Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is my understanding the bill is passed. I thank the Senate for passage of this bill. This is a bill which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported out by a unanimous 15-to-0 vote on July 19. This is the Senate's second time approving an intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2010. The committee reported S. 1494 unanimously in July 2009, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent in September 2009. The House passed its bill, its 2010 authorization bill, in February 2010. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees then worked for months, together with the administration, to agree on a bill that would make a substantial contribution to national security and that would be able to pass both Chambers and become law with the President's approval. S. 3611 is that agreement. I thank the White House for their efforts to come to an agreement on the legislation, as well as the efforts of the vice chairman, Senator Bond, and his staff. This is his last bill and, as such, I thank him very much for his cooperation in this matter, for the ability to work with him over this period of time. I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes. Broadly speaking, the bill advances the cause of effective oversight of the intelligence community and contributes significantly to the Director of National Intelligence's ability to direct and lead the intelligence community as an integrated whole. It is my understanding that the House will be back in session next week. I would urge them to take up this important legislation at that time. Our committee filed a detailed report on S. 3611, which is available both in print and on our Web site to all Members of the Senate, our colleagues in the House, and the public as Senate Report 111-223. The bill contains 106 sections divided into eight titles. Let me commend the reading of the bill and our report to all who may be interested in why it is essential that the Congress complete action on this needed and overdue legislation. In these remarks, I will only mention a few highlights. This is the committee's second report of an intelligence Authorization for fiscal year 2010. We reported S. 1494 unanimously in July 2009 and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent in September 2009. The House passed its fiscal year 2010 in February 2010. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees then worked for months, together with the administration, to agree on a bill that would make a substantial contribution to national security and that would be able to pass both Chambers and become law with the President's approval. S. 3611 is that agreement. Broadly speaking, the bill advances the cause of effective oversight of the intelligence community and contributes significantly to the Director of National Intelligence's ability to direct and lead the intelligence community as an integrated whole. To illustrate, with respect to oversight, the bill will complete an effort that the Senate began in 2004 to create a strong and independent statutory inspector general for the intelligence community. A principal focus of that community-wide IG will be on progress and problems with the integration of the efforts of the 16 components of the intelligence community. The bill also strengthens the CIA inspector general and provides a statutory basis for IGs in the major intelligence elements within the Department of Defense. This strengthened IG system within the intelligence community will provide greater visibility for the leaders of the IC, including the DNI, into management, information sharing and information security, and other problems within the intelligence community. The reports of their investigations and audits will also be, as IG reports have been, an invaluable aid for congressional oversight. Other parts of the bill will also directly aid congressional oversight. These include requirements that executive and legislative procedures on full and timely notifications to the intelligence committees be in writing and that written records of notifications to the intelligence committees of intelligence activities and covert actions also be in writing. Importantly, the bill also requires that the head of each intelligence element certify annually on compliance with substantial congressional notification requirements that already exist in title V of the National Security Act. The bill takes important steps to improve both executive and congressional oversight of intelligence community procurement and budget matters. In the coming years, all parts of the government will need to address the reality that appropriation levels will not rise as they have in the past. This means that controlling cost overruns and promoting sound long term budget planning is an essential part of national security. The bill takes important steps toward those objectives. The bill grants to the Director of National Intelligence important authorities to manage the intelligence community. These include authorities concerning personnel management, acquisition authority, and information sharing. There may be more to accomplish in all of these respects and we have invited General Clapper, if he is confirmed as I hope and expect he will, not to be hesitant in asking for additional authority if he identifies a need for it. As is detailed in the committee's report, there are 10 provisions in this legislation that enhance the DNI's authority and management flexibilities. Eight of those 10 provisions were requested by this administration or the prior one. There is more in this broad ranging legislation, from large to small items. Indeed, the very length of the bill is testimony to the fact that we have gone 5 years without an intelligence authorization. From fiscal years 1979 to 2005, the Congress had enacted an authorization for every fiscal year. The fiscal year 2010 bill is an opportunity, which we must not lose, to get back on track. I will briefly note the reasons for the managers' amendment that the distinguished vice chairman, Senator Bond, and I have propounded. Three provisions of S. 3611 as reported by our committee on July 19, sections 106, 333(c.), and 334 of S. 3611, have been enacted into law by provisions of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, sections 301, 308, and 3011 of Public Law 111-212, which the President signed into law on July 29. Accordingly, the managers' amendment deletes those now enacted provisions from S. 3611. The managers' amendment also addresses requests from the Budget and Judiciary Committees. As requested by the Budget Committee, the amendment adds a pay-go provision. I should note that the Congressional Budget Office table that will be printed in the Record indicates that the bill makes no changes in the government's direct spending. As requested by the Judiciary Committee, the amendment clarifies that reports provided to the Congress under several sections of the bill will be provided to the Judiciary Committee. This legislation reflects the negotiations with the House committee, the intelligence community, and the White House. Provisions that our committee, and the Senate, passed last September had to be removed due to veto threats or objections from the House of Representatives. I look forward to addressing some of those issues in future legislation. Beginning with our distinguished vice chairman, Senator Bond, and acknowledging also the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their work in producing a bill that will take important strides in improving the authority and oversight of the intelligence community through this 2010 bill, even as we recognize that there is more to achieve in authorization legislation for fiscal years 2011 and beyond.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I now ask the pay-go letter from the Budget Committee be read, that upon its reading the bill, as amended, be passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with any statements relating thereto printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to bring the attention of the Senate to a recent joint resolution passed by the California State Legislature. This resolution, S.J. Res. 34, urges Congress to defeat the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2010, H.R. 5034, a bill that would restrict legal challenges to unconstitutional alcohol regulation laws and negatively impact the American wine industry. This bill is being described by its proponents as an effort to promote regulation of alcohol and protect the public from dangerous effects. What the bill does instead, however, is to erect new legal barriers which give preference to in-State beer, wine, and spirits wholesalers at the expense of free and open competition. With its broad sweep, the bill cedes Federal authority over licensing, labeling, advertising, taxation policy and other matters. Under current Federal law, each and every State has authority to set its own law regarding the direct shipment of alcohol. A State can allow direct shipments to consumers, or a State can prohibit it. What a State cannot do, however, is to allow in-State producers to ship directly to consumers while barring out-of-State producers from doing so. This is a constitutional requirement, stated most recently in the case of Granholm v. Heald. The House bill could not constitutionally alter this system. Instead, it would erect new legal barriers that would make it more difficult for out-of-State producers to enforce their rights to equal treatment under State laws. I am very proud to say that my State of California is the fourth largest wine-producing region in the world. Our wine industry creates more than 330,000 jobs and contributes $61.5 billion to the States economy each year. We are not, however, alone. Nationwide, the coast-to-coast wine industry, active in all 50 States, has an economic impact of some $122 billion annually. And, in fact, 37 States and the District of Columbia currently allow direct shipment of wine from winemakers to consumers. Such laws increase choice for consumers. They also keep small wineries in business as wholesalers grow increasingly consolidated, offering less selection and squeezing out producers in the process. As the joint resolution passed Monday, August 2, 2010, makes evident, H.R. 5034 threatens serious harm to winemakers in California and across the country, as well as to consumers and competition in these markets. Should it be introduced in the Senate or passed by the House, I will oppose it and will urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the President's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence, DNI--GEN James Clapper, U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant General retired. I am pleased his confirmation will be approved by unanimous consent. General Clapper is well qualified to be the Director of National Intelligence. He has as much experience in the intelligence profession as anyone serving in the government today. He has held a wide range of positions that have prepared him for this position, in the U.S. military, as the head of two intelligence agencies, and in the private sector. General Clapper is currently the highest ranking intelligence official in the Department of Defense, serving as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. He has clearly expressed his views on the position of the DNI and described how he intends to carry out those views. Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported out his nomination on a rollcall vote of 15-0. Not a single objection that was raised in the Senate following the committee's unanimous vote was related to the nominee, his background, his views, or how he intends to serve. And now I am pleased to report that those objections have been worked out and General Clapper will be approved by unanimous consent. Let me take a few minutes and describe the position to which General Clapper has been nominated, the Director of National Intelligence, or DNI. The DNI position was first seriously considered by the so-called ``Joint Inquiry'' into the attacks of September 11, 2001--a joint panel of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees that studied the events leading to the attacks of 9/11 and the structural problems in the U.S. Government that led to our failure to prevent them. The Joint Inquiry concluded that the Intelligence Community--the collection of intelligence agencies and offices across the Federal Government--could not be led by the same person who was simultaneously serving as the Director of the CIA. This congressional panel recommended, in December 2002, that the National Security Act be amended ``to create and sufficiently staff a statutory Director of National Intelligence who shall be the President's principal advisor on intelligence and shall have the full range of management, budgetary and personnel responsibilities needed to make the entire U.S. Intelligence Community operate as a coherent whole.'' Two years later, the 9/11 Commission, led by former Governor Tom Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, came to the same conclusion and recommended the creation of a National Intelligence Director to ``manage the national intelligence program and oversee the agencies that contribute to it.'' A few months later, in December 2004, the Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRTPA, that created the position of DNI. By statute, the position of the Director of National Intelligence is the senior-most intelligence position in the U.S. Government. The DNI is, under the law: The head of the 16 different offices and agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community; The principal advisor to the President on intelligence matters; and The official in charge of developing the intelligence budget. Despite that expansive charge, the first 5 years with a Director of National Intelligence at the helm of the intelligence community have been unsteady times. There have been three Directors in 5 years: Ambassador John Negroponte, ADM Mike McConnell, and ADM Dennis Blair. It is the strong hope of the Senate Intelligence Committee that General Clapper will provide some stability to the office and set it on a more stable path. He was asked about this in the committee's confirmation hearing. Senator Whitehouse asked General Clapper if he intended to stick around. General Clapper responded ``Yes, sir, I will. I wouldn't take this on without thinking about that. And I do think my experience has been, it does take time to bring these changes about.'' And certainly changes are needed. I have discussed with General Clapper my concern that the position of DNI could be considered the job of a coordinator someone--who makes sure the 16 agencies are carrying out their roles and working harmoniously. But that was not what the job was designed to be, and that isn't going to be sufficient to put in place the changes we need. The Director needs to set priorities, develop the budget accordingly, oversee agencies' implementation, and make changes when problems or gaps arise. These include: Making sure the systems and personnel are in place to make sure the dots are connected before a terrorist attack; Ensuring there is sufficient intelligence collected by human and technical means so that decisionmakers have an accurate and full set of facts before setting policies--for example, on sending troops to war; Reviewing intelligence programs and activities to make sure they fit squarely within the Constitution and the law, and that Congress is provided with the information it requires to conduct independent oversight; and Managing the intelligence budget to make sure it is spent without waste, abuse, or inappropriate duplication. These are not the jobs of a coordinator; they are the jobs of a Director. General Clapper recognizes these as the obligations of the DNI. The last thing I would like to note on the position of the DNI is its statutory authorities, and the limits placed on them. In particular, the DNI is constrained from directing 15 of the 16 agencies and offices of the intelligence community, because they reside in various Federal departments. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, IRTPA, states that in carrying out his responsibilities, the DNI may not ``abrogate'' the statutory responsibilities of Cabinet Secretaries. This is often interpreted to prevent centralized direction. The 16th agency, the CIA, is not housed within a department, but it, too, has demonstrated its ability to thwart the DNI's directives it dislikes by importuning the White House. We understand from former officials in the DNI's office that both problems have greatly frustrated past DNIs' ability to lead. General Clapper has served on the DNI's executive committee under Directors McConnell and Blair. He has seen firsthand how this tension between the DNI's direction and the views of a Cabinet Secretary has played out. Indeed, General Clapper has been very forthright that as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence since 2007, part of his responsibility has been to uphold and support the interests of the Secretary of Defense. But he has also assured the Intelligence Committee that, if confirmed, this would change. During his confirmation hearing, General Clapper said, ``I have been, for the last three years, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. And I considered it my responsibility and my obligation to defend and protect the secretary's authorities and prerogatives to the maximum extent I could. If I were confirmed as the DNI, I will be equally assiduous in ensuring that the DNI's prerogatives and authorities are protected and advanced.'' Even so, General Clapper has a track record of taking concrete steps to ensure that the interests of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are synchronized, and both are enhanced to improve our national security. What is more, General Clapper is perhaps unique in that he has strong relationships with the President and the national security team at the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director--the three most important relationships for a DNI to be successful. So in short, I believe that General Clapper will bring to the position of the DNI the right approach, skills, and gravitas to make this work. I will continue to work with him, like the committee has worked with past Directors, to make changes in the law to give him the authorities and flexibility that he needs. The Senate has just passed unanimously a revised version of the fiscal year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act. That bill includes 10 provisions to strengthen the DNI's ability to run his office and direct the intelligence community. Eight of those ten provisions were requested by this administration or the last one, and I will continue to push to get this important bill signed into law soon. Let me say a few words now about General Clapper himself. General Clapper has served in the intelligence field for 46 years, almost all of which was in military and government service. His 32 years of military service in the U.S. Air Force included wartime operations, flying 72 combat support missions over Laos and Cambodia and being a wing commander. He has served as the Director of Intelligence, the J-2, for three warfighting commands--at U.S. Forces Korea, the Pacific Command, and the Strategic Air Command. In the 1990s, Lieutenant General Clapper led the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, one of the biggest and most complex of the agencies in the intelligence community. He retired from active duty in 1995 after this position and worked in the private sector until he was asked to return to government service and lead the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, NIMA--since renamed the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, NGA. He led NGA for 5 years--an unusually long tenure heading an intelligence agency--until a difference of opinion with Secretary Rumsfeld cost him his job in 2006--and provided a notable example of General Clapper's willingness to ``speak truth to power.'' In 2007, General Clapper once again put aside the benefits of a private life and agreed to serve under Secretary Gates as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. As he said in his confirmation hearing, the nomination to be DNI ``was an unexpected turn of events. I'm in my third tour back in the government, and my plan was to walk out of the Pentagon about a millisecond after Secretary Gates. I had no plan or inkling to take on another position.'' Nonetheless, he has agreed to take on this challenging and somewhat thankless position. General Clapper was nominated by the President on June 7, 2010. He answered more than 150 tailored pre-hearing questions in addition to our standard questionnaire and appeared before a lengthy confirmation hearing on July 20. After the hearing, he answered another 79 questions for the record and appeared in a subsequent closed session meeting with four members of the committee who had additional questions. If there were questions or doubts about his nomination, they have been answered. In fact, when General Clapper was nominated, I had my doubts about having another person in this position with a military background and whether he viewed the position of DNI as a coordinator or a director. My concerns have been allayed. I am confident that he will be mindful of the important intelligence needs of the military and the Department of Defense, but he will be independent of Pentagon interests. He understands that the responsibility of the DNI is to provide strategic intelligence to policymakers and that the job requires more than simple coordination. On July 29, the Intelligence Committee voted out General Clapper's nomination on a roll call vote of 15 to 0. The committee has expressed its full support of General Clapper. He has excellent credentials, support from the White House and other key intelligence officials, and will be a strong Director of the Intelligence Community. I congratulate General Clapper on his confirmation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Having served on the Senate Judiciary Committee now for 17 years, I have seen the impact that new Justices have on the Court, and I strongly believe these votes are among the most important we cast in this Chamber. There is no question that the confirmation process has become heated in recent years. Outside interest groups and the 24-hour news cycle have placed far too much emphasis on sound bites, half truths, and hyperbole. But none of this should obscure the fact that these are, in fact, important votes because the stakes are high. A Supreme Court Justice, once confirmed, will serve a life appointment on a Court that is truly foundational to our democratic system. For over 200 years, our