Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Corker, Casey, Grassley, Kerry, Levin, Menendez, and Kohl, to speak about our amendment to strengthen the underlying bill's protections for young consumers, and help address the growing problem of college student indebtedness. During this severe economic crisis and credit crunch, many Americans--especially college students with limited incomes--find themselves relying on credit cards more than ever before. Our amendment will place commonsense restrictions on credit card marketing to college students; provide for increased transparency in university marketing deals with credit card issuers; and, protect students from some common credit traps. This amendment achieves four essential objectives. It will: (1) prohibit credit card companies from offering gifts to students in exchange for completing credit card applications; (2) require universities to publicly disclose marketing agreements made with credit card issuers; (3) require credit card companies to report how much money they are giving to schools and alumni associations through these agreements, and what they receive from the universities in exchange; and, (4) call upon the Government Accountability Office to study the extent of these deals and their impact on student credit card debt. The growing reliance of college students on credit cards, and the staggering credit card debt that many students accumulate by the time they graduate, underscores the need for this amendment. According to a report released earlier this year by Sallie Mae: 84 percent of all undergraduates have at least one credit card; the average student has more than four credit cards; 9 out of 10 college students use credit cards for direct educational expenses, and 30 percent charge some tuition to their cards; the average balance for these students is $3,173--and 82 percent of college students carry a balance each month which requires them to pay finance charges. Nearly one in five college seniors hold $7,000 or more in credit card debt. A study by U.S. Public Interest Research Group found that college students' credit card balances have soared 134 percent in the past 10 years. The study also found that 76 percent of college students reported stopping at a table on or near campus advertising credit cards, and that nearly a third of students were offered a free gift in exchange for signing up. Credit card companies lure cash-strapped students with all kinds of offers. Free food. T-shirts--the most-common inducement. Frisbees. Candy. Even iPods. All for filling out a credit card application. More than a dozen States currently restrict credit card marketing on college campuses. In California, credit-card marketers can't lure students with free gifts; in Oklahoma, colleges can no longer sell student information for credit-card marketing purposes; and, in Texas, on-campus credit-card marketing may only occur on limited days in certain locations. With credit card companies aiming their marketing more and more at students, we are seeing colleges and universities increasingly entering partnership agreements with these companies. These agreements produce millions in revenue for colleges and universities, while banks get exclusive marketing access and student contact information. As State funding shrinks for public universities, such deals grow. We don't know much about the agreements between credit card companies and universities. But we do know that schools often receive large cash payments in exchange for providing students' personal information, including permanent addresses, e-mail addresses and phone numbers. This enables companies to target students with precision. Some contracts even pay universities if students have a balance on the card after 12 months, which suggests some universities stand to profit from the debt carried by their students. The sheer scale of these contracts is astounding: Michigan State has an $8.4 million contract with Bank of America; and, the University of Tennessee has a $10 million contract with Chase. Bank of America has agreements with nearly 700 colleges and alumni associations. Virtually every major university boasts a multimillion-dollar affinity relationship with a credit-card company. It is vital that schools make these agreements public. Colleges should not encourage their students to sign up for products with high interest rates and fees that could get them bogged down in debt. These arrangements can get students, who are just starting out, into deep trouble that can stay with them for decades. This is shameful. The underlying bill provides much-needed safeguards for young consumers, who too often do not have the financial knowledge and experience to manage their credit wisely. I commend Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for their leadership in crafting this well-balanced legislation. Under this bill, issuers are required to obtain a cosigner or income verification for anyone under age 21 that applies for a credit card. And, prescreened offers of credit to young consumers under age 21 will be limited. Issuers also will not be allowed to increase the credit limit on accounts where a cosigner--such as a parent or guardian--is liable unless the cosigner authorizes the increase. These provisions will play an important role in protecting college students, and all young consumers, from deceptive practices. Our amendment will enhance these protections. Developing good credit is essential, and it is difficult to develop good credit without holding credit cards. When used responsibly, credit cards are convenient, and provide purchasing power that otherwise may not be available. But many students begin using credit cards with highly unfavorable terms, and end up ruining their credit. Shining a light on the agreements between universities and credit card issuers not only makes good sense. It may also act as a deterrent to deals with highly unfavorable terms for students. Parents, students and the public should be aware of what kind of deals are in place and why they exist. Also, this amendment will address the incentive of the free gift for signing up for a credit card. Too often, students sign up for credit cards to receive a free gift, and then have difficulty canceling the card, or may face hidden fees and charges. I urge my colleagues to join us in putting in place these commonsense restrictions to protect college students across this Nation. Mr. President, I would like to say a word about the minimum payment disclosure provisions in this bill. When we considered the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in 2005, we said that our goal was to balance fairness, and responsibility. I agreed with this goal, but in the end, I voted against the bill because I did not believe it achieved that balance. Since that time, I have continued to say that we need to do more to protect Americans from abusive credit practices and to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make good, informed financial decisions. In every Congress since 2005, I have introduced a bill to require credit card companies to disclose what the real financial effects are when a consumer makes only the minimum monthly payment on her credit card balance each month. I am very pleased that Senators Dodd and Shelby have included similar provisions in the credit card bill that we are considering today. The bill requires that all credit card statements include a general warning about the effects of making minimum payments, personalized information showing a cardholder exactly how much it will cost and how long it will take to pay off their balance if they make only the minimum payment each month, and a phone number that consumers can call to get a reliable credit counseling referral. I am confident that these warnings will make a significant difference for consumers. I think we are all familiar with minimum monthly payments--this is the amount listed at the top of your credit card statement that you have to pay each month to avoid a fee. What people are less familiar with though, is the effect of these minimum payments. Let me give you an example. In November 2008, according to USA Today, the average American had $10,678 in credit card debt. Now let's take a family holding that amount of debt at this week's average interest rate of 10.78 percent. If that family consumer made only a 2 percent minimum payment on their bill each month, it would take them over 28 years and a total of $19,144 to pay that card off. And that is assuming they didn't ever charge another penny to the card--no cash advances, no gas purchases, no trips to the mall. In the end, the consumer would have paid $8,466 in interest on slightly over $10,000 in debt. And 10.78 percent is a relatively low rate for many Americans. Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon, and penalty interest rates can reach as high as 32 percent. Consumers need to know how these amounts add up. Let me tell you one more troubling thing about minimum payments. In December, the Economist reported on a study done on these requirements. In the study, a psychologist at a British university gave 413 people fake credit card bills. All of the bills said the person owed about $650 total, but half of them listed a minimum payment of around $8. The other half made no mention at all of a minimum payment. What the study found was that when the minimum amount was listed, people were inclined to pay less of their total bill. In fact, among people who chose not to pay their full balance, people paid 43 percent less when they saw a minimum payment amount on their bill. Behavioral economists describe this as a ``nudge'': By showing the minimum amount, the statement ``nudged'' the consumer to pay less than he or she would have otherwise. Now obviously, this is good for the credit card company--the consumer ends up paying less each month but more in interest over time, and that's how the credit card companies make their profits. But this is terrible for consumers, who can end up underwater, with huge balances owed, and not understand how they got there. People need to know the effects of making minimum monthly payments, and this bill will finally require credit card companies to show them. I believe the disclosure requirements in the bill will go a long way toward helping consumers make good financial decisions and helping them to avoid ending up in bankruptcy. So I want to commend my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, for their hard work on the bill before us today. These warnings have been a long time in coming, and I will be very pleased to see them enacted into law. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe it is fair to say that there is a farm emergency in this country. Some of it is caused by drought, including out West where California has had, for 3 years, a very serious drought. But most of it is caused by the absence of farm labor--labor to help plant, prune, and harvest. Many of us have listened to farm bureaus throughout the country, spoken with farmers who are losing land, fallowing land, and leasing land abroad. I think the time has come to do something about it. Today, with 16 cosponsors, I am introducing an agricultural worker bill known as AgJOBS. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Boxer, Dodd, Lieberman, Bingaman, Feingold, Murray, Kerry, Bill Nelson, Kaufman, Casey, Cantwell, and Levin. It would provide farmers with the stable, legal workforce they deserve by reforming the broken H-2A seasonal worker program and offering a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants already employed or who have been employed on American farms. This bill is supported by more than 200 agricultural coalition and immigration reform groups throughout the Nation. Since I last came to the floor to talk about a solution to this crisis, it has only grown. The bill is necessary, and I believe Congress must act now to save America's agriculture industry. Today across the United States, there are not enough agricultural workers to do the pruning, picking, packing, and harvesting of our country's crops. With an inadequate supply of workers, farmers from Maine to California, from Washington State to Georgia, have watched their produce rot in fields, and have been forced to fallow close to half a million acres of land, and billions of dollars are being drained out of our economy as a result. Farmers are downsizing their operations. Many are buying or leasing land in Mexico. Others are going out of business. Quite clearly, the labor situation facing the American farmer is an emergency. So some ask: Why don't American farmers hire Americans to do their work? The unemployment rate is high. People are looking for jobs. So why don't they hire Americans? The fact is, they have tried and tried and tried. But there are very few Americans who are willing to take the job in a hot field, doing backbreaking labor, in temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees. That is a fact. The other fact is that immigrant workers are the backbone of America's agricultural industry--a huge industry and a proud industry, which is now dying due to the lack of steady labor supply. Farmers are departing the country in order to stay in business, leaving devastated farm communities behind. In California, in the Great Central Valley, farmers who once tended ``America's breadbasket'' are now standing in bread lines, with unemployment rates in their communities that are as high as 45 percent. Topsoil from fallowed land turning into dust now blows up in sandstorms and has caused periodic shutdowns of Interstate 5, the State's main north-south freeway. As a result of Congress's inaction, between 2007 and 2008--1 year-- 1.56 million acres of farmland, once rich with crops, are now dormant. That is 1.5 million acres dormant in a year. In California alone, in the past 5 years, that amount--1.5 million acres--of production has been lost. American farmers have moved at least 84,155 acres of production to Mexico. This is what we know of: Over 84,000 acres of farm production now in Mexico. This has resulted in the growth of farm labor jobs in Mexico; namely, 22,285 jobs to cultivate crops that vary in diversity from avocados to green onions to watermelons. This shortage of workers is devastating American agriculture, and we need to wake up and understand what is happening. In the next 1 to 2 years, the United States stands to lose $5 billion to $9 billion in agricultural sales to foreign competition if Congress does not act to provide a workforce for the American farming community. California has already lost almost $1 billion from 2005 to 2006. It is estimated we will lose between $1.7 and $3.1 billion in the next year. The California farm industry--the largest in America--was almost a $40 billion-a-year industry. It is deteriorating every year. We are witnessing nothing