Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. Many Americans now own multiple credit cards. The average American has four credit cards, and 1 in 7 Americans hold more than 10 cards. The proliferation of credit cards can be traced, in part, to a dramatic increase in credit card solicitation. In 1990, credit card companies sent about 1.1 billion solicitations to American homes; in 2006, they sent over 9.2 billion. As one would expect, the increase in credit card ownership has also yielded an increase in credit card debt. Individuals get 6, 7, or 8 different credit cards, pay only the minimum payment required, and many end up drowning in debt. That happens in case after case. Over the past two decades, the credit card debt of American consumers has nearly tripled--from $238 billion in 1989 to a staggering $800 billion in 2005. As a result, the average American household now has about $9,500 of credit card debt. That is almost twice the average level of credit card debt from just 10 years ago. In light of these figures it should be no surprise that vast numbers of Americans have been filing for bankruptcy in recent years. In 2005-- just before the implementation date of the Bankruptcy Reform Act--over 2 million non-business bankruptcies were filed. Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who utilize credit cards. The benefits and flexibility these cards offer are enormously attractive. However, these individual credit card holders receive no information on the impact of carrying a balance with compounding interest. Too often individuals make just the minimum payment. They pay it for 1 year, 2 years--they make additional purchases, they get another card, and another, and another. After, 2 or 3 years, many find that the interest on the debt is larger than the total purchases they originally made, such that they can never repay these cards--and they do not know what to do about it. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would help prevent this problem. Let me tell you exactly what the bill would do. It would require credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement: a notice warning credit card holders that making only the minimum payment each month will increase the interest they pay and the amount of time it takes to repay their debt; and examples of the amount of time and money required to repay a credit card debt if only minimum payments are made. If the consumer makes only minimum payments for, 6 consecutive months, the amount of time and money required to repay the individual's specific credit card debt, under the terms of their credit card agreement. The bill would also require that a toll-free number be included on statements, to allow consumers to call and speak to a live person to get an estimate of the time and money required to repay their balance if only minimum payments are made. If the consumer makes only minimum payments for 6 consecutive months, they will receive a toll-free number for an accredited credit counseling service. The disclosure requirements in this bill would only apply if the consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement. Statistics vary about the number of individuals who make only the minimum payments. One study in 2004 determined that 35 million people pay only the minimum on their credit cards. In a 2005 poll, 40 percent of respondents said that they pay the minimum or slightly more. What is certain is that many Americans pay only the minimum, and that paying only the minimum has harsh financial consequences. I suspect that most people would be surprised to know how much interest can pile up when paying the minimum. Take the average household, with $9,500 of credit card debt, and the average credit card interest rate, which last week was 13.74 percent. If only the 2 percent minimum payment is made, it will take them 35 years and $21,799.07 to pay off the card. That is if the family doesn't spend another cent on their credit cards--an unlikely assumption. In other words, the family will need to pay over $12,000 in interest to repay just $9,500 of principal. For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 13.74 percent interest rate will take 42 years and more than $46,300 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made. Mr. President, 13.74 percent is only the average rate. Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon. Penalty interest rates on credit cards average 27.3 percent, and seven major credit cards charge penalty rates of more than 30 percent. Even if we assume only a 20 percent interest rate, a family that has the average debt of $9,500 at a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need an incredible 82 years and $55,084 to pay off that initial $9,500 of debt. That's $45,584 in interest payments-- an amount that approaches 5 times the original debt. These examples are far from extreme. Last March, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs heard testimony from Wesley Wannemacher, a consumer from Lima, OH. Mr. Wannemacher charged $3,200 to a credit card in 2001 and 2002. He never charged anything on the card again, but he spent the next 6 years struggling to pay it off, as he experienced the kinds of events that American households routinely face--unexpected medical expenses, a growing family, and so on. By early 2007 Mr. Wannemacher had paid $6,300 on the initial $3,200 in debt, but he still owed $4,400 on the card. Interest charges, late fees, and $1,500 in fees for going over the limit--even though the balance had only exceeded the limit three times--had resulted in total charges of $10,700 for that initial $3,200 in credit. Fortunately for Mr. Wannemacher, his credit card company reviewed his account--after it became known that he was going to testify to Congress about his experience. The remaining balance on his account was forgiven. Mr. President, testifying before a Senate committee is not something that Americans could--or should have to--do to escape from crushing credit card debt. That is one of the reasons why it is so important for this Congress to pass the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. There will always be people who cannot afford to pay more than their minimum payments. But there is also a large number of consumers who can afford to pay more but feel comfortable paying the minimum payment because they don't realize the consequences of doing so. Now I am certainly not trying to demonize credit cards or the credit card industry. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life, and they help the economy operate more smoothly by giving consumers and merchants a reliable, convenient way to exchange funds. However, I do think that people should understand the dangers of paying only their monthly minimums. In this way individuals will be able to act responsibly. The bottom line is that for many consumers, the two percent minimum payment is a financial trap. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information. The bill tracks the language of an amendment I cosponsored during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. The language of this bill is based on a California law, the California Credit Card Payment Warning Act, passed in 2001. Unfortunately, in 2002, this California law was struck down in U.S. District Court as being preempted by the 1968 Truth in Lending Act. The Truth in Lending Act was enacted in part because Congress found that, ``The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost thereof by consumers.'' This bill would amend the Truth in Lending Act, and would also further its core purpose. These disclosures will allow consumers to know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and only make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment. The disclosure required by this bill is straightforward--how much it will cost to pay off the debt if only minimum payments are made, and how long it will take to do it. As for expense, my staff tells me that on the Web site Cardweb.com, there is a free interest calculator that does these calculations in under a second. Moreover, I am told that banks make these calculations internally to determine credit risk. The expense of making these disclosures would be minimal. Percentage rates and balances are constantly changing, and each month, the credit card companies are able to assess the minimum payment, late fees, over-the-limit fees and finance charges for millions of accounts. If the credit card companies can put in their bills what the minimum monthly payment is, they can certainly figure out how to disclose to their customers how much it might cost them if they stick to that minimum payment. The credit card industry is the most profitable sector of banking, and in 2006 it made $36.8 billion in profits--an increase of nearly 80 percent from their profits in 2000. I don't think they will have any trouble implementing the requirements of this bill. I believe that this legislation is extraordinarily important and that it will reduce bankruptcies. In the face of the subprime mortgage crisis, and as we appear to be heading toward a recession, this bill is needed now more than ever. The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are starting to become apparent. I continue to believe that a bill requiring a limited but meaningful disclosure by credit card companies is a necessary accompaniment. I think you will see consumers acting more cautiously if these disclosures are made, and I believe that will be good for the bankruptcy courts in terms of reducing their caseloads, and also good for American consumers. The credit card debt problem facing our Nation is significant. I believe that this bill is an important step in providing individuals with the information needed to act responsibly, and it does so with a minimal burden on the industry. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 inform all Senators that the Committee on Rules and Administration has updated the U.S. Senate Travel Regulations to include two changes. First, P.L. 110-81 requires the Rules Committee to make certain changes to the U.S. Senate Travel Regulations. The provision dealing with how Members estimate costs for charter jets is amended in section III Transportation, paragraph C, of the Travel Regulations, as follows: C. Corporate/Private Aircraft: Reimbursement of official expenses for the use of a corporate or private aircraft is allowable from the contingent fund of the Senate provided the traveler complies with the prohibitions, restrictions, and authorizations specified in these regulations. Moreover, pursuant to the Ethics Committee Interpretive Ruling 444, excess campaign funds may be used to defray official expenses consistent with the regulations promulgated by the Federal Election Commission. i. An amendment to Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, paragraph 1(c)(1)(C), enacted September 14, 2007, pursuant to P.L. 110-81, states: (C)(i) Fair market value for a flight on an aircraft described in item (ii) shall be the pro rata share of the fair market value of the normal and usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of comparable size, as determined by dividing such cost by the number of Members, officers, or employees of Congress on the flight. (ii) A flight on an aircraft described in this item is any flight on an aircraft that is not-- (I) operated or paid for by an air carrier or commercial operator certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration and required to be conducted under air carrier safety rules; or (II) in the case of travel which is abroad, an air carrier or commercial operator certificated by an appropriate foreign civil aviation authority and the flight is required to be conducted under air carrier safety rules. (iii) This subclause shall not apply to an aircraft owned or leased by a governmental entity or by a Member of Congress or a Member's immediate family member (including an aircraft owned by an entity that is not a public corporation in which the Member or Member's immediate family member has an ownership interest), provided that the Member does not use the aircraft anymore than the Member's or immediate family member's proportionate share of ownership allows. ii. Prior to the commencement of official travel on a corporate or private aircraft, the traveler or the traveler's designee shall contact a charter company in the departure or destination city to request a written estimate of the cost of a flight between the two cities on a similar aircraft of comparable size being provided by the corporation or private entity. 