Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the legislation before us to extend unemployment insurance benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans. Families across this Nation are hurting, and 15.1 million Americans are currently unemployed. It is imperative that legislation to provide relief to those hardest hit by the economic downturn is passed without further delay. The Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009 would: Extend unemployment insurance benefits by 14 weeks; and, provide an additional 6-week extension for those living in States with unemployment rates of 8.5 percent or higher, such as California. This adds up to a 20-week extension of unemployment benefits for those in the toughest job markets. The legislation is fully-offset, and would not increase the deficit or national debt. Congress last acted to temporarily extend unemployment insurance benefits in November 2008. Additionally, the economic stimulus bill enacted in February increased benefits by $100 a month, providing much- needed help to those struggling to make ends meet. But, the unemployment rate continues to rise. Jobless Americans need an extension of unemployment benefits, and they need it now. As of September, the national unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent--the highest in 26 years--263,000 jobs were lost last month, and 7.6 million have been lost since the recession began in December 2007. My home State of California has been hit particularly hard. The unemployment rate has risen to 12.2 percent, significantly higher than the National average. The number of people unemployed in California as of September was 2,247,000. There are 12 States with a smaller population than the number of unemployed Californians: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Mr. President, 71,000 out-of-work Californians have already exhausted their unemployment benefits this month. According to the California Employment Development Department--EDD, an estimated 170,000 Californians will exhaust their benefits by the end of 2009 if Congress does not act. Not only are more workers losing their jobs, but it continues to be more difficult for the unemployed to find work again. The number of Americans who have been jobless for 6 months or longer has reached a record 5.4 million. America has faced tough economic times before, including four periods of recession since 1980. During all of these recessions we see a disturbing pattern: laid-off workers exhausting their unemployment benefits. By the year's end, 1.3 million people across the nation will lose their unemployment insurance benefits, and 7,000 Americans are running out of benefits on a daily basis. These are more than just statistics or numbers on a page. Every percentage, or data point, tells the story of another family impacted by downsizing, a factory shutting down, or a local small business forced to close its doors. The numbers don't tell the full story of the pain, anxiety, and challenges out-of-work Americans are facing. Here are some personal examples from Californians who have written to my office. A former Chemist from Solana Beach, California wrote: I have a Masters in Chemistry in drug discovery and have worked for 15 years in this manner. And though I apply almost every day to any and all jobs I might be a candidate or hired (including entry level positions in and out of my field, waiter, grocery store, fast food, hardware store, etc) I have only had two interviews in the last 3 months and worked 2 weeks as a temp. No one wants to hire a Masters in Science for an $8 per hour job even less in my traditional career. Please vote yes to extend unemployment insurance. A single mother from Rio Dell, California wrote: Please, PLEASE do what you can to help with the Federal extension for unemployment benefits. I will receive my final check in a matter of days. I am a single mother who is barely surviving and fear losing my place to live. I have already received one eviction notice from my landlord due to paying my rent late. I fear I will lose parental custody if I can't keep a roof over our heads. I have carefully documented my work search, but the hope of finding employment is dwindling along with my hope of providing the most basic necessities such as water, heat, and shelter as winter approaches. I live in Rio Dell where the base rate for water and sewer was just raised to $90 per month. I'm now a month behind. I don't have a spouse or family to help me. I don't even have a car anymore. I know I'm not the only one in this position, but it is of little consolation. So please help. The farther a person gets down, the harder the climb back up. We are in a devastating situation that needs immediate attention and reparation. I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration.'' A former Postal Service employee from Grass Valley, California wrote: Dear Ms. Feinstein, I am writing regarding the unemployment extension. I am a single mother struggling to keep my daughter clean, fed and in school. I was laid-off from the US Postal Service and have been desperately looking for work with no luck. Please urge your colleagues to pass this legislation as soon as possible and then work on possible inequities between the states. Thank you very much for your time. These are only a handful of the nearly 2,000 letters my office has received. It breaks my heart to read such stories, and I am sure that many of my colleagues are hearing from constituents facing the same tough circumstances. The situation for those in high unemployment states, such as California, is urgent, and, it is not just about preserving a social safety net or helping those who have paid into the system while they were employed. The unemployment crisis feeds the foreclosure crisis which leads to continued instability in the housing market which was the catalyst for the economic downturn in the first place. Put another way, the longer this legislation is delayed, the longer our economic recovery is delayed. This extension is a targeted action that will quickly put money into the hands of those who need it most, and are most likely to spend it immediately on everyday necessities. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates a return of $1.64. Given the gravity of the unemployment situation, we have an obligation to take responsible action. There is no time for further delay, or political gamesmanship. Some will argue that we do not need to extend benefits again, but with the increasing unemployment rate, more job losses, and the jobless staying unemployed for longer periods, American families need a break. We must address the underlying causes of the economic instability facing our Nation. More incentives are needed to ease the flow of credit to businesses and consumers. Special attention must be given to the small businesses that in many communities are the primary engine for job creation and economic development. But, the choice before us today with this legislation is clear. We should pass this legislation now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to provide immediate assistance to out-of-work Americans and aid our Nation's economic recovery.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. The measure should reduce unnecessary delays in water transfers at a time when Central Valley farmers have been hard hit by a 3-year drought. It would allow new water transfers of roughly 250,000 to 300,000 acre-feet of water per year, depending on the rainfall that year. Here is how the bill would work: it would grant new authority to the Bureau of Reclamation to approve water transfers between sellers and buyers in the San Joaquin Valley. The measure also would streamline environmental reviews for Central Valley water transfers by ensuring that they occur on a programmatic basis, instead of project-by-project basis as is current practice. Here is why we need this bill: this past water year, South of Delta agriculture users received 10 percent of their contractual allocation from the Central Valley Project. At the same time others in the San Joaquin Valley, such as the Friant Division and the exchange contractors, had a surplus of water and were willing to sell some of their water to Westlands Water District, where fields have been fallowed and communities have close to 40 percent unemployment--yet there were serious obstacles to making those transfers happen. That is why I am introducing this bill. It will address those obstacles. Specifically, the bill will do three things to ease the drought crisis: First, it would authorize transfers within San Joaquin Valley between Divisions of the Central Valley Project and among contractors within a Division by removing two of the biggest obstacles to these transfers. Water users tell me that the Bureau of Reclamation has not allowed transfers of water if the water could have been used for irrigation or stored, or if the total amount of water transferred was more than what had been received on average the 3 years prior to 1992. These two conditions previously prevented a whole host of potential transfers of water. Neither of these restrictions is necessary for environmental reasons, and removal of these two obstacles alone could make up to 100,000 or 150,000 acre-feet of water available for transfer to the communities most in need, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. So, this bill would explicitly grant the Bureau the authority to approve these types of East-West transfers, as long as they qualify under environmental regulations. Second, the bill directs the Department of the Interior to facilitate transfers from the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley by doing programmatic consideration of all the environmental concerns, rather than requiring individual review on each transfer as is current practice. Water users and the Bureau of Reclamation estimate that this step could facilitate up to 150,000 