation designation was developed. For the land known as the Vinagre Wash, the bill will create a ``special management area'' covering 76,000 acres, including 12,000 acres of former railroad lands donated to the federal government. Of these, 49,000 acres are designated as potential wilderness and only become permanent wilderness if and when the Department of Defense determines these lands are no longer needed for Navy Seal training. This designation will permit the area to continue to be accessed by vehicles and be used for camping, hiking, mountain biking, sightseeing, and off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and protect tribal cultural assets in the area. Fifth, the bill adds to or designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 76 miles in length. These designations will ensure the rivers remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park. Sixth, the bill adds approximately 74,000 acres of adjacent lands to the three National Parks established by the 1994 California Desert Protection Act: 41,000 acres in Death Valley National Park. This includes former mining areas where the claims have been retired and a narrow strip of BLM land between National Park and Defense Department boundaries that has made BLM management difficult; almost 30,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve. This land was not included in the original Monument because of the former Viceroy gold mine. However, the mining operations ceased several years ago and the reclamation process is nearly complete. Additionally, a 2007 analysis by the Interior Department recommended that this area would be suitable to add to the Preserve; 2,900 acres in Joshua Tree National Park. This includes multiple small parcels of BLM land identified for disposal on its periphery. Transferring this land to the Park Service would help protect Joshua Tree by preserving these undeveloped areas that border residential communities. Seventh, the bill designates new lands as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas. One of the key goals I have strived for in this bill is to find balance to ensure that the many different needs and uses in the desert are accommodated with the least possible conflict. Some of the most frequent visitors to the desert are the off-highway recreation enthusiasts. In California alone, there are over 1 million registered off-highway vehicles, many of which can be found exploring thousands of miles of desert trails or BLM designated open areas. However, in order to meet military training needs, the Marine Corps is studying the potential expansion of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms into Johnson Valley, the largest OHV area in the country. I strongly support providing our troops with the best possible training, but if the Marines need to expand the base into Johnson Valley, this could have potentially resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of OHV recreation lands. In 2009 I met with Major General Eugene Payne, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics, and Brigadier General Melvin Spiese, Commanding General, Training and Education Command, to discuss this issue, and I am very grateful for their efforts to consider base expansion options that would preserve much of Johnson Valley for recreation. As the result of those meetings, the Marine Corps has committed to studying an alternative that would allow for a portion of Johnson Valley to be used exclusively for military training, another portion to be used exclusively for continued OHV recreation and a third area for joint use. While the environmental review process must first be completed, I am hopeful that this option will prevail for the benefit of the Marines and recreational users of Johnson Valley. The lesson learned from Johnson Valley is that, despite the vast size of the California desert, there are relatively few areas dedicated to OHV recreation, and even those areas face increasing competition from other types of uses. These areas are important not only to the hundreds of thousands visitors who enjoy them, but also to the local economy that depends on their tourist dollars. Additionally, by protecting these areas, we also protect conservation areas by providing appropriate places for OHV recreation. This bill will designate five existing OHV areas in the Mojave desert as permanent OHV areas, providing off-highway groups some certainty that these uses will be protected as much as conservation areas. Collectively, these areas could be as much as 314,000 acres, depending on what, if any, of Johnson Valley is ultimately needed by the Marines. This section of the bill also requires the Secretary of the Inerior to conduct a study to determine which, if any, lands adjacent to these recreation areas would be suitable for addition. This will help make up for some of the lost acres in Johnson Valley should the Marines decide to expand there. Finally, this bill includes other key provisions that address various challenges and opportunities in the California desert, including state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of state lands spread across the California desert in isolated 640 acre parcels. Because many of these acres are inside national parks, wilderness, the proposed monuments or conservation areas, they are largely unusable. The bill seeks to remedy that problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to complete the exchange of these lands for other BLM or GSA owned property in the next ten years. These land exchanges will help consolidate the state lands into larger, more usable areas that could potentially provide the state with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation or other commercial purposes. Military activities. The bill ensures the right of the Department of Defense to conduct low-level overflights over wilderness, national parks and national monuments. Climate change and wildlife corridors. The bill requires the Department of the Interior to study the impact of climate change on California desert species migration, incorporate the study's results and recommendations into land use management plans, and consider the study's findings when making decisions granting rights of way for projects on public lands. Tribal uses and interests. The bill requires the Secretary to ensure access for tribal cultural activities within national parks, monuments, wilderness and other areas designated within the bill. It also requires the Secretary to develop a cultural resources management plan to protect a sacred tribal trail along the Colorado River between southern Nevada and the California-Baja border. Prohibited uses of donated and acquired lands. In order to ensure that donated and acquired Catellus lands outside the Mojave Trails National Monument are maintained for conservation, the bill prohibits their use for development, mining, off-highway vehicle use, except designated routes, grazing, military training and other surface disturbing activities. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest, but comparable lands would have to be purchased and donated to the federal government as mitigation for lost acreage. All of these provisions, when taken together, would serve to complement the lasting conservation established by the California Desert Protection Act--while ensuring that other important local uses are maintained in appropriate areas. Though I have lived in or near San Francisco for most of my life, over the years I have come to truly appreciate California's sweeping desert landscapes. I remember my first visits to the desert years ago. It was treated like a waste dump. It was full of abandoned cars. Old appliances littered the landscape. But we have worked very hard to clean it up. We have worked to make sure that the vast vistas and pristine desert habitat are respected by humanity, and that we give to our children a healthier, more beautiful desert than we inherited. But if we are to remain successful in the long run, we must not only protect the desert land itself, we must also protect the broader environment from the ravages of climate change, and we must offer economic opportunity to those who live in these areas. That is the purpose of this legislation. There are many places in the California desert where development and employment are essential and appropriate. But there are also places that future generations will thank us for setting aside. I have worked painstakingly with stakeholders to ensure that this legislation balances sometimes competing needs. This bill, if enacted, will have a positive and enduring impact on the landscape of the Southern California desert by conserving pristine areas while meeting the needs of all desert stakeholders. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the 5 Delta Counties to prepare this legislation and support their efforts to fully partner with the State, the Federal agencies, and other local governments to improve and care for the Delta. This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area. The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of federal, state, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history. It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it. In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does is impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure. Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States. The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries. These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the state. Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America. The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians, and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally. Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors. Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure. Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure. The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians. The Delta Protection Commission, established under state law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta. This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta. This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and; sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta. The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway. Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011,'' a bill that would ban the chemical Bisphenol A, known as BPA, from all children's feeding products. I thank my cosponsors Senators Schumer, Kerry, Sanders, and Franken for their support. I vowed in the last Congress not to give up, and this is why I am introducing a bill that bans the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food containers: the products used to provide food and beverages to the most vulnerable. I have a deep, abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals in the daily lives of Americans. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which means that it interferes with the way hormones work in the body. The evidence against BPA is mounting, especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing. I believe we have an obligation to safeguard babies and children from unnecessary exposure to this chemical that is linked to so many health problems. Over 200 scientific studies show that even at low doses, BPA is linked to serious health problems including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Early puberty, Behavioral problems, Obesity. This chemical is so widespread it has been found in 93 percent of Americans. Babies and children are particularly at risk to the exposure of BPA because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic consequences. It may not surprise you that the chemical industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. According to at least one study, there is reason to be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies. In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA studies funded by industry. The difference is glaring. Ninety-two percent of the government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems. Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm. None of the industry funded studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure. Not one. Clearly, serious questions are raised about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. The results also illustrate why our nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research on their own products. The fact that so many adverse health effects are linked to this chemical, the fact that this chemical is so present in our bodies, and the fact that babies are more at risk from its harmful effects leads me to believe that there is no good reason to expose our children to BPA. This is why we are introducing legislation that protects all babies across the country, no matter which state they happen to live. This bill will ensure that parents no longer have to wonder whether products they buy for their babies and children will harm them now or later in life. This bill: Bans the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 6 months; Bans the use of BPA in baby food within 1 year; Bans the use of BPA in infant formula within 18 months; Requires that the FDA issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and Includes a savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation. This bill makes sense. It's a reasonable step forward to protecting our children's health. Major manufacturers are already phasing out BPA from their food and beverage products for children. Food and beverage products for children all have safe, alternative, BPA-free packaging available right now. Major baby food and formula manufacturers offer BPA-free alternatives including: Nestle's GOOD START, Similac powdered infant formula, Enfamil powdered infant formula, Nestle liquid formula, and Similac liquid formula. At least 14 manufacturers of baby bottles either offer some BPA-free alternatives or have completely banned its use. They are: Avent, Born Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medala, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy Cups, Playtex, Think Baby, and Weil Baby. Many major retailers have taken action and sell BPA-free baby bottles and cups: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods. Eight states have already enacted laws banning BPA from children's products: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Other countries have already moved forward to restrict this chemical. Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, and banned it from all baby bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France have national bans on BPA in certain children's products. The European Commission banned BPA from baby bottles, protecting consumers in the European Union. Clearly, the problem has been recognized and steps are being taken by countries, states, companies, and retailers to remove this harmful chemical. Let me briefly explain what BPA is. BPA is a synthetic estrogen. As I stated previously, it is a hormone disruptor and interferes with how hormones work in the body. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products to harden plastics, line tin cans, and make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets, grocery store receipts, and to make dental sealants. It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. And, as with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without us knowing whether it was safe or not. Alternatives exist because there is growing concern about the harmful effects of BPA. The chemical industry continues to try to quiet criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe. I don't buy it. As I previously stated, over 200 scientific studies show that exposure to BPA, particularly during prenatal development and early infancy, are linked to a wide range of adverse health effects in later life. Because of their smaller size and stage of development, babies and children are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of BPA. These serious effects include: increased risk of breast and prostate cancer; genital abnormalities in males; infertility in men; sexual dysfunction; early puberty in girls; metabolic disorders such as insulin resistant Type 2 diabetes and obesity; and behavioral problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD. It continues to astound me how, even with this extensive list of potentially serious health effects, we continue to allow this chemical to be put in our products. Moreover, additional science continues to be released, confirming the potential for BPA to cause severe problems: Recently, the University of California, San Francisco published a small scale study finding that human exposure to BPA may compromise the quality of a woman's eggs retrieved for in vitro fertilization, IVF. A study of over 200 Chinese factory workers found evidence that high levels of BPA exposure to adversely affect sperm quality in humans. Researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center recently published a study concluding that BPA has biochemical properties similar to human carcinogens. I want to underscore the importance and the urgency of withdrawing BPA from these children's products. Well-known and respected organizations and Federal agencies also have expressed concern about BPA: The President's Cancer Panel Annual Report released in April 2010 concluded that there is growing evidence of a link between BPA and several diseases, such as cancer. The Panel recommended using BPA-free containers to limit chemical exposure. A 2008 study by the American Medical Association suggested links between exposure to BPA and diabetes, heart disease and liver problems in humans. