Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 17, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Evaluating S. 1551: The Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Transparency and Accessibility of Federal Contracting Databases.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Tomer Hasson, an environmental legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the pendency of H.R. 2996, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a new report by Human Rights Watch entitled ``Burma's Forgotten Prisoners.'' The report offers moving and compelling stories of political activists in Burma who have put their lives and careers on the line to raise awareness about the human rights situation in their country. In the face of threats, intimidation and beatings, they have embraced nonviolence to put pressure on the ruling military junta to respect the legitimate aspirations of the people of Burma and support a new government based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We all have been inspired by the story of Burma's most famous political prisoner, Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi. After leading the National League for Democracy to an overwhelming win in the 1990 parliamentary election--a victory quickly annulled by the military junta--she has spent the better part of the past 19 years in prison or under house arrest. Recently, a Burmese court sentenced her to an additional 3 years of confinement on trumped up charges of violating the terms of her house arrest. Yet despite the regime's best efforts, it has failed to stifle her will and her call for free and democratic Burma. And it has failed to stop her from inspiring thousands of her fellow citizens to take up her cause. The report by Human Rights Watch reminds us that while Suu Kyi is the most well-known democracy activist, she is by no means alone. In fact, the report notes that there are now more than 2,100 political prisoners in Burma; there are 43 prisons holding political activists in Burma and 50 labor camps; and beginning in late 2008, closed Burmese courts sentenced more than 300 activists to prison terms of, in some cases, more than 100 years for speaking out against the government and forming organizations. Among those profiled are Zargana, one of Burma's most famous comedians, actors, and human rights activists, who was arrested and sentenced to 59 years in prison for criticizing the government's response to Cyclone Nargis; U Gambira, a young Buddhist monk who was sentenced to 68 years in prison including 12 years of hard labor for playing a key role in the 2007 demonstrations which became known as the Saffron Revolution; Ma Su Su Nway, a prominent labor rights activist who was sentenced to 12\1/2\ years in prison for criticizing the government during the 2007 demonstrations; and Min Ko Kaing, a 46-year-old activist who has spent 17 of the past 20 years in prison, most of it in solitary confinement, for his political beliefs. At a time when the regime is intent on moving forward with new elections based on a constitution that was drafted behind closed doors and would entrench the military as the country's dominant political force, it is important for us to remember that there are those in Burma who have a different vision. These brave activists deserve our admiration and respect. More importantly, they deserve to know that we stand in solidarity with them and we will not rest and we will not remain silent until they are free. I urge my colleagues to read the report and to once again call on the ruling State Peace and Development Council to release all political prisoners and begin a true dialogue on national reconciliation in Burma.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, S. 1494, that the Senate has approved by unanimous consent. The legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort in the Intelligence Committee, which was reflected by the committee's unanimous vote of 15 to 0 on the bill. I thank Vice Chairman Bond for his efforts on the legislation and the full committee staff for their work. It has been 4 years since the Congress has passed and the President has signed an intelligence authorization act. This has meant that the law has not kept up with changes in the intelligence community and that Congress has not been able to require reforms and provide flexibilities that are sorely needed. I am pleased that the Senate has taken a major step toward enactment. Before summarizing some of the key provisions of this legislation, let me briefly describe the way in which it was written. The committee has worked with the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, ADM Dennis Blair, to identify areas where legislation is needed to better run and oversee the Nation's 16 intelligence agencies. Many of these provisions have been proposed and included in previous legislation reported out by the Intelligence Committee but have yet to be passed into law. At the request of the White House, we have separated issues of terrorist detention and interrogation from this bill and the committee intends to take up legislation on those issues separately. The committee has not changed its position from previous legislation on the need to have an effective and humane interrogation program that operates fully within the nation's laws and international commitments. The major themes of this bill are to strengthen the Director of National Intelligence to make sure that he has the management authorities and flexibilities needed to direct the intelligence community; insist upon stronger accountability and oversight mechanisms for intelligence activities, both within the executive branch and by the Congress; and to fund fully the intelligence community's share of the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations worldwide. There is also a classified annex to this bill, which lays out the authorized funding levels for the National Intelligence Program. The theme of the annex is to shift funds from intelligence activities that are less capable, lower priority, or not performing to those that will provide the Nation with better capabilities for intelligence collection, analysis, counterintelligence, and covert action. The details of the classified annex are necessarily secret, but all Members are welcome to review them at the committee's offices at any time. Let me describe some of the notable provisions in more detail. To add to the management authorities of the Director of National Intelligence, the bill gives the Director of National Intelligence greater flexibility in personnel matters, including extending the length of time that personnel may be detailed to an intelligence agency to 3 years from the current 1 year. It also provides the Director, working with individual intelligence agencies, to shift or hire personnel by up to 5 percent above authorized personnel levels if intelligence requirements demand doing so. The bill authorizes the DNI to conduct accountability reviews of personnel and elements within the intelligence community, further clarifying that the Director is the senior official in the intelligence community. It seeks to prevent repetitions of information sharing problems by enabling the DNI to purchase necessary equipment or technology to improve information sharing with governmental departments or agencies regardless of whether they are part of the intelligence community. The bill also requires the intelligence community to continue putting in place the information technology necessary to assure information flows between its agencies. The committee has longstanding concerns with the way the intelligence community has briefed, or has failed to brief, the congressional Intelligence Committees on all intelligence activities and covert actions. Two major controversies, over CIA detention and interrogation and over the warrantless surveillance program of the National Security Agency, were both briefed only to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The rest of the committee's membership was unaware of these programs for years. The bill strengthens the statutory requirements to keep the congressional intelligence committees ``fully and currently informed'' of intelligence activities and covert actions. The legislation makes clear that there is no exception to the obligation to brief Congress on intelligence activities and covert actions; requires that notifications include a description of the legal authority on which activities are undertaken; and requires that all committee members be provided with the broad outlines--the ``main features''--of intelligence programs in those instances where the sensitive operational details are provided only to a limited number of Senators. In addition to ensuring that notifications to the Congress are conducted, the bill includes a number of additional provisions intended to strengthen intelligence oversight. These include creating an independent inspector general, confirmed by the Senate, to help the DNI oversee the intelligence community and strengthening the inspectors general of the National Security Agency, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, National Reconnaissance Office, NRO, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, NGA, by listing them under the Inspector General Act of 1978. They include requiring Senate confirmation for the Directors of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and for the Deputy Director of the CIA. For several years, the Intelligence Committee has viewed these positions as holding substantial budgetary and policy responsibilities. They also include improving the intelligence community's ability to budget, manage finances, and run program acquisitions. I am unable to state publicly why these provisions are so important, but it is fair to say that intelligence agencies have had major failures in this regard. In this bill, we have sought to apply best practices from other parts of the government to intelligence community management and acquisitions with the goal of more efficiently and effectively using taxpayer dollars to fund intelligence activities. Finally, while I am unable to provide specifics due to reasons of classification, let me highlight five other parts of the bill and its classified annex that merit recognition. Satellites. To address a problem created by years of mismanagement and acquisition failures, the annex to this bill recommends a more capable and more affordable imagery satellite architecture that addresses the requirements of both our civilian policymakers and military warfighters. Languages. As our committee report notes, the intelligence community's language capabilities are abysmal. This bill authorizes increased funding to significantly improve language proficiencies. Rather than funding separate initiatives across the various intelligence agencies, this funding is provided to the Director of National Intelligence for allocation and coordination to maximize effectiveness. Research and Development. The U.S. intelligence community leads the world in the technical collection of intelligence. This success is the result of decades of investment in research and development. The annex to this bill recommends increases in investment on research and development to return to the level of funding necessary to maintain the nation's technological edge. Cybersecurity. The committee has held numerous hearings with the Acting Senior Director for Cybersecurity in the National Security Council, the Director of the National Security Agency, and the committee's Technical Advisory Group. I believe strongly that cyber attack and espionage by adversary nations and nonstate actors pose a grave threat to our Nation's national and economic security. I also believe, however, that initiatives underway to provide for security of the government's cyber networks need to be implemented and overseen carefully to ensure that privacy rights are upheld. For this reason, the bill includes a provision that establishes a framework for executive and congressional oversight for cybersecurity. Specifically, it requires reporting to Congress on the legal authorities for cyber-security programs, privacy assessments, and details of the concept of operations for these activities. The provision also requires thorough auditing of cyber-security programs by the relevant inspectors general, especially to determine compliance with law and privacy rights. Finally, the provision authorizes the detail of cyber experts from the intelligence community to the Department of Homeland Security and FBI to assist in their roles in cyber defense and law enforcement. The annex to the bill also adjusts funding levels to ensure that the President's request for cyber- security activities are appropriately funded and are proceeding under clear legal and policy guidance. Report on compliance with laws related to detention and interrogation. As I noted, the administration and our committee continue to conduct reviews of detention and interrogation practices begun after September 11, 2001. This bill requires the DNI to report on how the intelligence community complies with all laws, international obligations, and executive orders related to the detention and interrogation of persons under their control. Following the reporting of our bill on July 22, we have worked with three committees of the Senate to resolve several questions. We have worked with the Armed Services Committee to develop a Senate resolution that will govern the sequence of referral, between that committee and the Intelligence Committee, of nominations for Director of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. That resolution has the support of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain of the Armed Services Committee, as well as having my and Vice Chairman Bond's support. I will address the proposed resolution in a separate colloquy today with Chairman Levin. We have worked with Ranking Member Cochran of the Appropriations Committee on an agreement to strike, in a managers' amendment, section 