Floor Statements

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank all of my colleagues for their support in extending the highly successful breast cancer research stamp for 4 additional years.

This bill has the strong bipartisan support of Senator Hutchison and 61 other Senators from both sides of the aisle.

Without congressional action, this extraordinary stamp is set to expire on December 31 of this year, and it deserves to be extended.

This legislation would: Permit the sale of the breast cancer research stamp for 4 more years--until December 31, 2011; allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense, and not affect any other semipostal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released just last month, confirms that the breast cancer research stamp continues to be an effective fundraiser in the effort to increase funds to fight the disease.

Since the stamp first went on sale 9 years ago, over 790 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold by the U.S. Postal Service--raising $57.8 million for breast cancer research.

These dollars have led to significant advances in the treatment of breast cancer through research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, which receives 70 percent of the stamp's proceeds, and at the Department of Defense, DOD, which receives the remaining 30 percent of the proceeds.

For example, the GAO reported that: In 2006, NIH began to use the stamp's proceeds for a new program called the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment to help determine which breast cancer patients are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy. Dr. Susan Neuhausen at the University of California used an NIH award that has led to many insights into breast cancer risks--using both genetic and environmental data to further define the breast and ovarian cancer risk for individuals with a specific genetic mutation. Dr. Archbald Perkins at Yale University used a Department of Defense award to do research to help with the prognosis of some breast cancers by using new techniques to identify novel genes involved in cancer.

In addition to raising much needed funds for breast cancer research, this wonderful stamp has also focused public awareness on this devastating disease, and it is just as necessary today as ever.

About 3 million women in the United States are living with breast cancer, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed. This year alone, about 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed among American women. And one out of every 8 women nationwide will get breast cancer in her lifetime, with the disease claiming another woman's life every 13 minutes.

Extending the life of this remarkable stamp is crucial. With the sale of the breast cancer research stamp, every dollar we continue to raise will provide hope to breast cancer survivors and will help save lives until a cure is found.

Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to notify all Senators that on Friday, November 9, 2007, the Committee on Rules and Administration approved the request of the Select Committee on Ethics and granted a 3- week extension until December 3, 2007, for the Ethics Committee to issue the initial guidelines implementing the new rules on privately sponsored travel required by Public Law 110-81.

In their letter to the Rules Committee, Senators Boxer and Cornyn note that unless the request is approved, the new travel rules would become effective on November 13, 2007. Due to the scheduling of a number of proposed trips on or shortly after November 13, the Ethics Committee believes that the additional required paperwork would not be submitted in time for review before the trips commence.

The 3-week extension will afford the Ethics Committee additional time to post the proposed new travel guidelines on its Web site. These guidelines will be effective on December 3, 2007, and all privately sponsored travel beginning on or after that date will be required to conform to the new rules and guidelines.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the Ethics Committee dated November 7, 2007, printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, as chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, to voice my support of legislation to name the great hall in the new Capitol Visitor Center ``Emancipation Hall.''

This legislation--S.1679--was introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu on June 21, 2007, and is cosponsored by Senator Barack Obama. I am proud to join them as a cosponsor.

A companion bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Zach Wamp and Jesse Jackson. The measure has over 225 cosponsors in the House and last week it was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is my understanding that it will soon be taken up by the House, which earlier approved the proposal as part of the fiscal year 2008 legislative branch appropriations bill.

I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation.

The naming of ``Emancipation Hall'' in the new Capitol Visitor Center would be a fitting tribute to the contributions of slaves in the construction of our Nation's Capitol Building. It would also serve to recognize the end of slavery in the United States.

The Capitol Visitor Center is nearing completion, and its Great Hall promises to be a spectacular place--an estimated 3 million people are expected to gather in the area as they come to visit our great Capitol each year.

And through large skylights in the ceiling, visitors will be able to look upwards and gaze upon the grand Capitol dome.

This environment is the perfect place for visitors to reflect upon the construction of the U.S. Capitol, and to recognize the slaves who helped to build it.

The total number of slaves who worked on the Capitol is unknown. But there is evidence that slave workers contributed in a number of important ways to its construction. This includes a slave named Philip Reid who played an important role in the casting of the 19-foot, 15,000-pound bronze Statue of Freedom that rests atop the Capitol dome. Others are memorialized in pay stubs to their owners for work done in the Capitol.

Naming the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center as ``Emancipation Hall'' would serve to recognize both the brutal truth of our Nation's past and the importance of freedom as a pillar of modern America.

The history of slavery in the United States is a grim chapter in our Nation's history. But the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, was an important step toward abolishing slavery in the United States.

In the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln declared:

I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves

within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and

henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government

of the United States, including the military and naval

authorities thereof; will recognize and maintain the freedom

of said persons.

