Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 3493 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a longtime public servant who spent her career working hard to improve the quality of elections. Ms. Margaret Sims spent her entire career working for both of the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee--the Federal Election Commission and the Election Assistance Commission. She passed away earlier this month after a long battle with cancer. A resident of Burke, VA, Ms. Sims, known to her friends as ``Peggy'', was born in Schenectady, NY, and was a graduate of Wells College. She was an intern in the community services department at the AFL-CIO before starting her career at the FEC as an investigator. She also served as Director of Compliance and Election Administrative Research Specialist at that agency. Long before the 2000 election and hanging chads, Ms. Sims was working hard with our Nation's election administration professionals to provide them with the best information available to help them do their job. While at the FEC, she assisted in developing voting systems standards and in the creation of a guide and training tools to accompany the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. She was also part of the first U.S. delegation to the Trilateral Conference between Canada, Mexico and the United States held in Mexico City in 1994. This conference engaged the three countries in dialogue regarding their respective election processes so that each country might learn from the others. She moved to the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission in 2004, where she assisted in guiding States in appropriate voting procedures and in training them how to report back to that agency. She provided guidance to the new EAC Commissioners and assisted them in developing a working knowledge of the election administration process. During the challenging implementation of the Help America Vote Act, hundreds of election officials relied on her assistance in getting the law right. Because she worked in the field of elections, Ms. Sims was always nonpartisan. She proudly said that she would not even let her husband put a political bumper sticker on his car. Her emphasis on providing assistance in an impartial, unbiased way is a testament to her dedication. She did not care about who won or lost, she cared that the process was always fair. She is survived by her husband and son, Dug and Jay Greevy, as well as her mother, two brothers, and a sister. It is important to remember not only the life of Peggy Sims but also the impact of her work. She worked hard every day for civic leadership and better government. She rose above partisan labels. We honor her memory by recognizing her commitments to public service and to shaping better elections for our country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may just for a moment echo the comments of the Senator from New York, this morning I watched on television the ceremony at the Pentagon. As I watched the calling of the names, a photo flashed on the screen of each individual. What you saw were young military men, you saw a lieutenant colonel, you saw the faces of whole families wiped out, young people, older people, you saw every race. In a sense, when you looked at the benches and the water flowing under the benches and the maples that will grow around them, as you listened to the sad song of the pipers, you realized what a great country this is and how we respect every single human life and how important that is; also, how important it is that the message remain true, that the message remain full of heart but also full of vigilance that this must never happen again in our homeland. So I wish to join Senator Schumer and send our best wishes, our sympathy, our sorrow to these families 7 years later, and our thanks to those who gave their lives in the Pentagon. I had a chance to sit down with the family of a captain of the American Airlines plane that flew into the Pentagon. It was very revealing because at the time they were convinced it was the heroic gesture of this captain in turning the plane away from the U.S. Capitol that played a role. I want them to know that I was thinking of them both during the Pentagon ceremony and the ceremony in front of the Capitol. So all those victims remain in our hearts and in our minds, and we consecrate ourselves to work on their behalf. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Monday, September 15, 2008, at 11 a.m. to receive testimony on Voter Registration for Wounded Warriors: S. 3308, the ``Veterans Voter Support Act.'' Individuals and organizations that wish to submit a statement for the hearing record are requested to contact the Chief Clerk, Lynden Armstrong, at 202-224-7078. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 202-224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Long before being elected to the Fairfield City Council, Matt Garcia's ambition and dedication inspired his community to be better and to do better. Since the 6th grade, friends remember Matt telling them that one day he would become the mayor of his hometown of Fairfield. Matt attended Armijo High School, where he served as vice president of his senior class and was selected as both prom king and homecoming king. Matt Garcia was a driven young leader who cared for his community deeply, and will be remembered by friends and colleagues as honest, passionate, and full of life. Matt served Fairfield with enthusiasm and a commitment to creating a better world. His dedication to his goals and dreams of improving his community will live on in those whose lives he touched.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senators Rockefeller, Whitehouse, Hagel, Feingold and I introduce legislation to end coercive interrogations and secret detentions by the Central Intelligence Agency. These practices have brought shame to our Nation, have harmed our ability to fight the war on terror, and, I believe, violate U.S. law and international treaty obligations. It is time to repudiate torture and secret disappearances. It is time to end the outsourcing of coercive interrogations to the lowest bidder. It is time to return to the norms and values that have driven the United States to greatness for decades, but have been tarnished in the past 7 years. It is now public knowledge that the Bush administration, in the Vice President's words, turned to ``the dark side.'' The ``gloves came off.'' In the name of counterterrorism, the CIA resorted to waterboarding--an interrogation technique invented in the Spanish Inquisition to force false confessions and punish enemies. In a mistaken effort to gain better intelligence, the CIA used this same technique that the Justice Department has prosecuted and the State Department has decried overseas. The administration used warped logic and faulty reasoning to say waterboarding technique was not torture. It is. Waterboarding is the only technique to be publicly confirmed by this administration. There are others that have not been acknowledged but are still authorized for use. This has to end. But we will never turn this sad page in our Nation's history until all coercive techniques are banned, and are replaced with a single, clear, uniform standard across the United States Government. That standard is the one set out in the Army Field Manual. Its techniques work for the military and for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the CIA would abide by its terms, it would work for the CIA as well. The first provision in this legislation requires the Intelligence Community to follow the Army Field Manual. That is already the law for the Department of Defense. It is supported by 43 retired generals and admirals and by a bipartisan group of former Secretaries of State and Defense, Ambassadors, and national security advisors. Majorities in both houses of Congress passed this provision earlier this year, sending a clear message that we do not support coercive interrogations. Regrettably, the President's veto stopped it from becoming law. The second provision in this legislation requires that access to any detainee being held by the intelligence community be provided to members of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Access by the ICRC is a hallmark of international law and is required by the Geneva Conventions. We believe that granting access to the ICRC is the best way to ensure that the same right will be afforded to U.S. forces if they are ever captured overseas. But ICRC access has been denied at CIA black sites in the war on terror. This has, in part, opened the door to the abuses in detainee treatment. Independent access prevents abuses like we witnessed at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It is time that the same protection is in place for the CIA as well, in the well-established rules that the military has used for years. Finally, this legislation contains a ban on contractor interrogators at the CIA. As General Hayden has testified, the CIA uses outside contractors to conduct these interrogations. We should not be using coercive interrogation techniques at all. But I firmly believe that outsourcing these interrogations to private companies is a way to diminish accountability and to avoid getting the Agency's hands dirty. I also believe that the use of contractors leads to more brutal interrogations than if they were done