Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I also am one of those who worried over this vote over the weekend that we passed yesterday. I spoke on this very floor about the fact that I did not like the estate tax. I did not think wealthy Americans needed a sustained tax cut. Then I began to make some calls to economists. What I found was a kind of double-edged sword. One, they did believe the package had a stimulative nature of anywhere between .6 and 1.1 percent, .6 being about 600,000 jobs--so 600,000 to 1.2 million jobs; unemployment insurance was stimulative; the payroll tax cut was stimulative, et cetera; and that we needed to do this. But then the flip side. And the flip side was, we are now reaching 63 percent of GDP in debt. What will happen is one day, if this continues, we will go off a cliff economically. Some time ago, during the end of the Bush administration, many of us were on a phone call. We heard Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke say that we are on the brink of a major collapse of this economy. Everything could go down--banks, credit institutions, et cetera. I never thought this could ever happen in America. I now know that the unprecedented can, in effect, happen in America, and that when we vote for a package that puts almost $1 trillion additional on debt and deficit, we had better have a way to make a pivot, as some people have called it, and do those things that can curb expenditures. We are fortunate. This National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility outlines a course. Not everything do I agree with, just like the tax bill. But, nonetheless, it is a course of action which can bring down this debt and bring down this deficit. I am very proud of those Members who voted to sustain this report. Even with 11 Members, I think it gives the kind of substantial ability to this report to bring it before this body. I would hope that before we have to raise the debt ceiling, we would have before us a package, that we would set limits on spending, that we would freeze pay across the board, that we would make substantial across-the-board cuts in travel, in printing, and those things, not because that is a big item but because it is an item that wakes up people. I found that on a city level. It exists on a State level, and it exists on a Federal level. There is much we can do, and I think at 63 percent of GDP, this debt and deficit says to America: America, be concerned. America and American business, come home. Build your plants here. Help us rebuild this great country. Help us build the industries of the future. But at the same time, right now, we have got to make very deep cuts across the board. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which will prevent tax increases on middle-class Americans, provide targeted investments in American businesses, and continue much- needed relief for the unemployed. After wrestling with my concerns about upper-class tax rates and the estate tax provision, I have come to the conclusion that this bill is necessary in order to preserve and promote our economic recovery. Between the extension of tax rates for the middle class, the patch for the alternative minimum tax, and several extensions of previous tax policy, almost $500 billion goes toward preventing a substantial tax increase on working Americans. A tax increase on that scale would significantly hamper the economy and place further strain on families struggling to stay afloat during uncertain economic times. The words spoken by former President Clinton last week underscore a strong point made by a man who knows something about how to forge legislation necessary to move our Nation forward. He said: The agreement taken as a whole is, I believe, the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the largest number of Americans, and to maximize the chances that the economic recovery will accelerate and create more jobs . . . That is what we must do: focus as much effort as possible on creating jobs and supporting industry in the United States. We must adapt to the changing contours of the global economy and ensure we retain our competitive position as the world's greatest economic power. I was very pleased to hear that the Treasury grant provision was included in this package. It illustrates the kind of policy necessary to encourage the industries of the future. The Treasury grant program is responsible for $18.2 billion in renewable energy development in just the past 2 years. That is 1,465 projects around the country. With the program extended, California alone could see at least 141 more projects break ground next year. That would mean an additional 27,000 megawatts of energy and tens of thousands of jobs in high- unemployment counties. High-tech companies in California and across the country will also benefit from a 2-year extension of a key research-and-development tax credit. And the president of the National Association of Manufacturers called this provision ``key to manufacturers' competitiveness and ability to create jobs.'' In the end, that is the bottom line. Will the economy be substantially better off if this bill passes? If the answer is yes, then there is simply no other option. In the past few days I have spoken to a number of prominent economists about what this bill would mean for our economic recovery. With unemployment levels at 9.8 percent nationally and 12.4 percent in California, it is crucial that the economy start growing at a fast enough rate to create more jobs. The consensus is that the provisions before us will immediately hasten the pace of the recovery, creating enough momentum to get us to the point of self-sustaining economic growth. However, we must follow this bill with measures that address tax reform in order to create a simplified system that addresses the inequalities that have become apparent over the last decade. From 2003 to 2007, income for families in the top 5 percent of taxpayers increased by 7 percent, while 95 percent of taxpayers' incomes remained stagnant. The average income of the top 1 percent of earners increased by 10 times as much as that for the bottom 90 percent. During the expansion of 2002 to 2007, families saw their medium income drop by $2,000, the first time Americans have seen their incomes drop during a period of economic growth. In 2007, the top 10 percent took home almost half of the country's total earnings, the highest level of income inequality in our Nation's history. Clearly, our current Tax Code does not work for most Americans. As we get back on our feet, we must shift our focus to economic policies that promote opportunity and allow for the continued pursuit of the American dream. The point today is that we have two options. We can swallow our distaste for a few of the provisions included in this package for the sake of struggling Americans everywhere. Or we can take a big risk with the economic recovery by allowing tax rates to reset to 1990s levels. The people that would hurt the most are the very same people we are trying to help. I choose to do what is absolutely necessary for the benefit of the Americans that need help most, and that is why I will support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the DREAM Act. This important legislation would give eligible young people, who were brought to the United States as children, the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the United States. This bill addresses just one small piece of the immigration debate, but it has a profound impact on the lives of undocumented youth. I have supported the DREAM Act since it was first introduced in 2001 by Senators Hatch and Durbin. Since then, the DREAM Act has had wide bipartisan support. It passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee twice. Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented youth graduate from American high schools. Most of these undocumented youth did not make a choice to come to the United States; they were brought here by their parents. Many of these young people grew up in the United States and have little or no memory of the countries they came from. 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 and honor roll students; some are community leaders, and have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States. Through no fault of their own, these young individuals lack the immigration status they need to realize their potential. Because of their undocumented status, they are ineligible to serve in the military and face tremendous obstacles to attending college. For many, English is 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. The DREAM Act provides an opportunity for these students to fulfill the American dream. It would permit students to become permanent residents if they came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, and attend college or enlist in the military for 2 years. These students would have to wait for 10 years before becoming lawful permanent residents and undergo background and security checks and pay any back taxes. This is a multistep process, not a free pass. In addition, DREAM Act eligible students would not be eligible for in State tuition at State colleges and universities or Federal education grants. These students would only be eligible for Federal work study and student loans. The DREAM Act also contains tough criminal penalties for fraud and excludes students from participation in health insurance exchanges, Medicaid, food stamps, and other entitlement programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the DREAM Act would increase Federal revenues by $2.3 billion over 10 years and increase net direct spending by $912 million between 2011 and 2020. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting the bill would reduce deficits by about $1.4 billion over 10 years. I would like to tell you about a few college students in California, who would benefit from the DREAM Act. Arthur Mkoian came to the United States from Armenia with his mother when he was 3 years old. Arthur attended Bullard High School in California, maintaining a 4.0 grade point average. Arthur graduated in 2008 as his class valedictorian. He is now in his second year at U.C. Davis, majoring in biochemistry. Arthur maintains A grades, and is on the Dean's Merit List. He hopes to continue on to study medicine, but without the DREAM Act, his future remains uncertain. Nayely Arreola came to the United States with her parents and younger brother in 1989, when she was only 3 years old. Her family made their home in California, working hard to succeed. The family was taken advantage of by a negligent immigration attorney, who was later disbarred, who took away their chance to legalize their status. Despite this, Nayely is an excellent student. She was the first member of her family to graduate high school and went on to graduate from Fresno Pacific University. While she was in college, Nayely maintained outstanding grades and became president of her class. Ivan Rosales came to the United States when he was 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 the 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. The United States is worse off if it lets the talents of these young people go to waste. They have demonstrated their commitment to this country's ideals through their academic success, leadership, and dedication to their communities. It is in the Nation's best interest to provide talented young people the ability to become full members of our society. The DREAM Act has widespread support from labor, business, education, civil rights, and religious groups, who recognize that the potential of these young people should not be lost. The presidents and chancellors of several universities including the University of California, California State University, the University of Washington, Arizona State University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Utah, and Washington State University recently wrote a joint letter expressing their support of the DREAM Act. In that letter, they state that in this age of international economic competition, ``the U.S. needs all of the talent that it can acquire and these students represent an extraordinary resource for the country . . . it is an economic imperative.'' Businesses such as the Microsoft Corporation support the DREAM Act. The Microsoft Corporation believes in the DREAM Act because, ``It is essential to our nation's competitiveness and success to nurture the talent we have and to incorporate bright, hardworking students into the workforce to become the next generation of leaders in this country.'' Retired GEN Colin Powell, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former Secretary of State, and other current and former military leaders support the DREAM Act because it would greatly enhance military recruitment. The DREAM Act is included in the Department of Defense's fiscal year 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to help the military ``shape and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force.'' In 2006, then-Under Secretary of Defense David Chu testified that many of the DREAM Act eligible students have the attributes needed in the military--``education, aptitude, fitness, and moral qualifications.'' They should not be prevented from joining the military because of their undocumented status. These students have been raised in the United States and educated here. Often times, they did not choose to be here, but this is the only home they know. They have worked hard to graduate from high school under adversity. Many are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to serve in the military of this country--the country they feel is their own. They are class presidents, gifted athletes and musicians, aspiring scientists, engineers, teachers, and physicians. We should not put up a barrier to their potential to give back to this country. Instead, we should pass the DREAM Act and allow these students to succeed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 28-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA. The Senate passed S. 124, a private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada on Friday; however, that version of the private relief bill did not include an explanation of the zero budgetary impact of the bill. For this reason, I am introducing and seek passage of a new version of this private bill for Mr. Yamada, so that the Congressional Budget Office's assessment of the zero budgetary impact of this bill can be taken into consideration when this bill reaches the House of Representatives. Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself, and her children qualified as her dependents. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage. Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation. I ask my colleagues to once again support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What was the fourth one?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Middle Class Tax Cuts Act of 2010, which gives permanent tax relief to struggling American families who need it most. By extending the current rates for 98 percent of taxpayers, this bill provides the certainty and security necessary to protect working Americans, while at the same time indicating that we need help and that we ask upper income Americans to help address our growing fiscal deficits. Make no mistake; extending current tax rates for the middle class is crucial in order to encourage economic growth. The economic turmoil of the last 3 years has left many American families cash-strapped and struggling to stay afloat. Every extra dollar is critically important. The evidence bears this out. Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that lower and middle-income taxpayers have a higher tendency to spend every dollar they earn. Consequently, by ensuring tax rates don't rise on lower and middle-income earners, we prevent a dramatic decline in consumer spending that could have a negative impact on this fragile economic recovery. Today's job numbers are bad. They indicate we are far below what is necessary to reduce the unemployment rate. Unemployment remains persistently high--12.4 percent or over 2.2 million people in my State, California, unemployed and 9.8 percent or 15.1 million people across America unemployed. With economic growth projected to be slow in the near future, those numbers will likely not come down for some time. America is hurting right now. Those who can should step up and help. I know of no millionaire who needs a sustained tax cut of 4.6 percent or who has asked for one. But I know several who are willing to step up and help. That is the irony of this debate. Conversely, the evidence is extremely poor for extending tax cuts for wealthy Americans. When the CBO analyzed the number of different policies aimed at creating jobs, sustained tax cuts for the wealthy came in dead last. Interesting. On the other hand, permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would require $700 billion more in deficit spending. They are unpaid for. In light of this report issued Wednesday by the President's fiscal commission, of which some of my colleagues are members, I simply cannot argue for extension of the upper income brackets. It would be one thing if I could say the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy contributed to an era of substantial economic growth and prosperity. But here is the key: History does not support that. In 2001, the first set of Bush tax cuts was proposed as a means of stimulating the economy as we emerged from the dot-com bubble. Of course, we were also projected to have a $5.6 trillion, 10-year budget surplus. We all know that when President Clinton left office, he left a surplus. In light of these facts--the fact that there was money, there was a surplus--I voted for the first round of Bush tax cuts. I believed the government surpluses should be returned to the American people. But as President Bush was leaving office, we were forced to confront some very sobering truths. The 10-year budget deficit was projected to be $6.3 trillion, not the $5.6 trillion surplus we had thought. There was a total turnaround. The national debt had increased by over 80 percent. The argument made by Republicans, if we remember, during that time was that deficits don't matter. It doesn't matter that the Iraq war was not funded. The tax cuts didn't matter. ``Deficits don't matter'' was reiterated throughout this Chamber, and the belief was that lower income tax rates would actually increase revenue for the Federal Government. This has been debunked by recent history. CBO data shows that changes in law between 2001 and 2005 resulted in deficit increases of $539 billion, and the Bush tax cuts accounted for nearly half that amount. However, the most scathing indictment against extending these tax cuts for the wealthy is illustrated in our recent history of inequality and wage stagnation. From 2003 to 2007, incomes for families in the top 5 percent of taxpayers increased by 7 percent, while incomes for the other 95 percent of taxpayers remained stagnant. So from 2003 to 2007, the only incomes that increased were the top 5 percent. Everybody else remained stagnant. So the economy was clearly working for the other 5 percent but not for anybody else. The average income of the top 1 percent of income earners increased by 10 times as much as that for the bottom 90 percent. That is an amazing figure, if you think about it, that the top 1 percent gained 10 times more in income than all of the other bottom 90 percent of taxpayers. During the expansion of 2002 to 2007, families saw their median income drop by $2,000. That is the first time Americans have seen their incomes drop during a period of economic growth. So there was growth, but the median income was dropping during that period of time. During this period, also, income tax rates for the top 1 percent of earners were reduced by twice as much as rates for anyone else. The top 1 percent today--and under the Bush years--are paying less in taxes than they did in the Clinton years. So there was actually a drop in rate for the top 1 percent. In 2007, the top 10 percent took home almost half of the country's total earnings, which translates to the highest level of income inequality in our Nation's history in that year, 2007. We face a number of daunting problems. Our national debt is now in excess of $14 trillion. If we continue deficit spending, we will unquestionably begin to constrict economic opportunity for this generation and those that follow. Our economy is struggling to grow at a pace that will start providing jobs, we hope, for over 15 million out-of-work Americans. I think income inequality today is at a historic high, and it is an unacceptable high. In light of these facts, I do not see the merit in the argument that a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will have a materially beneficial impact on the economy, and I applaud Chairman Baucus for introducing a responsible bill recognizing these stark realities. If we were to do this, we increase income inequality. If you continue to lower taxes for the top brackets, all you do is increase income inequality. You grow the gap between the rich and the poor. I would suggest that bodes ill for the United States of America. Chairman Baucus also included two key provisions in this bill, and I would like to take a few moments to speak about them. This summer, I introduced a bill that would allow family farmers to defer their estate tax payments until they sold the farm or took it out of operation as a farm. The idea was to make sure small working family farms avoided having to make crippling decisions about their land when it came time to pay the estate tax. Let me explain why. Family farms today in America are land rich and cash poor. Farm incomes have not kept pace with rising land values in this country, which puts family farms in a precarious position when it comes to settling estate tax bills. Because family farmers often have little cash on hand to pay the estate tax, they can be forced to sell land to developers in order to make good on the estate tax. Over multiple generations, this can decimate the operation of a farm. This proposal before us today would preserve the existence of family farms by allowing them to defer paying the estate tax until they are taken out of operation and to reassess it at a stepped-up value at that time. By doing this, we can preserve and strengthen existing family farms, which I strongly believe are part of the fabric of this country. This provision would not be available to everyone. It includes income and asset restrictions in order to ensure that the deferral benefit goes only to farmers who need it most and not agribusinesses. If farmers who elect deferral fall out of compliance with the requirements, they would face a recapture penalty in the amount of the estate tax owed. It is my hope in this way we can help ensure the continued existence of family farms, and I applaud the chairman for including this provision. The legislation also includes a 2-year extension of the highly successful Treasury Grant Program, which has been widely credited with maintaining strong economic growth in the renewable energy sector in 2009 and 2010 despite the severe economic turndown. The grant program has proven a particularly effective job creation tool. According to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study, the program has enabled hundreds of renewable energy projects to move forward and save more than 55,000 American jobs in the wind industry alone. Prior to the economic meltdown, clean energy project developers relied on tax equity partnerships with investors to take advantage of clean energy tax incentives. In 2008, the economic meltdown froze the $8 billion tax equity market, jeopardizing billions of dollars in clean energy investment. The Treasury Grant Program proved an effective replacement for these partnerships, supporting about $18.2 billion in clean energy investment to build 8,600 megawatts of renewable energy generation through October 25 of this year. With most utilities and developers still unable to utilize existing production and investment tax credits, and our Nation's economic recovery dependent on the creation of new jobs, this 1-year extension of the grant program is critical. According to a survey of all leading participants in the tax equity market, without an extension of the program, the anticipated financing available for renewable energy is expected to decrease by 56 percent in 2011. In contrast, a recent study found that a 1-year extension of the Treasury Grant Program would result in nearly 65,000 more jobs in the solar industry alone and enough additional solar power to power more than 1.2 million homes. So it is important to emphasize this is not a new Federal incentive program. It simply allows clean energy companies to utilize existing investment and production tax credits without having to partner with Wall Street banks. This proposal, however, does include one serious problem, which I and many of my colleagues oppose: an extension of wasteful subsidies and tariffs for ethanol. The Baucus draft would extend, for 1 year, the ethanol tariff at 54 cents per gallon while lowering the tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline from 45 cents to 36 cents. This increases the real trade barrier on ethanol imports. Fuel importers will pay a real 18 cents per gallon tariff on ethanol that they do not have to pay if they choose to import oil instead. This will only make America more dependent on foreign oil from OPEC states. It will increase the competitive advantage that oil already has over cleaner, climate friendly ethanol imports from democratic, sugar- producing states including Brazil, Australia, and India. This is bad trade policy, bad environmental policy, and bad energy policy. This provision is in direct conflict with the Imported Ethanol Parity Act, a bill I have introduced on a bipartisan basis. This bill would require the ethanol tariff to be lowered to the same level as the ethanol subsidy. I believe the tariff should be lowered to 36 cents per gallon, at a minimum, in this bill. Keeping the tariff at 54 cents does not make sense. Even the ethanol lobby itself does not believe the tariff should be this high. In a statement just this week, the primary ethanol lobbying group, the Renewable Fuels Association, put out a statement saying: The tariff simply exists to offset the value of the tax credit, preventing American taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol producers. Bottom line: If the ethanol tariff served only as an offset, it should be at the same level as the subsidy, not 18 cents higher. Also, this proposal would be extraordinarily expensive. Oil companies are required under the Renewable Fuels Standard to use 13.95 billion gallons of biofuel in 2011. At 36 cents per gallon, the subsidy would cost the U.S. Treasury more than $5 billion to pay profitable oil companies to follow the law. We cannot afford such a subsidy to oil companies that will use the ethanol anyway. I believe it is important to underscore who is bearing the brunt of the pain being doled out by the economic downturn and the subsequent weak recovery. The top 2 percent of taxpayers are not the ones suffering during this crisis. In fact, with sales of luxury goods set to surge to their highest peak since the recession began in 2007, the recovery for the richest Americans seems well under way. They are able to do well for one reason or another in this economy. But it is the income groups below them who are not, who cannot get the loans, who cannot meet the payrolls, whose homes are being foreclosed on, who have great difficulty surviving in this most difficult economic marketplace. So let's not forget why we are faced with this impending tax increase in the first place. The Bush tax cuts were designed to sunset because they were not paid for. They were not paid for because we were told they would lead to higher revenues. In fact, that has not happened. It is time to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy Americans expire. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Coburn-McCaskill amendment, which would impose a 3-year moratorium on earmarks. This amendment is a direct attack on the authority vested in the Congress to determine how Federal funds are spent, despite the fact that this power is clearly established in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. I, for one, take great exception to this attack. It would set a dangerous precedent, in my view, to simply turn over a blank check to the executive branch and undermine the power that the Constitution grants Congress. What if an administration is not focused on the needs of a particular State, perhaps because that State didn't vote for that President? For years I have fought for funding of flood control in Sacramento. Sacramento is one of the most endangered cities in the country when it comes to catastrophic risk of flooding. Neither Democratic nor Republican administrations have requested sufficient funding for the flood control improvements that will protect lives and property in that community. As the Senator elected to represent the people behind those levees, shouldn't I be able to fight for the funding, whether or not the President agrees? I was elected by the people of California to represent the needs of California. And the people of Sacramento certainly believe they need flood control. This is my duty as a Senator. Isn't that why we have a Congress? As a coequal branch of government, we shouldn't be forced to approach the administration with our hat in hand every time we believe something needs to be done. Another flaw in this amendment is the well-trod idea that it will save this country money. Simply put, that is incorrect. Discretionary spending is a popular target to attack. But the truth is that earmarks make up less than one-half of a percentage point of all Federal spending. Earmarks are not the problem, so banning earmarks is not the solution. The real problem is entitlement spending. But tackling entitlement reform is neither easy nor popular. So, instead, we attack earmarks. It sounds good, and it gets applause. But we all know that it doesn't solve the problem. This amendment won't save this country one penny. It will merely shift the power of the purse from Congress to the White House and executive agencies. If you want to reduce discretionary spending, it must be done through the budget process. I am also concerned about the process the Coburn-McCaskill amendment sets forth for waiving this new rule. Rather than putting into effect a traditional budgetary point of order, which requires a three-fifths vote to waive, this amendment calls for a two-thirds vote. This means that if this amendment is approved, funding a public works project would require the same number of votes as constitutional amendments, impeachments, treaties, or the expulsion of Senators. Why should the question of an earmark rise above the three-fifths requirement to invoke cloture on the very bill containing the earmark? Finally, this amendment disregards the significant reforms that have already taken place to make the process transparent. Since Democrats regained control of the Senate, the following reforms have been enacted: Members must publicly certify that they have no private interest in earmarks they request. Members must post their earmark requests on the internet. Every bill with earmarks includes a table listing the Senators who made the requests. This is the most transparent earmark process ever, and I believe the reforms have worked. The earmark process has been abused in the past, but I firmly believe that eliminating the discretion of Congress to appropriate taxpayer dollars is folly. A knee-jerk reaction that tips the balance of power toward the executive branch is not the solution. Let me say this: I am open to further reform if it will make the process even more transparent. The House of Representatives already bans earmarks to most private firms, and I would support doing so in the Senate. I believe the best use of earmarks is to provide funding for projects that are essential to the public good, such as water infrastructure improvements in a city such as East Palo Alto that cannot provide clean water to its residents without a funding share from the Federal Government, or interoperable communications equipment in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, which can be used when an earthquake or other catastrophe strikes. I believe this amendment is wrong for the Senate, it is wrong for our States, and it is wrong for the people we come here to serve. Handing over a fundamental responsibility to the executive branch, at a savings of zero dollars to the taxpayer, is not the solution. Continued reform of a process that is important to so many of our communities is the better alternative.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to raise the cap on rail liability in cases of gross negligence. This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Elton Gallegly of the 24th District of California, and I thank him for all of his hard work on it. When Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act in 1997, it included a small provision imposing a strict cap on liability in railroad crashes. The cap is now contained in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 28103 and states that the ``aggregate allowable awards to all rail passengers, against all defendants, for all claims, including claims for punitive damages, arising from a single accident or incident, shall not exceed $200,000,000.'' What this means is that regardless of the circumstances no matter how many people are killed or injured in a train crash, and no matter what caused the crash total liability for all of the passengers hurt or killed in the crash cannot exceed $200 million. The problem is that when a real catastrophe occurs, this number is just not sufficient and there is no way around it. Let me tell you what happened 2 years ago in California. On September 12, 2008, a commuter train in Chatsworth, California carrying more than 200 people crashed head-on into a freight train. The carnage from this crash was unspeakable. Twenty-five people were killed. Their bodies, many torn to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage. Another 101 people were injured. Volunteers and rescue crews worked that day to help pull them from the wreckage. Emergency response agencies transported over 100 people to hospitals. Their injuries ranged from blood in the brain and collapsed lungs to bone fractures, gashes, and scratches. For some people, the crash was a horrible, harrowing experience, but they have been able to return to the lives they had before. For others, the families of the 25 people who died and for those who suffered the most serious of injuries, life will never be the same. According to the final report of the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, no unexpected equipment malfunction or weather problem was responsible for this crash. The National Transportation Safety Board report states: ``the probable cause of the September 12, 2008, collision was the failure of the Metrolink engineer to observe and appropriately respond to the red signal because he was engaged in text messaging that distracted him from his duties.'' The NTSB found, in other words, that the engineer wasn't paying attention, and he sailed through a red signal, crashing head-on into the freight train. In fact, the report finds that he was so busy texting that he never even hit the brakes. According to the report, on the day of the crash, the engineer sent 21 text messages, received 20 text messages, and made four outgoing telephone calls while he was driving the train. NTSB wrote, the investigation further revealed that this amount of activity was not unusual for this engineer. Wireless records for the 7 days preceding the accident showed that on each workday, the engineer had sent or received text messages or made voice calls during the time he was responsible for operating a train. Two days before the accident, he sent or received about 125 messages during the time he was responsible for operating a train. He had also made phone calls during these periods. Astoundingly, the NTSB found that ``the content of all of the engineer's text messages over the previous 7 days, including those during and outside the times the engineer was responsible for operating a train, indicated that the engineer and, a teenage boy, had been coordinating to allow, the teenage boy, to operate, Metrolink, train 111 on the evening of the accident.'' Although texting while driving the train was clearly prohibited under the operating rules of Veolia Transportation, who employed and oversaw the engineer under contract with Metrolink, this engineer had been violating these ruled habitually and had not been stopped. The conductor who worked with the engineer on Metrolink train 111 observed him using his cell phone while driving the train a month before the accident. According to NTSB, ``He said he spoke to the engineer about it and he later brought the incident to the attention of a supervisor.'' But the behavior obviously continued. Bottom line: The report says the engineer wasn't paying attention to the passengers' safety, he was sending text messages on his cell phone, and no one else took action to stop this dangerous behavior. As a result, 25 people died. This is unbelievable. And it is unacceptable. Since the Chatsworth Crash, I have worked to improve rail safety. In October 2008, Congress passed and the President signed the ``Rail Safety Improvement Act,'' which included a key provision that I strongly pushed requiring mandatory collision-avoidance systems on America's major passenger, commuter, and freight lines. But this $200 million liability cap remains in place. That means that under current law, the train operator, Metrolink, and the company that hired and oversaw the engineer, Veolia, believe they only have to pay $200 million total to all of the victims of the Chatsworth crash and their families. It doesn't matter how tragic the families' losses were. Or how high the survivors' medical bills are. Or how much has been lost in their ability to work and care for their families. The cap is $200 million total, regardless of the circumstances. This is terrible public policy, should never have been adopted, and needs to be changed. In a large crash involving hundreds of people and very serious injuries, a court needs to be able to award the damages that it finds are necessary to care for the victims and their families--to pay their medical bills and to compensate for wages they will never again be able to earn. The bill I am introducing is straightforward. It would raise the liability cap in any case where a court finds gross negligence or willful misconduct to $500 million. And it would do so retroactively to ensure that those who were injured or whose family members were killed are not unfairly deprived of the benefits of what was really the right policy in the first place. I understand that the rail industry believes that the cap on damages keeps their insurance costs and risk exposure down, and I appreciate all the feedback that has been provided by California's passenger rail systems. I look forward to working with them to make sure this legislation will not have any unintended consequences. I do not expect this bill to be considered and enacted this week. Facing that reality, I will work with the interested parties, including California High Speed Rail Authority and CalTrain, to further refine this legislation. There will be an opportunity to introduce an improved product as a ``first day bill'' in the next Congress. But I believe we must do everything we can first to improve safety on our rail lines and second to ensure that when the very worst occurs and people are injured or lose their lives in these accidents, they and their families are fairly compensated. I urge my colleagues to work with me to amend this law and raise the cap in cases of gross negligence. 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 a bill to raise the cap on rail liability in cases of gross negligence. This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Elton Gallegly of the 24th District of California, and I thank him for all of his hard work on it. When Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act in 1997, it included a small provision imposing a strict cap on liability in railroad crashes. The cap is now contained in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 28103 and states that the ``aggregate allowable awards to all rail passengers, against all defendants, for all claims, including claims for punitive damages, arising from a single accident or incident, shall not exceed $200,000,000.'' What this means is that regardless of the circumstances no matter how many people are killed or injured in a train crash, and no matter what caused the crash total liability for all of the passengers hurt or killed in the crash cannot exceed $200 million. The problem is that when a real catastrophe occurs, this number is just not sufficient and there is no way around it. Let me tell you what happened 2 years ago in California. On September 12, 2008, a commuter train in Chatsworth, California carrying more than 200 people crashed head-on into a freight train. The carnage from this crash was unspeakable. Twenty-five people were killed. Their bodies, many torn to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage. Another 101 people were injured. Volunteers and rescue crews worked that day to help pull them from the wreckage. Emergency response agencies transported over 100 people to hospitals. Their injuries ranged from blood in the brain and collapsed lungs to bone fractures, gashes, and scratches. For some people, the crash was a horrible, harrowing experience, but they have been able to return to the lives they had before. For others, the families of the 25 people who died and for those who suffered the most serious of injuries, life will never be the same. According to the final report of the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, no unexpected equipment malfunction or weather problem was responsible for this crash. The National Transportation Safety Board report states: ``the probable cause of the September 12, 2008, collision was the failure of the Metrolink engineer to observe and appropriately respond to the red signal because he was engaged in text messaging that distracted him from his duties.'' The NTSB found, in other words, that the engineer wasn't paying attention, and he sailed through a red signal, crashing head-on into the freight train. In fact, the report finds that he was so busy texting that he never even hit the brakes. According to the report, on the day of the crash, the engineer sent 21 text messages, received 20 text messages, and made four outgoing telephone calls while he was driving the train. NTSB wrote, the investigation further revealed that this amount of activity was not unusual for this engineer. Wireless records for the 7 days preceding the accident showed that on each workday, the engineer had sent or received text messages or made voice calls during the time he was responsible for operating a train. Two days before the accident, he sent or received about 125 messages during the time he was