While the Emancipation Proclamation did not officially abolish slavery in all of the United States, it was an important commitment by the government to end this centuries-long injustice.

By sustaining the history of this great act, we highlight the importance of freedom. And by naming the Capitol Visitor Center's main entry as ``Emancipation Hall,'' we do so in a significant way that all visitors of our Nation's Capitol Building will notice and respect.

As chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and the Joint Committee on the Library, which oversees Capitol artwork, I believe it is very important to provide an accurate and diversified image of our Nation for the visitors to our Capitol. The naming of ``Emancipation Hall'' would be one step toward achieving that.

I also welcome a new report by the congressional Slave Labor Task Force, which has come forward with a number of recommendations for acknowledging and commemorating the work slaves performed in building our Capitol.

I look forward to working with the task force on this issue so people throughout the world will know more about the contribution by slaves toward constructing the building that has become the very foundation of our democracy.

I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, shortly the Senate will vote on whether to confirm Michael Mukasey as the next Attorney General or whether to leave the Department of Justice without a real leader for the next 14 months.

I believe that is the issue. I will vote to confirm Judge Mukasey.

For me, the Department of Justice has always been the beacon of law enforcement and justice around the world. I have always truly believed we had a state-of-the-art system of justice that functioned independently of whoever happened to hold the White House or whoever was in the Congress. This beacon has been dimmed in the last 7 years, and I am one who finds the Department in disarray today.

I think the real issue before us today is: Can this nominee be a strong and independent leader of the Justice Department in the remaining time of this administration? Can he depoliticize the Department? Can he restore its morale? Will he be independent from the White House?

If your answer is yes, then I believe we should vote for him. If it is no, then you don't mind an Acting Attorney General for the next 14 months.

Ten of the most important positions in the Department today have no permanent person serving but are either acting or interim. Mr. President, 21 out of 93 U.S. Attorney positions are vacant, and only two nominees are pending before the Senate for confirmation.

Cases have been brought based on partisan considerations instead of the facts and the law. U.S. Attorneys who did not initiate partisan prosecutions were summarily fired. The Civil Rights Division has been weakened and politicized.

Judge Mukasey has shown he will be a strong and independent Attorney General.

He couldn't be any more different from Alberto Gonzales. Alberto Gonzales owed his political career, and his legal career to a great extent, to President Bush. Judge Mukasey does not. He has followed an independent path. And he has been, for 18 years, a Federal district court judge--yes, following the rule of law, not the rule of man. He has stood on his own, he has litigated on his own, he has judged on his own.

Judge Mukasey, in my view, is going to be a very different Attorney General. And it is hard for me to understand why everyone in this body doesn't come to the same conclusion just by judging his background against the background of the prior Attorney General. That is very hard for me to understand. Their backgrounds--their legal backgrounds, their service backgrounds--are so entirely different.

If you read the 178 pages of answers to questions that were submitted by Senators, some as many as 30, 35 questions, you see the independence of Judge Mukasey. In response to question 20 by Senator Kennedy, Judge Mukasey said this:

There can be no political litmus test for the hiring of

career civil service employees. This is, and must be, a

bedrock principle.

He added that he would have ``zero tolerance'' in this area.

Isn't that what we want?

On the issue of politically motivated prosecutions, which, as I have said, I believe there have been by this department, he said, in the transcript, dated 10/17/07, page 19:

Partisan politics plays no part in either the bringing of

charges or the timing of charges.

And in response to question 20(a) by Senator Durbin he also said he would recommend the firing of any U.S. Attorney who brought or planned to bring a case for partisan gain.

Isn't that what we want?

With regard to election crime prosecutions, he wrote this:

The closer to an election, the higher the standard that

must be met for charges to be brought.

That was in response to question no. 18 from Senator Kennedy.

In addition, Judge Mukasey made it clear he will work to fix the many problems that have arisen in the Department's Civil Rights Division. He wrote this to us:

The Civil Rights Division occupies a crucial place in the

Department precisely because it continues to carry out the

work of the civil rights movement by enforcing the Nation's

civil rights laws. I strongly support the mission of the

Civil Rights Division and will ensure that it has the tools

and resources it needs to fulfill its mandate.

This was in answer to a question submitted by Senator Leahy.

I think these answers alone show it is not going to be business as usual in the Department of Justice.

Isn't that what we want?

Now, the President has said publicly he will not send another nominee to the Senate. So what does that mean? It means if we don't confirm this nominee, we will effectively have an Acting Attorney General for the remaining 14 months of this President's tenure.

And what does that mean? It could likely mean that Peter Keisler, who has been an architect of Bush administration policies at DOJ for more than 5 years, will remain as Acting Attorney General for the rest of this administration.

Is that what we want?

It means most likely there will be recess appointments this winter for the 10 major leadership positions in the Department.