by Government employees. We remain a nation at war, and credible, actionable intelligence remains a cornerstone of our war effort. But that is not what the CIA detention and interrogation program has provided. Every single experienced interrogator tells us that coercive techniques will get someone to say what the interrogator wants to hear. But that doesn't make it true. In fact, coercive interrogations and the threat of torture produced the information that Saddam Hussein was providing al Qaeda with WMD training. That wasn't true, but it helped lead us to war in Iraq. Military and FBI interrogators also tell us that when they build a rapport with a detainee, they get more information, and more valuable information, than when it is coerced. Beyond that, our Nation has paid an enormous price because of these interrogations. They cast shadow and doubt over our ideals and our system of justice. Our enemies have used our practices to recruit more extremists. Our key global partnerships, crucial to winning the war on terror, have been strained. Look at two of our closest allies in the world. The British Parliament no longer trusts U.S. assurances that we will not torture detainees. The Canadian Government recently added the United States to its list of nations that conduct torture. This is not the country that we want to be. Torture and disappearances do not befit the nation that I know. It is time to restore America's integrity. It will take time to resume our place as the world's beacon of liberty and justice. This bill will put us on that path and start the process. I urge its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senators Rockefeller, Whitehouse, Hagel, Feingold and I introduce legislation to end coercive interrogations and secret detentions by the Central Intelligence Agency. These practices have brought shame to our Nation, have harmed our ability to fight the war on terror, and, I believe, violate U.S. law and international treaty obligations. It is time to repudiate torture and secret disappearances. It is time to end the outsourcing of coercive interrogations to the lowest bidder. It is time to return to the norms and values that have driven the United States to greatness for decades, but have been tarnished in the past 7 years. It is now public knowledge that the Bush administration, in the Vice President's words, turned to ``the dark side.'' The ``gloves came off.'' In the name of counterterrorism, the CIA resorted to waterboarding--an interrogation technique invented in the Spanish Inquisition to force false confessions and punish enemies. In a mistaken effort to gain better intelligence, the CIA used this same technique that the Justice Department has prosecuted and the State Department has decried overseas. The administration used warped logic and faulty reasoning to say waterboarding technique was not torture. It is. Waterboarding is the only technique to be publicly confirmed by this administration. There are others that have not been acknowledged but are still authorized for use. This has to end. But we will never turn this sad page in our Nation's history until all coercive techniques are banned, and are replaced with a single, clear, uniform standard across the United States Government. That standard is the one set out in the Army Field Manual. Its techniques work for the military and for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the CIA would abide by its terms, it would work for the CIA as well. The first provision in this legislation requires the Intelligence Community to follow the Army Field Manual. That is already the law for the Department of Defense. It is supported by 43 retired generals and admirals and by a bipartisan group of former Secretaries of State and Defense, Ambassadors, and national security advisors. Majorities in both houses of Congress passed this provision earlier this year, sending a clear message that we do not support coercive interrogations. Regrettably, the President's veto stopped it from becoming law. The second provision in this legislation requires that access to any detainee being held by the intelligence community be provided to members of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Access by the ICRC is a hallmark of international law and is required by the Geneva Conventions. We believe that granting access to the ICRC is the best way to ensure that the same right will be afforded to U.S. forces if they are ever captured overseas. But ICRC access has been denied at CIA black sites in the war on terror. This has, in part, opened the door to the abuses in detainee treatment. Independent access prevents abuses like we witnessed at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It is time that the same protection is in place for the CIA as well, in the well-established rules that the military has used for years. Finally, this legislation contains a ban on contractor interrogators at the CIA. As General Hayden has testified, the CIA uses outside contractors to conduct these interrogations. We should not be using coercive interrogation techniques at all. But I firmly believe that outsourcing these interrogations to private companies is a way to diminish accountability and to avoid getting the Agency's hands dirty. I also believe that the use of contractors leads to more brutal interrogations than if they were done by Government employees. We remain a nation at war, and credible, actionable intelligence remains a cornerstone of our war effort. But that is not what the CIA detention and interrogation program has provided. Every single experienced interrogator tells us that coercive techniques will get someone to say what the interrogator wants to hear. But that doesn't make it true. In fact, coercive interrogations and the threat of torture produced the information that Saddam Hussein was providing al Qaeda with WMD training. That wasn't true, but it helped lead us to war in Iraq. Military and FBI interrogators also tell us that when they build a rapport with a detainee, they get more information, and more valuable information, than when it is coerced. Beyond that, our Nation has paid an enormous price because of these interrogations. They cast shadow and doubt over our ideals and our system of justice. Our enemies have used our practices to recruit more extremists. Our key global partnerships, crucial to winning the war on terror, have been strained. Look at two of our closest allies in the world. The British Parliament no longer trusts U.S. assurances that we will not torture detainees. The Canadian Government recently added the United States to its list of nations that conduct torture. This is not the country that we want to be. Torture and disappearances do not befit the nation that I know. It is time to restore America's integrity. It will take time to resume our place as the world's beacon of liberty and justice. This bill will put us on that path and start the process. I urge its passage. 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 in support of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 that would renew major programs that ensure our Nation's students have access to a college education. This important legislation would increase grant aid to our neediest students, provide new measures to address rising college costs, and would reform the student loan system so that it better serves students. Students and their families in California and nationwide are struggling to pay the growing costs of a college education. Specifically, this bill will increase Pell grants from $4,800 to $6,000 for 2009 and to $8,000 for 2014. Over 625,000 California students rely on Pell grants to afford college. It will allow low-income students, for the first time, to receive Pell grants year round, including summer school. This will help students complete their degree programs more quickly. It will allow military servicemembers to defer payments, interest free, on Federal direct loans while they are on active duty. Our service men and women risk their lives for our Nation and deserve to not have to worry about paying their student loans while they are on duty. It will authorize the U.S. Department of Education to award competitive grants for Teacher Preparation Programs that help recruit and retain high-quality teachers in high-need schools. It will require the U.S. Department of Education to publish detailed data about college pricing trends on its website to ensure more transparency. It will simplify student financial aid forms by creating a new 2-page form for low-income students, and phase out the current 7-page form within 5 years. It is critical that we help make college more affordable and accessible for students at a time when they are taking on more debt to pay for school. More than half of California students who graduate from 4-year public colleges have debt averaging over $12,000. Nearly 1 year ago, the President signed into law major legislation that provides over $17 billion in new grant aid to low-income college students--$2.5 billion of which would go to help California's students. And the key reforms in the renewal of this Higher Education legislation before us today will further help ensure that college is more affordable for our young people and that they receive the education they deserve to succeed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 15 years. The story of the Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several years later learned that she had contracted HIV. Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6. Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay taxes and own their own home in Hercules, California. They are active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church. Mr. Tape is the owner of a small business, Melody's Carpet Cleaning & Upholstery, which has four other employees. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life- long surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease. In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care Specialist at Creekside Health Care in San Pablo, California. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can become a Registered Nurse. She is currently taking classes at Contra Costa Community College. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been afraid to return to Ivory Coast due to his prior association with President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape had previously sought to promote democracy and peace in the region in support of the current President Gbagbo's party. However, in 2006 Mr. Tape publically distanced himself from President Gbagbo's government when he accused the party of violence and corruption. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be targeted if they return to Ivory Coast. One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the family returns to Ivory Coast, these two young children will be forced to enter the army. This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United States. To send them back to Ivory Coast, where they may face persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to the family. They are contributing members of their community and have embraced the American dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this family. 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 Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 15 years. The story of the Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several years later learned that she had contracted HIV. Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6. Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay taxes and own their own home in Hercules, California. They are active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church. Mr. Tape is the owner of a small business, Melody's Carpet Cleaning & Upholstery, which has four other employees. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life- long surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease. In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care Specialist at Creekside Health Care in San Pablo, California. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can become a Registered Nurse. She is currently taking classes at Contra Costa Community College. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been afraid to return to Ivory Coast due to his prior association with President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape had previously sought to promote democracy and peace in the region in support of the current President Gbagbo's party. However, in 2006 Mr. Tape publically distanced himself from President Gbagbo's government when he accused the party of violence and corruption. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be targeted if they return to Ivory Coast. One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the family returns to Ivory Coast, these two young children will be forced to enter the army. This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United States. To send them back to Ivory Coast, where they may face persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to the family. They are contributing members of their community and have embraced the American dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this family. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Steve Thompson, his stellar career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the dedication to solving our most difficult natural resources problems that he has demonstrated time and again throughout his career. Thompson is retiring on August 4 after 32 years with the Service. I know Steve as the regional director of Region 8, formerly the California and Nevada Operations Office, CNO, a job he assumed in 2002. From the regional headquarters in Sacramento, CA, he oversaw Service programs in California, Nevada, and Klamath Basin that administer the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act and managed 51 national wildlife refuges and 3 national fish hatcheries. His many honors include being chosen in 1994 as the first ``Refuge Manager of the Year'' by the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Refuge Association. Even more notably, in September 2007, Thompson earned the Distinguished Executive Award, the highest Presidential Rank Award given to career senior executive service employees and the first time a Service employee has been so recognized. I have worked now with Steve on many issues, including the Cargill salt ponds purchase and ongoing restoration, efforts to restore the Klamath River, habitat conservation planning, and CALFED. For his dedication to help find a way to purchase the Cargill salt ponds, Steve can feel pride at the migratory birds that now have a place to rest in San Francisco Bay on their long journeys along the Pacific flyway. For his utterly tireless work to find a way to restore the Klamath River, we do not yet know what result will ensue. But thanks to Steve's leadership, we perhaps have a once in a generation opportunity to restore the River and its fisheries while providing certainty to farmers. What I always found with Steve is that he is completely dedicated to finding that straight and narrow path through the bureaucracy to actually solve our biggest natural resource problems. Others might find reasons why a solution can't be found or why it might be imperfect from some idealized perspective. Steve just dedicates himself to finding that solution. He is a straight shooter. He tells you what he is going to do to solve a problem, and then he gets the job done. All of us who care about California's natural resources will miss him. Steve, I want to congratulate you on your years of remarkable service to our Nation's fish and wildlife and the people who value them. I hope you can now enjoy a little fishing and a few quiet moments to contemplate what you have so honorably protected.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This legislation makes a number of long overdue changes and improvements in the Consumer Product Safety Commission and their ability to protect children and other consumers. It will impose mandatory toy safety standards, in place of the current voluntary standards; create an online database, which parents and consumers can search for reports of safety problems; provide whistleblower protections to employees of manufacturers, retailers and distributors to promote prompt reporting of any safety hazard; and authorize a much needed funding increase for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure that these reforms are carried out. Most importantly, this legislation bans the use of six phthalates in many children's products and child care articles. It will ban the use of more than .1 percent of three phthalates--DEHP, DBP, or BBP--in toys for children ages 12 and under and childcare articles for children ages 3 and under; and place an interim ban on the use of more than .1 percent of three additional phthalates--DINP, DIDP, and DnOP--in any toy that can be placed in a child's mouth or a child care article for ages 3 or under. The Consumer Product Safety Commission will convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel, CHAP, to fully examine the science on the effects of phthalates and any phthalate alternative. After this study, they will determine whether the interim ban should remain in place. I believe they will find that the ban is essential to the protection of children's health. Let me say, it is about time. The United States is often behind the rest of the world when it comes to chemical policy. The same has been true for phthalates. These chemicals have been restricted in at least 31 nations, including European Union--27 countries--Argentina, Fiji, Japan, Korea, and Mexico. It took action from three States--California, Washington and Vermont--before we have reached this point. It took voluntary action from the country's largest toy retailers: Wal-Mart, Toys ``R'' Us, and Target, all of which have announced that they will stop selling products that contain phthalates. With the passage of this legislation, parents throughout this country will have the same assurances as parents in the E.U., in Argentina, in Japan, and all of these other counties. They will be sure that the toys they give their children do not contain a dangerous plasticizer. And make no mistake, these chemicals are dangerous. When children chew on toys filled with phthalates, these chemicals leach from the toy, and into their bodies. Phthalates have been linked to a variety of reproductive defects. The science on phthalates is still evolving. But today, we are acting out of precaution: removing potentially dangerous substances from products until they are shown to be safe. Our current system for dealing with chemicals requires that regulators