responsible for operating a train. He had also made phone calls during these periods. Astoundingly, the NTSB found that ``the content of all of the engineer's text messages over the previous 7 days, including those during and outside the times the engineer was responsible for operating a train, indicated that the engineer and, a teenage boy, had been coordinating to allow, the teenage boy, to operate, Metrolink, train 111 on the evening of the accident.'' Although texting while driving the train was clearly prohibited under the operating rules of Veolia Transportation, who employed and oversaw the engineer under contract with Metrolink, this engineer had been violating these ruled habitually and had not been stopped. The conductor who worked with the engineer on Metrolink train 111 observed him using his cell phone while driving the train a month before the accident. According to NTSB, ``He said he spoke to the engineer about it and he later brought the incident to the attention of a supervisor.'' But the behavior obviously continued. Bottom line: The report says the engineer wasn't paying attention to the passengers' safety, he was sending text messages on his cell phone, and no one else took action to stop this dangerous behavior. As a result, 25 people died. This is unbelievable. And it is unacceptable. Since the Chatsworth Crash, I have worked to improve rail safety. In October 2008, Congress passed and the President signed the ``Rail Safety Improvement Act,'' which included a key provision that I strongly pushed requiring mandatory collision-avoidance systems on America's major passenger, commuter, and freight lines. But this $200 million liability cap remains in place. That means that under current law, the train operator, Metrolink, and the company that hired and oversaw the engineer, Veolia, believe they only have to pay $200 million total to all of the victims of the Chatsworth crash and their families. It doesn't matter how tragic the families' losses were. Or how high the survivors' medical bills are. Or how much has been lost in their ability to work and care for their families. The cap is $200 million total, regardless of the circumstances. This is terrible public policy, should never have been adopted, and needs to be changed. In a large crash involving hundreds of people and very serious injuries, a court needs to be able to award the damages that it finds are necessary to care for the victims and their families--to pay their medical bills and to compensate for wages they will never again be able to earn. The bill I am introducing is straightforward. It would raise the liability cap in any case where a court finds gross negligence or willful misconduct to $500 million. And it would do so retroactively to ensure that those who were injured or whose family members were killed are not unfairly deprived of the benefits of what was really the right policy in the first place. I understand that the rail industry believes that the cap on damages keeps their insurance costs and risk exposure down, and I appreciate all the feedback that has been provided by California's passenger rail systems. I look forward to working with them to make sure this legislation will not have any unintended consequences. I do not expect this bill to be considered and enacted this week. Facing that reality, I will work with the interested parties, including California High Speed Rail Authority and CalTrain, to further refine this legislation. There will be an opportunity to introduce an improved product as a ``first day bill'' in the next Congress. But I believe we must do everything we can first to improve safety on our rail lines and second to ensure that when the very worst occurs and people are injured or lose their lives in these accidents, they and their families are fairly compensated. I urge my colleagues to work with me to amend this law and raise the cap in cases of gross negligence. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my concern about the detention of seven leading members of the Baha'i community in Iran: Mahvash Sabet, Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Vahid Tizfahm. The seven leaders were arrested in 2008 and accused of espionage and propaganda against the state. In June, the Iranian Government sentenced them to 20 years in prison, a sentence which was subsequently reduced to 10 years. The State Department, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and leading human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have all expressed concern about the harsh sentence and the lack of due process in these cases. The seven Baha'i leaders were held for 2 years without formal charges and access to legal representation and they were convicted behind closed doors. The Senate added its voice to this case by passing a resolution introduced by Senator Wyden, S. Res. 71, calling on the Government of Iran to release the seven leaders and respect the freedom of religion of the Baha'i community. These convictions are yet another example of the abuses suffered by the Baha'i community, the largest religious minority in Iran with more than 300,000 members. The Baha'i are denied official recognition of their faith by the state and are barred from establishing places of worship and schools. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Baha'is cannot serve in the military and are barred from government jobs and benefits. In condemning the sentences as a violation of Iran's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated: ``Freedom of religion is the birthright of people of all faiths.'' I could not agree more. As a U.S. Senator representing approximately 30,000 Baha'i Americans in California, I urge the Iranian Government to release these seven leaders and allow the Baha'i community in Iran to practice their religion freely and without fear of persecution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li. Steve Li is a Peruvian national who, until his recent detention, lived in San Francisco, California. He was brought to the United States as a child and is now a student at City College of San Francisco hoping to become a nurse. I decided to introduce a private bill on Steve's behalf because I believe his removal would be unjust before the Senate gets a chance to vote on the DREAM Act. It is my sincere hope that Congress will consider and pass the DREAM Act before the end of this year. This important legislation would allow youngsters such as Steve Li to continue making a contribution to the United States, the country that they grew up in and call home. Beginning with the new session in January, all of my bills are reviewed and evaluated for reintroduction. Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented youth graduate from American high schools. Most of these undocumented youth did not make a choice to come to the United States; they were brought by their parents. Many of these young people grew up in the United States and have little or no memory of the countries they came from. 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 and honor roll students. Some are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States. Steve Li is one such student. Steve was only 12 years old when his parents brought him to the United States. Like many other DREAM Act eligible youngsters, Steve didn't have a choice to come to the United States, he came with his parents. Steve's parents are Chinese nationals who fled China to Peru to escape economic oppression and the Chinese government's policies on reproductive rights. From China, Steve's parents went to Peru, where he was born. The family then sought asylum in the United States, which was denied. Steve was ordered removed along with his parents; however, according to his mother and himself, he was never told about the denial or his illegal status. So, Steve didn't know he was in the United States illegally or that his family had been ordered to leave. He went through all of his teenage years in the United States believing he was here legally. This past September, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at his home early one morning in September and took him into custody for removal to Peru. That is apparently when he learned about his illegal status. He has remained in detention in Arizona since October 8th. Steve's parents have been ordered to leave the United States and return to China. They cannot accompany their son to Peru. Steve attended George Washington High School in San Francisco. While there, he was enrolled in the Honor's Program. Steve was an athlete on the cross country and track team. He worked for the school newspaper as a reporter, editor, and cameraman. Steve also served his high school community by providing presentations to other students on the risks of drinking and driving and sexually transmitted diseases at the wellness center at George Washington High School. Steve graduated high school in 2008 and enrolled at City College of San Francisco to pursue a career in nursing. City College of San Francisco awarded Steve the Goldman Scholarship, which covers the cost of his tuition. Steve has continued his active involvement in his community, joining the Asian American Student Success Center and the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program, which is a two-year outreach and educational support program. This past summer, Steve attended the San Francisco State University Summer Science Institute, which provided a year-long internship to prepare him for a career in health care upon his graduation from college. My staff has talked with his parents and with Steve in the detention facility. It appears to me that the only positive future for Steve is that he be able to finish his education and remain in this country--at least until the DREAM Act is considered by the Congress. There is no future elsewhere. With this in mind, I introduce this bill. It is an act of compassion for one young person whose only hope is America. He knows no one, or has he any roots, elsewhere. Educators working with Steve have highlighted his potential for giving back to the United States, while his friends and other community members contacted me about the impact his compassion and helpfulness has had on his community. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Steve Li will enable him to continue to remain in the United States for the time being. Steve Li's case demonstrates why we need to pass the DREAM Act now and I am pleased that Leader Reid has announced that it will be brought to the floor in December. I will reevaluate this case in January. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. 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 a private relief bill on behalf of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li. Steve Li is a Peruvian national who, until his recent detention, lived in San Francisco, California. He was brought to the United States as a child and is now a student at City College of San Francisco hoping to become a nurse. I decided to introduce a private bill on Steve's behalf because I believe his removal would be unjust before the Senate gets a chance to vote on the DREAM Act. It is my sincere hope that Congress will consider and pass the DREAM Act before the end of this year. This important legislation would allow youngsters such as Steve Li to continue making a contribution to the United States, the country that they grew up in and call home. Beginning with the new session in January, all of my bills are reviewed and evaluated for reintroduction. Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented youth graduate from American high schools. Most of these undocumented youth did not make a choice to come to the United States; they were brought by their parents. Many of these young people grew up in the United States and have little or no memory of the countries they came from. 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 and honor roll students. Some are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States. Steve Li is one such student. Steve was only 12 years old when his parents brought him to the United States. Like many other DREAM Act eligible youngsters, Steve didn't have a choice to come to the United States, he came with his parents. Steve's parents are Chinese nationals who fled China to Peru to escape economic oppression and the Chinese government's policies on reproductive rights. From China, Steve's parents went to Peru, where he was born. The family then sought asylum in the United States, which was denied. Steve was ordered removed along with his parents; however, according to his mother and himself, he was never told about the denial or his illegal status. So, Steve didn't know he was in the United States illegally or that his family had been ordered to leave. He went through all of his teenage years in the United States believing he was here legally. This past September, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at his home early one morning in September and took him into custody for removal to Peru. That is apparently when he learned about his illegal status. He has remained in detention in Arizona since October 8th. Steve's parents have been ordered to leave the United States and return to China. They cannot accompany their son to Peru. Steve attended George Washington High School in San Francisco. While there, he was enrolled in the Honor's Program. Steve was an athlete on the cross country and track team. He worked for the school newspaper as a reporter, editor, and cameraman. Steve also served his high school community by providing presentations to other students on the risks of drinking and driving and sexually transmitted diseases at the wellness center at George Washington High School. Steve graduated high school in 2008 and enrolled at City College of San Francisco to pursue a career in nursing. City College of San Francisco awarded Steve the Goldman Scholarship, which covers the cost of his tuition. Steve has continued his active involvement in his community, joining the Asian American Student Success Center and the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program, which is a two-year outreach and educational support program. This past summer, Steve attended the San Francisco State University Summer Science Institute, which provided a year-long internship to prepare him for a career in health care upon his graduation from college. My staff has talked with his parents and with Steve in the detention facility. It appears to me that the only positive future for Steve is that he be able to finish his education and remain in this country--at least until the DREAM Act is considered by the Congress. There is no future elsewhere. With this in mind, I introduce this bill. It is an act of compassion for one young person whose only hope is America. He knows no one, or has he any roots, elsewhere. Educators working with Steve have highlighted his potential for giving back to the United States, while his friends and other community members contacted me about the impact his compassion and helpfulness has had on his community. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Steve Li will enable him to continue to remain in the United States for the time being. Steve Li's case demonstrates why we need to pass the DREAM Act now and I am pleased that Leader Reid has announced that it will be brought to the floor in December. I will reevaluate this case in January. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill before us. But before I do, one thing I was remiss in not doing, listening to Senator Durbin speak about Stan Musial, is pointing out what has happened in San Francisco, and that is that the San Francisco Giants have won the World Series with a team that was just amazing. To see a team, I think, that were essentially outcasts--and some would say misfits--come together, play with teamwork, develop a world-class pitching staff, a defense where double and triple plays would happen, is really quite amazing. I had the pleasure of going to the playoff games during the recess, as well as the World Series games, and it was a very special treat. I wish to offer my commendation to that great team. It was quite wonderful. Now down to business. Mr. President, it appears that I will be blocked from offering an amendment on bisphenol A, to the food safety bill. So I come to the floor to express my disappointment and my very serious concern about the continued use of this chemical in children's products. There is mounting scientific evidence that shows that BPA is linked to harmful health effects. 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, and obesity. I know there is not yet consensus on the science and there is still research to be done. But I also know this chemical is so widespread--it has been found in 93 percent of Americans. I know BPA is thought to alter the way the body chemistry works. Babies and children are particularly at risk because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic consequences. To put it simply, 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 there is no good reason to expose our children to this chemical. My great concern for its continued use, particularly in children's products, is the reason Senator Schumer, my cosponsor, and I, who introduced a bill a year and a half ago--why he and I have been willing to compromise, to be flexible, and to try to work out an agreement to move this forward. For 7 months, we have been negotiating with Senator Enzi, the distinguished ranking member handling this bill on the floor, hoping for a compromise that would enable this amendment on BPA to be placed in the food safety bill. It looks as if there will not be amendments; therefore, I have no opportunity to offer an amendment. But last evening at about 6:15, Senator Enzi and I reached an agreement which would ban the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 6 months of the enactment of this legislation. It would require that the FDA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012--this is important because it would make certain the date that the FDA has to assess the safety of BPA. And third, it would include a savings clause to allow States to enact their own legislation. I wish to thank the ranking member for his agreement. It meant a great deal to me. I thought, aha, we are really close to making a beginning step on this problem. Unfortunately, today it became clear that the American Chemistry Council has blocked and obstructed this agreement from being added to the food safety bill. Therefore, language cannot be in the bill. I regret that the chemical lobby puts a higher priority on selling chemicals than it does on the health of infants. I am stunned by this. This agreement was but a small step forward, a simple movement to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, a simple move to protect children. All it did was ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups until the FDA's safety assessment could be revised. The chemical lobby came in at the 11th hour opposing this ban, which is something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had agreed to. Now, because of this, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pulling their support. My goodness. This is so simple. How can anybody put a priority on selling chemicals above the health of infants? Major manufacturers and retailers are already phasing out BPA from their food and beverage products for children. So why should this be stopped? The products used to give food and drink to children all have safe alternative BPA packaging available. At least 14 manufacturers have already taken action against BPA. Here they are: Avent, Born Free, Disney First Years, Evenflo, Gerber, Dr. Brown's, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medala, Nuby Sippy Cups, Munchkin, Playtex, Thinkbaby, Weil Baby. All these manufacturers are taking BPA voluntarily out of their baby bottles and sippy cups, but we cannot get it into a simple bill. Retailers are taking actions not to sell these products with BPA in them: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Walmart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods have already taken this action. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed following my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. At this point, seven States have moved to enact laws banning BPA from children's products: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin. The city of Chicago also has a ban. These entities have already taken action. California is just a few votes short of taking this action and I hope will come back this next legislative session and take it. Bills are also pending in Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC, and numerous companies are marketing BPA-free products. Other countries are moving forward. Canada declared BPA toxic and banned it from all baby bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France also have national bans on BPA in certain products. So here is the point. The problem has been recognized, and steps are being taken by countries, States, companies, and retailers. Yet the chemical lobby in this country is keeping this amendment out of the food safety bill. Why? Only one reason. Because the chemical companies want to make money to the longest point they can by selling a chemical which is linked to all these harmful health effects. Their resistance to accept this very small proposal is astounding. We have compromised in the negotiations with Senator Enzi. The bill Senator Schumer and I introduced was much more comprehensive. But we are down to just the three things I mentioned earlier. This is a food safety issue, and it profoundly affects children's health. But some in the industry are fighting tooth and nail to make sure BPA remains a staple in the American diet and even for children. Because of this opposition, it appears I have no option to move this amendment forward. Again, I tried for a year and a half, 7 months of negotiations. I can put a hold on the bill, stop it, and make a fuss, as some others have done over other issues, or I can wait to fight another day by allowing this food safety bill to go forward while continuing to build the case against BPA. That latter is what I intend to do beginning now. This battle may be lost, but, rest assured, I do not intend to quit. I have a deep abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals with no testing in all kinds of products and all kinds of solutions that build up in our bodies. There is no precautionary standard in this country when it comes to chemicals. You have to prove that a chemical is harmful before that chemical can be banned. But the evidence against BPA is mounting and especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing. Here is the argument. Here is what BPA is. It is synthetic estrogen. It is a hormone disruptor. It interferes with how the hormones work in the body, and this chemical is used in thousands of consumer products. It is used to harden plastics, line tin cans, and even make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets and grocery store receipts. It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. As with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without knowing whether it is safe. Alternatives exist because concern has been growing about the harmful impact. The chemical industry has tried to quiet criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe and that more research still needs to be done. Well, that argument simply does not hold water. Over 200 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 these harmful impacts. What do these 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. Industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. But one study shows us why we should be skeptical about research funded by the chemical industry. 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 stark. 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 studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure--not one. That is 92 percent of the government studies and not one of the industry studies. So I ask: How can this be? Clearly, 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 rely solely on chemical companies to conduct research into their own products. Consumers are worried about BPA. They are pushing in States for restrictions and bans. Over 75 organizations that represent almost 40 million Americans, support getting BPA out of food packaging for children. Support comes from national groups such as the BlueGreen Alliance, Consumers Union, Breast Cancer Fund, National WIC, and United Steelworkers of America. State groups such as Alaska Community Action on Toxics, California Environmental Rights Alliance, Environment Illinois, the Tennessee Environmental Council, and the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition back this amendment. The broad coalition of environmental and consumer advocates know BPA cannot be good for our babies. I wish to underscore the importance and the urgency of withdrawing BPA from baby products. Well-known and respected organizations and Federal agencies have expressed concern about BPA. The President's Cancer Panel Annual Report released in April of this year 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 2 diabetes. In addition to the over 200 scientific studies showing exposure to BPA is linked to adverse health effects, there are a number of studies that link BPA and other environmental toxins to early onset puberty and other hormonal changes. This is serious. This emphasizes how detrimental this chemical can be during development. I would like to discuss three of these studies. The Endocrine Society, comprised of over 14,000 members from more than 100 countries, published a scientific statement in 2009, expressing concern for the adverse health impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as BPA. The adverse health impacts included infertility, thyroid problems, obesity, and cancer. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives studied 715 men, ages 20 to 74 years old, and found that men who had high levels of BPA in their bodies also had higher levels of testosterone. This study demonstrates that higher BPA levels in the body are associated with altered hormone levels. A study in the Journal of Pediatrics in September 2010 demonstrated that puberty in girls is occurring even earlier, by ages 7 and 8. The researchers studied 1,239 girls in 2004 and 2008, so there was followup, in Cincinnati, East Harlem, and San Francisco. They found that at age 8, 18 percent of Caucasian girls, 43 percent of African- American girls, and 31 percent of Hispanic girls had signs of puberty. That is at 8 years old. The researchers suspected that environmental chemicals such as BPA could influence the onset of puberty. Early puberty can cause a host of problems later on in life, such as increased rates of breast cancer, lower self-esteem, eating disorders, and certainly depression. Given these conclusions, it is critical we act to protect just the most vulnerable, our infants and toddlers, from this chemical. How are children benefitted by having a baby bottle or a cup that they sip from that is coated with BPA? How is that bottle any better? How is that cup any better? Fact: It isn't. Yet the American Chemistry Council puts their need to sell these chemicals above all of the existing studies, above all the science that is emerging, and would not even say: Just in case this is true, yes; we agree with you. We should protect our young and our youngest. They would not do even that. Our original bill was much broader. BPA is not just in plastic bottles, it is also used in the epoxy resin that lines tin cans. I no longer buy tin cans because of it. My family, I have asked them not to buy things in tin cans. Buy them in glass. Then we don't have to worry about the BPA that is in the lining of the can. This amendment doesn't ban BPA in the lining of cans. It doesn't ban BPA in all containers. It just bans BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, just for infants, just for toddlers. The chemical industry says no. And I guess the other side of the aisle bows. I am amazed. 