or 200,000 acre-feet of transfers each year. Third, the bill also requires the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a report and recommendations on how to facilitate transfers more efficiently and expeditiously, including transfers in all directions and between the state and federal projects. The bill is supported by a great number of water users across the Central Valley, including: Friant Water Users Authority; San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority; Delta-Mendota Canal Authority; Westlands Water District; Metropolitan Water District; Glen Colusa Irrigation District; Northern California Water Association; Banta- Carbona Irrigation District; Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority; Association of California Water Agencies; Placer County Water Agency; Conaway Preservation Group; Reclamation District 2035; and San Luis Water District. Companion legislation is also being introduced today by Representatives Costa and Cardoza in the House of Representatives. There is no question that the drought and federal pumping restrictions have had huge impacts on Central Valley Agriculture. Nearly 500,000 acres of fields have been fallowed. Fields of fruit and nut trees have been stumped and uprooted. Some farmers simply chose to forego planting their row crops at all. The agricultural industry estimates that about $700 million in revenues have been lost. About 21,000 agriculture jobs have been lost, nearly all in San Joaquin Valley. For example, Mendota unemployment is currently 37.4 percent. Workers who once tended America's ``bread basket'' are now standing in bread lines. The impacts are not limited to agriculture: Urban areas like Los Angeles are imposing rate hikes for non- conserving households, limiting lawn irrigation, and other conservation measures. Municipal industrial users south of Delta are restricted to 60 percent of their contractual allocation. The truth is that this crisis has been building for some time--and there are several causes to blame. California's population is close to 40 million, but its water infrastructure hasn't been updated in three decades. Due to groundwater pumping, the Central Valley lost 60 million acre- feet of groundwater since 1962. This year, Federal agencies imposed pumping restrictions to protect endangered species--yet there is some misconception about the scope of these restrictions. In 2009, roughly 25 percent of delivery shortages for farms and water users due to pumping restrictions, about 500,000 acre-feet. The other 75 percent of the restrictions were due to lack of run-off, about 1.6 million acre-feet. So, the drought is largely to blame for California's water shortages. Invasive and non-native species are also a threat. The non-native striped bass, although a popular sport fish, are top predators on native fish like the smelt. Pollution remains a problem, despite water quality standards. Ammonia discharge may be a problem from wastewater treatment discharge, and toxic insecticides accumulate and contribute to the deterioration of the ecosystem. So, California's water crisis is a complicated issue that cannot be simply solved by saying ``Turn on the Pumps.'' It is clear that we need solutions for the Delta, both long-term and short-term. I am working with my colleagues on both. The bill we are introducing today will provide more flexibility in the system, allowing water to flow more freely around the Central Valley. Just this past water year, 600,000 acre feet were transferred around the Central Valley, and this bill will allow even more water to flow. But transfers alone cannot provide the entire solution--they are costly, and they are still constrained by the pumping restrictions. So this legislation is just one of several steps we are taking to provide timely relief to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. In the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, there is $10 million for the construction of short term projects that could provide more water supply or flexibility, including Two Gates and the Intertie. We also provided funding for the science that will be relied on by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan--our best long-term option to restore the Delta and improve water supply. We also included funding for water recycling projects, and are working to authorize more projects to help communities develop local water supplies based on groundwater and desalination. Finally, there is $750,000 for the National Academy of Sciences review of the two biological opinions that currently govern water flows in the Central Valley. The independent scientific study, announced by Secretaries Salazar and Locke last week, should be completed within six months. The National Academy study will assess whether there are other ways to provide the same protections for endangered species, while supplying more water to the drought-stricken Central Valley. And it will put to rest any lingering questions about whether pumping restrictions in the Delta are based on the best available science. It is a critical step to moving forward with any near-term and long- term solutions for the Delta. This bill we are introducing today is but one of several steps we are taking to address the water crisis in California. We look forward to an early hearing on this bill, and working with others towards its passage and implementation. I thank Senator Bingaman for his commitment to hold an early hearing on the bill. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill and the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. The measure should reduce unnecessary delays in water transfers at a time when Central Valley farmers have been hard hit by a 3-year drought. It would allow new water transfers of roughly 250,000 to 300,000 acre-feet of water per year, depending on the rainfall that year. Here is how the bill would work: it would grant new authority to the Bureau of Reclamation to approve water transfers between sellers and buyers in the San Joaquin Valley. The measure also would streamline environmental reviews for Central Valley water transfers by ensuring that they occur on a programmatic basis, instead of project-by-project basis as is current practice. Here is why we need this bill: this past water year, South of Delta agriculture users received 10 percent of their contractual allocation from the Central Valley Project. At the same time others in the San Joaquin Valley, such as the Friant Division and the exchange contractors, had a surplus of water and were willing to sell some of their water to Westlands Water District, where fields have been fallowed and communities have close to 40 percent unemployment--yet there were serious obstacles to making those transfers happen. That is why I am introducing this bill. It will address those obstacles. Specifically, the bill will do three things to ease the drought crisis: First, it would authorize transfers within San Joaquin Valley between Divisions of the Central Valley Project and among contractors within a Division by removing two of the biggest obstacles to these transfers. Water users tell me that the Bureau of Reclamation has not allowed transfers of water if the water could have been used for irrigation or stored, or if the total amount of water transferred was more than what had been received on average the 3 years prior to 1992. These two conditions previously prevented a whole host of potential transfers of water. Neither of these restrictions is necessary for environmental reasons, and removal of these two obstacles alone could make up to 100,000 or 150,000 acre-feet of water available for transfer to the communities most in need, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. So, this bill would explicitly grant the Bureau the authority to approve these types of East-West transfers, as long as they qualify under environmental regulations. Second, the bill directs the Department of the Interior to facilitate transfers from the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley by doing programmatic consideration of all the environmental concerns, rather than requiring individual review on each transfer as is current practice. Water users and the Bureau of Reclamation estimate that this step could facilitate up to 150,000 or 200,000 acre-feet of transfers each year. Third, the bill also requires the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a report and recommendations on how to facilitate transfers more efficiently and expeditiously, including transfers in all directions and between the state and federal projects. The bill is supported by a great number of water users across the Central Valley, including: Friant Water Users Authority; San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority; Delta-Mendota Canal Authority; Westlands Water District; Metropolitan Water District; Glen Colusa Irrigation District; Northern California Water Association; Banta- Carbona Irrigation District; Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority; Association of California Water Agencies; Placer County Water Agency; Conaway Preservation Group; Reclamation District 2035; and San Luis Water District. Companion legislation is also being introduced today by Representatives Costa and Cardoza in the House of Representatives. There is no question that the drought and federal pumping restrictions have had huge impacts on Central Valley Agriculture. Nearly 500,000 acres of fields have been fallowed. Fields of fruit and nut trees have been stumped and uprooted. Some farmers simply chose to forego planting their row crops at all. The agricultural industry estimates that about $700 million in revenues have been lost. About 21,000 agriculture jobs have been lost, nearly all in San Joaquin Valley. For example, Mendota unemployment is currently 37.4 percent. Workers who once tended America's ``bread basket'' are now standing in bread lines. The impacts are not limited