341 of the bill that would have expressed the sense of the Senate on an Appropriations Subcommittee on Intelligence. That internal Senate matter will continue to be discussed within the Senate but will not be a part of this bill. We have worked with Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee to resolve several matters. The managers' amendment that Vice Chairman Bond and I have offered amends three provisions which require the submission of reports on various matters. The purpose of the amendments to sections 336, 407, and 445 is to ensure that the Judiciary Committee receives reports on matters within its jurisdiction. In consultation with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the managers' amendment amends section 411 on a FOIA operational file exemption to state more precisely the intent of the provision. The managers' amendment also strikes section 352 that establishes a FOIA exemption for terrorist identity information that is disseminated for terrorist screening purposes. As a comparable provision has been reported in the House, we expect that the provision will be the subject of further consideration at conference. Mr. President, the vice chairman and I have worked hard to produce bipartisan legislation that provides the intelligence community with the tools and resources needed to keep the Nation safe and to inform decisionmakers. This bill does just that. It strikes a balance between allowing intelligence agencies the latitude to conduct their operations while ensuring their legality and efficiency. I very much appreciate the Senate's approval of this legislation and look forward to bringing a conference report to the Senate as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, section 432 of S. 1494, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2010 that is before the Senate today, provides that the Directors of the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. For several years, the Select Committee on Intelligence has been seeking the enactment of legislation to provide for Senate confirmation of these important positions. The Senate has previously endorsed this effort by including this requirement in the proposed Intelligence Authorization for Fiscal Year 2008. It is our strong hope that the time has come to enact this fundamental measure to ensure adequate oversight of these three agencies whose spending constitutes a significant portion of the entire intelligence budget. In preparation for that, my colleague at the Intelligence Committee, our vice chairman Kit Bond, and I have worked with the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Carl Levin and Ranking Member John McCain, to settle on the process by which our two committees will assist the Senate in a careful examination of the qualifications of nominees to head these agencies. The insights of both committees is important in that process because the three entities are housed in the Department of Defense and perform significant responsibilities there while also being major components of the intelligence community. The resolution that we have prepared recognizes the contribution that each of our committees should make to a thorough and timely process. It provides that if the nominee is an Active-Duty military officer, the confirmation process will begin in the Armed Services Committee and, if reported, the nomination will be sequentially referred to the Intelligence Committee for a prescribed period of time; namely, 30 days plus an additional 5 days if the 30-day period expires when the Senate is in recess. If the nominee is a civilian, the confirmation process will begin in the Intelligence Committee with a sequential referral to the Armed Services Committee under those same time limits. To ensure that the sequential referral does not delay completion of the committee part of the nomination process, the resolution provides for the automatic discharge of the nominations from the second committee if it has not reported with the prescribed period of time. This referral system recognizes the equities of each committee and will ensure that the Senate receives the benefit of the recommendations made by the two committees with the expertise necessary to advise the Senate about the qualifications of nominees to head these three important agencies. Although we are not formally introducing the resolution at this time, Vice Chairman Bond joins me in this public commitment to the Senate that we will ask our committee to report the resolution in time for consideration and adoption by the Senate in conjunction with a conference report on the fiscal year 2010 Intelligence authorization. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the resolution, showing its cosponsorship by myself, Senator Levin, Senator Bond, and Senator McCain, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of the colloquy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I should note for the Senate that while the full text of the amendment includes language pertinent to other nominations, such as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, the substantive change to section 17 of S. Res. 400 only bears on the sequence of responsibilities between the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. I now turn to Senator Levin for his remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as I sit here and listen to the remarks of my colleagues and I look over at that black velvet-draped desk, with the pristine white roses, and the poem by Robert Frost, and I think about the past 17 years I have been here and have looked up-- and perhaps it is late at night, perhaps it is in the morning, perhaps it is in the afternoon--and Senator Kennedy is at his desk and he is talking about a bill he cares a great deal about--and, as Senator Lautenberg had said earlier, he introduced 550 bills that became law. Around here, you can introduce a bill, and maybe it goes somewhere and maybe it does not. You can introduce a bill, and maybe it is a small bill, but introducing a big bill that goes somewhere, that passes the House and is signed by the President of the United States, is not a small feat. I listened to Senator Byrd, and in the past he has spoken about lions of the Senate. Ted Kennedy was a lion of the Senate. During 47 years--and this morning in the Judiciary Committee, we learned he had been the longest serving member--during 47 years, if you look at the big bills: the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, which enabled people with mental illnesses to live in their communities with minimal hospital care; the Children's Health Insurance Program, which has been spoken about, which provided health insurance to uninsured children of low-income families; the commitment to health care reform that did not diminish even as he suffered through terminal illness; his dedication to education, he was a leader in the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which established the Federal Government's commitment to fund school for poor children in public schools; No Child Left Behind, widely hailed as the greatest example of bipartisan cooperation during the Bush administration; the bill he did with Orrin Hatch, the Serve America Act, the greatest expansion of national service since the New Deal--it goes on and on and on, big bills, bills that changed people's lives, not just in a county or a city but all across this great land. In civil rights, as you look across at that desk, he had no peers. He would stand up, and I would watch: The lower jaw would quiver slightly, and he would begin, and there would be the thunderous tones, either in the Judiciary Committee or here on the floor, that would fill the room, filled with passion, filled with conviction, filled with determination. He played a major role in every civil rights battle in this Congress for 40 years. Who else can say that? He fought for people of color, for women, for gays and lesbians, for those seeking religious liberty. His amendments to the Voting Rights Act in 1982 led to significant increases in minority representation in elective office. He was a major sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure that millions of disabled Americans could live productive lives. These are not small bills; these are big bills--the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which strengthened civil rights protections against discrimination and harassment in the workplace; again, a big bill which became law. I was part of that small group of Senators who met on immigration reform hour after hour in small hot rooms. I watched Senator Kennedy with his sleeves rolled back, when he would sit back and wait for just the right time to move or change the tenor of the discussion. True, that was one that was not successful, but it wasn't because he did not try. Seventeen years ago, Joe Biden asked me if I would be the first woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I had the honor of doing it. Ted Kennedy was No. 2 in seniority sitting on that committee. I saw his commitment firsthand. It was very special. You see, I was a volunteer in the campaign for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I was a full-time volunteer for Bobby Kennedy for his campaign. I saw the Nation ripped apart by these double assassinations. I saw Senator Kennedy, in addition to being a lion in the Senate, become a surrogate father to nieces and nephews. I saw him accept this mantle with great enthusiasm, with great love, and with a commitment that spanned the decades. That is very special. It is a very special human dimension of a great individual. I lost my husband Bert to cancer, and I know well what the end is like. I know the good times that grow less and less and the bad times that become more and more. Ted Kennedy's life was enriched by a very special woman, and her name is Vicki Kennedy. For me, she is a mentor of what a wife should be. I have watched her sitting with him, writing speeches. I have watched her at weekend retreats. I have watched her fill his life with love, companionship, understanding. I know a little bit about what the last months of a cancer victim are like. I can only say to her that we will do everything we can in this body to end cancer in our lifetime. Yes, Ted Kennedy leaves very big shoes, shoes that probably will never be filled in quite the same way, from a family that will probably never be replicated. I wish to end my remarks with a passage in the Prayer Book of the High Holy Day services for Reform Judaism. It was written when I was a teenager by a young rabbi I very much admired, and I wish to share it at this time: Birth is a beginning and death a destination. And life is a journey: From childhood to eternity and youth to age; From innocence to awareness and ignorance to knowing; From foolishness to discretion, and then, perhaps, to wisdom; From weakness to strength or strength to weakness --and, often, back again; From health to sickness and back, we pray, to health again; From offense to forgiveness, from loneliness to love, from joy to gratitude, from pain to compassion, and grief to understanding-- From fear to faith; from defeat to defeat to defeat-- Until, looking backward or ahead, we see that victory lies not in some high place along the way, but in having made the journey, stage by stage, a sacred pilgrimage. Birth is a beginning and death a destination. And life is a journey, a sacred pilgrimage-- To life everlasting. Ted Kennedy leaves a giant legacy in this body and we should not forsake it. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009. I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I think it is a critical bill for good government. The bill would create new judgeships in circuit and district courts where they are badly needed. In the U.S. Courts of Appeals, it would create 9 new permanent and 3 new temporary judgeships. In the U.S. District Courts, it would create 38 new permanent and 13 new temporary judgeships. When caseloads get too heavy, the quality of justice in our Nation suffers. Victims of crime are forced to endure long periods of waiting for justice to be done. Citizens are unable to resolve their civil disputes promptly; plaintiffs face long delays in getting damages or restitution for harms they have suffered. Morale plummets for judges and other court staff. I have seen this in my own state, where judges in three of the four Federal districts are overwhelmed with case filings. Let me tell you about one district in particular. In the Eastern District of California, each Federal judge carried a caseload last year of over 1,000 weighted filings. The Judicial Conference of the U.S. recommends that Congress create a new judgeship anytime a district reaches a caseload of 430 cases per judge. But in the Eastern District, the number exceeds 1,000. The situation has become so dire that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stepped in. Last summer, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit sent a letter asking every judge in the Circuit to volunteer to hear approximately 25 cases from the Eastern District to try to get the caseload down. The court has literally brought in Federal judges from all over the country to help deal with the crushing workload. District judges from Alaska, Alabama, and Washington State, as well as from Los Angeles and Oakland, handled hundreds of cases in Sacramento and Fresno last year. A senior Ninth Circuit judge from Los Angeles handled hundreds more. The help is welcome but it is not nearly enough. You see, the problem in the Eastern District is not a temporary one. The Eastern District is home to Sacramento, Fresno, and the Central Valley. In 2008, the District included 18 of California's 25 fastest growing counties. The District is also home to 19 of California's State and Federal prisons and to 100,000 of the State's 167,000 prisoners. Since Congress last created a new permanent judgeship in the District in 1978, prisoner filings have skyrocketed 700 percent. The result is that the judges are severely overworked and justice for everyone is delayed. Civil litigants in the District are facing delays of approximately 42 months--that's 3-and-a-half years--from filing to verdict. The situation, put simply, is unacceptable. In 1992, Congress did authorize a 10 year temporary judgeship for the District, but that judgeship expired and despite repeated efforts by Chairman Leahy, Senator Boxer, and myself, it has not been renewed. In the meantime, for the last 12 years, every time the Judicial Conference has surveyed the U.S. Courts it has said that the Eastern District needs more judges, but new judgeships have not been created. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 that Chairman Leahy has introduced today would finally provide a solution. It would authorize four new permanent judgeships and one new temporary judgeship in the Eastern District. This would almost double the number of judges in the District by changing from 6 to 11 judges and would substantially reduce the caseload and delays. This is a necessary solution to a real problem. But the Eastern District is only one example. There are plenty of others. As I said, the Judicial Conference recommends that Congress create a new judgeship whenever there are 430 weighted filings per U.S. District Judge. But according to the 2009 survey of the courts, in the Northern District of California, the judges are handling 624 weighted filings per judge; in the Central District of California, it is 551 per judge; in the Middle District of Florida, it is 569 per judge; in the Southern District of Florida, it is 549 per judge; in the Southern District of Indiana, it is 594 per judge; in the District of Minnesota, it is 743 per judge; in the Eastern District of Texas, it is 674 per judge; in the Southern District of Texas, it is 543 per judge; and in the Western District of Texas, it is 650 per judge. So this is a problem in courts across the country; and it is up to Congress to craft a solution. The last time Congress passed a comprehensive bill to create new judgeships was in 1990. Since that time, case filings across the country in the federal appeals courts have increased by approximately 45 percent, and filings in the district courts have increased by 27 percent. The current situation in the courts is not sustainable. Neither the Eastern District of California nor any other Court should be forced to rely on temporary visits from colleagues who generously offer their help. Districts should have enough judges to handle their caseloads on their own. This Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 is based on recommendations made by the Judicial Conference after an extensive review of case filings and caseload trends in every federal circuit and district court across the country. It is time for Congress to act and give the federal courts the resources they need to ensure a fail and timely trial for every civil and criminal litigant. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009. I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I think it is a critical bill for good government. The bill would create new judgeships in circuit and district courts where they are badly needed. In the U.S. Courts of Appeals, it would create 9 new permanent and 3 new temporary judgeships. In the U.S. District Courts, it would create 38 new permanent and 13 new temporary judgeships. When caseloads get too heavy, the quality of justice in our Nation suffers. Victims of crime are forced to endure long periods of waiting for justice to be done. Citizens are unable to resolve their civil disputes promptly; plaintiffs face long delays in getting damages or restitution for harms they have suffered. Morale plummets for judges and other court staff. I have seen this in my own state, where judges in three of the four Federal districts are overwhelmed with case filings. Let me tell you about one district in particular. In the Eastern District of California, each Federal judge carried a caseload last year of over 1,000 weighted filings. The Judicial Conference of the U.S. recommends that Congress create a new judgeship anytime a district reaches a caseload of 430 cases per judge. But in the Eastern District, the number exceeds 1,000. The situation has become so dire that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stepped in. Last summer, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit sent a letter asking every judge in the Circuit to volunteer to hear approximately 25 cases from the Eastern District to try to get the caseload down. The court has literally brought in Federal judges from all over the country to help deal with the crushing workload. District judges from Alaska, Alabama, and Washington State, as well as from Los Angeles and Oakland, handled hundreds of cases in Sacramento and Fresno last year. A senior Ninth Circuit judge from Los Angeles handled hundreds more. The help is welcome but it is not nearly enough. You see, the problem in the Eastern District is not a temporary one. The Eastern District is home to Sacramento, Fresno, and the Central Valley. In 2008, the District included 18 of California's 25 fastest growing counties. The District is also home to 19 of California's State and Federal prisons and to 100,000 of the State's 167,000 prisoners. Since Congress last created a new permanent judgeship in the District in 1978, prisoner filings have skyrocketed 700 percent. The result is that the judges are severely overworked and justice for everyone is delayed. Civil litigants in the District are facing delays of approximately 42 months--that's 3-and-a-half years--from filing to verdict. The situation, put simply, is unacceptable. In 1992, Congress did authorize a 10 year temporary judgeship for the District, but that judgeship expired and despite repeated efforts by Chairman Leahy, Senator Boxer, and myself, it has not been renewed. In the meantime, for the last 12 years, every time the Judicial Conference has surveyed the U.S. Courts it has said that the Eastern District needs more judges, but new judgeships have not been created. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 that Chairman Leahy has introduced today would finally provide a solution. It would authorize four new permanent judgeships and one new temporary judgeship in the Eastern District. This would almost double the number of judges in the District by changing from 6 to 11 judges and would substantially reduce the caseload and delays. This is a necessary solution to a real problem. But the Eastern District is only one example. There are plenty of others. As I said, the Judicial Conference recommends that Congress create a new judgeship whenever there are 430 weighted filings per U.S. District Judge. But according to the 2009 survey of the courts, in the Northern District of California, the judges are handling 624 weighted filings per judge; in the Central District of California, it is 551 per judge; in the Middle District of Florida, it is 569 per judge; in the Southern District of Florida, it is 549 per judge; in the Southern District of Indiana, it is 594 per judge; in the District of Minnesota, it is 743 per judge; in the Eastern District of Texas, it is 674 per judge; in the Southern District of Texas, it is 543 per judge; and in the Western District of Texas, it is 650 per judge. So this is a problem in courts across the country; and it is up to Congress to craft a solution. The last time Congress passed a comprehensive bill to create new judgeships was in 1990. Since that time, case filings across the country in the federal appeals courts have increased by approximately 45 percent, and filings in the district courts have increased by 27 percent. The current situation in the courts is not sustainable. Neither the Eastern District of California nor any other Court should be forced to rely on temporary visits from colleagues who generously offer their help. Districts should have enough judges to handle their caseloads on their own. This Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 is based on recommendations made by the Judicial Conference after an extensive review of case filings and caseload trends in every federal circuit and district court across the country. It is time for Congress to act and give the federal courts the resources they need to ensure a fail and timely trial for every civil and criminal litigant. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to speak about Mr. Mayorkas' record and what I believe he will bring to the Department of Homeland Security as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. I have known Mr. Mayorkas for many years and am proud to have recommended him to President Clinton for the position of U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. As U.S. attorney, Mr. Mayorkas developed an innovative program to address violent crime by targeting criminals' possession of firearms, prosecuting street gangs, and at the same time developing afterschool programs to help at-risk youth discover and realize their potential. Mr. Mayorkas has also worked directly on dozens of cases and overseen hundreds of attorneys relating to immigration during his tenure as a U.S. attorney. These cases included the prosecution of individuals and rings producing false immigration documents, illegal reentry cases, and alien smuggling conspiracies, among others. For example, in 1999, at the very beginning of his career as U.S. attorney, Mr. Mayorkas prosecuted the ringleader of an Iranian visa forgery operation connected to terrorism. Bahram Tabatabai pleaded guilty to providing material assistance with immigration papers to members of the People's Mujahadeen, a group that the State Department considers a terrorist group. Tabatabai helped overseas foreign nationals obtain fake birth certificates and records to apply for benefits and created false persecution stories for Iranians in the United States to apply for asylum. Mr. Mayorkas also prosecuted Jesse Gardona who at the time was a 15- year veteran of INS--for his role in moving 10 undocumented immigrants from an INS detention facility to an East Los Angeles drop house and demanding as much as $1,800 in ransom from their relatives. The mission of Citizenship and Immigration Services is to establish immigration services, policies, and priorities to preserve America's legacy as a nation of immigrants while ensuring that no one is admitted who is a threat to public safety. Mr. Mayorkas has a record of working to secure our Nation's criminal and immigration laws in the face of increasing gang and border violence--and as travel documents have become less secure, to work to ensure that fraud is no longer prevalent in our immigration system. I am confident that under Mr. Mayorkas' leadership, this administration will work to preserve and increase the integrity of our immigration laws by decreasing fraud and bringing accountability to our immigration system. It is also my belief that Mr. Mayorkas has the vision to lead Citizenship and Immigration Services in the other half of its mission-- to preserve the role of America as a compassionate Nation that treats families and children at our shores humanely and with an eye toward the potential they bring to our Nation. In 1960, Mr. Mayorkas and his family fled Cuba and came to the United States as refugees. Since then, he has lived the American dream and has done so by working on behalf of the American people. Mr. President, with the nomination of Mr. Mayorkas the administration has taken a significant step toward rebuilding public confidence in the secure, fair, and effective administration of our Nation's immigration laws. I urge my colleagues to confirm Mr. Mayorkas today so that DHS will have the leadership in place to get to work on behalf of the American people.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it should be no surprise that my views are not those of the distinguished ranking member of our Judiciary Committee but somewhat different. I have served on this committee for over 16 years now. I have sat through the confirmation hearings of four Supreme Court Justices. I am very proud to say I believe the President made an excellent choice, and I enthusiastically support this nominee. Judge Sotomayor is a warm and intelligent woman. More importantly, though, she is a solid, tested, and mainstream Federal judge. Her personal story is one of hard work. She has risen above all kinds of obstacles, and she has perseverance. She is a role model for women in the law, and I cannot help but feel a sense of enormous pride in her achievements, her nomination, and, hopefully, before the end of the week, her confirmation to be a Supreme Court Justice. As I said at the confirmation hearings, a Supreme Court Justice should possess at least five qualities. One, broad and relevant experience. So how does she stand? You can't find a nominee with better experience than Judge Sotomayor. She has 29\1/2\ years of relevant legal experience, and she has seen the law from all sides. For 4\1/2\ years she was a prosecutor in New York City. She prosecuted murders, robberies, and child pornography cases as an assistant district attorney. She worked with law enforcement officers and victims of crime, and she sent criminals to jail. We heard from the distinguished New York City District Attorney, Mr. Morgenthau, who said he looked for bright young people, and he found her and he heard her story and she had been to Princeton. She graduated summa cum laude. She went to Yale Law School. She was editor of the Law Review. She came to his attention, and he went to recruit her as a prosecutor in New York City. For 8 years after that, she practiced business law as a litigator in a private firm. She worked on complex civil cases involving real estate law, banking law, contracts, and intellectual property law. Then, she was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush--as we might fondly say ``Bush 41''--as a U.S. district court judge for 6 years. She heard roughly 450 cases in the district court up close and personal, where litigants come