Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Chairman Lincoln and Chairman Dodd for maintaining section 745 in the conference report accompanying the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which gives authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prevent the trading of futures and swaps contracts that are contrary to the public interest.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is very important to restore CFTC's authority to prevent trading that is contrary to the public interest. As you know, the Commodity Exchange Act required CFTC to prevent trading in futures contracts that were ``contrary to the public interest'' from 1974 to 2000. But the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 stripped the CFTC of this authority, at the urging of industry. Since 2000, derivatives traders have bet billions of dollars on derivatives contracts that served no commercial purpose at all and often threaten the public interest. I am glad the Senator is restoring this authority to the CFTC. I hope it was the Senator's intent, as the author of this provision, to define ``public interest'' broadly so that the CFTC may consider the extent to which a proposed derivative contract would be used predominantly by speculators or participants not having a commercial or hedging interest. Will CFTC have the power to determine that a contract is a gaming contract if the predominant use of the contract is speculative as opposed to a hedging or economic use?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And does the Senator agree that this provision will also empower the Commission to prevent trading in contracts that may serve a limited commercial function but threaten the public good by allowing some to profit from events that threaten our national security?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for including this provision. No one should profit by speculating on the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Firms facing financial risk posed by threats to our national security may take out insurance, but they should not buy a derivative. A futures market is for hedging. It is not an insurance market. collateralized investments

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in mourning the loss of one of the Senate's legendary Members--Robert C. Byrd, the honorable senior Senator from the great State of West Virginia. It wasn't too long ago that I looked right over there and I saw a desk draped in black with roses and it was one titan of the Senate-- Senator Ted Kennedy. Today, I look down here and I see a desk draped in black with white roses and it is a second titan of the Senate. I had the privilege of serving with Senator Byrd on the Appropriations Committee for some 16 years. I have had occasion to watch him. He could be very tough, he could be very caring, and he could have that twinkle in his eye. He could depart from the present text into Greek tragedy; into old Roman speaking. He had an incredibly curious mind. I think he is going to be greatly missed from this body. I think of him representing the State of West Virginia for 51 years and serving 6 years in the House of Representatives. During all those 57 years, he served with the kind of devotion and passion that he showed in his last year here in the Senate, when he was very troubled by declining health. He has truly left an indelible imprint on the State of West Virginia and on this body. No one has ever shown more determination or greater love for the United States Senate than Robert C. Byrd. His tenure has been legendary. He held a number of key leadership positions, including secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Senate majority whip, twice as Senate majority leader, the Senate's minority leader, and three times as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. During the period of 1989 to 2010, Senator Byrd was President pro tempore of the Senate--the most senior Democrat and third in the line of Presidential succession; also as President pro tempore emeritus when the Democrats were in the minority. Senator Byrd cast more rollcall votes than any other Member of this institution--18,689 in total. That is truly remarkable. Just think about how many of this Nation's laws he helped shape. He was a veritable expert on the inner workings of the Senate. There was no one who was more well versed in this institution's intricate rules, protocols, and customs than Robert Byrd. He literally wrote one of the most comprehensive books on the Senate. He knew Riddick's ``Rules of Procedure,'' virtually all 1,600 pages. Many of us in the Senate have also spoken of his ardent devotion and consummate knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. His well-worn, treasured copy of this document was kept in his vest pocket, and year after year I would see him pull it out. The only thing that would change is that his hand, as the years went on, shook a little bit more. But his devotion to that document did not. He was a staunch defender of the prerogatives of the three equal branches of government, and he was very quick to note that he served alongside, not under, 11 Presidents. When he first joined the House of Representatives in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was President. His tenure in Congress then followed alongside the Presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald A. Ford, James Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and finally Barack Obama. That is an amazing list of people to have served with. Bob Byrd was not only one of the Senate's famous power brokers, but I think his fondness for classical history, music, and poetry has impacted every one of us. As I said, he frequently interspersed his Senate remarks with passages from ancient Roman history, philosophy, and often poetic verse. It used to amaze me how, late at night, he could move from his set text and repeat some poem, word for word, verse after verse. The nine decades of Robert Byrd's lifetime witnessed great change both at the personal level and at the national level. He lived to see and strongly support the inauguration of our country's first African- American President--something I know meant a great deal to him. He was not always on the right side of the civil rights issue at every stage of his life, but he became a champion for equality, a lion for progress. His transformation was truly inspirational. Senator Byrd was born into very humble beginnings in 1917. He grew up during the Great Depression. He was the adopted son of a coal mining family in a small town in southern West Virginia. He was the valedictorian of his high school class but was not able to afford college at the time. This impoverished childhood might have hindered others, might have stopped a weaker person, but not the indomitable Robert Byrd. His inner thirst for knowledge propelled him throughout his epic career. In fact, he managed to find time during his tenure in the Senate to finally fulfill his bachelor's degree from Marshall University in 1994, at the tender age of 77. That shows something, I think. He previously received a law degree from American University's Washington College of Law in 1963. The loss of his beloved wife Erma Byrd in 2006, I think, was a dramatic blow to him. I had occasion to talk with him during that time, and there was no question that this was a great love, that it was an enduring love, and that it was a lifetime commitment. I discussed with him how he provided, day after day, week after week, and month after month, the personal care to his wife as she became more infirm and came toward the end of her life. This truly was a major gift of love. One thing I have learned in my lifetime, there are so many people who, in the end-of-life crises, are not able to give with love to their spouse. This was a man who could do that. I think that develops his importance as you look at life and people in general. Once again, I offer my sincerest condolences to his two daughters Mona Faterni and Marjorie Moore, his grandchildren and great- grandchildren, and to the people of West Virginia. This Nation--not only West Virginia, but all of us--owe Senator Robert Byrd a great debt of gratitude for his service. I know I will very much miss that indomitable spirit, that insightful guidance, and the intense commitment to the Senate. This man will be missed. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Prohibition Act. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters. Over the past decades, Congress has established a number of royalty- relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places, and before we were ready to deploy large-scale renewable energy production. But that is no longer the case. The events of the last weeks have shown that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. I believe taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater drilling for oil. The disastrous impacts of the leak from the Deepwater Horizon have shown that offshore drilling has enormous environmental and safety risks--particularly in deep waters. Eleven people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. All these weeks later, we continue to watch in horror as the scope of the disaster keeps expanding: Oil slicks spread inexorably across the Gulf of Mexico; Pelicans and other wildlife struggle to free themselves from crude oil; tar balls spoil the pristine white sand beaches of Florida; Wetlands are coated with toxic sludge; More than 1/3 of Federal waters in the Gulf have been closed to fishing; The plumes of oil under water may create zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life; The oil may spread into the Atlantic Ocean via the Loop Current; The response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences; and Upcoming storms may delay or prevent continued containment and response efforts. The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that regulation, oversight and prevention technologies should be rigorous. But that is clearly not the case. Regulators failed to ensure appropriate safety and response technologies were in place. MMS gave BP a categorical exclusion from an environmental impact analysis that in my opinion should never have been allowed. MMS allowed BP to run a drilling operation without the demonstrated ability to shut off the flow of gas and oil in an emergency. MMS allowed BP to operate without remote shutoff capability in case the drilling rig became disabled. MMS did not have an inspector on the rig to settle the heated argument between the BP, Transocean, and Halliburton officials on how they would stop drilling and plug the well. MMS did not have--and did not require the industry to have--emergency equipment stationed in the Gulf of Mexico that could respond immediately to an emergency. MMS did not have a plan for responding to disasters. MMS did not, in fact, have a real inspection and compliance program. It relied on the expertise and advice of the industry on how and how much they should be inspected. This is not how things should be done. We expect more from our government. Prevention and response technologies show similar unacceptable deficits: they are not good enough. These have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California coast near Santa Barbara. That too was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill. The old technology was not good enough, but now it appears that even the newest safety technology fails to prevent wellhead blowouts. The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was just completed in 2001. The drill rig that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days. The New York Times reports that the blind shear rams in the blowout preventers--the last line of defense to prevent wellhead leaks are ``surprisingly vulnerable'' to failure. One study found that blowout preventers have a failure rate of 45 percent. These technologies are insufficient, and they are particularly vulnerable in deep waters. Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at about 400 meters depth. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, and prevented it from working. When a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again. Other risks increase too, as explained by the Wall Street Journal: Drilling in deeper water doesn't change the fundamental process, but it makes virtually everything harder. Rigs must be bigger so they can hold more drilling pipe to stretch vast distances. The pipes themselves must be stronger to withstand ocean currents. Equipment on the sea floor must be sturdier to face extreme pressures at depth. Drill bits must be tougher so they don't melt in the 400-degree temperatures they encounter deep in the earth. And it is harder for drillers to exert just the right amount of pressure down the well bore, enough to keep oil and gas from spurting upwards-- a blowout--but not so much that they crack open the rocks beneath the surface, which could also lead to a blowout. It is clear that prevention, containment, and clean-up measures are not sufficient to handle oil leaks, particularly in deep waters. American taxpayers should not forego revenue to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy either. We need to move to clearer renewable fuels. I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, like oil and coal. Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation, but rather should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I very much believe this. That is why I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy. One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good news is that the administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard. The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. Last year, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, or oil, or coal. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go. It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation. We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like The Recovery Act grant program run by the Treasury Department have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring 4,250 megawatts of clean power online and is expected to generate more than 143,000 green jobs by the end of the year, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The program, however, is set to expire at the end of year if we don't act. So, I'm working on legislation that will extend this successful program for an additional 2 years. All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels. Let me make one final point clear, I don't believe the oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits. Last year, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. Yet we continue to use money that should come to the U.S. Treasury, to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable. Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should benefit too. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely, on clean, efficient and safe technologies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Prohibition Act. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters. Over the past decades, Congress has established a number of royalty- relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places, and before we were ready to deploy large-scale renewable energy production. But that is no longer the case. The events of the last weeks have shown that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. I believe taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater drilling for oil. The disastrous impacts of the leak from the Deepwater Horizon have shown that offshore drilling has enormous environmental and safety risks--particularly in deep waters. Eleven people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. All these weeks later, we continue to watch in horror as the scope of the disaster keeps expanding: Oil slicks spread inexorably across the Gulf of Mexico; Pelicans and other wildlife struggle to free themselves from crude oil; tar balls spoil the pristine white sand beaches of Florida; Wetlands are coated with toxic sludge; More than 1/3 of Federal waters in the Gulf have been closed to fishing; The plumes of oil under water may create zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life; The oil may spread into the Atlantic Ocean via the Loop Current; The response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences; and Upcoming storms may delay or prevent continued containment and response efforts. The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that regulation, oversight and prevention technologies should be rigorous. But that is clearly not the case. Regulators failed to ensure appropriate safety and response technologies were in place. MMS gave BP a categorical exclusion from an environmental impact analysis that in my opinion should never have been allowed. MMS allowed BP to run a drilling operation without the demonstrated ability to shut off the flow of gas and oil in an emergency. MMS allowed BP to operate without remote shutoff capability in case the drilling rig became disabled. MMS did not have an inspector on the rig to settle the heated argument between the BP, Transocean, and Halliburton officials on how they would stop drilling and plug the well. MMS did not have--and did not require the industry to have--emergency equipment stationed in the Gulf of Mexico that could respond immediately to an emergency. MMS did not have a plan for responding to disasters. MMS did not, in fact, have a real inspection and compliance program. It relied on the expertise and advice of the industry on how and how much they should be inspected. This is not how things should be done. We expect more from our government. Prevention and response technologies show similar unacceptable deficits: they are not good enough. These have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California coast near Santa Barbara. That too was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill. The old technology was not good enough, but now it appears that even the newest safety technology fails to prevent wellhead blowouts. The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was just completed in 2001. The drill rig that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days. The New York Times reports that the blind shear rams in the blowout preventers--the last line of defense to prevent wellhead leaks are ``surprisingly vulnerable'' to failure. One study found that blowout preventers have a failure rate of 45 percent. These technologies are insufficient, and they are particularly vulnerable in deep waters. Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at about 400 meters depth. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, and prevented it from working. When a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again. Other risks increase too, as explained by the Wall Street Journal: Drilling in deeper water doesn't change the fundamental process, but it makes virtually everything harder. Rigs must be bigger so they can hold more drilling pipe to stretch vast distances. The pipes themselves must be stronger to withstand ocean currents. Equipment on the sea floor must be sturdier to face extreme pressures at depth. Drill bits must be tougher so they don't melt in the 400-degree temperatures they encounter deep in the earth. And it is harder for drillers to exert just the right amount of pressure down the well bore, enough to keep oil and gas from spurting upwards-- a blowout--but not so much that they crack open the rocks beneath the surface, which could also lead to a blowout. It is clear that prevention, containment, and clean-up measures are not sufficient to handle oil leaks, particularly in deep waters. American taxpayers should not forego revenue to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy either. We need to move to clearer renewable fuels. I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, like oil and coal. Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation, but rather should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I very much believe this. That is why I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy. One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good news is that the administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard. The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. Last year, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, or oil, or coal. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go. It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation. We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like The Recovery Act grant program run by the Treasury Department have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring 4,250 megawatts of clean power online and is expected to generate more than 143,000 green jobs by the end of the year, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The program, however, is set to expire at the end of year if we don't act. So, I'm working on legislation that will extend this successful program for an additional 2 years. All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels. Let me make one final point clear, I don't believe the oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits. Last year, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. Yet we continue to use money that should come to the U.S. Treasury, to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable. Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should benefit too. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely, on clean, efficient and safe technologies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay. There are many areas in the country in with restoration is done, and I am pleased to introduce an authorization for restoration work in the San Francisco Bay with Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and to work with our colleague Representative Speier in the U.S. House of Representatives. As an appropriator, and Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I have secured $17 million in Federal funding for ecosystem restoration and water quality work in the San Francisco Bay in the last 3 years. I have also secured $15 million since 2006 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore salt ponds to tidal wetlands in the Bay. It is necessary to ensure that these funds continue to be appropriated and are spent on the most important projects for the ecosystem and public benefit. To that end, this legislation will prioritize funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and ensure public benefits. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay. There are many areas in the country in with restoration is done, and I am pleased to introduce an authorization for restoration work in the San Francisco Bay with Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and to work with our colleague Representative Speier in the U.S. House of Representatives. As an appropriator, and Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I have secured $17 million in Federal funding for ecosystem restoration and water quality work in the San Francisco Bay in the last 3 years. I have also secured $15 million since 2006 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore salt ponds to tidal wetlands in the Bay. It is necessary to ensure that these funds continue to be appropriated and are spent on the most important projects for the ecosystem and public benefit. To that end, this legislation will prioritize funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and ensure public benefits. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the conference report on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. This conference report expands sanctions authorized by the Iranian Sanctions Act of 1996 to foreign companies who sell Iran refined petroleum, support Iran's domestic refining capacity or sell Iran goods, services, or know-how that assist it in developing its energy sector; bans U.S. banks from engaging in financial transactions with foreign banks who do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or facilitate Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism; establishes three new sanctions the President may impose on violators of the Iranian Sanctions Act and requires the President to impose at least three of nine possible sanctions authorized by that act; bans U.S. government procurement contracts to companies that export technology to Iran that inhibits the free flow of information; and authorizes States and local governments to divest from companies involved in Iran's energy sector. The sanctions will terminate when the President certifies to Congress that Iran is no longer a state-sponsor of terrorism and has ceased efforts to acquire nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles and technology. Let me be clear: I am deeply concerned about Iran's uranium enrichment program and its refusal to abide by United Nations Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to cease its activities and, once and for all, come clean about its nuclear program. A nuclear Iran would represent a serious threat to the security of the United States, Israel, and the international community. The question is, What is the best way to convince Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program? During the previous administration, the United States sat on the sidelines and refused to talk to Iran. We let the United Kingdom, France, and Germany do the hard work of negotiating with Tehran as we remained silent. And it got us nowhere. Iran's uranium enrichment program accelerated and became more advanced. We had to try a different approach. I strongly supported the Obama administration's decision to break with this past and pursue a robust, diplomatic initiative with Iran. I am disappointed we have not made more progress. Indeed, Iran has taken steps in the wrong direction. A new, secret enrichment facility at Qom was uncovered. Iran refused to accept a U.S.