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) linked BPA in high concentrations to cardiovascular disease, and Type II diabetes. Given these conclusions, it is critical we act now to protect the most vulnerable, our infants and toddlers from this chemical. Children receive no benefit by having a baby bottle or cup coated with BPA. In the last Congress, I vowed not to give up in my fight to ban BPA. After working hard for many months to reach an agreement with Senator Enzi on a more limited ban, I was sincerely disappointed that this agreement was blocked by the chemical industry from being included in the food safety bill. I want to reiterate the importance of this legislation. I strongly believe we need to take action on this. I don't think we can take a chance with our children's health. BPA has been linked to developmental disorders, cancer, cardiovascular complications, and diabetes by credible scientific bodies. The evidence that BPA is unacceptably dangerous is mounting. Yet it remains in thousands of household and food products. This is a reasonable, common sense bill. Now, the time comes again for this body to take a stand and move forward to protect the health of America's children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my legislation, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. This legislation will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013. The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013. I firmly believe that the United States Government needs these authorities to help prevent against future terrorist attacks against our nation and to collect vital intelligence insights into the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries. We remain a nation under threat and need to remain vigilant in our defense. Let me briefly describe the three expiring provisions. First, court-ordered roving authority is directed against foreign intelligence targets who attempt to thwart FISA surveillance by such actions as rapidly changing cell phones. In a September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice reported to Congress that this authority ``has proven an important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders.'' Second, lone wolf authority allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been identified. In the last Congress, when the Department of Justice advised that it had not yet been necessary for the Government to use this authority, the Department stated that it could foresee circumstances in which a terrorist target had not actually contacted a terrorist group or was known to have severed his association from a terrorist group. From the events of the last several years, we have all become aware that we may be attacked by a lone, unaffiliated terrorist--or one whose links to terrorist groups are only clear after an individual is apprehended. Third, the collection of business records pursuant to court orders. This provision allows the Government to require the production of ``tangible things'' in order to obtain foreign intelligence information as part of an investigation. In the September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice urged reauthorization of that authority because ``[t]he absence of such authority could force the FBI to sacrifice key intelligence opportunities.'' I cannot elaborate into the use of these authorities in this unclassified context. I can say, however, that as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as one who reviews the intelligence on the threats we face, we remain a nation under attack. Providing the authorities to collect intelligence to identify and prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland remains necessary. It is also important to allow Congress, in the future, to conduct a complete review of FISA provisions. By synchronizing the dates when different pieces of the law expire, Congress can consider changes to FISA at once, prior to the end of 2013. In closing, l would like to assure all Members of the Senate and the American public that extending these sunsets does not shield them from oversight. There is a system of review and oversight in place that consists of the FISA Court, Inspectors General in the Department of Justice and in the intelligence community, regular oversight reviews by the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, a new Director of Compliance at the National Security Agency, and reporting to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can assure colleagues that the Senate has placed, and will continue to place, oversight of the Government's surveillance authorities as a major priority. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, on March 23, 2010, the 111th Congress made great strides towards protecting consumers from egregious health insurance company practices. However, despite the passage of this historic legislation, the urgent need to protect Americans from unfair health insurance rate increases remains. Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards nationally at out-of-control rates--10, 20, 30 percent every year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits. Without further legislative action, health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people. Over the past decade, family health insurance premiums have more than doubled, growing a shocking 130 percent, while workers' hourly earnings rose by only 38 percent, and inflation rose just 29 percent. From 2000-2008, individuals in the employer-sponsored market saw premiums increase an average of 90 percent. The cost of health insurance continues to outpace income and inflation for other goods and services, and these rapidly escalating costs strain businesses, families, and individuals. In 2009, 57 percent of people attempting to purchase insurance in the individual market found it difficult or impossible to afford coverage. All the while, in the third quarter of 2010, the six-largest investor-owned health insurance companies (Aetna, Coventry Health, United Health, Humana, WellPoint, and Cigna) saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income, putting them on pace to break their own profit record. The problem is that the health reform law did not go far enough to control these unfair premium increases, it leaves a loophole. Simply stated, there is no federal authority to do anything about these rate increases, even if they are unfair. We need to close this loophole. This is why today I am introducing, with Senators Boxer and Inouye, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011. Representative Schakowsky is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation creates a federal fallback rate review process, and grants regulatory authority to block or modify rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. This legislation is a simple, common-sense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or use authority to block unfair rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so. On March 4, 2010, I introduced similar legislation to what I am introducing today. I worked with the Administration and the Finance Committee in putting it together, and with Representative Schakowsky. President Obama included it in his health reform proposal, but unfortunately, it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation. The time has come now to take action. This legislation is necessary in order to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of insurance companies, especially before the majority of the consumer protections included in health reform are fully in place in 2014. It is disturbing that year after year, health insurance premiums spiral out control, all while insurance companies enjoy increasing profits. Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, meaning that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education. This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers. Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem/Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians. It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate health insurance premium increases to hundreds of thousands of policyholders in California, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary. According to an independent analysis, the 25 percent average increase proposed by Anthem should have only been 15.2 percent. What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it. This is not a problem unique to California. In the spring of 2010, health insurance companies pursued rate hikes in a number of States: as much as 60 percent in Illinois; 72 percent in Georgia; 50 percent in New Jersey; and 40 percent in Virginia, to name a few. The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation, with substantial geographic variation. For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared to a 145 percent increase in Alaska. A report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that this summer, WellPoint pursued double digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available, but right now, comprehensive data on the premium increases insurers are imposing does not exist. In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., set a full-year profit record. These companies saw a 56 percent increase in profits from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Furthermore, when many Americans were experiencing double-digit premium increases in 2009, high unemployment, and an average wage growth of only 2 percent, insurance CEOs gave themselves a 167 percent raise. CEO pay for the 10 largest for-profit health insurance companies was $228.1 million in 2009, up from $85.5 million in 2008. This doesn't even include the tens of millions more dollars in exercised stock options, and means that these CEOs raked in nearly $1 billion in total compensation. In the first three months of 2010, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion--a 31 percent jump over the same period in 2009. Meanwhile, large insurance companies now insure 2.8 million fewer Americans than they did on December 31, 2008. An estimated 59.1 million Americans were uninsured in the first quarter of 2010. The California HealthCare Foundation reported that 6.8 million California residents lack health coverage. That is 20 percent of the State's residents who are not able to afford health insurance. All the while, insurance companies have been reducing the amount they spend on actual health care. As profits and CEO pay increased, the amount of money insurers spent on medical care went down. The top six insurers drove down the portion of premiums spent on medical care. For example, the share of premium dollars that CIGNA spent on medical care decreased 6.4 percent in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the prior year, and Humana's decreased 7.4 percent. Now, because of legislation in the health reform law, insurance companies have to spend 80-85 percent of premiums on medical care and quality improvement services, not on profits. This will go a long way to keeping insurance company greed in check, but we need to go farther. Clearly without additional legislative requirements, health insurance companies are not going to change. The Department of Health and Human Services recently published proposed rules defining the rate review process. These regulations are a first step towards protecting consumers and keeping insurers in check. But they fall short of creating a strong rate review system, and rely too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior. The regulations do not grant explicit regulatory authority--either State or Federal--to deny, modify, or block rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. The health reform law requires insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and post them on their Web sites. The regulations subject rate increases of 10 percent or greater to additional scrutiny and review, but the State-specific thresholds in 2012 could sanction increases higher than 10 percent. Transparency and increased scrutiny are steps forward, but there is still this loophole where there is no authority to block or modify even excessive, unjustified, and unfairly discriminatory increases. This is why I am again introducing my rate review legislation, which will grant this authority. I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory. In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them. In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5-percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase. In at least 17 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive prior approval for rate increases before they take effect. In these States, the Secretary would review potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rate increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase. Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect them. However, for the consumers in the other 17 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided. Given the variation in State rate review authority and process, I think this proposal strikes the right balance. There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I am introducing simply provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line. This legislation is particularly important given a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that many States lack the capacity and resources to conduct adequate rate review, regardless of the State's statutory authority to review rates. I strongly believe that we need to take action on this. The health reform law made great strides towards holding companies and shareholders accountable for providing health care at a reasonable rate. However, there is this loophole. So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many States have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair. There needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. In States where the Insurance Commissioner is not equipped to review, modify, and block unreasonable rates, my legislation would grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011, which will close this loophole. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. 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 California Desert Protection Act of 2011. This bill is an effort to plan for the competing uses--such as conservation, off-highway vehicle recreation, development, and military training--that are now being proposed for the desert. These uses of our public lands can coexist through comprehensive planning, but in the absence of such planning, it's quite possible that none will thrive. During the previous Congress I introduced similar legislation to help preserve pristine desert lands that were donated to the Federal Government for permanent conservation a decade ago, but that more recently have come under threat of development because of a flawed bureaucratic process that failed to protect them. Over the last year the bill was endorsed by more than 100 organizations and agencies, and it had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I am grateful to Senator Bingaman and his staff for working with me to prepare the bill for further action in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe we can revise the bill to address further the needs of renewable energy developers, the Department of Defense, off-road recreation enthusiasts, local government and others, and I look forward to continuing that effort in the new Congress. I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California Desert--and this legislation strikes a carefully conceived balance between these sometimes competing concerns. The key provisions of this bill would designate two new national monuments--the Mojave Trails and the Sand to Snow National Monuments; add adjacent lands to the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve; designate 5 new BLM wilderness areas and protect 4 important waterways--including the Amargosa River and Deep Creek--as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and enhance recreational opportunities in the desert and ensure that the training needs of the military are met. This bill is the product of painstaking discussions with key stakeholders including environmental groups, local and State government, off-highway recreation enthusiasts, hunters, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Department of Defense, wind and solar energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. I am grateful for all of their efforts. The previous version of my bill proposed specific improvements to the Department of the Interior's rules governing the development of renewable energy on public lands. I'm pleased that the Department has instituted a number of new policies over the last year which have greatly improved the process. Consequently, the current bill focuses primarily on conservation, recreation and other important uses of the California desert. However, I intend to work with my colleagues from the West on separate legislation to further expedite the development of wind and solar energy in California and the West. The California Desert Protection Act, which was enacted in 1994, was a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at conserving some of the most beautiful and ecologically significant lands in my home State. The law created Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, as well as 69 desert wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM. Collectively, it protected more than 7 million acres of desert lands, making it the largest land conservation bill in the lower 48 States in U.S. history. To this day, it remains one of my proudest accomplishments since joining this body. Much has changed since the passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Many of the impediments that prevented conservation of other pristine desert lands in the area no longer exist. For example the Department of Defense concerns with designating some wilderness areas near Fort Irwin have been resolved; many mining areas inside national parks and potential wilderness have closed; grazing allotments on both BLM and National Park Service land have been retired by willing sellers; hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned land have been donated to or acquired by the Federal Government. Yet even as these issues were resolved, new challenges have emerged. There are now competing demands over how best to manage hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the desert. Some believe the lands should be used for large-scale solar and wind facilities and transmission lines. Others would like to conserve critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. Some would like more acreage available for grazing or for off-road recreation. Finally, some would like to see additional lands made available for military training and base expansion. Two years ago, I learned that BLM had accepted applications to build vast solar and wind energy projects on former railroad lands previously owned by the Catellus Corporation. These lands had been donated to the Federal Government or acquired with taxpayer funds with the explicit goal of conservation. Approximately $45 million of private donations--including a $5 million land discount from Catellus Corporation--and $18 million in Federal Land and Water Conservation grants was spent to purchase these lands, with the intent of conserving them in perpetuity. As the sponsor of the legislative provisions that helped secure the deal to acquire the roughly 600,000 acres of former private land, I found the BLM's actions unacceptable. We have an obligation to honor our commitment to conserve these lands--and I believe we can still accomplish that goal while also fulfilling California's commitment to develop a clean energy portfolio. I believe the development of these new cleaner energy sources is vital to addressing climate change, yet we must be careful about selecting where these facilities are located. I plan to work with senators from Western States to improve the renewable energy permitting process to allow quicker development of renewable energy projects on private and disturbed public land. This effort likely requires separate legislation and improved regulation. I applaud the Department of the Interior's efforts over the last year to address this problem, especially Interior's proposed designation of 24 solar energy zones encompassing 677,000 acres of public land in 6 Western States. By designating these zones in appropriate areas and streamlining the permitting process for projects proposed there, the Department has helped ensure that sensitive areas of the desert can be preserved. As BLM finalizes the creation of these Zones and its new Solar Energy Program, I will push BLM to create a development zone in the West Mojave, conduct sufficient study of zones to ensure projects in these locations can be permitted quickly, and establish the program's rules as expeditiously as possible. I will continue to suggest ways that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can improve permitting on private lands, the Defense Department can welcome development on its bases, and the Forest Service can utilize its own lands. These matters may require legislation. There is enough land in California's desert to protect the most precious areas of the Mojave and aggressively develop renewable resources where permitting will be rapid. California must develop 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts of renewable power to meet its climate goals by 2020, and the current permitting process will need to vastly improve for the state to meet this goal. First, this bill will ensure that hundreds of thousands of acres of land donated to the federal government for conservation will be protected by creating the Mojave Trails National Monument. This new monument would cover approximately 941,000 acres of federal land, which includes approximately 266,000 acres of the former Catellus-owned railroad lands along historic Route 66. I visited the area and was amazed by the beauty of the massive valleys, pristine dry lakes, and rugged mountains. In addition to its iconic sweeping desert vistas and majestic mountain ranges, this area of the Eastern Mojave also contains critical wildlife corridors linking Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. It also encompasses hundreds of thousands of acres designated as areas of critical environmental concern, critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise, and ancient lava bed flows and craters. It is surrounded by more than a dozen BLM wilderness areas. The BLM would be given the authority to both conserve the monument lands, and also to maintain existing recreational uses, including hunting, vehicular travel on open roads and trails, camping, horseback riding and rockhounding. The bill also creates an advisory committee to help develop and oversee the implementation of the monument management plan. It would be comprised of representatives from local, state and federal government, conservation and recreation groups, and local Native American tribes. Before I go on to the other conservation provisions in the bill, I would like to address one important issue--and that is what should be done about some of the proposed renewable energy development projects proposed for lands included in this monument. Although it is true that the monument will prevent further consideration of some applications to develop solar and wind energy projects on former Catellus lands or adjoining lands in the monument, it is important to note that of the proposals in question, not a single one has been granted a permit, nor is a single one under review at the California Energy Commission or under formal NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, review at BLM. To ensure that creation of the monument does not unnecessarily harm the firms that worked in good faith and invested substantial time and resources to produce renewable energy in California, the legislation will offer these companies an opportunity to relocate their projects to federal renewable energy zones currently being developed by the Department of the Interior. Additionally, the monument would not prevent the construction or expansion of necessary transmission lines critical to linking renewable energy generation facilities with the electricity grid. Second, the bill would establish the ``Sand to Snow National Monument,'' encompassing 134,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley up to the top of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California. The boundaries of this second, smaller new monument would include two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service San Gorgonio Wilderness, the Wildlands Conservancy's Pipe's Canyon and Mission Creek Preserves, and additional public and private conservation lands, including two wildlife movement corridor areas connecting the Peninsular Ranges with the Transverse Ranges. This area is truly remarkable, and would arguably be the most environmentally diverse national monument in the country. It serves as the intersection of three converging ecological systems--the Mojave Desert, the Colorado Desert, and the San Bernardino mountains--and is one of the most important wildlife corridors in Southern California. This monument designation would protect 23.6 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and the habitat for approximately 240 species of migrating and breeding birds, the second highest density of nesting birds in the United States. It also serves as a home and a crucial migration corridor for animals traveling between Joshua Tree National Park, the oasis at Big Morongo, and the higher elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains. I'd like to make one additional point, and that is that despite its ecological significance, this area is not particularly well-known-- largely because it is managed by a number of distinct entities, including the BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service and private preserves and conservation agencies. So, the monument designation would help to attract more attention to one of California's natural gems. Third, the bill establishes new wilderness areas and allows more appropriate use of lands currently designated as Wilderness Study Areas. The 1994 California Desert Protection Act extended wilderness protection to many areas in the desert, yet several areas near Fort Irwin were designated as wilderness study areas in order to allow the base to expand. Now that Fort Irwin's expansion is complete, it is time to consider these areas for permanent wilderness designation. The bill protects approximately 250,000 acres of BLM land as wilderness in five areas. These areas contain some of the most pristine and rugged landscapes in the California desert. Beyond Fort Irwin, the bill also expands wilderness areas in Death Valley National Park, 90,000 acres, and the San Bernardino National Forest, 4,300 acres, inside the Sand to Snow National Monument created by this bill. The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes. Fourth, this bill would create the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area. The agreed-upon designation for this area in Imperial County, near the Colorado River, was reached after careful discussion with key stakeholders. Although the land possesses some wilderness characteristics, there are also competing interests. The Navy Seals currently use some of this area for occasional training. Additionally, many local residents enjoy touring the rolling hills in the area by jeep. Through the combined efforts of conservation groups, local residents and county government, and the Department of Defense, a compromise conservation designation was developed. For the land known as the Vinagre Wash, the bill will create a ``special management area'' covering 76,000 acres, including 12,000 acres of former railroad lands donated to the federal government. Of these, 49,000 acres are designated as potential wilderness and only become permanent wilderness if and when the Department of Defense determines these lands are no longer needed for Navy Seal training. This designation will permit the area to continue to be accessed by vehicles and be used for camping, hiking, mountain biking, sightseeing, and off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and protect tribal cultural assets in the area. Fifth, the bill adds to or designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 76 miles in length. These designations will ensure the rivers remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park. Sixth, the bill adds approximately 74,000 acres of adjacent lands to the three National Parks established by the 1994 California Desert Protection Act: 41,000 acres in Death Valley National Park. This includes former mining areas where the claims have been retired and a narrow strip of BLM land between National Park and Defense Department boundaries that has made BLM management difficult; almost 30,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve. This land was not included in the original Monument because of the former Viceroy gold mine. However, the mining operations ceased several years ago and the reclamation process is nearly complete. Additionally, a 2007 analysis by the Interior Department recommended that this area would be suitable to add to the Preserve; 2,900 acres in Joshua Tree National Park. This includes multiple small parcels of BLM land identified for disposal on its periphery. Transferring this land to the Park Service would help protect Joshua Tree by preserving these undeveloped areas that border residential communities. Seventh, the bill designates new lands as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas. One of the key goals I have strived for in this bill is to find balance to ensure that the many different needs and uses in the desert are accommodated with the least possible conflict. Some of the most frequent visitors to the desert are the off-highway recreation enthusiasts. In California alone, there are over 1 million registered off-highway vehicles, many of which can be found exploring thousands of miles of desert trails or BLM designated open areas. However, in order to meet military training needs, the Marine Corps is studying the potential expansion of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms into Johnson Valley, the largest OHV area in the country. I strongly support providing our troops with the best possible training, but if the Marines need to expand the base into Johnson Valley, this could have potentially resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of OHV recreation lands. In 2009 I met with Major General Eugene Payne, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics, and Brigadier General Melvin Spiese, Commanding General, Training and Education Command, to discuss this issue, and I am very grateful for their efforts to consider base expansion options that would preserve much of Johnson Valley for recreation. As the result of those meetings, the Marine Corps has committed to studying an alternative that would allow for a portion of Johnson Valley to be used exclusively for military training, another portion to be used exclusively for continued OHV recreation and a third area for joint use. While the environmental review process must first be completed, I am hopeful that this option will prevail for the benefit of the Marines and recreational users of Johnson Valley. The lesson learned from Johnson Valley is that, despite the vast size of the California desert, there are relatively few areas dedicated to OHV recreation, and even those areas face increasing competition from other types of uses. These areas are important not only to the hundreds of thousands visitors who enjoy them, but also to the local economy that depends on their tourist dollars. Additionally, by protecting these areas, we also protect conservation areas by providing appropriate places for OHV recreation. This bill will designate five existing OHV areas in the Mojave desert as permanent OHV areas, providing off-highway groups some certainty that these uses will be protected as much as conservation areas. Collectively, these areas could be as much as 314,000 acres, depending on what, if any, of Johnson Valley is ultimately needed by the Marines. This section of the bill also requires the Secretary of the Inerior to conduct a study to determine which, if any, lands adjacent to these recreation areas would be suitable for addition. This will help make up for some of the lost acres in Johnson Valley should the Marines decide to expand there. Finally, this bill includes other key provisions that address various challenges and opportunities in the California desert, including state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of state lands spread across the California desert in isolated 640 acre parcels. Because many of these acres are inside national parks, wilderness, the proposed monuments or conservation areas, they are largely unusable. The bill seeks to remedy that problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to complete the exchange of these lands for other BLM or GSA owned property in the next ten years. These land exchanges will help consolidate the state lands into larger, more usable areas that could potentially provide the state with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation or other commercial purposes. Military activities. The bill ensures the right of the Department of Defense to conduct low-level overflights over wilderness, national parks and national monuments. Climate change and wildlife corridors. The bill requires the Department of the Interior to study the impact of climate change on California desert species migration, incorporate the study's results and recommendations into land use management plans, and consider the study's findings when making decisions granting rights of way for projects on public lands. Tribal uses and interests. The bill requires the Secretary to ensure access for tribal cultural activities within national parks, monuments, wilderness and other areas designated within the bill. It also requires the Secretary to develop a cultural resources management plan to protect a sacred tribal trail along the Colorado River between southern Nevada and the California-Baja border. Prohibited uses of donated and acquired lands. In order to ensure that donated and acquired Catellus lands outside the Mojave Trails National Monument are maintained for conservation, the bill prohibits their use for development, mining, off-highway vehicle use, except designated routes, grazing, military training and other surface disturbing activities. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest, but comparable lands would have to be purchased and donated to the federal government as mitigation for lost acreage. All of these provisions, when taken together, would serve to complement the lasting conservation established by the California Desert Protection Act--while ensuring that other important local uses are maintained in appropriate areas. Though I have lived in or near San Francisco for most of my life, over the years I have come to truly appreciate California's sweeping desert landscapes. I remember my first visits to the desert years ago. It was treated like a waste dump. It was full of abandoned cars. Old appliances littered the landscape. But we have worked very hard to clean it up. We have worked to make sure that the vast vistas and pristine desert habitat are respected by humanity, and that we give to our children a healthier, more beautiful desert than we inherited. But if we are to remain successful in the long run, we must not only protect the desert land itself, we must also protect the broader environment from the ravages of climate change, and we must offer economic opportunity to those who live in these areas. That is the purpose of this legislation. There are many places in the California desert where development and employment are essential and appropriate. But there are also places that future generations will thank us for setting aside. I have worked painstakingly with stakeholders to ensure that this legislation balances sometimes competing needs. This bill, if enacted, will have a positive and enduring impact on the landscape of the Southern California desert by conserving pristine areas while meeting the needs of all desert stakeholders. 