to agriculture: Urban areas like Los Angeles are imposing rate hikes for non- conserving households, limiting lawn irrigation, and other conservation measures. Municipal industrial users south of Delta are restricted to 60 percent of their contractual allocation. The truth is that this crisis has been building for some time--and there are several causes to blame. California's population is close to 40 million, but its water infrastructure hasn't been updated in three decades. Due to groundwater pumping, the Central Valley lost 60 million acre- feet of groundwater since 1962. This year, Federal agencies imposed pumping restrictions to protect endangered species--yet there is some misconception about the scope of these restrictions. In 2009, roughly 25 percent of delivery shortages for farms and water users due to pumping restrictions, about 500,000 acre-feet. The other 75 percent of the restrictions were due to lack of run-off, about 1.6 million acre-feet. So, the drought is largely to blame for California's water shortages. Invasive and non-native species are also a threat. The non-native striped bass, although a popular sport fish, are top predators on native fish like the smelt. Pollution remains a problem, despite water quality standards. Ammonia discharge may be a problem from wastewater treatment discharge, and toxic insecticides accumulate and contribute to the deterioration of the ecosystem. So, California's water crisis is a complicated issue that cannot be simply solved by saying ``Turn on the Pumps.'' It is clear that we need solutions for the Delta, both long-term and short-term. I am working with my colleagues on both. The bill we are introducing today will provide more flexibility in the system, allowing water to flow more freely around the Central Valley. Just this past water year, 600,000 acre feet were transferred around the Central Valley, and this bill will allow even more water to flow. But transfers alone cannot provide the entire solution--they are costly, and they are still constrained by the pumping restrictions. So this legislation is just one of several steps we are taking to provide timely relief to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. In the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, there is $10 million for the construction of short term projects that could provide more water supply or flexibility, including Two Gates and the Intertie. We also provided funding for the science that will be relied on by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan--our best long-term option to restore the Delta and improve water supply. We also included funding for water recycling projects, and are working to authorize more projects to help communities develop local water supplies based on groundwater and desalination. Finally, there is $750,000 for the National Academy of Sciences review of the two biological opinions that currently govern water flows in the Central Valley. The independent scientific study, announced by Secretaries Salazar and Locke last week, should be completed within six months. The National Academy study will assess whether there are other ways to provide the same protections for endangered species, while supplying more water to the drought-stricken Central Valley. And it will put to rest any lingering questions about whether pumping restrictions in the Delta are based on the best available science. It is a critical step to moving forward with any near-term and long- term solutions for the Delta. This bill we are introducing today is but one of several steps we are taking to address the water crisis in California. We look forward to an early hearing on this bill, and working with others towards its passage and implementation. I thank Senator Bingaman for his commitment to hold an early hearing on the bill. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill and the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2009. This bill would close a loophole that currently exists in Federal law by prohibiting the possession of cell phones and other wireless devices by prisoners in Federal facilities. Currently, cell phones found in prisons are not specifically defined as contraband material. As a result, guards and inmates found smuggling or in possession of a cell phone in a Federal prison are rarely punished. This bill would close this loophole by defining cell phones as contraband material under Federal law. As a result, any person smuggling or in possession of a cell phone could potentially serve up to a year in prison. A cell phone should never be in the hands of a prisoner. The presence of these cell phones poses a grave safety concern for staff, inmates, and the public. We know that inmates use these phones to conduct criminal business outside of prison walls, including directing gang hits, controlling drug trafficking operations and even conducting credit card fraud. Corrections departments across the country are reporting a sharp increase in the number of cell phones being smuggled into prison facilities. In May, California Inspector General David Shaw released a report on inmate cell phone use in California state prisons. The report found that cell phone seizures have increased tenfold in two years--from 261 in 2006 to 2,811 in 2008. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, cell phone and electronic communication device possession, ``is one of the most significant problems facing the Department today.'' So far this year, authorities have discovered over 4,000 cell phones among inmates in California prisons. There are presumably thousands more that were not discovered. Smugglers receive hundreds of dollars for each cell phone and more money if the cell phone contains a camera. Staff members who smuggle cell phones for inmates often receive more in compensation for the contraband phones than they do from their paychecks. The California Inspector General's report on inmate cell phone use found that inmates pay $500 to $1,000 per cell phone and noted that one corrupt correctional officer received approximately $150,000 in 1 year to smuggle cell phones to inmates. The cell phone problem is not limited to California. Maryland, Kansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas are just some of the states that have reported serious incidents coordinated by an inmate with a cell phone. In Maryland, an inmate used a cell phone from jail to order the assassination of a witness testifying against him. In Tennessee, a corrections officer was killed as a result of an inmate using a cell phone to plan an escape. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Dora Schriro told my office, and I agree that cell phones in prison are ``a more serious threat than drugs or other contraband.'' The problem in our Nation's Federal prisons is no better. In 2008, the Federal Bureau of Prisons confiscated 1,519 phones from Federal prison camps and 255 cell phones from secure Federal institutions. I expect that these numbers will continue to increase unless we take proactive steps to stop the problem. In July, I became a cosponsor of the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009, authored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. This bill would enable state and Federal prisons to petition the Federal Communications Commission and request to operate a wireless jamming device to block inmates from using cell phones to conduct criminal business from inside prison walls. Before granting permission, the FCC would have to first determine whether the jammer would interfere with emergency or public safety communications outside of the prison walls. If enacted, the bill will provide another necessary tool in the effort to ensure that the growing problem of cell phones in prison does not turn into an epidemic. It is my hope that this will serve as a strong deterrent to those who would profit from smuggling cell phones and other wireless devices into our Federal prisons. Our Federal prisons house some of the most dangerous criminals in our Nation. Cell phones allow prisoners to traffic drugs and carry out murders from within our prisons and that is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2009. This bill would close a loophole that currently exists in Federal law by prohibiting the possession of cell phones and other wireless devices by prisoners in Federal facilities. Currently, cell phones found in prisons are not specifically defined as contraband material. As a result, guards and inmates found smuggling or in possession of a cell phone in a Federal prison are rarely punished. This bill would close this loophole by defining cell phones as contraband material under Federal law. As a result, any person smuggling or in possession of a cell phone could potentially serve up to a year in prison. A cell phone should never be in the hands of a prisoner. The presence of these cell phones poses a grave safety concern for staff, inmates, and the public. We know that inmates use these phones to conduct criminal business outside of prison walls, including directing gang hits, controlling drug trafficking operations and even conducting credit card fraud. Corrections departments across the country are reporting a sharp increase in the number of cell phones being smuggled into prison facilities. In May, California Inspector General David Shaw released a report on inmate cell phone use in California state prisons. The report found that cell phone seizures have increased tenfold in two years--from 261 in 2006 to 2,811 in 2008. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, cell phone and electronic communication device possession, ``is one of the most significant problems facing the Department today.'' So far this year, authorities have discovered over 4,000 cell phones among inmates in California prisons. There are presumably thousands more that were not discovered. Smugglers receive hundreds of dollars for each cell phone and more money if the cell phone contains a camera. Staff members who smuggle cell phones for inmates often receive more in compensation for the contraband phones than they do from their paychecks. The California Inspector General's report on inmate cell phone use found that inmates pay $500 to $1,000 per cell phone and noted that one corrupt correctional officer received approximately $150,000 in 1 year to smuggle cell phones to inmates. The cell phone problem is not limited to California. Maryland, Kansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas are just some of the states that have reported serious incidents coordinated by an inmate with a cell phone. In Maryland, an inmate used a cell phone from jail to order the assassination of a witness testifying against him. In Tennessee, a corrections officer was killed as a result of an inmate using a cell phone to plan an escape. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Dora Schriro told my office, and I agree that cell phones in prison are ``a more serious threat than drugs or other contraband.'' The problem in our Nation's Federal prisons is no better. In 2008, the Federal Bureau of Prisons confiscated 1,519 phones from Federal prison camps and 255 cell phones from secure Federal institutions. I expect that these numbers will continue to increase unless we take proactive steps to stop the problem. In July, I became a cosponsor of the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009, authored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. This bill would enable state and Federal prisons to petition the Federal Communications Commission and request to operate a wireless jamming device to block inmates from using cell phones to conduct criminal business from inside prison walls. Before granting permission, the FCC would have to first determine whether the jammer would interfere with emergency or public safety communications outside of the prison walls. If enacted, the bill will provide another necessary tool in the effort to ensure that the growing problem of cell phones in prison does not turn into an epidemic. It is my hope that this will serve as a strong deterrent to those who would profit from smuggling cell phones and other wireless devices into our Federal prisons. Our Federal prisons house some of the most dangerous criminals in our Nation. Cell phones allow prisoners to traffic drugs and carry out murders from within our prisons and that is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to oppose the Barrasso amendment No. 2567, which would ban funding to the CIA's new Center on Climate Change and National Security. I make these remarks as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and one who strongly supports the new Climate Change center at the CIA. The Center on Climate Change and National Security that the CIA recently established is fully consistent with the intelligence community's mission of protecting the United States. It is important to note what the Center will not do. It will not do the science of climate change. It will not make judgments about how or whether the climate is changing. It will not make judgments about why the climate is changing. That work will be done where it belongs, with the scientific community. The Center will have three tasks. One, it will continue the decade- long program of declassifying imagery for passage to climate change scientists. Let me give you an example of some of that imagery. It is here on my right, as shown in these photographs. This is Barrow, AK. This is Barrow. This is the Chukchi Sea. As shown here, this is July of 2006. In this picture, this is that same area in July of 2007. You see the decomposition of the ice. They point out its variation by time and, therefore, you can track the impact of the change brought about by global warming from our satellites. So our satellites are used to measure and predict change. Here is another one. This is the Beaufort Sea in August of 2001. You see the melt ponds in the center, and you see the ice. You see it here--winter in August of 2007. This is from a satellite. The third one is much more difficult to see, but it is the Bering Glacier in Alaska. Here it is in May of 2005. Here are the big chunks that have broken off. Here they are there. As shown here, this is another satellite photo of the Bering Glacier in Alaska. The second task of the CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security will be to assess the plans and intentions of other countries, and it will help the administration design verification regimes for any climate change treaties so policymakers can negotiate from a position of strength. This is, in fact, a traditional role for the intelligence community on a wide range of foreign policy issues. Thirdly, the Center on Climate Change and National Security will assess the national security implications of climate change, which many experts believe will be significant. This will include assessing the national security implications of increased competition for resources, population shifts, water shortages, changes in crop yields, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria. This is the work that the IC is better positioned than anyone else in the government to do and where CIA's contacts in the academic and think tank communities will pay big dividends. On September 25, the CIA announced it was going to launch this new center and tackle the devastating long-term challenges that climate change might present to our Nation's security. In other words, this will give the intelligence community the opportunity to collect information and predict how change is going to affect certain countries--the movement of populations, the devastation of crops, the disappearance of water supplies--to be able to anticipate what impact that will have on the Nation's policy and on our national security. I have no doubt climate changes are going to have an impact on our Nation's security. I also have no doubt our satellites can give us a very positive--meaning in the sense of crisp and delineated--view of these changes as our satellites track climate change across the years. I believe very strongly the Center on Climate Change is warranted. I believe it will produce intelligence dividends for the Nation, and I believe it is entirely appropriate. Therefore, I would oppose the Barrasso amendment, which would effectively eliminate this new center. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Javier Lopez-Urenda and his wife, Maria Leticia Arenas. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are Mexican nationals living in Fremont, California, and the loving parents of three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, age 16, Ashley, age 12, and Nancy, age 6. I have decided to introduce this private bill to ensure that this family stays together because they have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to each other and the greater community in the Bay area. I believe Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Javier Lopez-Urenda was born in Michoacan, Mexico. When he was 19 years old, his father was stabbed and murdered while working as a cab driver. In 1990, at the age of 23, Mr. Lopez-Urenda came to the United States to find a higher paying job to support his extended family. Leticia Arenas came to the U.S. at the age of 17 after her mother died of cancer. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas have now been living in the U.S.for almost 20 years. Mr. Lopez-Urenda is the sole financial provider for his wife and three U.S. citizen children and owns his own home. For over 17 years, Mr. Lopez-Urenda has worked at Full Bloom Baking Company, a commercial bakery in San Mateo, California, and was the second employee that they hired. With Mr. Lopez-Urenda's help, the company grew to one of the largest commercial bakeries in the Bay Area, which currently employs approximately 385 people in the bay area. Full Bloom Baking Company has stated: Javier is critical to the operation of our business. . . . He holds a tremendous amount of `institutional knowledge' that can never be replaced. He mentors and develops Team members, conducts training classes, and has deep understanding of complex industrial baking equipment and is an expert on how to produce wonderful artisan quality products from the intricate interactions of formula, people and equipment. Mr. Lopez-Urenda's coworkers have also written to me about his value to the company. Coleen Donnelly writes: I am lucky enough to have worked with Javier briefly at the bakery he helped build from the ground up. I always knew he was in the room before I saw him. His presence is such a positive force. He has the natural ability to manage and lead people and make it all seem like play, not work. Without Javier at the bakery, the lives of hundreds of people will change. With the encouragement of his employer, Mr. Lopez-Urenda sought legal advice in 1996 in an attempt to legalize his status. However, the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, IIRIRA, eliminated his ability to apply for suspension of deportation. Mr. Lopez-Urenda also attempted to legalize through his employer, but the labor certification remained unadjudicated for nearly three years. Once the Department of Labor granted his labor certification, Mr. Lopez-Urenda could have legalized his status but for the fact that his removal case had already been resolved against him due to the change in law. When the Ninth Circuit Court denied his appeal, the Court acknowledged the compelling circumstances of Mr. Lopez-Urenda's case. The court stated: We are not unmindful of the unique and extremely sympathetic circumstances of this case. By all accounts, Petitioner has been an exemplary father, employee, and member of his local community. If he were to be deported, he would be separated from his wife, three U.S. citizen children, and the life he has worked so hard to build over the past seventeen