independent judiciary has served as a model to the world. We have watched as other countries have struggled with courts that have become beholden to political pressures or fallen subject to corruption. I think of Pakistan, where in 2007 President Musharraf proclaimed a state of emergency and used it to suspend the country's constitution and remove justices from the supreme court; or Mexico, where corruption is so bad that in 2008 President Calderon called for a fundamental redesign of the entire judicial system. In the United States we have guarded our judiciary, and it has served us well. Our Supreme Court has acted as a true check on government abuses, as a reliable and impartial tribunal for the resolution of private disputes, and as a final arbiter where the American people can come to seek protection of their fundamental constitutional rights. As Justice Breyer said in a recent public address, the virtue is that ``a country of 300 million very diverse people will resolve their differences under law and not with guns on the street or through riots.'' In the context of world history, this is most impressive. When it comes to the Supreme Court, nominations merit careful attention as well because any one Justice can have a substantial effect on the Court's rulings. The cases that reach the Supreme Court are not easy ones. When the law is clear, a case is settled by the parties or resolved by the district courts or the courts of appeal. It is when the law is open to multiple interpretations or when constitutional values must be weighed against each other that a case is likely to reach the Supreme Court. In these cases, decisions are not automatic. Instead, each of the nine Justices must examine the facts, study the law, and reach his or her best conclusion about what the law requires. The Court's rulings stand not just as abstract statements for the law books but binding decisions with lasting impact on the lives of the American people. There are examples in the newspaper every day. In 2005, the Justices held that a school district in Seattle had violated the equal protection clause by using race as one of a series of factors in assigning students to schools within that district. The real impact of this will be to make it far more difficult for school administrators to maintain racial diversity in our public schools. Another example: In a recent antitrust case--Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS--the Justices put forth a new interpretation of the law that will allow manufacturers to set minimum prices for certain products. What this means for Americans is, when they go to the store, they may find that a particular electronic device or even a shampoo has the same price at every store and can never be put on sale. Legislation to overturn this decision is still pending before the Senate. In each of these cases, Justices were divided on the law. Five Justices agreed on the Court's ruling, but the remaining four Justices dissented and explained in vehement terms why they disagreed with their colleagues' reasoning and result. The decisions, in other words, were not formulaic. So when I undertake my constitutional role of providing advice and consent, I do so with the understanding that every nominee to the Court is not the same, and each and every one could have a lasting impact on the future of our country. With this in mind, I am very pleased to support the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Look at her professional record. Summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton; a master's degree in philosophy from Oxford University; magna cum laude from Harvard Law School; a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review; legal clerkships with U.S. Circuit Court Judge Abner Mikva and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; two years at the law firm of Williams and Connolly; a professor of constitutional and administrative law at the University of Chicago; a special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the nomination of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; an associate White House counsel to President Clinton; the deputy director of President Clinton's Domestic Policy Council; a professor at Harvard Law School; the first woman dean of Harvard Law School; the first woman to ever serve as the Solicitor General of the United States. That is an amazing background. You would think she is 106 instead of a very young woman. It is easy to see why her name has so often appeared on short lists for the Supreme Court. She is a woman of repeated firsts. If confirmed, she will be the fourth--not the first--woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Frankly, I have been surprised to hear some of my colleagues question Elena Kagan's credentials for the Court. Let me start with the argument made by some that her record is somehow inadequate because she lacks prior judicial experience. It is true that all nine Justices on the current Supreme Court come directly from the U.S. Court of Appeals. But that is a historic anomaly. It has never happened before. In fact, in the history of the Court, approximately one-third of our Justices have come to the bench with no prior experience as a judge. When the President announced this nominee, Justice Scalia, for one, said he was happy to see that she is not a Federal judge and not a judge at all. Justice Felix Frankfurter went much further, stating in a speech in 1957: One is entitled to say, without qualification, that the correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the functions of a Supreme Court is zero. The significance of the greatest among the justices who have had such experience, Holmes and Cardozo, derived not from that judicial experience, but from the fact they were Holmes and Cardozo. In my own view, judicial experience is a useful background, but it is only one of many, and it is a background that is well represented on the Court today. As a matter of fact, it is entirely represented on the Court today. The point is this: When we examine Elena Kagan's records, we should not allow the characteristics of the current Court to make us shortsighted. In the course of American history, the Senate has confirmed Justices with a broad variety of backgrounds--Justices who were law professors, such as Felix Frankfurter; attorneys in private practice, such as Warren Burger; elected officials, such as John McKinley, Earl Warren, and James Byrnes; and over 10 percent of our Justices have--like Elena Kagan--come directly from the executive branch, with no judicial experience in between. These include Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was Assistant Attorney General; Justice Byron White, who was Deputy Attorney General; Justice Robert Jackson and Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who were both the Attorney General of the United States; and Chief Justice John Marshall, who was the Secretary of State. Again, these are Justices who distinguished themselves on the Court, who came directly from the political experience. In my mind, the President has made a wise choice with this nomination because, in addition to this woman's impressive brain power--and I sat there and listened to her hour after hour keep her calm, show humor, and display an impressive ability to cite cases, and even footnotes of those cases--she brings the valuable attribute of having first-hand working knowledge of all three branches of government. If confirmed, she, Justice Breyer, and Justice Thomas, will be the only Justices to share that distinction. Take her experience with the Supreme Court itself. As a ``27-year-old pipsqueak,'' as she said before the committee, Elena Kagan had the privilege of working as a law clerk on the Supreme Court to Justice Thurgood Marshall. The job itself is prestigious, and it is impressive that Kagan was selected. The real value, however, was in giving Kagan an inside view of the Court through the eyes of one of our great Justices, the lawyer who argued Brown v. Board of Education, the first African-American Justice on the Supreme Court, and a man who brought to life the Court's most basic promise of ``equal justice under law.'' She had that experience. As Elena Kagan said at her confirmation hearing, through Justice Marshall, she learned that our courts are ``special as compared with other branches of government. In other words, that it is the courts' role to make sure that even when people have no place else to go, they can come to the courts and the courts will hear their claim fairly. That is a valuable lesson indeed for both a young lawyer and a new Supreme Court Associate Justice.'' Today, Kagan has an equally unique perspective on the Court. As the Solicitor General, she sometimes is referred to as the ``tenth justice,'' because there is no other lawyer who interacts as frequently with the Justices. In her time as Solicitor General, she has filed hundreds of briefs and argued six cases before the Supreme Court itself. If confirmed, she will be one of only five sitting Justices who have appeared on the advocate's side of the Supreme Court bench. Solicitor General Kagan also brings practical experience with the legislative branch. She worked in the halls of the Senate as a special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the Ginsburg nomination, and during the Clinton administration, she bore responsibility for advancing President Clinton's domestic policy agenda as the Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. She served, for example, as the administration's chief negotiator for tobacco reform legislation. So she knows the ins and outs of the legislative process. This position enabled her to experience firsthand the hard work, negotiation, collaboration, and navigation of procedural obstacles that are required to move a difficult bill through Congress. When the Justices are called upon to interpret a statute, or determine its constitutionality, it is essential that they have some appreciation for the process by which that law came to be and the intent of Congress in writing and shaping that law. Elena Kagan knows the legislative process, and I believe that will serve our Nation well. Finally, Elena Kagan also brings experience as a participant in the executive branch. As the Solicitor General, she has represented the U.S. Government before the Supreme Court; as an associate White House counsel, she had to advise President Clinton on the scope of Presidential powers and privileges; and as a Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, she supervised the President's policy initiatives not only by advancing legislation in Congress but also in cooperation with Federal agencies. Already, the debate has begun among legal commentators about whether Kagan's work on the executive branch will skew her rulings in key cases--we heard this earlier this morning--dealing with the scope of the President's powers with respect to indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, or the use of force outside of a declaration of war. The lessons of history again provide perspective here. I think of Justice Robert Jackson, a former Attorney General of the United States, who wrote an opinion that now stands as the cornerstone for all analysis--and I mean that--of limits on executive power. We have heard this quoted by virtually every nominee before the Judiciary Committee when a question of executive power is levied. In the famous Youngstown case, in 