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 congratulate my friend and colleague, Barbara Mikulski, who is now the longest-serving woman in the history of the U.S. Senate. Barbara has been a forceful advocate for the people of her beloved Maryland and a role model for women everywhere--beginning with her election to the Baltimore City Council in 1971, to her election to the House of Representatives in 1976, to her election to the Senate in 1986. Barbara is a pace-setter in the fight for equality for women. When I first ran for the Senate in 1992, Barbara reached out to me to offer her support, for which I am grateful, and she welcomed me when I joined the Senate. Barbara is indomitable, not only in the fight for equality for women but in the broader fight for human rights for all mankind. I am proud to have worked alongside Barbara in opposing tyranny in Burma, in pushing to restrict cluster munitions that pose a grave threat to innocent people around the world, and in pushing to free Burmese democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi. And I am proud to work with her on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair, where I know I can count on Barbara to do the hard work required to oversee America's intelligence agencies and keep America safe. Any discussion of Barbara would be incomplete without acknowledgment of her effort to improve bipartisanship in the Senate--something sorely needed right now--an effort aided by her monthly bipartisan dinners for women Senators. These dinners bring us together and make the Senate a more hospitable place for women. But they are more than that. These dinners are a way to forge relationships and friendships that transcend party lines. These gatherings have created a community of interests among Senators of divergent backgrounds and political views. I think that is a very big contribution. So I want to salute you, Barbara. I am proud to call you colleague and friend. And I look forward to working with you for many more years to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate is about to ratify the New START treaty--I hope and believe with a very solid bipartisan vote. This really is a historic moment. This is the biggest arms control treaty in 20 years, and the most important foreign policy action the Senate will take this Congress. This is absolutely the right thing to do. It is important to our national security and it is critical to uphold America's place in the world community. As I have said many times, the arms reductions in this treaty are modest. New START requires a 30 percent reduction in warheads from the limits set out in the Moscow Treaty in 2002 to 1,550 on each side, but both the United States and Russia have been reducing their strategic stockpiles since then. The real importance of this treaty comes from the monitoring provisions, confidence-building measures, and the strengthened relationship between two of the world's major powers. We have not had inspectors at Russian nuclear facilities for 13 months. We have not had data exchanges on the size and deployment of Russian forces. Russia has had the freedom to block our national technical means to monitor their forces. Apart from our national technical means, we are now blind. With this treaty, we will benefit from these measures and others. The Senate has discussed the monitoring and verification provisions at length during this debate--in open and closed session--and it has been made very clear that this treaty greatly strengthens our intelligence community's ability to monitor and assess Russian strategic forces. As Director of National Intelligence Clapper has said, the sooner we ratify this treaty, the better. I am very pleased that the Senate is acting now, before the end of the year and the congressional session, to give the executive branch these tools. With the ratification of this treaty, the Senate also makes clear that the United States is willing and able to make good on its foreign policy promises and to act in the best interests of our country and of the world. Following ratification in the Russian Duma, the United States and Russia will begin the next round of arms control and transparency. I hope and I believe many Senators have expressed their desire, that this will lead to further arms control negotiations to reduce further the level of strategic arms and to address tactical nuclear weapons and other delivery mechanisms. The ratification also maintains, and hopefully will build on, the improving relationship between our two countries and our two young Presidents. We have enjoyed strong cooperation this year, over Afghanistan, over Iran, and--according to a letter I received from President Obama on Monday--over the tense situation on the Korean Peninsula. In a world of asymmetric threats, we need friends and allies more than ever. This treaty moves us in this direction--with Russia and with the Eastern European nations that are strongly in support of the treaty. Before closing, I want to congratulate and thank my good friend from Massachusetts. He has spent an incredible amount of time considering this treaty in the Foreign Relations Committee, preparing the resolution of ratification and in managing this floor debate. He has done a fabulous job, and I really want to thank him for all his effort and his cooperation with me through this entire process. I would also like to thank the many administration officials for their assistance in my consideration of this treaty, all of whom have spent time in my office over the past year. They include: Assistant Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, our lead negotiator; Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; Tom D'Agostino, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration; and Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to discuss two promising Asian-American judicial nominees from my State of California who have been denied simple, straightforward up-or-down votes on the floor of this body for what I believe are very spurious reasons. Goodwin Liu is associate dean and professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. He has a truly outstanding record as a great legal mind: Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford and co-president of the Student Body; a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford; a J.D. from Yale Law School and an editor on the Yale Law Journal; judicial clerkships on the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court; recipient of both the Education Law Association's Award for Distinguished Scholarship and the University of California at Berkeley's highest award for teaching. Recognizing his brilliance, President Obama chose Professor Liu for a seat on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I have met personally with Goodwin Liu on several occasions, including a 4-hour discussion. I had him to my home for dinner. His status as a first-rate legal mind is undeniable. And his support for this nomination is legion: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former judge and Solicitor General Ken Starr, leading conservative lawyer Clint Bolick, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, 34 former prosecutors, Numerous education leaders, including former Secretary of Education Richard Riley and Joel Klein, the Chancellor of the New York City schools, and Numerous representatives of the Asian-American community. One set of support was particularly impressive to me. In the only time that I have seen the serving president and two former presidents of a major university write in support of a nominee or issue, the three most recent presidents of Stanford University, John Hennessy, Gerhard Casper, and Donald Kennedy, wrote to support Professor Liu's nomination, saying, in part: Goodwin Liu as a student, scholar, and trustee has epitomized the goal of Stanford's founders, which was ``to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' We highly recommend Goodwin Liu for the honor and responsibility of serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I admit that some of Professor Liu's writing have been questioned by conservatives. It is true that Goodwin Liu would not be a conservative judge. However, I do not believe that he would be an activist judge. As I have watched debates over the judiciary in my eighteen years in the Senate, the perception of ``judicial activism'' is for the party on the other side. Many believe that this current Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts is one of the more activist courts ever. It is indisputable that it has overturned many precedents that had stood for decades. Goodwin Liu deserves to have a fair up-or-down vote, as other controversial circuit court nominees have received. If a senator opposes his nomination, let them vote against him. That is what we are here for--to cast our votes yea or nay, up or down. But don't let Professor Liu die on the calendar, without even having the courage to give him a vote. Even worse in many ways is the similar treatment that Magistrate Judge Edward Chen has received. I recommended Judge Chen for a judgeship in the Northern District of California. If confirmed, he would be the first judge of Chinese descent to serve in this district, with its notable Chinese heritage. This would not be a novel role for Judge Chen: for the past 9 years, he has served as a magistrate judge on this same court. And his service there has been impeccable, and apparently unassailable: he has written more than 350 published opinions in that time, and there has not been an objection to a single one of them. But opponents of his nomination are hanging their hat on one quote from him, taken out of context. One of the darkest chapters in this country's history was the wholesale internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld this heinous practice in the notorious case of Korematsu v. United States. In 1988, Congress passed and President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act and issued a formal apology for the internment. Before serving as a magistrate judge, Ed Chen represented the name party in that case, Fred Korematsu, in his successful effort to overturn his conviction for defying the internment order. In 2005, Judge Chen attended Mr. Korematsu's funeral, and spoke about it a month later to law students. The line that critics have seized upon came from this speech, where Judge Chen said that, while listening to the congregation sing ``America the Beautiful'' at the funeral, he sometimes had ``Feelings of ambivalence and cynicism when confronted with appeals to patriotism--sometimes I cannot help but feel that there are too much [sic] injustice and too many inequalities that prevent far too many Americans from enjoying the beauty extolled in that anthem.'' But the critics omit what Chen said right after that quotation: Yet I was moved to tears at Fred's memorial. Why? In part, Fred was a living example of the patriotism embodied in the song. Korematsu demonstrated that patriotism not by waving an American flag, but by trying to vindicate the values and principles that are embodied in that flag freedom, justice and equality under the law. . . . I was also moved not only because ``America the Beautiful'' echoed what I saw [in] Fred. It was also because the song described the America that Fred envision[ed]. The America whose promised beauty he sought to fulfill, an America true to its founding principles. Judge Chen didn't object to singing ``America the Beautiful''--he was moved to tears by it. Judge Chen's nomination enjoys widespread support, with extensive support from the law enforcement community, including: San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Northern Alliance of Law Enforcement, which represents 20 different law enforcement associations in Northern California, Peace Officers Research Association of California, 11 former Federal prosecutors for the Northern District of California and former San Francisco Chief of Police Anthony Ribera. And the list goes on. He also has widespread support from the bar, including the Bar Association of San Francisco, Hispanic National Bar Association, and many others. Yet despite this support, his nomination has been subjected to repeated, exceptional delay and obstruction, even being returned to the President during congressional recesses. The day was when district court nominees supported by both home State Senators with extensive law enforcement and legal community support were confirmed routinely. It is time now to end this delay and obstruction, give Ed Chen the fair up-or-down vote he so richly deserves, and confirm this well-proven, qualified nominee to the Federal district court.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, next month marks the retirement of Mr. Gary Dionne after 34 years in government service. Throughout this time, Gary has been both the consummate professional and a friendly presence in the halls here on Capitol Hill. Mr. Dionne currently is the deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and will be retiring from Federal service after fulfilling a career of dedicated support to the U.S. intelligence community and the National Security mission. A senior intelligence officer, Mr. Dionne has had a varied and distinguished career, having worked in different positions and capacities for the Department of Navy, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. For most of that time, Gary worked in the intelligence field where efforts and successes are not always rewarded publicly. I am glad we can do so here today. Mr. Dionne, the son of Roland and Eva Dionne, a draftsman and consumer sales representative respectively, was raised in the small suburban town of Leominster, MA, a town known best as a hub for plastic factories but gained world-renowned fame as the originator of the plastic pink flamingo! Following graduation from Leominster High School in 1975, Mr. Dionne enlisted in the U.S. Navy as a cryptologic technician radioman. Trained in Morse code and high frequency direction Finding, Petty Officer Dionne supported U.S. Naval Intelligence while stationed in Augsburg, Germany, followed by a fleet assignment to the Command for Middle East Forces. As a member of the admiral's staff, Mr. Dionne provided intelligence support aboard the U.S.S. La Salle, U.S.S. Vreeland, U.S.S. Elmer Montgomery, U.S.S. Blandy, and the U.S.S. Aylwin. Completing an enlistment with the U.S. Navy, Mr. Dionne subsequently joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1981. Following training as a communications officer within the Office of Communications, Mr. Dionne supported intelligence activities in Central America and on back-to- back assignments to West Africa where he was promoted to Officer in Charge of the Telecommunications Unit. In this position he was responsible for the daily supervision of personnel and technical resources to maintain a multimillion-dollar communications facility. After returning to CIA Headquarters, Mr. Dionne was assigned as deputy chief, headquarters operations branch, where he was responsible for VIP communications in domestic and foreign activities. This included communications support for the Director of Central Intelligence as well as support for Presidential and Cabinet members travel. Building on his technical background, he attended classes at George Mason University working toward a bachelor's degree in network management. In 1994, Mr. Dionne assumed the responsibility of associate director, of the Agency Network Management Center where he had oversight responsibility for the daily health and welfare of the domestic telecommunications network. Mr. Dionne was then selected as chief of the resource management staff, operations group, where he managed the tactical and strategic direction for a multimillion-dollar telecommunications operational budget. This was an extremely rewarding assignment for Mr. Dionne where his efforts directly supported for the agency's world-wide activities. Mr. Dionne was selected to participate as a congressional fellow through the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University where he acquired a certificate in legislative studies. Mr. Dionne accepted a position on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce staff and provided technical support to the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, as well as to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Mr. Dionne viewed his experience in Congress as an awe-inspiring, humbling experience where he witnessed truly remarkable people working the most difficult challenges on behalf of America. In 2002, following his fellowship in Congress, Mr. Dionne returned to the CIA in the Office of Congressional Affairs where as a liaison officer, he managed congressional activities for the community management account and the directorate of operations. Following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Mr. Dionne was identified as the responsible congressional liaison officer for all intelligence community engagements with the Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee as Congress conducted their review of the intelligence failures leading up to September 11. From there Mr. Dionne served as the congressional liaison to the National Counter Terrorism Center and to its predecessor, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. In 2007, Mr. Dionne was selected in to his current assignment as the deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs, for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Throughout his career and travels around the world, Mr. Dionne is most grateful to have had the loving support of his wife Catherine who grew up in the same little factory town and whom he has known since they were in middle school together. He is so proud of his two daughters, Danielle, for serving as a 1st grade school teacher in Loudoun County, VA, and his daughter Antonia, for her ability to master Mandarin and who is presently working at the U.S.