Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, it is my understanding there is an agreement that I would be the first speaker on global warming. I have about 21 minutes. I could use 7 of them now. If the Senator from Oklahoma--I see him on the Senate floor--if he would prefer some time in morning business, I am prepared to yield to him, and then if I could be recognized as soon as we go to the bill?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield back the morning business time so we can go to the bill and I will be able to speak without interruption.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair to the Senator from Florida, I am the first speaker on the global warming bill. Do what you need to do. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in a moment I wish to make a motion, but I would like to say as a prelude, for 6 years I have worked on legislation to provide for notification in the event of a data breach. During that period of time, 43 States have passed their own legislation. We would not know of data breaches if it were not particularly for the State of California which has put forward action on several of them. The bill went to the Judiciary Committee. It has been heard in the Judiciary Committee. With the cooperation and support of the chairman of that committee, Senator Leahy, the bill has come out unanimously and has been pending before this body. There are holds on the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 180, S. 239, data breach modifications; that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, without further intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 2 years ago I sponsored a resolution designating the third Friday in May as Endangered Species Day. This resolution passed by unanimous consent. There were no objections. The resolution was nonpartisan and noncontroversial. The goal of Endangered Species Day was simple: to give students an opportunity to learn about the threats facing endangered and threatened species and the work being done to save them. Last year, I introduced a similar resolution. Once again, it passed by unanimous consent and was noncontroversial. Over 60 events were held in cities across the country. It was used as an educational tool for teachers and a day for parents to take their children to the zoo. This year the resolution was offered for a third time. It was thought it would pass quickly and without controversy. However, this was not the case. It was held up by an unknown Senator. We could not clear the hold, so we were unable to get unanimous consent to pass the resolution. Now why is this important? The fact is that 90 events were scheduled in 28 States. Twenty events took place in California to commemorate the day. In my city of San Francisco, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Farralones National Marine Sanctuary led nature hikes in search of the endangered tidewater goby and explained to children what they can do to save them. The Antelope Valley Conservancy hosted its third annual Endangered Species Day Conference that brought together Federal, State, and local leaders to discuss their recovery efforts. Similarly, the San Diego Zoo held public lectures on the affects that global climate change will have on endangered species. These events still went on as planned. Teachers continued to educate their students about what we need to do as a Nation and at the local level to protect our planet and endangered species. We know that global climate change, habitat destruction, and the illegal trade and hunting of endangered species carry serious consequences for their future survival. These threats are ongoing. More effective wildlife management programs are needed like those to save the California condor, least Bell's vireo songbird and the California grey whale. I am disappointed that this noncontroversial resolution was prevented from passing. The goals of Endangered Species Day are simple and uncontroversial: to build awareness about the threats facing our planet's species. If we don't recognize these threats and act now to address them, our planet's endangered species may soon become our planet's extinct species. I am hopeful that all those who took part in last Friday's events came away knowing that more work needs to be done to protect our planet.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, simply put, I cannot vote for another $165 billion to give President Bush a blank check and fund the continuation of the war in Iraq, without condition, for over another year. This is a difficult decision and not one I take lightly. But I believe that the time has come for Congress to exercise the power of the purse and bring this war to a conclusion. I am a strong supporter of our troops in the field. They have done a tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They weren't greeted as liberators as Vice President Cheney said they would be. Instead, they found themselves targets in an internecine battle, whose roots go back hundreds of years. They found themselves in the crossfire between Sunni insurgents and Shia extremists. They've done everything asked of them, with the courage and dedication that we expect from our service men and women. But President Bush has never provided an exit strategy for Iraq. He has never laid out a plan for bringing our troops home. So, here we are more than 5 years after this war began. More than 4,000 troops killed. Tens of thousands injured. And no end in sight. $525 billion spent all designated as emergency spending and none of which is paid for simply added to our Nation's growing debt. This is the first major war that has not been paid for, but instead has relied time and time again on emergency supplemental funds outside of the Federal budget. I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, have voted again and again for a change of course to transition the mission. But the minority has obstructed the vote or President Bush has vetoed the bill each time we have tried. So the power of the purse is the only tool we have to change the Iraq war. And it is time to bring this war to a conclusion after 5 long years. The $165 billion supplemental funds the war for 1 year and 1 month, or until July 2009. This is all funded on the debt. I simply cannot agree to do it. It would have been one thing if the supplemental had been to fund the war for an additional 6 months. But it is not. This means that the next administration essentially need not make any move or change until July 