1. For example, if a Learjet 45 XR aircraft is being provided by the corporation or private entity, the traveler or the traveler's designee shall request a written estimate of the cost to charter a Learjet 45 XR aircraft from the departure city to the destination city. 2. If no charter company is located in either the departure or destination city which rents a similar aircraft of comparable size, a charter company nearest either the destination or departure city which does so shall be contacted for a written estimate. iii. Following the completion of official travel on a corporate or private aircraft, reimbursement for related expenses may be processed on direct pay vouchers payable to each individual traveler, to the corporation or private entity, or to the travel charge card vendor. The written estimate received from the charter company shall be attached to the voucher for processing. The second change concerns travel by Members to the home State for funerals. The provision is amended in section of the Travel Regulations entitled ``Special Events, II. Funerals,'' as follows: II. Funerals: Members who represent the Senate at the funeral of a Member or former Member may be reimbursed for the actual and necessary expenses of their attendance, pursuant to S. Res. 263, agreed to July 30, 1998. Additionally, the actual and necessary expenses of a committee appointed to represent the Senate at the funeral of a deceased Member or former Member may be reimbursed pursuant to S. Res. 458, agreed to October 4, 1984. A. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 58e, which authorizes reimbursement for travel while on official business within the United States, Members and their staff may be reimbursed for the actual and necessary expenses of attending funerals within their home state only. B. Examples of funerals that may be considered official business include, but are not limited to, funerals for military servicemembers, first responders, or public officials from the Member's state. These changes became effective on December 20, 2007. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the updated U.S. Senate Travel Regulations printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. Many Americans now own multiple credit cards. The average American has four credit cards, and 1 in 7 Americans hold more than 10 cards. The proliferation of credit cards can be traced, in part, to a dramatic increase in credit card solicitation. In 1990, credit card companies sent about 1.1 billion solicitations to American homes; in 2006, they sent over 9.2 billion. As one would expect, the increase in credit card ownership has also yielded an increase in credit card debt. Individuals get 6, 7, or 8 different credit cards, pay only the minimum payment required, and many end up drowning in debt. That happens in case after case. Over the past two decades, the credit card debt of American consumers has nearly tripled--from $238 billion in 1989 to a staggering $800 billion in 2005. As a result, the average American household now has about $9,500 of credit card debt. That is almost twice the average level of credit card debt from just 10 years ago. In light of these figures it should be no surprise that vast numbers of Americans have been filing for bankruptcy in recent years. In 2005-- just before the implementation date of the Bankruptcy Reform Act--over 2 million non-business bankruptcies were filed. Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who utilize credit cards. The benefits and flexibility these cards offer are enormously attractive. However, these individual credit card holders receive no information on the impact of carrying a balance with compounding interest. Too often individuals make just the minimum payment. They pay it for 1 year, 2 years--they make additional purchases, they get another card, and another, and another. After, 2 or 3 years, many find that the interest on the debt is larger than the total purchases they originally made, such that they can never repay these cards--and they do not know what to do about it. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would help prevent this problem. Let me tell you exactly what the bill would do. It would require credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement: a notice warning credit card holders that making only the minimum payment each month will increase the interest they pay and the amount of time it takes to repay their debt; and examples of the amount of time and money required to repay a credit card debt if only minimum payments are made. If the consumer makes only minimum payments for, 6 consecutive months, the amount of time and money required to repay the individual's specific credit card debt, under the terms of their credit card agreement. The bill would also require that a toll-free number be included on statements, to allow consumers to call and speak to a live person to get an estimate of the time and money required to repay their balance if only minimum payments are made. If the consumer makes only minimum payments for 6 consecutive months, they will receive a toll-free number for an accredited credit counseling service. The disclosure requirements in this bill would only apply if the consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement. Statistics vary about the number of individuals who make only the minimum payments. One study in 2004 determined that 35 million people pay only the minimum on their credit cards. In a 2005 poll, 40 percent of respondents said that they pay the minimum or slightly more. What is certain is that many Americans pay only the minimum, and that paying only the minimum has harsh financial consequences. I suspect that most people would be surprised to know how much interest can pile up when paying the minimum. Take the average household, with $9,500 of credit card debt, and the average credit card interest rate, which last week was 13.74 percent. If only the 2 percent minimum payment is made, it will take them 35 years and $21,799.07 to pay off the card. That is if the family doesn't spend another cent on their credit cards--an unlikely assumption. In other words, the family will need to pay over $12,000 in interest to repay just $9,500 of principal. For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 13.74 percent interest rate will take 42 years and more than $46,300 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made. Mr. President, 13.74 percent is only the average rate. Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon. Penalty interest rates on credit cards average 27.3 percent, and seven major credit cards charge penalty rates of more than 30 percent. Even if we assume only a 20 percent interest rate, a family that has the average debt of $9,500 at a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need an incredible 82 years and $55,084 to pay off that initial $9,500 of debt. That's $45,584 in interest payments-- an amount that approaches 5 times the original debt. These examples are far from extreme. Last March, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs heard testimony from Wesley Wannemacher, a consumer from Lima, OH. Mr. Wannemacher charged $3,200 to a credit card in 2001 and 2002. He never charged anything on the card again, but he spent the next 6 years struggling to pay it off, as he experienced the kinds of events that American households routinely face--unexpected medical expenses, a growing family, and so on. By early 2007 Mr. Wannemacher had paid $6,300 on the initial $3,200 in debt, but he still owed $4,400 on the card. Interest charges, late fees, and $1,500 in fees for going over the limit--even though the balance had only exceeded the limit three times--had resulted in total charges of $10,700 for that initial $3,200 in credit. Fortunately for Mr. Wannemacher, his credit card company reviewed his account--after it became known that he was going to testify to Congress about his experience. The remaining balance on his account was forgiven. Mr. President, testifying before a Senate committee is not something that Americans could--or should have to--do to escape from crushing credit card debt. That is one of the reasons why it is so important for this Congress to pass the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. There will always be people who cannot afford to pay more than their minimum payments. But there is also a large number of consumers who can afford to pay more but feel comfortable paying the minimum payment because they don't realize the consequences of doing so. Now I am certainly not trying to demonize credit cards or the credit card industry. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life, and they help the economy operate more smoothly by giving consumers and merchants a reliable, convenient way to exchange funds. However, I do think that people should understand the dangers of paying only their monthly minimums. In this way individuals will be able to act responsibly. The bottom line is that for many consumers, the two percent minimum payment is a financial trap. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information. The bill tracks the language of an amendment I cosponsored during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. The language of this bill is based on a California law, the California Credit Card Payment Warning Act, passed in 2001. Unfortunately, in 2002, this California law was struck down in U.S. District Court as being preempted by the 1968 Truth in Lending Act. The Truth in Lending Act was enacted in part because Congress found that, ``The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost thereof by consumers.'' This bill would amend the Truth in Lending Act, and would also further its core purpose. These disclosures will allow consumers to know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and only make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment. The disclosure required by this bill is straightforward--how much it will cost to pay off the debt if only minimum payments are made, and how long it will take to do it. As for expense, my staff tells me that on the Web site Cardweb.com, there is a free interest calculator that does these calculations in under a second. Moreover, I am told that banks make these calculations internally to determine credit risk. The expense of making these disclosures would be minimal. Percentage rates and balances are constantly changing, and each month, the credit card companies are able to assess the minimum payment, late fees, over-the-limit fees and finance charges for millions of accounts. If the credit card companies can put in their bills what the minimum monthly payment is, they can certainly figure out how to disclose to their customers how much it might cost them if they stick to that minimum payment. The credit card industry is the most profitable sector of banking, and in 2006 it made $36.8 billion in profits--an increase of nearly 80 percent from their profits in 2000. I don't think they will have any trouble implementing the requirements of this bill. I believe that this legislation is extraordinarily important and that it will reduce bankruptcies. In the face of the subprime mortgage crisis, and as we appear to be heading toward a recession, this bill is needed now more than ever. The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are starting to become apparent. I continue to believe that a bill requiring a limited but meaningful disclosure by credit card companies is a necessary accompaniment. I think you will see consumers acting more cautiously if these disclosures are made, and I believe that will be good for the bankruptcy courts in terms of reducing their caseloads, and also good for American consumers. The credit card debt problem facing our Nation is significant. I believe that this bill is an important step in providing individuals with the information needed to act responsibly, and it does so with a minimal burden on the industry. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania very much. It is very generous of him. My remarks are very brief and they are very personal. Trent, I want you to know how much I have enjoyed working with you. I have enjoyed your friendship, I have enjoyed your sense of humor and, yes, I have even enjoyed your singing. (Laughter.) I have found you to be both forthright and truthful. I have found that when you give your word, you keep it. I tend to judge people on two bases: how they go through the tough times and whether I would want to be in a bunker with them in a real debate. I watched you go through the tough times. I remember you showing me a picture of a chair that had gone a mile from the home that blew down in the hurricane. I remember your fight with the insurance company, and I can only say to that insurance company: Give up, you are going to lose. I want you to know how much I treasure the relationship we have had. You have a great future. For you and your family, you are probably doing the right thing. For us, it is going to be a real loss. I want you to know how much I enjoyed the times we had socially, the seersucker caucus, seeing you turn up here in white bucks, all clean, spotless, a seersucker suit, a pink shirt, and a pink tie. No one in seersucker quite equals you, Trent Lott. For me, a westerner, to see a southerner at his peacock best was incredibly special. I thank you for your contributions to the Senate. I thank you for your friendship. I wish you well, and may the wind always be at your back. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Indeed, Madam President, I am taken aback by the generosity of the Senator from Connecticut, and I want him to know I very much appreciate it. I wish to make a few comments on this bill and then introduce two amendments. These two amendments are very important to me because without them I am going to have a great deal of trouble voting for the final product. I say that as a predicate. First, the general comments. On December 16, 2005, the New York Times introduced the world to a secret NSA surveillance program, later dubbed the ``terrorist surveillance program,'' or TSP as it came to be known. This program, ordered by the President after September 11, 2001, was conducted in violation of U.S. law. I have served on the Intelligence Committee for more than 6 years now and on the Judiciary Committee for almost 15 years, and I can tell you that NSA signals intelligence is an indispensable tool on the war on terror. No one should think there aren't people who would do us harm. The only way to wage this war on terror is to find them before they find us. At the same time, it is crucial to remember the history. FISA was first enacted in 1978 in the wake of major civil rights abuses of foreign intelligence. The White House had authorized surveillance on Americans because of their political views--Martin Luther King, Joan Baez, and many others--a massive drift net collection of communications of U.S. citizens into and out of the United States. FISA was enacted to ensure such abuses would not occur again, and it has, in fact, safeguarded Americans' privacy rights for the past 30 years. FISA requires court review and approval when surveillance is targeting a person inside this country. No content can be collected on an individual unless there is a warrant by the FISA Court. As has been pointed out many times, changes in telecommunications technology and a change in the nature of our enemies have made updates to the 1978 FISA law necessary. New legislation is, in fact, needed to redraw the lines detailing when and where surveillance can take place and when a court warrant is required. That is what this debate is about and that is what the cloture vote just began. To be clear, these modifications should not come at the expense of civil liberties protections that are enshrined in our Constitution. Today, in my view, it is clear that the administration made a big mistake in not using FISA in the first place. I have consistently said that I thought the terrorist surveillance program could be done under FISA. A FISA Court judge proved this correct earlier this year. If changes to FISA were needed to accomplish this surveillance, the administration should have requested those changes when we reauthorized the PATRIOT Act. But, instead, the White House and Department of Justice relied on a new and aggressive interpretation of the President's article II authority under the Constitution, and a flawed argument that the authorization to grant military force use provided a statutory exemption to FISA. That was a big mistake. It is clear to me from the Office of Legal Counsel opinions that individuals in the Justice Department did not feel bound by established U.S. law, but proceeded under a new and expanded view of Presidential authority to move forward with the program. With this bill, we can turn the page on a sad portion of our Nation's history. Both the Intelligence and the Judiciary bills will keep the terrorist surveillance program under FISA, and it will restore protections for America's privacy rights in ways that the Protect America Act does not. Let me give a few examples. No. 1, this bill categorically requires an individualized warrant any time surveillance targets someone inside the United States. So the argument about a great drift net being cast across the United States, picking up tens of thousands of America's phone calls, simply is not correct. Targets outside the United States would be subject to a program warrant where the FISA Court reviews the targeting, in what are called minimization procedures. No. 2, the FISA Court review must be involved any time the intelligence community is conducting surveillance on an American anywhere in the world. By that I mean any time a American is collected for content anywhere in the world, that individual becomes a target. Until now, the Attorney General has authorized, under section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333, surveillance of Americans outside the country. There has been no FISA Court review in these cases. The numbers of Americans targeted overseas were between 50 and 60 cases last year, according to the DNI--last year being 2006. So the numbers are small, and reports are made anonymous through minimization, and only included if they contained foreign intelligence value. No. 3, the bill puts the FISA Court review upfront, where it belongs, rather than 4 months after collection has begun, as was done under the Protect America Act. In other words, upfront the FISA Court reviews the minimization and approves that minimization, and can say to the Department: We want you to come back in 6 months or 8 months or 3 months, and we will take another look at it. No. 4, procedures known as ``minimization'' are clearly defined and applied. This has been a hallmark of FISA for 30 years, but was not included in the Protect America Act. Once again, minimization is the process that the intelligence community has used since 1978 to protect information concerning Americans. When the NSA collects the content of communications, it does so to write intelligence reports. Minimization states that information without a foreign intelligence purpose is not used, and it cannot be retained indefinitely. It must be discarded at some point. Intelligence reports that use information about an American are made anonymous, to protect that person's privacy rights. The bill requires that the minimization procedures used in each program be approved by the court upfront, so they go to the court first and they say this is what we want to do and these are the procedures we will use, and the court can affirm it or deny it. But it goes before a court. If the amendments are adopted, the court will have the power to review how the minimization is being applied as well, so they will have constant review of the process. No. 5, oversight mechanisms are stronger in this legislation. Reviews are required by inspectors general, agency heads, the FISA Court, and the Congress on how the surveillance authority is being used. I wish to speak for a moment on the subject of telecom liability and then on exclusivity. If I might, I wish to do the exclusivity first. On behalf of myself, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Leahy, and Senator Nelson, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this bill does not include language I authored to strengthen the exclusivity provisions of FISA. It has been reviewed by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and they are both cosponsors, as well as an additional cosponsor in Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee. Basically, what this amendment does is strengthen FISA as the only and exclusive authority for gathering intelligence through electronic surveillance. It specifically closes the AUMF loophole I mentioned earlier, whereby the administration contends it does not need FISA approval. Second, it provides that only another statute, specific statute can constitute an additional exclusive means of electronic surveillance. Third, it strengthens the requirements for certifications. The administration must identify the specific provision of the law on which the certification is based. The exclusivity amendment I have submitted is intended to reinforce the legislative intent of the bill. In 1978, when the bill was passed, the court was to be absolute when conducting electronic surveillance against Americans for foreign intelligence purposes. Unfortunately, despite the 1978 language, the Bush administration decided it could go outside the law. That was both wrong and unnecessary. To make matters worse, the administration made up an argument that Congress had authorized it to go around FISA by some passing the authorization for use of military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban. Does anyone here actually believe that? I do not know one Member of Congress who has stated publicly that they believed they were authorizing the terrorist surveillance program when they voted to go to war against bin Laden. In fact, to the contrary, it was never considered and to the best of my knowledge it was never thought of. When the Department of Justice came to the Congress in September 2001, outlining the changes it needed in FISA to wage this war, it did not mention anything about surveillance efforts such as those the TSP program addressed. Congressional intent from 1978 is clear. Congress clearly intended for FISA to be the exclusive authority under which the executive branch may conduct electronic surveillance. Let me briefly review the history, because it is important. Congress wrote, in 1978, in report language accompanying FISA: Despite any inherent power by the President to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the absence of legislation, by this bill and chapter 119 of title 18, Congress will have legislated with regard to electronic surveillance in the United States, that legislation, with its procedures and safeguards prohibit the President, notwithstanding any inherent powers, notwithstanding any inherent powers-- Which means AUMF, article II of the Constitution --from violating the terms of that legislation. That is a quote. The legislative history continues by describing the Supreme Court's decision in the Keith case, in which the Court ruled at that time Congress hadn't ruled in this field, and simply left the Presidential powers where it found them. But at this point the legislative history turns. The 1978 language responded to the Keith case and said this: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, however, does not simply leave Presidential powers where it finds them. To the contrary, this bill would substitute a clear legislative authorization pursuant to statutory, not constitutional, standards. I want the record to show here the clear understanding in 1978 that FISA was the exclusive authority. That was the report language accompanying H.R. 7138 as it passed the 95th Congress. President Carter signed the bill. His signing statement said this: This bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial warrant from all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. That