-China Policy Foundation in Washington, DC. Mr. Dionne, thank you for your service to our country and good luck in all your future endeavors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Senator Kyl is a very smart man. This is a major amendment. In my view, it is a deal breaker. It is a poison pill for the entire treaty. It essentially provides real changes in the treaty. It says the President, prior to the treaty going into effect, must certify that he has achieved certain side agreements, and those side agreements strike directly at some of the heart of the treaty. Therefore, it will effectively, in my view, be unacceptable to the Russians and will destroy the treaty. The treaty now says you cannot block an inspector's ability to ascertain warheads on a reentry vehicle. That covers the cover issue. This again says that telemetry by a prior agreement--that there be a side agreement on full access to telemetry for all missiles, and then on new missiles, is one-sided. Clearly, this is not going to be acceptable. Then it goes into the type one inspections. If you are for the treaty, there is only one vote, and it is to vote no. I very much regret this because I respect the Senator. As I see it--and there are things I cannot go into here that I tried to go into yesterday--this is a poison pill amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Lieberman for his authorship of and advocacy for repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I wish to use my time to speak about pieces of legislation. Don't ask, don't tell has been with us now for 17 years. I just pulled a speech I made on the floor 17 years ago. The DREAM Act has been with us for 10 years. So neither of these are surprise bills. Both of these affect large numbers of people in major ways. For many, they are their life. For those who love the military, who see no life outside of the military, don't ask, don't tell is their life. The same for students, the DREAM Act becomes their life. Let me begin with don't ask, don't tell. Seventeen years ago, Senator Boxer introduced an amendment. I spoke to that amendment. We lost by a vote of 33 to 63. Only one-third of the Senate voted to repeal don't ask, don't tell in what was a benign amendment, essentially a consent resolution, but it lost. It lost despite the testimony of legions of military. The time has gone by, 17 long years. Many of us believe the policy is unconstitutional. We believe it does more harm than good. And 17 years later, I am only more certain that is the case. The criteria for serving in the U.S. Armed Forces should be courage, competence, and a willingness to serve. No one should be turned away because of who they are--not because of their race, their sex, or their sexual orientation. Since 1993, however, don't ask, don't tell has required gay and lesbian Americans to make a choice. You can serve the country you love, but only if you lie about who you are. This has forced honorable American soldiers to conceal their true selves from their family, their friends, their fellow servicemembers, and their military superiors. It has deprived the U.S. military of talent and badly needed special skills. Let me discuss one person. SGT Lacye Presley served two tours of duty in Iraq as an Army medic. The Army awarded her a Bronze Star for her heroic action in keeping several critically wounded civilians alive after a car bomb exploded in their midst. Another Army sergeant who worked with her around the same time said this about Sergeant Presley: I would serve with Sergeant Presley any day, no doubt about it. She's one of the best medics that I've ever seen in my 18 years of service. Sergeant Presley was discharged after someone reported her sexual orientation to a senior commander. This is one for Sergeant Presley. Let me discuss some other affected military personnel. Former PO2 Stephen Benjamin was an Arabic linguist for the Navy. He started his service in 2003, graduated in the top ten percent of his class from the Defense Language Institute, and spent 2 years translating for the Navy. In 2007, he was prepared to deploy to Iraq but was turned away and discharged because it was discovered that he was gay. Army SGT Darren Manzella served two tours of duty providing medical services in Iraq. He earned three promotions over 6 years and was awarded the Combat Medical Bridge for leading over 100 patrols to treat the wounded and evacuate casualties. But after he confided in a supervisor about his sexuality, he was threatened with discharge, his sexuality was made public, and he was later discharged under don't ask, don't tell. PVT Randy Miller of Stockton, CA, was a member of an elite Army paratroop division with a long family history of military service. He spent 2 years training in preparation for deployment and then served a tour of duty in Iraq beginning in the winter of 2005. But when he returned to the United States to be treated for a knee injury, someone reported that he was gay and he was discharged from the Army. Finally, there is LTC Victor Fehrenbach, a 19-year veteran of the Air Force. He has flown 88 combat missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and the former Yugoslavia. He received nine Air Medals and five Commendation Medals. When our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, he was hand-selected to fly patrols over Washington, DC, as part of the initial alert crew. But Colonel Fehrenbach has been recommended for honorable discharge because his sexual orientation was made public in 2008. These are only five stories. There are at least 13,500 more. All of these men and women volunteered to defend the country they love, only to be discharged because of who they happen to love. Now I wish to speak about the DREAM Act. I thank those who have supported this, brought it forward--Senator Hatch, Senator Durbin, as well as Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins on repealing don't ask, don't tell. I have supported the DREAM Act since it was first introduced. Each year the support has grown. Each year approximately 65,000 undocumented young people graduate from America's high schools. Most of these did not make a choice to come to the United States. Many were brought here by their parents, some at 6 months old, 6 years, 12 years--whatever it is. Many of these young people grew up in the United States. They have little or no memory or resources in the country from which they came. They are hard- working young people, dedicated to their education or serving in the Nation's military. They have stayed out of trouble. Some are valedictorians--I happen to know one--and honor roll students. Some are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States. Mr. President, I would like to tell you about a few college students in California, who would benefit from the DREAM Act. Ana was born in Mexico. She was brought to the United States when she was 7 years old. She says one of her earliest memories is her mother waking her up early in the morning to go to school in the United States. She quickly learned English and excelled in school. She didn't find out that she was undocumented until she was 13 years old and overheard someone talking about ``illegal aliens.'' When she asked her father what it meant, he told her that she should never ask about that word again. Like most kids, she didn't know what it meant to be undocumented. Then, when she was ready to apply for college, her guidance counselor asked for her social security number. This is when the meaning of ``undocumented'' hit home. She graduated from high school with honors and is currently a sophomore at DeAnza College in California. She is active in her student government and is studying political science. Ivan was brought to the United States when he was just 10 months old. His family settled in San Bernardino, CA, where Ivan excelled in school. He found out about his undocumented status in the 7th grade when he could not accept an award he earned at a science fair because he didn't have a Social Security number. Ivan is a Presidential scholar who graduated within the top 1 percent of high school graduates in San Bernardino County. He is currently a senior at California State University and is a pre-med biology major. He hopes to become a doctor in the Army someday and says that it would be an honor to provide care to the brave men and women risking their lives for this country. Blanca came to the United States in 1989, when she was 6 years old. Her family left Mexico after a devastating earthquake. Blanca's family settled in the San Francisco area, where she attended elementary school and graduated from high school. Although Blanca knew that she was undocumented, her family never spoke about it. Despite being undocumented, Blanca was determined to get the best education she could. She attended Contra Costa Community College and the University of California Davis. She graduated from college in 2008 and hopes to become a lawyer someday so that she can work to prevent sex trafficking. Justino was brought to the United States 10 years ago by his mother, along with his two siblings, to escape his abusive father. He attended school and graduated within the top 5 percent of his class. He attends Mount San Antonio College and is a student leader, actively engaged in community service in the Latino community. Justino says that he has a strong love for his community and has been doing everything he can to improve it just like his role models, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi. Because of their undocumented status, these young people are ineligible to serve in the military. They face tremendous obstacles to attending college. For many, English is actually their first language, and they are just like every other American student. Now reaching adulthood, these young people are left with a dead end. They can't use their educations to contribute to their communities. They can't serve the country they call home by volunteering for military service. In other words, they are dumbed down by their status. They are relegated to the shadows by their status. And along comes the DREAM Act. That provides an opportunity for these young people to prove themselves. It provides the incentive to prove themselves. It would permit students to become permanent residents if they came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, attend college, or enlist in the military for 2 years. So already they have to prove themselves. The legislation requires students to wait 10 years before becoming lawful permanent residents and undergo background and security checks and pay any back taxes. This is a multistep process. It is not a free pass. Additionally, according to CBO, the DREAM Act would actually increase Federal revenues by $2.3 billion over the 10 years and increase net direct spending by $912 million between 2011 and 2012. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that enacting the bill would reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion over 10 years. DREAM is a winner. Repealing Don't ask, don't tell is what we should do. I hope there are ``aye'' votes sufficient to pass both of these today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I see both the ranking member and the chairman of the committee on the floor. I wish to say a few words about both of them and the good name they give to bipartisanship. Both of them see how much of America's destiny is wrapped up in this treaty and how nuclear weapons become a bane of existence because of their size, because of their number, and because of this inexorable concern that they fall into the wrong hands somehow, some way, someday. I am one of the few Members of this Senate who is old enough to have seen the bombs go off in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I know the devastation that a 15- and 21-kiloton bomb can do. These bombs today are five times the size plus, and they can eradicate huge areas. If you put multiple warheads on them, the destruction is inestimable. Mr. President, what is interesting to me about this debate is the fact that the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was approved by a vote of 93 to 5, the 1991 START agreement was approved by a vote of 9 to 6, and the 2002 Moscow Treaty was approved by a vote of 95 to 0. As the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, has pointed out time and time again on this floor, those treaties received less deliberation than is being given to this treaty. The relationship between the United States and Russia today is better today than was the relationship when previous treaties were ratified. And the New START treaty we are debating is a fairly modest measure. So I hope it will receive a strong vote for ratification. Now, for my remarks. I come here as chairman of the Intelligence Committee to address comments that have been made on the other side of the aisle about this treaty, particularly as those comments relate to monitoring provisions. Let me just put out the bona fides. The Intelligence Committee has studied the June 2010 National Intelligence Estimate on the intelligence community's ability to monitor this treaty. We had a hearing. We submitted more than 70 questions for the record. We received detailed responses from the intelligence community. Committee members and very highly technical, proficient committee staff participated in more than a dozen meetings and briefings on a range of issues concerning the treaty, focusing on the intelligence monitoring and collection aspects. The conclusion is on my part that the intelligence community can, in fact, effectively monitor Russian activities under this treaty. I would also like to say to all Senators I have just reviewed a new intelligence assessment from the CIA dated yesterday. It analyzes the effect of having New START's monitoring provisions in place and the loss on intelligence if the treaty is not ratified. I can't discuss the contents of the assessment on the Senate floor, but the report is available to all Senators. It is available through the Intelligence Committee, and Members are welcome to review this report and other documents, including the National Intelligence Estimate, in our offices in room 211 in the Hart Building. Let me now describe the ways in which this treaty enhances our Nation's intelligence capabilities. This has been the lens through which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has viewed the treaty, and I believe the arguments are strongly positive and persuasive. First, the intelligence community can carry out its responsibility to monitor Russian activities under the treaty effectively. Second, this treaty, when it enters into force, will benefit intelligence collection and analysis. The U.S. intelligence community will use these treaty provisions and other independent tools that we have outside of the treaty, such as the use of national technical means--for example, our satellites--to collect information on Russian forces and whether Russia is complying with the treaty's terms. The treaty provisions include on-the-ground inspections of Russian nuclear facilities and bases--18 a year. There is going to be an amendment, I gather, to increase that. I will get to that later in my remarks. Second, regular exchanges on data on the warhead and missile production and locations. Third, unique identifiers--a distinct alphanumeric code for each missile and heavy bomber for tracking purposes. I reviewed some of that in intelligence reports this morning. A ban on blocking national technical means from collecting information on strategic forces, and other measures that I am going to go into. Without the strong monitoring and verification measures provided for in this treaty, we will know less--not more--about the number, size, location, and deployment status of Russian nuclear warheads. That is a fact. I think most of you know General Chilton, the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, who knows a great deal about all of this. He has said this: Without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian nuclear strategic force developments and activities, and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly. Without such a regime, we would unfortunately be left to use worse-case analyses regarding our own force requirements. Think about that. Let me be clear. That is what a ``no'' vote means on this treaty. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made the same point earlier this month. He said that if the United States doesn't ratify the treaty, Russia will have to respond, including augmentation of its stockpile. That is what voting ``no'' on this treaty does. These monitoring provisions are key, as are the trust and transparency they bring, and the only way to get to these provisions is through ratification. In fact, we have not had any inspections, or other monitoring tools, for over 1 year, since the original START treaty expired; so, today, we have less insight into any new Russian weapons and delivery systems that might be entering their force. That, too, is a fact. Thirteen months ago, American officials wrapped up a 2-day inspection of a Russian strategic missile base at Teykovo, 130 miles northeast of Moscow, where mobile SS-25 intercontinental ballistic missiles were deployed. Twelve days later, their Russian counterparts wrapped up a 2-day inspection at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, home to a strategic bomb wing. Since then, nothing. Since those two inspections--one in Russia and one in the United States--we have essentially gone black on any monitoring, inspection, data exchanges, telemetry, and notification allowed by the old START treaty. Let me describe the monitoring provisions in this treaty now, because many of them are similar to the original START treaty's provisions. No. 1, the treaty commits the United States and Russia ``not to interfere with the national technical means of verification of the other party.'' That means not to interfere with our satellites and ``not to use concealment measures that impede verification.'' This means that Russia agrees not to block our satellite observations of their launchers or their testing. Without this treaty, Russia could take steps to deny or block our ability to collect information on their forces. And there are ways this can be done. Let me make clear that, absent this treaty, Russia could try and perhaps block our satellites. To be clear, national technical means are an important way of identifying some of Russia's activities in deploying and deploying its nuclear forces. However, while I can't be specific here, there are some very important questions that simply cannot be answered through national technical means alone. I have also reviewed those this morning, and those are available if a Member wants to know exactly what I mean by this. They can go to room 211 in the Hart Building, and members of the intelligence staff can inform them exactly what this means. That is where other provisions of this treaty--including inspections, data exchanges, unique identifiers--come into play. Without them, we are limited in our understanding. So believe me, this is a big problem for our intelligence agencies. The second provision in New START on monitoring is a requirement that Russia provide the United States with regular data notifications. This includes information on the production of any and all new strategic missiles, the loading of warheads onto those missiles, and the location to which strategic forces are deployed. Under START, similar notifications were vital to our understanding. In fact, the notification provisions under New START are actually stronger than those in the old START agreement, including a requirement that Russia inform the United States when a missile or warhead moves in or out of deployed status. Third, New START restores our ability to conduct on-the-ground inspections. There are none of them going on today, and none have been going on for over a year. New START allows for 10 so-called ``type one'' onsite inspections of Russian ICBMs, SLBMs, and bomber bases a year. The protocols for these type one inspections were written by U.S. negotiators with years of inspection experience under the original START treaty. The day before yesterday, I went over the credentials of our negotiating team in Geneva, and many of them have done onsite inspections. So they know what they need to look for, and they provided those guarantees in this treaty. This is how some of it works. First, U.S. inspectors choose what base they wish to inspect. It is our choice, not the Russians' choice. Russia is restricted from moving missiles, launchers, and bombers away from that base. Then, when the inspectors arrive, they are given a full briefing from the Russians. That includes the number of deployed and nondeployed missile launchers or bombers at the base, the number of warheads loaded on each bomber and--and this is important--the number of reentry vehicles on each ICBM or SLBM. So you can pick your base, go to it, get the briefing. These missiles are all coded with unique identifiers, so you can do your inspection, and you know what you are looking at. Third, the inspectors choose what they want to inspect. At an ICBM base, the inspectors choose a deployed ICBM for inspection, one they want to inspect. At a submarine base, they choose an SLBM. If there are any nondeployed launchers, ones not carrying missiles, the inspectors can pick one of those for inspection as well. At air bases, the inspectors can choose up to three bombers for inspection. Fourth, the actual inspection occurs, with U.S. personnel verifying the number of warheads on the missiles, or on the bombers chosen. As I mentioned earlier, each missile and bomber is coded with a specific code, both numerically and alphabetically, so you know what you have chosen and where it's been before. Under this framework, our inspectors are provided comprehensive information from the Russian briefers. They are able to choose themselves how they want to verify that this information is correct. And there are ways of doing that to verify. The treaty also provides for an additional eight inspections a year of nondeployed warheads and facilities where Russia converts or eliminates nuclear arms. Some people have commented that the number of inspections under New START--that is, the total of 18 that I just described--is smaller than the 28 under the previous START treaty, and that is true. But it is also true that there are half as many Russian facilities to inspect than there were in 1991, when START was signed. I just looked at a map this morning of these Russian bases, of the silo locations, of the bombers, of the submarine pens. The numbers are dramatically smaller than at the end of the Cold War, when the first START treaty was signed. These inspections should suffice, because the numbers are so down. In addition, inspections under New START are designed to cover more topics than inspections under the prior START agreement. In testimony from the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, called in Washington-ese ``DTRA,'' Kenneth Myers, the agency doing these inspections, said: Type one inspections will be more demanding on both the DTRA and site personnel, as it combines the main part of what were formerly two separate inspections under START into a single, lengthier inspection. So, whereas, you go from 28 down to 18, and 10 type one inspections, you can take more time and they are much more comprehensive. Some of my colleagues who question this treaty have raised a couple of problems with the monitoring provisions. Let me address a couple of them now. First, under START, United States officials had a permanent presence at the Russian missile production facility at Votkinsk. Inspectors could watch as missiles left the plant to be shipped to various parts of the country. New START does not include this provision. In fact, the Bush administration had taken the provision off the table in its negotiations with the Russians prior to leaving office. New START does, however, require Russia to mark all missiles, as I have been saying, with numeric and alphabetic codes--with these unique identifiers, so that their location can be tracked and their deployment status tracked over the lifetime of the treaty. The treaty also requires Russia to notify us at least 48 hours before a missile leaves a plant. So we will still have information about missile deployment and production. Our inspectors and other nuclear experts have testified that these provisions are, in fact, sufficient. Now, look, I appreciate that every one of us does our due diligence. But let me tell you, there is nothing like the view of a former inspector. There is nothing like the view of people who have actually done this work. These are the people who were involved in the negotiation. There is nothing like the recommendation of the entire top command of our strategic forces, the civilian leadership, and the top officials of our intelligence community, all of whom are for this treaty. We listen to our military, it seems to me, on views that affect the security of this Nation. We should with respect to this treaty. I have not seen a single warrior come forward--who is in the top command--who has said we should not endorse this treaty. I think that is significant. Instead, dozens have come forward to point out how important this treaty is. START required the United States and Russia to exchange technical data from missile tests. That is known as telemetry. It required that you release it to each other but not to other countries. That telemetry allows each side to calculate things, such as how many warheads a missile could carry. This was important as the START treaty attributed warheads to missiles. If a Russian missile could carry 10 reentry vehicles, the treaty counted it as having 10 warheads. Information obtained through telemetry was, therefore, important to determine the capabilities of each delivery system. New START, however, does away with these attribution rules and counts the actual number of warheads deployed on missiles. No more guessing whether a Russian missile is carrying one or eight warheads. With this change, we don't need precise calculations on the capability of Russian missiles in order to tell whether Russia is complying with the treaty's terms, so telemetry is not as necessary to monitor compliance with New START. Nonetheless, because this came up in the negotiations, as a gesture to transparency, the treaty allows for the exchange of telemetry, between our two countries only, up to five times a year if both sides agree to do so. In fact, it should be pointed out that if the treaty included a broader requirement to exchange telemetry, the United States might have to share information on interceptors for missile defense, which the Department of Defense has not agreed to do. Third, there has been a concern raised about Russian breakout capability--a fear that Russia may one day decide to secretly deploy more warheads than the treaty would allow or to secretly build a vast stockpile that could be quickly put into its deployed force. I do not see this as a credible concern. Here is why. According to public figures, Russian strategic forces are already under or close to the limits prescribed by New START. They have been decreasing over the past decade, not just now but for a long time. There are many reasons for this, but I think it is incontrovertible that is fact. So the concern about a breakout is a concern that Russia would suddenly decide that it wants to reverse what has been a 10-year trend and deploy more weapons than it currently believes are necessary for its security. They would also have to decide to do this secretly, with a significant risk of being caught. Because of the monitoring provisions, the inspections, our national technical means, and other ways we have to track Russian nuclear activities, I think Moscow would have a serious disincentive to do that. Moreover, instead of developing a breakout capability, Russia could decide, instead, to simply withdraw from the treaty, just as the United States did when President Bush withdrew from the antiballistic missile treaty. Finally, even in the event that Russia did violate the treaty and pursue a breakout capability, our nuclear capabilities are more than sufficient to continue to deter Russia and to provide assurances to our allies. Mr. President, the bottom line is that the intelligence community can effectively monitor this treaty. If you vote no, you are voting against these monitoring provisions. The second question I raised at the beginning of my remarks that is relevant to New START is whether ratifying the treaty actually enhances our intelligence collection and analysis. This is above and beyond the question of whether the intelligence community will be able to fulfill its responsibility to monitor Russian compliance with the treaty's terms. Again, I am unable to go into the specifics, but the clear answer to this question is yes. The ability to conduct inspections, receive notifications, enter into continuing discussions with the Russians over the lifetime of the treaty will provide us with information and understanding of Russian strategic forces that we will not have without the treaty. If you vote no, we will not have it. The intelligence community will need to collect information about Russian nuclear weapons and intentions with or without New START, just as it has since the beginning of the Cold War. But absent the inspectors' boots on the grounds--and that is what is at risk here--the intelligence community will need to rely on other methods. Put even more simply, the Nation's top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, has said he thinks ``the earlier, the sooner, the better'' that this treaty is ratified. ``We're better off with it.'' You know, I don't think I need to tell this body what is at stake in terms of our relationship with Russia. The Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union, and this is an important reform vehicle of a new, young Russian President who wants to enter into a much more cooperative and transparent time with our country. Russia has been of help to our country, letting our equipment go through Russian land into Afghanistan when Pakistan has blocked passage and in terms of refusing to sell a missile defense system to Iran that it had previously agreed to provide. I think what this projects to the world as a whole is very important in this world of asymmetric warfare. What it projects is that the United States and the Russian Federation are willing to stand together. I think the gesture of that standing together that is envisioned in the enhanced cooperation of this treaty should never be underestimated. Members, we need all of the major powers to come together in this new world of asymmetric warfare in which we are engaged, and most likely will be engaged for a long period of time. So I very much hope that the votes are there for ratification. Let me end with this: During the 15-year lifespan of the first START agreement, the United States conducted 659 inspections of Russian nuclear facilities, and Russia conducted 481 inspections of our facilities. Again, it has been more than a year since American inspectors were at a Russian nuclear facility. We have been in the dark for 1 year. It is time to bring the light of New START to bear. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, on behalf of Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and myself the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2010. Since early in this Congress, I have been working with Chairman Leahy, both in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, to enact legislation that extends expiring authorities for the collection of foreign intelligence against terrorists, proliferators, foreign powers, and spies, while ensuring that adequate safeguards exist for the protection of the civil liberties and privacy of Americans. To that end, the Judiciary Committee reported, in October 2009, S. 1692, a bill that sought to accomplish two main objectives. One was to extend the life of three authorities under FISA which were then due to sunset on December 31, 2009, described as roving, lone wolf, and business records collection, all of which have been previously described to the Senate during the consideration of earlier extensions. Through two short-term measures, those sunsets have been extended to February 28, 2010. The other main objective was to secure several amendments to statutes on intelligence collection that would improve the balance they strike between protecting national security and protecting civil liberties and privacy. In the course of this Congress, this second objective has been largely achieved through actions that have been taken by the Department of Justice and the FBI under administrative actions. On reviewing those actions, which have been described in a letter from the Attorney General to Chairman Leahy on December 9, 2010, Chairman Leahy and I have determined that the one remaining action that we need to take legislatively this Congress is to extend the three important authorities that are now due to sunset on February 28, 2010. The Feinstein-Leahy bill will extend these sunsets to the same date as proposed in S. 1692, December 31, 2013. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have asked the Congress to extend these authorities. Additionally, the authority established by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, regarding collection of foreign intelligence against persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States, is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012. The Feinstein-Leahy bill would extend that authority for one year, to December 31, 2013, so that all of the sunsets of authority under FISA occur on the same date. This will allow the Congress to consider all of the temporary authorities in conjunction. By acting now on these approaching sunsets, Congress will ensure stability in the foreign intelligence collection system at a time of heightened threat levels and guarantee there are no inadvertent gaps in FISA collection at the beginning of next year. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can achieve enactment this session.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, on behalf of Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and myself the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2010. Since early in this Congress, I have been working with Chairman Leahy, both in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, to enact legislation that extends expiring authorities for the collection of foreign intelligence against terrorists, proliferators, foreign powers, and spies, while ensuring that adequate safeguards exist for the protection of the civil liberties and privacy of Americans. To that end, the Judiciary Committee reported, in October 2009, S. 1692, a bill that sought to accomplish two main objectives. One was to extend the life of three authorities under FISA which were then due to sunset on December 31, 2009, described as roving, lone wolf, and business records collection, all of which have been previously described to the Senate during the consideration of earlier extensions. Through two short-term measures, those sunsets have been extended to February 28, 2010. The other main objective was to secure several amendments to statutes on intelligence collection that would improve the balance they strike between protecting national security and protecting civil liberties and privacy. In the course of this Congress, this second objective has been largely achieved through actions that have been taken by the Department of Justice and the FBI under administrative actions. On reviewing those actions, which have been described in a letter from the Attorney General to Chairman Leahy on December 9, 2010, Chairman Leahy and I have determined that the one remaining action that we need to take legislatively this Congress is to extend the three important authorities that are now due to sunset on February 28, 2010. The Feinstein-Leahy bill will extend these sunsets to the same date as proposed in S. 1692, December 31, 2013. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have asked the Congress to extend these authorities. Additionally, the authority established by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, regarding collection of foreign intelligence against persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States, is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012. The Feinstein-Leahy bill would extend that authority for one year, to December 31, 2013, so that all of the sunsets of authority under FISA occur on the same date. This will allow the Congress to consider all of the temporary authorities in conjunction. By acting now on these approaching sunsets, Congress will ensure stability in the foreign intelligence collection system at a time of heightened threat levels and guarantee there are no inadvertent gaps in FISA collection at the beginning of next year. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can achieve enactment this session.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would like to address the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty--called New START--that is now before the Senate for ratification. This treaty has been carefully vetted. I am confident the Senate will come to the conclusion that this treaty is in our national interest and will cast the necessary votes for ratification. I strongly support ratification. Before speaking about intelligence issues related to this treaty, it is important to remind ourselves about the extraordinary, lethal nature of these nuclear weapons. I was 12 years old when atomic bombs flattened both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bomb, estimated to have been 21 kilotons, killed 70,000 people outright. You can see from this chart the absolute devastation this bomb caused in Hiroshima. The Nagasaki bomb, at 15 kilotons--somewhat less--killed at least 40,000 people immediately. This is Nagasaki. Another 100,000 or so who survived the initial blasts died of injuries and radiation sickness. By the end of 1945, an estimated 220,000 people had lost their lives because of these two bombs. The horrible images of disfigured bodies and devastating ruins have stayed with me all my life. I was part of the generation of youngsters being raised who hid under our desks in drills about atomic bombs and atomic weapons being unleashed. So here is Nagasaki before the bomb, and here is Nagasaki after the bomb. It gives you a very good look at what it was like. Today, we live in a world with far more nuclear weapons and even more powerful destructive capabilities. In May of this year, the Pentagon made a rare public announcement of the current U.S. nuclear stockpile-- 5,113 nuclear warheads, including deployed and nondeployed and not including warheads awaiting dismantlement. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia's stockpile includes 4,650 deployed warheads--deployed warheads--both strategic and tactical. Including nondeployed warheads, the estimate of Russia's arsenal is 9,000 warheads, plus thousands more waiting to be dismantled. Many--and here is the key--many of these weapons are far in excess of 100 kilotons or more than five times the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some are far, far larger. Many of these weapons are on high alert, ready to be launched at a moment's notice, and their use would result in unimaginable devastation. So I ask my colleagues during this debate to reflect carefully on the extraordinary, lethal nature of these weapons as we consider this treaty. This treaty is actually a modest step forward, not a giant one. It calls for cutting deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 30 percent below the levels established under the 2002 Moscow Treaty to 1,550 each. It cuts launch vehicles, such as missile silos and submarine tubes, to 800 for each country. Deployed launch vehicles are capped at 700--more than 50 percent below the original START treaty. According to the unanimous views of our Nation's military and civilian defense officials, this will not erode America's nuclear capability, our strategic deterrent, or our national defense. The United States will still maintain a robust nuclear triad, able to protect our country and our national security interests. As GEN James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former head of the United States Strategic Command, stated: I think we have more than enough capacity and capability for any threat that we see today or that might emerge in the foreseeable future. Additionally, these reductions in this New START treaty won't have to be completed until the treaty's seventh year, so there is plenty of time for a prudent drawdown. But while its terms are modest, its impacts are broad, and I wish now to describe some of the benefits of ratification. I begin with the ways in which this treaty enhances our Nation's intelligence capabilities. This has been the lens through which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has viewed the treaty, and I believe the arguments are strongly positive and persuasive. There are three main points to make, and I will take them in turn. They are, No. 1, the intelligence community can carry out its responsibility to monitor Russian activities under the treaty effectively. No. 2, this treaty, when it enters into force, will benefit intelligence collection and analysis. And No. 3, intelligence analysis indicates that failing to ratify the New START treaty will create negative consequences for the United States. My comments today are, of course, unclassified, but I would note that there is a National Intelligence Estimate on monitoring the New START Treaty available to Senators. I have written a classified letter to Senators Kerry and Lugar that spells out these arguments in greater detail. Members are welcome to review both documents. Following President Reagan's advice to ``trust but verify,'' and in line with all major arms control treaties for decades, New START includes several provisions that allow the United States to monitor how Russia is reducing and deploying its strategic arsenal, and vice versa. The U.S. intelligence community will use these treaty provisions and other independent tools, such as the use of national technical means, for example, our satellites, to collect information on Russian forces and whether Russia is complying with the treaty's terms. These provisions include on-the-ground inspections of Russian nuclear facilities and bases--18 a year; regular exchanges on data on the warhead and missile production and locations; unique identifiers, a distinct alphanumeric code for each missile and heavy bomber for tracking purposes; a ban on blocking national technical means from collecting information on strategic forces, and other measures I will describe later in these remarks. Without the strong monitoring and verification measures provided for in this treaty, we will know less about the number, size, location, and deployment status of Russian nuclear warheads. That is a fact. As General Chilton, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, recently said: Without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian nuclear strategic force developments and activities, and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly. Without such a regime, we would unfortunately be left to use worst-case analyses regarding our own force requirements. That is what a ``no'' vote on this treaty means. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made the same point earlier this month. He said that if the United States doesn't ratify the treaty, Russia will have to respond, including augmentation of its stockpile. That is what voting ``no'' on this treaty means. So these monitoring provisions are key, as are the trust and transparency they bring, and the only way to get to these provisions is through ratification. In fact, we have not had any inspections or other monitoring tools for over a year, since the original START treaty expired, so we have less insight into any new Russian weapons and delivery systems that might be entering their force. The United States has essentially gone black on any monitoring, inspection, data exchanges, telemetry, and notification allowed by the former START treaty. Last November, Senator Kyl and I traveled to Geneva to meet with United States and Russian negotiating teams. We met at some length with Rose Gottemoeller, the Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, who led the U.S. negotiating team. We also met with the senior members of her team, including her deputy, Ambassador Marcie Ries, Ted Warner, Mike Elliot, Kurt Siemon, and Dick Trout, who led the drafting efforts and represented the Departments of Defense and Energy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These officials and many of the other members of the U.S. team were very impressive in their professionalism and experience. Several had participated in the negotiation of the original START treaty or the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty, the INF treaty. Several were inspectors who had conducted on-the-ground inspections in Russia under START and INF, or were weapons system operators who had been responsible for hosting Russian inspectors at U.S. bases. This team was not composed of the uninitiated or of neophytes. They had both background and skill. They were acutely aware of the lessons learned over the past decades of arms control and negotiated this treaty with an understanding of what monitoring and compliance verification mean. Senator Kyl and I also met two or three times during our trip to Geneva with the Russian delegation led by Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov, who is an experienced diplomat and negotiator. His delegation included representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defense, the General Staff, and key agencies such as RosAtom and RosKosmos. Like the U.S. delegations, the Russian delegation had among its members inspectors and weapons systems operators, including those from the Strategic Rocket Forces, the Navy, and the Air Force. The treaty was still being negotiated at that time, but the rough outlines were very much coming into focus. I mentioned to the U.S. and Russian delegations that it would be difficult to get 67 votes in the Senate for a resolution saying the sky is blue. In order to get an arms treaty through the Senate, it would have to have strong monitoring provisions. In a lengthy conversation over lunch with Russian Ambassador Antonov, I said that, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I would have to walk onto this very floor and assure my colleagues that the provisions in this treaty are sufficient for the U.S. intelligence community to perform its monitoring role. I believe that Ambassador Antonov clearly understood that, and 1 year later I am able to say on this floor that the Intelligence Committee has reviewed the question of monitoring the New START treaty at length. It is adequate. After the treaty was submitted to the Senate on May 13, 2010, 7 months ago, the committee began its review of its provisions and annex. We reviewed past intelligence community analyses on monitoring previous treaties and the tools available to monitor Russian behavior under this New START. The intelligence community completed drafting its NIE on its ability to monitor the treaty's limits in June, 6 months ago. We received a copy on June 30, allowing members to review it before and after the Fourth of July recess. The committee held a hearing on the NIE with senior intelligence officials in July. Not a single one of them questioned the validity or the judgments of the estimates. Following the hearing, the committee submitted more than 70 questions for the record and received detailed responses from the intelligence community. Those are obviously classified, but they can be seen. In addition, the committee undertook its own independent review of the NIE and the treaty's implications for the intelligence community. Committee staff participated in more than a dozen meetings and briefings on a range of issues concerning the treaty, focusing on intelligence monitoring and collection aspects. Based on the committee's review, after reading the NIE and other assessments, and having spoken to Directors of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, David Gompert, and Jim Clapper, it is clear to me that the intelligence community will be able to effectively monitor Russian activities under this treaty. For the record, I wish to describe the monitoring provisions in this treaty, many of which are similar to the original START treaty's provisions. No. 1, the treaty commits the United States and Russia ``not to interfere with the national technical means of verification of the other Party.'' That means not to interfere with our satellites and ``not to use concealment measures that impede verification.'' This means that Russia, as I said, agrees not to block our satellite observations of their launchers or their testing. Without this treaty, Russia could take steps to deny or block our ability to collect information on their forces. Let me make clear, they could try, and perhaps block our satellites. Like START, New START requires Russia to provide the United States with regular data notifications. This includes information on the production of any and all new strategic missiles, the loading of warheads onto missiles, and the location to which strategic forces are deployed. Under START, these notifications were vital to our understanding. In fact, the notification provisions under New START are stronger than those in the old START, including a requirement that Russia inform the United States when a missile or warhead moves into or out of deployed status. Let me repeat that. There is an obligation that Russia inform us when a missile or a warhead moves into or out of deployed status. Third, New START restores our ability to conduct on-the-ground inspections. There are none of them going on, none have been going on, for over a year. New START allows for 10 so-called type one on-site inspections of Russian ICBMs, SLBMs, and bomber bases a year. The protocols for these type one inspections were written by U.S. negotiators with years of inspections experience under the original START treaty. Here is how they work. First, U.S. inspectors choose what base they wish to inspect. Russia is restricted from moving missiles, launchers, and bombers away from that base. Second, when the inspectors arrive they will be given a full briefing from the Russians, to include the numbers of deployed and nondeployed missile launchers or bombers at the base, the number of warheads loaded on each bomber--this is important--and the number of reentry vehicles on each ICBM or SLBM. Third, the inspectors choose what they want to inspect. At an ICBM's base, the inspectors choose a deployed ICBM for inspection, one they want to inspect. At a submarine base they choose an SLBM. If there are any nondeployed launchers, ones not carrying missiles, the inspectors can pick one of those for inspection as well. At air bases, the inspectors can choose up to three bombers for inspection. Fourth, the actual inspection occurs, with the U.S. personnel verifying the number of warheads on the missiles or on the bombers chosen. As I mentioned earlier, each missile and bomber is coded with a specific code, both numerically and alphabetically, so that you know what you have chosen, and they cannot be changed. Under this framework, our inspectors are provided comprehensive information from the Russian briefers. They are able to choose themselves how they want to verify that this information is accurate. The treaty also provides for an additional eight inspections a year of nondeployed warheads and facilities where Russia converts or eliminates nuclear arms. Some people have commented that the number of inspections under New START, that is, the total of 18 I have just gone through, is smaller than the 28 under the previous START treaty. This is true. But it is also true that there are half as many Russian facilities to inspect as there were in 1991 when START was signed. In addition, inspections under New START are designed to cover more topics than inspections under the prior START agreement. In testimony from the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, or DTRA, Kenneth Myers, the agency doing these inspections, said: Type One inspections will be more demanding on both DTRA and site personnel, as it combines the main parts of what were formerly two separate inspections under START into a single, lengthier inspection. That is important. The inspections are going to be better. So while the absolute number of inspections is down from 28 to 18, the ability to monitor and understand Russian forces is not lessened. I am confident we can achieve our monitoring objectives with 18 inspections a year. I also urge my colleagues to review the New START National Intelligence Estimate which addresses these issues in detail. Let me discuss a couple of monitoring provisions that were included in the expired START treaty but are not in the treaty we are now considering. First, under START, the U.S. officials had a permanent presence at the Russian missile production facility at Votkinsk. You will hear about Votkinsk. Inspectors could watch as missiles left the plant and were shipped to various parts of the country. New START does not include this provision. In fact, the Bush administration had taken this provision off the table in its negotiations with the Russians prior to leaving office. New START does, however, require Russia to mark all missiles, as I have been saying, with unique identifiers so we can track their location and deployment status over the lifetime of the treaty, so it is not necessarily to have a permanent monitoring presence at Votkinsk. The treaty also requires Russia to notify us at least 48 hours before any missile leaves a plant. So we will still have information about missile production without the permanent presence. Our inspectors and other nuclear experts have testified that these provisions are, in fact, sufficient. Secondly, START required the United States and Russia to exchange technical