2009. This is simply not acceptable to me. To me, it is a big mistake to have a supplemental this big because it simply means ``business as usual.'' And I don't believe we can be ``business as usual.'' On Tuesday, I questioned Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the funding for this war. I told Secretary Gates that it is unclear to me why the passage of a $165 billion 2009 bridge fund is urgent at this time, particularly given that funding needs for next year are very much up in the air. I told him that it is my understanding that if DOD transfers funding to the Army to meet its personnel and operational expenses, the Army could stretch its current funding quite far. And I asked how long the Army and Marine Corps could operate without the '09 bridge fund. The Secretary said: ``The notion of having to borrow from the base budget in '09 to pay war costs . . . we probably could make it work for a number of months.'' And ``can we technically get thought some part of fiscal year 2009 without a supplemental? Probably so.'' So the other question that I have been grappling with is why should we provide 13 months of funding now? Where is the urgency to fund this war through July 2009? That is over a year away. It is simply not necessary to appropriate $165 billion for the Iraq war in a single day. This is almost twice the size of any previous supplemental the Senate has considered to date. President Bush won't listen to the wishes of the majority of Congress and the American people. He has shown a complete unwillingness to evolve in the face of compelling evidence of the need for change. After the fall elections, a new President will offer new ideas and policies, and at the top of the list should be a new plan for Iraq. Congress should not, during this time of transition and great opportunity to seize the moment and change our war policy, allow the war to linger unaddressed for up to 7 months of the new administration. Congress should not relinquish its constitutional right and obligation to use the power of the purse to require the next President to present a plan for Iraq one that includes the funding he or she will need to put that plan in motion. So now, we are faced with another choice: Do we provide $100 billion through the end of this year and an additional $66 billion to take us through July 2009? Do we give the next President a pass and affirm that he or she does not have to change the mission or plan an exit strategy until the middle of next year? I cannot support this. Passing a year-long supplemental is an abandonment of the power of the purse, the greatest power that the Congress has. I believe that the time has come for the Senate to assert its will, and another year and a month of funding for this war is not the answer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 2:45 p.m., upon completion of the FEC confirmation hearing, to conduct an executive business meeting to consider the nominations of Cynthia L. Bauerly, Caroline C. Hunter, and Donald F. McGahn to be members of the Federal Election Commission. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 2 p.m. to hear testimony on the nominations of Cynthia L. Bauerly, Caroline C. Hunter, and Donald F. McGahn to be members of the Federal Election Commission. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352. committee on rules and administration

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to establish the third annual Endangered Species Day on May 16, 2008. I am introducing this resolution with Senators Collins, Cantwell, Lieberman, Clinton, Kerry, Brown, Snowe, Levin, Boxer, and Feingold whose co-sponsorship I appreciate. I want to commend my constituent, Mr. David Robinson, who first suggested the establishment of an Endangered Species Day. Mr. Robinson is an example of people who really do make a difference. The designation of Endangered Species Day will provide many wonderful opportunities for the public to familiarize themselves with the status and recovery efforts of endangered species in our country and around the world. Last year, more than 50 events were held across the country to highlight endangered species success stories. The Governor of Maine, and the cities and counties of Santa Barbara, San Diego, and San Francisco also declared state and local Endangered Species Days. Zoos and aquariums across the country, such as the Roger Williams Zoo and the San Diego Wild Animal Park, also held educational events. Based on the success of last year, I am confident that the events of this year's Endangered Species Day will continue to foster increased communication and awareness about many of the most endangered species by encouraging such activities as school field trips to the zoo or attending a lecture at the local library. In my city of San Francisco, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Farralones National Marine Sanctuary plan to hold special tours and viewings of endangered species to commemorate this special day. Endangered Species recovery programs in California are examples of the conservation and management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations of California condor, the least Bell's vireo songbird, and the California gray whale. Over 300 species classified as either endangered or threatened currently call California home, and efforts to protect them will ensure that they continue to do so. Despite these success stories, we need to be aware that more can be done. At this time, we have more than 5,000 threatened species in the U.S. and abroad, which receive protection. One small step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the public about them. I am introducing this bill with the hope that Endangered Species Day can spark the wonder and interest in our youth to continue the conservation efforts we have begun, but still are far from finishing. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I honor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who is retiring at the end of 2008, after a distinguished and illustrious career spanning 50 years as a public servant in the State of California. I wish to extend to Mrs. Burke, who served as a Representative of California's 37th Congressional District from 1973 to 1979, my sincere congratulations for the decades of dedicated service that she has given to her Nation, her State, and her county. She is currently serving as chair of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and is in the final year of her fourth term on the board. For the past 15 years, she has represented the Second Supervisorial District. Supervisor Burke will be remembered as a devoted public servant who amassed numerous accomplishments and countless awards--in addition to inspiring women and minorities to pursue careers in public service. As a product of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Mrs. Burke developed an interest in public speaking and participated in several citywide competitions during her high school years. Her involvement in these events and many extracurricular activities helped her to obtain scholarships to the UC Berkeley and later at UCLA. In 1956, Mrs. Burke received a law degree from the University of Southern California School of Law. It was difficult for women, particularly African Americans, to practice law, because many private law firms showed little interest in hiring women as attorneys. So Mrs. Burke opened her own law office in Los Angeles. She specialized in immigration and civil rights and fought segregation in real estate law. Mrs. Burke was active in the civil rights movement with memberships in various local and national organizations. She subsequently landed a staff attorney position on the McCone Commission, which investigated the causes of the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles. She became a spokesperson for the underrepresented and, through a grassroots campaign, won her first political office in 1966 as a California State assemblywoman. It was a position she held for the next 6 years. In 1972, Mrs. Burke became the first African American woman--west of the Mississippi River--to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She was selected to serve as vice chair of the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami and later on the House Select Committee on Assassinations. She also was the first Congresswoman to give birth while in office. Mrs. Burke did not seek re-election to Congress in 1978 but instead ran for attorney general of California. She won the Democratic nomination, but subsequently was defeated in the general election. In 1979, Mrs. Burke was appointed by the Governor of California to fill a vacancy in the Fourth Supervisorial District in Los Angeles County and served in that capacity until the end of 1980. She also was appointed by the Governor to serve on the Board of Regents of the University of California in 1982. Two years later, Mrs. Burke was selected to serve as vice chair of the 1984 U.S. Olympics Organizing Committee. In 1992, she became the first African American elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. She played a significant role in the 2000 Democratic National Convention, hosting an event for hundreds of African American elected officials nationwide. Supervisor Burke represents nearly 2.5 million residents in the Second District of the Nation's largest county. Her efforts primarily have focused on improving the lives of children, encouraging economic development, and improving transportation throughout Los Angeles, as well as promoting public social services, health care for the uninsured, and affirmative action for women and the economically disadvantaged. In addition, she has taken the lead in establishing a county archives system. These are just some of Yvonne Brathwaite Burke's significant accomplishments. On behalf of the U.S. Senate and the State of California, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for her immeasurable contributions throughout her renowned career. With sincere best wishes, I congratulate Supervisor Burke upon her retirement from elective office. And I am pleased to join her many coworkers; her family: her husband William, her daughter Autumn and stepdaughter Christine; friends; and associates in wishing her health, happiness, and continued good fortune in her future endeavors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will take two major steps in preventing oilspills. First, the bill directs the United States Coast Guard to control and oversee a vessel's route and speed during dangerous conditions. This oversight is critical to protect our ships during an attack or in conditions of low visibility. Second, the bill will keep dangerous oil and fuel out of our waterways by mandating that all large cargo ships reinforce their fuel tanks with double hulls. By doing so, many of the small mishaps that occur will not lead to major oilspills. San Franciscans learned the hard way that further precautions and regulations are needed. Last November, in my hometown, a large cargo ship carrying over 100,000 gallons of fuel, ran into the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The damaged ship poured 53,000 gallons of oil into the bay. In the following hours and days there was confusion, it was difficult to obtain accurate information, and there was a general sense of frustration felt by Bay Area residents. Here is what we knew: On the foggy November morning, visibility was very low--less than a quarter of a mile--in the San Francisco Bay. Under these low visibility conditions the Cosco Busan, a large 900- foot-long cargo ship, decided to leave for its destination despite the poor conditions. As the ship proceeded towards the Bay Bridge, the captain was advised by the Coast Guard that his vessel may be off course. However the Coast Guard did nothing to stop the ship, which they knew was heading directly towards a pillar of the bridge. Despite the warnings and the poor visibility, the ship continued to speed toward the bridge until it collided. The fact is this: The Coast Guard's actions did not stop the ship from running into the pier. It is the responsibility of the Coast Guard to make sure that preventable oilspills are prevented. Sector Commanders and Vessel Traffic Service officers track ships as they traverse harbors across the country. In this case they could see that the ship was off course, yet they did nothing. This is unacceptable. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will mandate that the Coast Guard act to stop a ship--such as the Cosco Busan--that is dangerously off course. Yes, there was substantial human error that led to this oilspill. That is unquestionable. But the fact remains that the Coast Guard had an opportunity to stop this ship, and it did not. The bill directs the Sector Commander of the Coast Guard, that is the top official within each of the Coast Guard's 35 regions, to assume direct authority of all vessels during conditions of enhanced danger, such as low visibility or an attack. By doing this, we will create a central system where all decisions are made. There will not be any confusion about who should do what, or when, or how. This way, during emergency conditions when confusion abounds, all orders are coming from one central source. The Sector Commander will have the authority to stop ships, change their course, or return them to a safe harbor. They will have the authority to alter the course of one ship, or of all ships. This authority is necessary to ensure safe navigation of dangerous waterways. Yet even in a perfect world, the Coast Guard cannot stop all oilspills. Sometimes the circumstances are out of their control. That is why we need to make sure that the ships in our waterways take all reasonable precautions to protect against spilling oil. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also mandates that all cargo vessels are built with, or install, double hull containment structures around their petroleum based fuel tanks. Doing so keeps small mishaps and collisions from turning into major oilspills. The extra layer of protection was required for oil tankers under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Following the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez tragedy in 1989, new restrictions on oil tankers were at the center of the debate on how to prevent another catastrophic oilspill. The result of the OPA 90 legislation has been remarkable. Compared to the 15 years before the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act, the following 15 years have seen a 90-percent drop in oilspills over 100,000 gallons. In the same time period, there has been a 79-percent drop in spills less than 100,000 gallons. By 2015 there will be no single-hull tank vessels operating in U.S. waters. As of 2010, only 5 percent of domestic and only 4 percent of foreign tank vessels will still have a single hull. Nearly 90 percent had single hulls in 1990. These are incredible successes. Unfortunately one other statistic sticks out. Since 1990, 90 percent of all oilspills have been from non-tank vessels. Clearly, this illustrates the need for cargo ships, the main culprit of oilspills in recent years, to be subject to the Oil Pollution Act standards. In 1990, cargo ships were left out because relatively, they carried much less oil. However, newer, larger cargo ships carry hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil as fuel, and this oil still poses a grave environmental threat. In the Cosco Busan incident, and dozens of other catastrophic oilspills around the world, it was fuel oil that ended up in the water, not cargo oil. Of course this oil is just as deadly, yet under current law it is treated differently. It is time to close this loophole. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also provides a reasonable timeframe for implementing these standards. In the 1990 bill, Congress adopted a sliding scale for when vessels needed to have applied the appropriate double hull protections. The timetable was developed to allow shipping companies and ship owners to plan for the additional costs--and up to 15 years to implement them. Under this bill, we will adopt the same time-tested schedule and apply it to the conversion of cargo vessels. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act is a commonsense bill that will unquestionably make our waters safer. In an emergency situation, be it an attack or a condition of low visibility, the Coast Guard must assume authority over a ship in danger. It is their responsibility to guide the vessel to safety. This bill clarifies that they have the authority to do so, and it mandates that they follow through. Similarly, vessels carrying a large volume of oil--be it as cargo or as fuel--have the responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent that oil from spilling. In the event of even a minor accident, a single hull breach is a very real possibility. This is why we mandated that oil tankers implement a double containment system in 1990. It has come time to close this loophole and call all oil, oil. Fuel oil is just as detrimental and just as deadly as oil that is carried in the cargo hold of a ship. Therefore it should have to be contained with an equal level of protection. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important matter, passing this important piece of commonsense legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will take two major steps in preventing oilspills. First, the bill directs the United States Coast Guard to control and oversee a vessel's route and speed during dangerous conditions. This oversight is critical to protect our ships during an attack or in conditions of low visibility. Second, the bill will keep dangerous oil and fuel out of our waterways by mandating that all large cargo ships reinforce their fuel tanks with double hulls. By doing so, many of the small mishaps that occur will not lead to major oilspills. San Franciscans learned the hard way that further precautions and regulations are needed. Last November, in my hometown, a large cargo ship carrying over 100,000 gallons of fuel, ran into the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The damaged ship poured 53,000 gallons of oil into the bay. In the following hours and days there was confusion, it was difficult to obtain accurate information, and there was a general sense of frustration felt by Bay Area residents. Here is what we knew: On the foggy November morning, visibility was very low--less than a quarter of a mile--in the San Francisco Bay. Under these low visibility conditions the Cosco Busan, a large 900- foot-long cargo ship, decided to leave for its destination despite the poor conditions. As the ship proceeded towards the Bay Bridge, the captain was advised by the Coast Guard that his vessel may be off course. However the Coast Guard did nothing to stop the ship, which they knew was heading directly towards a pillar of the bridge. Despite the warnings and the poor visibility, the ship continued to speed toward the bridge until it collided. The fact is this: The Coast Guard's actions did not stop the ship from running into the pier. It is the responsibility of the Coast Guard to make sure that preventable oilspills are prevented. Sector Commanders and Vessel Traffic Service officers track ships as they traverse harbors across the country. In this case they could see that the ship was off course, yet they did nothing. This is unacceptable. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will mandate that the Coast Guard act to stop a ship--such as the Cosco Busan--that is dangerously off course. Yes, there was substantial human error that led to this oilspill. That is unquestionable. But the fact remains that the Coast Guard had an opportunity to stop this ship, and it did not. The bill directs the Sector Commander of the Coast Guard, that is the top official within each of the Coast Guard's 35 regions, to assume direct authority of all vessels during conditions of enhanced danger, such as low visibility or an attack. By doing this, we will create a central system where all decisions are made. There will not be any confusion about who should do what, or when, or how. This way, during emergency conditions when confusion abounds, all orders are coming from one central source. The Sector Commander will have the authority to stop ships, change their course, or return them to a safe harbor. They will have the authority to alter the course of one ship, or of all ships. This authority is necessary to ensure safe navigation of dangerous waterways. Yet even in a perfect world, the Coast Guard cannot stop all oilspills. Sometimes the circumstances are out of their control. That is why we need to make sure that the ships in our waterways take all reasonable precautions to protect against spilling oil. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also mandates that all cargo vessels are built with, or install, double hull containment structures around their petroleum based fuel tanks. Doing so keeps small mishaps and collisions from turning into major oilspills. The extra layer of protection was required for oil tankers under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Following the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez tragedy in 1989, new restrictions on oil tankers were at the center of the debate on how to prevent another catastrophic oilspill. The result of the OPA 90 legislation has been remarkable. Compared to the 15 years before the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act, the following 15 years have seen a 90-percent drop in oilspills over 100,000 gallons. In the same time period, there has been a 79-percent drop in spills less than 100,000 gallons. By 2015 there will be no single-hull tank vessels operating in U.S. waters. As of 2010, only 5 percent of domestic and only 4 percent of foreign tank vessels will still have a single hull. Nearly 90 percent had single hulls in 1990. These are incredible successes. Unfortunately one other statistic sticks out. Since 1990, 90 percent of all oilspills have been from non-tank vessels. Clearly, this illustrates the need for cargo ships, the main culprit of oilspills in recent years, to be subject to the Oil Pollution Act standards. In 1990, cargo ships were left out because relatively, they carried much less oil. However, newer, larger cargo ships carry hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil as fuel, and this oil still poses a grave environmental threat. In the Cosco Busan incident, and dozens of other catastrophic oilspills around the world, it was fuel oil that ended up in the water, not cargo oil. Of course this oil is just as deadly, yet under current law it is treated differently. It is time to close this loophole. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also provides a reasonable timeframe for implementing these standards. In the 1990 bill, Congress adopted a sliding scale for when vessels needed to have applied the appropriate double hull protections. The timetable was developed to allow shipping companies and ship owners to plan for the additional costs--and up to 15 years to implement them. Under this bill, we will adopt the same time-tested schedule and apply it to the conversion of cargo vessels. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act is a commonsense bill that will unquestionably make our waters safer. In an emergency situation, be it an attack or a condition of low visibility, the Coast Guard must assume authority over a ship in danger. It is their responsibility to guide the vessel to safety. This bill clarifies that they have the authority to do so, and it mandates that they follow through. Similarly, vessels carrying a large volume of oil--be it as cargo or as fuel--have the responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent that oil from spilling. In the event of even a minor accident, a single hull breach is a very real possibility. This is why we mandated that oil tankers implement a double containment system in 1990. It has come time to close this loophole and call all oil, oil. Fuel oil is just as detrimental and just as deadly as oil that is carried in the cargo hold of a ship. Therefore it should have to be contained with an equal level of protection. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important matter, passing this important piece of commonsense legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge John A. Mendez to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Let me begin by explaining the urgency of filling this judgeship. Simply stated, the Eastern District of California is in a crisis. In 2005 and 2006, the district had the highest number of case filings in the Nation. In 2007, the district ranked second out of all 94 Federal judicial districts in the number of new cases filed. Regrettably, the bench in the Eastern District has been understaffed throughout this period of heavy case filings. A temporary judgeship in the district expired in 2004 because the Congress failed to extend it. As a result, average caseloads in the Eastern District increased by 18 percent from 2004 through 2006, even as average caseloads nationwide declined. In this Congress, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 1327, which would recreate the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District. The bill has already passed the Senate and is currently pending in the House. I am also a cosponsor of S. 2774, which would create new judgeships to meet the needs of California and other States throughout the Nation. In addition to creating new judgeships, we clearly need to fill the judgeships that already exist in the Eastern District. Judge John Mendez is the nominee for a seat that was vacated in June 2007. Judge Mendez is a native Californian and is currently a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court. He was born in Oakland and graduated with distinction from Stanford University, with a degree in political science. He went on to earn a law degree at