before the judge and the judge gains a sense of what the Federal court means to an individual. I think that is important to know on the Supreme Court. She saw there firsthand the impact of the law on people before her. Then she was appointed by President Clinton. For 11 years she has been a Federal appellate court judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She has been on the panel for more than 3,000 Federal appeals, and she has authored opinions in more than 600 cases. These 11 years were rigorous and appropriate training ground for the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor will be the only sitting Justice with experience on both the Federal trial and appellate courts, and she has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years. That is a substantial qualification. Secondly, a Supreme Court Justice should have deep knowledge of the law and the Constitution. I believe her broad experience gives her firsthand knowledge of virtually every area of the law. As a prosecutor she tried criminal cases--homicides, assaults, pornography cases--those crimes that destroy lives. As a business lawyer, she examined contracts, represented clients in complex civil litigation, and tried intellectual property disputes. As a district court judge she presided over criminal and civil jury trials; she sentenced defendants; she resolved complicated business disputes; and she reached decisions in discrimination and civil tort cases where people had been unfairly treated, injured, or harmed. Finally, as an appellate judge, she has grappled with the difficult and critical questions that arise when people disagree about what our Constitution and our Federal statutes mean today. So she certainly has ample experience. Third, a Supreme Court Justice should have impeccable judicial temperament and integrity. Anyone who watched Judge Sotomayor at her confirmation hearings has seen her temperament and demeanor firsthand. She is warm, she is patient, and she is extremely intelligent. She sat at that table with a broken ankle up on a box hour after hour and day after day in a hot room listening to members of the Judiciary Committee pepper her with questions. Not at any time did she lose her presence, lose her cool, or show anger. She showed determination and patience and perseverance. I think that means a great deal. At times, the hearings became quite heated, but she would remain calm even in the face of provocative questioning. So I am not surprised the American Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association gave her their highest rating. As one of her Republican-appointed colleagues on the Second Circuit said: ``Sonia Sotomayor is a well-loved colleague on our court. Everybody from every point of view knows she is fair and decent in all her dealings. The fact is, she is truly a superior human being.'' What greater compliment could there be for a prospective Supreme Court nominee? After spending time with her during our one-on-one meeting and participating in her confirmation hearings, I agree. She is a walking, talking example of the very best America can produce. She has overcome adversity. Here is a woman--a child--the product of a poor Puerto Rican family living in a housing project in New York. She is 8 years old, she finds herself with juvenile diabetes. She is 9 years old, her father dies. She goes to school. She struggles with the language. She overcomes it. She graduates from high school. She goes to Princeton. She succeeds in every way, shape, and form, as I said, summa cum laude, and then on to Yale and a member of the Yale Law Review. She overcame adversity and she kept going. She has given back to her country and her community, and she is now on track to become the first Latina Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and only the third woman ever appointed to that Court. I not only will vote for her, I will do so with great pride. Finally, a Supreme Court Justice should exhibit mainstream legal reasoning and a firm commitment to the law. I have heard people say that they don't believe she will follow the law. I sat in the room during those 4 days of hearings. There was never an instance that I saw where she moved away from legal precedent and the law. I have said before, and I say today, I am somewhat concerned about the current Supreme Court. As I see it, conservative activists have succeeded in moving our Court to the right of mainstream American thought. In just the last 2 years, this has been abundantly clear. The Justices have disregarded precedent at an alarming rate, and they have rewritten the law in ways that make clear that they are not just ``calling balls and strikes.'' In 2007, the Court held that a school district cannot consider race when it assigns students to schools--even to ensure any amount of racial diversity. This is Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 551 U.S. 701, 2007. It held that women who were paid less than men had to sue within 180 days--even when they had no way of knowing they were paid less, or they lost their right to back pay. This is Lily Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Inc., 550 U.S. 618, 2007. The occupant of the chair is new to the Senate. One of the first things we did was pass the Lily Ledbetter law to overcome that Supreme Court decision. The Court held for the first time since 1911 that manufacturers could fix minimum prices for their products. This is Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 2007. It held that the Endangered Species Act did not apply to certain Federal actions--even though the Court, in 1978, said the Act had ``no exception.'' This is National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 2007. And it held that Congress could pass a law restricting access to OB/ GYN services for women without including an exception for when a woman's health is at risk. This is Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 2007. That last decision was not only dangerous to a woman's health, it is also contrary to the Court's opinions in Roe, in 1973; in Ashcroft, in 1983; in Casey and Thornburgh, both in 1992; in Carhart I in 2000; and in Ayotte, in 2006. So this Court of conservative activists cast aside precedent and ``super-precedent'' to do essentially what they believe-- not to follow the precedent, which was simply thrust aside. The Supreme Court's shift to the right and discarding of precedent is not just an ivory tower issue either. These decisions have real-life impact. Last week, USA Today reported that older white men, 55 years or older, are losing jobs at the highest rate since the Great Depression. This is Dennis Cauchon, In this Recession, Older White Males See Jobs Fade, USA Today, July 30, 2009. This is troubling. We have a law--the Age Discrimination in Employment Act--that is supposed to protect workers from being laid off because of their age. But 2 months ago, the Supreme Court changed the burden of proof under that law, making it harder for older workers to get protection when they are fired, demoted, or not given a job because of their age. This is Jack Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2009. Let me be clear, in my view, after 16 years on this committee: The Justices on the Supreme Court are not umpires; they do not just call balls and strikes. And they are not computers. It matters who sits on our Supreme Court, and it matters whether they will respect precedent and follow the law. Judge Sotomayor is a nominee with a 17-year record of following the law. She has faithfully applied the law to the facts in case after case. We have a research service called the Congressional Research Service. It is a neutral, respected adjunct to what we do in the Senate and the House. It carries out significant research. They took a look at her record, examined it, and this is what they said: Her decisions do not fall along any ideological spectrum. The most consistent characteristic of her approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis--the upholding of past judicial precedents. When her record is objectively researched by the number one objective research service we have, she has been found to abide by court precedent. They have essentially said she is not an activist, she follows legal precedent. When her confirmation hearing ended, even one Senator who is now voting against Judge Sotomayor said this: I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decisionmaking. This is Senator John Cornyn, Confirmation Hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, July 16, 2009. Judge Sotomayor's mainstream record, her respect for precedent, and her commitment to the law have earned her the support of groups that cut across party lines. She has been endorsed by law enforcement groups, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police; civil rights groups, such as the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights; business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--yes, they have endorsed her; former officials from both parties, including conservative lawyer Kenneth Starr; and legal groups, such as the American Bar Association. This is a nominee with a solid record, with more Federal judicial experience than any nominee in a century, and with widespread support. There are those who oppose her because of a line from a speech she made--one line in 29\1/2\ years of legal experience. Second, there are those who oppose her because of one case. It is the Ricci case--the New Haven case involving firefighters. But Judge Sotomayor was squarely in the mainstream in that case. She followed established precedent. That is what the district court said in an almost 50-page opinion. This is Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, D. Conn. 2006, unpublished opinion. Her second circuit panel unanimously agreed. This is Ricci v. DeStefano, 530 F.3d 87, 2d Cir. 2007. At about the same time, in the U.S. District Court in Tennessee, a judge held that in a nearly identical situation, the Memphis Police Department could replace a promotional exam that it feared was discriminatory. Last year, a three-judge circuit court panel on the Sixth Circuit-- including one judge appointed by President George W. Bush--agreed. This is Oakley v. City of Memphis, No. 07-6274, 6th Cir. 2008, unpublished opinion. So there was agreement on the courts. It is true that five Justices, in a 5-to-4 opinion on the Supreme Court, disagreed, and their decision is now the law of the land. This is Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2009. I was a mayor for 9 years of a difficult city going through a number of affirmative action cases. I can tell you that this ruling has placed cities in what Justice Souter called a ``damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.'' I agree with that. If a city has to prove that it would lose in court before replacing a civil service exam it believes is discriminatory, this jeopardizes virtually any exam they might choose. Finally, and most important, there is the third point of opposition, and that is the National Rifle Association. The NRA actively opposes Judge Sotomayor. They say they are scoring her confirmation vote. They will tell their members that any Senator who votes to confirm Judge Sotomayor has voted against the NRA's priorities. So let's look at that for a minute. The NRA says Judge Sotomayor erred in the case of United States v. Sanchez-Villar, a 2004 case. In this case, an illegal immigrant named Jose Sanchez-Villar was caught dealing crack cocaine and carrying a gun in New York City. This is United States v. Sanchez-Villar, 99 Fed. Appx. 256, 2d Cir. 2004. Those are the facts of the case. A jury convicted. On appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, that to prohibit him from carrying a gun in New York City violated the second amendment. Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues unanimously rejected his argument and upheld the conviction. The NRA is apparently upset that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues did not agree with Mr. Sanchez-Villar's second amendment argument. But in 2004, when this case was decided, the law had been clear for 65 years. The Supreme Court had said in 1939 that the second amendment only related to militia service and judges all across our country had followed that decision for decades. This is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 1939. Would the NRA have preferred that Judge Sotomayor rule against 65 years of settled law and hold that an undocumented drug dealer had a constitutional right to carry a gun in New York City? Do you want that, Mr. President? Do I want that in my State? The answer is absolutely no. The NRA also says Senators should oppose Judge Sotomayor's nomination because of another case, Maloney v. Cuomo. This is Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56, 2d Cir., 2009. There, Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues unanimously upheld a New York law banning a particular Japanese martial arts weapon called nunchakus. The unanimous decision said the second amendment limits only the Federal Government, not the States. Why would Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues say that? Because it was binding Supreme Court law. Look at the decisions: In 1876, the Supreme Court held that the second amendment only applies to the Federal Government. That was United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). It said it again in 1886, in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 1886, and again, in 1984, in Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 1984. The fourth circuit followed that law and said in 1995 that the second amendment only applies to the Federal Government. That case was Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 522, 1995. The Sixth Circuit agreed in 1998, in People's Rights Organization v. City of Columbus, 152 F.3d 522, 1998. Judge Sotomayor's own court, the second circuit, agreed in 2005, in Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 2005. Then