1952, the Court was called upon to decide whether the President's authority as Commander in Chief allowed him to seize the Nation's steel mills in order to ensure sufficient wartime production to meet the Defense Department's needs for the Korean war. In his prior role as the Attorney General of the United States, Robert Jackson had vigorously defended the President's prerogative to take steps necessary to advance the Nation's war effort. But as Justice Jackson, he took a different tack. He agreed with the majority that the President did not have the authority to seize the private steel mills, but in doing so, he set forth a compromise framework, stating that the President's power was greatest when he acted pursuant to an act of Congress, in a zone of ``twilight'' when the Congress has not spoken, and at its lowest ebb, when he acted contrary to the stated will of the Congress. When a colleague pointed out that Justice Jackson's compromise framework differed from the position he had taken as Attorney General, he replied that a Justice does not ``bind present judicial judgment by earlier partisan advocacy.'' That is a very profound statement from a great Justice, who wrote an opinion that has stood the test of time. I tell this story to make this point: Elena Kagan's clerkship for Justice Marshall, her work with the Congress in the 1990s, and the positions she takes now as Solicitor General cannot forecast, with any certainty, what results she will reach in cases before the Court. I think Justice Jackson is living proof of that. However, they do provide important assurance that she will appreciate the core principles and perspectives that undergird the work of each and every branch of this government. Like Justice Jackson, this has the potential to make her a very persuasive and impressive Justice. In sum, I believe Elena Kagan's professional background makes her superbly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. An excellent professional background is, of course, a necessary qualification, but a nominee must also show that he or she has the appropriate judicial temperament, has a commitment to follow the law, and brings a judicial philosophy that will not pull the Court outside of the mainstream. And I have confidence in her in each of these areas. The Senate Judiciary Committee has received over 170,000 pages of documents spanning Kagan's entire career. She testified before us for 18 hours over a space of 3 days. She has answered over 200 additional questions for the record, and scores of letters have been sent to us regarding her qualifications. What repeatedly emerges from all of this is that Elena Kagan is a pragmatist, a problem-solver, and a conciliator. Her time as dean of Harvard Law School--misinterpreted often--paints a vivid picture. Elena Kagan arrived at Harvard in 1999. She was selected to be dean only 4 years later. She was the first woman ever named so--a significant accomplishment in itself. What is most important, however, is that during her time at Harvard, she developed a reputation as a steady leader who would bring all sides to the table and work to solve a problem. As described in a letter from 69 former deans supporting her nomination, she had a unique ``willingness to listen to diverse viewpoints and give them all serious consideration. She revealed a strong and consistent aptitude for forging coalitions that achieved smart and sensible solutions, often in the face of seemingly insoluble conflict.'' Quite a statement from 69 deans of law schools. She brought conservative faculty, such as Bush administration lawyer Jack Goldsmith, to the school and rallied the faculty to come together to support them. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried described her effect this way: ``The place is like it's never been before.'' She ``managed to calm the factionalism, so it's completely disappeared.'' That is according to former Solicitor General Charles Fried. The Boston Globe stated it more simply, saying that she ``thawed Harvard law.'' This same knack for the pragmatic and drive toward consensus echoes throughout her career. A liberal scholar from the University of Chicago has characterized her academic work this way: She is much more of a lawyer than a partisan. She is more interested as a scholar in thinking through hard issues than advocating particular ideological or political perspectives. Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta has written that during the Clinton administration, Kagan ``distinguished herself as deeply loyal to the Constitution and the law'' and said that ``on issues ranging from adoption to religious freedom to tobacco regulation, [she] eschewed ideology in favor of practical solutions.'' Her friends, her admirers, her colleagues repeatedly describe her in those terms: a problem-solver, a conciliator, someone who brings people together even when they have very different views. What really impresses me, though, is what we have heard from conservatives. Let me note that the very fact we have heard from these conservatives is impressive. In today's political atmosphere, lawyers take a risk when they cross party lines to support Supreme Court nominees. Key people have done so for Kagan. Former Bush appointee to the Tenth Circuit and current Stanford law professor Michael McConnell sent us an 8-page letter outlining the reasons for his strong support for Kagan's nomination. Elena Kagan, he said, shows ``respect for opposing argument, fairmindedness, and willingness to reach across ideologic divides, independence, and courage to buck the norm.'' ``No one,'' he said, ``can foresee the future, but I would not be surprised to find that Elena Kagan, as a Justice, serves more as a bridge between the factions of the Court than as a reliably progressive vote.'' Senator Graham, my colleague on the committee, has pointed to the words of Miguel Estrada, a deeply conservative lawyer who has known Kagan for 27 years. He describes her as having ``a formidable intellect, an exemplary temperament, and a rare ability to disagree with others without being disagreeable. She is calm under fire and mature and deliberate in her judgments.'' Today, we have a divided Court--a Court in which the Justices are repeatedly split five to four on major rulings of the day. These rulings determine what kinds of gun laws legislatures can pass to protect the public safety in our cities, how much money will be spent in Federal elections, what school districts can and cannot do to maintain racial diversity in our schools, what remedy our older and women workers have when their employers discriminate against them, what the appropriate role for religion is in our public life, or how much a company can be required to pay for causing significant harm to our environment. And these Justices are split down the middle on these major questions. They cannot find compromise or agreement. Major questions of the day are adjudicated on a bare majority. We badly need a Justice who can drive this Court toward consensus, and I have high hopes Elena Kagan will be just such a Justice. Her record also gives me confidence that she will follow the law and put aside any personal policy preference when deciding cases on the Court. In the course of her career, whether working on policy or on law, law has always come first. And as Solicitor General, she has proven quite clearly that she can put her personal views aside, filing, for example, a brief that defended the constitutionality of don't ask, don't tell. Although she is known to strongly disagree with that policy, she defended it and stated that the Court should let stand a First Circuit decision that upheld the policy because it properly deferred to the reasoned military judgment of the executive and legislative branches. Finally, I believe she has set forth an appropriate judicial philosophy. In 3 days of hearings before our committee, she has revealed herself as a person who believes that judges should follow precedent, stare decisis, and exercise restraint in their rulings. She said: [N]o judge should look at a case and say, ``Oh, I would have decided it differently; I'm going to decide it differently.'' [A] judge should view prior decisions with a great deal of humility and deference. She told us: The time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that [the role of the Court] must also be a modest one-- properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives. Hers will be a welcome voice on the Court. I wish to take one last moment, if I may, to address questions about her actions related to military recruiting at Harvard Law School because I believe, to some extent, they have been inaccurately depicted. While each Member will have to draw his or her own conclusions about whether Dean Kagan took the wisest course, I believe it is essential that we get the facts straight. As dean, Elena Kagan never barred military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus. For one semester, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Solomon amendment was unconstitutional, Kagan reverted to an earlier school policy that had been used for many years before she became dean. That is fact. Under that policy, the military recruited through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association but was excluded from the Office of Career Services. At all times, the military had access to students. In fact, military recruitment levels at Harvard remained steady and even increased at times during Kagan's tenure as dean. But what is most striking to me in reviewing all of this is that although the judiciary has heard from servicemembers on both sides of this issue, every report we have received from a veteran or servicemember who actually attended Harvard at the time has been in strong support of Kagan's nomination to the Court. Marine Corps CPT Bob Merrill graduated from Harvard Law School in 2008. He is currently serving in Afghanistan. He writes: Kagan's positions never affected the services' ability to recruit at Harvard. Behind the scenes the dean assured that our tiny Harvard Law School Veterans Association never lacked for funds or access to facilities. She treated the veterans at Harvard like VIPs, and she was a fervent advocate of our veterans association. First Lieutenant David Tressler graduated from Harvard Law School in 2007 and is currently serving in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army Reserves. He wrote that ``while Dean of Harvard Law School, [Kagan] adequately proved her support for those who had served, were currently serving, and all those who felt called to serve.'' Navy Judge Advocate General Corps LT Zachary Prager graduated in 2006 and wrote that ``Dean Kagan set a standard at Harvard of respect for military servicemembers'' and that without Kagan's ``leadership and evenhandedness as Dean,'' he would not have joined the military. Like Admiral Mike Mullen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of the Navy Ray Maybus, retired General Colin Powell, myself, and many others in this Chamber, Kagan has said she personally disagrees with the don't ask, don't tell policy. And she is not alone. At certain dark moments in our history, institutions of higher education have shown a hostility in this sense, but those contexts should not be confused. To oppose the exclusionary policy of don't ask, don't tell is not to oppose or show hostility toward the military; it is instead to say that the time has come for all willing and able Americans to be able to serve. Like Elena Kagan, I strongly believe the criteria for military service in our country should be competence, courage, and a willingness to serve, not race, gender, or sexual orientation. Members should draw their own conclusions about whether Kagan made the right choice as dean in returning to Harvard's old recruiting policy in 2005, but I want to be clear that nothing in her record shows any hostility toward the military or the men and women who serve our country. In fact, servicemen and women who were there at the time have come forward, and the evidence is to the contrary. In sum, and in conclusion, I believe Elena Kagan will be a fine Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and I look forward to the day soon when she takes her seat as the fourth woman in history to serve on that Court. I am very proud to support her nomination. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 2:15 p.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting the Public Interest: Understanding the Threat of Agency Capture.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Children's Health of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Transforming Government Through Innovative Tools and Technology.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 3, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control has been studying the evolving counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan and has found that the Taliban has morphed into a hybrid--it is one part terrorist organization, one part global drug trafficking cartel. The Taliban's terrorist operations are increasingly fueled by its substantial narcotics profits, with as much as $169 million coming from a single heroin trafficker in a 10-month period. In Afghanistan, the convergence of terrorism and international drug trafficking is strikingly similar to what we have witnessed in Colombia. There, profits from the cocaine trade has kept the Marxist terrorist group known as the FARC going for the past 46 years. These hybrid organizations are the face of 21st century organized crime. In just one counternarcotics operation in October 2009, a major laboratory in Kandahar province in Afghanistan was raided. Sixteen Taliban were killed. Roughly 1.8 metric tons of opium and heroin were seized at the lab-- along with improvised explosive devices, IEDs, IED bomb-making materials, and Taliban training manuals. The Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, took down 25 heroin processing labs in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2009. All of them had ties to the Taliban. In December 2009, before the House Armed Services Committee Karl W. Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan testified that: The cultivation of poppy and the trafficking of opium without a doubt has the most debilitating effect of Afghan society, feeding corruption and undermining the legal economy, while generating funds for the insurgency. Systemic corruption at all levels of the Afghan government remains a problem fueled by the drug trade. The two largest income-generators in Afghanistan are estimated to be drugs and bribes, accounting for $2.8 billion and $2.5 billion per year, respectively, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime report: ``Corruption in Afghanistan,'' January 2010. Together, that is equal to about half of the country's legitimate GDP. This shocking figure clearly identifies the two biggest problems in Afghanistan: drugs and corruption. Additional resources for the counternarcotics mission are now being developed after it was determined that drug trafficking clearly supports the insurgency. However, experts agree that it may take many years to get the drug trade in Afghanistan under control. Meanwhile, as the U.S. military plans to scale back its presence starting in summer 2011, civilian personnel will remain to continue to support Afghans. So the question comes: Will the civilian counternarcotics forces in Afghanistan have enough personnel and equipment to continue meaningful operations without the U.S. military? As part of the Drug Caucus review, I asked that we identify which programs and tools work, and which ones don't. This report makes several recommendations, including: Increasing the capacity of the Afghan counternarcotics forces; continuing U.S. support for alternative livelihood programs and evaluating new program proposals; clarifying U.S. policy on eradication; increasing dedicated assets for air support of counternarcotics missions prior to the U.S. military drawdown; utilizing narcotics investigations as a tool to root out and prosecute corrupt Afghan officials; and suggesting policymakers develop a counternarcotics plan as soon as possible for when the military-to-civilian ratio changes. Let me highlight one of the report's nine findings and recommendations. This finding involves narco-terrorism investigations. In addition to hearing testimony, we have spoken to experts from the Departments of Justice, State, and Defense, nonpartisan think tanks, and intelligence community officials. All agreed that it is essential to remove the leadership of the Afghan narco-cartels from the deadly mix of drug money and terror. However, the Afghan judicial system is not capable of prosecuting and incarcerating high-value narcotics kingpins. The good news is that there is a legal vehicle for U.S. law enforcement to remove these high-value targets. In March 2006, as part of the Patriot Reauthorization Act, the United States enacted title 21 United States Code section 960a. Known as the Federal narco-terrorism statute, this law gives DEA the authority to pursue narcotics and terrorism crimes committed anywhere in the world--if a link can be established between a drug offense and a terrorist act or group. This statute can be applied worldwide. It has been particularly effective in combating major drug violators in Afghanistan. These are the violators who are providing weapons and other substantial resources to the Taliban for use against American and coalition forces, and against the innocent civilian population of Afghanistan. DEA currently has two 13-agent units--the Bilateral Investigations Unit and the Terrorism Investigations Unit--which address this type of narco-terrorism. The Bilateral Investigations Unit primarily pursues cases of drugs being exported to the United States, and has been responsible for successfully investigating and convicting major Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers. The Terrorism Investigations Unit investigates international criminal organizations that use illicit drug proceeds to promote and finance foreign terrorist organizations and acts of terror, pursuant to title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 960a, narco-terrorism. Agents with the Terrorism Investigations Unit have produced impressive case results, including: obtaining the first conviction under the new narco-terrorism law, against Khan Mohammed. Captured by DEA and Afghan Counternarcotics Police in Nangarhar Province in October 2006, Khan Mohammed was convicted in May 2008 in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. He received two life sentences for selling narcotics and intending to use the proceeds to purchase rockets to attack the U.S. military base in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Indicting Haji Juma Khan and coordinating his arrest and expulsion from Indonesia on October 23, 2008. He was placed into DEA custody and transported to New York, where he awaits trial. He is one of the world's most significant heroin and opium traffickers, who provided direct support to the Taliban from his drug trafficking revenue. The Terrorism Investigations Unit worked in Afghanistan to capture Haji Bashir Noorzai, who was the world's largest heroin trafficker and one of the five original founding members of the Taliban Ruling Shura in Kabul. He was convicted in the Southern District of New York and is now serving a life sentence. In December 2009, a Terrorism Investigations Unit investigation confirmed that al-Qaida is becoming increasingly involved with the drug trade, when Federal prosecutors in New York charged three people with ties to al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, in Africa with narco-terrorism for conspiring to transport 500 kilograms of cocaine belonging to the FARC across Africa and into Europe. This case marks the first time that associates of al-Qaida have been charged with narco-terrorism offenses, as well as the first prosecution of crimes related to drug trafficking in support of terrorism in sub- Saharan Africa. Based on the success of these investigative units and the conditions in Afghanistan, I believe it is important to stand up a new team to focus directly on Afghanistan. By providing funding for an Afghanistan team, the existing Terrorism Investigations Unit would be able to continue their work in Africa on al-Qaida-linked organizations. An Afghanistan team would also expand the Terrorism Investigations Unit's operations--currently focused in the South and East--to throughout the country. The contacts and leads they discover have produced, and will produce, collateral intelligence for American and coalition forces. I am confident that a new unit will produce additional indictments and convictions of Taliban members and others for narco-terrorism. Our findings have clearly identified that this is a program that works. Simply put: Narco-terrorism investigations have proven to be an effective tool in Afghanistan. So it should be a priority for funding and action. There's another area that should be a priority--helicopters. Helicopters are essential to this fight here's why: After all our efforts--after the recruiting and training of Afghan police, after developing intelligence, after following leads--the times comes to lawfully arrest traffickers and seize their narcotics. This requires a large force of law-enforcement personnel, supported by troops, and the counternarcotics team must be transported to the target location by helicopter. Afghanistan is unlike most countries in the world in this respect. It is a vast country, with a challenging geography, and little in the way of passable roads. So helicopters are essential. Unfortunately, many times there are no helicopters available, so the mission has to be scrubbed. The Drug Caucus looked into this. We found that it is critical to have dedicated helicopters for counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. For example, last October Michael Braun, former Chief of Operations for DEA, told the Drug Caucus that: The DEA's counter narco-terrorism operations and vitally important intelligence gathering missions are routinely delayed, often for several days, because the DEA lacks its own organic helicopter assets in Afghanistan.'' The Government Accountability Office reported to Congress in March of this year that: Defense and DEA officials stated that airlift requirements have grown beyond what was originally envisaged for the Air Interdiction Unit, and they also stated they expected these requirements to grow further as DEA expands into forward operating bases Attorney General Eric Holder told me this when I asked him on March 22, at the Judiciary Committee about the lack of air assets for counternarcotics operations: The most significant factor we face in Afghanistan is helicopter lift. DEA must have adequate helicopter lift capacity that is night capable and flown by veteran pilots. Recently, the Drug Caucus learned the following: There are funds available, allocated by Congress and provided to the State Department, for supporting other civilian agencies operating in Afghanistan. These funds can be used for to obtain dedicated helicopters for counternarcotics missions. There are retired Navy Sikorsky helicopters mothballed at Davis- Monthan Air Force Base and elsewhere available at no cost. The State Department has a contract with Sikorsky to refurbish up to 110 S-61 helicopters over the next 5 years. It will take approximately 9 months to refurbish these helicopters and get them to Afghanistan. When I learned that we have these helicopters, a signed contract with Sikorsky, and funds for the retrofit the helicopters were all available to meet the needs of the counternarcotics mission I thought great, ``When will they be in country?'' Unfortunately, I cannot get an answer to that question because there has been a hold placed on the final decision regarding these helicopters. A hold that has lasted several months. This is unacceptable. Time is of the essence. These funds must be used now to prepare these helicopters to get them to Afghanistan by next spring. I ask for the President and the Secretary of State's full support on this matter so, for the first time, there will be helicopters dedicated to U.S.