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. In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, which we did do last night, the amendment I wanted only restricted the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups because, as the science shows, babies and young children are the most susceptible to the harmful effects of this toxic chemical. This amendment would have ensured that all babies, in whatever State they happen to be or wherever they buy their baby bottles, are safe. We can't even do this in a food safety bill. It would have ensured that parents no longer have to wonder whether the products they buy for their babies will harm them now or later in life. I have on my Blackberry a picture of a new grandchild born earlier today, a little boy by the name of Benjamin. So even if one is a grandparent like me, this is so relevant. If we can't take care of our babies, what can we take care of in this country? Despite the loss of this amendment, the American people can still vote with their pocketbooks by refusing to buy products made with BPA. Ask the question in your grocery store. Go where they are not sold. Buy the products that do not use BPA. Public knowledge and awareness is important. In 2008, as part of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, Congress accepted my proposal to ban phthalates, and President Bush signed it. It banned phthalates, a plasticizing chemical, from children's toys. Like BPA, phthalates are linked to a variety of health problems in young children. I was proud to lead that fight and protect children from these chemicals. I truly believe the unrestricted use of chemicals in products, whether it be makeup for women, lotions that go on bodies, coatings in cans, coverings of plastic, softeners and hardeners, chemicals that leach into food, are a problem. When we do a food safety bill, we ought to consider this. Well, not even this baby step to protect babies is going to be taken. I very much regret it, but the battle is joined. Once I start, I do not stop. We will fight another day. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Leading Retailers & Manufacturers Phasing Out Bisphenol A (BPA) In response to growing scientific and public concern, over the past few years, leading U.S. retailers, baby bottle and water bottle manufacturers pledged to phase out bisphenol A (BPA) in favor of safer cost-effective alternatives. These include the following companies. U.S. Retailers Phasing Out Bisphenol A Baby Bottles CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans Foods, Whole Foods. baby bottle & sippy cup manufacturers phasing out or bpa free Avent--offering some BPA-free alternatives, Born Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo--offering some BPA- free alternatives, Gerber, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medela, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy cups, Playtex, Think Baby, Weil Baby. Water Bottle Companies Phasing Out BPA ALADDIN/Pacific Market International, CamelBak,Klean Kanteen, Nalgene, Polar Bottle, Sigg. Food Packaging Companies Exploring BPA-Free alternatives In 1999, the health foods company Eden Foods phased out the use of BPA in some of their canned foods. The company has eliminated BPA in cans for products such as beans, however they are still searching for alternatives for cans that hold tomatoes. Gerber and Nestle Nutrition have publicly stated they are committed to making all food and formula packaging BPA-free as soon as possible. In 2009, Abbott Labs announced that it achieved ``BPA free'' status in all of its Similac' brand powdered infant formula products and 91% of their total product line is BPA free. Nestle- Gerber announced similarly in 2008 that there is no BPA in cans used to package the Nestle GOOD START' Supreme Milk and Soy based powdered infant formulas, which account for more than 80 percent of the type of infant formula they sell. In 2010, General Mills Muir Glen brand announced that they would be introducing a BPA-free metal can for their organic tomatoes. Hain Celestial and Heinz are researching and testing alternatives to BPA and plan to phase out BPA in some products. Heinz is already using a substitute to BPA in some of its can linings. In June 2010, Heinz Australia said that they expect BPA-free cans for baby food to be available within 12 months with metal closures on glass jars to follow. Trader Joes offers BPA-free cans for their seafood (tuna, salmon, herring, sardines, etc.), chicken, turkey & beef, beans and corn. Vital Choice transitioned to BPA-free containers for its canned seafood in 2009. Tupperware Brand's reusable containers are 90% non- polycarbonate plastic; containers for children are all BPA- free. Canadian Retailers Phasing Out BPA Home Depot Canada, Members of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, Mountain Equipment Co-op, Rexall Pharmacies, Sears Canada, Wal-Mart Canada.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am in support of the nomination of Mr. David Buckley to be the next inspector general of the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. On Tuesday, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted unanimously to recommend Mr. Buckley's nomination. So there is overwhelming, bipartisan support for Mr. Buckley. It is also important that the Senate act on this nomination before the upcoming recess. The position of the CIA inspector general has remained vacant since the retirement of John Helgerson in March 2009. The Senate Intelligence Committee has seen firsthand the importance of the CIA inspector general. Many of the reports and audits from this office remain classified, but have had a major impact on our committee's understanding of CIA programs and at times have led directly to major changes in those programs. Other reports have been made public, like the 2004 Special Review into the CIA detention and interrogation program. The report raised major questions about the program's legality and compliance and allowed the public to see some of what went wrong with the CIA program. The inspector general of the CIA plays a crucial role. The CIA is an agency that is charged with operating in secret in locations around the world, conducting covert actions and collecting intelligence. It shields its activities from the public, but it needs oversight. The IG's Office has been conducting independent reviews of Agency offices and programs, recommended measures of accountability where appropriated, and performed detailed audits of CIA expenditures and financial statements. In April 2010, Vice Chairman Bond and I wrote a letter to President Obama, pointing out the importance of the CIA IG position and the need to nominate and confirm a strong, independent auditor and investigator. I am pleased that he nominated Mr. Buckley. His confirmation hearing was held on September 21, where Senators reviewed his record, his views on the position to which he has been nominated, and his plans if confirmed. Mr. Buckley was straightforward with our committee and very clear about his belief in a strong and independent IG. Mr. Buckley has had more than 30 years of experience in government service that should provide him with an excellent background for the challenges he will face when confirmed. Mr. Buckley enlisted with the Air Force in 1976, specializing in investigations. He continued service with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations as a civilian in 1984, working for 3 years before moving to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations under then Chairman Sam Nunn. Senator Nunn offered the following endorsement for Mr. Buckley when he wrote to the committee recently: I found David to be a consummate professional of the highest integrity, and he enjoyed a great reputation on both sides of the aisle. He has excellent judgment and an abundance of common sense. Following 8 years on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, including time as chief investigator, Mr. Buckley worked as a special assistant to the inspector general of the Department of Defense, at the General Accounting Office, and at the Treasury Department for 7 years, most of it as assistant inspector general for investigations. Mr. Buckley then served from 2005 to 2007 as the minority staff director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. As such he had a purview of the entire intelligence community, including the CIA, and developed an understanding from the congressional point of view of the important relationships the intelligence committees have with the CIA inspector general. Finally, Mr. Buckley has worked as a senior manager at Deloitte Consulting since 2007, consulting in the national security arena. In short, David Buckley has spent 34 years in a career focused on conducting oversight, much of it in the defense and intelligence areas. I believe his background makes him an excellent candidate and I look forward to working with Mr. Buckley in his new position.

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, Representatives John Garamendi, George Miller, Mike Thompson, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney and the County Supervisors from the five 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. This bill does not create any new layers of government. It does not infringe on private property rights. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has. In short, this bill provides no additional burden 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 that 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 three 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 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 and to California's ecosystem and water supply. 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. 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, Representatives John Garamendi, George Miller, Mike Thompson, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney and the County Supervisors from the five 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. This bill does not create any new layers of government. It does not infringe on private property rights. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has. In short, this bill provides no additional burden 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 that 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 three 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 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 and to California's ecosystem and water supply. 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. 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 support the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. The bill before us utilizes both carrots and sticks. It ends certain egregious tax breaks that promote the movement of American jobs overseas, and provides a payroll tax holiday to companies that relocate jobs back to the United States. I thank Senators Durbin, Reid, Schumer and Dorgan for their initiative in crafting legislation designed to create more jobs on American soil at a time when it is critical. This bill is a positive first step. Robust industry has always been the hallmark of American competitiveness. It once was that you could see the ``Made in America'' logo on the back of a t-shirt, on a shoe, a dress, a coat, and knew that you had a product that was both high quality and safe. But from 2000-2005, U.S. companies slashed 2.1 million jobs in the United States while hiring 784,000 jobs internationally. This is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Examples are the iconic little red wagon company, ``Radio Flyer'' eliminated half its workforce in Chicago and moved its manufacturing operations to China in 2004; Levi Strauss cut its workforce by roughly 20 percent, closing factories across the country and outsourcing its manufacturing work to Latin America in 2002; Motorola has laid off over 40,000 workers and invested more than $3 billion in China in 2001; and; recently, the Whirlpool Corporation announced it will close a refrigerator plant in Evanston, Indiana, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs. Whirlpool has plans to open a new plant in Mexico. And Hewlett Packard is opening a global call center in Chongquing, China. The reason for all these relocations is plain and simple--less cost. Today, the ``Made in America'' logo is not often seen, and with its demise has been the loss of good American jobs. It is time for the United States to refocus on a modernized industrial policy that promotes global competitiveness and creates jobs for the American people. And this legislation is a beginning. Simply put, we can no longer hang our hats on American inventiveness and ingenuity while ignoring the steady stream of jobs lost to our international competitors. Americans have always had good ideas, but those good ideas used to lead to good jobs here in the United States. Now, our intellectual property contributes to abundant employment opportunities, but many are often in other countries. American industry has changed the world. From the automobile to the airplane, from landing a man on the moon to developing the Internet, the combination of revolutionary ideas and productive labor has been the backbone of American strength for generations. But we should not be willing to cede that essential part of our American identity. We must find a way to ensure that American ingenuity creates American jobs. Statistics indicate that we are losing our identity as a manufacturing power--and that is bad news for this country. Thirty years ago, the founder of Sony and the head of the august Keidanren in Japan said to me: ``When America ceases to be a manufacturing power, she will become a second-rate power.'' I have thought a lot about those words over the decades as I have seen American jobs go overseas. The slow bleed of manufacturing jobs has been a stark reality for years. From 1997 to 2007, the U.S. manufacturing sector lost 3.5 million jobs--an estimated 20 percent of the workforce. But offshoring isn't just a problem for factory workers, it is having a growing impact on the service sector as well. Today, even highly skilled workers can no longer rely on their education or training to obtain a job or have any measure of job security. It is estimated that 1.2 million white-collar jobs were sent offshore between 2003-2008; the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 31 percent of service-sector jobs are currently at risk of being sent overseas; at the current rate, 25 percent of all U.S. jobs may be in danger of being shipped overseas in the next 10 years, from the CRS. Several studies indicate that up to 250,000 American jobs may go overseas by 2015; and this includes highly skilled fields like computer science and mathematics, which are becoming increasingly vulnerable to being sent overseas. The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act is a first step toward addressing these trends. The bill provides a payroll tax break to companies that move jobs back to America--employer share--roughly 8 percent of salary--2 year holiday; eliminates the tax breaks that have provided incentives to companies to move production and jobs overseas-- eliminates tax deduction, loss, or credit for costs associated with moving operation overseas; and; ends tax deferral for companies that move production overseas, only to sell those products back in the U.S. The time has come for Congress and the business community to come up with an industrial policy that will promote American competitiveness and create jobs. While we have promoted trade and globalization, we have overlooked the negative effect it has on job creation here in the U.S. Many of our businesses have thrived in the modern global marketplace, but our policies here at home lag behind. Free trade may reduce the price of goods, but this doesn't do much good if unemployed Americans can't afford to buy them. We need to look at the structure of taxation, of education, and of health care. We need to decide what must change in order to achieve our goals. In August I spoke to a gathering of the top business minds in Silicon Valley. With California's unemployment rate lingering at 12.4 percent, much of the discussion turned to maintaining American dominance in a way that would engender job creation in my home State. I asked them to work with me to find common ground on these issues. Today, I ask all of us in the Senate to do the same. The provisions included in the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act are a positive first step. However, to profoundly impact the future of American industrial competitiveness, we cannot rely solely on carrots and sticks. We as a government must lay a stable foundation upon which American business ingenuity can foster top down growth. And the business community must focus not only on the bottom line. It must rededicate itself to the pursuit of a thriving American economy and labor force. Bottom line: These are the things we must do if we are to maintain America's position as the driving force of the global economy. This legislation is a good first step down this road.