Harvard Law School. After law school he returned to California and worked in private practice in San Francisco from 1980 to 1984. From February 1984 through July 1986, Judge Mendez served as an assistant U.S. attorney in San Jose. He was assigned to the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's Office and became a specialist in criminal law and procedure. In 1986, Judge Mendez moved to Sacramento and returned to private practice. He focused on civil litigation and business litigation and rose to become a partner at the law firm of Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rowher. Judge Mendez was appointed as U.S. attorney in San Francisco in 1992, the final year of George H.W. Bush's Presidency. He served as U.S. attorney for 1 year and was personally involved in major civil litigation and a criminal appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Mendez was of counsel to the law firm Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in San Francisco from 1993 to 1995. In the summer of 1995 he returned to Sacramento and joined the firm of Somach, Simmons & Dunn as a shareholder. His practice included complex commercial and environmental litigation and white-collar criminal defense work, as well as counseling clients on regulatory compliance. Gov. Gray Davis recognized his potential as a judge in 2001 and appointed him to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Judge Mendez was elected to retain that position in 2002 and continues to serve as a superior court judge today. In addition to his service to the State of California, Judge Mendez has served the legal profession through leadership positions in the Hispanic National Bar Association and the Sacramento Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. In California we have developed a bipartisan process for selecting Federal district court nominees. Under this system a committee of lawyers known as the Parsky Commission, which includes Democrats and Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President. I am proud of this system and pleased to report that Judge Mendez was recommended unanimously by the Parsky Commission to be nominated as a Federal district judge. By all accounts, he would make an excellent addition to the Federal bench in Sacramento. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Mendez.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of a resolution condemning the violence in Tibet and calling for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet. Cosponsoring this resolution with me is Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. The measure is also cosponsored by Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senators Klobuchar, Brown, Cantwell, Dole, Obama, Snowe, Menendez, Voinovich, Schumer, Collins, Byrd, Murray, Durbin, Lieberman, Stabenow, Sanders, Reed, Clinton and Feingold. The resolution also calls for dialogue between the leadership of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on meaningful religious and cultural autonomy for Tibet within China; the release of individuals who protested in a peaceful manner; a cessation of China's efforts to ``reeducate'' Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns; China to open Tibet to international journalists, as it promised the international community it would do during the lead up to the Olympic games; and asks for a full accounting of the protests in Tibet which began in March. Starting on March 10, Tibetan Monks and other Tibetans began protesting in Tibetan autonomous areas of Western China. The protests, begun peacefully by monks who marched in their robes, were an expression of these religious people's desire to practice their religion freely and without government interference. The protesters took this action at great personal risk. Many monks and marchers carried pictures of the Dalai Lama, the most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism. Possession of such a picture is considered a crime in China. Unfortunately and tragically, on March 14 protests in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region, turned violent. Long suppressed animosity boiled over. Innocent people were killed in the violence. Homes and businesses were burned in what appears to have been a riot. Over the days and weeks that followed, the protests spread. Protests reportedly occurred in 42 separate Chinese counties. Most were peaceful, and in some case they were met with brute force by the Chinese police. This resolution condemns the violence on both sides. The Chinese government has now begun the punishment process. Thousands of paramilitary police and possibly the People's Liberation Army are in Tibet rounding up protest participants. International journalists and official representatives are still being kept out, making accurate information difficult to obtain. But we know that dozens of people or more have died. And we know that more than 1,000 people have been incarcerated. We know that the monasteries have been surrounded by armed force. On Monday I spoke about the underlying issues including a lack of religious freedom and economic opportunity that have caused Tibetans to take to the streets. I also spoke about my long standing work to open the door between China and San Francisco and about my sincere friendship with China and its leaders. Most importantly, I discussed my efforts since 1991 to establish dialogue between the Chinese Leadership and the Dalai Lama. I read from letters that I carried from the Dalai Lama to the President of China in 1992, 1997, and 1998. In those letters, the Dalai Lama expressed that he does not seek Independence as China's leaders assert. In the Dalai Lama's 1998 letter, he wrote: I would like to reiterate here that I am not seeking independence for Tibet. My main concern is for the six million Tibetan people . . . to be able to enjoy the opportunity to fully preserve their civilisation and the distinct Tibetan culture, religion, and language. I am convinced that this could be achieved through genuine autonomy or self-rule within the framework of the People's Republic of China. The Dalai Lama neither calls for independence nor supports the use of violence. He has encouraged the Tibetan people to use restraint both in Tibet and also in the cities, such as San Francisco, where the Olympic torch visits. On Sunday, The Dalai Lama reiterated his call. In a message to the Tibetan people, he said: I want to urge my fellow Tibetans who live in freedom outside Tibet to be extra vigilant as