-led counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. Drug trafficking in Afghanistan provides more than 90 percent of the world's opium. It fuels the insurgency, corrupts public officials, and undermines political stability and the rule of law. If we are to protect coalition forces from an influx of weapons now, and leave Afghanistan on firm footing, we must put an end to this relationship between terrorism and drugs. In September 2009, the executive director of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa had this to say: Like never before, the fates of counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency are inextricably linked. On March 16 of this year at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing General David Petraeus testified that: Another major component of our strategy is to disrupt narcotics trafficking, which provides significant funding to the Taliban insurgency. This drug money has been the `oxygen' in the air that allows these groups to operate. What we have learned is that heroin is a weapon for the insurgents and the terrorists. It kills people. It ruins lives. It leads to criminal behavior. And it corrupts governments, putting a terrible burden and strain on society. When he learned that a large shipment of heroin was heading to American cities, convicted Afghan narco-terrorist Khan Mohammed was recorded on a surveillance tape saying: Good, may God turn all the infidels into dead corpses . . . whether it is by opium or by shooting, this is our common goal. There can be no question that the drug trade in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to terrorism. So, the drug trade there must be met with the same robust response, the same level of resolve, as our efforts against the insurgency. Bottom line: If we ignore the drug problem in Afghanistan we will fail in Afghanistan. Mr. President, this report may be found at http:// drugcaucus.Senate.gov. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Michael J. Sulick, Director of the National Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency, who will retire tomorrow, July 30, 2010. Mr. Sulick's career spans over 30 years in the CIA during which he distinguished himself as a patriot, leader, and friend of the U.S. Senate. Mike Sulick also served as a marine in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969. It is a rare opportunity to pay tribute publicly to one of the men and women who serve beyond the front lines, working in secret to protect and serve the Nation. Having ``come in from the cold,'' I am pleased to be able to say a few words about Mike. A New York native, Mr. Sulick graduated from Fordham University in 1971 with a B.A. degree in Russian language/literature and continued at the University to earn a M.A. in Russian language/literature in 1972. In 1977, he received a doctorate in comparative literature from City University of New York, NY. During his career, Mike served more than 11 years abroad in Asia, Latin America, Poland, and Russia, where he was able to use his language fluency of Spanish, Polish, and Russian. In headquarters assignments, he served as Chief of Liaison in the Office of Congressional Affairs, Chief of Central Eurasia Division, Chief of Counterintelligence, and as the Deputy Director and later as Director of the National Clandestine Service. Mr. Sulick retired from the CIA as the Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service in 2004. In 2007, Mike heeded the call of service when he was asked by the CIA Director, GEN Michael Hayden, and his Deputy Director, Steve Kappes, to rejoin the Agency. He has been the head of the clandestine service for the past 3 years. In this capacity, he had frequent interaction with Senators and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. His professionalism, mature judgment, sage advice, and interpersonal skills earned him the respect and confidence of the committee. His sound judgment, courage, and candor also directly contributed to his successful representation of the CIA's interests before the committee and Congress. Throughout his career, Mike Sulick demonstrated a profound commitment to our Nation, a selfless service to the CIA, a deep concern for Agency officers and their families, and a commitment to excellence. Mike is a consummate professional whose performance, in over 30 years of service, has personified those traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation has come to expect and so desperately needs from its professional intelligence officers. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Mike Sulick for his honorable service to the Central Intelligence Agency and the people of the U.S. and also thanking Mike's wife Shirley for her support and understanding, as well as her sacrifices in allowing Mike to selflessly commit himself to protecting our Nation. We wish Mike and Shirley Sulick all the best in the future.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Crapo, Udall of Colorado, Bennet of Colorado, and Boxer, to introduce legislation that will help preserve the great tradition of the American family farm. Our legislation is called the Family Farm Estate Tax Deferral Act. It is designed to prevent the unintended consequences of the estate tax's disproportionate impact on family farms, by providing relief to families who want to continue their family farming and ranching operations. This is especially important in California, where high unemployment has devastated many of our state's agricultural communities. Specifically, this legislation would allow qualifying family operated farms and ranches to defer estate taxes if the farm-related income of the decedent in the three years prior to death does not exceed $750,000 annually, and the non-farm related income does not exceed $500,000 per year; the farm is passed down to a family member who has been materially engaged in its management and operations for at least 5 years; the farm generated more than 50 percent of the farm owner's income, or comprised more than 50 percent of the farm owner's estate at the time of death; the farm was owned by the decedent for at least 5 years and is located within the United States. The family member inheriting the estate continues to use the land for farming purposes; and, at the time of his or her death, the decedent associated with the estate was a U.S. citizen or legal resident of the United States. The bill also includes a ``recapture'' provision, to ensure that farm heirs are subject to strict oversight and must pay taxes if at any time they sell the land or cease to use the property for farming. The bill would also encourage the preservation of land and protect millions of acres of open space and wildlife habitat. It does so by incorporating legislation introduced in the House by Representative Earl Blumenauer to increase the limitation on the estate tax exclusion for conservation easements to $5 million, up from $500,000. Farm and ranch estates are estimated to be up to 20 times more likely to face an estate tax burden than other estates. Roughly one in 10 family farms and ranches confronted estate tax bills last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Let me explain why this is cause for concern, and why our legislation is so important. Most of the financial value of a family farm or ranch operation lies in its land. Assets such as specialized equipment and production tools have limited resale value and are not likely to quickly generate sufficient liquidity. It is land--not securities or other more-liquid assets--that comprises the lion's share of many farmers' assets. So, many farmers are quite literally land rich, and cash poor. The property value of fertile farmland can appreciate greatly over time. For example, in 1997 the average farm real estate value was $926 per acre; today it is $2160 per acre, according to the Land Trust Alliance. This represents a 133 percent increase in the value of farmland in just over a decade. As this farmland appreciates, the potential estate tax bill grows. When a farm estate is passed on to an heir, portions of the land are sometimes fragmented, or even sold to developers in order to manage the tax consequences. The result is that some farms are rendered inoperable, and heirs face difficult choices in these tough economic times. Let me share the story of a constituent, Hannah Tangeman-Cheney, whose story illustrates the problem. Hannah's ranch in Susanville, California, has been owned by her family since 1862, and run by women since 1914. After her mother passed away, Hannah had to deal with the IRS, attorneys, and appraisers, during this difficult period in her life. Her mother had a will and a trust, but there was still a significant tax burden that Hannah and her sister had to deal with. It took 2 years for Hannah and the IRS to reach agreement on the value of her ranch since their appraisers came up with different numbers. Eventually, she reached agreement with the IRS to pay the taxes off over a ten-year period. Facing these difficult circumstances, Hannah and her sister made the painful decision to harvest thousands of trees. In all, 13,157 trees were cut--far more than they would have ever dreamed of harvesting under any other circumstances. Some of the trees took more than 100 years to grow, and the property had not been harvested since the 1950's. Eventually, she was able to pay off the taxes, but this was a very emotional experience for Hannah and her sister. They are both environmentally conscious, and their ranch was even certified as part of the ``Green Building'' program with the Forest Stewardship Council. Our legislation is designed to prevent these unintended consequences, and provide relief to families wishing to keep their farms in operation. By mandating a $750,000 cap on income in order to qualify, we can ensure that this relief goes to those farmers who need it most, not to major agribusinesses. To be clear, many Americans have suffered tremendously during this very difficult economic downturn. But, some agricultural communities have been