data from missile tests--that is known as telemetry--to each other but not to other countries. That telemetry allows each side to calculate things such as how many warheads a missile could carry. This was important as the START treaty attributed warheads to missiles. If a Russian missile could carry 10 reentry vehicles, the treaty counted it as having 10 warheads. Information obtained through telemetry was, therefore, important to determine the capabilities of each delivery system. New START, however, does away with these attribution rules and counts the actual number of warheads deployed on missiles; no more guessing whether a Russian missile is carrying one or eight warheads. With this change, we do not need precise calculations of the capabilities of Russian missiles in order to tell whether Russia is complying with the treaty's terms. So telemetry is not necessary to monitor compliance with New START. Nonetheless, as a gesture to transparency, the treaty allows for the exchange of telemetry between our two countries only, up to five times a year if both sides agree to do so. In fact, it should be pointed out that if the treaty included a broader requirement to exchange telemetry, the United States might have to share information on interceptors for missile defense, which the Department of Defense has not agreed to do. Third, there has been a concern raised about Russian ``breakout'' capability, a fear that Russia may one day decide to secretly deploy more warheads than the treaty would allow, or to secretly build a vast stockpile that it could quickly put into its deployed force. I do not see this as a credible concern. According to public figures, Russian strategic forces are already under or close to the limits prescribed by New START, and they have been decreasing over the past decade, not just now but over the past decade. So the concern about a breakout is a concern that Russia would suddenly decide it wants to reverse what has been a 10-year trend and deploy more weapons than it currently believes are needed for its security. They would also have to decide to do this secretly, with the significant risk of being caught. Because of the monitoring provisions, the inspections, our national technical means and other ways we have to track Russian nuclear activities, Moscow would have a serious disincentive to do that. Moreover, instead of developing a breakout capability, Russia could decide instead to simply withdraw from the treaty just as the United States did when President Bush withdrew from the antiballistic treaty. Finally, even in the event that Russia did violate the treaty and pursue a breakout capability, I am confident that our nuclear capabilities are more than sufficient to continue to deter Russia and to provide assurances to our allies. The bottom line is that the intelligence community can effectively monitor this treaty. If you vote ``no'' on this treaty, there will be no monitoring. As I noted earlier, a second question relevant to New START is whether ratifying the treaty actually enhances our intelligence collection and analysis. This is above and beyond the question of whether the intelligence community will be able to fulfill its responsibility to monitor Russian compliance with the treaty's terms. While I am unable to go into the specifics, the clear answer to this question is, yes. The ability to conduct inspections, receive notifications, enter into continuing discussions with the Russians over the lifetime of the treaty, will provide us with information and understanding of Russian strategic forces that we simply will not have without the treaty. If you vote ``no,'' we will not have it. The intelligence community will need to collect information about Russian nuclear weapons and intentions with or without a New START treaty, just as it has since the beginning of the Cold War. But absent the inspector's boots on the ground, the intelligence community will need to rely on other methods. A November 18 article in the Washington Times noted that: In the absence of a U.S.-Russian arms control treaty, the U.S. intelligence community is telling Congress it will need to focus more spy satellites over Russia that could be used to peer on other sites, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, to support the military. Put even more simply, the Nation's top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, was recently asked about ratification of the New START treaty. He responded: I think the earlier, the sooner, the better. You know my thing is: From an intelligence perspective only, are we better off with it or without it? We're better off with it. So Members should realize that if they vote ``no'' to ratify this treaty and lose out on its monitoring provisions, that means we are going to have to spend much more, and it is going to be much more difficult if not impossible to get certain information about Russian forces. The final intelligence-related question on the New START treaty is, what impact ratification--or failure to ratify--will have on our other foreign policy objectives. I think this is important. We live in a different world today where there are nonstate actors, where there are two nations, Iran and Korea, moving to develop a nuclear weapon, and it is very important to be able to achieve a working relationship with the large powers that give confidence to other nations to stand with us. This question can be addressed largely through open source intelligence. There have been numerous news reports and press conferences in the recent weeks about the broader effects of ratifying New START. Many supporters of the New START treaty have noted that ratification is a key achievement and symbol of the ``reset'' in Russian relations that Presidents Obama and Medvedev have sought. But beyond generalities of an improved relationship, the Senate's rejection of New START would not only undermine our understanding of Russia's strategic forces, it could derail or disrupt a host of other U.S. policies objectives. In Russia today, there is a heated debate over whether Moscow is better served by domestic reforms and engagements with the West, or by hard-line behavior that rejects cooperation with the West. Russians view New START as a signature product of the reforms. This is the signature product of Russian reform and the new Russian President. They view the fate of New START in this Senate as a crucial test of the reformists' claim that Russia and America can work together. If we, the Senate, reject this treaty, we can confirm what Russian hard-liners have been saying all along, the United States is not a viable partner. Here are a few real-world examples. Russia has been allowing the United States and other members of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to transport material into Afghanistan over Russian territory. This has assisted our war efforts, especially in light of recent attacks against convoys crossing through Pakistan. Russia has withheld delivery of the S-300 advanced air defense system to Iran and supported the United Nations Security Council sanctions against Tehran. Tehran wanted to buy this sophisticated air defense missile defense system. Russia was going to sell it to them. Russia has withheld that sale. That is a major achievement. Also, Russia and NATO partners agreed at the recent summit in Lisbon to a new missile defense system in Europe. This is an agreement for a missile defense system which Russia has fought violently over the past decade. At that same summit, Foreign Ministers from Denmark, Lithuania, Norway, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Hungary spoke out in support of the New START treaty. As neighbors to Russia and the former Soviet Union, they praised New START as necessary for the security of Europe but also as an entrance to engage in tactical nuclear weapons treaties which pose an even greater threat from state or nonstate use. There is no quid pro quo here. Russia has not agreed to support initiatives of the United States around the world if only the Senate would ratify the New START treaty. But as every Senator knows, when we are trying to get things done, relationships matter. The relationship between the United States and Russia has been critical since we fought together in World War II and it will continue to be so. This is an unparalleled opportunity to enhance that relationship and to say, by signature and by ratification of this treaty, that, yes, the United States of America wants to work with Russia; yes, the United States and Russia have mutual goals; and, yes, with respect to Iran and other trouble spots, the United States and Russia can, in fact, stand together. Let me move on to the nonproliferation reasons to ratify this treaty. New START demonstrates to the world that the two nations possessing more than 90 percent of the planet's nuclear weapons are capable of working together on arms reduction and nonproliferation. A ``no'' vote says we are not capable of doing that. I believe this will pave the way for more multilateral efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons as well as restrictions on tactical nuclear warheads that could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. Let us not forget the centerpiece of our nuclear nonproliferation regime, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It is based on a clear bargain. Those with nuclear weapons agree to eventually eliminate them, and those without nuclear weapons agree to never acquire them. With the signing of the New START treaty, the Presidents of the United States and Russia are showing the other parties to the NPT that we are living up to our end of the bargain. Without New START, with a ``no'' vote on New START, we do not do this. This will strengthen the resolve of other nations to maintain their commitments and uphold the credibility of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, to hold violators such as Iran and North Korea accountable and subject to sanction. In fact, we are already seeing the benefits of commitments made in the New START agreement. The latest review conference of the NPT in May of this year ended with 189 parties recommitting themselves to the NPT after the 2005 conference collapsed. On June 9, the United Nations Security Council passed a fourth sanctions resolution on Iran for its violations of its commitments under the treaty with the support of China and Russia. Ratification of New START also opens the door to further arms control agreements, both to further arms reductions and to address tactical nuclear warheads--the smaller yield devices that are in some ways more dangerous than the strategic weapons with which we are dealing now. Ratification moves us down the path to a world without nuclear weapons as envisioned by Presidents Obama and Reagan. For years, the idea of a nuclear-free world was ridiculed as a fantasy. This may now be beginning to change. Don't turn it down. Republicans as well as Democrats have come around to the idea that eventual nuclear disarmament is not only desirable, but it is, in fact, doable and is consistent with our national security interests. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger have joined forces with former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry to make this case. In a January 4, 2007, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, they called for U.S. leadership in building a ``solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.'' We can now do our part to build that consensus and help ensure that we never again see the destruction caused by nuclear weapons. Once again, I return to these charts. I was 12 years old when I saw these pictures. I was 12 years old when I realized what a 21-kiloton and a 15-kiloton bomb can do. Many of the bombs in the U.S. and Russian arsenals are well in excess of 100 kilotons today. The number is classified but, trust me, they are well in excess. We can destroy the planet Earth with these weapons. They are deployed and they are targeted. This treaty gives us the opportunity to reduce our arsenals--the U.S. and Russian stockpiles that now make up 90 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world. It is a big deal. To say no to this treaty is, in fact, to say we want to go back to the days of suspicion, of not working together, of the Cold War ethos that we will succumb to the Russian hardliners and take this first major test of Russian reform and effectively trash it. We must not do that. Mr. President, with the months of debate over this Treaty, a small number of objections have been raised. I would like to address them now. First, some Senators infer that our nuclear weapons will become unreliable over time. They say they won't vote for this treaty unless it is linked to modernization of the arsenal. Let's be clear. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy have certified that our arsenal is safe and reliable in each of the past 14 years. The head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Tom D'Agostino has assured me of the surety of the stockpile. Our top scientists have told us that these weapons will remain safe and reliable for decades to come. In fact, an independent group of scientists known as the JASONs, who advises the government on nuclear weapons, has reported that the National Nuclear Security Administration is successfully ensuring the arsenal's safety and reliability, through weapons ``lifetime extension programs.'' Their September, 2009 report said that through such programs, ``Lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence . . . '' And President Obama has made a significant commitment to ensuring that we maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal by providing the necessary resources for as long as we have nuclear weapons. The President's fiscal 2011 budget asks for $11.2 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a 13.4-percent increase over the fiscal 2010 budget. This includes $7 billion for weapons activities to maintain the safety, security, and effectiveness of the arsenal, an increase of 10 percent, or $624 million from fiscal year 2010. The President has submitted a plan calling for $80 billion over the next 10 years. In November, he added an additional $4.1 billion over the next 5 years alone to that enormous sum. Modernization of the nuclear stockpile is surely a major priority, and I will fight to make sure these funds are appropriated. But these questions and concerns have now been addressed, and should not hold up this treaty. Second, critics have claimed that New START will impede current and planned missile defense efforts. They point to language in the preamble of the treaty that notes the inter-relationship between offensive and defensive strategic arms. They point to the unilateral statement issued by Russia upon signing the treaty indicating that our missile defense plans could prompt Moscow to withdraw from the agreement. And they note that the agreement prohibits both countries from converting additional ICBM silos or submarine launch tubes for missile defense interceptors. These arguments are without merit. First, the preamble language simply acknowledges what we all know: that there is a relationship between strategic offensive and defensive arms. It will not inhibit our missile defense efforts in any way. Similar language can be found in the original START agreement, and it has not inhibited our missile defense efforts over the past two decades. Second, the Russian unilateral statement is not a part of the agreement, and the United States is not bound by it in any way. In fact, the United States issued its own unilateral statement clearly stating that it will move forward with its missile defense plans. Again, it should be noted that the Soviet Union issued a similar unilateral statement when START was signed and it had no impact on our missile defense plans. Finally, regarding the prohibition on converting additional ICBM silos and SLBM launch tubes for missile defense interceptors: simply stated, our military has no plans to do so. This doesn't block the United States from anything it plans or wants to do. It is actually cheaper to build new missile defense launchers than to convert existing launch tubes or silos. And the treaty places no constraints whatsoever on that construction. The Secretary of Defense, the uniformed military leadership, and the head of the Missile Defense Agency have testified this treaty will not harm missile defense. These concerns have been raised, debated, and answered. It is time for ratification. Mr. President, the choice before us is not New START and the treaty that some of my colleagues would prefer to have. Rather, the choice is between New START and no arms control treaty at all. To me, that choice is easy. Either we make progress on reducing our nuclear arsenals and lay the foundation for further reductions including on tactical nuclear weapons or we do not. New START is in our Nation's national security. Every day that passes without ratification is another day without inspectors on the ground in Russia and a decrease in mutual transparency and trust. The Senate has a long tradition of overwhelming support for treaties like this one: the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was approved 93-5; the 1991 START agreement which was approved 93-6; and the 2002 Moscow Treaty which was approved 95-0. There is nothing in this treaty to suggest that the vote on its ratification should be any different. This should be an easy step for the Senate to take, a step that should be taken in the spirit of protecting our Nation and the world from the devastation of a nuclear war. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, I regret that such an error was made. I would like to reconfirm that my colleague, Senator Mikulski, should not be listed as a sponsor for this project.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nancy Peterson, a fellow in Senator Webb's office, be granted the privilege of the floor throughout the Senate's consideration of the New START treaty and the fiscal year 2011 Omnibus Appropriations Act.