show that a chemical is dangerous before it can be removed from the market. We have this backwards: the burden should be placed on the manufacturers to prove to us that the chemicals they want to put in everyday items are safe. Our children should not be guinea pigs for untested chemicals. The interim ban on three phthalates marks a departure from this longstanding ``use chemicals first, ask questions later'' approach. These chemicals will be permitted back into toys only if they are proven to be safe, the very hallmark of the precautionary principle. We need to move fully in this direction. It is my belief that chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that we exercise the same caution with all chemicals. This is a sea change in our Nation's chemical policy, and predictably, we faced strong opposition from industry. Many people contributed to this victory here today, and I would like to mention a few. I would like to thank Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator Pryor for their steadfast support throughout this process. This would not have been possible without my home State colleagues, Senator Boxer and Congressman Waxman. They supported this from the beginning, and their work ensured that the best product possible emerged from conference. David Strickland, Alec Hoehn-Saric, and the Commerce Committee staff have been invaluable. They worked long nights and weekends to reach an agreement on this provision, and I appreciate it. Kristin Wikelius and Chris Thompson of my staff, who quickly learned about this issue and worked hard to move this through the legislative process. Dozens of grassroots groups from across the country supported my amendment and rallied their members to do the same. I will ask to have a list of these groups printed in the Record. This Coalition was led by the Breast Cancer Fund, based in my home city of San Francisco. Their work, expertise, and support made this happen. On another matter central to children's health, I am very pleased that this bill includes a provision that I sponsored to require secondhand cribs that are sold and used in the marketplace to have the same product safety standards as new cribs. This bill will close a loophole in consumer product safety standards, and help reduce injuries and deaths that come from used cribs that have missing or broken parts. Currently, U.S. consumer product safety standards apply only to new cribs and not to the sale or commercial use of secondhand cribs, which cause most crib-related infant injuries and deaths. The measure included in the conference report would prohibit commercial users, such as thrift stores and resale furniture stores, to sell, resell or lease unsafe used cribs that are structurally unsound, and prohibits hotels, motels, and daycare centers from using unsafe cribs, and adds secondhand cribs to the list of child and infant products covered by the Consumer Product Safety Act, the law that already applies to new cribs and other children's products. The safety standards for secondhand cribs will now match the safety standards for new cribs, including crib slats should be no more than 2\3/8\ inches apart to prevent infant from slipping through the slats and corner posts should not be higher than 1/16 inches above the end panels of the crib which prevents infant's clothing from becoming tangled on the crib. Every year, more than 11,300 children require hospital treatment from crib-related injuries and over 30 children die from injuries sustained in cribs. Most of these injuries and deaths occur in secondhand cribs that have dangerous features. The language included in this conference report is similar to proposals that Representative Ellen Tauscher and I have worked on for many years. I am very pleased that this legislation will help give parents the peace of mind that secondhand cribs are just as safe as brandnew cribs. The phthalate ban, the expansion of crib safety protections, and the entire Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act are hard-fought victories for children and all of those concerned with their safety. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference report, and I urge the President to sign this into law the moment it lands on his desk. We have waited years to take action against chemicals like phthalates, and we should not wait any longer. I ask unanimous consent that the list of groups supporting my amendment be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on S. 3212, the ``Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act of 2008.'' Individuals and organizations that wish to submit a statement for the hearing record are requested to contact the Chief Clerk, Lynden Armstrong, at 224-7078. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to stimulate domestic film production and create jobs. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. Our bill, the Domestic Film Production Equity Act of 2008, would expand a tax deduction, known as the section 199 domestic production incentive, for qualifying U.S. film producers. In 2008, this deduction will be worth 6 percent of a domestic manufacturer's qualifying production activities. It will increase to nine percent in 2010. Specifically, our bill would expand the production incentive to allow studios to include wages paid to full-time short-term employees, including U.S. actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in determining the limit on the deduction amount. The bill will treat films produced by partnerships between several studios as qualified property, each partner must have at least 20 percent interest in a project to qualify. The bill will deduct income from the licensing of copyrights and trademarks relating to films; and lastly, the bill will deduct income from films and TV programs broadcast over the Internet. Most film production companies receive only a limited benefit from the production incentive because the industry relies heavily on short- term contract work, and because many films are produced by multiple studios through partnerships. As a matter of fairness, these domestic production incentives should be extended to fully benefit an industry that employs over 1.3 million Americans. Filming a movie is different than traditional domestic manufacturing because short-term contract workers, including actors, writers, directors, and production personnel often work full-time on projects; multiple studios often produce one project; studios generate significant licensing fees associated with copyrights and trademarks related to films; and a number of media, including the Internet may be used to view each film or production. Our bill takes these circumstances into account to modernize this section of the tax code. The film industry is an important asset to the American economy. More than 1.3 million Americans work in motion picture and television production. In 2005, these jobs provided $30.24 billion in wages, with employees earning an average salary of $73,000. Of these employees, 231,000 were short-term contractors, often working multiple projects each year. California was the primary location for 365 film productions in 2005. This generated $42.2 billion in economic activity for my State. Our bill would help studios continue to provide opportunities to these talented actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in America. Expanding the Section 199 deduction to include these four categories is also a response to the competitive business of captivating an increasingly technology-adept viewing audience. The film industry, like the music industry, is increasingly seeing their sales move to digital formats via the internet. On iTunes--an online digital music store operated by Apple--around 50,000 movies are rented or sold each day. Moreover, by not allowing film studios to take advantage of domestic production tax incentives, we risk losing more operations abroad. For example, Canada currently provides domestic film producers with a tax credit worth 15 percent of qualifying production costs. Foreign studios with operations in Canada may also receive a tax credit worth up to 16 percent of wages paid to Canadian residents. The film industry plays a unique role in our society. The world recognizes Hollywood as the center of the entertainment industry. Millions of tourists annually travel from across the globe to visit the sites that embody the golden age of film. Hollywood film studios are American institutions that continue to produce some of the finest films in the world. Needless to say, it is critical that studios continue to film in my State and across the country. If not, the golden age of Hollywood and the economic activity it brings may be a part of the past. We are fortunate to have a vibrant domestic film industry. This legislation will help ensure that the U.S. entertainment industry continues to be the world leader. American workers and our economy stand to benefit. Efforts to expand the production incentive for domestic films have enjoyed broad bi-partisan support. Our bill is similar to a provision included in the tax extenders package which passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 263-160 in May. I am hopeful that the Senate will move quickly to enact this much- needed modernization of the tax code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to stimulate domestic film production and create jobs. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. Our bill, the Domestic Film Production Equity Act of 2008, would expand a tax deduction, known as the section 199 domestic production incentive, for qualifying U.S. film producers. In 2008, this deduction will be worth 6 percent of a domestic manufacturer's qualifying production activities. It will increase to nine percent in 2010. Specifically, our bill would expand the production incentive to allow studios to include wages paid to full-time short-term employees, including U.S. actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in determining the limit on the deduction amount. The bill will treat films produced by partnerships between several studios as qualified property, each partner must have at least 20 percent interest in a project to qualify. The bill will deduct income from the licensing of copyrights and trademarks relating to films; and lastly, the bill will deduct income from films and TV programs broadcast over the Internet. Most film production companies receive only a limited benefit from the production incentive because the industry relies heavily on short- term contract work, and because many films are produced by multiple studios through partnerships. As a matter of fairness, these domestic production incentives should be extended to fully benefit an industry that employs over 1.3 million Americans. Filming a movie is different than traditional domestic manufacturing because short-term contract workers, including actors, writers, directors, and production personnel often work full-time on projects; multiple studios often produce one project; studios generate significant licensing fees associated with copyrights and trademarks related to films; and a number of media, including the Internet may be used to view each film or production. Our bill takes these circumstances into account to modernize this section of the tax code. The film industry is an important asset to the American economy. More than 1.3 million Americans work in motion picture and television production. In 2005, these jobs provided $30.24 billion in wages, with employees earning an average salary of $73,000. Of these employees, 231,000 were short-term contractors, often working multiple projects each year. California was the primary location for 365 film productions in 2005. This generated $42.2 billion in economic activity for my State. Our bill would help studios continue to provide opportunities to these talented actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in America. Expanding the Section 199 deduction to include these four categories is also a response to the competitive business of captivating an increasingly technology-adept viewing audience. The film industry, like the music industry, is increasingly seeing their sales move to digital formats via the internet. On iTunes--an online digital music store operated by Apple--around 50,000 movies are rented or sold each day. Moreover, by not allowing film studios to take advantage of domestic production tax incentives, we risk losing more operations abroad. For example, Canada currently provides domestic film producers with a tax credit worth 15 percent of qualifying production costs. Foreign studios with operations in Canada may also receive a tax credit worth up to 16 percent of wages paid to Canadian residents. The film industry plays a unique role in our society. The world recognizes Hollywood as the center of the entertainment industry. Millions of tourists annually travel from across the globe to visit the sites that embody the golden age of film. Hollywood film studios are American institutions that continue to produce some of the finest films in the world. Needless to say, it is critical that studios continue to film in my State and across the country. If not, the golden age of Hollywood and the economic activity it brings may be a part of the past. We are fortunate to have a vibrant domestic film industry. This legislation will help ensure that the U.S. entertainment industry continues to be the world leader. American workers and our economy stand to benefit. Efforts to expand the production incentive for domestic films have enjoyed broad bi-partisan support. Our bill is similar to a provision included in the tax extenders package which passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 263-160 in May. I am hopeful that the Senate will move quickly to enact this much- needed modernization of the tax code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. A recent CFTC report found the traders were using the London exchange to trade U.S. crude oil futures to avoid U.S. regulations--in other words, go around it. Trades exceeded U.S. speculation limits every single week since 2006. Last month, CFTC announced that it would limit this offshore market speculation and require recordkeeping and an audit trail for these traders. That is a start. But legislation is still needed to codify the regulation. This legislation will require foreign exchanges with customers in the United States to adopt the same speculation trading limits and reporting requirements that apply to U.S. trades, ending the regulatory race to the bottom. This language is based on legislation that Senator Levin and I introduced previously. I believe very strongly that we must ensure that American energy commodities are protected from manipulation and excessive speculation, regardless of where the commodities are traded. Bottom line, this bill brings transparency, it brings accountability, it brings recordkeeping, it brings oversight to the energy markets. It would impose sound, proven economic principles to markets that are currently broken and where speculation has increased so dramatically that it is pushing up the price. It would close regulatory and legislative loopholes that prevent the CFTC from enforcing the Commodity Exchange Act in energy commodity markets. I hope my colleagues will support the bill. I suspect it may not pass. I hope it does because there is no question in my mind that the 800-pound gorilla in the price of gasoline at the pump is excessive speculation on commodities futures markets dealing with energy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 12 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish I could come to the floor and say there is a quick fix for gasoline prices at the pump. This is needed as much as anywhere in California where gas prices are high and at times the very highest. I wish I could say there was this quick fix, but I cannot. I wish I could say if we could drill all of the Outer Continental Shelf, if we could drill on all of the public land in America, the price of gasoline at the pump would drop immediately, but I cannot. In all good conscience, I do not believe opening the Outer Continental Shelf to new drilling would lower the prices at the pump anytime in the near future. In the first place, it takes 2 years for MMS, Minerals and Management Service, to do the contracts. Secondly, all drilling rigs are now leased. There need to be new rigs. Thirdly, there is no additional refining capacity. Fourth, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and on public lands in America over the last 8 years has increased by 361 percent and, at the same time, the price of oil has doubled. So there is no relationship between drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, drilling on public lands in America, and the price of oil. I deeply believe this. Some say it is simply a problem of supply and demand, but physical supplies of oil and natural gas have remained relatively stable over the past year. In fact, if you remember, executives from oil companies testified before Congress recently and asserted that the price should be about $60 a barrel if it were just a matter of supply and demand. Some point to instability in the Middle East and Africa's production regions. Others have pointed to the falling dollar. These are certainly factors. But I cannot explain the sharp uptick in prices we have seen at the pump over the last few months. So what is really going on? What is new in this picture? Consumption in America has dropped 3 percent this year over the same period last year. So what is new? There is only one thing that is different, there is only one thing that is new, and it is a massive influx of speculation in the marketplace. This is the 800-pound gorilla. Increasingly, experts now say rampant speculation in energy markets accounts for anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the energy price increase. Some will say even more. So I think we have to take a look at why this is the case and what we can do about it. In May, Congress took a major step forward in the effort to bring more oversight to energy futures markets when we enacted legislation to close the notorious Enron loophole. The Senator from Minnesota just referred to it. I had worked on this for 6 years. I came to the floor when Phil Gramm argued against it. I lost. I got just 48 votes. We came back again. We finally got it in the farm bill this time, and the notorious Enron loophole today is closed. What was that? This loophole was created in 2000 when a measure was inserted in the dark of night into a must-pass appropriations bill at the behest of Enron and others to essentially eliminate them from the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Two commodities were left out: energy and