hit especially hard. Family farms in many of California's most productive agricultural areas are currently struggling just to make ends meet. I come from the largest agricultural state in the country. California has suffered a crippling three-year drought, and many growers have had to fallow their fields to cut their losses. Many have had to lay off employees, and some have left the business entirely. These hardships can be seen, and I have witnessed them firsthand, in Fresno County where the unemployment rate is 16 percent. In Kings County unemployment is 15.9 percent. Tulare County unemployment is 15.8 percent. Imperial County is suffering under unemployment which has reached 27.6 percent. Within these counties, unemployment in some agricultural communities has touched 40 percent. Farms and ranches are an important source of jobs in these communities. This legislation aims to protect family farms that intend to hire, while providing more certainty to thousands of workers across the State. In 2006, I warned that difficult decisions would be required before the estate tax expired in 2010. Well, 2010 is here and the picture of our nation's fiscal health is not a pretty one. We are facing a record $1.3 trillion budget deficit. The national debt has reached a new high at roughly $13 trillion. The parameters of the estate tax debate have shifted for most, by necessity. Full estate tax repeal is out of the question, and our number one priority for allocating federal resources has rightly been shifted to job creation and economic recovery. But, absent Congressional action, the estate tax will return with ferocity next year at a 55 percent rate with an exemption level of $1 million. I don't think this is something that many in this body would like to see. So, any estate tax reform must be well-targeted and balanced to ensure it is fiscally responsible. As we work to develop comprehensive, permanent, and fiscally- responsible estate tax reform this year, I urge my colleagues to remember that the estate tax was never intended to prevent family farms from being passed from generation to generation. Our legislation resolves this issue for once and for all, and by safeguarding against loopholes for rich farming conglomerates and agribusinesses, it does so at minimal cost. Moreover, we take steps forward to protect our precious environment and preserve open space and agricultural lands. There is no doubt that many family farmers are under financial pressure during these difficult times. We must take steps to bring relief to the very family farmers and ranchers who have devoted their lives to helping feed and sustain this great nation. This legislation is a fiscally responsible and targeted effort to ensure that we preserve this tradition for legitimate working farms. Estate tax reform must be addressed soon, and this issue can no longer be delayed. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to enact this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Crapo, Udall of Colorado, Bennet of Colorado, and Boxer, to introduce legislation that will help preserve the great tradition of the American family farm. Our legislation is called the Family Farm Estate Tax Deferral Act. It is designed to prevent the unintended consequences of the estate tax's disproportionate impact on family farms, by providing relief to families who want to continue their family farming and ranching operations. This is especially important in California, where high unemployment has devastated many of our state's agricultural communities. Specifically, this legislation would allow qualifying family operated farms and ranches to defer estate taxes if the farm-related income of the decedent in the three years prior to death does not exceed $750,000 annually, and the non-farm related income does not exceed $500,000 per year; the farm is passed down to a family member who has been materially engaged in its management and operations for at least 5 years; the farm generated more than 50 percent of the farm owner's income, or comprised more than 50 percent of the farm owner's estate at the time of death; the farm was owned by the decedent for at least 5 years and is located within the United States. The family member inheriting the estate continues to use the land for farming purposes; and, at the time of his or her death, the decedent associated with the estate was a U.S. citizen or legal resident of the United States. The bill also includes a ``recapture'' provision, to ensure that farm heirs are subject to strict oversight and must pay taxes if at any time they sell the land or cease to use the property for farming. The bill would also encourage the preservation of land and protect millions of acres of open space and wildlife habitat. It does so by incorporating legislation introduced in the House by Representative Earl Blumenauer to increase the limitation on the estate tax exclusion for conservation easements to $5 million, up from $500,000. Farm and ranch estates are estimated to be up to 20 times more likely to face an estate tax burden than other estates. Roughly one in 10 family farms and ranches confronted estate tax bills last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Let me explain why this is cause for concern, and why our legislation is so important. Most of the financial value of a family farm or ranch operation lies in its land. Assets such as specialized equipment and production tools have limited resale value and are not likely to quickly generate sufficient liquidity. It is land--not securities or other more-liquid assets--that comprises the lion's share of many farmers' assets. So, many farmers are quite literally land rich, and cash poor. The property value of fertile farmland can appreciate greatly over time. For example, in 1997 the average farm real estate value was $926 per acre; today it is $2160 per acre, according to the Land Trust Alliance. This represents a 133 percent increase in the value of farmland in just over a decade. As this farmland appreciates, the potential estate tax bill grows. When a farm estate is passed on to an heir, portions of the land are sometimes fragmented, or even sold to developers in order to manage the tax consequences. The result is that some farms are rendered inoperable, and heirs face difficult choices in these tough economic times. Let me share the story of a constituent, Hannah Tangeman-Cheney, whose story illustrates the problem. Hannah's ranch in Susanville, California, has been owned by her family since 1862, and run by women since 1914. After her mother passed away, Hannah had to deal with the IRS, attorneys, and appraisers, during this difficult period in her life. Her mother had a will and a trust, but there was still a significant tax burden that Hannah and her sister had to deal with. It took 2 years for Hannah and the IRS to reach agreement on the value of her ranch since their appraisers came up with different numbers. Eventually, she reached agreement with the IRS to pay the taxes off over a ten-year period. Facing these difficult circumstances, Hannah and her sister made the painful decision to harvest thousands of trees. In all, 13,157 trees were cut--far more than they would have ever dreamed of harvesting under any other circumstances. Some of the trees took more than 100 years to grow, and the property had not been harvested since the 1950's. Eventually, she was able to pay off the taxes, but this was a very emotional experience for Hannah and her sister. They are both environmentally conscious, and their ranch was even certified as part of the ``Green Building'' program with the Forest Stewardship Council. Our legislation is designed to prevent these unintended consequences, and provide relief to families wishing to keep their farms in operation. By mandating a $750,000 cap on income in order to qualify, we can ensure that this relief goes to those farmers who need it most, not to major agribusinesses. To be clear, many Americans have suffered tremendously during this very difficult economic downturn. But, some agricultural communities have been hit especially hard. Family farms in many of California's most productive agricultural areas are currently struggling just to make ends meet. I come from the largest agricultural state in the country. California has suffered a crippling three-year drought, and many growers have had to fallow their fields to cut their losses. Many have had to lay off employees, and some have left the business entirely. These hardships can be seen, and I have witnessed them firsthand, in Fresno County where the unemployment rate is 16 percent. In Kings County unemployment is 15.9 percent. Tulare County unemployment is 15.8 percent. Imperial County is suffering under unemployment which has reached 27.6 percent. Within these counties, unemployment in some agricultural communities has touched 40 percent. Farms and ranches are an important source of jobs in these communities. This legislation aims to protect family farms that intend to hire, while providing more certainty to thousands of workers across the State. In 2006, I warned that difficult decisions would be required before the estate tax expired in 2010. Well, 2010 is here and the picture of our nation's fiscal health is not a pretty one. We are facing a record $1.3 trillion budget deficit. The national debt has reached a new high at roughly $13 trillion. The parameters of the estate tax debate have shifted for most, by necessity. Full estate tax repeal is out of the question, and our number one priority for allocating federal resources has rightly been shifted to job creation and economic recovery. But, absent Congressional action, the estate tax will return with ferocity next year at a 55 percent rate with an exemption level of $1 million. I don't think this is something that many in this body would like to see. So, any estate tax reform must be well-targeted and balanced to ensure it is fiscally responsible. As we work to develop comprehensive, permanent, and fiscally- responsible estate tax reform this year, I urge my colleagues to remember that the estate tax was never intended to prevent family farms from being passed from generation to generation. Our legislation resolves this issue for once and for all, and by safeguarding against loopholes for rich farming conglomerates and agribusinesses, it does so at minimal cost. Moreover, we take steps forward to protect our precious environment and preserve open space and agricultural lands. There is no doubt that many family farmers are under financial pressure during these difficult times. We must take steps to bring relief to the very family farmers and ranchers who have devoted their lives to helping feed and sustain this great nation. This legislation is a fiscally responsible and targeted effort to ensure that we preserve this tradition for legitimate working farms. Estate tax reform must be addressed soon, and this issue can no longer be delayed. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to enact this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senate Resolution 591 recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 1990, congressional members from both sides of the aisle joined together to denounce disability-based discrimination and demand equal rights for the disabled through the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the 20 years since, this landmark law has stood as a proud marker of our Nation's collective belief that disabled Americans can and should be full participants in our Nation's civic, economic, and social life. That, as one national disability organization proclaims, ``It's ability, not disability that counts.'' The Americans with Disabilities Act has had profound effects on the lives of over 50 million disabled Americans from curb cuts to elevators, Braille displays to voice recognition technology, and voting assistance to expanded employment opportunities, to name just a few examples. Because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing are now guaranteed the same services that law enforcement provides to anyone else. Law enforcement agencies may not exclude hearing impaired Americans from their services and must make efforts to ensure that their personnel communicate effectively with people whose disability affects their hearing. Thanks to this landmark law, buses are now equipped with reliable lifts for wheelchair access; drivers announce stops to inform the seeing-impaired of arrival; and paratransit services provide door-to- destination transportation. This increased mobility enables disabled Americans to hold jobs and pursue educational opportunities, to perform day-to-day errands independently, and to access medical and social services. As one San Francisco resident said, ``We no longer have to rely on the kindness of strangers to shop for us or feel that we can only experience other cities through films, videos and books.'' The Americans with Disabilities Act has enabled disabled Americans to visit and enjoy the grounds of our Nation's cultural and historical treasures such as Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington. This important law has also improved the quality of life for Americans with impaired sight, by requiring stores and businesses across the country to accommodate the service animals that guide and assist them. And progress is being made to ensure that the Web sites and online stores that make up the world of e-commerce are accessible as well. Let me offer yet another example: a veteran fireman like Dennis Bell does not have to quit his job when he loses his leg during a rescue attempt, because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Instead, his employer must provide him with the opportunity to be reassigned. In Mr. Bell's case, he has been given an opportunity to work in a new division instructing children about fire safety. And because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a gifted man like Chris Lenart, who is unable to talk or walk, can pursue a successful career as a computer programmer and remain economically self- sufficient. Employers can no longer deny a job to a qualified applicant because of a disability. At least 12 percent of Americans live with a disability, but each and every one of us benefits from the skills and talents of disabled Americans who can now contribute to our country's workforce and public life, and whose abilities are not lost for want of an opportunity to demonstrate them. I believe that our country has become a stronger and fairer place over the past 20 years because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As the 20th anniversary approaches, I am proud to reflect with my colleagues on the progress that has been made as a result of this law, as well as to acknowledge that there is more work still to be done.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is. The NLD has indicated it will try to continue to help the Burmese people in ways other than as a legally registered political party.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is. There are several such references in the legislation as amended.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. It is my view the proper statutory construction given the term ``National League for Democracy'' would be to include any appropriate successor entity, group or subgroups that the NLD may form in the future.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I will speak briefly on the resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to give just a little history to back up this resolution. In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation, which required the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma, if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition. In fact, at that time, Secretary Albright met with the ASEAN nations and tried to encourage them to be of help. They were of no help, so the President, by Executive order, then instituted this investment ban. In 2003, after the regime or some of its quislings attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi when she was on a march in the center of the country, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed 1 year at a time. That is essentially what we are doing today. It was signed into law and has been renewed 1 year at a time since then. I became involved in this struggle for peace and democracy in no small part due to the courage and valor of this wonderful woman. I think I admire her as much as any woman in the world. Her message of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law continues to inspire not only her fellow citizens but people all over this great world, with her courage and her resolve in the face of constant oppression. For the past two decades, Burma's despotic military rulers have engaged in a campaign of persecution against Aung San Suu Kyi, tarnishing her image wherever they could, unjustly convicting her of violating an illegitimate house arrest last year, and extending her unlawful detention. She has spent the better part of 20 years under house arrest. She has not seen her two sons who live in the United Kingdom for years. She was not permitted to visit her husband when he was dying of cancer in the United Kingdom. Yet Aung San Suu Kyi remains resolute in her dedication to the pursuit of peaceful national reconciliation, as do the members of her political party, the National League for Democracy. Now, more than ever, the people of Burma need to know that we stand by them and support their vision of a free and democratic Burma. On May 6, her party, the National League for Democracy, closed its doors. Let me be clear. They did not shut down of their own free will; it was forced to disband by an unjust and undemocratic constitution and election law, both drafted in secret and behind closed doors by the ruling military junta. Under the terms of the new constitution, 25 percent of the seats must be set aside for the military. Think about that for a moment. Before any vote has been cast, the military is guaranteed one-quarter of the seats in the new 440-member house of representatives. How will this new institution be any different from the current military regime? If that isn't enough to raise doubts about the military's commitment to a truly representative government, it should also be pointed out that the regime's Prime Minister, Thein Sein, and 22 Cabinet Ministers resigned from the army to form a new civilian political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party. Any seats won by this new party in the upcoming election will be in addition to the 25 percent set aside for active military members. Does anyone truly believe the regime has embraced democracy and the concept of civilian rule? Unfortunately, it will be business as usual for the people of Burma and the democratic opposition. What about Suu Kyi and her National League of Democracy--winners of the last free parliamentary election in 1990? First, earlier this year, the regime, which has not allowed the party, the NLD, to assume power, officially annulled its victory in the 1990 parliamentary elections, which would have made Suu Kyi the head of the Burmese Government. Second, under the new constitution, Suu Kyi is barred from running in any future election. Why is this? What has she done to deserve this? Well, in 2009, an American swam across the lake to her house, uninvited, and remained there for 2 days. She did not know this man. She had never communicated with this man. She had nothing to do with him, but he was obviously exhausted after swimming across the lake, and he remained in her house for 2 days. She was then arrested and convicted for allowing him to remain in her house, which, according to the regime, violated the terms of her house arrest. Because of this conviction, she cannot participate in this or any future election under the new constitution. So here is the only democratically elected leader--elected 20 years ago--under house arrest for the better part of those 20 years. She survived an assassination attempt. She is ostracized and kept from any interaction with her political colleagues or her family and, finally, she can never run for any office again. As a result, the NLD was faced with a clear choice: either kick Aung San Suu Kyi out of the party and participate in the election or face extinction. It should come as no surprise that the party refused to turn its back on Suu Kyi and give its stamp of approval to the regime's sham constitution and electoral law. I applaud their courage and their devotion to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I am saddened to see the regime close its doors, but the spirit and principles of this party will live on in the hearts and minds of its people. I know that, one day, they will be able to elect a truly representative government. As Tin Oo, NLD's deputy leader and former political prisoner, said: We do not feel sad. We have honor. One day, we will come back; we will be reincarnated by the will of the people. This is a clear message to the regime that an illegitimate constitution and election law cannot suppress the unyielding democratic aspirations of the people of Burma. We must send our own signal to the regime that its quest for legitimacy has failed. We must send a signal to the democratic opposition that we stand in solidarity with them, and we will not abandon them. I also thank former First Lady Laura Bush, who joined with virtually all the women of the Senate to hold a press conference back in 2007. Mrs. Bush was willing to use her First Lady status to support this cause. I think it is a gesture that will not be forgotten by any of us. Now is the time to renew the import ban on all products from Burma for another year. The regime has taken many steps in the wrong direction. I live for the time when this military junta will recognize that keeping this brave woman under house arrest, absent any interconnection with any of the people of her party or of her country for 20 years, is an unjust penalty. Simply put, we still have hope. Hopefully, the military junta, as they are called, will one day recognize that Burma should be a free and democratic nation and that an election should be open to all people and all runners. Then the opportunity for major change and recognition of the people of Burma in the Council of Nations will take place. I regret very much that we have to do this for another year. I am grateful to Senator McConnell for joining me over the years, as annually this has been recognized and a vote has been taken to continue the sanctions.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is. The National League for Democracy in March of this year indicated it could not participate in the elections due to the junta's repressive election law. It therefore declined to register as a political party and consequently under the new law was abolished as a political party in early May.