last year, Justice Scalia wrote in footnote 23 of the famous Heller opinion: [Our] decisions in Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas reaffirmed that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. That case was District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2008. Justice Scalia is not exactly a liberal Supreme Court Justice, and that is his view: Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas reaffirm that the second amendment only applies to the Federal Government. Finally, just 2 months ago, three Republican appointees on the Seventh Circuit agreed that the second amendment only applies to the Federal Government. They said anyone who doubts this need only read Justice Scalia's opinion. And that case was the National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856, 2009. So once again Judge Sotomayor's decision was squarely in agreement with court after court after court. Some of my colleagues have said that the Ninth Circuit disagreed. It is true that three of its judges did. But last week, the full Ninth Circuit voted to review these three judges' decision and to rehear it as a full court en banc. And that case is Nordyke v. King, No. 07- 15763, En Banc Order, Ninth Circuit, July 29, 2009. The NRA tried its case before the Seventh Circuit and lost. They lost in front of three Republican-appointed judges. Let me summarize. Judge Sonia Sotomayor has 29\1/2\ years of relevant legal experience. She has a 17-year record of following the law. She has experience, temperament, and knowledge. She will be, in my view, a fine Supreme Court Justice. Supreme Court Justices do not merely call balls and strikes; they make decisions that determine whether acts of Congress will stand or fall. They decide how far the law will go to protect the safety and rights of all of us. They have the power to limit or expand civil rights protections. They have great leeway to interpret the laws protecting or limiting a woman's right to choose. And they can expand or limit child pornography laws and campaign finance laws and so many more. I believe Judge Sotomayor is an exceptional person who brings a rich background as a prosecutor, a business lawyer, a trial judge, and appellate court judge. And her 17-year record of judicial temperance shows she will faithfully apply the law. I cannot tell you how proud I will be to vote to confirm her as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I sincerely hope that a dominant majority of my colleagues will do the same. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act. This legislation would authorize a land exchange between the U.S. Forest Service and Solano County to help ensure the continued operation of the juvenile correctional facility and add nearly 80 acres of wilderness quality land to the Mendocino National Forest. Nearly 10 years ago at the suggestion of the Forest Service, Solano County purchased more than 160 acres of wilderness quality land within the Mendocino National Forest--known as Deafy Glade--with the intention of exchanging the land for the Fouts Springs Ranch. This legislation would facilitate that exchange, so that the counties could own the land beneath the facility they operate, and in exchange, the Forest Service would acquire a wilderness quality inholding. Solano County currently operates a youth correctional facility under a Special Use Permit issued by the Forest Service on the Fouts Springs Ranch, which covers approximately 82 acres within the boundaries of the Mendocino National Forest. Solano County owns the infrastructure but leases the land from the Forest Service. Solano County has operated the Fouts Springs Youth Facility pursuant to a joint powers agreement with Yolo and Colusa counties since 1959. The program includes counseling and education, with the goal of giving juveniles the skills to successfully reenter their communities. More than 20 California counties have placed juvenile offenders at Fouts Springs for 6 month, 9 month, or one year periods. The program is viewed as a last resort for youth before being referred to a State prison. Specifically, the legislation I am offering today would authorize the transfer of Fouts Springs Ranch--approximately 82 acres--from the Forest Service to Solano County; and the transfer of more than 160 acres of the Deafy Glade area in Mendocino National Forest from Solano County to the Forest Service. The Fouts Spring youth correctional facility is in need of substantial upgrades, including the replacement of the main water line, electrical system improvements, and renovation of one of the dormitories. However, the County has postponed investing in facility upgrades until the land exchange is finalized and ownership of the Fouts Springs Ranch is transferred to the County. Given the substantial investment already made by Solano County and the importance of the youth rehabilitation services provided by Fouts Springs, I believe the time has come to finalize this land exchange. This legislation would not only help ensure the continued operation of the Fouts Spring youth correctional facility but it would also add nearly 80 acres of wilderness quality land to the Mendocino National Forest. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act. This legislation would authorize a land exchange between the U.S. Forest Service and Solano County to help ensure the continued operation of the juvenile correctional facility and add nearly 80 acres of wilderness quality land to the Mendocino National Forest. Nearly 10 years ago at the suggestion of the Forest Service, Solano County purchased more than 160 acres of wilderness quality land within the Mendocino National Forest--known as Deafy Glade--with the intention of exchanging the land for the Fouts Springs Ranch. This legislation would facilitate that exchange, so that the counties could own the land beneath the facility they operate, and in exchange, the Forest Service would acquire a wilderness quality inholding. Solano County currently operates a youth correctional facility under a Special Use Permit issued by the Forest Service on the Fouts Springs Ranch, which covers approximately 82 acres within the boundaries of the Mendocino National Forest. Solano County owns the infrastructure but leases the land from the Forest Service. Solano County has operated the Fouts Springs Youth Facility pursuant to a joint powers agreement with Yolo and Colusa counties since 1959. The program includes counseling and education, with the goal of giving juveniles the skills to successfully reenter their communities. More than 20 California counties have placed juvenile offenders at Fouts Springs for 6 month, 9 month, or one year periods. The program is viewed as a last resort for youth before being referred to a State prison. Specifically, the legislation I am offering today would authorize the transfer of Fouts Springs Ranch--approximately 82 acres--from the Forest Service to Solano County; and the transfer of more than 160 acres of the Deafy Glade area in Mendocino National Forest from Solano County to the Forest Service. The Fouts Spring youth correctional facility is in need of substantial upgrades, including the replacement of the main water line, electrical system improvements, and renovation of one of the dormitories. However, the County has postponed investing in facility upgrades until the land exchange is finalized and ownership of the Fouts Springs Ranch is transferred to the County. Given the substantial investment already made by Solano County and the importance of the youth rehabilitation services provided by Fouts Springs, I believe the time has come to finalize this land exchange. This legislation would not only help ensure the continued operation of the Fouts Spring youth correctional facility but it would also add nearly 80 acres of wilderness quality land to the Mendocino National Forest. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2009 with Senator Kerry, and our cosponsors: Senators Dodd and Leahy. This is a straightforward bill that shows our veterans the respect that they deserve. Veterans have supported and served our Nation--many at great risk and sacrifice. It is unacceptable for us to allow barriers to exist that make it more difficult for them to exercise their right to vote. The bill that Senator Kerry and I are introducing today would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to take steps to assist veterans with voter registration and to make it easier for them to obtain ballots and cast their votes. The most recent Census data we have--from a 2005 report--indicates that more than 20 percent of our veterans are not registered to vote. That means that almost 5 million veterans do not have an opportunity to cast their ballots. Yet, we have massive VA programs in place that provide veterans with healing and medical care, and ensure that they thrive on their return from military service. In total, there are 1,261 total VA facilities. The Veterans Health Administration operates 155 medical centers, 135 nursing homes, 717 ambulatory care and clinic facilities; 45 residential rehabilitation treatment programs, and 209 vet centers. In those facilities there are as many as 5 million veterans who are not registered to vote. That strikes me as a critical need unmet. Even more disturbing, in certain cases, the VA has been hostile to calls for it to facilitate voter registration and voting. More than 2 years ago, I learned that a Department of Veterans Affairs facility in California had been opposing voter registration services since 2004. I began inquiring and received conflicting answers, but what was clear was that there was no cooperation or work to help veterans that used the facility to vote. In Connecticut, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz defied the VA's directive and tried to gain entry to a West Haven VA facility. She intended to provide nonpartisan voter registration services, as well as to show veterans how to use the new disabled-access voting systems. Guess what. She was turned away at the door. As she was standing outside the door, she met a 91-year-old gentleman, a veteran of World War II. Secretary Bysiewicz asked him if he would like to be registered to vote, and he said that he would. After registering, he made the comment that ``I wanted to do this last year--but there was no-one there to help me.'' That is wholly unacceptable. Last year, throughout the year, Senator Kerry and I exchanged multiple letters with the VA on this issue. We were told that VA officials believed providing voting support or allowing groups to do so would violate the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act, however, prohibits partisan political activities from being conducted by Federal employees, on official time. It has not been interpreted to include nonpartisan voter registration by the Office of Special Counsel, which interprets the Hatch Act. Furthermore, the veterans served by VA facilities are generally not Federal employees. The VA then argued that nonpartisan voter registration services would cause ``disruptions to facility operations.'' That claim is even more dubious. Unless ``Rock the Vote'' comes to VA facilities, voter registration drives are about as tame an activity as you can get. The law allows the Federal Government to choose to assist people with voter registration if the State requests that a federal agency be designated as a registration facility under the National Voter Registration Act and the agency accepts. Several States, including my home State of California, under the leadership of Secretary Bowen, asked the VA designate facilities within their States under the National Voter Registration Act. But they were refused. Finally, after much negotiation, the VA settled on a new and substantially improved policy that allows state and local election officials, as well as nonpartisan groups, access to VA facilities for voter registration as long as they coordinate with the facility. This is a significant improvement, no doubt. I believe, however, that Federal law is still necessary to ensure that these voluntary policies are never rolled back, and that enforcement mechanisms are in place. This is why we are introducing the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2009. The bill would require the VA to provide voter registration forms whenever veterans enroll in the VA health care system, or change their status or address in that system. It would say that VA facilities must assist veterans who have trouble with their voter registration forms in the same way that they help veterans fill out other forms, and it would say that veterans must be able to access and receive assistance with absentee ballots at VA facilities. It would allow nonpartisan groups and election officials to provide nonpartisan voter information and registration services to veterans. And it would allow Attorney General enforcement through civil suits and injunctions and require an annual report to Congress from the Department of Veterans Affairs on progress related to this legislation. It is a cornerstone of our democracy that every eligible citizen should be registered and able to cast their vote. This bill recognizes that nonpartisan and civil rights groups have long played a critical role in helping people with the voter registration process. I believe it is time that we ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs will provide veterans with the support they deserve to register, cast their vote, and have that vote counted. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2009. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2009 with Senator Kerry, and our cosponsors: Senators Dodd and Leahy. This is a straightforward bill that shows our veterans the respect that they deserve. Veterans have supported and served our Nation--many at great risk and sacrifice. It is unacceptable for us to allow barriers to exist that make it more difficult for them to exercise their right to vote. The bill that Senator Kerry and I are introducing today would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to take steps to assist veterans with voter registration and to make it easier for them to obtain ballots and cast their votes. The most recent Census data we have--from a 2005 report--indicates that more than 20 percent of our veterans are not registered to vote. That means that almost 5 million veterans do not have an opportunity to cast their ballots. Yet, we have massive VA programs in place that provide veterans with healing and medical care, and ensure that they thrive on their return from military service. In total, there are 1,261 total VA facilities. The Veterans Health Administration operates 155 medical centers, 135 nursing homes, 717 ambulatory care and clinic facilities; 45 residential rehabilitation treatment programs, and 209 vet centers. In those facilities there are as many as 5 million veterans who are not registered to vote. That strikes me as a critical need unmet. Even more disturbing, in certain cases, the VA has been hostile to calls for it to facilitate voter registration and voting. More than 2 years ago, I learned that a Department of Veterans Affairs facility in California had been opposing voter registration services since 2004. I began inquiring and received conflicting answers, but what was clear was that there was no cooperation or work to help veterans that used the facility to vote. In Connecticut, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz defied the VA's directive and tried to gain entry to a West Haven VA facility. She intended to provide nonpartisan voter registration services, as well as to show veterans how to use the new disabled-access voting systems. Guess what. She was turned away at the door. As she was standing outside the door, she met a 91-year-old gentleman, a veteran of World War II. Secretary Bysiewicz asked him if he would like to be registered to vote, and he said that he would. After registering, he made the comment that ``I wanted to do this last year--but there was no-one there to help me.'' That is wholly unacceptable. Last year, throughout the year, Senator Kerry and I exchanged multiple letters with the VA on this issue. We were told that VA officials believed providing voting support or allowing groups to do so would violate the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act, however, prohibits partisan political activities from being conducted by Federal employees, on official time. It has not been interpreted to include nonpartisan voter registration by the Office of Special Counsel, which interprets the Hatch Act. Furthermore, the veterans served by VA facilities are generally not Federal employees. The VA then argued that nonpartisan voter registration services would cause ``disruptions to facility operations.'' That claim is even more dubious. Unless ``Rock the Vote'' comes to VA facilities, voter registration drives are about as tame an activity as you can get. The law allows the Federal Government to choose to assist people with voter registration if the State requests that a federal agency be designated as a registration facility under the National Voter Registration Act and the agency accepts. Several States, including my home State of California, under the leadership of Secretary Bowen, asked the VA designate facilities within their States under the National Voter Registration Act. But they were refused. Finally, after much negotiation, the VA settled on a new and substantially improved policy that allows state and local election officials, as well as nonpartisan groups, access to VA facilities for voter registration as long as they coordinate with the facility. This is a significant improvement, no doubt. I believe, however, that Federal law is still necessary to ensure that these voluntary policies are never rolled back, and that enforcement mechanisms are in place. This is why we are introducing the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2009. The bill would require the VA to provide voter registration forms whenever veterans enroll in the VA health care system, or change their status or address in that system. It would say that VA facilities must assist veterans who have trouble with their voter registration forms in the same way that they help veterans fill out other forms, and it would say that veterans must be able to access and receive assistance with absentee ballots at VA facilities. It would allow nonpartisan groups and election officials to provide nonpartisan voter information and registration services to veterans. And it would allow Attorney General enforcement through civil suits and injunctions and require an annual report to Congress from the Department of Veterans Affairs on progress related to this legislation. It is a cornerstone of our democracy that every eligible citizen should be registered and able to cast their vote. This bill recognizes that nonpartisan and civil rights groups have long played a critical role in helping people with the voter registration process. I believe it is time that we ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs will provide veterans with the support they deserve to register, cast their vote, and have that vote counted. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2009. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman and my Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia's pilot scholarship program for 5 more years. This important program currently provides scholarships to 1,700 low- income children who attend 49 private schools in the District. The scholarships of up to $7,500 help these students pay for tuition and transportation expenses to school. However, if the program is not extended soon, children will not be able to continue their education at the schools of their choice. This legislation would: Extend the life of the District of Columbia's pilot scholarship program for five more years. Increase the program's funding to $20 million for fiscal year 2010 and as may be necessary the following four years to allow new students to participate in the program and provide a higher scholarship. Increase the scholarship amount to $9,000 for children in kindergarten through 8th grade, and $11,000 for youngsters in high school--this amount is still lower than the $15,500 cost of educating a public school student in the District and will help low-income families afford the high cost of private school tuition. Protect low-income families whose children are already in the program from ``earning out'' of it by setting the maximum income level for them at 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, about $63,000 for a family of four. However, it maintains the current income eligibility requirement for students to enter the program of 185 percent of poverty, $41,000 for a family of four. It would improve evaluation by assessing students' college admission rates, school safety, and the reasons why parents choose to participate in program to better learn about its impact on children's lives and their families. It would give priority for awarding scholarships also to students whose household includes a sibling or other child already participating in the program. When students entered the program 5 years ago, they were performing in the bottom third on reading and math tests. Students are now improving academically--despite the many challenges that these children face outside the classroom living in some of the District's toughest neighborhoods. The most recent evaluation from this past April by the Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences found that although math test scores have not increased so far, there are significant gains being made in reading test scores. Specifically, pilot program students scored 4.5 points higher in reading on the SAT-9 national standardized test with a total score of 635.4 when compared to the District's public school students' score of 630.9. This means students are making gains in reading test scores by the equivalent of 3 months of additional schooling, and moved to the 35th percentile on the SAT-9 from the 33rd percentile where they were before entering the program. These youngsters still have much more catching up to do, but they are improving and this is important. I believe the results of the more comprehensive evaluation of student performance that will be released next spring are critical. Next year's evaluation will also include important data on the program's impact on students' college enrollment and how the District's public schools are changing in response to the pilot program. I would like to share two examples of how the program has helped to change the lives of the District's most disadvantaged youngsters and give them a chance to succeed. Shirley-Ann Tomdio is the 8th grade Valedictorian at Sacred Heart Middle School, located in the District's neighborhood of Columbia Heights. The scholarship allowed Shirley-Ann to attend Sacred Heart School for the past four years since 5th grade. She will be attending Georgetown Visitation in September for high school. She wants to go to college and become a surgeon. Shirley-Ann said at her 8th grade graduation speech this past June: The D.C. OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] is important to me because without it I wouldn't be able to receive the best education possible. It should continue so that my brother, sister, and other students get the same chance. Every child should get the chance to go to a good school. Oscar Machado is a graduate of Archbishop Carroll High School where he was on Honor Roll. Oscar is attending Mount Saint Mary's University in Maryland in the fall and plans to major in biology. He received three college scholarships that will cover nearly all of this tuition. He was in the pilot program for 4 years. At Archbishop Carroll High, he was President of the Robotics Team where he used pre-engineering skills to build robots, and also played the saxophone in the school band. When speaking of his experience as a D.C. Opportunity Scholarship recipient Oscar said: The scholarship was great. It gave me the opportunity to attend a school I otherwise couldn't have attended. Oscar hopes that the same opportunity should be available to other students. We should listen to students like Oscar and Shirley-Ann, and continue to provide this important program to the District's neediest children. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman and my Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia's pilot scholarship program for 5 more years. This important program currently provides scholarships to 1,700 low- income children who attend 49 private schools in the District. The scholarships of up to $7,500 help these students pay for tuition and transportation expenses to school. However, if the program is not extended soon, children will not be able to continue their education at the schools of their choice. This legislation would: Extend the life of the District of Columbia's pilot scholarship program for five more years. Increase the program's funding to $20 million for fiscal year 2010 and as may be necessary the following four years to allow new students to participate in the program and provide a higher scholarship. Increase the scholarship amount to $9,000 for children in kindergarten through 8th grade, and $11,000 for youngsters in high school--this amount is still lower than the $15,500 cost of educating a public school student in the District and will help low-income families afford the high cost of private school tuition. Protect low-income families whose children are already in the program from ``earning out'' of it by setting the maximum income level for them at 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, about $63,000 for a family of four. However, it maintains the current income eligibility requirement for students to enter the program of 185 percent of poverty, $41,000 for a family of four. It would improve evaluation by assessing students' college admission rates, school safety, and the reasons why parents choose to participate in program to better learn about its impact on children's lives and their families. It would give priority for awarding scholarships also to students whose household includes a sibling or other child already participating in the program. When students entered the program 5 years ago, they were performing in the bottom third on reading and math tests. Students are now improving academically--despite the many challenges that these children face outside the classroom living in some of the District's toughest neighborhoods. The most recent evaluation from this past April by the Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences found that although math test scores have not increased so far, there are significant gains being made in reading test scores. Specifically, pilot program students scored 4.5 points higher in reading on the SAT-9 national standardized test with a total score of 635.4 when compared to the District's public school students' score of 630.9. This means students are making gains in reading test scores by the equivalent of 3 months of additional schooling, and moved to the 35th percentile on the SAT-9 from the 33rd percentile where they were before entering the program. These youngsters still have much more catching up to do, but they are improving and this is important. I believe the results of the more comprehensive evaluation of student performance that will be released next spring are critical. Next year's evaluation will also include important data on the program's impact on students' college enrollment and how the District's public schools are changing in response to the pilot program. I would like to share two examples of how the program has helped to change the lives of the District's most disadvantaged youngsters and give them a chance to succeed. Shirley-Ann Tomdio is the 8th grade Valedictorian at Sacred Heart Middle School, located in the District's neighborhood of Columbia Heights. The scholarship allowed Shirley-Ann to attend Sacred Heart School for the past four years since 5th grade. She will be attending Georgetown Visitation in September for high school. She wants to go to college and become a surgeon. Shirley-Ann said at her 8th grade graduation speech this past June: The D.C. OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] is important to me because without it I wouldn't be able to receive the best education possible. It should continue so that my brother, sister, and other students get the same chance. Every child should get the chance to go to a good school. Oscar Machado is a graduate of Archbishop Carroll High School where he was on Honor Roll. Oscar is attending Mount Saint Mary's University in Maryland in the fall and plans to major in biology. He received three college scholarships that will cover nearly all of this tuition. He was in the pilot program for 4 years. At Archbishop Carroll High, he was President of the Robotics Team where he used pre-engineering skills to build robots, and also played the saxophone in the school band. When speaking of his experience as a D.C. Opportunity Scholarship recipient Oscar said: The scholarship was great. It gave me the opportunity to attend a school I otherwise couldn't have attended. Oscar hopes that the same opportunity should be available to other students. We should listen to students like Oscar and Shirley-Ann, and continue to provide this important program to the District's neediest children. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prevent the cruel and unsportsmanlike practice of hunting from airplanes. This practice undermines the hunting principle of a fair chase and often leads to a slow and painful death for the hunted animals. I firmly believe that slaughter must be the very last option when it comes to wildlife management. Moreover, if slaughter must be carried out, it should be done in the most humane method possible. In my opinion, allowing private citizens to hunt from airplanes runs contrary to this belief. Specifically, the Protect America's Wildlife Act closes the loophole in current law that allows private citizens to hunt from aircraft. It limits airborne hunting to employees of state fish and wildlife agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior. It eliminates the practice of ``land-and-shoot'' hunting by prohibiting the chasing or exhausting of animals from an aircraft. It provides an exception to allow airborne hunting during biological emergencies, which is defined as a case where a wildlife population's sustainability is significantly threatened by an excess of predators. It also ensures that this exception only applies to when it is the only way to prevent a biological emergency, and limits the number of animals killed to a minimum. Finally, it increases fines for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act from $5,000 to $50,000. It does not preclude States or Federal agencies from carrying out responsible wildlife management programs. Congress initially passed the Airborne Hunting Act of 1971 as a result of the public's reaction to film of this practice broadcast over television. Currently, a loophole in the Airborne Hunting Act permits States to allow private citizens to engage in airborne hunting of wildlife--in most cases wolves and bears--under the guise of wildlife management. It was clear in the 1970's, as it is now, that airborne hunting is inhumane and must be stopped. In my opinion, aerial hunting methods are cruel and unnecessary for wildlife management--and undermine the principles of sportsmanship. Since 2003, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed from the air in the State of Alaska. According to the animal welfare group the Defenders of Wildlife, more than 250 wolves have been shot dead during the current hunting season alone. Aerial hunting is typically carried out in one of two ways: In the first method, a hunter will shoot the wolf directly from the aircraft while flying overhead. This frequently wounds the wolf, leading to a slow, painful death. In the second method, known as ``land-and-shoot,'' a hunter flying in an aircraft will chase the wolf until it is exhausted, land, and kill the animal from point-blank range. So, I am introducing a bill today to close the airborne hunting loophole that allows it to continue. This legislation would not impinge on legitimate hunting rights. This bill does not prohibit the use of airplanes for transportation. A hunter would still be able to legally fly anywhere, anytime, and hunt as they otherwise would. Further, all other legal methods of transportation or hunting may also continue: on foot, by snowmobile, by all-terrain vehicle, etc. The State of Alaska, where airborne hunting is more prevalent, argues that wolf populations must be limited to support sustainable levels of moose and caribou. The State continues to carry out airborne hunting by private citizens with authority from the State Department of Game, which argues that the moose and caribou populations must be increased. It is estimated that the State's resident hunters alone contribute roughly $662 million annually to the economy. The hunting industry also sustains 10,000 jobs. With this in mind, it is certainly not my intention to prevent Alaska, or any other state for that matter, from maintaining a robust hunting and tourism industry. This is a balanced bill that will enable states to responsibly manage wildlife populations, while banning the most egregious cases of aerial hunting by civilians. It limits the practice of airborne hunting to employees of State and Federal wildlife agencies without impinging on legitimate sport hunting practices. It is also supported by former members of the Alaska Board of Game that agree this practice should be controlled. I became concerned about inhumane wildlife management practices due to the slaughter of nonnative deer in my own State. Beginning in the summer of 2007, the National Park Service began culling Axis and Fallow deer at Point Reyes National Seashore near San Francisco. This inhumane shooting resulted in a number of deer dying slow and painful deaths. Some were left to rot in the Park. Hundreds of constituents from the Bay Area raised an outcry about this practice and I am pleased that the National Park Service has stopped slaughtering the deer. In conclusion, this bill prohibits the cruel practice of aerial sport hunting, while safeguarding the rights of legitimate hunters and allowing States and the Federal Government to maintain responsible wildlife management. I am certainly open to the suggestions of my colleagues who have ideas for improving this legislation and look forward to working with them to pass it quickly. 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 legislation to prevent the cruel and unsportsmanlike practice of hunting from airplanes. This practice undermines the hunting principle of a fair chase and often leads to a slow and painful death for the hunted animals. I firmly believe that slaughter must be the very last option when it comes to wildlife management. Moreover, if slaughter must be carried out, it should be done in the most humane method possible. In my opinion, allowing private citizens to hunt from airplanes runs contrary to this belief. Specifically, the Protect America's Wildlife Act closes the loophole in current law that allows private citizens to hunt from aircraft. It limits airborne hunting to employees of state fish and wildlife agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior. It eliminates the practice of ``land-and-shoot'' hunting by prohibiting the chasing or exhausting of animals from an aircraft. It provides an exception to allow airborne hunting during biological emergencies, which is defined as a case where a wildlife population's sustainability is significantly threatened by an excess of predators. It also ensures that this exception only applies to when it is the only way to prevent a biological emergency, and limits the number of animals killed to a minimum. Finally, it increases fines for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act from $5,000 to $50,000. It does not preclude States or Federal agencies from carrying out responsible wildlife management programs. Congress initially passed the Airborne Hunting Act of 1971 as a result of the public's reaction to film of this practice broadcast over television. Currently, a loophole in the Airborne Hunting Act permits States to allow private citizens to engage in airborne hunting of wildlife--in most cases wolves and bears--under the guise of wildlife management. It was clear in the 1970's, as it is now, that airborne hunting is inhumane and must be stopped. In my opinion, aerial hunting methods are cruel and unnecessary for wildlife management--and undermine the principles of sportsmanship. Since 2003, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed from the air in the State of Alaska. According to the animal welfare group the Defenders of Wildlife, more than 250 wolves have been shot dead during the current hunting season alone. Aerial hunting is typically carried out in one of two ways: In the first method, a hunter will shoot the wolf directly from the aircraft while flying overhead. This frequently wounds the wolf, leading to a slow, painful death. In the second method, known as ``land-and-shoot,'' a hunter flying in an aircraft will chase the wolf until it is exhausted, land, and kill the animal from point-blank range. So, I am introducing a bill today to close the airborne hunting loophole that allows it to continue. This legislation would not impinge on legitimate hunting rights. This bill does not prohibit the use of airplanes for transportation. A hunter would still be able to legally fly anywhere, anytime, and hunt as they otherwise would. Further, all other legal methods of transportation or hunting may also continue: on foot, by snowmobile, by all-terrain vehicle, etc. The State of Alaska, where airborne hunting is more prevalent, argues that wolf populations must be limited to support sustainable levels of moose and caribou. The State continues to carry out airborne hunting by private citizens with authority from the State Department of Game, which argues that the moose and caribou populations must be increased. It is estimated that the State's resident hunters alone contribute roughly $662 million annually to the economy. The hunting industry also sustains 10,000 jobs. With this in mind, it is certainly not my intention to prevent Alaska, or any other state for that matter, from maintaining a robust hunting and tourism industry. This is a balanced bill that will enable states to responsibly manage wildlife populations, while banning the most egregious cases of aerial hunting by civilians. It limits the practice of airborne hunting to employees of State and Federal wildlife agencies without impinging on legitimate sport hunting practices. It is also supported by former members of the Alaska Board of Game that agree this practice should be controlled. I became concerned about inhumane wildlife management practices due to the slaughter of nonnative deer in my own State. Beginning in the summer of 2007, the National Park Service began culling Axis and Fallow deer at Point Reyes National Seashore near San Francisco. This inhumane shooting resulted in a number of deer dying slow and painful deaths. Some were left to rot in the Park. Hundreds of constituents from the Bay Area raised an outcry about this practice and I am pleased that the National Park Service has stopped slaughtering the deer. In conclusion, this bill prohibits the cruel practice of aerial sport hunting, while safeguarding the rights of legitimate hunters and allowing States and the Federal Government to maintain responsible wildlife management. I am certainly open to the suggestions of my colleagues who have ideas for improving this legislation and look forward to working with them to pass it quickly. 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 No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009. This bill would close a loophole that currently exists in law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. I imagine that most Americans may be surprised--as I was--to learn that foreign felons actually have greater gun rights than American citizens convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence in our own courts. In 1968, Congress passed the landmark Gun Control Act, ensuring that it was illegal for felons to possess firearms. I have been working since 1994 to build upon that legacy and protect American families from senseless gun violence. Unfortunately, in 2005 the Supreme Court created a gaping loophole in this longstanding felon-in-possession law. In the case of Small v. United States, a majority of the Court held that foreign felony is not a bar to gun possession when those felons come to the U.S. At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could lead to unintended consequences. Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' The majority of the Court identified a fundamental flaw in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Simply put, Congress was not clear enough. Although the law states that a person convicted of a felony ``in any court'' could not possess a firearm, the Court said that the phrase, ``any court,'' applied only to American courts. The federal felon-in-possession laws outlined in the Gun Control Act of 1968 has been applied to foreign felons from 1968 until the Small decision in 2005. However, the Court found these arguments unpersuasive. In their dissent, Justices Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy accused the majority of creating a novel legal construction that would ``wreak havoc'' with established rules of extraterritorial construction. But whatever we may think of the Court's legal analysis, there is no doubt that the Small decision is now the law of the land. We must now make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the only way to do that is to pass the No Firearms for Foreign Fellons Act of 2009. The bill I am introducing today would do just that. Under this bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is amended to ensure that convictions in foreign courts are included. Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act, where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law''--the bill would expand these terms to include convictions for felony offenses committed abroad. In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone is convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a firearm in the U.S. the same laws relating to gun possession would be applied. As introduced, the only exception would involve a conviction in a foreign court that was invalid. In that specific situation, this bill would allow a person convicted in a foreign court to challenge its validity. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' for purposes of the felon-in-possession laws, if the foreign conviction either: resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or, if the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the U.S. I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account, and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction under these specific circumstances. The need for action is clear. In 2001, U.S. law enforcement outfitted in bullet proof vests raided the New York City hotel room of Rohan Ingram. Ingram was found with 13 different firearms, had an extensive criminal background, including at least 18 convictions for crimes such as assault and use of deadly weapon. He was known to law enforcement as ``armed and dangerous'' and they rightfully took all of the necessary precautions to protect themselves. However, because all of his crimes had occurred in Canada, his felon-in-possession of a firearm charge was eventually thrown out of court. This is a direct result of the Supreme Court case and illustrates a very dangerous loophole in our criminal justice system. What we need to do as an institution is clear. We cannot keep in place a policy that allows felons convicted overseas to possess firearms. It simply makes no sense. In a country filled with senseless gun violence, we cannot continue to give foreign-convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists an unlimited right to buy firearms and U.S. assault weapons in the U.S. 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 No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2009. This bill would close a loophole that currently exists in law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. I imagine that most Americans may be surprised--as I was--to learn that foreign felons actually have greater gun rights than American citizens convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence in our own courts. In 1968, Congress passed the landmark Gun Control Act, ensuring that it was illegal for felons to possess firearms. I have been working since 1994 to build upon that legacy and protect American families from senseless gun violence. Unfortunately, in 2005 the Supreme Court created a gaping loophole in this longstanding felon-in-possession law. In the case of Small v. United States, a majority of the Court held that foreign felony is not a bar to gun possession when those felons come to the U.S. At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could lead to unintended consequences. Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' The majority of the Court identified a fundamental flaw in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Simply put, Congress was not clear enough. Although the law states that a person convicted of a felony ``in any court'' could not possess a firearm, the Court said that the phrase, ``any court,'' applied only to American courts. The federal felon-in-possession laws outlined in the Gun Control Act of 1968 has been applied to foreign felons from 1968 until the Small decision in 2005. However, the Court found these arguments unpersuasive. In their dissent, Justices Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy accused the majority of creating a novel legal construction that would ``wreak havoc'' with established rules of extraterritorial construction. But whatever we may think of the Court's legal analysis, there is no doubt that the Small decision is now the law of the land. We must now make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the only way to do that is to pass the No Firearms for Foreign Fellons Act of 2009. The bill I am introducing today would do just that. Under this bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is amended to ensure that convictions in foreign courts are included. Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act, where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law''--the bill would expand these terms to include convictions for felony offenses committed abroad. In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone is convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a firearm in the U.S. the same laws relating to gun possession would be applied. As introduced, the only exception would involve a conviction in a foreign court that was invalid. In that specific situation, this bill would allow a person convicted in a foreign court to challenge its validity. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' for purposes of the felon-in-possession laws, if the foreign conviction either: resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or, if the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the U.S. I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account, and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction under these specific circumstances. The need for action is clear. In 2001, U.S. law enforcement outfitted in bullet proof vests raided the New York City hotel room of Rohan Ingram. Ingram was found with 13 different firearms, had an extensive criminal background, including at least 18 convictions for crimes such as assault and use of deadly weapon. He was known to law enforcement as ``armed and dangerous'' and they rightfully took all of the necessary precautions to protect themselves. However, because all of his crimes had occurred in Canada, his felon-in-possession of a firearm charge was eventually thrown out of court. This is a direct result of the Supreme Court case and illustrates a very dangerous loophole in our criminal justice system. What we need to do as an institution is clear. We cannot keep in place a policy that allows felons convicted overseas to possess firearms. It simply makes no sense. In a country filled with senseless gun violence, we cannot continue to give foreign-convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists an unlimited right to buy firearms and U.S. assault weapons in the U.S. 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. I rise today to speak in strong opposition to this amendment. If passed, this amendment would require States like California to allow people with concealed weapon permits from other States to carry a concealed gun, or guns, even if they have failed to meet California's stringent requirements for obtaining a permit. Over 4 million people hold concealed weapon permits in the United States, so this is no minor shift in policy. In fact, it would be a sweeping change with deadly consequences. It completely undermines the rights of State government to protect public safety. This amendment essentially overturns the standards and regulations that many States have enacted to prevent concealed weapons from falling into the wrong hands. This is not a philosophical debate, it is a matter of life and death. My home State, California, sets a very high bar for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit. It does not honor permits granted elsewhere. In fact, only 40,000 permits have been granted in California and we have a population of 38.2 million people. Contrast that with Florida, a State of about half the size at 18 million people--it has 580,000 permits; Georgia has 300,000 permits. Let me repeat, California, the nation's most populace State, has but 40,000 concealed carry permits. California's strict rules ensure that felons, the mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses or are considered a threat to others are automatically disqualified. Those who do meet these qualifications do not automatically receive a permit. Specifically, in order to obtain a concealed weapon permit in California, an applicant must, No. 1, undergo fingerprinting and pass through a Federal background check; No. 2, complete a course of gun training; No. 3, be considered a person of good moral character by the local sheriff; and No. 4, just as importantly, demonstrate a good cause for needing a concealed weapon permit. This gives State and local authorities the discretion. This amendment will force California to honor permits issued by all other States, including those which allow minors, convicted criminals, and people with no firearm safety training to carry concealed weapons. Only the time, place, and manner requirements of a State would remain intact under the Thune amendment. For example, if the State of South Carolina had a law making it illegal to carry a weapon into an office building that was government owned, that law would still be valid for all out-of-State concealed carry permit holders. However, this is a very narrow exception. This isn't just bad policy, it is extremely dangerous policy. The Thune amendment is designed to undermine the rights of States to determine their own rules and regulations for concealed weapons permits. Here we have people who believe in States rights. Yet when it comes to something they really want, they are willing to pounce on States rights and destroy them. California's standards, I admit, are tougher than most, but many other States routinely deny concealed weapon permits for various reasons: 31 States prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed carry permits; 35 States prohibit persons convicted of misdemeanors from carrying concealed weapons; 31 States require completion of gun safety programs. The Thune amendment obliterates all of these public safety standards. It is important to note that 12 States voluntarily honor concealed weapon permits carried in any other State. Another 25 States recognize permits issued by States with similar or equivalent concealed weapon permits standards. But 11 States, including California, choose not to recognize any out-of-State permits. These States have made a choice about what is best for their citizens, and that choice ought to be respected. This amendment says that the views of California's Governor, sheriffs, police, and its citizens don't matter, but the views of those who promote guns do matter. I cannot accept that. If this amendment were to pass, it would possibly allow those with concealed weapon permits to bring one or more banned assault weapons into our State. We have consulted with the Congressional Research Service, and they state the following: The amendment would appear to have a preemptive effect on State reciprocity laws or regulations because it would appear to require those States which have more stringent eligibility requirements for concealed carry to recognize the permits of other States where the eligibility requirements are less stringent. It could be argued that the language of this amendment is broad enough such that it would allow certain firearms that are banned from purchase or possession in one State to be brought into that State. For example, one could legally purchase, possess, and carry a concealed permit for a firearm that is banned in States like California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. That is not my statement, that is the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. This amendment would put in jeopardy States' assault weapons control laws. I don't know whether that was intended, but this is a very broad and vague piece of legislation that is being debated. If this amendment is agreed to, I believe assault weapons will be brought into California and other border States. These weapons could end up being smuggled into Mexico. Some say, that an armed society is a polite society, and they portray concealed weapon carriers as responsible citizens who are simply exercising their rights. Earlier this morning on television, I heard a Senator say that only good, responsible people have these permits. That simply is not true. Let me give an example. In April, Richard Poplawski killed three Pittsburgh police officers. He had the right to carry a weapon in Pennsylvania even though he was the subject of a restraining order filed by an ex-girlfriend. In March, Michael McLendon killed 11 people, including the wife of a deputy sheriff, before taking his own life following a gun battle with police in Alabama. He too, had a concealed weapon permit. When I hear people on television saying only the good people get these permits, that is simply not true. In my view, these unstable men should never have been permitted to own any weapon for any reason. Lastly, in February of this year, Frank Garcia killed four people in a shooting rampage in upstate New York. He held a concealed weapon permit in that State. This year, too many people have been killed by those who have the right to carry a concealed weapon. We do not want other State's concealed weapons permitees in the State of California. We have 38 million people. It is a diverse, disparate population. Guns do not help. I believe it is unlikely these men would have obtained concealed weapon permits in my State and, candidly, we want to keep it that way. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of our State, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposes this amendment, along with 400 U.S. mayors and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe the amendment is reckless. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence in the streets of our Nation. I hope and pray this body will turn down this very ill-advised amendment. I yield the floor.