metals. During the western energy crisis in 1999 and 2000, we saw the costs in my State soar from roughly $8 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and then to $27.5 billion in 2001. The reason for this was, in the main, manipulation, fraud, and reckless speculation of the worst sort, all because you could trade on electronic platforms with no transparency and there was no antifraud, antimanipulation oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. When all was said and done, these energy traders left California taxpayers with an increased bill of about $40 billion. To date, 32 companies have pled guilty to market manipulation and settled $6 billion in claims. In recent years, we also saw the $6 billion collapse of the Amaranth hedge fund because of unregulated speculation in natural gas futures on electronic exchanges. And the list goes on. This has typified the energy marketplace. So it became clear that a legislative fix was needed. We finally got that done, as I said. The bill, which is now law, ensures that all major trades of energy futures that could drive up prices or have what is called a price discovery impact are placed under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The new law imposes limits on rampant speculation, prevents fraud and manipulation, requires traders for the first time to keep records, and provides an audit trail to the CFTC. This was a significant victory. It is signed into law. But as we continue to learn more about what is really going on with energy futures markets, it is clear more work remains to be done. We are learning about additional loopholes that must be closed, and the legislation before us is critical to ensure that we can level the playing field in energy markets, that there is transparency there. First, the problem of large institutional investors, such as pension funds; this is what is new in this market. From 2003 to 2008, institutional investments in commodity index funds rose from $13 billion to $317 billion. That is in 5 years, from $13 billion to $317 billion. One might say, what does that have to do with it? Daniel Yergin, to a great extent, said what it has to do with it when he said: Oil has become the ``new gold''--a financial asset in which investors seek refuge as inflation rises and the dollar weakens. ``Investors seek refuge.'' So the implications are potentially devastating, and here is why. Unlike gold, energy and agricultural commodities meet essential needs in everyday lives of average people. They are limited. They are not potbellies. Energy is limited in the amount we have. These institutional investors, the big pension funds, such as my own, the California Public Employee Retirement Fund, has invested over $1 billion in these markets. These institutional investors are trading long on energy futures prices. In other words, they are betting that the prices in these future markets continue to rise. They are not hedging against the risk of changing oil prices, as airlines and utilities frequently do. They never take delivery of a product. They participate in the oil markets only on paper. Yet these investors, the big ones, are currently exempt from CFTC regulation when they execute these trades through brokers or dealers. These trades are called swaps. Currently, the CFTC limits speculation positions to a total of 20 million barrels of oil and 3 million barrels of oil in the last 3 days of a contract. However, these same investors avoid these limits by executing their trades as swaps. This is a mistake. Institutional investors have become speculators. Last month, the CFTC announced that it will review trading practices for these investors, and this is a positive step. But legislation is still needed to level the playing field and close the loophole. The bill before us will limit the size and influence of institutional investor positions in energy markets. To further increase transparency, this bill also requires the CFTC to begin distinguishing between the institutional investor index trader and the swaps dealers who broker their trades. This legislation closes the swaps loophole, bringing transparency and speculative position limits to contracts executed through swaps dealers, in that way preventing a price discovery function as much as possible to keep prices from continuing to escalate. Specifically, the bill gives the CFTC the authority to begin collecting data on large over-the-counter traders so that it can determine whether price manipulation or excessive speculation is taking place. This would ensure that the CFTC has a clear picture of all trading in over-the-counter commodity markets. The London loophole, what is the London loophole? I think we also must prevent U.S. crude oil contracts from being traded on international exchanges without robust oversight. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes, please.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced Senate bill S. 3308, the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2008, with Senator Kerry, and our cosponsors: Senators Reid, Obama, Schumer, Leahy, Clinton, Murray and Wyden. This is a simple, straightforward bill that shows our veterans the respect that they deserve. They have supported our nation, some at great risk and sacrifice. If the government is providing services, veterans should receive every opportunity to voice their vote. More than a year ago, I learned of a controversy that emerged in California--where the Department of Veterans Affairs had been fighting since 2004 to bar voter registration services at a VA facility. Over the last 16 months, we have tried to encourage the VA to establish a fair, nonpartisan, standard policy that provides the best available support to veterans served by VA facilities. The answers I received from the VA have been conflicting. First, the VA stated that they considered the possibility of following the National Voter Registration Act--but then determined it would be too costly. Given the only resources needed is a photocopy of a voter registration form, I find that hard to believe. Then this year, Senator Kerry and I had exchanged multiple letters on this issue with the VA. The response then changed. VA officials asserted that they believed that providing support or allowing groups would violate the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is a prohibition of partisan political activities conducted by Federal employees, on official time. It has not been interpreted to include nonpartisan voter registration by the Office of Special Counsel, which interprets the Hatch Act. Furthermore, the veterans served by VA facilities are generally not Federal employees. The VA then argued that nonpartisan voter registration services would cause ``disruptions to facility operations.'' That claim is even more dubious. Unless ``Rock the Vote'' comes to VA facilities, voter registration drives are about as tame an activity as you can get. The circumstances in this situation raise great concern. Our country faces issues of war and peace, challenges in foreign relations, and serious questions as to the treatment of our veteran population. The most recent Census data we have--from a 2005 report--indicates that more than 20 percent of our veterans are not registered to vote. That means that almost 5 million veterans do not have an opportunity to cast their ballots. The VA runs a massive program to assist our veterans to heal, as well as ensure that they thrive on their return from military service. This is true whether the veteran is recently discharged for tours in Iraq, or served in World War II. A recent report characterized the VA's services as including ``a 'safety net' for the many lower-income veterans who have come to depend on it.'' The question has emerged: Will this make the right kind of impact? Will this cause more veterans to be registered? The VA serves large numbers of veterans--in a variety of care facilities. For example, the Veterans Health Administration operates 155 medical centers, 135 nursing homes, 717 ambulatory care and clinic facilities; 45 residential rehabilitation treatment programs, and 209 vet centers. In total, there are 1,261 total facilities; where as many as 5 million veterans who are not registered to vote may use each year. That strikes me as a critical need unmet. And it is a rational step for the government to make. The National Voter Registration Act requires at least as much--if not more--from the States. Every State social service agency and motor vehicle agency is required to assist persons who use their agencies. That is a mandate from the Federal Government to the States to register voters. In the law, the Federal Government may choose to assist people to register to vote if the State requests NVRA designation and the agency accepts. Immediately after the legislation was passed, then-President Clinton issued Executive Order 12926--which has not been rescinded by the current administration. That Executive order calls on all Federal agencies, ``to the greatest extent practicable'' to provide both voter registration information, and voter registration forms. Some might claim that this legislation is premature--that under the scheme of the act, the State must request the Federal Government's involvement. Well, that has already occurred. Several States, including my home State of California, under the leadership of Secretary Bowen, have asked that the VA