-Russian proposal to ship its low enriched uranium to Russia and France for further processing for medical isotopes. And it continues to drag its feet on revealing to the International Atomic Energy Agency the full extent of its nuclear program. But the commitment this administration made to diplomacy gave us the leverage we needed to secure the backing for a fourth round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council. There was no question that China and Russia were skeptical about additional sanctions. Securing their support and maintaining the support of our allies required principled, sustained, and deft diplomacy and I congratulate the administration for its success. Yet I recognize that the U.N. resolution could have been stronger and that unilateral action, such as the sanctions included in this legislation, will complement the U.N. efforts. And that is why I support passage of this legislation. Nevertheless, I believe it is critical for the United States to continue to pursue the diplomacy track. We must develop a ``Plan B'' to deal with the possibility that Iran's nuclear ambitions progress. Iran has been able to withstand previous sanctions initiatives and there is no guarantee that this latest round will be more effective. We know that China and Russia are unlikely to support tougher measures at this time. Military action is not a ``Plan B''. A strike would likely only delay, not destroy, Iran's nuclear program and lead to more violence and instability in the region. In my view, we must use the passage of the latest U.N. Security Council resolution and passage of this legislation as an opportunity to reach out to Tehran again on a fresh diplomatic initiative, not just on the nuclear program but on other issues where we can find some level of common ground and avenues of cooperation. Two months ago I had lunch with Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaee, and I was struck by the lack of trust and understanding between our two countries. If we can find ways to build that trust, we may be able to secure progress on the most intractable issues. As chair of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I strongly suggest that cooperation on counternarcotics efforts is a good place to start. For example, Iran has suffered greatly from the influx of Afghan opium: based on U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime annual assessments, approximately 140 tons of Afghan heroin enter Iran each year from Afghanistan--105 tons--and from Pakistan--35 tons; the estimated heroin user population in Iran is around 400,000 individuals, consuming, at a rate of about 35 grams per year, almost 14 tons of heroin annually; drug trafficking is considered such a major security threat that the government has spent over US$600 million to dig ditches, build barriers and install barbed wire to stop well-armed drug convoys from entering the country; and more than 3,500 Iranian border guards have been killed in the past three decades by drug traffickers. Given that the Iranian drug use epidemic is providing funding for the insurgency in Afghanistan, it seems logical to begin a cooperative dialogue with Iran on this area of mutual concern to build trust between both sides and promote progress on other matters, particularly Iran's nuclear program. I am hopeful that the passage of this legislation will not cease efforts on a diplomatic solution, but open the door to finding new ways to build trust and understanding between Iran and the international community. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in convincing Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program but we have to explore every possible avenue. I firmly believe that we can still find a solution and work out our differences. I am hopeful that this legislation will bring us closer to that goal. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, tomorrow the President of the United States will address the Nation on the 90-day anniversary of the passage of health care reform, so I have come to the floor at this time to discuss an omission from the health care bill, and that omission is the protection of consumers from unfair medical insurance premium rate increases, which, as I will show in the next 15 minutes, are now taking place virtually all over this Nation. On March 4, I introduced legislation to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the ability to set up a rate review procedure to provide that insurance premium rate increases are reasonable. Senators Boxer, Burris, Casey, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Reed, Sanders, and Whitehouse have all cosponsored this bill. I originally proposed the amendment during the health care reform debate. We worked with the Administration in putting it together. We worked with the Finance Committee. We worked with Representative Schakowsky in the House, who has introduced the same legislation. President Obama decided to include it in his health care reform proposal, but unfortunately it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation and therefore had to be dropped. On March 4, I introduced a bill to provide this rate review, and on April 20 Senator Harkin was good enough to hold a full hearing in the HELP Committee. The time has come to take action. The time has come to protect consumers from the egregious abuse of insurance companies that are, in fact, taking place across this very Nation today. Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards at out-of- control rates--10, 20, 30 percent per year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits. Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians in the individual market. It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate these health insurance premium increases for hundreds of thousands of California policyholders, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary. The State insurance commissioner ordered an independent actuarial study, and here is what they found: They found that the 25-percent average increase proposed by Anthem should only have been 15.2 percent. What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it. The five major insurers in the small group market in California--Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente, Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and United Health Care--have just announced rate increases for small businesses that will average 12 to 23 percent. Some will be hit with rate increases as much as 76 percent. That likely means people will lose their insurance. This means that over 1.6 million Californians will shortly see increases in premiums. These premium increases have been going on all along. As a matter of fact, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians have had to lose their insurance because they can't pay these premium increases. This is not a problem unique to California. The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation with substantial geographic variation. For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums have increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared with a 145-percent increase in Alaska. A recent report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that WellPoint is pursuing double-digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States in addition to California: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Here are a few examples of those rate increases in the individual market. Average rates in Colorado will increase by 19.9 percent. Some consumers will see increases as high as 24.5 percent. In Maine, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield requested a 23-percent increase in 2010. They then sued the State's insurance commissioner for rejecting an 18.5- percent increase last year on top of it. But in April a Maine court upheld the insurance commissioner's decision. In Indiana, rates are expected to increase 21 percent in 2010. Other insurance companies are also raising rates. Health Care Service Corporation of New Mexico proposed 24.6 percent increases for about 40,000 individual policies last fall. The school district in Weston, CT, is served by CIGNA, which proposed a 23-percent increase in the district's insurance premiums for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. In a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 77 percent of people purchasing insurance in the individual market report being asked for premium increases. That is over three-fourths. These increases are averaging 20 percent. We don't know the extent of the problem nationwide, but the reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available. However, right now, until changes go into effect, there is a glaring loophole which allows for private for-profit medical insurance companies--the big ones--to increase rates as much as they possibly want to and possibly can. The recently signed health care bill does require insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They must also post these justifications on their Web sites. This provides transparency, granted, but it leaves the loophole. Simply stated, the Secretary has no authority to do anything about these rate increases. So an insurance company can argue the large increase is justified, but in some States there is no review to see that it is. In other States, officials may not have the authority to block an increase that is not justified. We need to close this loophole. The bill we have introduced will do just that. This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are unreasonable. In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them. In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5- percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase. In 23 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive approval for rate increases before they take effect. So this legislation we have introduced simply creates a Federal fallback, allowing the Secretary to conduct reviews of potentially unreasonable rates in States where the insurance commissioner does not--and I repeat, does not--already have the authority or the capability to do so. That is in 23 States. The Secretary would review potentially unreasonable premium increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase. Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. She would identify States that have the authority and capability to review rates. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect them. However, for the consumers in the other 23 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided. This proposal would also create a Rate Authority, a seven-member advisory body to assist the Secretary with these responsibilities. A wide range of interests would be represented, including consumers, the insurance industry, medical practitioners, and other experts. I think this proposal strikes the right balance. There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I have introduced simply provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line. We, in fact, are the only industrialized country in the world that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care. As T.R. Reid says in his book ``The Healing of America'': No country with a large for-profit medical insurance industry has been able to really reform health care costs. So what we have in America today are multiple large, for-profit insurance companies. They are public companies. They are focused on profits. They are heavily concentrated. They leave consumers with few alternatives when their premiums increase. They have merged over the years and they have gained market concentration in a way that no other business or industry is allowed to do in the United States because they have an antitrust exemption. Major League Baseball has that exemption. The health insurance industry is one of only a few industries with this exemption. The Judiciary Committee has passed out legislation which would remove that antitrust exemption, and that legislation should be passed as soon as possible. In 2007, just two carriers--WellPoint and United Health Group--gained control of 35 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance. That is because they have merged and acquired using that antitrust exemption. According to a study by the American Medical Association, more than 94 percent of American health insurance markets have a highly concentrated market share. This means these companies could raise premiums or reduce benefits with little fear that consumers will end their contracts or move to a more competitive carrier because they have bought up the more competitive carriers. In my State of California, just two companies--WellPoint and Kaiser Permanente--control more than 58 percent of the market. In Los Angeles, these two carriers controlled 62 percent of the market in 2008. Before health care reform, these companies had little incentive to be efficient with the premium dollars they collected. These large insurance companies have large and substantial profit margins while continuing to raise premiums for consumers. According to Health Care for America Now!, four of the five largest health insurance companies--WellPoint, United Health, Humana, CIGNA-- saw profits increase 56 percent from 2008 to 2009; that is, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Only Aetna saw their profits decrease. In the first 3 months of 2010, the five largest for-profit medical health insurance companies--WellPoint Inc., United Health Group, Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and CIGNA Corp.--recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion. That is in the first 3 months of this year. Here is the significance: That is a 31-percent jump over the first 3 months of 2009. So just in the first 3 months of this year, through premium increases they now have a $3.2 billion or 31-percent increase in profits. Here are the company profits for the first quarter of 2010: WellPoint, $876.8 million; that is a 51-percent increase over the same quarter in 2009. Humana, $258.8 million; that is a 26-percent increase in the first quarter 2010 over first quarter 2009. Aetna, a $562.6 million profit; that is a 29-percent increase for the first quarter 2010 over first quarter 2009. UnitedHealth, $1.19 billion; that is a 21-percent increase first quarter 2010 over first quarter of 2009. Cigna, $283 million; that is a 36-percent increase first quarter over first quarter of last year. See, this is amazing. They receive these huge profit margins, then they turn around and raise premiums on consumers, many of whom are struggling to keep their insurance because they have lost their jobs, and many of whom have had a double-digit increase last year and even the year before. In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, these insurers set a full-year profit record. This caps a decade of enormous profit growth in the industry. Between 2000 and 2007, profits at 10 of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies soared 428 percent--from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $12.9 billion in 2007. The rapidly increasing insurance premiums are a piece of a larger problem. Multiple factors, including the large profit sustained by many hospitals, now are contributing to the cost of health care in the United States. So what we are seeing is an increase in costs charged by major hospitals. But it is important to note that while the cost of medical care is increasing, premiums are rising much faster than the cost of medical inflation. I must say, there are predictions that we will build into our budget deficit a structural deficit, and that structural deficit will come from these very rising health care costs. Mr. President, we must do something about it. From 2000 to 2008, premiums for employer-sponsored health plans increased 97 percent for families and 90 percent for individuals. At the same time, the payments that private insurers made to health care providers increased 72 percent, medical inflation increased 39 percent, wages increased 29 percent, and overall inflation increased 21 percent. So figure inflation increased 21 percent, wages 29, medical inflation 39, and payments to health care providers increased 72 percent, yet insurance premiums increased 97 percent. Much more than the increase in medical costs. That is the problem. If we let it happen, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Meanwhile, consumers struggle to afford these continued rate hikes. Between December 31, 2008, and March 31, 2010, the combined commercial enrollment of these five companies fell by 2.8 million Americans. So insurers make increasing profits by increasing rates and, at the same time, they push 2.8 million Americans off of medical insurance because of those increasing rates. This is very real. It is happening out there every day, every week, every month. We must do something about it. Let me give you one personal story. Laurel Kaufer is a 48-year-old single mother of two sons. She lives in Woodland Hills in my State. She is a self-employed mediator and lawyer. She has had Blue Cross for 25 years. Her son, Brandon, is 21 and he attends the University of Arizona. Her son, Zack, is 19 and goes to USC. Anthem Blue Cross has raised her health insurance rates 550 percent over the last 10 years. Between February of 2001 and March of 2010, Ms. Kaufer has spent $52,128 on health insurance premiums alone. That doesn't include deductibles. She has no choice but to pay the increases. With her two sons in college, she doesn't have any disposable income. She seeks medical treatment only when she has to. She and her son do their annual checkups, but as Ms. Kaufer says: Sometimes I don't get a test that a doctor says I should have, because it costs me money, and I wait it out to see if I can do without it. This is a family with insurance, passing up tests because they already spend over $52,000 on premiums. There are numerous stories like these. Individuals and families have to choose whether to buy groceries, pay their mortgage, or purchase health insurance. As I pointed out, in the last few years, 2.8 million Americans who were previously insured by for-profit insurance companies have severed their policies or lost their insurance because they can't pay the bill. I strongly believe we need to take action on this and soon because it is going to continue and it is going to spiral. These companies are going to take every advantage of a loophole in the law to raise premiums, to be able to increase their profit margin and push more people off of insurance. This bill is very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Authority of 2010, which will close this loophole.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the confirmation of Ms. Leslie Ireland, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis. This is an individual who is well qualified, nominated to an important national security position, and whose nomination has sparked no opposition or controversy to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, for more than 3 weeks her nomination has languished on the Senate calendar as Ms. Ireland has waited to be confirmed. Let me speak briefly about Ms. Ireland and the position to which she has been nominated. Leslie Ireland is a 25-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency. She has substantial experience in just about all aspects of the intelligence profession. Following a successful career at the CIA, her two most recent positions were that of Iran mission manager in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and as one of the President's daily intelligence briefers. In both capacities, she has worked extensively with all parts of the intelligence community. As the President's briefer, Ms. Ireland has been familiar not only with the breadth of intelligence analysis the community produces, but also the policy context in which intelligence is used. She worked directly for the Nation's premier intelligence consumer-- the President. His evaluation of her professionalism and capability is reflected in the fact that he nominated her for this Senate-confirmed position. As Iran mission manager, Leslie Ireland was given the responsibility over intelligence collection and analysis of what is perhaps our Nation's most challenging intelligence target. She oversaw, prioritized, and directed efforts to understand the Iranian government, nuclear program, military, and society. This is a position with deep management and analytic challenges. Through Ms. Ireland's work as Iran mission manager, she was already well known to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence before she was nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of Treasury. She had appeared at numerous hearings and far more briefings, both for committee members and the staff. Under the leadership of both of our past chairmen, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller, the committee had an Iran study group to follow, oversee, and authorize intelligence activities with respect to Iran. The staff met often with Ms. Ireland, and I believe it was a productive relationship on both sides. So it was no surprise that when Ms. Ireland was nominated on April 12, the committee moved quickly to consider the nomination. She was voted out of the committee on May 25 with the committee's unanimous support. She is ready to assume her new duties, and it is well past time for the Senate to act. For the benefit of my colleagues, let me say a few words about the Assistant Secretary's position. It is a fairly new one, having been created in December 2003 in that year's Intelligence Authorization Act. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis at Treasury has one foot within the Department of the Treasury, assisting the Secretary and other senior departmental officials to set policies on sanctions and declarations. A notable recent example is the effort by the Treasury Department to push, successfully, for the strongest international sanctions to date against Iran in United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1929. Sanctions and international efforts such as this require careful analysis and are the product of intelligence designed to shine a light on the financial and other illicit activities of bad actors, including in this case the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. At the same time, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis has its other foot inside the intelligence community. Its personnel focus and help prioritize the financial intelligence collection efforts of those agencies that collect human, signals, and geospatial intelligence that analysts need. The Treasury office also provides expertise on financial and economic matters that are necessary for broader intelligence community issues. For example, a recent issue of great interest is the financing of terrorist groups like al-Qaida and the militant and extremist groups with which they operate, like the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Pakistani Taliban, the TTP. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis helps inform the intelligence community on this topic. It is critical to understand the financial activities of these groups both to understand how they operate and to provide keys to disrupting them. In Afghanistan, our troops face a well-funded Taliban enemy that relies on illicit funding for its lifeblood--and for the ammunition and improvised explosive devices that put our troops' lives at risk. In the tribal areas of Pakistan, al-Qaida affiliated terrorist groups may be seeking to fund attacks on our homeland such as the unsuccessful car bomb attempt in Times Square. Among the most important impacts of the recent death of the third highest ranking al-Qaida figure, Shaykh Sa'id Al-Masri, is the anticipated loss to the organization's fundraising. As North Korea continues its erratic violent behavior and considers a transition of power from Kim Jong Il to his son Kim Jong Eun, its economy has been further wrecked by a disastrous devaluation of the currency. These are the issues that confront the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis. It is a position that has been vacant since September 2009. There is no excuse for that vacancy to continue another week. The Senate has before it a nominee who is well qualified to fill this role. She has the full support of the Intelligence Committee, and there has been no controversy or opposition to her throughout the confirmation process. I urge the Senate to confirm Leslie Ireland.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of California Superior Court Judge Josephine Staton Tucker to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Tucker brings a wealth of relevant experience as a lawyer and a judge to her candidacy for the Federal bench. For the last 8 years, she has been a trial judge on the Orange County Superior Court. She has managed a judicial calendar of up to 500 pending cases at a time. She has presided over trials on topics as diverse as commercial contract disputes, negligence and discrimination actions, felony criminal cases, and family law matters. And she has served for 2 years on the Appellate Division of the court by special appointment from the chief justice of California, giving her important experience with appeals as well as trials. Additionally, Judge Tucker brings 15 years of litigation experience as an associate and then a partner at the law firm of Morrison Foerster LLP. Her work in private practice included representation of both plaintiffs and defendants in all aspects of employment law, including individual and class action litigation regarding employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, trade secrets and unfair competition, privacy, and wage and hour issues. She represented clients before State courts, Federal courts, and administrative agencies, and she also provided training to employers regarding compliance with federal and state employment laws. From 1996 to 2002, Tucker was the cochair of Morrison & Foerster's 50-lawyer employment law practice. In 2001, the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association recognized her work by naming her their Employment Lawyer of the Year. Judge Tucker has also written prolifically. Her published work includes: The California Employers Guide to Employee Handbooks and Personnel Policy Manuals, a widely used reference book in California; three articles and over 50 case critiques for the California Employment Law Reporter, and 60 discussions of the law confronting employers and employees in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Edition. Finally, she has been active in community work, providing volunteer services to the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, and the Intercommunity Child Guidance Center. Judge Tucker is a summa cum laude graduate of William Jewell College, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and a former law clerk to Judge John Gibson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In