they voice their feelings on the developments in Tibet. We should not engage in any action that could be even remotely interpreted as violent. Even under the most provocative of situations we must not allow our most precious and deeply held values to be compromised. I firmly believe that we will achieve success through our nonviolent path. We must be wise to understand where the unprecedented affection and support for our cause stems from. I sincerely hope the people of San Francisco will heed the Dalai Lama's call. I would like to commend the people of my city for holding a peaceful rally and candlelight vigil at San Francisco's United Nations Plaza. And I call on the people of San Francisco that plan to take to the streets today to embrace the nonviolence advocated by the Dalai Lama. As a friend of China and the Dalai Lama, I am saddened to see the situation in Tibet deteriorate to this point. Violence cannot solve this matter. The United States must use its influence to bring the Government of China and the people of Tibet together to begin the process of reconciliation and dialogue. To bring this issue to a settlement, the leaders must be involved. It is in the interest of both the Chinese government and the Tibetan people for the leaders to sit down and negotiate how to bring about meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people and faith. For nearly three decades, I have worked to bring this about. The events in Tibet over the past month have been tragic. But they renew my commitment and belief. China has an opportunity to negotiate with a moderate leader capable of quelling the anger within the new generation of Tibetans. I hope that China's leaders will see this as an opportunity to open the long overdue dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, perhaps I will proceed with my statement on morning business, and then, when we return to the bill, I wish to call up the amendment. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Tennessee?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last week, I tried and failed to introduce an amendment which essentially would set minimum standards, minimum Federal standards for--I see the chairman of the committee has just come in, so if I might wait for a moment and see what he wishes to do. May I note the absence of a quorum for a moment, please.

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask on behalf of Senator Casey of Pennsylvania unanimous consent that Mr. James Hedrick of his staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 3221.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, at this time, I send a resolution to the desk. Perhaps, rather than do that, I should just speak about it and then introduce it separately. This resolution is sent on behalf of Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and myself. It is also cosponsored by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, as well as Senators Klobuchar, Brown, Cantwell, Dole, Obama, Snowe, Menendez, Voinovich, Schumer, Collins, and Byrd. It deals with Tibet. It deals with what is happening in Tibet. This is a very difficult week because the day after tomorrow the Olympic torch is coming for the first time to my city, San Francisco, the only city in the United States that the torch will come to. It has created quite a stir. This resolution condemns the violence in Tibet, and it calls for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet. It does other things as well; that is, to urge the Government of China to sit down with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and try to work toward meaningful autonomy with respect to the culture and religion of the people of Tibet. There is an area called the Tibetan Autonomous Region. It has 3 million Tibetans. There are also 3 million Tibetans in the three surrounding provinces of China. Starting on March 10, Tibetan monks and others began protesting in the autonomous area of western China. The protests were begun peacefully by monks who marched in their robes and were an expression of these religious people's desire to practice their religion freely and without Government interference. The protesters took this action at great personal risk. Many monks and marchers carried pictures of the Dalai Lama, the most revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism. Possession of such a picture is punished in China, sometimes severely. Unfortunately and tragically, on March 14, the protests in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, turned violent. Long- suppressed animosity boiled over. Innocent people were killed in the violence. Homes and businesses were burned in what appears to have been a riot. Over the days and weeks that followed, the protests spread. They occurred in 42 separate Chinese counties. Most were peaceful. In some cases, they were met, though, with brute force by Chinese police. This resolution condemns force on both sides. The Chinese Government responded to these protests with force and secrecy. The crackdown included thousands of paramilitary police and possibly the People's Liberation Army, who were sent to Tibet. International journalists and official representatives were kept out, making accurate information difficult to obtain. But we know dozens of people or more have died. We know more than 1,000 people have been incarcerated. Now, how did all this happen? Over the past decade, China has flooded the Tibetan Autonomous Region with Han Chinese. They have built a major railroad. Han Chinese have participated in a major building boom in the capital city of Lhasa. In fact, there are many more hotels and restaurants and businesses there today. The majority of Tibetans who live in rural areas benefit very little from central government investment in this Tibetan economy. Instead, the money has flowed to government-run enterprises, in which Han control is dominant. The Tibetans lack the skills to compete. According to the Chinese Government's 2000 census, the illiteracy rate of ethnic Tibetans in China is 48 percent; that is five times higher than the Chinese national illiteracy rate. Instead of providing educational opportunity to Tibetans, China is currently advancing patriotic education in Tibet's monasteries. What this means is Chinese reeducation teams go into the monasteries and try to reeducate the Tibetan monks. If they do not agree to reeducation, they are often punished and often beaten. The bottom line is, few Tibetans are prepared to compete for employment and business