designate the facilities within their States. All three have been refused by this Department. Ten secretaries of State--from both parties--have requested that the VA reverse its directive. Still no change. In the case of Connecticut, secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz defied the VA's directive and attempted to gain entry to the West Haven VA facility. There, she intended on providing nonpartisan voter registration services, as well as showing veterans how to use the new disabled- access voting systems. Guess what. She was turned away at the door because of this new directive. As she was standing outside the door to the VA facility, she met a 91-year-old gentleman, a veteran of World War II. Secretary Bysiewicz asked him if he would like to be registered to vote, and he said that he would. After registering, he made the comment that ``I wanted to do this last year--but there was no-one there to help me.'' That is wholly unacceptable. When we hear of why so many veterans express pride in their service and their sacrifice, we hear the phrase ``protecting the American way of life'' again and again. At the cornerstone of our democracy is that every eligible citizen should be registered and receive their chance to cast their vote. After many months of trying to work out a meaningful solution with the Department, I believe it is time the VA provides veterans the support they deserve to register, cast their vote, and have that vote counted. This is why we are introduced the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2008. This legislation would: Require the VA to make voter registration services available at VA facilities in states that request it, in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act. These services include voter registration forms, answers to questions on registration issues and assistance with submitting voter registration forms. Those services are available to veterans using VA facilities. Require the VA to assist veterans at facilities to receive and fill out absentee ballots if they choose to vote by absentee. Allow nonpartisan groups and election officials to provide nonpartisan voter information and registration services to veterans. Require an annual report to Congress from the Department of Veterans Affairs on progress related to this legislation. I hope that my colleagues are willing to support this effort to reverse an overly bureaucratic and irrational burden at the VA. Passage of this bill would recognize the long history in our country of nonpartisan and civil rights groups that have helped register those who have the greatest need for assistance. And it respects election officials have long worked to register all eligible voters and provide them with the information and tools to cast a ballot. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting S. 3308, the Veterans Voting Support Act of 2008.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator Boxer to introduce the Brower Palisade Designation Act and honor the life of one of our Nation's most influential environmental stewards, the late David Brower. The Brower Palisade Designation Act renames the North Palisade--a prominent peak in the Sierra Nevada--``Brower Palisade'' in his honor. David Brower dedicated his life to environmental advocacy and helped shape the conservation movement in California and across the Nation. His efforts raised public awareness about the environment and the need to preserve our resources for future generations. Former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall once referred to David Brower as the ``giant of 20th Century conservation in the United States.'' In 1952, David Brower was named the first executive director of the Sierra Club, one of the most prominent environmental and conservation organizations in the U.S. He held this position for nearly 2 decades. David Brower's leadership led to the creation of many units of the National Park System, including North Cascades National Park, Redwood National Park and Point Reyes National Seashore. He also played a significant role in helping to draft the Wilderness Act, which has preserved much of the Sierra Nevada, including his favorite group peaks, the Palisades. Renaming the North Palisade peak ``Brower Palisade'' will be a lasting reminder of David Brower's leadership and invaluable contributions to the environmental community for generations to come. I encourage my colleagues to support the Brower Palisade Designation Act and join me in honoring the achievements of one of our most notable environmental advocates, David Brower. 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 my colleague Senator Boxer to introduce the Brower Palisade Designation Act and honor the life of one of our Nation's most influential environmental stewards, the late David Brower. The Brower Palisade Designation Act renames the North Palisade--a prominent peak in the Sierra Nevada--``Brower Palisade'' in his honor. David Brower dedicated his life to environmental advocacy and helped shape the conservation movement in California and across the Nation. His efforts raised public awareness about the environment and the need to preserve our resources for future generations. Former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall once referred to David Brower as the ``giant of 20th Century conservation in the United States.'' In 1952, David Brower was named the first executive director of the Sierra Club, one of the most prominent environmental and conservation organizations in the U.S. He held this position for nearly 2 decades. David Brower's leadership led to the creation of many units of the National Park System, including North Cascades National Park, Redwood National Park and Point Reyes National Seashore. He also played a significant role in helping to draft the Wilderness Act, which has preserved much of the Sierra Nevada, including his favorite group peaks, the Palisades. Renaming the North Palisade peak ``Brower Palisade'' will be a lasting reminder of David Brower's leadership and invaluable contributions to the environmental community for generations to come. I encourage my colleagues to support the Brower Palisade Designation Act and join me in honoring the achievements of one of our most notable environmental advocates, David Brower. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 6, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. to hear testimony on the Administration and Management Operations of the United States Capitol Police. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to update the Senate on the deteriorating situation in California. Simply put, the situation is untenable. In the past 2 weeks, 1,781 wildfires have burned roughly 688,000 acres--an area roughly the size of Rhode Island. Today, 323 fires continue to burn including the Camp Fire, in Butte County. As a result of that fire, 14,000 residents have had to evacuate their homes and nearly 50 homes have been destroyed in the past 48 hours. It is likely to get worse--with a heat wave and more lightning strikes forecast--just as State and Federal resources are being depleted. Governor Schwarzenegger has told the Federal Government that California cannot continue to fight these fires--that with current resources the State cannot protect lives and property. California needs the following: Personnel: The Governor needs 302 more hand crews to put on the front lines and 773 support personnel. The State has tapped out its resources; it is time for the Federal Government to step up to the plate. And the Forest Service is also short on staff. Key supervisors and firefighters are missing from our national parks, hampering firefighting and brush clearing efforts. Last month the agency reported 380 vacancies in California--roughly 8.5 percent out of a total force of 4,432. These positions must be filled. Agriculture Under Secretary Mark Rey promised me these vacancies would be filled by July 8. But as of today only 289 positions have been filled. We need to do more. A Full Emergency Declaration: Governor Schwarzenegger has declared emergencies in 11 counties: Butte, Trinity, Shasta, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Monterey, Mendocino, Santa Cruz, Plumas, Kern, and Mariposa. But President Bush has issued only a limited emergency declaration. California is asking the President for a full disaster declaration, which will open the State to broader assistance under the Stafford Act. I fully endorse this request. Funding: California's fire emergency is burning up Federal firefighting dollars at an alarming rate. The Forest Service has already expended $704 million--more than half the $1.2 billion in available funds--and fire season has just begun. Therefore, I am asking for $910 million in emergency appropriations for the Forest Service and Interior Department. This emergency funding, to be used throughout the United States as needed this year, includes: $610 million for wildfire suppression; $125 million for fuels reduction on State and private lands; $100 million for rehabilitation; $50 million for fuels reduction on Federal lands; and $25 million for firefighter recruitment and retention in high risk areas. Air assets: The Governor has told President Bush that we need an additional 41 helicopters in California. I am committed to working with the President to make these aircraft available from other States, the