years. In light of the unfortunate sequence of events leading up this juncture and Petitioner's positive contributions to society, Petition may very well be deserving of prosecutorial grace. Unfortunately, Mr. Lopez-Urenda faces deportation today despite his sympathetic circumstances and the significant positive contributions that he and his family have made to society. These contributions to the San Mateo and Fremont communities have truly been exceptional. He is an active volunteer for the Women's Foundation of California, Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, the Saint Patrick Proto Cathedral Parish, the American Red Cross, and just last year he was one of the key organizers of the California AIDS Ride. Ms. Arenas has also volunteered in the community as a religious school teacher at Our Lady of the Rosary Church, a health promoter at the Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, and a sexual assault counselor at Bay Area Woman Against Rape. My office has received 46 letters of support on behalf of this family staying together in the community that they have helped build. Below are a few notable excerpts from the letters I have received reflecting the impact of this family on the community: Patricia W. Change, CEO of Feed the Hunger Foundation, former President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, and a prior San Francisco Commissioner and U.S. Commissioner writes: Mr. Urenda has always operated with the highest integrity. Asking Mr. Urenda to leave the United States would deprive his children of their father, an upstanding resident of the country. It would deprive the community of an active participant, leader, and volunteer. The Bay Area Women Against Rape indicates that Leticia has been ``successful, available, [and] committed to the cause of breaking the silence of sexual abuse in our community.'' Judy Patrick, President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, writes: Javier Urenda is fulfilling tremendous needs within his community. He is a model participant in this society. Christine Bozzini, a friend and former coworker of Mr. Lopez-Urenda, writes: Javier strives to create a meaningful and rewarding life with his children, focusing on supporting them in their studies, as well as a variety of athletic pursuits and personal interests. For example, over the last few years he has taken great pride in traveling to various U.S. monuments in order to teach his children about the birth of their country. One of the other compelling reasons for permitting these parents to remain in the United States is the impact that deportation would have on their three U.S. citizen minor children, Bryan, Ashley, and Nancy. All too often, U.S. citizen children face the loss of a parent through deportation. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country. A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP for the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--the deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. Mr. John Arthur Balano, Head Coach and Faculty Instructor at the City College of San Francisco, has known Mr. Lopez-Urenda through his volunteer work at Washington High School in Fremont, California. He has stated that Mr. Lopez-Urenda ``actively participates in the daily life of his children. Be it school, domestic, or extra-curricular activities, socialization and citizenship, Javier is always furthering their growth.'' In addition, Ms. Marlene Davis, the Principal of Patterson Elementary School, where two of the Lopez-Urenda children currently attend, has written me, stating that: Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are very involved in their children's lives and school work. If they were not, the children would not be doing as well as they are. I think without his presence, the children would definitely fare very poorly indeed both because of the psychological shock of having their father taken away but also academically because their mother would not be as available and one half of their scholastic support would be missing. . . . This would be a terrible strategy which could be avoided if the children are able to remain in the same stable environment with two loving and supportive parents who are committed to their children's success. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today on behalf of Mr. Lopea-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas will enable this family to continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to each other and their extensive community in Fremont, California. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Javier Lopez-Urenda and his wife, Maria Leticia Arenas. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are Mexican nationals living in Fremont, California, and the loving parents of three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, age 16, Ashley, age 12, and Nancy, age 6. I have decided to introduce this private bill to ensure that this family stays together because they have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to each other and the greater community in the Bay area. I believe Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Javier Lopez-Urenda was born in Michoacan, Mexico. When he was 19 years old, his father was stabbed and murdered while working as a cab driver. In 1990, at the age of 23, Mr. Lopez-Urenda came to the United States to find a higher paying job to support his extended family. Leticia Arenas came to the U.S. at the age of 17 after her mother died of cancer. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas have now been living in the U.S.for almost 20 years. Mr. Lopez-Urenda is the sole financial provider for his wife and three U.S. citizen children and owns his own home. For over 17 years, Mr. Lopez-Urenda has worked at Full Bloom Baking Company, a commercial bakery in San Mateo, California, and was the second employee that they hired. With Mr. Lopez-Urenda's help, the company grew to one of the largest commercial bakeries in the Bay Area, which currently employs approximately 385 people in the bay area. Full Bloom Baking Company has stated: Javier is critical to the operation of our business. . . . He holds a tremendous amount of `institutional knowledge' that can never be replaced. He mentors and develops Team members, conducts training classes, and has deep understanding of complex industrial baking equipment and is an expert on how to produce wonderful artisan quality products from the intricate interactions of formula, people and equipment. Mr. Lopez-Urenda's coworkers have also written to me about his value to the company. Coleen Donnelly writes: I am lucky enough to have worked with Javier briefly at the bakery he helped build from the ground up. I always knew he was in the room before I saw him. His presence is such a positive force. He has the natural ability to manage and lead people and make it all seem like play, not work. Without Javier at the bakery, the lives of hundreds of people will change. With the encouragement of his employer, Mr. Lopez-Urenda sought legal advice in 1996 in an attempt to legalize his status. However, the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, IIRIRA, eliminated his ability to apply for suspension of deportation. Mr. Lopez-Urenda also attempted to legalize through his employer, but the labor certification remained unadjudicated for nearly three years. Once the Department of Labor granted his labor certification, Mr. Lopez-Urenda could have legalized his status but for the fact that his removal case had already been resolved against him due to the change in law. When the Ninth Circuit Court denied his appeal, the Court acknowledged the compelling circumstances of Mr. Lopez-Urenda's case. The court stated: We are not unmindful of the unique and extremely sympathetic circumstances of this case. By all accounts, Petitioner has been an exemplary father, employee, and member of his local community. If he were to be deported, he would be separated from his wife, three U.S. citizen children, and the life he has worked so hard to build over the past seventeen years. In light of the unfortunate sequence of events leading up this juncture and Petitioner's positive contributions to society, Petition may very well be deserving of prosecutorial grace. Unfortunately, Mr. Lopez-Urenda faces deportation today despite his sympathetic circumstances and the significant positive contributions that he and his family have made to society. These contributions to the San Mateo and Fremont communities have truly been exceptional. He is an active volunteer for the Women's Foundation of California, Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, the Saint Patrick Proto Cathedral Parish, the American Red Cross, and just last year he was one of the key organizers of the California AIDS Ride. Ms. Arenas has also volunteered in the community as a religious school teacher at Our Lady of the Rosary Church, a health promoter at the Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, and a sexual assault counselor at Bay Area Woman Against Rape. My office has received 46 letters of support on behalf of this family staying together in the community that they have helped build. Below are a few notable excerpts from the letters I have received reflecting the impact of this family on the community: Patricia W. Change, CEO of Feed the Hunger Foundation, former President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, and a prior San Francisco Commissioner and U.S. Commissioner writes: Mr. Urenda has always operated with the highest integrity. Asking Mr. Urenda to leave the United States would deprive his children of their father, an upstanding resident of the country. It would deprive the community of an active participant, leader, and volunteer. The Bay Area Women Against Rape indicates that Leticia has been ``successful, available, [and] committed to the cause of breaking the silence of sexual abuse in our community.'' Judy Patrick, President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, writes: Javier Urenda is fulfilling tremendous needs within his community. He is a model participant in this society. Christine Bozzini, a friend and former coworker of Mr. Lopez-Urenda, writes: Javier strives to create a meaningful and rewarding life with his children, focusing on supporting them in their studies, as well as a variety of athletic pursuits and personal interests. For example, over the last few years he has taken great pride in traveling to various U.S. monuments in order to teach his children about the birth of their country. One of the other compelling reasons for permitting these parents to remain in the United States is the impact that deportation would have on their three U.S. citizen minor children, Bryan, Ashley, and Nancy. All too often, U.S. citizen children face the loss of a parent through deportation. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country. A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP for the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--the deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. Mr. John Arthur Balano, Head Coach and Faculty Instructor at the City College of San Francisco, has known Mr. Lopez-Urenda through his volunteer work at Washington High School in Fremont, California. He has stated that Mr. Lopez-Urenda ``actively participates in the daily life of his children. Be it school, domestic, or extra-curricular activities, socialization and citizenship, Javier is always furthering their growth.'' In addition, Ms. Marlene Davis, the Principal of Patterson Elementary School, where two of the Lopez-Urenda children currently attend, has written me, stating that: Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are very involved in their children's lives and school work. If they were not, the children would not be doing as well as they are. I think without his presence, the children would definitely fare very poorly indeed both because of the psychological shock of having their father taken away but also academically because their mother would not be as available and one half of their scholastic support would be missing. . . . This would be a terrible strategy which could be avoided if the children are able to remain in the same stable environment with two loving and supportive parents who are committed to their children's success. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today on behalf of Mr. Lopea-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas will enable this family to continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to each other and their extensive community in Fremont, California. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor essentially to oppose the McCain amendment to the Defense appropriations bill, which would stop production of the C-17 Globemaster III Airlifter. The McCain amendment would cut funding approved by the Appropriations Committee to maintain an important national asset in the C-17 program. Without the inclusion of this funding, the production line would begin to shut down this year, and the last plane would roll off the line in mid 2011, as opposed to mid 2012 if these additional 10 planes, which are in the Defense bill, are, in fact, funded. I believe the funding is important, and the risk of losing the production line without filling the C-17 need is real. The concern is timing. If this amendment passes, suppliers will be notified within months that their contracts have been terminated. It will become virtually impossible to restart production. By then it will be too late to take into account the impending Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR, and a Mobility Capabilities Requirement Study which will assess whether, in fact, we truly have enough C-17s in the fleet. It is my view that failure to fund this aircraft would be a tremendous blow to the future readiness of the military. Now, why do I say that? The C-17 has been essential to our combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as humanitarian missions worldwide. It is the most flexible and versatile transport in the U.S. military today and the only one capable of flying troops and cargo directly from air bases here to the front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq. Even more important is what the C-17 carries on the way back from the front line. It is a vital component of aeromedical evacuations of our troops to Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. Finally, it should not be forgotten that the C-17 contributes to peacekeeping and humanitarian relief missions worldwide. It has become a welcome site to victims of the tsunamis in Asia and the victims of hurricanes along the gulf coast. But that alone is not enough to justify it. Simply put, as former Air Force Chief of Staff, GEN Mike Moseley, has said: ``The C-17 is worth its weight in gold.'' With so many capabilities and so many complimentary things said about it, it is no surprise the Air Force has been ``flying the wings off the C-17.'' To make this point, let me read from the House committee report for the 2010 Defense appropriations bill. The C-17 is the workhorse of the theater, flying 50 percent of all sorties for the U.S. Transportation Command over the last 24 months. While the aircraft is designed to fly 1,000 hours per year over 30 years, over the last 10 years the C-17 fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per aircraft, with some aircraft flying in excess of 2,400 hours in a single year. That is over 200 percent more. This heavy usage is reducing the expected service life of the aircraft. So what does this mean? It means C-17s are being utilized much more than anticipated. It means the C-17 is carrying more of the workload than expected. It means C-17s flown today may not be available for as long as we thought they would. This brings us to the second issue. If not the C-17, what are the other options available? The C-17 is a complement to a decades-old military transport, the C- 5. The oldest C-5As are an average of 39 years old and will require literally billions of dollars in engine and avionics upgrades to keep flying. We don't yet know the exact cost, but as with many modernization programs, it will likely only go up. The GAO clearly stated last year that DOD would need to fully modernize seven C-5s to attain the equivalent capability achieved from acquiring one C-17 and the cost would be three times more. So we need to modernize seven C-5s at three times the cost of a new C-17 to get the equivalent capability of one C-17. This makes no sense to me. The C-5A has been unreliable, with a readiness rate barely over 50 percent. The Air Force has been asking for years for authorization to retire some of the aircraft. As those aircraft are retired, the C-17 will be expected to cover the gap left behind. So we have to ask: How are taxpayer dollars better spent? Are they better spent maintaining and upgrading a 40-year-old, unreliable aircraft at three times the cost, or are they better spent adding C-17s to an already overtaxed fleet? I believe the answer is clear. Those in Congress who advocate for shutting down the line are doing so prematurely. Later this year, a Mobility Capability Requirements Study will be released that will address the future airlift needs of the military. One thing we know this country lacks is strategic lift. By that I mean to rapidly move troops and equipment to wherever those troops and equipment are needed. The staging of a military operation takes time because we lack strategic lift. The Department of Defense is also actively working on the next Quadrennial Defense Review which will take a comprehensive picture of what tools our forces will need in the coming years. Previous studies that have analyzed our airlift needs did not take into account planned increases in the number of Army and Marine Corps personnel. We have more troops that need to be moved, including 30,000 additional personnel authorized by the Senate during consideration of the Defense authorization bill in July. These studies also did not take into account new combat vehicle programs for the Army as well as the needs of the new Africa command. All of this has to be figured into this mobility review. In fact, the GAO has expressed concern about the calculations used by the Defense Department's previous studies and recommended significant changes for the next mobility capabilities study. The GAO also found that because the Department of Defense did not identify specific airlift requirements in its previous mobility capabilities study, it could not determine how the DOD concluded that the current number of C-5s and C-17s was adequate. That is the basis on which the Pentagon has weighed in saying we will do with what we have, in essence. The GAO is saying that no specific airlift requirements in the previous study were even considered on which one could base a recommendation such as ``leave it as it is.'' To me, this indicates we are not in a position to shut down the last strategic airlift production line in the country. I understand this has been identified as a congressional jobs program. To a great extent, I disagree with that view. There are many of us who have followed the C-17 program for years. We know what a mistake it would be to end production of this aircraft prematurely. The distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, agrees. Therefore, the committee has added these 10 planes, $2.5 billion in the bill for these 10 additional C-17s. In his introductory statement for this bill, he identified other times the Defense Department was wrong to determine a program termination, and he listed the F-117 stealth fighter, which was a great tool in fighting in the Gulf War and Bosnia; the V-22 Osprey, now a favorite of the Marine Corps; and Central Command, which the Department proposed