opportunities in the Han-dominated economic environment. I first went to China and was the first American mayor to do so in June of 1979. I went with a delegation of San Francisco businesspeople and civic activists to develop the first friendship city agreement between an American city and a Chinese city. From that flowed an agreement which at one time was the most active sister city relationship in the world. That was between the great cities of Shanghai and San Francisco. The Chinese have always had a love of San Francisco; it goes back many decades into former centuries of Chinese coming to this country and landing in San Francisco first. We developed that relationship and good things happened. The first Chinese Consulate came to San Francisco and an American Consulate was opened in Shanghai. The first COSCO ship came into San Francisco Bay. The first chartered air service landed at San Francisco International Airport. A special relationship was developed between Guangdong Province and San Francisco. The first Bank of China opened in this country and on and on and on with many interesting projects. It turned out the mayor of Shanghai was, first, Wang Daohan and then Jiang Zemin. Jiang Zemin and I met over an ensuing 8-year period every year. He then went on to become Secretary General of the party and President of the country. In 1992, 1997, and 1998, I, personally, carried letters from the Dalai Lama to the President of China. In 1997 and 1998, I had long discussions with the President of China, President Jiang Zemin. I would like, if I might, to read parts of these letters. The second letter is dated June 12, 1997. It is signed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Let me read this to you: When I met Chairman Mao over forty years ago, I felt very assured by him and the other leaders of the new China. The promises made to me gave the people and government of Tibet considerable optimism and confidence. In the mid-1950s, when we were confronted with new crises, it was Premier Zhou En Lai who was able to play a crucial role in restoring my confidence; we met several times during my pilgrimage in India. Unfortunately, the situation in Tibet did not improve despite his best assurances and I ultimately had to go into exile. Despite lost time and opportunities and the turmoil of the recent past, my hopes were renewed in 1979 when Mr. Deng Xiaoping took the initiative to contact me through my brother in Hong Kong, assuring me that short of our demand for separation from the People's Republic of China, all problems could be discussed and resolved. It was a long overdue rapprochement, and within a few years were able to make considerable progress on several fronts. Unfortunately, this initiative, started by Mr. Deng and vigorously carried out by Mr. Hu Yaobang, then Party General Secretary, came to a stuttering halt owing to events in Tibet and elsewhere in China that prevented its natural fruition. Many of the issues are yet to be resolved, and Tibet now draws the concern of more than just the Tibetan people. The primary responsibility for resolving this matter lies with us, and I believe that now is an opportune moment to tackle these problems without prejudice. I have, for my part, openly and in confidence conveyed to you that I am not demanding independence for Tibet, which I believe is fundamental to the Chinese government. I think the issue of Tibet has remained unresolved for too long and any further delay will only complicate the matter. I am also deeply concerned by the growing restlessness among the Tibetan people in recent times. I can fully understand their frustrations. But if a mutually agreeable solution is found, I am confident that I will be able to dispel the Tibetan people's concerns and win their support for my efforts. It is signed, ``With my prayers, the Dalai Lama.'' I delivered this to Jiang Zemin, in China, on June 12, 1997. On May 16, 1998, the next year, I returned to China and I delivered another letter from His Holiness to Jiang Zemin. I would like to quote from that. It is my fervent and sincere hope that you will provide similar leadership in resolving the Tibetan problem. If we look at the issue positively I really do not see major contradictions between our respective positions. If I understand correctly, the main concern of the Central leadership in China is the unity and stability of the nation. My middle-way approach for resolving the Tibetan issue will in fact contribute towards achieving the same objectives. I would like to reiterate here that I am not seeking independence for Tibet. My main concern is for the six million Tibetan people (or whatever the actual figure is of people who consider themselves Tibetans) to be able to enjoy the opportunity to fully preserve their civilisation and the distinct Tibetan culture, religion, and language. I am convinced that this could be achieved through genuine autonomy or self-rule within the framework of the People's Republic of China. Such a situation will also make it possible for the Tibetan people to take full advantage of, and be an integral part of, the socio-economic development, which is taking place in China. It is needless to mention that a solution to the Tibetan problem will gain tremendous international respect for the People's Republic of China as well as for your leadership. Mr. President, it has been four decades since I have had the opportunity to sit down personally with the leader of the Chinese people to have a frank and direct dialogue. With your leadership and initiative, I am confident that we can begin the process of resolving the many issues concerning Tibet. I believe that you are privileged to be leading the People's Republic of China at a unique time in history when it's economy is growing vigorously and when you are gaining a new respectability in the world. It goes on. May I suggest that at our meeting, you and I discuss relations between the Tibetans and the Chinese government. I am also concerned about the maintenance and enhancement of those cultural, civic, and religious institutions that are so important to the Tibetan people and others throughout the world. In addition, we should discuss the fact that economic growth in Tibet has not matched that of the rest of China, and we would be interested in talking about how we can work together towards poverty alleviation and educational and economic growth. There are other parts to these letters. But I would ask that the full text be incorporated at this point in my remarks in the Record.