sum, she is a highly qualified candidate for the Federal Court. Judge Tucker is also well respected in the Orange County legal community where she works. I have long used a committee process involving local lawyers to identify the most highly qualified candidates for the Federal courts in California. Judge Tucker was recommended to me by my current committee after diligent research into the quality of her work and her reputation among local lawyers. I believe she will be a wonderful addition to the U.S. district court in Orange County. I thank Senator Boxer for her support of Judge Tucker, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of confirmation. I want to say briefly that while I will be very glad to see Judge Tucker confirmed today, there is much more work to be done in confirming the President's nominees. Let me give one example that is important to me. The President first nominated Magistrate Judge Edward Chen to serve on the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California over 300 days ago. He has been voted out of committee twice and has been pending on the floor most recently for 137 days without a vote. Like Judge Tucker, Judge Chen came out of my committee process. He has excellent credentials, including 9 years as a magistrate judge, and has strong, bipartisan support in the community he has been nominated to serve. I understand that certain members of the minority have concerns because Chen worked for the ACLU before becoming a magistrate judge and because of two lines that have been excerpted from his speeches and caricatured in the Washington Times. Chen has a long record as an adjudicator, however, and it is available for all to review. He has spent 9 years as a magistrate judge and written over 200 published opinions. There has not been a single objection in committee or on the floor to even one of his decisions. In 2008, an impartial Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Review Panel reviewed his full record. The Panel unanimously recommended him for reappointment. Federal prosecutors they interviewed were ``uniformly positive'' about Chen and called his rulings ``balanced'' and ``well reasoned.'' Similarly, the local civil bar called him ``well prepared,'' ``very intelligent,'' and ``decisive.'' His reputation is stellar among the district judges he works with-- whether they are Republican or Democratic appointees. District Judge Lowell Jensen who served as the No. 2 official in the Reagan Justice Department said Chen's decisions ``reflect not only good judgment, but a complete commitment to the principles of fair trial and the application of the rule of law.'' Two bipartisan selection committees have recommended Chen for the district court--one in the Bush administration and the committee I have established to review candidates for the current Administration. The American Bar Association has also unanimously rated him well qualified. There is a long track record that shows that Chen understands the difference between his work as a lawyer almost a decade ago and the work of a judge, which he has been doing for the last nine years with great success. It is long past time for the minority to agree to a time agreement and for the full Senate to have an up-or-down vote on Judge Chen's nomination. I will be very pleased to see Judge Tucker confirmed today, and I also believe that we should move forward to confirm other nominees pending.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I just learned, by looking at one of the boards out here, that we have something called a Western Caucus, and the largest State in the Union that is bigger than all of the States in population in the caucus has not been invited to join the Western Caucus. Well, so be it. We will have to suffer along. This measure, I believe, sets a dangerous precedent by invalidating the endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution. I strongly oppose it. I wish to make the public health argument. What is an ``endangerment finding''? Simply put, it is a scientific determination made by the EPA that an air pollutant endangers the health and welfare of the American people and, therefore, it must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This came about because of a 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA. What the Supreme Court said was that the EPA has an obligation to study the impact of global warming. Specifically, the majority opinion found that ``greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's definition of an air pollutant.'' It ordered the EPA to comply with the Clean Air Act and make a determination about whether greenhouse gases could ``reasonably endanger public health or welfare.'' In December 2009, the EPA issued the required final endangerment finding, and that final finding said: The emission of six greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Accordingly, the Administrator has initiated action to curb these emissions in order to protect the health and safety. Many argue, and I happen to concur, that a national cap-and-trade system on these gases might be more efficient and less costly than having to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. Yet, the Senate has failed time and again to approve climate change legislation. We have dithered while the Earth heats. That means right now, EPA is the only Federal agency with the statutory authority to protect the American public's health and safety from greenhouse gas pollution. The Murkowski resolution, however, would throw out this endangerment finding. It would stop EPA dead in its tracks. This would have some real and very serious consequences. First, it would put the Senate on record rejecting scientific analysis of EPA experts. Second, it would block the implementation of a new Federal fuel economy program. Third, it would put the Senate at odds with a coalition of 115 nations that signed the Copenhagen summit agreement. The President has threatened to veto this resolution if it passes, and I would support that veto. Now, health effects. The EPA's endangerment finding says that global warming will have four significant detrimental human health effects. One, more heat waves will mean more heat-related deaths, which is already the leading cause of weather-related deaths in our country. Two, increased extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, put human lives at risk. Katrina demonstrated that in tragic fashion. And, three, a warmer climate will likely result in an increase in the spread of several food and waterborne pathogens, including tropical diseases. Finally, and most important to the Chair's State and my State, EPA's endangerment finding states: Climate change is expected to increase regional ozone pollution with associated risks in respiratory illnesses and premature death. California has two of the worst nonattainment regions in the country: the South Coast Basin, including Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin Valley. Experts tells us combined ozone and particulate matter contribute to up to 14,000 deaths and $71 billion in health care costs every year. Roughly 2.5 million Californians--that is bigger than most of these States in the Western Caucus--2.5 million Californians suffer from asthma, and it is increasing, and other air-pollution-related illnesses. This is a matter of saving lives. It is a matter of major health concern and welfare, and it should be looked at that way. If temperatures rise as projected, these two regions of our country could see 75 to 85 percent more days with warming-related smog and ozone pollution. Fact. This means more asthma, more lung-related disease, more premature deaths from air pollution. These scientific observations are not political statements. They are fact established by scientific study after study. Yet the resolution offered today would reject this evidence. The EPA is legally charged with protecting the public's health and welfare from air pollution. Not to do so, in my opinion, is malfeasance. Additionally, the Murkowski resolution would invalidate the Federal fuel economy program. On April 1, the administration finalized joint standards issued by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more fondly known as NHTSA, in coordination with the State of California to require automakers to increase fleetwide fuel efficiency from the 2008 average of 27 miles per gallon to the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. This is important. It is based on the enacted Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act which I authored with Senator Olympia Snowe and others. That law requires automakers to increase fleetwide fuel economy to the maximum feasible rate beginning with 2011 vehicle models. I have been proud and encouraged to see the administration aggressively implement this program. Yet if EPA's endangerment finding is invalidated by Congress and thrown out, it would mean that the Federal fuel economy program would collapse. If that happens, California and 14 other States are required to enforce their respective State law, regulating tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standards. According to the auto industry, this would reimpose the very patchwork of regulation they have argued against for many years. This would be a major setback. EPA Administrator Jackson has written that Senator Murkowski's resolution: would undo the historic agreement among states, automakers, the federal government, and other stakeholders . . . leaving the automobile industry without explicit nationwide uniformity that it has described as important to its business. State environment commissioners from nine States have written to Congress to explain that they prefer a national approach, but they will enforce their State statutes as long as the Federal Government refuses to act. So the effect of the Murkowski resolution will be to encourage a State-by-State variation of regulation. Not good. The EPA is the agency we have charged to protect our children and our environment from harmful air pollution. EPA is moving forward slowly and carefully to address this issue. Its proposed rules would apply only to the very largest sources until 2016, 6 years from now. If we in the Senate don't like EPA's proposal, we should pass a climate change bill. But the one thing we should absolutely not do is deny the existence of a problem that science says is severely dangerous to our planet. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Donald C. Stone, who is one of the most experienced members on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who has brought unique skills to the committee during his tenure. Friday, June 11 will mark Don's last day in government. After 27 years, Don will be leaving the public sector and taking on new challenges. He has had an extraordinary career, mostly in the secret world of secured offices while he served his country well overseeing our Nation's intelligence agencies. Don comes from this area. He grew up in Maryland and received a bachelor of arts in business administration and a master's in business administration from Loyola College in Baltimore. He now lives in Falls Church, VA, with his wife Dana and their two sons Robert and Andrew. Don did not waste any time getting into the national security world. Right out of graduate school he went to work at the Central Intelligence Agency with the inspector general's audit staff. He worked there for 11 years on very sensitive classified projects both here and abroad, sometimes under very trying circumstances. While working with the CIA inspector general, Don had a rotational assignment with the National Reconnaissance Office's inspector general audit staff from 1993 to 1995, where he worked to make sure our Nation's spy satellite programs were run well and that the tax dollars spent in the secret world of spy agencies would pass muster if exposed to the light of review. Don first came to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 1995 to serve as an auditor on the committee's audit team. The committee had created the audit staff in 1988 to provide `` a credible independent arm for Committee review of covert action programs and other specific Intelligence Community functions and issues.'' Don's aptitude for this work quickly led to his being named the committee's chief of the audit staff in September 1998. Mr. Stone then crossed the Capitol to work on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in March 2005 as the deputy staff director of the Subcommittee on Oversight. We were fortunate enough to bring Don back to the SSCI in January 2007 as our director of Audit and Evaluations. During his time on the committee, Don has completed many reviews and audits to assure us that our intelligence agencies spent our tax money appropriately and legally, and that they managed their programs effectively within the law. Over the years, Don has conducted audits of major acquisition systems, major espionage cases and their related damage assessments, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, budget and personnel growth, and information sharing. He has led the committee's review of financial statements of nominees for key intelligence positions, for keeping up with what the inspectors general of the intelligence community agencies