eliminating. It is clear the Department of Defense doesn't always get it right. Already we know we may be faced with a White House request to add another 40,000 troops that will need to be air lifted to Afghanistan. Whether that happens or not, I don't know. But I do know we have a remaining 8,000 to complement the 60,000 already there who need to get to Afghanistan before the end of the year. Earlier this year, the administration fought hard against programs they felt were not necessary. This included aircraft such as the F-22 which, it was argued, was not being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead they advocated for systems that support the current missions of the military. That is what the C-17 does. The C-17 is being used at 125 percent of its anticipated flying hours in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the only aircraft capable of flying many of the missions the Air Force is asked to fly. That is exactly the kind of system we need more of. It takes troops, supplies, equipment directly to the front lines where it can land on unpaved runways and on runways nearly half the length of those needed to land a C-5. That is a real asset because it means we get closer with the troops, the supplies, the equipment to where they need to go. Finally, from a business perspective, keeping the line open preserves the option for several other countries to purchase C-17s of their own. Other governments are actively pursuing contracts to buy C-17s. The opportunity to maintain good-paying U.S. jobs would be lost if the line is shut down. Ten planes, one plane a month, essentially keep the line open for approximately an additional year over when it would shut down otherwise. When I think where our military investment should go, I agree it should go toward ensuring we have the capability to bring our troops and supplies to where they must fight and where they are needed, to bring our injured servicemembers to the medical care they require, and to maintain a program that sees heavy use in supporting the wars we are fighting today. This is exactly the wrong time to remove these 10 C-17s which are already in the Defense appropriations bill. The future is uncertain. It is uncertain with respect to Afghanistan, with respect to Pakistan, with respect to Iran, with respect still to Iraq, with respect to a number of other places in the world. Where we are short is strategic airlift. The most efficient, most effective airlifter we have is the C-17. I strongly support its inclusion in this bill, and I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as part of the unanimous consent agreement entered into this morning by the leader, a managers' package of amendments to the Interior bill is in order. I would like to proceed to that business now because of yesterday's filing deadline for all first-degree amendments. Each of these amendments which constitute the managers' package have been filed at the desk. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and that the following amendments be called up and considered en bloc, and where modifications are noted, that those modifications be agreed to: Bingaman amendment No. 2492; Risch amendment No. 2501; Carper amendment No. 2505; Roberts amendment No. 2509; Feinstein amendment No. 2518; Feinstein amendment No. 2519; Feingold amendment No. 2522; Whitehouse amendment No. 2534, as modified; Bingaman amendment No. 2491, as modified; Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2495; Tester/Crapo amendment No. 2507; and, Bingaman amendment No. 2493, as modified. Let me make one note with respect to Carper amendment No. 2505. The amendment being included in the managers' package is very similar to pending Carper amendment No. 2456. But the version we are adopting now is the version that has been agreed to by both sides. At the proper time, then, I believe we will be in a position to withdraw the pending Carper amendment No. 2456. In order to comply with Senate rule XLIV, which requires Members to certify that they have no financial interest in congressionally designated spending items, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record financial disclosure letters associated with amendments Nos. 2501 and 2518.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, all of these amendments have been cleared on both sides, and I believe we are in a position to voice vote the package. Before voting, through, I would yield to my distinguished ranking member for any comments he may wish to make.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for a voice vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know Senator Boxer, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has an hour reserved to come and speak. First, I will respond to the comments of the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I hope she will understand there are many of us who have viewed her amendment with substantial alarm, for reasons that I thought I might spend a few moments speaking about. Essentially, as I understood the amendment, which was blocked from coming to the floor, it attempted to prohibit the EPA from using any funds to enforce the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. The proponents have argued that their only goal was to protect small family-owned farms and businesses from overly burdensome regulations. Yet the amendment would have gone much further. In fact, it would actually exempt some of the Nation's largest commercial emitters from climate change regulation, including huge industrial facilities, such as powerplants and refineries. I am very pleased that this amendment is not before us today. The underlying rationale, as I understand it from the amendment, is groundless. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made it clear that the agency will not use the Clean Air Act to regulate either small businesses or family-owned farms. I was prepared, should the amendment have come up, to put down a side-by-side amendment that would have clearly exempted any farm, as well as any business, that emits under 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Let me point this out. Stationary industrial sources account for over half of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to EPA. These are the leading cause of climate change, and they must be reduced if we have any hope of containing the worst impact of climate change. The amendment would have hampered the administration's effort to tackle one of the biggest pieces of the emissions puzzle: large industrial facilities. It would have been a major setback. Thirdly, the amendment would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that decision, the Court found that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to determine whether the emissions of greenhouse gases may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and then comply with the Clean Air Act requirements designed to protect public health from dangerous pollution. Upon completion of an endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to control greenhouse gases from both stationary and mobile sources. Many argue--and I happen to agree--that regulating the largest greenhouse gas emitters through new legislation, establishing a cap- and-trade system, would be more efficient and less expensive than regulating these sources under the existing Clean Air Act. But until Congress enacts climate change legislation, EPA has a legal obligation to follow the Clean Air Act. So if one does not want EPA to take action under the Clean Air Act, then this body should want to pass a cap-and-trade bill. The chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Boxer, has been working very hard to put together a bill which has an opportunity to pass this Senate. The point is, if we do not want the Clean Air Act to prevail, then the cap-and-trade bill is the only way to go. That is a clear incentive for the Senate and the House to pass a bill. EPA has released a draft endangerment finding which it is going to soon finalize. Yet the amendment would have blocked EPA from completing the endangerment finding and from complying with its legal obligations to protect public health. The repercussions would have been major. It means EPA would not be able to complete a joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation to increase corporate average fuel economy, which we call CAFE, and create a tailpipe emissions standard for automobiles. That would have been a major problem. It would block implementation of the 2007 fuel economy law which I authored with Senator Snowe and which took us a long time to get passed and enacted. By undermining the negotiated agreement between States and the Obama administration, the Murkowski amendment would also have likely resulted in States moving forward with their own tailpipe emissions standards which automakers have fought for years as too onerous. This would have stopped California and 14 other States and the District of Columbia from moving forward with implementing tailpipe emissions standards. This amendment is vigorously opposed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the United Auto Workers. To that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from the Auto Alliance and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, finally, the amendment would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world about the Senate's intentions on climate change. It would suggest that we want to ignore the clear imperative to act, despite the efforts of the administration to motivate the international community in advance of the Copenhagen summit. There is some concern also about small emitters. EPA is not planning to regulate small emitters. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has clearly stated on several occasions that the agency will not regulate small emitters. She said it in her confirmation hearings, she said it again at Senate budget hearings, and she reiterated that comment when she appeared before the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget just a few months ago. In fact, Administrator Jackson has sent a draft deregulatory rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review which would establish clearly that all but the very largest sources of greenhouse gas will be preemptively exempted from the stationary source permitting requirements in the Clean Air Act. She has no intention of regulating small sources that emit under 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide or any small farm. Mr. President, 25,000 metric tons is a very high threshold. According to EPA, it is equivalent to the emissions from burning 131 trainloads of coal per year--these would be exempted--or burning 2.8 million gallons of gasoline annually. The 25,000-ton threshold would exempt every small source, focusing only on 13,000 of the largest emitters in the United States. Let me say that again. The 25,000-ton threshold which EPA intends to proceed with, and which my side-by-side amendment would have had as one of the two criteria, would exempt every small source, focusing only on the 13,000 largest emitters in the United States. EPA intends to only regulate the largest facilities, and these facilities are, almost without exception, already regulated under the Clean Air Act for emissions of other pollutants such as soot, smog- forming nitrous oxides, or acid-rain-inducing sulfur dioxide. Let me now explain why the Murkowski Amendment would impact the joint EPA-Department of Transportation rulemaking on automobile greenhouse gas emissions. This rulemaking is of critical importance, and the regulation implementing this law was negotiated by the White House in cooperation with automakers, the States, and labor. But according to a letter I received from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last night, the impact of the Murkowski amendment ``would be to make it impossible for the EPA to promulgate the light-duty vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions standards that the agency proposed on September 15, 2009.'' She writes: Because of the way the Clean Air Act is written, promulgation of the proposed light-duty vehicle rule will automatically make carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources, as well as for light-duty vehicles. The only way that EPA could comply with the prohibition in Senator Murkowski's amendment would be to not promulgate the light-duty vehicle standards. These standards are something Senator Snowe and I have worked on for at least 7 years now, beginning with the SUV loophole and ending with the bill that became law, would be totally undermined. By undermining the negotiated agreement between States, the amendment would also likely result in States moving forward with their own tailpipe emissions standards. As I indicated before, in 2002 California enacted a landmark law to reduce tailpipe emissions standards by 30 percent for all new sedans, trucks, and SUVs by 2016. I also stated that 14 other States--namely, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia--have adopted or announced their intention to adopt California's greenhouse gas emissions controls. The amendment would have been a major roadblock in efforts to improve fuel economy standards for vehicles. I don't think we can bury our head in the sand when it comes to climate change. I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that it makes no sense at this particular point in time to put on the floor a major amendment which well could have devastated both the EPA and any effort to get to cap-and-trade legislation when, in fact, the EPW Committee is struggling to write a comprehensive bill which has an opportunity to pass this body. Again I say, if people do not want the Clean Air Act prevailing, then the only way you can do that is with a cap-and-trade bill. That is the way the committee of this body is proceeding. I believe it is the correct way. I believe our Nation is in serious jeopardy, as is the rest of planet Earth, with global warming. I believe it is real. Just this week, the Journal Nature published a new paper that found rapid deterioration of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. Yesterday on this floor, I showed the deterioration in the Arctic. I showed the deterioration in Greenland. I showed the deterioration in the Chukchi Sea. I showed the deterioration off Barrow, AK. It is happening all over the world. The Flat Earth Society cannot prevail. I think there is a real danger signal out there for planet Earth. We know we cannot reverse it. We know that greenhouse gases do not dissipate and go away after a period of time in the atmosphere. We now know these gases that began during the Industrial Revolution are still present in the atmosphere, and we know that the Earth is not immutable, that it can change. We look at other planets and we see that they have changed over the millennia. What we do here to protect our planet Earth for the next generations is so key and critical. This discussion has to be joined in an appropriate way, and an appropriate way is when a cap-and-trade bill is produced by the Environment and Public Works Committee and the chairman of that committee is on this floor and the bill is open for amendments and there is a free flow of debate and discussion. I believe the science is real. I pointed out yesterday we have a project in intelligence whereby the satellites are tracking deterioration in the ice shelves of the world. I hope to present more of that information when there is a bill on the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Administrator Lisa Jackson's letter.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. Over the past several weeks we have seen issues raised with increasing frequency and volume around the use of the word ``czar'' by the Obama administration. I do believe it is unfair to suggest that the White House has a climate czar directing EPA's actions behind the scenes. I do not believe that is true. Effectively, the title ``czar,'' as we all know, does not exist. The current Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate is there to serve as an adviser to the President and to Administrator Jackson on energy and environmental issues. She also coordinates the work of multiple Cabinet level agencies on one of President Obama's key policy priorities--clean energy and jobs that are essential for long-term economic growth. In a way, this is becoming quite political because it is not unusual for a President to have high-level staff members in the White House who help to coordinate policy issues that touch a number of Federal agencies. We have heard a lot about it. What we do not hear is that President Bush had 47 such advisers for other issues. We Democrats did not make a huge issue about it. So I have a hard time understanding, with all of the concern over climate change and the rapidity with which it is moving, that a Special Assistant to the President who was head of the EPA during the Clinton administration is somebody who is spurious. She is steeped in this. She can give the President good advice. He wants her to be an assistant. So I do not understand quite why she is being picked on. I still believe the day-to-day work of protecting the environment is very much driven by Administrator Jackson and the EPA staff. I have met with the Administrator. I spoke with her on the phone this morning. I read into the Record a letter she wrote yesterday. She is very much hands-on. So I think all of the energy going into these attacks ought to be put into perspective, and that perspective is that the former President of the United States had 47 special assistants. We didn't make a big deal of it. So I do not understand why this one position is now taken and an amendment is there to eliminate it. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Vitter amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Perhaps I can engage the Senator from Louisiana. Candidly, I do not understand the wording of the amendment. Let me read it. You have read it, and I appreciate that. It does not make sense to me. Here is how it reads. None of the funds made available by this Act may be obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded by this Act-- So none of the funds may be obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded by this act-- and lead-- It says ``lead'' but led, I think that is a misspelling-- by Senate-confirmed appointees, implementing policies of the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. I don't know what that means on its face.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Carol Brown's title is not czar, it is Assistant to the President. The President has chosen to appoint an assistant to assist him in evaluating, I assume, various issues pertaining to climate change. It is a complicated subject. She has experience. She has been in government. She has served as head of a department. But the actual policies come over the signature of the Administrator of the EPA. What you are saying is, essentially, then, the President cannot have any special assistant for the purpose of coordination, asking questions, informing, helping produce--it does not make sense to me. I think on its face it is not clear.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I would like to respond to that. Let me give an example. The CIA is headed by a Senate-confirmed Director, Leon Panetta. He carries on policies from the National Security Council led by General Jones, a nonconfirmed official. Does the Senator from Louisiana believe that the National Security Adviser to the President should not have any role in intelligence and national security matters? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to table the Vitter amendment No. 2549. I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. President, I withdraw that request.