is pretty clear, on the part of the President who signed the bill, and the House and the Senate that passed that bill, what the intention was. The Intelligence Committee bill before us reiterates the 1978 exclusivity language, but I believe this needs to be strengthened in light of the article II and the AUMF arguments that this administration has been making. I am going to introduce this amendment at this time. This language closes loopholes that this Department of Justice squeezed through, to claim that the AUMF was an authorized exception to the FISA. It clearly was not. The amendment does this by tightening language in FISA, and in title 18 of the criminal code, making clear that future Presidents should not try to read between the lines in future legislation for authorization to go outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It also provides more specificity in what must be included in written requests or directives to telecommunications authorities for them to legally provide assistance. It is clear from the recent history that this is necessary. In fact, the whole issue of whether telecom immunity is needed is because past certifications have not been clear. I couldn't support a bill that did not clearly reestablish the primacy of FISA. I tried to do it in committee. I thought it was done in committee. It was not included in the base bill. The Republican side would not go along with it. I once again submit it. To me it is vital, and my vote on the bill was, at least 50 percent, based on this exclusivity provision. Now, if I may, may I mention telecom immunity and submit an amendment? I voted for telecom immunity in the committee. I am not inclined to vote for it, to be candid with you, unless this amendment is adopted. So let me begin by talking about the immunity provision of the bill. It is not as expansive as some would make it sound. The language would only cover cases where the Attorney General certifies that the defendant companies received written requests or directives from top levels of the Government for their assistance. In other words, the Government, in writing, I stress in writing, assured those companies that the program was legal, the President had authorized the program, and that its legality has been approved by the Attorney General. The legislation does not provide immunity for criminal wrongdoing, nor does the legislation provide liability relief for any Government official such as that the Director of National Intelligence had requested in April. No individual immunity of anyone in the government is included in this bill. There are approximately 40 cases pending in the Ninth Circuit. The companies in these cases are prevented from making their own defense. I do not know if Members understand the full importance of this. They are prevented from responding to inaccurate news articles, inaccurate press releases, they cannot come before the Congress and testify in public, they cannot respond to anything that is said in the public sector, and they are prevented from defending themselves in court. These defendants have to sit by and listen to what they consider to be misrepresentations, and they cannot respond to these misrepresentations. So, in effect, they are handcuffed and gagged by the administration's claim of state secrets. This is a matter of fairness. These companies have no financial motives in providing assistance to the Government. In fact, they incurred a substantial risk in doing so. They were given written requests, legal assurances in the weeks after September 11. The letters went out within 5 weeks of September 11, when we all feared this Nation might suffer additional attacks. In fact, evidence has come to light to indicate the second wave of attacks involving the West Coast was being planned. It was this administration, not the companies, that made a flawed legal determination. It was this administration that withheld its activities from the Congress for 4 long years. It was this administration that decided not to go to the FISA Court. They could have gone to the FISA Court. They could have asked for a program warrant, which they subsequently got. They could have put this program under FISA coverage, which it now is, which they did not at the time. It has been pointed out that there is a longstanding common law provision that allows citizens to rely on the assumption that the Government acted legally when it asks a private citizen or a company to assist it for the common good. All that is required is that the citizen act in good faith. So the question is whether the small number of people, and it was a small number of people, who were actually cleared in a classified sense, to deal with this, of these companies, were acting in good faith and whether it was reasonable for them to determine that the assistance, in fact, it provided was legal. A small number of telecom officials were acting under the cloak of secrecy and a directive not to disclose the Government's request. They are not experts on article II of the Constitution. The amendment I am going to submit would put before the FISA Court the question of whether the telecommunications companies should, in fact, receive immunity based on the law. The FISA Court would be required to act, en banc, and how this is, is 15 judges, Federal judges, appointed by the Chief Justice, they sit 24/ 7, and this is all they do, they would act en banc. They would look at the following: Did the letters sent to the carriers which were repeated virtually every 35 to 45 days over the last 4 to 5 years, did the letters sent to the carriers meet the conditions of law. Section 2511 of title 18 clearly states that a certification from the Government is required in cases where there is no court order. That is the only two ways that FISA allows this to proceed, by written certification or by court order. The Government has to certify in writing that all statutory requirements for the company's assistance have been met. So the FISA Court would first look at whether the letter sent to the companies met the terms of this law. The court would then look at, if the companies provided assistance, was it done in good faith and pursuant to a belief that the compliance was legal. Finally, the FISA Court would ask: Did the defendants actually provide assistance? If the FISA Court finds that defendant did not provide any assistance to the Government or that the assistance either met the legal requirements of the law or was reasonably and in good faith, the immunity provision would apply. If the FISA Court finds that none of these requirements were met, immunity would not apply to the defendant companies. I think the merit of this approach is it preserves judicial review, the method we look at in order to decide questions of legality. Now, the bulk of the Members of this body, probably 90 percent of them, have not been able to see the written certification, so you do not know what was there. What we ask in this amendment is: FISA Court, you take a look at these letters, and you make a ruling as to whether they essentially meet the certification requirements of the FISA law. Therefore, there is judicial review to determine whether, under existing law, this immunity should be forthcoming. It is a narrowing of the immunity provisions of the Intelligence bill. I think it makes sense. I read the letters. I am a layperson, I am not a lawyer. I cannot say whether they met the immunity provisions. Others can say that. But it should be up to a court to make that decision. It seems to me that if the FISA Court finds that none of these requirements were met, immunity would not apply to the defendant companies. The FISA Court of Review stated in 2002 that the President has article II authorities to conduct surveillance. The article II authority is the big rub in all this. The collection under this program was directed overwhelmingly at foreign targets. But no court has addressed this issue since FISA was enacted in 1978. And, candidly, I think the time has come to see whether the President's article II authority--and the FISA Court would be the first judge of this--in fact, supersedes the article II authority based on the reading that I had given you of FISA Court passage in 1978. So essentially that is the amendment I would like to send to the desk at this time which narrows the immunity provision of the FISA law. I thank the clerk for receiving the amendment. In sum, I have tried to pay a great deal of attention to this. I tried to do my due diligence, both as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee. I truly do believe electronic surveillance is vital in the war against terror. I believe it is the most likely way we learn what is being planned for the future and have an opportunity to prevent it from happening. I truly believe there are people who would do this Nation grievous injury and harm if they are given the opportunity to do it, and I think the telecom communities did depend on the good faith of the head of the National Security Agency and the Attorney General and the requests from the highest levels of Government. The question is, Did they comply with the law? And so the amendment I have suggested would give the FISA Court the opportunity to make a ruling as to whether, in fact, they did comply with the law. The second amendment would strengthen the exclusivity provisions of the FISA law so we never again, hopefully, will find ourselves in the same situation. I look for a vote on both those amendments, and I thank the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee and Senator Nelson for supporting my amendment on exclusivity. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida be added as a cosponsor of the FISA Court evaluation on the immunity question amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding to me.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The understanding of my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, is correct. The finality provisions in this legislation were intended to give the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police authority to transfer employees and assign duties as necessary to meet the mission of the U.S. Capitol Police in maintaining the security of the Capitol complex. However, the provisions in this legislation in no way limit the protections and rights of an employee to seek relief under the Congressional Accountability Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Modernization Act today. This bill would make much-needed improvements to this important program to give more homebuyers the option to get a FHA government-backed loan instead of the more risky products that have contributed to the current mortgage crisis. The FHA program is critical to insuring home mortgages for low and middle income borrowers that are unable to obtain financing from conventional mortgage lenders. However, over the past decade, FHA has been priced out of the market. In California alone, FHA loans have dropped from 109,074 in 2000 to just 2,599 in 2006--resulting in a decline of 98 percent in 6 years. Furthermore, the current crisis in the subprime lending market has put more than 500,000 American homeowners into foreclosure this year. My State of California has been especially hit hard. More than 50,000 California homes went into foreclosure in just the month of October. This equates to one foreclosure filing for every 258 households in the state--about double the national foreclosure rate. The bill passed by the Senate today takes an important step to help American families who face the threat of losing their homes and those who want to buy a new home with a safe and affordable mortgage--it modernizes the FHA program and expands the financing options available to homebuyers. Specifically, this bill would: Increase the maximum size of mortgages that FHA can insure in expensive housing areas to $417,000 from the current level of $362,790. This increase in the loan limit is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. It is my hope that the final bill signed by the President further increases the loan limit to over $500,000, as included in the House-passed version of the FHA bill. This is essential so that more homebuyers in states like California, where the average cost of a home is over $490,000, can be helped. Reduce the downpayment requirement to 1.5 percent from the current requirement of 3 percent under the FHA program--allowing FHA to compete with subprime lenders. Require the secretary of the Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and the FHA Commissioner to work with the mortgage industry and non-profit organizations to improve the FHA loss mitigation process so more troubled homeowners can keep their homes. Increase consumer protections by requiring the secretary of HUD to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices that may be used with FHA- insured manufactured housing loans. Improve housing counseling assistance by creating a pre-purchase counseling pilot program to test the effectiveness of various counseling options. It also expands the eligibility for post-purchase counseling for low and moderate income homeowners who are having trouble making their mortgage payments. It is crucial that we help make homeownership more affordable and accessible to American families and provide relief to those facing the threat of losing their homes. The Senate's approval of this legislation today is an important step to help achieve this. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about agricultural inspection at the Department of Homeland Security. I believe there is a serious problem with agriculture inspections at the Department of Homeland Security. The causes are many. The stakes are high. The impact is potentially devastating. Here are the facts--documented in a 2006 GAO report, a 2007 Congressional Research Service memorandum, and a 2007 report prepared for the House Committee on Agriculture. Agriculture inspection at several key American points of entry has significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7 percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent; the number of quarantine significant pest interceptions has declined by 31 percent since its high of nearly 74,000 in 2002; 22 percent of agricultural specialists' time is spent on duties other than agriculture inspection; and agriculture inspection at DHS is subordinate to the Department's other priorities for drug and weapons enforcement. As the senior Senator from California, the largest agriculture State in the Nation--a $32 billion industry--I cannot stand by while three infestations of Medfly have occurred in my State just this year. And other States have similar problems. Florida has seen a 29-percent increase in pest outbreaks over the last 4 years. It was my intention to offer an amendment to move the agriculture inspection function back to the USDA--and I want to thank my lead cosponsors on this amendment, Senator Martinez and Senator Casey. However, I recognize there is strong objection to considering my amendment in the Senate. I have had multiple discussions with Secretary Chertoff on this issue, and he has agreed to take action to improve agriculture inspection. Specifically, he has agreed to create a new Deputy Executive Director for Agriculture Operational Oversight that is responsible for: managing the joint Customs and Border Protection and USDA Agriculture Quality Assurance program; monitoring agricultural inspection performance for risk and efficiency; securing appropriate staffing and budget allocation for agriculture inspection; ensuring that all directives and policies specific to the agricultural programs are executed in compliance with the agriculture mission; and ensuring there is open dialogue with State and Federal counterparts to assure agricultural inspection activities are being properly handled at ports of entry. Additionally, he has assured me that the agriculture inspectors' time will no longer be used for anything other than agriculture inspection. So in light of those commitments, I have agreed to defer the amendment. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the December 13 letter from Secretary Chertoff, and the accompanying two documents, which are copies of the two memoranda from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, establishing the actions to which we have agreed. But I will watch carefully to see that what the Secretary has agreed to is implemented in the Department. I want to thank the California Farm Bureau, the American Farm Bureau, the State Departments of Agriculture and their association, the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, and the many farm organizations that supported this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the documents to which I have referred and the list of these organizations that wrote in support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, many years ago, exactly 6, Senator Snowe and I began this effort. Prior to that time--and I give credit to Senators Dick Bryan and Slade Gorton, who began this effort back in 1993 with me. We tried to do a sense of the Senate. We didn't succeed. Then Senator Snowe and I did the SUV loophole closer, and we didn't succeed. Then suddenly the times changed and we had introduced this bill in committee. Both the chairman, Senator Inouye, the ranking member, Senator Stevens, and the Commerce Committee allowed us to come before them and ply our troth of this bill. And we did. The Commerce Committee unanimously passed out the bill. That was in itself a stellar moment. Then there was the House and there was the negotiation with Representative Dingell and others. A bill finally emerged--a lot of trial, a lot of tribulation. But I owe a great deal to Senator Snowe. I want her to know that. I thank her for her solidarity, for her intelligence, for working with me over these past 6 years. It has been a wonderful bipartisan relationship and one I will treasure. I also thank Senator Inouye as chairman of the committee and Senator Stevens, Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Carper, Dorgan, and my pal and friend, Senator Boxer. We had some great staff from my office. I thank them: John Watts, Matt Nelson, my LD, Chris Thompson, who participated in much of the negotiations. But I also give kudos to a member of Senator Inouye's Commerce Committee staff, and his name is David Strickland. David Strickland knows more about automobiles than most people all put together in this Chamber. There may be a few exceptions, but I have never met anyone who knows more about the automobile. He conducted the negotiations with the House and worked very late hours. I want him to know how much his talent, his technical expertise is appreciated. I see Senator Carper. I think I mentioned him. We had many conversations over the recess on the bill. I thank him for his support and for his commitment to this bill. This is not an easy bill to do because we know we have automobile producers in this country, and we know these companies have problems. Yet we also know time is marching on and the need to move fuel efficiency, which has not happened for 32 years, is important if we are going to solve the problems of climate change. This is a first big step. Transportation is about a third of our greenhouse gas emissions. By 2025, this bill will reduce these emission from automobiles by about 18 percent from projected levels. It is about, by 2020, a 40-percent increase in mileage of automobiles. So it is important. Oh, there is so much we do in this Chamber that is minutiae and often unrewarded. Once in a great while, you participate in the making of a bill which can change how things are done in the country. Once in a while, we all together can make a difference, and that happens when it is bipartisan. This bill was bipartisan. For that, I am very grateful. So for all those who fought the good fight, who talked and walked the march, I say thank you. I think we have achieved something that is major, that is real, and that will greatly improve the situation. It may not be perfect, but the perfect, as they say, should not be the enemy of the good. I also pay tribute and thank Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow. I know this is difficult, and I know how I would feel. I also believe the greater good of the United States is served by this legislation and, after all, that is all of our objectives. I look forward to working with everyone in the future. It is a very happy evening for me. I thank everyone very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a couple of minutes on the subject of the bill that passed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is currently considering the renewal of the California Department of Water Resources, DWR, license for the Oroville Facilities hydroelectric project in Butte County, CA. DWR is exempt from paying State, local, or a Federal tax associated with the Oroville Project and has not compensated Butte County for the services it provides for the project and its visitors. Butte County believes the relicensing is an opportunity to mitigate the county's revenue losses, which are estimated at nearly $6.9 million per year. FERC's Final Environmental Impact Statement also acknowledges that the Oroville Project has a negative fiscal impact on Butte County. I have sent a letter to FERC asking that they consider efforts to mitigate Butte County's revenue loss and treat all parties equitably during the Oroville Project relicensing proceedings, and I ask unanimous consent to have text of this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, of course, we have worked hard to come together on this legislation directing NHTSA to issue new fuel economy regulations to reach an industry fleet wide level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and it is our intent in the bill before us that all Federal regulations in this area be consistent with our 35 miles per gallon in 2020 language.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and I would like to clarify what I believe to be the intent of the legislation I sponsored to increase fuel economy standards in the United States. The legislation increasing the fuel economy standards of vehicles by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years does not impact the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of the EPA, California, or other States, under the Clean Air Act. The intent was to give NHTSA the ability to regulate fuel efficiency standards of vehicles, and increase the fleetwide average to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. There was no intent in any way, shape, or form to negatively affect, or otherwise restrain, California or any other State's existing or future tailpipe emissions laws, or any future EPA authority on tailpipe emissions. The two issues are separate and distinct. As the Supreme Court correctly observed in Massachusetts v. EPA, the fact ``that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the public's health and welfare, a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency. The two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.'' I agree with the Supreme Court's view of consistency. There is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Goldstone has reiterated this point in finding that if approved by EPA, California's standards are not preempted by the Energy Policy Conservation Act. Title I of the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, H.R. 6, provides clear direction to the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, to raise fuel economy standards. By taking this action, Congress is continuing DOT's existing authority to set vehicle fuel economy standards. Importantly, the separate authority and responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is in no manner affected by this legislation as plainly provided for in section 3 of the bill addressing the relationship of H.R. 6 to other laws. I fought for section 3. I have resisted all efforts to add legislative language requiring ``harmonization'' of these EPA and NHTSA standards. This language could have required that EPA standards adopted under section 202 of the Clean Air Act reduce only the air pollution emissions that would already result from NHTSA fuel economy standards, effectively making the NHTSA fuel economy standards a national ceiling for the reduction of pollution. Our legislation does not establish a NHTSA ceiling. It does not mention the Clean Air Act, so we certainly do not intend to strip EPA of its wholly separate mandate to protect the public health and welfare from air pollution. To be clear, Federal standards can avoid inconsistency according to the Supreme Court, while still fulfilling their separate mandates. Energy Savings