less than the slow vanishing of American agriculture. Ayron Moiola, the executive director of the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association, predicts that California's asparagus crops will disappear completely in the Imperial Valley if their demand for specialized asparagus planters and harvesters is not met. Colorado farmers have estimated their State's fruit and vegetable industry will disappear completely in the next 5 to 10 years without some program to provide a sustainable workforce. As of February 2008, 35 to 45 New Hampshire farm operations have been at risk of going out of business or being forced to severely cut back operations due to labor shortages. This reduction in farm production would result in an estimated loss of 22,000 acres of farmland and $58 million of agricultural production for New Hampshire alone. In addition, over 600 full-time farm jobs and 4,300 jobs in agriculture-related businesses could be in jeopardy. I say to the Presiding Officer, I hear this from your apple growers in New York, and I hear it from the dairy industry throughout America. The situation is dire from coast to coast, and urgent action is required to halt these trends. I do not think we can afford to lose our entire agricultural industry because this has always been a central and sustainable part of our national economy. Our food is clean; there are strong pesticide controls in this country. I think most of us believe we would much prefer to buy American produce than foreign produce. Yet we may not have that opportunity. When farmers suffer, there is a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment manufacturing, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, and insurance. Jobs are being lost, and our economy is going to decline further as a result. Low-producing farms mean a lowered local tax base--as farms no longer generate income and create jobs. As can be seen from this graphic I have in the Chamber, for every job lost on a farm and ranch, the country loses approximately three jobs in related sectors that are supported by having the agricultural community in this country. I have received a letter from the Port of Oakland, which depends heavily on agribusiness for its survival. According to the port, last year more than 750 metric tons of agricultural products, worth approximately $2.6 billion, were shipped through the port, representing 40 percent of the port's exports. As these farms disappear, port jobs, basic jobs for people, also disappear. The central issue is not immigration; it is the bottom line of the American economy. I think Congress should be doing everything we can to prevent U.S. farms from closing down. There is a solution, and it is this bill. This bill is well known, and this bill has been well supported in the past with a majority of votes. It is bipartisan. We can take it up and pass it today, and that would immediately help American farmers bolster the U.S. economy at a critical time. The AgJOBS bill has two parts. The first meets the immediate needs of our farmers by creating a program that would provide an opportunity for experienced agricultural workers to earn the right to apply for legal status in this country. The second part meets the long-term needs of farmers by reforming the H-2A program--that is the temporary worker program for the farm industry--so that if new workers are needed, farmers and growers have a legal path to bring workers in to harvest their crops. The first step of the program requires that undocumented agricultural workers apply for a blue card if they can demonstrate they have worked in American agriculture in the United States for at least 150 workdays within the previous 2 years before December 31, 2008. The second step requires that a blue cardholder work in the U.S. agricultural industry for an additional 150 workdays per year for at least 3 years, or 100 workdays per year for 5 years. At the end of this time, a worker can obtain a green card and can continue to work in agriculture. Workers participating in the program will be required to pay a fine of $500, show that they are current on their taxes, and that they have not been convicted of any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of bodily injury or harm to property. Employment is verified through employer-issued itemized statements, pay stubs, W-2 forms, employer letters, contracts or agreements, employer-sponsored health care, timecards or payment of taxes. At the end of 5 years, those workers will be able to gain citizenship in this country. The blue card visa program will be capped at 1.35 million blue cards over 5 years and sunsets after 5 years. All blue cards will have encrypted, biometric identifiers, and contain other anticounterfeiting protections. This provides, in effect, a biometric identifier for 1.35 million people who are undocumented but in the country today. AgJOBS would also streamline the current guest worker program, known as the H-2A program, which is currently unwieldy and ineffective. Among other things, the bill will shorten the labor certification process, which now often takes 60 days, reducing the approval process to between 48 to 72 hours. Advertising and positive recruitment for U.S. workers in the local labor market is required by filing a job notification with the local office of the State employment security agency. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. The adverse effect wage rate would be frozen for 3 years, to be gradually replaced with a prevailing wage standard. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant. The reforms to the H-2A agricultural worker program are especially important to meet the needs of year-round agricultural industries, such as dairy, which are not covered by the seasonal program. Many say that dairy should use the seasonal H-2A program--but it does not work for that industry. They need workers 24/7, 365 days a year. The National Milk Producers recently shared with me an economic study done by researchers at Texas A&M that will be released next week on the economic impacts of immigration on U.S. dairy farms. Over 5,000 dairy farms, surveyed nationally, with responses from 47 States, are in this study. Of these, 50 percent use immigrant labor. Immigrant labor now accounts for 62 percent of milk production in 47 States. As can be seen from this chart I have in the Chamber, eliminating immigrant labor would reduce the U.S. dairy herd by 1.34 million, milk production by 29.5 billion pounds, and the number of farms by 4,532. Retail milk prices would increase by an estimated 61 percent. This will be the result if we do not recognize what is a basic reality that farm and dairy communities depend on undocumented workers, who are the only workers who will do this kind of work. This is hard for people to believe. However, a while back, we posted notices in the welfare departments of all 58 california counties that said: Agricultural worker jobs available. Please sign up here. However, do you know how many workers came from this? Not a single one. When I drive down the highway, down to Monterey, along the coast, and I go through the great Salinas Valley, I watch the row crops either being planted or sprayed or harvested. You see the workers in the field stooped over, hour after hour, in the sun, when it is 100 degrees or more in temperature, and you can see the specific nature of this type of work. People think of this work as unskilled labor, but it is not. It is a learned skill. These workers have to move fast and be trained to use the farm equipment. They know how to work skillfully with their hands and move row after row, after row, down the field. Last summer, a young pregnant woman working in the field collapsed from heat exhaustion and was taken to the hospital, where she died. Working in the field is back breaking, difficult work, and there are very few Americans who are willing to do this work. The backbone of the agriculture industry in my State is the undocumented workforce and it is time to recognize that reality. I can't have--and Mr. President, you can't have--farmers standing in bread lines because they can't get the labor to plant or harvest their crops. The fields across America are increasingly being fallowed and this does not make sense. Congress must stand tall and acknowledge that the basic workforce in the American agricultural community is undocumented farm labor. Undocumented workers take these jobs because they are professional and proud of the work that they do. I believe that is desirable. This bill has previously passed with more than a majority in comprehensive immigration reform. It recognizes that the American farm industry is in crisis; that the industry is deteriorating; and that America is losing its produce. This bill stands up for American farmers and provides them with the workforce they deserve--American farmers like Toni Scully, a pear farmer from Lake County, CA. Toni Scully experienced a devastating harvest that left much of her pear crop rotting on the ground because she could not find workers in time for the harvest. Early last year, I heard from Dewey Zabka, an onion and potato farmer in northern Colorado who, for the first time in his company's 50-year history, had to downsize 25 percent of his production. In the State of New York, 800 farms and $700 million in sales may be forced to go out of business or scale back their farm operations if labor shortages continue. For the first time since 1991, Jim Bittner, the owner of Singer Farms in Appleton, NY, razed 10 percent of his sweet cherry and peach orchards last year because he could not get farm labor. For the 2009 season, California growers who anticipate a shortage of reliable labor are deciding to move away from planting permanent tree crops, including peach, plumb, nectarine, almond, pomegranate, and olive trees. Many of these farmers are supplementing these crops with pistachios, which can be harvested mechanically. In June 2008, The Oregonian reported that Oregon's pear and onion industries are at risk of not being able to sustain production without consistent labor. In Yuma County, AZ, where agricultural workers earn between $10 and $19 per hour, U.S. lettuce producers were unable to find enough laborers to harvest the spring crop of lettuce for 2008. The truth is Americans will not do the work that sustains agriculture. It is hard, stooped labor requiring long and unpredictable hours. As a result, the labor shortage will be persistent. It is not going to get better next year, unless we have the courage and the guts to stand up for a major industry in America which deserves a steady labor base, particularly during these difficult economic times. And there are examples all over the nation that Americans simply won't fill these jobs. H. Lee Showalter, a member of the Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board, points to the example of the largest Macintosh apple producer in New York, who is required to advertise for local labor before joining a migrant labor program. Of the 300 workers he needed to fill, only 1 American worker applied. Willoway Nurseries, Inc. has been in business in northern Ohio since 1954. Willoway Nurseries has attempted to recruit local workers, though to no avail. General nursery workers on this farm earn a starting wage of $9.93 per hour. Yet it has been impossible for the nursery to recruit American help. The Washington Farm Bureau reported that nearly 500 tons of apples were not picked in Washington State's apple harvests last year due to picker shortages. As Valoria H. Loveland, director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, stated in a letter to me: The reality of our local labor market [is that] local people who want to work are already employed, or are not interested in doing the seasonal and physically demanding work that characterizes our specialty crop production. Experts estimate that nearly 80 percent of Florida's approximately 150,000 agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. This is a $1.6 billion a year business that produces up to 90 percent of the fresh domestic tomatoes that Americans eat between the months of December and May. Many farmers have been in business for generations. Many farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, strawberries, and apricots, just to name a few. Without reform, we will continue to see the deterioration of American farms nationwide. This includes the possibility that certain vegetables and fruits will no longer grow in our Nation, where we have stricter rules and regulations for safety. Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. As a result, our pears, our apples, our oranges will be increasingly coming from foreign sources. This is not what America wants, but it is what Congress's inaction compels. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce in this country, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, and from other countries that have sufficient labor. If our farmers want to stay in business, they will continue to go to Mexico and lease land and grow crops there. We are not doing our duty if we let this continue. Steve Scaroni has been in the California lettuce and broccoli industry for over three decades. In recent years he has moved 2,000 acres and 500 jobs from his $50 million operation in Heber, CA, to Guanajuato, Mexico. Steve wants his business to survive, and he can't hire or plant. If he can't plant, he can't pick. If he can't pick, he can't pack, and he won't be able to deliver a harvest. As a result, today Steve exports to the United States about 2 million pounds of lettuce a week. He has spent thousands of dollars to start up the new farms and to train workers to ensure that his crops meet U.S. food safety standards. In Wilcox, AZ, Eurofresh Farms has transferred tomato crops and 150 workers to Sonora, Mexico, where tomatoes are grown and shipped to the U.S. on a daily basis. Reforming the system means that we not only protect the agricultural industry, but also the health of this Nation. This past July, the Food and Drug Administration confirmed that a variety of jalapeno and serrano peppers grown in Mexico caused an outbreak of salmonella in the United States. This outbreak was first thought to have originated in tomatoes. The repercussions of the outbreak were felt on farms from coast to coast. In Georgia alone, it is estimated that the tomato scare cost local farmers about $14 million in total production value. Nationwide, the tomato industry lost at least $100 million due to lower prices and reduced demand. At the same time, over the last 15 years, imports of tomatoes have increased 179 percent. Right now, almost 40 percent of the tomatoes that we eat are grown in a foreign country. Yet tomato farmers are being forced to close shop. The agriculture industry has been seeking a resolution for the labor crisis for the past 10 years. Mr. President, I have received over 50 letters of support for AgJOBS. I am committed to working with the Obama administration, and Senators Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy, as well as the House champions, Representatives Berman and Putnam, and others, to support U.S. farmers and the workers who provide the skilled labor needed to plant, tend and harvest our crops. The time is now, and the solution is before us. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of AgJOBS and help restore America's farms before it is too late. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, letters of support, and list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe it is fair to say that there is a farm emergency in this country. Some of it is caused by drought, including out West where California has had, for 3 years, a very serious drought. But most of it is caused by the absence of farm labor--labor to help plant, prune, and harvest. Many of us have listened to farm bureaus throughout the country, spoken with farmers who are losing land, fallowing land, and leasing land abroad. I think the time has come to do something about it. Today, with 16 cosponsors, I am introducing an agricultural worker bill known as AgJOBS. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Boxer, Dodd, Lieberman, Bingaman, Feingold, Murray, Kerry, Bill Nelson, Kaufman, Casey, Cantwell, and Levin. It would provide farmers with the stable, legal workforce they deserve by reforming the broken H-2A seasonal worker program and offering a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants already employed or who have been employed on American farms. This bill is supported by more than 200 agricultural coalition and immigration reform groups throughout the Nation. Since I last came to the floor to talk about a solution to this crisis, it has only grown. The bill is necessary, and I believe Congress must act now to save America's agriculture industry. Today across the United States, there are not enough agricultural workers to do the pruning, picking, packing, and harvesting of our country's crops. With an inadequate supply of workers, farmers from Maine to California, from Washington State to Georgia, have watched their produce rot in fields, and have been forced to fallow close to half a million acres of land, and billions of dollars are being drained out of our economy as a result. Farmers are downsizing their operations. Many are buying or leasing land in Mexico. Others are going out of business. Quite clearly, the labor situation facing the American farmer is an emergency. So some ask: Why don't American farmers hire Americans to do their work? The unemployment rate is high. People are looking for jobs. So why don't they hire Americans? The fact is, they have tried and tried and tried. But there are very few Americans who are willing to take the job in a hot field, doing backbreaking labor, in temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees. That is a fact. The other fact is that immigrant workers are the backbone of America's agricultural industry--a huge industry and a proud industry, which is now dying due to the lack of steady labor supply. Farmers are departing the country in order to stay in business, leaving devastated farm communities behind. In California, in the Great Central Valley, farmers who once tended ``America's breadbasket'' are now standing in bread lines, with unemployment rates in their communities that are as high as 45 percent. Topsoil from fallowed land turning into dust now blows up in sandstorms and has caused periodic shutdowns of Interstate 5, the State's main north-south freeway. As a result of Congress's inaction, between 2007 and 2008--1 year-- 1.56 million acres of farmland, once rich with crops, are now dormant. That is 1.5 million acres dormant in a year. In California alone, in the past 5 years, that amount--1.5 million acres--of production has been lost. American farmers have moved at least 84,155 acres of production to Mexico. This is what we know of: Over 84,000 acres of farm production now in Mexico. This has resulted in the growth of farm labor jobs in Mexico; namely, 22,285 jobs to cultivate crops that vary in diversity from avocados to green onions to watermelons. This shortage of workers is devastating American agriculture, and we need to wake up and understand what is happening. In the next 1 to 2 years, the United States stands to lose $5 billion to $9 billion in agricultural sales to foreign competition if Congress does not act to provide a workforce for the American farming community. California has already lost almost $1 billion from 2005 to 2006. It is estimated we will lose between $1.7 and $3.1 billion in the next year. The California farm industry--the largest in America--was almost a $40 billion-a-year industry. It is deteriorating every year. We are witnessing nothing less than the slow vanishing of American agriculture. Ayron Moiola, the executive director of the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association, predicts that California's asparagus crops will disappear completely in the Imperial Valley if their demand for specialized asparagus planters and harvesters is not met. Colorado farmers have estimated their State's fruit and vegetable industry will disappear completely in the next 5 to 10 years without some program to provide a sustainable workforce. As of February 2008, 35 to 45 New Hampshire farm operations have been at risk of going out of business or being forced to severely cut back operations due to labor shortages. This reduction in farm production would result in an estimated loss of 22,000 acres of farmland and $58 million of agricultural production for New Hampshire alone. In addition, over 600 full-time farm jobs and 4,300 jobs in agriculture-related businesses could be in jeopardy. I say to the Presiding Officer, I hear this from your apple growers in New York, and I hear it from the dairy industry throughout America. The situation is dire from coast to coast, and urgent action is required to halt these trends. I do not think we can afford to lose our entire agricultural industry because this has always been a central and sustainable part of our national economy. Our food is clean; there are strong pesticide controls in this country. I think most of us believe we would much prefer to buy American produce than foreign produce. Yet we may not have that opportunity. When farmers suffer, there is a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment manufacturing, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, and insurance. Jobs are being lost, and our economy is going to decline further as a result. Low-producing farms mean a lowered local tax base--as farms no longer generate income and create jobs. As can be seen from this graphic I have in the Chamber, for every job lost on a farm and ranch, the country loses approximately three jobs in related sectors that are supported by having the agricultural community in this country. I have received a letter from the Port of Oakland, which depends heavily on agribusiness for its survival. According to the port, last year more than 750 metric tons of agricultural products, worth approximately $2.6 billion, were shipped through the port, representing 40 percent of the port's exports. As these farms disappear, port jobs, basic jobs for people, also disappear. The central issue is not immigration; it is the bottom line of the American economy. I think Congress should be doing everything we can to prevent U.S. farms from closing down. There is a solution, and it is this bill. This bill is well known, and this bill has been well supported in the past with a majority of votes. It is bipartisan. We can take it up and pass it today, and that would immediately help American farmers bolster the U.S. economy at a critical time. The AgJOBS bill has two parts. The first meets the immediate needs of our farmers by creating a program that would provide an opportunity for experienced agricultural workers to earn the right to apply for legal status in this country. The second part meets the long-term needs of farmers by reforming the H-2A program--that is the temporary worker program for the farm industry--so that if new workers are needed, farmers and growers have a legal path to bring workers in to harvest their crops. The first step of the program requires that undocumented agricultural workers apply for a blue card if they can demonstrate they have worked in American agriculture in the United States for at least 150 workdays within the previous 2 years before December 31, 2008. The second step requires that a blue cardholder work in the U.S. agricultural industry for an additional 150 workdays per year for at least 3 years, or 100 workdays per year for 5 years. At the end of this time, a worker can obtain a green card and can continue to work in agriculture. Workers participating in the program will be required to pay a fine of $500, show that they are current on their taxes, and that they have not been convicted of any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of bodily injury or harm to property. Employment is verified through employer-issued itemized statements, pay stubs, W-2 forms, employer letters, contracts or agreements, employer-sponsored health care, timecards or payment of taxes. At the end of 5 years, those workers will be able to gain citizenship in this country. The blue card visa program will be capped at 1.35 million blue cards over 5 years and sunsets after 5 years. All blue cards will have encrypted, biometric identifiers, and contain other anticounterfeiting protections. This provides, in effect, a biometric identifier for 1.35 million people who are undocumented but in the country today. AgJOBS would also streamline the current guest worker program, known as the H-2A program, which is currently unwieldy and ineffective. Among other things, the bill will shorten the labor certification process, which now often takes 60 days, reducing the approval process to between 48 to 72 hours. Advertising and positive recruitment for U.S. workers in the local labor market is required by filing a job notification with the local office of the State employment security agency. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. The adverse effect wage rate would be frozen for 3 years, to be gradually replaced with a prevailing wage standard. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant. The reforms to the H-2A agricultural worker program are especially important to meet the needs of year-round agricultural industries, such as dairy, which are not covered by the seasonal program. Many say that dairy should use the seasonal H-2A program--but it does not work for that industry. They need workers 24/7, 365 days a year. The National Milk Producers recently shared with me an economic study done by researchers at Texas A&M that will be released next week on the economic impacts of immigration on U.S. dairy farms. Over 5,000 dairy farms, surveyed nationally, with responses from 47 States, are in this study. Of these, 50 percent use immigrant labor. Immigrant labor now accounts for 62 percent of milk production in 47 States. As can be seen from this chart I have in the Chamber, eliminating immigrant labor would reduce the U.S. dairy herd by 1.34 million, milk production by 29.5 billion pounds, and the number of farms by 4,532. Retail milk prices would increase by an estimated 61 percent. This will be the result if we do not recognize what is a basic reality that farm and dairy communities depend on undocumented workers, who are the only workers who will do this kind of work. This is hard for people to believe. However, a while back, we posted notices in the welfare departments of all 58 california counties that said: Agricultural worker jobs available. Please sign up here. However, do you know how many workers came from this? Not a single one. When I drive down the highway, down to Monterey, along the coast, and I go through the great Salinas Valley, I watch the row crops either being planted or sprayed or harvested. You see the workers in the field stooped over, hour after hour, in the sun, when it is 100 degrees or more in temperature, and you can see the specific nature of this type of work. People think of this work as unskilled labor, but it is not. It is a learned skill. These workers have to move fast and be trained to use the farm equipment. They know how to work skillfully with their hands and move row after row, after row, down the field. Last summer, a young pregnant woman working in the field collapsed from heat exhaustion and was taken to the hospital, where she died. Working in the field is back breaking, difficult work, and there are very few Americans who are willing to do this work. The backbone of the agriculture industry in my State is the undocumented workforce and it is time to recognize that reality. I can't have--and Mr. President, you can't have--farmers standing in bread lines because they can't get the labor to plant or harvest their crops. The fields across America are increasingly being fallowed and this does not make sense. Congress must stand tall and acknowledge that the basic workforce in the American agricultural community is undocumented farm labor. Undocumented workers take these jobs because they are professional and proud of the work that they do. I believe that is desirable. This bill has previously passed with more than a majority in comprehensive immigration reform. It recognizes that the American farm industry is in crisis; that the industry is deteriorating; and that America is losing its produce. This bill stands up for American farmers and provides them with the workforce they deserve--American farmers like Toni Scully, a pear farmer from Lake County, CA. Toni Scully experienced a devastating harvest that left much of her pear crop rotting on the ground because she could not find workers in time for the harvest. Early last year, I heard from Dewey Zabka, an onion and potato farmer in northern Colorado who, for the first time in his company's 50-year history, had to downsize 25 percent of his production. In the State of New York, 800 farms and $700 million in sales may be forced to go out of business or scale back their farm operations if labor shortages continue. For the first time since 1991, Jim Bittner, the owner of Singer Farms in Appleton, NY, razed 10 percent of his sweet cherry and peach orchards last year because he could not get farm labor. For the 2009 season, California growers who anticipate a shortage of reliable labor are deciding to move away from planting permanent tree crops, including peach, plumb, nectarine, almond, pomegranate, and olive trees. Many of these farmers are supplementing these crops with pistachios, which can be harvested mechanically. In June 2008, The Oregonian reported that