were investigating, and for reviewing dozens of whistleblower and other complaint cases. Don has been properly persistent in reminding intelligence agencies of their need to do better. He is also largely responsible for the effort, underway for the past several years, to push intelligence agencies to improve their financial auditability. A notable example of this was last year when the committee expressed concern and displeasure over the lack of progress that one intelligence agency was making toward being able to produce an auditable financial statement. I received a call from the agency's director, who was not very pleased about the committee's critical view. The committee staff and the agency staff met, and due in large part to Don's thorough research, the agency came away with a clearer picture of what steps it needed to take and, I hope, appreciative of the constructive role the committee was playing. As this body of work reflects, Don has the talents required to conduct congressional oversight. He is able to see both the forest and the trees, and when necessary he can examine the individual leaves and roots. He has an extraordinary ability to focus on the details without losing knowledge of how they fit within a larger context. We have benefitted as a nation when he has cast his gaze on the workings of our national security apparatus. At home he practices his attention to detail on his model car collection and taking up the hammer and paint brush to do the home improvement work he truly enjoys. I would be remiss without noting Don's passion for the local sports teams. Don lives and breathes the burgundy and gold of his hometown Washington Redskins and his residence is covered in red, white and blue not just because he's a true patriot, but also because he's an avid fan of the Washington Capitals hockey team. Don's love of hockey has rubbed off on his two sons who now play on the ice and led him to take active roles in organizing and managing a local hockey league. This year, he is serving as the president of that league and we can be certain the games are starting on time, the kids are playing hard and having fun, and the league's finances are in order. Even with his retirement from government service, Don will be putting his skills and expertise to use in the private sector, but still working in the intelligence arena. Donald Stone has worked in the shadows both in the clandestine world of our Nation's spy agencies and out of the public limelight. It is my pleasure that now, as he leaves public service, we can openly acknowledge and praise the admirable work he has done to keep our Nation safe. Mr. Stone, on behalf of myself and all the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during your years of service, I am pleased to say on the Senate floor how greatly we appreciate your fine work and your exemplary career. We will miss your insights and your professionalism. And I wish you all the best as you move on to the next stage of your life.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of California Superior Court Judge Lucy Koh to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California. Judge Koh is a well-respected lawyer and judge in California. Over the course of her career, she has been a State trial judge, an intellectual property lawyer, a Federal prosecutor, and a counsel in Congress and the Justice Department. For the last 2 years, she has been a superior court judge for Santa Clara County and has adjudicated cases ranging from criminal prosecutions to commercial litigation matters to family law disputes. She spent 8 years representing business clients as an intellectual property litigator at private law firms in Silicon Valley. She spent 3 years prosecuting bank robberies, securities fraud, and other Federal crimes as an assistant U.S. attorney in southern California. And she spent 4 years working in Washington as a special assistant to the Deputy Attorney General and a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has received the FBI Director's Award for demonstrated excellence in prosecuting a major criminal case and has been named one of the ``Top 40 lawyers under 40'' by the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal. As a Judge, the reviews have been equally positive. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, has called her ``an exemplary jurist with an unparalleled track record,'' and described her approach as ``careful and balanced.'' She is a talented woman with a solid background in the law. I commend Senator Boxer for recommending her for the district court and the President for nominating her. I have the utmost confidence that she will serve the Northern District of California with distinction as a U.S. district judge. Judge Koh's confirmation will also be a historic one for our Federal courts. If confirmed, Judge Koh will be the first Korean American woman ever to serve the United States as a Federal district judge, and she will be the first Asian-American district judge appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is a district that serves one of the Nation's largest populations of Asian Pacific Americans, but for over 150 years there has not been a district judge of Asian Pacific descent on the court. Judge Koh will be the first, and her appointment is one for us all to celebrate. I urge my colleagues to support her. Before I conclude my remarks, I want to call attention to another nominee for this district court whom we unfortunately are not voting on today. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen has also been nominated to be district judge for the Northern District of California. Here is the timeline: The President first nominated Magistrate Judge Chen on August 6, 2009. That was over 300 days ago. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination to the floor on October 15, 2009. Although the nomination was pending for 70 days, it was never acted on and there was not consent to allow the nomination to be carried over into 2010. On January 20, 2010, the President renominated Chen, and on February 4, his nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee once again. That was over 120 days ago. Still, he has not received a vote. I find this extremely disappointing. In my 17 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have voted against only one district court nominee. That was Leon Holmes. I had serious concerns about his views on the role of women in society, and I explained my concerns in detail in a statement on the floor. I have not voted against any other district court nominee. Yet in just 17 months of the Obama administration, not one, not two, not three, but four district court nominees have come out of committee on straight party-line votes. And they are all still pending on the floor. I think that is a very unfortunate direction for us to go in. Look at the merits of the Chen nomination. I understand that some have concerns because he spent time working for the American Civil Liberties Union before he became a magistrate judge. But this is a nominee with a proven track record. There is no need to ask how he will be as a judge--the evidence is in. Chen has spent 9 years as a magistrate judge and written over 200 published opinions. There has not been a single objection in committee or on the floor to even one of his decisions. In 2008, an impartial Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Review Panel reviewed his full record. The Panel unanimously recommended him for reappointment. Federal prosecutors were ``uniformly positive'' about Chen and called his rulings ``balanced'' and ``well reasoned.'' The local civil bar called him ``well prepared,'' ``very intelligent,'' and ``decisive.'' The judgment was made--he is a very good judge. I asked Republican-appointed U.S. district judges who work with Judge Chen for their opinions. Again the comments were uniformly positive. District Judge Lowell Jensen served as the No. 2 official in the Reagan Justice Department. He called Chen ``an excellent jurist and a person of high character'' and said Chen's decisions ``reflect not only good judgment, but a complete commitment to the principles of fair trial and the application of the rule of law.'' My own bipartisan selection committee in the Northern District reviewed Chen at length. He was their consensus choice for the district court. A bipartisan selection committee under the Bush administration also recommended him. And the American Bar Association has unanimously rated him ``well qualified.'' So this is a nominee with a solid and publicly available track record. He has strong bipartisan support in the community he has been nominated to serve. And he has the support of his two home State Senators. It is long past time for an up-or-down vote on his nomination. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the nomination of Judge Lucy Koh, and I also urge consent on a time agreement to let us move forward on the nomination of Magistrate Judge Edward Chen. Thank you so very much. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 4253, which would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing its lead paint renovation rule. As we all know, lead poisoning can lead to learning and behavioral disorders so it is absolutely vital that all precautions are taken to protect children from exposure to lead paint. EPA issued the Lead Paint Renovation Rule because more than one million of America's children are still being poisoned by lead-based paint in their homes. This new rule, which was finalized on April 22nd of this year, requires that contractors receive lead paint abatement training and certification from EPA to do work in certain facilities like homes, schools and day care centers. I certainly appreciate the concerns that Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and other members have raised on behalf of contractors who have had difficulty getting access to their required training particularly in States like Tennessee that have recently experienced natural disasters. Two weeks ago when the Committee marked up this bill, I committed to Senators Collins and Alexander that my staff and I would work with them, and with EPA, to see if their concerns could be addressed. Our staffs worked with EPA for several days, but unfortunately, we were not able to come to an agreement regarding an administrative solution to this problem. However, I want to emphasize that EPA has gotten the message that Members are concerned, and they are taking steps to improve the situation. EPA had already indicated in an April 20, 2010 memorandum that it does not plan to take enforcement actions against firms who applied for certification before the rule took effect on April 22nd and are just waiting for their paperwork to be approved. Now they are focusing on making more training opportunities available. An estimated 250,000 contractors have already been trained, and EPA has committed to help make additional training classes available in under-represented areas and areas affected by natural disasters so that contractors in those areas aren't unduly impacted by this rule. EPA is also working to increase the number of training providers. As of May 19th, there were 223 accredited providers offering lead paint abatement training across the country, including 119 providers that travel to multiple States. EPA tells me that 238 additional training providers have also applied to become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than double the nation's training capacity. I understand that some of my colleagues continue to be concerned that EPA still has not done enough. However, this amendment is not the solution we are looking for. Supporters of this amendment have portrayed it as a common-sense solution that simply allows contractors additional time to get lead paint abatement training required by the rule. In reality, passing this amendment would put the United States Senate on record as supporting efforts to prevent EPA from fining those who knowingly violate the provisions of the rule--even if those actions result in lead poisoning of children. A contractor who willfully takes no precautions to contain or confine lead contaminated paint chips would be given a reprieve. I am also concerned that this amendment could excuse renovators from complying with the most basic containment and cleanup measures. I appreciate the concerns that my colleagues have raised. But this amendment is simply a bridge too far. Loosening protections against childhood lead poisoning is the wrong message to send. That is why the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, and the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Senator Boxer, oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment that I have offered, amendment No. 3939. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Snowe as a cosponsor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored also by Senators Levin and Cantwell. The Dodd-Lincoln bill, as currently drafted, takes major steps to reform the $600 trillion derivatives market. I don't think people understand how big this market is. It would require every trade to be reported in real time to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It would require that all cleared contracts be traded on an exchange or on a swap execution facility, therefore, guaranteeing transparency. It would require that speculative position limits be set in aggregate for each commodity instead of contract by contract--to assure effectiveness. It would require foreign boards of trade to adhere to minimum standards comparable to those in the United States, including reporting requirements. The provision is designed to address the underlying problem of the so-called London loophole. I very much support these positions. However, I am very concerned that the bill doesn't go far enough to address the London loophole. This loophole has allowed for the trading of United States energy commodities, such as crude oil, on foreign exchanges, without oversight from the United States regulators. This means there is no cop on the beat to shield U.S. oil prices from manipulation or excessive speculation when they are traded in foreign markets, such as commodities exchanges in London, Dubai, or Shanghai. The amendment I am proposing along with my colleagues would allow the CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with the CFTC, which would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the enforcement authority it needs. It is supported by the chairman of the CFTC, Gary Gensler. This provision was in President Obama's original proposed financial reform bill, and I think it is critical to pass in this bill. Let me explain what has become known as the London loophole. In the wake of the California energy crisis, we learned that most energy trading had been exempted from regulation by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, at the urging of a company by the name of Enron. Using the Enron loophole, this notorious firm pioneered over- the-counter energy derivatives trading. It set up EnronOnline, an electronic market for trading physical and derivatives energy contracts. It was a marketplace with no transparency, no paper trail that could be audited, no speculative position limits, and absolutely no government oversight to prevent fraud, manipulation, or protect the public interest. Enron was a participant in every trade, and only Enron knew the prices. It used EnronOnline and other trading forums to fleece California consumers for $40 billion over 2 years of increased energy prices. Shockingly, much of what Enron had set up was legal because Congress had stripped the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of its enforcement power. Terrible. From 2002 on, I worked with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Levin, and many others to restore regulatory oversight to energy derivatives. We tried in 2002 on this floor, and in 2003 and 2004 to regulate energy derivatives, but we were stopped and stymied. Opponents, such as Alan Greenspan, have since said their opposition was mistaken. Finally, in 2008--6 years after we started--we were able to close this notorious Enron loophole in an amendment to the farm bill, of all things. The amendment imposed meaningful regulation, including speculative position limits and market oversight. So the CFTC began monitoring these markets for fraud and manipulation for the first time in 10 years. But as Congress took steps to establish regulatory oversight of domestic energy derivatives markets, Wall Street traders moved to avoid U.S. regulation. They began to turn to offshore markets. The successor to EnronOnline, the Intercontinental Exchange in Atlanta, bought a London exchange, converted it into an electronic exchange, and began listing American oil futures abroad. That is a way speculators could go right around American regulation and avoid it. West Texas Intermediate crude has been one of the highest volume contracts on this London exchange since 2006. This contract has what is called a price discovery impact because it is commonly referenced as the standard market price of oil. This new regulatory loophole has thus become known as the London loophole. But firms also listed American energy commodity derivatives in Dubai and Singapore and opened their electronic platforms to American traders. This new electronically traded marketplace allows American traders, simply put, to evade American market oversight and speculation limits. The practical implication of this is that U.S. traders can use offshore electronic exchanges to artificially drive up prices of U.S. commodities without any consequences from our Nation's market regulators. This is a big problem. In 2008, a CFTC report found that traders using this London exchange to trade U.S. crude oil futures held positions far larger than would be allowed by American regulators. In fact, from 2006 to 2008, at least one trader position exceeded United States speculation limits every single week on the London exchange, and British regulators have done nothing about it. The good news is that some steps have been taken administratively to address this loophole. In 2008, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission negotiated an agreement with British regulators to bring greater oversight to American commodities contracts traded in London. The agreement called for speculation limits for the electronic trading of U.S. energy commodities, such as crude oil on foreign exchanges, and required recordkeeping and an audit trail so you can look at them for fraud or manipulation. Without an audit trail, it is all in the dark. But CFTC-- and here is the cruncher--has limited legal authority to enforce this agreement. Bottom line: We need to make sure the CFTC can oversee trading of American commodities, whether it happens through a computer server located on Wall Street or in Singapore. The Dodd-Lincoln bill currently before us includes some important provisions to help close the London loophole. As drafted, the bill will require foreign boards of trade that provide access to American traders to comply with comparable rules enforced by a foreign regulator, to publish trading information daily, to supply data to the CFTC, and to enforce position limits. However, the CFTC is unable to force a foreign board of trade to comply with those requirements. And that is just fact. This is because the CFTC's current method of overseeing foreign exchanges has tenuous legal underpinnings due to a Commodity Exchange Act provision forbidding the CFTC from regulating foreign boards of trade. In many instances, our regulatory body, the CFTC, can take action against a U.S. trader trading a U.S. commodity on a foreign exchange to prevent manipulation or excessive speculation only with the cooperation and consent of the foreign regulator. The other more controversial option is for the CFTC to completely ban the foreign exchange from all U.S. operations. Not surprisingly, they shy away from enforcement in the face of these regulatory obstacles. We have a bill that still does not provide strong regulation. It still allows American derivatives traders to avoid American regulations by trading on a foreign electronic platform in Dubai, London, and other places as well. That is why we--Senator Snowe, Senator Levin, Senator Cantwell, and I--are offering a proposal to allow the CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with the CFTC, which would give it the enforcement authority it needs. Quickly, here are the benefits of the amendment. First, the registration process itself would give CFTC the authority to impose regulatory requirements as a condition of registration. Second, a formal registration process would assure that foreign boards of trade all follow the same set of rules. And third, the registration process would provide a much clearer basis for CFTC decisions to refuse or withdraw permission to foreign boards of trade wishing to allow American traders on their exchange. Finally, and most important, all of CFTC's existing enforcement authorities apply to registered entities under the Commodity Exchange Act. This amendment would allow the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to enforce its own statute with regard to foreign exchanges operating in the United States. This is a moderate, practical amendment to assure that we give our regulator the authority to enforce the statutory provisions already in the legislation. There are powerful interests out there that are opposed to this. They want to be able to avoid our law. They want to be able to trade over the London exchange. We negotiated with them to close the Enron loophole. We had ICE in our office. They agreed to it. It took 6 months of negotiation. Do you know what they did? They then went offshore, bought the London exchange, changed it to an electronic trading platform to avoid the very agreement they agreed with, that we legislated and enacted. That is fact. Guess what. It burns me up. And I do not intend to quit because I do not like to be duped that way, whether it is Goldman Sachs and ICE or anybody else. If you give your word, you make an agreement. You do not go offshore to avoid that agreement. Now that I have cooled down, this is a moderate, practical amendment to assure that we give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to enforce the statutory provisions already in the proposed legislation. Why would we want legislation which cannot be enforced? Why would we want legislation that ties their hands? Why would we want legislation that allows somebody simply to avoid this law by trading what amounts to $600 trillion of derivatives in Dubai or in London or in Shanghai or anywhere else? Guess what. These electronic exchanges will be set up everywhere to avoid this bill. That is why we have to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to see that these foreign exchanges register with them and agree to abide by the laws of the United States of America. I think it is important that we do this, and I do not intend to quit one way or another, if it takes me 6 years to get it done, as it did the last one. I have no respect for traders who look to go around U.S. law. As we crack down on traders in our markets, we must be ever vigilant to assure that traders sitting on Wall Street do not avoid our regulations by trading on electronic exchanges with computer servers in London or Dubai or Singapore. This amendment is an improvement of the London loophole provisions in the Dodd-Lincoln bill by making these provisions easily enforceable. It is the final piece to go in, to close the London loophole, which should never have been opened in the first place, and to ensure that our government has what it needs to protect American markets from manipulation and excessive speculation, no matter where U.S. energy commodities are traded. I expect the big boys to speak out against it. But I will tell you something: Everybody in the West who knows how they were fleeced back in 1999 and 2000 by Enron clearly will understand the value of being able to enforce the law of this country. We should ask for no less. I know I cannot call up the amendment at the present time, but I hope I will have that opportunity to do so later. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the SCAAP Reauthorization Act, on behalf of myself and Mr. Kyl, to assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration to State and local governments by reauthorizing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, though 2015. We are pleased to be joined today by Senators Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, Hutchison, Bingaman, McCain, Durbin, and Crapo. I believe that immigration policy and control of our borders is exclusively a Federal responsibility. Yet many undocumented criminal aliens are housed in our State prisons and our county jails at a cost that rises into the hundred of millions of dollars. Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, (SCAAP), in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Under this program, States can be reimbursed for costs for housing undocumented aliens who are convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State or local law and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days. Over the years, Senator Kyl and I have worked to increase Congressional funding of SCAAP. Last year, Congress appropriated 393 million dollars to SCAAP. While this is only a fraction of the costs that States and localities bear for housing undocumented criminal aliens, even this level of funding is critical. In 2009, undocumented aliens comprised approximately 11 percent of the inmates in California's State prison system. This year, the State of California is expected to spend 970.3 million dollars from the general fund on the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens. However, it is expected that California will only receive reimbursement for 10 percent of its total costs. The State of California and its counties simply cannot afford to take on these costs, which stretch already thin budgets. When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and localities for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of our local educators, social services, and law enforcement. Insufficient SCAAP funding forces localities to engage in the ``early release'' of prisoners with misdemeanors as a cost saving measure and make cuts to other necessary public safety services. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies. I believe this legislation will reaffirm the Federal government's commitment to working with States and localities to address their financial concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the SCAAP Reauthorization Act, on behalf of myself and Mr. Kyl, to assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration to State and local governments by reauthorizing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, though 2015. We are pleased to be joined today by Senators Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, Hutchison, Bingaman, McCain, Durbin, and Crapo. I believe that immigration policy and control of our borders is exclusively a Federal responsibility. Yet many undocumented criminal aliens are housed in our State prisons and our county jails at a cost that rises into the hundred of millions of dollars. Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, (SCAAP), in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Under this program, States can be reimbursed for costs for housing undocumented aliens who are convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State or local law and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days. Over the years, Senator Kyl and I have worked to increase Congressional funding of SCAAP. Last year, Congress appropriated 393 million dollars to SCAAP. While this is only a fraction of the costs that States and localities bear for housing undocumented criminal aliens, even this level of funding is critical. In 2009, undocumented aliens comprised approximately 11 percent of the inmates in California's State prison system. This year, the State of California is expected to spend 970.3 million dollars from the general fund on the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens. However, it is expected that California will only receive reimbursement for 10 percent of its total costs. The State of California and its counties simply cannot afford to take on these costs, which stretch already thin budgets. When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and localities for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of our local educators, social services, and law enforcement. Insufficient SCAAP funding forces localities to engage in the ``early release'' of prisoners with misdemeanors as a cost saving measure and make cuts to other necessary public safety services. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies. I believe this legislation will reaffirm the Federal government's commitment to working with States and localities to address their financial concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment I am offering to the Wall Street reform bill. The Dodd-Lincoln bill, as currently drafted, takes major steps to reform the $900 trillion derivative markets. It would require every trade to be reported in real time to the CFTC; require all cleared contracts to be traded on an exchange or on a swap execution facility; require speculative position limits set in ``aggregate'' for each commodity, instead of contract by contract; and require foreign boards of trade to adhere to minimum standards comparable to those in the United States, including reporting requirements--this provision is designed to address the underlying problem of the so-called London Loophole. I very much support these provisions. However, I am concerned that the bill doesn't go far enough to address the London loophole. This loophole has allowed for the trading of U.S. energy commodities--such as crude oil--on foreign exchanges without strong oversight from U.S. regulators. This means that there is no cop on the beat to shield U.S. oil prices from manipulation or excessive speculation when they are traded in foreign markets, like commodities exchanges in London or Shanghai. The amendment I am proposing would allow CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with CFTC, which would give CFTC the enforcement authority it needs. This provision was in President Obama's original proposed financial reform bill, and it is strongly supported by CFTC Chairman Gensler. First, let me explain what has become known as the London loophole. As Congress has taken steps to improve regulatory oversight of domestic commodity trading markets, Wall Street traders have increasingly turned to offshore markets to electronically trade U.S. energy futures--in order to evade American market oversight and speculation limits. This new regulatory loophole earned its nickname--the London loophole--because America's most important crude oil contract--known as West Texas Intermediate--is today traded on the Intercontinental Exchange in London. This contract has what is called a price discovery impact because it is commonly referenced as the standard market price of oil. The practical implication of this is that U.S. traders can use electronic exchanges based overseas to artificially drive up the prices of U.S. commodities--without any consequences from our Nation's market regulators. This is a major problem. A 2008 CFTC report found that traders using this London exchange to trade U.S. crude oil futures held positions far larger than would be allowed by American regulators. In fact, from 2006 to 2008 at least one trader position exceeded U.S. speculation limits every single week on the London exchange, and British regulators had done nothing about it. The good news is that some steps have been taken administratively to address this loophole. In 2008, the CFTC negotiated an agreement with British regulators to bring greater oversight to American commodities contracts traded in London. The agreement called for speculation limits for the electronic trading of U.S. energy commodities--like crude oil--on foreign exchanges, and required recording-keeping and an audit trail. But CFTC has limited legal authority to enforce this agreement. Bottom Line: We need to make sure the CFTC can oversee trading of American commodities, whether it happens through a computer server located on Wall Street or in Shanghai. The Dodd-Lincoln bill currently before us does include some important provisions to help close the London loophole. As drafted, the bill will require foreign boards of trade that provide access to American traders to comply with comparable rules enforced by a foreign regulator, publish trading information daily, supply data to CFTC, and enforce position limits. However, CFTC may be unable to force a Foreign Board of Trade to comply with these requirements. This is because the CFTC's current method of overseeing foreign exchanges has tenuous legal underpinnings, due to a Commodity Exchange Act provision forbidding CFTC from ``regulating'' foreign boards of trade. In many instances, the CFTC can take action against a U.S. trader on a foreign exchange to prevent manipulation or excessive speculation only with the cooperation and consent of the foreign regulator. The other, more controversial option is for the CFTC to completely ban the foreign exchange from all U.S. operations. Not surprisingly, the CFTC often shies away from enforcement, in the face of these regulatory obstacles. That is why I am offering a proposal to allow CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with CFTC, which would give CFTC the enforcement authority it needs. Here are the benefits of this amendment: First, the registration process itself would give CFTC the authority to impose appropriate regulatory requirements as a condition of registration. Second, a formal registration process would assure that foreign boards of trade all follow the same set of rules. Third, the registration process would provide a much clearer basis for CFTC decisions to refuse or withdraw permission to foreign boards of trade wishing to allow American traders on their exchange. Finally, and most importantly, all of CFTC's existing enforcement authorities apply to registered entities under the Commodity Exchange Act. This amendment would therefore allow CFTC to enforce its own statute with regard to foreign exchanges operating in the United States. This is a very moderate, practical amendment to assure that we give CFTC the authority to enforce the statutory provisions already in the proposed legislation. It would only provide the CFTC with equivalent authority to that held by virtually all foreign futures regulators-- including the British. I have worked for many years to bring about meaningful regulation of the derivatives markets, and that is why I am so pleased that Senators Lincoln and Dodd have brought forward the strongest derivatives regulatory proposal considered by this Congress. But as we crack down on traders in our markets, we must be ever vigilant to assure that traders sitting on Wall Street do not avoid our regulations by trading on electronic exchanges with computer servers in London, or Dubai, or Singapore. This amendment would improve the London loophole provisions in the Dodd-Lincoln bill, by making those provisions more easily enforceable. It is the final piece necessary to close the London loophole, ensuring that our government has what it needs to protect American markets from manipulation and excessive speculation, no matter where U.S. energy commodities are traded. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Private Activity Renewable Energy Bonds Act, legislation to enable low-cost Private Activity Bond financing for businesses and local governments which seek to create renewable, clean and efficient sources of energy. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Brown of Ohio. In the United States House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Thompson has introduced a bipartisan companion bill cosponsored by Representatives Dean Heller and Mary Bono Mack. The bill is supported by a host of business and government leaders and renewable energy companies including the Solar Energy Industries Association, Solar Millennium, Nano Solar, the National Association of Energy Service Companies, EnLink GeoEnergy, Johnson Controls, A123 Systems, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, and the U.S. Fuel Cell Council, as well as California Treasurer Bill Lockyer. The bill provides businesses access to low interest tax free Private Activity Bonds, in order to fund projects that generate renewable energy; produce energy or water savings, or; develop highly efficient vehicles. To promote such activity in a fiscally responsible manner, the legislation caps the value of bonds at $2.5 billion annually. This represents the investment necessary to replace at least one percent of U.S. electricity generation with renewable sources over the next ten years. Private Activity Bonds have long been used to generate private involvement and investment in critically important infrastructure for our Nation--from wharves to airports, intercity rail to solid waste disposal facilities and hospitals. In this century, however, we have new national goals. Renewable, clean and efficient energy projects will produce jobs, get our economy back-on-track and sustain us as the global leader of a greener century. These projects, however, require significant front-end capital investment to which the federal government cannot be the sole provider. Private Activity Bonds can prove a critical tool in garnering private investment, because their interest rates typically run a few percent points under commercially available loans. Investors have long responded to this type of incentive. According to the IRS, Private Activity Bond issuance in 2007 was over $130 billion-- supplying capital to our markets, providing the financing to get projects off the ground. Projects financed in part by Private Activity Bonds include additions to the San Jose and San Francisco International Airports, the Capitol Beltway High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, infrastructure improvements to the Port of Seattle, and upgrades to Children's Hospital of Orange County, Catholic Healthcare West in San Francisco, and many, many important facilities and projects. With proper access to capital, we've already seen partnerships between States, municipalities and businesses develop into successful renewable energy programs. In California, Energy Financing Districts finance residents who choose to install clean energy projects such as distributed solar panels on their homes. The cost of the solar panel installation or other device is paid back through an increase in property tax only for those property owners who choose to participate in the program. Now, going solar or installing a geothermal heat pump, which once cost tens of thousands of dollars upfront, has little or no upfront cost to the property owner. It is no wonder why 150 of these programs have been established throughout the country. This low cost solar opportunity is just one example of the type of programs this bill seeks to support. In partnership, businesses and local governments will develop new and innovative was to create the new high quality jobs of the 21st century. This Congress and this President have outlined goals to ensure this country leads the world in the creation of a robust, green economy. This bill looks to connect that laudable goal with proven financing tools to get us there by aligning private sector investment power and job growth with good public policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.