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Congress is now close to passing and enacting an intelligence authorization bill for the first time since December 2004. Pending at the Senate desk is House bill H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which the House passed on February 26, 2010. On behalf of Senator Bond and myself, I have filed an amendment to this House bill, and have asked the majority leader to request unanimous consent that the amendment, in the nature of a substitute, be approved and that the bill be sent back to the House for its final passage. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to describe the amendment and discuss why the passage of this legislation is of great importance to the Intelligence community and for oversight of intelligence. In all but three respects, this amendment is identical to Senate bill S. 3611, which the Senate passed in August by unanimous consent. That bill had been negotiated with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and had the support of the administration. However, the House did not act on that bill. Instead, last week, the House sent its legislation to the Senate for consideration. Per agreement with the House and the executive branch, I am therefore introducing this amendment, which replaces the text of the House bill with the previous Senate bill, with the three changes as follows: The first change is necessary given that fiscal year 2010, the year for which this legislation was first written, ends later this week. The legislation I have offered today therefore does not include a classified annex that describes authorized funding levels for the intelligence community. The amendment text omits references to the classified annex, as well as other provisions that were specific to fiscal year 2010, that were present in S. 3611. This is reflected through the deletion of six provisions in S. 3611: sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 201, and 348. The amendment includes a new section 101, which is being included at the request of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This section makes clear that all funds appropriated, reprogrammed, or transferred for intelligence or intelligence-related activities in fiscal year 2010 may be obligated or expended. This provision is necessary to meet the terms of section 504(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 414. This legislation also amends section 331 from the version of the bill previously passed by the Senate concerning notification procedures. The amendment adds text to ensure that in the case of a limited notification of a covert action to the House and Senate leaders and chairmen and ranking members of the two intelligence committees--the so-called ``Gang of Eight''--in place of the full membership of those committees, the basis of the limited notification will be reviewed in the executive branch within 180 days and reasons for continuation of the limited notification will be submitted to the Gang of Eight. The amendment also adds text to require that in the case of a limited notification, the President shall provide to all members of the intelligence committees a ``general description'' of the covert action. This implements the idea first described by the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1980 that the limited notification procedure is to protect in extraordinary cases certain sensitive aspects of an intelligence activity; the purpose of the authority is not to shield entire intelligence programs from the oversight of the full intelligence committees. Recent legislation from the Select Committee on Intelligence has included similar provisions to the requirement to provide to all committee members a ``general description.'' The committee's bill, S. 1494, which the Senate passed unanimously in September 2009, included a similar provision, but the version of the bill passed in August 2010, S. 3611, did not. Of note, the legislative language in this amendment makes clear that the general description of the covert action is to be provided by the President to all members of the committees, consistent with the reasons for not yet fully informing all members of the intelligence committees. The administration agrees that this gives the President sufficient flexibility in extraordinary circumstances to protect sensitive national security information. Finally, the amendment I am offering includes a new section, section 348, on access by the Comptroller General to the information of elements of the intelligence community. Both S. 1494 and H.R. 2701 included sections on audits of intelligence community elements by the Government Accountability Office, GAO. No GAO provision was included in S. 3611 because, at the time that S. 3611 was reported and then acted on by the Senate, no agreement had been reached on a provision that would be acceptable to both the administration and the Congress. Section 348 represents a compromise that the Congress and the administration can support. It requires the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, to issue a directive on GAO access. While the directive shall be issued following consultation with the Comptroller General, the amendment is clear that this is to be the DNI's directive. It is the DNI who has the responsibility to craft a directive that is consistent with existing law, both as regards the authority of the Comptroller General under title 31 of the United States Code and the provisions of the National Security Act. The directive shall be provided to the Congress before it goes into effect and the appropriate committees of the Congress can then take whatever legislative or oversight actions they deem appropriate. The Department of Defense has issued a directive governing GAO access to Defense special access programs. This directive is regarded as having resolved successfully the issues that the Department and GAO had previously encountered. As the DNI carries out the duties of this section, it will be important for him to be mindful of the manner in which individual departments with intelligence components have established procedures governing access by GAO. This is true for the Department of Defense as well as other Departments, such the Department of Homeland Security and its intelligence component, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. We expect that the DNI will coordinate closely with the heads of such departments in order to ensure that the DNI's directive resolves outstanding issues without disrupting GAO's working relationships with such departments. As written, this section requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit this directive to ``the Congress.'' The intent of this provision is to have this directive broadly available, in unclassified form or classified form as the case may be, to those committees with jurisdiction over the DNI, the 16 intelligence entities in the intelligence community, the departments in which those agencies reside, and the GAO. There are additional technical, typographical and conforming changes included in this legislation from S. 3611, the intelligence bill passed by the Senate in August 2010. This includes a change in section 322, the business system transformation section, in several places where an action was to be taken by September 30, 2010. Those actions are now required to be taken within 60 days after enactment. In all other respects, the Feinstein-Bond amendment consists of exactly what the Senate has already passed by unanimous consent. The legislative history of S. 3611 is fully applicable to the provisions of this amendment that are carried over from S. 3611. This legislative history includes the committee report, S. Rep. No. 111-223, and the floor statements and letters placed in the Record on Senate passage of S. 3611, see 156 Cong. Rec. S6795-6799--daily ed., August 5, 2010. S. Rep. No. 111-223 has a detailed section-by-section description of the provisions of S. 3611, including a description of the reconciliation of House and Senate provisions from H.R. 2701, as it passed the House, and S. 1494. I received today a letter from the general counsel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Robert Litt, indicating that ``the President's senior advisors would recommend that he sign this bill if it is presented for his signature.'' I will ask that this letter be printed in the Record. As I noted at the outset, there has not been an intelligence authorization act enacted in nearly 6 years. Prior to December 2004, there had been such a bill every year since the creation of the intelligence committees in the late 1970s. It is vitally important for the intelligence committees to pass an authorization bill this week. Failure to enact an authorization bill weakens congressional oversight and it denies the intelligence community appropriate updates in the law. I would like to take a moment to recognize some individuals who have devoted enormous time and effort to reaching this point. First, Senator Kit Bond, the vice chairman of the committee, who has been fighting for this legislation with me in a completely bipartisan way since we began at the beginning of last year. Second, the members of the Intelligence Committee who have contributed important provisions in the bill, and have supported our efforts to keep the bill moving even in some cases where their provisions had to be dropped. And finally, the staff, who have drafted this bill three separate times and conducted negotiations with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, other offices in the House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House for more than a year. I would like to commend and thank my counsels: Mike Davidson, Christine Healey, and Alissa Starzak for their work. I thank as well Senator Bond's counsels, Jack Livingston and Kathleen Rice. While there is no classified annex to authorize funding levels in this bill, I appreciate the work begun by Lorenzo Goco and continued by Peggy Evans in putting together the annex that accompanied the intelligence authorization bills that passed the Senate last September and this August. Finally, I appreciate the work of Tommy Ross, national security adviser to Majority Leader Harry Reid, for his substantial efforts to make sure that the House and the executive branch remained engaged in the negotiations over this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this Senate amendment to the House bill. If we are able to reach unanimous consent on this measure, it will go back to the House for final passage and presentment to the President. I am hopeful that we can accomplish this prior to recessing later this week for the November elections, and urge support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Mr. Robert Litt to which I referred.