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to indicate my full support for this. This effort actually began 6 years ago. Some of us were here then, including Senator Cantwell who is here tonight, Senator Harkin, Senator Levin, Senator Snowe, Senator Conrad, when we began this effort. It looks like opportunity and timing are once again coming together. We have a bill that today has the general support of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the electronic exchange known as ICE, the New York Mercantile Exchange known as NYMEX, the Chicago Mercantile, and the President's Working Group. This legislation, supported by myself, Senator Levin, Senator Snowe, as well as Senator Cantwell--I have a list here--Senator Conrad, obviously Senator Chambliss, and Senator Crapo would accomplish that. I would like to point out that under Senator Levin's leadership and his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which did an investigation into the absence of oversight and transparency on some of these markets, became a guide for this push and effort. I would like to very briefly say what this legislation does. It increases transparency in energy markets to deter traders from manipulating the price of oil and natural gas futures traded on electronic markets. Here is what it would do. First, it requires energy traders to keep records for a minimum of 5 years so there is transparency and an audit trail. Second, it requires electronic energy traders to report trading in significant price discovery contracts to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission so they would have the information to effectively oversee the energy futures market. Manipulators could then be identified and punished by the CFTC, and in the past there have been plenty of those. It cost the State of Washington--wounded them deeply--and it cost my State $40 billion in fraud and manipulation. Third, the amendment gives the Commodities Futures Trading Commission new authority to punish manipulation, fraud, and price distortion. Fourth, it requires electronic trading platforms to actively monitor their markets to prevent manipulation and price distortion of contracts that are significant in determining the price of the market. These are the factors CFTC will consider in making that determination. The trading volume, whether significant volumes of a commodity are traded on a daily basis. Price referencing, if the contract is used by traders to help determine the price of subsequent contracts. Price linkage, if the contract is equivalent to a NYMEX contract and used the same way by traders. For example, when Amaranth was directed to reduce their positions in regulated natural gas contracts, they simply moved their positions to the unregulated electronic natural gas contracts. The bottom line: This requirement would essentially say similar contracts on ICE and NYMEX will be regulated the same way. In October, the four CFTC Commissioners released a report underscoring the critical need for increased oversight in U.S. energy markets. This bill includes what they asked for. We are very pleased. I am delighted the CFTC reauthorization is included in this package. Once again, this is a bipartisan bill. I wish to thank my main cosponsors: Senator Levin, Senator Snowe, Senator Cantwell, Senator Conrad, and others who have been very helpful in this area. I believe we can pass this legislation, hopefully unanimously, tonight. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No. In my view, nothing contained in this amendment would or is intended to undermine or alter those important, new authorities. We have sought to make this clear, with the inclusion in section 13203 of paragraph (c)(2), which preserves FERC's existing authorities.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to notify all Senators that the Committee on Rules and Administration adopted Regulations Governing the Public Availability of Conference Reports, effective December 7, 2007. These regulations were promulgated pursuant to Public Law 110-81, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the regulations be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act.'' This legislation would establish necessary market oversight authorities to prevent Enron-type fraud and manipulation in the new greenhouse gas credit markets that are expected to emerge once Congress approves comprehensive climate change legislation. The goal is simple: To prevent the same type of fraud and manipulation that occurred during the Western Energy Crisis from happening if a new greenhouse market is established. The bill would establish transparency and anti-manipulation provisions modeled after energy markets protections that were established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Additionally, the legislation includes anti-fraud provisions and limits excessive speculation. The bill would establish strong financial penalties. Each offense would result in a fine of up to $1 million and 10 years in jail. Simply put, this legislation is a necessary and critical part of any new carbon trading markets approved by Congress. Specifically, the legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency to create a regulatory structure to oversee the new carbon credit markets. This system would be parallel to the system used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee FERC for the electricity and natural gas markets. The EPA would publish market price data in order to increase transparency; monitor trading for manipulation and fraud; and limit the size of speculative holdings to prevent any single trader from being able to set the price. The bill would also prohibit traders from: reporting false information; manipulating the market; and cheating or defrauding another market participant. Any trader who violated this Act would pay a maximum $1 million fine and spend 10 years in jail for each offense. We believe that this will strongly discourage traders from seeking to manipulate the market. This legislation is the key part of an effort to prevent newly emerging greenhouse gas markets from evolving without rules or regulation. These markets are coming, and we need to have the law in place to receive them. California has passed legislation and will soon establish a cap and trade system to control carbon dioxide emissions. Many members of the U.S. Senate support legislation, such as the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act that I have introduced, to establish a Federal cap and trade system. Legislation sponsored by Senators Warner and Lieberman to establish a national, economy-wide greenhouse gas cap and trade system will be marked up in the Environment and Public Works Committee this week. If we don't set up a framework for oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a wild west. The market--estimated to be worth as much as $300 billion annually--would invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse. The resulting volatility would affect consumer energy costs. This is not a hypothetical. In 2000 and 2001, newly created California energy markets lacked the basic protections in this bill. The electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shockingly, was legal. Enron, for instance, ran a market where only they knew the prices. Without market transparency laws, this one-sided market was legal. Enron manipulated natural gas and electricity prices--but nothing in the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act made this manipulation unlawful. Only years later, after millions of consumers had been harmed, after billions of dollars had been lost, and after the entire west had endured an energy crisis largely fabricated by traders, did Congress act. We were able to increase market transparency and prohibiting manipulation in natural gas and electricity markets were adopted. The provisions finally gave a sheriff the ability to impose oversight and record-keeping. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has put its new authority to good use. It has performed aggressive natural gas market oversight. This summer it brought its first manipulation case, against Amaranth--a notorious hedge fund that allegedly manipulated natural gas prices month after month. The Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act would establish transparency and anti-manipulation provisions mirroring the provisions from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Markets would be transparent, and manipulation would be illegal. In addition, this legislation adds anti-fraud provisions and limits excessive speculation. These additional market protections are longstanding principles of the Commodity Exchange Act. By mirroring proven market oversight mechanisms that protect market participants and consumers, this legislation would slip already broken- in regulatory concepts onto a new market. This Nation needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many economists believe that a cap and trade system with a greenhouse gas market would be the most cost efficient way to guarantee emissions reductions. The economists also tell us that markets are most efficient when buyers and sellers have complete information, no market participant can cheat another, and prices result from supply and demand, not manipulation. That is why we need to prevent manipulation, fraud, and a lack of transparency. So this legislation would provide buyers and sellers with complete information; and prevent manipulation, fraud, and excessive speculation. Bottom line: this legislation is vital to protecting the market integrity of greenhouse gas emissions markets, and it should be included as part of any cap and trade legislation approved by Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act.'' This legislation would establish necessary market oversight authorities to prevent Enron-type fraud and manipulation in the new greenhouse gas credit markets that are expected to emerge once Congress approves comprehensive climate change legislation. The goal is simple: To prevent the same type of fraud and manipulation that occurred during the Western Energy Crisis from happening if a new greenhouse market is established. The bill would establish transparency and anti-manipulation provisions modeled after energy markets protections that were established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Additionally, the legislation includes anti-fraud provisions and limits excessive speculation. The bill would establish strong financial penalties. Each offense would result in a fine of up to $1 million and 10 years in jail. Simply put, this legislation is a necessary and critical part of any new carbon trading markets approved by Congress. Specifically, the legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency to create a regulatory structure to oversee the new carbon credit markets. This system would be parallel to the system used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee FERC for the electricity and natural gas markets. The EPA would publish market price data in order to increase transparency; monitor trading for manipulation and fraud; and limit the size of speculative holdings to prevent any single trader from being able to set the price. The bill would also prohibit traders from: reporting false information; manipulating the market; and cheating or defrauding another market participant. Any trader who violated this Act would pay a maximum $1 million fine and spend 10 years in jail for each offense. We believe that this will strongly discourage traders from seeking to manipulate the market. This legislation is the key part of an effort to prevent newly emerging greenhouse gas markets from evolving without rules or regulation. These markets are coming, and we need to have the law in place to receive them. California has passed legislation and will soon establish a cap and trade system to control carbon dioxide emissions. Many members of the U.S. Senate support legislation, such as the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act that I have introduced, to establish a Federal cap and trade system. Legislation sponsored by Senators Warner and Lieberman to establish a national, economy-wide greenhouse gas cap and trade system will be marked up in the Environment and Public Works Committee this week. If we don't set up a framework for oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a wild west. The market--estimated to be worth as much as $300 billion annually--would invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse. The resulting volatility would affect consumer energy costs. This is not a hypothetical. In 2000 and 2001, newly created California energy markets lacked the basic protections in this bill. The electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shockingly, was legal. Enron, for instance, ran a market where only they knew the prices. Without market transparency laws, this one-sided market was legal. Enron manipulated natural gas and electricity prices--but nothing in the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act made this manipulation unlawful. Only years later, after millions of consumers had been harmed, after billions of dollars had been lost, and after the entire west had endured an energy crisis largely fabricated by traders, did Congress act. We were able to increase market transparency and prohibiting manipulation in natural gas and electricity markets were adopted. The provisions finally gave a sheriff the ability to impose oversight and record-keeping. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has put its new authority to good use. It has performed aggressive natural gas market oversight. This summer it brought its first manipulation case, against Amaranth--a notorious hedge fund that allegedly manipulated natural gas prices month after month. The Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act would establish transparency and anti-manipulation provisions mirroring the provisions from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Markets would be transparent, and manipulation would be illegal. In addition, this legislation adds anti-fraud provisions and limits excessive speculation. These additional market protections are longstanding principles of the Commodity Exchange Act. By mirroring proven market oversight mechanisms that protect market participants and consumers, this legislation would slip already broken- in regulatory concepts onto a new market. This Nation needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many economists believe that a cap and trade system with a greenhouse gas market would be the most cost efficient way to guarantee emissions reductions. The economists also tell us that markets are most efficient when buyers and sellers have complete information, no market participant can cheat another, and prices result from supply and demand, not manipulation. That is why we need to prevent manipulation, fraud, and a lack of transparency. So this legislation would provide buyers and sellers with complete information; and prevent manipulation, fraud, and excessive speculation. Bottom line: this legislation is vital to protecting the market integrity of greenhouse gas emissions markets, and it should be included as part of any cap and trade legislation approved by Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Enzi's Aerial Firefighter Relief Act of 2007. On August 27, 2001, a California pilot named Larry Groff took off from Ukiah in State Air Tanker 87, doing what he loved, flying and fighting fires. Like thousands of contract firefighters hired by the Government, he figured that if anything ever happened to him, his family would be taken care of. But that day, while maneuvering above a north coast fire started by a couple of Hells Angels who had blown up their methamphetamine lab, Larry Groff died in a midair collision. Faced with the prospect of raising their 6 children alone, his widow, Christine Wells-Groff, filed a claim under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. This PSOB Program provides a lump-sum payoff to survivors of any ``public safety officer,'' a term which can include not only actual government employees but also any volunteer or any person acting in a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency.'' At the time of his death, Larry Groff had been flying a State- operated air tanker. He was wearing a California Department of Forestry uniform. And after his death, the California agency for which he had worked issued an opinion stating that he was an officially recognized member of that agency. But he was also a contract employee. Because of that, Ms. Wells-Groff's PSOB claim was initially denied by the Bureau of Justice Affairs, based on its opinion that contract employees cannot qualify for PSOB benefits. Ms. Wells-Groff then appealed, and she later convinced a trial court that despite being a contract employee, her husband had held a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency,'' thereby qualifying him as a ``public safety officer'' entitled to PSOB benefits. Unfortunately, on July 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision. The appellate court agreed that Mr. Groff's facts might fall within the applicable regulation's key definition of a ``similar relationship'' but it said that the question of whether he had met this standard was not entirely clear and that it would defer to the Government's narrow interpretation of that language, absent further clarification from Congress. Following this decision, Ms. Wells-Groff petitioned the Supreme Court to take her case. However, it is unclear if the Court will hear the case, let alone decide in her favor. So today, I want to go on record to support the policy that these contract employees should be entitled to the same PSOB benefits as other injured firefighters and volunteers. The bill that Senator Enzi is introducing and that I am pleased to cosponsor will make it clear that survivors of aerial firefighters like Larry Groff who make the ultimate sacrifice should qualify for PSOB benefits. In addition, this legislation will clarify that the district court was right in the Wells-Groff case. Brave firefighters like Larry Groff, who regularly put their lives on the line in officially sanctioned aerial firefighting activities to protect us, do this country a great service. This bill will clarify that when actually up in the air carrying out official firefighting missions, contract employees will be deemed to hold a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency''--and meet the regulatory standard already in place--so that they are covered by the PSOB laws, and their survivors can receive the benefits they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Enzi's Aerial Firefighter Relief Act of 2007. On August 27, 2001, a California pilot named Larry Groff took off from Ukiah in State Air Tanker 87, doing what he loved, flying and fighting fires. Like thousands of contract firefighters hired by the Government, he figured that if anything ever happened to him, his family would be taken care of. But that day, while maneuvering above a north coast fire started by a couple of Hells Angels who had blown up their methamphetamine lab, Larry Groff died in a midair collision. Faced with the prospect of raising their 6 children alone, his widow, Christine Wells-Groff, filed a claim under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. This PSOB Program provides a lump-sum payoff to survivors of any ``public safety officer,'' a term which can include not only actual government employees but also any volunteer or any person acting in a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency.'' At the time of his death, Larry Groff had been flying a State- operated air tanker. He was wearing a California Department of Forestry uniform. And after his death, the California agency for which he had worked issued an opinion stating that he was an officially recognized member of that agency. But he was also a contract employee. Because of that, Ms. Wells-Groff's PSOB claim was initially denied by the Bureau of Justice Affairs, based on its opinion that contract employees cannot qualify for PSOB benefits. Ms. Wells-Groff then appealed, and she later convinced a trial court that despite being a contract employee, her husband had held a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency,'' thereby qualifying him as a ``public safety officer'' entitled to PSOB benefits. Unfortunately, on July 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision. The appellate court agreed that Mr. Groff's facts might fall within the applicable regulation's key definition of a ``similar relationship'' but it said that the question of whether he had met this standard was not entirely clear and that it would defer to the Government's narrow interpretation of that language, absent further clarification from Congress. Following this decision, Ms. Wells-Groff petitioned the Supreme Court to take her case. However, it is unclear if the Court will hear the case, let alone decide in her favor. So today, I want to go on record to support the policy that these contract employees should be entitled to the same PSOB benefits as other injured firefighters and volunteers. The bill that Senator Enzi is introducing and that I am pleased to cosponsor will make it clear that survivors of aerial firefighters like Larry Groff who make the ultimate sacrifice should qualify for PSOB benefits. In addition, this legislation will clarify that the district court was right in the Wells-Groff case. Brave firefighters like Larry Groff, who regularly put their lives on the line in officially sanctioned aerial firefighting activities to protect us, do this country a great service. This bill will clarify that when actually up in the air carrying out official firefighting missions, contract employees will be deemed to hold a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency''--and meet the regulatory standard already in place--so that they are covered by the PSOB laws, and their survivors can receive the benefits they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome the passage of S. 1327, which will reestablish temporary judgeships where needed in the district courts and extend other temporary judgeships that are about to expire. The bill will reestablish a 10-year temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of California, where it is sorely needed. It will also reestablish a temporary judgeship in Nebraska and extend the terms of existing temporary judgeships in Hawaii, Kansas, and Ohio. The Eastern District of California had a temporary judgeship from 1992 to 2004. At the end of that period, the caseload in the district was the second-highest in the Nation: 787 filings per judge. That was almost 50 percent more than the national average. Still, the temporary judgeship expired in the fall of 2004 as required by law. Since then the situation in the Eastern District has grown even more dire. Average caseloads across the Nation have declined, but in the Eastern District they have increased by 18 percent. The most recent statistics show that the Eastern District of California has the highest caseload in the country: 927 filings per judge. That is twice as many cases as the national average. It is no exaggeration to say that the judges of the Eastern District are in desperate need of relief. They have continued to serve with distinction in the face of the crushing caseloads. Two of the court's senior judges still carry full caseloads after taking senior status. Two other senior judges are also continuing to hear cases. In recent months, the caseload has become even more crushing with the departure of chief judge David Levi. He stepped down from the bench after 17 years of service to become the dean of the Duke University School of Law. It is clear that the Eastern District of California needs our help to ensure that cases continue to be handled with the care, attention, and promptness that are essential to the fair administration of justice. Reestablishing the expired temporary judgeship is one way to help. This bill is also a crucial first step toward getting California all of the judges it needs. According to the 2007 recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, California needs a total of 12 new judges--more judges than are needed in any other State in the Nation. Four of those judges are needed in the Eastern District. By adding a temporary judgeship in the Eastern District, this bill will begin to meet that need. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill and pleased that the Senate has passed it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce a series of bills, S. 2386, S. 2387, S. 2388, and S. 2390, designed to better prepare for catastrophic wildfires like the ones that recently devastated Southern California. The Nation watched as these fires swept, uncontrolled, through several counties. They caused the evacuation of an estimated 750,000 people--the largest evacuation in California history. They burned more than 500,000 acres. Destroyed more than 2,000 homes. Killed 10 people. Injured 130. The financial damage is estimated in the billions. Simply put: This was a major disaster. It was not the first. Southern California suffered similar wildfire losses just 4 years ago. We must face the fact that catastrophic wildfires are in California's future, and the future of other states. California is tinder-dry. Global warming is real, leading to extended droughts and longer fire seasons. Fires are larger, and they burn hotter and with more intensity. More and more people are living in areas at high risk of wildfire. There are more than 5 million homes in California alone in this high- threat ``wildland-urban interface.'' Across the rest of the country, there are nearly 40 million more homes in the wildland-urban interface. So the question comes: What can be done? There is no doubt that we cannot fully eliminate wildfires. But I believe we can take steps now to better protect communities, to improve firefighting capabilities, and to improve relief and recovery aid. The four bills introduced today will get this process started. They are the Fire Safe Community Act, which would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfires to adopt a new model Fire Safe ordinance; the Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act, to make sure that qualified individuals, displaced by major disasters, can make their mortgage and rental payments; the Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act, to increase the amount of Federal dollars available to homeowners whose rebuilding costs outstrip their insurance coverage; and the Managing Arson Through Criminal History, MATCH, Act, requiring states to create registries of convicted arsonists. Let me go into greater detail on each of these bills. Fire Safe Community Act This bill will help protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of wildfires. Most importantly, it does three key things: it instructs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a model ordinance that will serve as a baseline for communities seeking to protect their homes and property from wildfire; it encourages local participation by allowing for greater Federal reimbursement of firefighting costs in communities that adopt the model ordinance; and it creates a grant program to encourage responsible development practices that meet model guidelines in the wildland-urban interface. In effect, the Federal Government would become the partner to local governments as they seek to make their communities fire-safe. As I have said, we can never stop wildfires. But we can take important steps to make these fires less destructive. This bill starts with the first step of creating a model ``Fire Safe'' ordinance--with clear, unambiguous language that sets a national standard for how to address all aspects of fire threat. The National Institute of Standards and Technology would provide this standard guideline for communities, in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fire Administration. States are also encouraged to adopt model ordinances tailored to the needs of their own communities for fire-safe development. These guidelines will address water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards. The next step is to put this model ordinance to use. The bill authorizes a $25 million per year grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Office of Grants and Training. It will help communities implement these standards, and bring the safest development practices to their neighborhoods. This grant program will be available to local governments located in the wildlife-urban interface, and to high-threat regions that have adopted--or plan to adopt--the model ordinance. They will have the option of adopting either the federal model ordinance, or one produced by their own state. As further incentive, this bill would improve Fire Management Assistance Grants to communities adopting a model ordinance. Today under the Fire Management Assistance Grant program, the Federal Government covers 75 percent of the cost of fighting wildfires. Under this bill, communities adopting a model ordinance would be eligible for federal reimbursement of up to 90 percent of their firefighting costs. The Fire Safe Community Act will also make grants available to States to help them compile their own fire maps. The mapping grants will be matched 50-50 by State funds, and will encourage development of comprehensive fire hazard maps that indicate the exact locations of high-threat fire areas. This vital information will aid firefighting efforts at all levels. It's important to note that the model ordinances at the core of this bill are not mandatory--they would provide voluntary guidelines that communities can adopt, or not. It does not step on the toes of local government. Rather, it would help all of us reach a common goal. I come from local government--I'm 9 years a mayor, 9 years a county supervisor--and I recognize that zoning is the province of local government. But we have a real problem here: We know that development in the wildland-urban interface is accelerating, making fires more costly. So we need to take steps to improve fire safety in these areas. This bill is an important step toward becoming better prepared. Now I want to discuss two bills intended to improve recovery aid after disaster strikes. Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act This bill will provide much-needed relief to families hit hard by disaster--including people displaced by the recent fires. It would authorize FEMA to make mortgage and rental assistance available for qualified individuals in communities designated by the President as disaster areas. It is based on an important point: While catastrophic wildfires and other disasters can destroy homes, they don't relieve people of the financial obligations that come with home ownership or lease agreements. In most cases, these payments must still be made, even if the residence has been wiped out. This burden is too much for many families. They incur additional expenses--such as hotel or lodging costs--that come with being displaced following a major disaster. FEMA used to provide mortgage and rental assistance. But it was eliminated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This bill would reauthorize the program, and make several changes to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need. First, to qualify for assistance applicants must demonstrate that they face significant economic hardships and suffered disaster-related income loss. The disaster-related income loss must fit into one of the following categories: Your employer, or your own business, must be located in the area declared a major disaster by the President; you lose your job because your employer or business has a significant business relationship with a company located within the Presidentially declared disaster area; or you live in a Presidentially declared disaster area, and have suffered financially due to travel restrictions and road closures post-disaster. To qualify for this aid, applicants must also provide proof that their employment was discontinued as a result of disaster. They must also show imminent delinquency, eviction, dispossession, or foreclosure. Finally, this assistance is available only for up to 18 months, and is subject to income caps. Only households with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or less, in high-cost States such as California, would be eligible. Households in lower-cost States could be eligible if their annual adjusted gross incomes do not exceed $75,000. disaster rebuilding assistance act This second disaster relief bill would increase the amount of money FEMA can provide--for rebuilding and temporary housing--in high-cost States such as California. It is designed to help disaster victims whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. Sadly, many Californians hit by the wildfires are now learning that their insurance coverage was insufficient. This is a real problem in California; in fact, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner estimates that as many as 25 percent of the victims of the recent fires may be underinsured. Let me be clear: This bill will not cover the full costs of rebuilding. But it will help close the gap, for qualified households in areas declared by the President to be disaster areas. Today, FEMA can provide up to roughly $28,000 to individuals and households whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. This assistance can be used for rebuilding costs, as well as temporary housing. This bill would increase this amount to $50,000. The legislation also gives the President the discretion to increase this cap, if necessary, to cover rebuilding expenses in high-cost States. I believe this bill will provide an important step toward giving Americans the chance they need to rebuild their lives after suffering through a major disaster. The last bill in this package takes aim at criminal arsonists. managing arson through criminal history act This bill--also known as the MATCH Act--is the Senate version of a bill introduced in the House by California Representatives Mary Bono and Adam Schiff. It would establish Federal and State arson registries; require convicted arsonists to register and update certain specified information for 5 years after a first conviction, 10 years after a second conviction, and for life after a third conviction; and authorize grants and incentives so that these registries will be operational within 3 years. It is important that we improve our ability to keep track of arsonists, because it is clear that some of these recent wildfires were no accident. The Santiago Fire in Orange County--which burned at least 27,000 acres--has officially been declared an arson fire. Would-be arsonists tried to start new fires as the wildfires raged. In San Diego County, authorities arrested an adult and a juvenile suspected of starting a blaze in Vista. In San Bernardino, a suspect was charged with setting a brush fire near Victorville. There were several arson-related arrests in Los Angeles County--one suspect died in a gunfight with police. The arsonist who started the Santiago fire remains at-large. There is a reward--it now stands at $250,000--but law-enforcement officials say an arrest will likely depend on a tip from the public. It does not have to be that way. This bill would give fire investigators and law-enforcement officials up-to-date information on potential arsonists. This is common-sense legislation. It will provide a readily accessible database, and help investigators rule out persons of interest and zero in on arson suspects. We owe it to our brave firefighters to give fire investigators this important new tool, so they can help bring arsonists to justice. Catastrophic wildfires are not going away. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests they will occur with greater frequency and ferocity. But we can take important steps--now--to make our communities safer. To strengthen our firefighting capabilities. To ensure that more relief and recovery aid is provided to victims, so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible. These bills are not a panacea. But they are an important first step. I urge my colleagues to vote for them.