military, or foreign nations. Whatever it takes, we need these resources. We also need to permanently station military firefighting aircraft in California. It is increasingly clear to me that the key to these wildfires in remote geographic areas is immediate aerial assault on the fires. You cannot get firefighters into these areas fast enough. Earlier this year I asked the President and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to permanently station two C-130 tankers at Point Mugu. This is vital; several C-130s are working these fires today, but they had to travel great distances to get to California. This is unacceptable. I am writing to the President again to renew this critical request. Let me share with you a letter written by Henry Renteria, Director of Governor Schwarzenegger's Office of Emergency Services, to R. David Paulison, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It says in part: We are in an unprecedented draw-down in the state's emergency resources. Many fire departments are barely able to maintain sufficient resources for initial attack on new structure fires, while still participating in the statewide mutual aid effort to address these wildfires. Even with the assistance of more than 24,000 firefighters from 40 States, ``California has outstanding orders for fire resources that it is unable to fill,'' the letter states. Yesterday there were requests for 230 engines that went unfilled, and at one point last week there were requests for 400 crews of 15-20 firefighters that were not met. The Governor's letter continues: California is in the untenable position of having orders for firefighting resources remaining unfilled for multiple days. The Governor has taken the extraordinary action this week to direct the training of 400 California National Guard soldiers in basic firefighting. These soldiers will be assigned to the firefight as quickly as they can be trained and equipped. Mr. Renteria--again, the Governor's authorized representative-- concludes by warning that ``the cumulative impact of these disasters has exhausted state and local resources to the point in which California cannot avert threat to live and improved property adequately.'' This is without question a clear and present threat to the largest State in the Nation. California is on the precipice of a major catastrophe. California has spent more than $300 million fighting these fires--that is more than it spent on last year's firestorms. And this is only the second week of July. Let me remind you of what the fall brings to southern California. It brings strong Santa Ana winds, which fuel massive and deadly firestorms: In 2003 in California, huge wildfires burned roughly 1 million acres; killed 21; and destroyed more than 5,000 homes. And last year in California, wildfires blackened 1,087,110 acres; killed 10; and destroyed 3,079 structures. We are in a new and dangerous time. The great bulk of the fires that have burned since last month--more than 1,000--were sparked by more than 8,000 dry lightning strikes. California is now faced with dry lightning strikes at a level that I cannot remember in my lifetime. And more are forecast this week. The State is also facing extreme heat. Across the State, nearly in every county, there are excessive heat warnings. And the State is in the midst of a serious drought--Governor Schwarzenegger has declared a drought emergency. The State's reservoirs are below normal, and drought has produced record amounts of dry brush. In many areas, there is more dry brush than at any point in the 27-year recorded history of the data. This dry brush is like an unexploded bomb. Last month--the halfway point of the year--more than 272,969 acres in California had burned. That's up from 42,214 acres burned at the same point last year. And up from the 5-year average of 30,938 acres burned on State land at that time of year. The facts are clear and cannot be ignored. California is in great peril. And California's peril is the Nation's peril, for the costs of fighting these fires is fast draining our Federal firefighting resources. Bottom line: California and the Nation need help now. A potentially recordbreaking fire season is upon us. We need to do more. We need to prepare. And we need to do it now.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, H.R. 6331. This bill makes much needed changes to the Medicare program, and will pay doctors at a rate that will allow them to continue to participate in this vital program. Medicare is a great success story, providing retirees with a health care safety net, but the formula that determines physicians' payment levels is seriously flawed. Unless Congress takes action immediately, doctors will receive a 10.6 percent cut in their reimbursements. The consequences of such cuts would be dire. According to the California Medical Association, more than 60 percent of California physicians say they would be forced to either stop taking new Medicare patients or leave the Medicare program altogether if these reductions occur. The same payment rate reductions will apply for health care provided to our servicemembers and their families who receive coverage through the TRICARE program. Over 870,000 Californians and at least 8.9 million Americans depend on TRICARE for their health care. We owe these families, who have sacrificed so much for our country, access to physicians and medical care when they need it. I voted to consider and pass this bill, because we need to block these cuts and make improvements for beneficiaries. However, much to my dismay, this bill contains a delay on a program to competitively bid for durable medical equipment. Can you believe it? A block on competitive bidding of commonly available medical goods. Let me tell you what this means. Medicare began a competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment on July 1 in 10 metropolitan areas across the country--including the Riverside-San Bernardino area in my home State of California. The program enabled medical supply companies to bid on 10 products, including wheelchairs, diabetic supplies, oxygen concentrators, walkers and hospital beds, in those 10 metropolitan areas. Companies that offered the best prices were awarded contracts to supply Medicare beneficiaries with medical equipment. As a result, seniors on Medicare in these areas can expect to pay a lot less for some of their medical supplies. In Riverside, CA, diabetic test strips, once $37 will now be $18, and portable oxygen, which cost Riverside Medicare patients $77 per month, can now be bought for $61. The bid prices are an average of 26 percent lower than prices set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid before the enactment of the competitive bidding program. Because beneficiaries pay copayments equal to 20 percent of the cost of their healthcare and medical equipment, that savings is also felt by the elderly and disabled Americans who rely on Medicare. Competitive bidding makes sense, because there is no good reason why Medicare or seniors should pay above-market prices for medical equipment--especially as other health care costs continue to skyrocket. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid discovered that it was paying $1,825 for a hospital bed that can be bought for $754 online. On the Internet, you can purchase a power wheelchair for $2,174--far less than the $4,023 Medicare pays out for the same product. z Competitive bidding forces Medicare suppliers to compete for their customers--much like retailers do. It also helps to control costs while providing the elderly and the disabled with quality healthcare and medical supplies. Participating companies must be accredited, to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive high quality equipment and service. Allowed to continue, the program is expected to save $125 million in its first year. Expanded nationwide, that number would grow to $1 billion in savings for taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries. But just as this pilot program gets off the ground--another 70 metropolitan areas are expected to be added in 2009--this bill endangers the program's future. Losing bidders have complained that the selection process was flawed and have convinced some of my colleagues to support a delay of the program for another 18 months and start the selection process over. The bill before us today would terminate the existing competitively- bid contracts and delay the program launch for a year and a half. This should not be permitted to happen. Seniors and taxpayers deserve to pay fair prices for their medical equipment. Medicare beneficiaries in Riverside, in Cleveland, in Dallas, learned about this new program, selected new providers, and are already saving money. Stopping this new effort midstream will only lead to confusion. We all agree that entitlement programs like Medicare need to be reformed, but if we can't change a small portion of this sprawling entitlement program, how will we ever succeed in making major reforms? Competitive bidding is a smart way to ensure that Medicare pays reasonable rates for medical equipment at a time when medical costs are soaring. We should not ask taxpayers to fund someone else's cash cow. While I will vote to consider and pass this bill today, I will continue to work to see that competitive bidding moves forward, and I urge my colleagues do the same. This is a matter of common sense.