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on September 9, a gas pipeline underneath a neighborhood in San Bruno, California, just south of San Francisco, exploded, turning a quiet residential area into something resembling a war zone. The resulting inferno damaged or destroyed 55 homes, injured 66, and killed an estimated 7 people. Three likely victims have yet to be identified. This tragedy shows the heavy toll, in death and destruction, when high pressure natural gas pipelines fail. The risk is unacceptably high. So today I join with my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, to introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2010. This legislation is drafted to repair clear shortcomings in pipeline oversight that have, unfortunately, come to our attention as the result of a devastating tragedy in San Bruno, CA. Specifically, this legislation would improve pipeline safety and oversight by expanding Federal inspection capacity; increasing fines for safety violations; adding information to the national pipeline mapping system, to assure greater transparency for the public and the regulator; closing jurisdictional loopholes that allow gathering lines, carbon dioxide pipelines, and biofuel pipelines to operate without oversight; requiring widespread adoption of automatic shut-off valves that could shut off a pipeline immediately in emergency situations; requiring that high-pressure pipelines be inspected on a regular basis with either internal instrumented internal inspection devices, known as smart pigs, or other inspection methods that are certified to be just as effective; prohibiting pipelines that cannot be inspected with the best, most-modern techniques from operating at high pressure; requiring regulators to consider seismicity and the age of pipes when identifying pipelines that deserve the highest level of oversight; and establishing the first standards for effective leak detection systems in natural gas pipelines. Together, Senator Boxer and I believe these improvements to pipeline safety will bring about a safer national pipeline system in which disasters, such as the tragedy in San Bruno, can be prevented. At 6:11 p.m. on September 9, 2010, a 30-inch steel natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California. The blast in the Crestmoor neighborhood two miles west of San Francisco International Airport shook the ground like an earthquake. The fire raged for more than two hours and burned 15 acres. The resulting loss of life, serious injuries and property damage are heartbreaking. Two days after the fire, I visited San Bruno. I walked through the devastation with Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. I was struck by what I saw: Homes leveled or charred; cars burned out; the burned and bent pipeline--now a key part of the investigation--which revealed the intensity of the heat; and a gaping crater that demonstrated the size of the initial blast. I was saddened by the disaster and I am determined to act to prevent this type of catastrophe from recurring. I left San Bruno once again impressed by the professionalism of the NTSB. Their team was on site and in charge, and I am confident they will work meticulously to find out what caused this deadly disaster. I am confident that their feedback will make pipelines safer in the future. But I also left San Bruno determined to introduce legislation to address the known weaknesses in our pipeline oversight system. Let me explain the key provisions in the Bill. First, we propose to double the number of Federal pipeline safety inspectors. The Department of Transportation's 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. The vast amount of pipeline per inspector has led to lax oversight of pipeline operators, according to NTSB investigations. NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman testified in June that: NTSB is concerned that the level of . . . oversight currently being exercised is not uniformly applied by . . . PHMSA to ensure that the risk-based safety programs are effective. The NTSB believes that . . . PHMSA must establish an aggressive oversight program that thoroughly examines each operator's decision-making process for each element of its integrity management program. Doubling the number of inspectors will still require each inspector to oversee more than 1,000 miles of pipeline, but the thoroughness of inspection and oversight will be far greater. Second, this legislation will require deployment of electronic valves capable of automatically shutting off the gas in a fire or other emergency. I was shocked to learn that it took hours to turn off the gas in San Bruno. Manually operated valves had to be located, buildings had to be opened, and workers had to physically turn off the valves. Every minute that passed, a flaming inferno burned on. In today's era we have electronic water faucets, and furnaces all deploy electronic valves to shut off the supply of natural gas in an emergency. If electronic valves can be deployed in our homes and offices, I believe they should be deployed on gas pipelines pumping millions of cubic feet of fuel through urban areas. Gas pipeline safety technology should be brought into the modern era. Third, this legislation will require inspections by ``smart pigs'' in all pipes, or the use of an inspection method certified to be equally effective at finding corrosion. Department of Transportation accident statistics over the past decade, 2000-2009, identify corrosion as the leading cause of all reported pipeline accidents. We need to inspect our pipes to find problems before they cause deadly explosions. Every pipe needs effective inspection, regardless of age or design. Fourth, if natural gas pipelines cannot be inspected using the most effective inspection technology, this bill would require operation at lower pressure. This precautionary approach to pipeline operations assures that pipelines more likely to have undetected problems are operated at lower risk. Department of Transportation experts believe that a breach or other major problem with a pipeline operating at lower pressure is more likely to produce a leak instead of a catastrophic or deadly explosion. The cause of the San Bruno pipeline fire remains under investigation, but we know that this pipe could not be inspected using the most modern smart pigs, and we know it was operating at high pressure. Had this law been in place, either this pipe would have been inspected by other means certified to be just as effective as a smart pig, or it would have been operating at a pressure far less likely to cause the kind of catastrophe we saw. Fifth, this legislation will require the Secretary of Transportation to consider pipe age and the seismicity of an area when identifying pipelines deserving the highest level of safety oversight. Today, regulators consider a pipeline's proximity to homes and buildings. Other risk factors, such as age of pipe, are not a defining consideration. We know in San Bruno that this pipe was very old. This old pipe had unique twists and turns, and numerous welds that I was told would not be allowed on a pipe installed today. NTSB identified failed welds as the cause of another major pipeline disaster in 2009, so these deserve special attention. Sixth, this legislation would require standards for natural gas leak detection equipment and methods to identify pipeline leaks as expeditiously as technologically possible. In San Bruno, some have asserted that they smelled gas for weeks. Records are still being checked to determine whether consumers reported these leaks, but no equipment on the pipeline clearly demonstrates that no leak existed. Finally, this legislation adopts a number of commonsense provisions proposed last week by Secretary of Transportation LaHood to improve pipeline safety, including increasing civil penalties for safety violations; expending 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 today 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 accident. We look forward to working with the Department of Transportation and 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, on September 9, a gas pipeline underneath a neighborhood in San Bruno, California, just south of San Francisco, exploded, turning a quiet residential area into something resembling a war zone. The resulting inferno damaged or destroyed 55 homes, injured 66, and killed an estimated 7 people. Three likely victims have yet to be identified. This tragedy shows the heavy toll, in death and destruction, when high pressure natural gas pipelines fail. The risk is unacceptably high. So today I join with my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, to introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2010. This legislation is drafted to repair clear shortcomings in pipeline oversight that have, unfortunately, come to our attention as the result of a devastating tragedy in San Bruno, CA. Specifically, this legislation would improve pipeline safety and oversight by expanding Federal inspection capacity; increasing fines for safety violations; adding information to the national pipeline mapping system, to assure greater transparency for the public and the regulator; closing jurisdictional loopholes that allow gathering lines, carbon dioxide pipelines, and biofuel pipelines to operate without oversight; requiring widespread adoption of automatic shut-off valves that could shut off a pipeline immediately in emergency situations; requiring that high-pressure pipelines be inspected on a regular basis with either internal instrumented internal inspection devices, known as smart pigs, or other inspection methods that are certified to be just as effective; prohibiting pipelines that cannot be inspected with the best, most-modern techniques from operating at high pressure; requiring regulators to consider seismicity and the age of pipes when identifying pipelines that deserve the highest level of oversight; and establishing the first standards for effective leak detection systems in natural gas pipelines. Together, Senator Boxer and I believe these improvements to pipeline safety will bring about a safer national pipeline system in which disasters, such as the tragedy in San Bruno, can be prevented. At 6:11 p.m. on September 9, 2010, a 30-inch steel natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California. The blast in the Crestmoor neighborhood two miles west of San Francisco International Airport shook the ground like an earthquake. The fire raged for more than two hours and burned 15 acres. The resulting loss of life, serious injuries and property damage are heartbreaking. Two days after the fire, I visited San Bruno. I walked through the devastation with Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. I was struck by what I saw: Homes leveled or charred; cars burned out; the burned and bent pipeline--now a key part of the investigation--which revealed the intensity of the heat; and a gaping crater that demonstrated the size of the initial blast. I was saddened by the disaster and I am determined to act to prevent this type of catastrophe from recurring. I left San Bruno once again impressed by the professionalism of the NTSB. Their team was on site and in charge, and I am confident they will work meticulously to find out what caused this deadly disaster. I am confident that their feedback will make pipelines safer in the future. But I also left San Bruno determined to introduce legislation to address the known weaknesses in our pipeline oversight system. Let me explain the key provisions in the Bill. First, we propose to double the number of Federal pipeline safety inspectors. The Department of Transportation's 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. The vast amount of pipeline per inspector has led to lax oversight of pipeline operators, according to NTSB investigations. NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman testified in June that: NTSB is concerned that the level of . . . oversight currently being exercised is not uniformly applied by . . . PHMSA to ensure that the risk-based safety programs are effective. The NTSB believes that . . . PHMSA must establish an aggressive oversight program that thoroughly examines each operator's decision-making process for each element of its integrity management program. Doubling the number of inspectors will still require each inspector to oversee more than 1,000 miles of pipeline, but the thoroughness of inspection and oversight will be far greater. Second, this legislation will require deployment of electronic valves capable of automatically shutting off the gas in a fire or other emergency. I was shocked to learn that it took hours to turn off the gas in San Bruno. Manually operated valves had to be located, buildings had to be opened, and workers had to physically turn off the valves. Every minute that passed, a flaming inferno burned on. In today's era we have electronic water faucets, and furnaces all deploy electronic valves to shut off the supply of natural gas in an emergency. If electronic valves can be deployed in our homes and offices, I believe they should be deployed on gas pipelines pumping millions of cubic feet of fuel through urban areas. Gas pipeline safety technology should be brought into the modern era. Third, this legislation will require inspections by ``smart pigs'' in all pipes, or the use of an inspection method certified to be equally effective at finding corrosion. Department of Transportation accident statistics over the past decade, 2000-2009, identify corrosion as the leading cause of all reported pipeline accidents. We need to inspect our pipes to find problems before they cause deadly explosions. Every pipe needs effective inspection, regardless of age or design. Fourth, if natural gas pipelines cannot be inspected using the most effective inspection technology, this bill would require operation at lower pressure. This precautionary approach to pipeline operations assures that pipelines more likely to have undetected problems are operated at lower risk. Department of Transportation experts believe that a breach or other major problem with a pipeline operating at lower pressure is more likely to produce a leak instead of a catastrophic or deadly explosion. The cause of the San Bruno pipeline fire remains under investigation, but we know that this pipe could not be inspected using the most modern smart pigs, and we know it was operating at high pressure. Had this law been in place, either this pipe would have been inspected by other means certified to be just as effective as a smart pig, or it would have been operating at a pressure far less likely to cause the kind of catastrophe we saw. Fifth, this legislation will require the Secretary of Transportation to consider pipe age and the seismicity of an area when identifying pipelines deserving the highest level of safety oversight. Today, regulators consider a pipeline's proximity to homes and buildings. Other risk factors, such as age of pipe, are not a defining consideration. We know in San Bruno that this pipe was very old. This old pipe had unique twists and turns, and numerous welds that I was told would not be allowed on a pipe installed today. NTSB identified failed welds as the cause of another major pipeline disaster in 2009, so these deserve special attention. Sixth, this legislation would require standards for natural gas leak detection equipment and methods to identify pipeline leaks as expeditiously as technologically possible. In San Bruno, some have asserted that they smelled gas for weeks. Records are still being checked to determine whether consumers reported these leaks, but no equipment on the pipeline clearly demonstrates that no leak existed. Finally, this legislation adopts a number of commonsense provisions proposed last week by Secretary of Transportation LaHood to improve pipeline safety, including increasing civil penalties for safety violations; expending 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 today 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 accident. We look forward to working with the Department of Transportation and 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 467, S. 3611.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time.