Oregon's pear and onion industries are at risk of not being able to sustain production without consistent labor. In Yuma County, AZ, where agricultural workers earn between $10 and $19 per hour, U.S. lettuce producers were unable to find enough laborers to harvest the spring crop of lettuce for 2008. The truth is Americans will not do the work that sustains agriculture. It is hard, stooped labor requiring long and unpredictable hours. As a result, the labor shortage will be persistent. It is not going to get better next year, unless we have the courage and the guts to stand up for a major industry in America which deserves a steady labor base, particularly during these difficult economic times. And there are examples all over the nation that Americans simply won't fill these jobs. H. Lee Showalter, a member of the Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board, points to the example of the largest Macintosh apple producer in New York, who is required to advertise for local labor before joining a migrant labor program. Of the 300 workers he needed to fill, only 1 American worker applied. Willoway Nurseries, Inc. has been in business in northern Ohio since 1954. Willoway Nurseries has attempted to recruit local workers, though to no avail. General nursery workers on this farm earn a starting wage of $9.93 per hour. Yet it has been impossible for the nursery to recruit American help. The Washington Farm Bureau reported that nearly 500 tons of apples were not picked in Washington State's apple harvests last year due to picker shortages. As Valoria H. Loveland, director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, stated in a letter to me: The reality of our local labor market [is that] local people who want to work are already employed, or are not interested in doing the seasonal and physically demanding work that characterizes our specialty crop production. Experts estimate that nearly 80 percent of Florida's approximately 150,000 agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. This is a $1.6 billion a year business that produces up to 90 percent of the fresh domestic tomatoes that Americans eat between the months of December and May. Many farmers have been in business for generations. Many farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, strawberries, and apricots, just to name a few. Without reform, we will continue to see the deterioration of American farms nationwide. This includes the possibility that certain vegetables and fruits will no longer grow in our Nation, where we have stricter rules and regulations for safety. Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. As a result, our pears, our apples, our oranges will be increasingly coming from foreign sources. This is not what America wants, but it is what Congress's inaction compels. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce in this country, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, and from other countries that have sufficient labor. If our farmers want to stay in business, they will continue to go to Mexico and lease land and grow crops there. We are not doing our duty if we let this continue. Steve Scaroni has been in the California lettuce and broccoli industry for over three decades. In recent years he has moved 2,000 acres and 500 jobs from his $50 million operation in Heber, CA, to Guanajuato, Mexico. Steve wants his business to survive, and he can't hire or plant. If he can't plant, he can't pick. If he can't pick, he can't pack, and he won't be able to deliver a harvest. As a result, today Steve exports to the United States about 2 million pounds of lettuce a week. He has spent thousands of dollars to start up the new farms and to train workers to ensure that his crops meet U.S. food safety standards. In Wilcox, AZ, Eurofresh Farms has transferred tomato crops and 150 workers to Sonora, Mexico, where tomatoes are grown and shipped to the U.S. on a daily basis. Reforming the system means that we not only protect the agricultural industry, but also the health of this Nation. This past July, the Food and Drug Administration confirmed that a variety of jalapeno and serrano peppers grown in Mexico caused an outbreak of salmonella in the United States. This outbreak was first thought to have originated in tomatoes. The repercussions of the outbreak were felt on farms from coast to coast. In Georgia alone, it is estimated that the tomato scare cost local farmers about $14 million in total production value. Nationwide, the tomato industry lost at least $100 million due to lower prices and reduced demand. At the same time, over the last 15 years, imports of tomatoes have increased 179 percent. Right now, almost 40 percent of the tomatoes that we eat are grown in a foreign country. Yet tomato farmers are being forced to close shop. The agriculture industry has been seeking a resolution for the labor crisis for the past 10 years. Mr. President, I have received over 50 letters of support for AgJOBS. I am committed to working with the Obama administration, and Senators Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy, as well as the House champions, Representatives Berman and Putnam, and others, to support U.S. farmers and the workers who provide the skilled labor needed to plant, tend and harvest our crops. The time is now, and the solution is before us. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of AgJOBS and help restore America's farms before it is too late. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, letters of support, and list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to Gil Duran of my staff for the length of my presentation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, is important legislation to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapons systems and other major defense systems. Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain are to be congratulated for reporting this bill from their committee with strong bipartisan support. As my colleagues know, many of our most important, and costly, national intelligence programs are acquired by intelligence community agencies that are found within the Department of Defense. Like the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, where the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee sit as ex officio members, has been concerned for many years about the need to improve the intelligence acquisition process and its oversight in order to ensure we are making maximum best use of intelligence resources. The Congress looks to the Director of National Intelligence to manage and be accountable for major systems acquisitions funded by the National Intelligence Program, NIP, even though these acquisitions are executed in other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. While many of us have had concerns about the implementation of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRPTA, of 2004, the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, and the establishment of the roles and responsibilities of that office were important accomplishments that we on the Intelligence Committee wish to see strengthened through robust implementation of the provisions of that act. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act gave the DNI broad acquisition authorities over the NIP, but for NIP programs conducted within the DOD, the act required that the DNI and the Secretary of Defense share these authorities. Specifically, the act required: ``For each intelligence program within the National Intelligence Program for the acquisition of a major system, the Director of National Intelligence shall . . . serve as exclusive milestone decision authority, except that with respect to the Department of Defense programs the Director shall serve as milestone decision authority jointly with the Secretary of Defense or the designee of the Secretary.'' Subsequently, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed in a memorandum of agreement, MOA, signed in March 2008 that this joint milestone decision authority would be extended to majority NIP-funded acquisition programs as well. They agreed that wholly and majority NIP-funded acquisition programs would be executed according to intelligence community acquisition policy. The MOA states that its purpose is to provide for ``a single acquisition process'' for programs covered by it. I am sure that we will all agree, as the DNI and the Secretary of Defense have done, that it is vitally important that these important intelligence acquisitions be governed by a clear process with clear lines of responsibility as provided for by the MOA. The MOA of the DNI and Secretary of Defense was later implemented in DOD Instruction No. 5000.2 on December 8, 2008. It should also be pointed out that in fact wholly and majority NIP- funded major system acquisitions executed in accordance with intelligence community acquisition policies are now usually deemed to be ``highly sensitive classified programs'' under title 10 U.S.C. 2430 Because S. 454 would cover all ``major defense acquisition programs'' within the meaning of title 10 U.S.C. 2430, not just major weapons systems, I appreciate Chairman Levin agreeing to this colloquy to clarify the impact of the legislation on NIP-funded acquisition programs executed within the Department of Defense. Mr. Chairman, is it the case that S. 454 would not extend DOD's jurisdiction to any programs over which it does not already have authority and that to the extent that NIP programs are outside the DOD acquisition system today, they would not be brought into the DOD acquisition system by this bill?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, do you further agree that this bill is not intended to change the DNI's roles and responsibilities under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004 or to require revision of the March 2008 memorandum of agreement between the DNI and Secretary of Defense concerning NIP-funded acquisition programs?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and manager of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the millions of Asian Pacific Islander Americans for their significant contributions and service to strengthen this great Nation, and to join the Nation in celebrating Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month. This month-long tribute would not be complete without recognizing the visionaries who founded Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month: U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, former U.S. Senator Spark Matsunaga, former Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, and former U.S. Representative Frank Horton. As a result of their steadfast leadership, a joint resolution established Asian Pacific Island American Heritage Week in 1978, and the celebration was later expanded to an entire month in 1992. This celebration takes place in May to mark the first Japanese immigrants' arrival in America in 1842, as well as the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869--which would not have been finished without the hard work and dedication of Chinese laborers. Today, our Nation faces its trials and tribulations as it sees harsh economic times. People throughout the country are losing their homes and their jobs and we must come together as a community and remain strong and dignified. The Asian Pacific Islander American community constitutes one of the fastest growing minority communities in the United States, with over 13 million Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the country. Despite these economic hardships, members of the Asian Pacific Islander American community have continued to take positions of leadership and have worked hard to secure a brighter future for all. Asian Pacific Islander Americans are making great strides both in the private and public sectors. Members of the Asian Pacific Islander American community have been named to key appointments in President Barack Obama's administration and at other levels of government. As Asian Pacific Islander Americans advance to positions of power and leadership, we can ensure that the voice of the community is being heard. While we celebrate the many accomplishments and the promising future of the Asian Pacific Islander American community, we must not forget the history of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in this country. The Angel Island Immigration Station has a significant place in Asian Pacific Islander American history. Declared a National Historic Landmark in 1997, Angel Island served as the entry point in the West for over 1 million immigrants from 1910-1940. This includes approximately 175,000 Chinese immigrants who were detained at Angel Island before they were granted entry to San Francisco. Along with Representative Lynn Woolsey, I sponsored the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act, which passed in both the House and the Senate in 2005, authorizing $15 million of federal funds for the Angel Island Immigration Station Preservation Project. After 3\1/2\ years since it was closed for restoration, Angel Island reopened this February and will educate the public about the immigration experience and the significance that it holds for many immigrant families today. After the recent passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, benefits were finally granted to long-time Filipino veterans of World War II. The act recognizes the service of these veterans and includes a provision which allocates $198 million to the Filipino veterans for their defense of the Philippines, a commonwealth under the United States during World War II. We must praise and commend these brave soldiers for the sacrifices they made during their service in the Armed Forces. The idea of family is important to Americans and continues to be at the center of the Asian Pacific Islander American value system. It is imperative that we do what we can to keep families united to ensure that immigrants and children receive the support to sustain a livelihood in the United States. I have continued to support immigration initiatives, such as comprehensive immigration reform and have supported family reunification. I authored legislation to reform the treatment of unaccompanied immigrant children who are in Federal immigration custody. The bill gives unaccompanied minors access to pro bono legal counsel and requires family reunification whenever possible. We must recognize that the Asian Pacific Islander American community is diverse, not only in language, culture and foods, but in education and socio-economic levels as well. That is why it is so important to provide talented students who have clearly embraced the American dream the incentive to take the path toward being a responsible, contributing member in our civic society. I have cosponsored the DREAM Act of 2009 to give undocumented high school students who wish to attend college or serve in the Armed Forces an opportunity to adjust to a lawful status and pursue these goals. If it becomes law, the DREAM Act would help Asian Pacific Islander Americans and others triumph over adversity. As future generations of Asian Pacific Islander Americans continue to strive for excellence in our educational system, economy, and communities, I am pleased to honor and distinguish the many triumphs and accomplishments of the Asian Pacific Islander American community and their role in shaping our Nation's identity.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to establish the fourth annual Endangered Species Day on May 15, 2009. I am introducing this legislation with Senators Collins, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Feingold, Kerry, Levin, Sanders, Whitehouse, and Akaka whose cosponsorship and support of this resolution I appreciate very much. The designation of Endangered Species Day will provide many wonderful opportunities for Americans to familiarize themselves with the status and recovery efforts of endangered species in our own country and around the world, including such magnificent species as the polar bear. Last year, more than 100 events were held across the country to highlight endangered species success stories, and even more are slated for this year. Educational activities were held at zoos, aquariums, libraries, and schools across the country, including Disney's Animal Kingdom in Florida, the San Diego Zoo in California, the Port Defiance Zoo and Aquarium in Tacoma, Washington, and the Bronx Zoo in New York City. Based on the success of last year, I am confident that this year's Endangered Species Day will continue to foster increased awareness about endangered species by encouraging educational activities such as school field trips to the zoo or attending an art fair at a local library. Endangered species recovery programs in California are great examples of the conservation and management efforts that have helped to significantly restore populations of the California condor and the California gray whale. Over 300 species classified as either endangered or threatened live in California, and efforts to protect them will ensure that they continue to do so. Despite these success stories, we must consider what more can be done. There are over 5,000 threatened species that receive protection in the United States and abroad. An important step to preventing further threats to and endangerment of wildlife is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the problem and educating our youth on what we can do. I would also like to commend the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who recently lifted the Bush administration's last-minute consultation rule. This will allow the United States to take immediate action to ensure that independent wildlife experts are consulted on the impacts on endangered and threatened species. I am introducing this bill with the hope that Endangered Species Day can spark the interest in our youth to continue the conservation efforts that we have begun, but are still far from finishing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wish today to support the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I want to thank and commend my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership and dedication on this important issue. It is long past time that we move to bring existing Federal hate crimes law into the 21st century. I have been an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act since it was first introduced in the Senate over a decade ago. And I am proud to join today with my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, and others--to reintroduce this legislation, which will once and for all send a message: We will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country. This legislation is a crucial step toward prosecuting crimes directed at thousands of individuals who are the targets of brutal and senseless violence. The current Federal hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. This bill improves the current Federal hate crime law by including crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. Specifically, the Matthew Shepard Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 expands on the 1968 definition of a hate crime. Under current Federal law, hate crimes only cover attacks based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Under the proposed bill, hate crimes will include: gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. The bill enables States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to apply for Federal grants in order to solve hate crimes and provides Federal agents with broader authority to aid State and local police. Additionally, the bill amends the Hate Crime Statistics Act to allow law enforcement agencies to gather additional data on violent crimes committed out of hate. The bill also includes a ``Rule of Construction'' to ensure that it does not intrude on first amendment protected rights to freedom of speech. I believe that it is time for Congress to expand the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate. In States that have already enacted hate crimes laws, the Federal Government must provide the resources to ensure that those crimes do not go unpunished. We can and must do more. Across the Nation, horrific instances of violence are occurring that this bill would work to fight against. I would like to share just a few examples: In February 2008 in Oxnard, CA, Lawrence ``Larry'' King, a 15-year- old boy was shot and killed by a fellow classmate at his junior high school. Larry, who had told his classmates he was gay, had long been harassed and bullied at school. The way he was treated is unacceptable, and his death was a tragic and poignant reminder of why it is so important to stop bullying and violence in our schools. In Laurel, DE, earlier this month, three teenagers were charged with robbing and assaulting a 31-year-old developmentally disabled man. The victim was walking home one Friday evening from his brother's house in the Laurel Village Mobile Home Park and was dragged into a wooden area, beaten, and robbed of his wallet and keys. The victim's mother later found him and took him to the hospital where he was treated for a concussion. Lastly, one of the most well-known cases in California happened in West Hollywood to actor Trev Broudy in 2002. The night of the attack, Trev Broudy was hugging a man on a street. Three men with a baseball bat savagely attacked the actor and left him in a coma for approximately 10 weeks. As a result of the attack, Trev suffered brain damage, lost half of his vision, and has experienced trouble hearing. The crimes are brutal. The attackers targeted their victims because of who they are. Yet, none of these crimes can be prosecuted as a Federal hate crime. These are not isolated instances. These crimes occur all too often. According to the latest FBI statistics, there were almost 7,700 hate crime incidents in the United States in 2007. Of those, 1,789 occurred in California, with 15 percent of those based on sexual orientation. Nationally, approximately 50.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 18 percent were motivated by religious bias, 17 percent were motivated by sexual orientation, and 13.2 percent were motivated by ethnicity or national origin bias. One percent involved a bias against a disability. Even more disturbing is the fact that these FBI statistics show only a fraction of the problem because so many hate crimes are unreported. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization located in Montgomery, AL and internationally known for its tolerance education programs, estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000 as opposed to the nearly 8,000 cases reported to the FBI. A close analysis of hate crimes rates demonstrates that groups that are now covered by current laws--such as African Americans, Muslims, and Jews, report similar rates of hate crimes victimizations as gays and lesbians--who are not currently protected. Every person's life is valuable. Congress must act to protect every individual who is targeted simply because of who they are. We must also stop the way that hate crimes terrorize communities. When people are targeted because of who they are, they often live in fear and communities suffer from tension and a lack of trust. These are crimes that damage our social fabric, and we must send a clear message that we cannot tolerate this kind of intimidation in the United States. This is not a new bill. It was first introduced in 1998. It has passed the Senate numerous times: in 2000, 2002, and 2004 as an amendment to the Department of Defense, Authorization bill. It has also passed the House in 2007 as a stand-alone bill and in 2006 as an amendment to the Adam Walsh Act. But still, it has not been enacted into law. In addition, last Congress, this body passed this legislation favorably as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, but the amendment was removed from the final version of the bill that the President signed. This legislation is bipartisan and has broad coalition support. It is supported by 26 State attorneys general and over 300 law enforcement, professional, educational, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it and working to enact it into law in this Congress. Let us send a message to all Americans that we will not turn a blind eye to hate crimes and will instead support the values of tolerance and community that unite us as Americans.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wish today to support the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I want to thank and commend my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership and dedication on this important issue. It is long past time that we move to bring existing Federal hate crimes law into the 21st century. I have been an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act since it was first introduced in the Senate over a decade ago. And I am proud to join today with my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, and others--to reintroduce this legislation, which will once and for all send a message: We will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country. This legislation is a crucial step toward prosecuting crimes directed at thousands of individuals who are the targets of brutal and senseless violence. The current Federal hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. This bill improves the current Federal hate crime law by including crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. Specifically, the Matthew Shepard Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 expands on the 1968 definition of a hate crime. Under current Federal law, hate crimes only cover attacks based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Under the proposed bill, hate crimes will include: gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. The bill enables States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to apply for Federal grants in order to solve hate crimes and provides Federal agents with broader authority to aid State and local police. Additionally, the bill amends the Hate Crime Statistics Act to allow law enforcement agencies to gather additional data on violent crimes committed out of hate. The bill also includes a ``Rule of Construction'' to ensure that it does not intrude on first amendment protected rights to freedom of speech. I believe that it is time for Congress to expand the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate. In States that have already enacted hate crimes laws, the Federal Government must provide the resources to ensure that those crimes do not go unpunished. We can and must do more. Across the Nation, horrific instances of violence are occurring that this bill would work to fight against. I would like to share just a few examples: In February 2008 in Oxnard, CA, Lawrence ``Larry'' King, a 15-year- old boy was shot and killed by a fellow classmate at his junior high school. Larry, who had told his classmates he was gay, had long been harassed and bullied at school. The way he was treated is unacceptable, and his death was a tragic and poignant reminder of why it is so important to stop bullying and violence in our schools. In Laurel, DE, earlier this month, three teenagers were charged with robbing and assaulting a 31-year-old developmentally disabled man. The victim was walking home one Friday evening from his brother's house in the Laurel Village Mobile Home Park and was dragged into a wooden area, beaten, and robbed of his wallet and keys. The victim's mother later found him and took him to the hospital where he was treated for a concussion. Lastly, one of the most well-known cases in California happened in West Hollywood to actor Trev Broudy in 2002. The night of the attack, Trev Broudy was hugging a man on a street. Three men with a baseball bat savagely attacked the actor and left him in a coma for approximately 10 weeks. As a result of the attack, Trev suffered brain damage, lost half of his vision, and has experienced trouble hearing. The crimes are brutal. The attackers targeted their victims because of who they are. Yet, none of these crimes can be prosecuted as a Federal hate crime. These are not isolated instances. These crimes occur all too often. According to the latest FBI statistics, there were almost 7,700 hate crime incidents in the United States in 2007. Of those, 1,789 occurred in California, with 15 percent of those based on sexual orientation. Nationally, approximately 50.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 18 percent were motivated by religious bias, 17 percent were motivated by sexual orientation, and 13.2 percent were motivated by ethnicity or national origin bias. One percent involved a bias against a disability. Even more disturbing is the fact that these FBI statistics show only a fraction of the problem because so many hate crimes are unreported. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization located in Montgomery, AL and internationally known for its tolerance education programs, estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000 as opposed to the nearly 8,000 cases reported to the FBI. A close analysis of hate crimes rates demonstrates that groups that are now covered by current laws--such as African Americans, Muslims, and Jews, report similar rates of hate crimes victimizations as gays and lesbians--who are not currently protected. Every person's life is valuable. Congress must act to protect every individual who is targeted simply because of who they are. We must also stop the way that hate crimes terrorize communities. When people are targeted because of who they are, they often live in fear and communities suffer from tension and a lack of trust. These are crimes that damage our social fabric, and we must send a clear message that we cannot tolerate this kind of intimidation in the United States. This is not a new bill. It was first introduced in 1998. It has passed the Senate numerous times: in 2000, 2002, and 2004 as an amendment to the Department of Defense, Authorization bill. It has also passed the House in 2007 as a stand-alone bill and in 2006 as an amendment to the Adam Walsh Act. But still, it has not been enacted into law. In addition, last Congress, this body passed this legislation favorably as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, but the amendment was removed from the final version of the bill that the President signed. This legislation is bipartisan and has broad coalition support. It is supported by 26 State attorneys general and over 300 law enforcement, professional, educational, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it and working to enact it into law in this Congress. Let us send a message to all Americans that we will not turn a blind eye to hate crimes and will instead support the values of tolerance and community that unite us as Americans.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan's behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan's safety and her children's well-being may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government's position on Ms. Tan's case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a reply brief in her client's favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S. Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order. The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody. In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney's negligence. Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct. One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine. These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ``ideal'' students--``the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.'' One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ``model'' parent, one who ``attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys' teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.'' However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.--their birthplace and the only country they know to be home. All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country. A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes. This is the situation facing the Tan family. While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status through the regular family-based immigration channels. I do not believe that it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family--including two U.S. citizen minor children--to make the choice between being separated and relocation to a country where they may face serious hardships. The Tan family has built a stable and supportive home for themselves in the Pacifica, California community. Ms. Tan's spouse has worked for 17 years at Biddle-Shaw Insurance Services, Inc., where her employer describes her as ``hard-working . . . trustworthy and dependable.'' This couple owns their own home, and over many years they were active members of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church. At Good Shepherd, Jay was a member of the School Board and Ms. Tan was a consummate volunteer. I received a heartfelt letter from the Pastor at Good Shepherd that describes Ms. Tan as a ``dedicated mother'' and attests to the family's spirit of volunteerism and commitment at the church. In fact, I have received 45 letters from friends and community members and 3 letters from organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, Love Exiles, and Immigration Equality, in support of Ms. Tan remaining in the U.S. I have also been contacted by Representative Jackie Speier's office in support of this case. This family has also received substantial attention from the media in the San Francisco Bay Area. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to us continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to their community in Pacifica, California. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan's behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan's safety and her children's well-being may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government's position on Ms. Tan's case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a reply brief in her client's favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S. Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order. The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody. In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney's negligence. Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct. One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine. These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ``ideal'' students--``the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.'' One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ``model'' parent, one who ``attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys' teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.'' However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.--their birthplace and the only country they know to be home. All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country. A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes. This is the situation facing the Tan family. While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status through the regular family-based immigration channels. I do not believe that it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family--including two U.S. citizen minor children--to make the choice between being separated and relocation to a country where they may face serious hardships. The Tan family has built a stable and supportive home for themselves in the Pacifica, California community. Ms. Tan's spouse has worked for 17 years at Biddle-Shaw Insurance Services, Inc., where her employer describes her as ``hard-working . . . trustworthy and dependable.'' This couple owns their own home, and over many years they were active members of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church. At Good Shepherd, Jay was a member of the School Board and Ms. Tan was a consummate volunteer. I received a heartfelt letter from the Pastor at Good Shepherd that describes Ms. Tan as a ``dedicated mother'' and attests to the family's spirit of volunteerism and commitment at the church. In fact, I have received 45 letters from friends and community members and 3 letters from organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, Love Exiles, and Immigration Equality, in support of Ms. Tan remaining in the U.S. I have also been contacted by Representative Jackie Speier's office in support of this case. This family has also received substantial attention from the media in the San Francisco Bay Area. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to us continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to their community in Pacifica, California. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to change my vote on rollcall No. 128. It was my intention to vote ``yes'' and I voted ``no.'' Since it will not change the outcome of the vote, I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed to reflect a ``yea'' vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of bills, S. 762, S. 763, and S. 764, designed to better prepare for catastrophic wildfires like the ones that recently devastated Southwestern Australia and that have plagued much of our country for years. California has seen unprecedented devastation from wildfires in the last 5 years. Over 10,000 families have lost their homes. Over 4 million acres have been burned. In 2007, wildfires in Southern California caused the evacuation of an estimated 750,000 people--the largest evacuation in California history. In these fires alone, more than a million acres burned, and more than 2,000 homes were destroyed. These fires killed nine people, and injured 130. Mostly firefighters. The financial damage is estimated to be in the billions. Simply put, this was a disaster of epic proportions. It was not the first. Southern California suffered similar wildfire losses just 5 years ago. We must face the fact that catastrophic wildfires are in California's future, and the future of other States. Experts predict that things are only going to get worse in the years to come. Global warming, extended droughts, dangerous invasive species outbreaks, and years of poor forest and fuel management have all contributed to the explosive conditions that we now face. The reality is that California and much of the West is tinder-dry. Fires are larger, and they burn hotter and with more intensity. In early February we saw the tragic consequences of catastrophic wildfire in Australia. Two hundred are dead, a million acres burned, and whole communities were wiped out in a matter of hours. Here in the U.S. we face that very same possibility, and we must do everything we can to stop a similar tragedy from devastating our neighborhoods. The problem is that more and more people are living in areas at high risk of wildfire. There are more than 5 million homes in California alone in this high-threat ``wildland-urban interface.'' Across the rest of the country, there are nearly 40 million more homes located in the wildland urban interface. So the question comes: What can be done? There is no doubt that we cannot fully eliminate wildfires. But I believe that we can take steps now to better protect communities, to improve firefighting capabilities, and to improve relief and recovery aid. The three bills that I am introducing today will get this process started. They are the Fire Safe Communities Act, which would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfires to adopt responsible building codes and mitigation practices. The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act, to make sure that qualified individuals, displaced by major disasters, are able to make their mortgage and rental payments. The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act, to increase the amount of federal dollars available to homeowners whose rebuilding costs outstrip their insurance coverage. The Fire Safe Communities Act will help protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of wildfires. Most importantly, it does three key things. It gives incentives to local communities that have adopted responsible fire-mitigation plans by allowing for greater federal reimbursement of firefighting costs during major fires. It creates a grant program to encourage responsible development practices that meet wildland-urban interface code guidelines. It allows for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to collaboratively work on mitigation projects that will protect homes on State and private lands In effect, the Federal Government would become the partner of local governments as they seek to make their communities fire-safe. As I have said, we can never stop wildfires. But we can take important steps to make these fires less destructive. This bill starts with the first step, by putting a reliable, unambiguous definition to ``Fire Safe'' communities. Current Wildland fire codes, such as those produced by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association, compile a comprehensive set of best practices that can be adopted by communities that are looking to protect themselves from fire damage. If properly implemented, these codes can greatly improve the fire resistance of these communities and their residents. The fire code guidelines address water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards. The target mitigation measures in fire codes have been proven to be effective. Firefighter groups, insurance companies, and blue ribbon panels have all come to the same conclusions. It is time that we take their advice and start making this important investment. The bill authorizes a $25 million per year grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's, FEMA, Office of Grants, and Training. It will help communities implement these standards, and bring the safest development practices to their neighborhoods. This grant program will be available to local governments located in the wildlife-urban interface, and to high-threat regions that have adopted--or plan to adopt--these responsible firesafe measures. As further incentive, this bill makes the existing Fire Management Assistance Grants program contingent on the implementation of Firesafe codes, standards and ordinances. Today under the Fire Management Assistance Grant program, the federal government covers 75 percent of the cost of fighting wildfires. Under this bill, communities that adopt the firesafe codes would be eligible for Federal reimbursement of up to 90 percent of their firefighting costs. It is important to note that firesafe building codes, standards and ordinances are not mandatory. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling local governments how and where to build their buildings. Instead these are voluntary codes; communities can choose to adopt, or not to adopt, at their discretion. The bill does not step on the toes of local government. Rather, helps all of us reach a common goal. I come from local government--I am 9 years a mayor, 9 years a county supervisor--and I recognize that zoning is the province of local government. But we have a real problem here: We know that development in the wildland-urban interface is accelerating, and it is making fires more costly. We need to take steps to improve fire safety in these areas. This bill is an important step toward becoming better prepared. Now I want to discuss two bills intended to improve recovery aid after disaster strikes. The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act will provide much-needed relief to working families hit hard by disasters. It would authorize FEMA to make mortgage and rental assistance available for qualified individuals in communities designated as disaster areas by the President under the Stafford Act. It is based on an important point: While catastrophic wildfires and other disasters can destroy homes, they don't relieve people of the financial obligations that come with home ownership or lease agreements. In most cases, these payments must still be made, even if the residence has been wiped out. This burden is too much for many working families. They incur additional expenses--such as hotel or lodging costs--that come with being displaced following a major disaster. FEMA used to provide mortgage and rental assistance. But these types of assistance were eliminated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This bill would re-authorize the program, and make several changes to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need. First, to qualify for assistance applicants must demonstrate that they face significant economic hardships and suffered disaster-related income loss. The disaster-related income loss must fit into one of the following categories: your employer, or your own business, must be located in the area declared a major disaster by the President; you lose your job because your employer or business has a significant business relationship with a company located within the Presidentially declared disaster area; or you live in a Presidentially declared disaster area, and have suffered financially due to travel restrictions and road closures post-disaster. To qualify for this aid, applicants must also provide proof that their employment was discontinued as a result of disaster. They must also show imminent delinquency, eviction, dispossession, or foreclosure. Finally, this assistance is available only for up to 18 months, and is subject to income caps. Only households with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or less, in high-cost states such as California, would be eligible. Households in lower-cost States could be eligible if their annual adjusted gross incomes do not exceed $75,000. In today's market conditions, the federal government needs to make sure that we do everything we can to help families stay in their homes. The Mortgage and Rental Assistance Act will prevent foreclosures in disaster areas by helping families make their payments on time. Given the state of the housing market, this bill is of the utmost importance and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase the amount of money FEMA can provide--for rebuilding and temporary housing--in high- cost states such as California. It is designed to help disaster victims whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. Or for low income earners who have no insurance. Sadly, many Californians hit by wildfires or other disasters learn too late that their insurance coverage is insufficient. This is a real problem in California. In fact, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner estimates that as many as 25 percent of the victims of the 2007 wildfires were underinsured. Let me be clear: this bill will not cover the full costs of rebuilding. But it will help close the gap, for qualified households in areas declared by the President to be disaster areas. Today, FEMA can provide up to roughly $28,000 to individuals and households whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. This assistance can be used for rebuilding costs, as well as temporary housing. The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase this amount to $50,000 for individuals who earn less than $100,000 per year. By increasing the amount of assistance, and targeting the program toward lower-income homeowners, the FEMA Disaster Assistance program will more efficiently help homeowners recover from disasters. The legislation also gives the President the discretion to increase this cap, if necessary, to cover rebuilding expenses in high-cost states. I believe this bill will provide an important step toward giving Americans the chance they need to rebuild their lives after suffering through a major disaster. Catastrophic wildfires are not going away. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests they will occur with greater frequency and ferocity. But we can take important steps--now--to make our communities safer. To strengthen our firefighting capabilities. To ensure that more relief and recovery aid is provided to victims, so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible. These bills are not a panacea. But they are an important first step. I urge my colleagues to vote for them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of bills, S. 762, S. 763, and S. 764, designed to better prepare for catastrophic wildfires like the ones that recently devastated Southwestern Australia and that have plagued much of our country for years. California has seen unprecedented devastation from wildfires in the last 5 years. Over 10,000 families have lost their homes. Over 4 million acres have been burned. In 2007, wildfires in Southern California caused the evacuation of an estimated 750,000 people--the largest evacuation in California history. In these fires alone, more than a million acres burned, and more than 2,000 homes were destroyed. These fires killed nine people, and injured 130. Mostly firefighters. The financial damage is estimated to be in the billions. Simply put, this was a disaster of epic proportions. It was not the first. Southern California suffered similar wildfire losses just 5 years ago. We must face the fact that catastrophic wildfires are in California's future, and the future of other States. Experts predict that things are only going to get worse in the years to come. Global warming, extended droughts, dangerous invasive species outbreaks, and years of poor forest and fuel management have all contributed to the explosive conditions that we now face. The reality is that California and much of the West is tinder-dry. Fires are larger, and they burn hotter and with more intensity. In early February we saw the tragic consequences of catastrophic wildfire in Australia. Two hundred are dead, a million acres burned, and whole communities were wiped out in a matter of hours. Here in the U.S. we face that very same possibility, and we must do everything we can to stop a similar tragedy from devastating our neighborhoods. The problem is that more and more people are living in areas at high risk of wildfire. There are more than 5 million homes in California alone in this high-threat ``wildland-urban interface.'' Across the rest of the country, there are nearly 40 million more homes located in the wildland urban interface. So the question comes: What can be done? There is no doubt that we cannot fully eliminate wildfires. But I believe that we can take steps now to better protect communities, to improve firefighting capabilities, and to improve relief and recovery aid. The three bills that I am introducing today will get this process started. They are the Fire Safe Communities Act, which would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfires to adopt responsible building codes and mitigation practices. The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act, to make sure that qualified individuals, displaced by major disasters, are able to make their mortgage and rental payments. The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act, to increase the amount of federal dollars available to homeowners whose rebuilding costs outstrip their insurance coverage. The Fire Safe Communities Act will help protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of wildfires. Most importantly, it does three key things. It gives incentives to local communities that have adopted responsible fire-mitigation plans by allowing for greater federal reimbursement of firefighting costs during major fires. It creates a grant program to encourage responsible development practices that meet wildland-urban interface code guidelines. It allows for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to collaboratively work on mitigation projects that will protect homes on State and private lands In effect, the Federal Government would become the partner of local governments as they seek to make their communities fire-safe. As I have said, we can never stop wildfires. But we can take important steps to make these fires less destructive. This bill starts with the first step, by putting a reliable, unambiguous definition to ``Fire Safe'' communities. Current Wildland fire codes, such as those produced by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association, compile a comprehensive set of best practices that can be adopted by communities that are looking to protect themselves from fire damage. If properly implemented, these codes can greatly improve the fire resistance of these communities and their residents. The fire code guidelines address water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards. The target mitigation measures in fire codes have been proven to be effective. Firefighter groups, insurance companies, and blue ribbon panels have all come to the same conclusions. It is time that we take their advice and start making this important investment. The bill authorizes a $25 million per year grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's, FEMA, Office of Grants, and Training. It will help communities implement these standards, and bring the safest development practices to their neighborhoods. This grant program will be available to local governments located in the wildlife-urban interface, and to high-threat regions that have adopted--or plan to adopt--these responsible firesafe measures. As further incentive, this bill makes the existing Fire Management Assistance Grants program contingent on the implementation of Firesafe codes, standards and ordinances. Today under the Fire Management Assistance Grant program, the federal government covers 75 percent of the cost of fighting wildfires. Under this bill, communities that adopt the firesafe codes would be eligible for Federal reimbursement of up to 90 percent of their firefighting costs. It is important to note that firesafe building codes, standards and ordinances are not mandatory. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling local governments how and where to build their buildings. Instead these are voluntary codes; communities can choose to adopt, or not to adopt, at their discretion. The bill does not step on the toes of local government. Rather, helps all of us reach a common goal. I come from local government--I am 9 years a mayor, 9 years a county supervisor--and I recognize that zoning is the province of local government. But we have a real problem here: We know that development in the wildland-urban interface is accelerating, and it is making fires more costly. We need to take steps to improve fire safety in these areas. This bill is an important step toward becoming better prepared. Now I want to discuss two bills intended to improve recovery aid after disaster strikes. The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act will provide much-needed relief to working families hit hard by disasters. It would authorize FEMA to make mortgage and rental assistance available for qualified individuals in communities designated as disaster areas by the President under the Stafford Act. It is based on an important point: While catastrophic wildfires and other disasters can destroy homes, they don't relieve people of the financial obligations that come with home ownership or lease agreements. In most cases, these payments must still be made, even if the residence has been wiped out. This burden is too much for many working families. They incur additional expenses--such as hotel or lodging costs--that come with being displaced following a major disaster. FEMA used to provide mortgage and rental assistance. But these types of assistance were eliminated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This bill would re-authorize the program, and make several changes to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need. First, to qualify for assistance applicants must demonstrate that they face significant economic hardships and suffered disaster-related income loss. The disaster-related income loss must fit into one of the following categories: your employer, or your own business, must be located in the area declared a major disaster by the President; you lose your job because your employer or business has a significant business relationship with a company located within the Presidentially declared disaster area; or you live in a Presidentially declared disaster area, and have suffered financially due to travel restrictions and road closures post-disaster. To qualify for this aid, applicants must also provide proof that their employment was discontinued as a result of disaster. They must also show imminent delinquency, eviction, dispossession, or foreclosure. Finally, this assistance is available only for up to 18 months, and is subject to income caps. Only households with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or less, in high-cost states such as California, would be eligible. Households in lower-cost States could be eligible if their annual adjusted gross incomes do not exceed $75,000. In today's market conditions, the federal government needs to make sure that we do everything we can to help families stay in their homes. The Mortgage and Rental Assistance Act will prevent foreclosures in disaster areas by helping families make their payments on time. Given the state of the housing market, this bill is of the utmost importance and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase the amount of money FEMA can provide--for rebuilding and temporary housing--in high- cost states such as California. It is designed to help disaster victims whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. Or for low income earners who have no insurance. Sadly, many Californians hit by wildfires or other disasters learn too late that their insurance coverage is insufficient. This is a real problem in California. In fact, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner estimates that as many as 25 percent of the victims of the 2007 wildfires were underinsured. Let me be clear: this bill will not cover the full costs of rebuilding. But it will help close the gap, for qualified households in areas declared by the President to be disaster areas. Today, FEMA can provide up to roughly $28,000 to individuals and households whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. This assistance can be used for rebuilding costs, as well as temporary housing. The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase this amount to $50,000 for individuals who earn less than $100,000 per year. By increasing the amount of assistance, and targeting the program toward lower-income homeowners, the FEMA Disaster Assistance program will more efficiently help homeowners recover from disasters. The legislation also gives the President the discretion to increase this cap, if necessary, to cover rebuilding expenses in high-cost states. I believe this bill will provide an important step toward giving Americans the chance they need to rebuild their lives after suffering through a major disaster. Catastrophic wildfires are not going away. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests they will occur with greater frequency and ferocity. But we can take important steps--now--to make our communities safer. To strengthen our firefighting capabilities. To ensure that more relief and recovery aid is provided to victims, so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible. These bills are not a panacea. But they are an important first step. I urge my colleagues to vote for them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of David S. Kris to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security. Mr. Kris was nominated by President Obama on February 11, 2009, to fill this important position. Since then, his nomination has been considered by the Judiciary Committee and then sequentially by the Intelligence Committee. I had the honor of chairing both of these hearings, so am as familiar with any Member with his record. Both the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee favorably reported the nomination without dissent. The position of the Assistant Attorney General for National Security was created in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 out of recognition that there should be a single official in the Department of Justice who is responsible for national security. The Assistant Attorney General is the bridge between our Nation's intelligence community and the Department of Justice. He or she represents the Government before the FISA Court and is also the Government's chief counterterrorism and counterespionage prosecutor. David Kris is highly qualified for this critically important national security position. He has both figuratively and literally ``written the book'' on national security. Mr. Kris spent 11 years as a prosecutor in the Justice Department, and he knows its national security functions well. During the Bush administration, he was the Associate Deputy Attorney General for national security, where he litigated national security cases and oversaw intelligence activities. When Congress considered merging the Department's national security functions under a single office, Kris was one of the experts consulted. After leaving Federal Government service, Mr. Kris remained very active in the field of national security law. He coauthored of the most widely used legal treatise in this area. His book, titled ``National Security Investigations and Prosecutions'', provides a step-by-step analysis of all of the law that governs Government activity in response to terrorist threats. During the debate last year over rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. Kris spent significant amounts of his personal time meeting with personnel from both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to offer his expertise and judgment. In addition to his expertise, Kris has received high marks for his commitment to the rule of law. Both committees to consider his nomination received numerous letters of support from distinguished legal and privacy rights officials and experts. Those letters are in the hearing records at both committees. It is important for the Senate to consider this nomination and confirm Mr. Kris. Simply put, the Department of Justice needs him to get to work. The Assistant Attorney General position, currently vacant, is the primary official overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act implementation and signs applications going to the FISA Court. Because of the legislation passed last year, Mr. Kris will need to start immediately to prepare new certifications and supporting materials that the executive branch will have to submit to the FISA Court. As such, he would be the official at the Department of Justice most directly involved in questions of setting minimization and targeting procedures, reviewing the Attorney General's guidelines under the act, and making sure that the intelligence collection is carried out faithfully under the law. Separately, an Assistant Attorney General should be playing a key role in the executive branch review of how to handle individuals currently held at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Kris has answered numerous questions on this topic during his confirmation hearings and shares my view that there must be an appropriate legal process upholding any decisions to detain individuals. However, he also believes, correctly in my view, that great care must be taken to ensure that anyone at Guantanamo who is transferred to other nations must not be allowed to pose a continuing threat to our national security. I am pleased that this nomination has finally reached the floor, and I urge the confirmation of David Kris.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to reintroduce legislation to enable hundreds of former Santa Susana Field Laboratory Workers or their survivors to receive compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances. Specifically, the Santa Susana Fair Compensation Act would provide a special status designation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act to Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees, so they can receive the benefits they deserve. In addition, the bill would extend the ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contract employees, or atomic weapons employees who worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2009. This revision would ensure that the Act's benefits are available to any of those workers who developed a radiation-linked cancer due to their employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. This bill fulfills the intent of Congress when it approved the act, providing compensation and care for nuclear program workers who suffered severe health problems caused by on-the-job exposure to radiation. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is a 2,849-acre facility located about 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. During the Cold War, it was used for the development and testing of nuclear reactors and powerful rockets, including those used in America's space and ballistic missile programs. Sadly, many workers of the Cold War era were exposed to radiation on a regular basis. But claims for compensation are hampered by incomplete and inaccurate records. Some records show only estimated levels of exposure for workers, and are imprecise. In other cases, if records were kept, they cannot be found today. Many Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no protective equipment--like respirators, gloves, or body suits--was provided to workers. More than 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers, but only a small fraction have been approved. A lack of documentation, or inability to prove exposure thresholds, has hindered hundreds of claims that may well be legitimate. And, for some lab workers and their families, it is impossible to reconstruct exposure scenarios due to records having been destroyed. Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families now face the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed more than 40 years ago, in most cases with little or no documentation. The case of my constituent, Betty Reo, provides an example of why this legislation is necessary. Ms. Reo's husband, Cosmo Reo, worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory as an instrumentation mechanic from April 18, 1957 until May 17, 1960. Cosmo worked in the rocket testing pits and was exposed to hydrazine, trichlorithylene, and other cancer-causing chemicals which attack the lungs, bladder and kidneys. Cosmo died of renal failure in 1980. Ms. Reo applied for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. She has been trying to reconstruct the exposure scenarios under which her husband worked, but without adequate documentation she has been repeatedly denied benefits. This bill would help people like Betty Reo, people who lack the documentation necessary to prove their cases, and those who worked in any of the four areas of the Santa Susana site. I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting these injustices and cutting through the ``red tape'' that prevents Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers, and their families, from receiving fair compensation. For many, such as Ms. Reo, time is running out. We can no longer afford to delay, and this bill provides a straightforward solution to fix a broken system. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to reintroduce legislation to enable hundreds of former Santa Susana Field Laboratory Workers or their survivors to receive compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances. Specifically, the Santa Susana Fair Compensation Act would provide a special status designation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act to Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees, so they can receive the benefits they deserve. In addition, the bill would extend the ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contract employees, or atomic weapons employees who worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2009. This revision would ensure that the Act's benefits are available to any of those workers who developed a radiation-linked cancer due to their employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. This bill fulfills the intent of Congress when it approved the act, providing compensation and care for nuclear program workers who suffered severe health problems caused by on-the-job exposure to radiation. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is a 2,849-acre facility located about 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. During the Cold War, it was used for the development and testing of nuclear reactors and powerful rockets, including those used in America's space and ballistic missile programs. Sadly, many workers of the Cold War era were exposed to radiation on a regular basis. But claims for compensation are hampered by incomplete and inaccurate records. Some records show only estimated levels of exposure for workers, and are imprecise. In other cases, if records were kept, they cannot be found today. Many Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no protective equipment--like respirators, gloves, or body suits--was provided to workers. More than 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers, but only a small fraction have been approved. A lack of documentation, or inability to prove exposure thresholds, has hindered hundreds of claims that may well be legitimate. And, for some lab workers and their families, it is impossible to reconstruct exposure scenarios due to records having been destroyed. Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families now face the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed more than 40 years ago, in most cases with little or no documentation. The case of my constituent, Betty Reo, provides an example of why this legislation is necessary. Ms. Reo's husband, Cosmo Reo, worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory as an instrumentation mechanic from April 18, 1957 until May 17, 1960. Cosmo worked in the rocket testing pits and was exposed to hydrazine, trichlorithylene, and other cancer-causing chemicals which attack the lungs, bladder and kidneys. Cosmo died of renal failure in 1980. Ms. Reo applied for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. She has been trying to reconstruct the exposure scenarios under which her husband worked, but without adequate documentation she has been repeatedly denied benefits. This bill would help people like Betty Reo, people who lack the documentation necessary to prove their cases, and those who worked in any of the four areas of the Santa Susana site. I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting these injustices and cutting through the ``red tape'' that prevents Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers, and their families, from receiving fair compensation. For many, such as Ms. Reo, time is running out. We can no longer afford to delay, and this bill provides a straightforward solution to fix a broken system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the manager of the bill. The Coburn amendment would destroy a court-approved settlement of an 18-year legal battle involving the release of water from the Friant Dam, from which 15,000 farmers get their water over the restoration of salmon in the San Joaquin Valley. The agreement is agreed upon by the Governor of California, the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, the water contractors. It has a broad consensus. The reason is because the belief is--and my belief is--that the Federal Government has lost the case and, therefore, the judge would order a huge release of water from this dam which would provide a lack of certainty for the farmers and would not provide for the salmon restoration. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has argued against the settlement agreement--court approved--by saying its goal is 500 fish. Its goal is not 500 fish; it is 30,000. It is to restore a historic salmon fishery. Secondly, under the settlement, the State of California relieves the Federal Government of a number of payments: $200 million from the State, and the water contractors pick up another $200 million, equaling $400 million, which the Federal Government would have had to have paid. So this is a court settlement. It should stand. It is the right thing. I urge a no vote on the Coburn amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I understand that we are on the Kirk nomination; however, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the lands bill.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate will have before it a series of amendments to the lands bill made by Senator Coburn. I rise to oppose specifically two of these amendments, amendment No. 683 and amendment No. 675, and I do so on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer. These amendments would essentially throw out a legal settlement agreement concerning the restoration of the San Joaquin River. The settlement agreement ends 18 years of costly litigation. It is the product of 4 years of negotiation by the Bush administration, the State of California, dozens of water agencies, the Friant water users--it affects Friant, and Friant is a Division of the Central Valley Project and 15,000 farmers draw their water from this Division; it is big, it is important, it is critical--and by environmental and fishing groups. This was a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the Federal Government saying that what was happening at Friant Dam was not sufficient in the release of water to protect the salmon. I wish to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks a letter by the Governor of the State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, supporting the settlement agreement, and a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice supporting the settlement agreement. I also commend to my colleagues a Congressional Research Service Memorandum entitled ``Institutional and Economic Context of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement,'' spelling out the institutional and economic context of this settlement agreement.