And what does that mean? Simply stated: The administration could put in place the most egregious and political leadership, and we--the Senate--could do nothing about it. We would have reduced transparency and reduced congressional oversight.

Now this is the realpolitik. This is the likelihood, should Judge Mukasey fail confirmation.

I believe it is the fundamental and driving factor for confirmation of this nominee. Not to confirm him will leave this vital department open to a continuation of egregious past actions, and we have railed against those past actions for years now. We have a chance to make a change.

We don't select the nominee, the President selects the nominee.

Does he have failed character? No. Does he lack in experience? No. Does he have the temperament to be Attorney General? He has proven it with 18 years as a Federal judge.

Does he know one of the most important areas of the law--national security law? He has tried some of the major terrorist cases that have been tried in Article III courts in the United States of America, and defendants have gone to prison.

Now, I have seen people pound their breasts here on torture. And none of us want torture.

There is a difference between U.S. law and treaty law. We have passed certain U.S. laws. We have passed a Military Commissions Act. That is a law of the United States of America. We have passed the Detainee Treatment Act. That is a law of the United States of America. The Detainee Treatment Act prohibits waterboarding for any military personnel anywhere in the world.

So, to the opponents of this nomination: We have passed a law. They say it is not necessary to pass a law, but in fact we have passed a law prohibiting waterboarding. And Judge Mukasey has said the Detainee Treatment Act is binding on the President and binding on this country.

The one exception is, there is no U.S. law that deals with the CIA. That is the exception. There are prestigious human rights groups that say it

doesn't matter; the Geneva Conventions and the Conventions Against Torture prevail. The President is saying I have Article II authority, and AUMF authority, and my view of Presidential power.

So what will solve it? A constitutional confrontation? The Supreme Court? What solves it?

My belief is, it is so easy: Instead of pounding our chests, simply do what we did in the Detainee Treatment Act, but do it for the CIA and prohibit waterboarding. End of debate.

Some people want to keep the issue alive rather than solve the problem. I am not one of those people. I believe we should end the ambiguity, and simply prohibit waterboarding across the board.

I do not believe Judge Mukasey should be denied confirmation for failing to provide an absolute answer on this one subject.

Nobody should think anything else is happening tonight. He would be denied confirmation because he said, I would like an opportunity to look at these laws, to look at these treaties, to read the legal opinions that have been written, and then have time to make up my mind.

Maybe we will want people to snap to and issue immediate judgments. This man has been a judge for 18 years. Maybe he likes to consider the facts before he makes a decision. I don't think that should be disqualifying.

We can bring him before the Judiciary Committee in late January and simply say: Judge Mukasey, now-Attorney General Mukasey, you have had an opportunity to look at the law. What is your opinion?

At the same time, I can say to you quite honestly, I believe waterboarding is illegal. I don't think it should be countenanced by the United States of America. I am not a lawyer, and I have not been for 18 years--or even 1 year--a Federal judge.

I believe waterboarding is prohibited under the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. But it is not prohibited by name. It is prohibited in terms of its effects. There is a certain grayness for some--for some.

The opponents of this nomination have not given us any reason to think an acting or interim Attorney General would give us a better answer about waterboarding.

As a matter of fact, I would hazard a guess they would not. I would hazard a guess that if this nominee goes down, the exact same policies that have characterized the last 7 years will continue for the next 14 months. Am I being too abrupt to suggest we are missing something, that we should not get overwhelmed by the pounding of the chest against torture--that this is our chance for change?

If Judge Mukasey were not a respected judge, if he didn't have the legal background, if he didn't have the streak of independence--and read 178 pages of questions and answers and you will see that streak of independence--I would tend to agree with some of what has been said here. But I do not, because I seriously believe this is the only chance this Senate is going to be offered to put new leadership in the Department of Justice.

If, in fact, you believe it is in disarray, then there is only one action to take. If you believe it has been politicized, there is only one action to take.

The former Attorney General has not been independent, and he said he wore two hats--one serving the White House and one serving the people. If you believe there is only one hat an Attorney General can wear, and that is serving the people, then you have no choice other than Judge Mukasey. That is because otherwise, there will be an Acting Attorney General, not subject to confirmation, not subject to questioning, not subject to any kind of oversight--but, again, an arm of the White House.

Most of the major newspapers in my State have editorialized in favor of Judge Mukasey. This is what the San Diego Union-Tribune had to say about him:

Torture is antithetical to American values. President Bush

ought to issue an Executive order explicitly outlawing

waterboarding. That said, Mukasey is not to blame for the

Bush administration's interrogation policies. In his

confirmation hearings, he has demonstrated a firm commitment

to defend the Constitution. He merits confirmation by the

Senate.

They got it.

The Detroit Free Press had this to say:

As Attorney General, Mukasey can be expected to fight hard

for what's legal rather than what's expedient.

Don't we want that?

At least that's a step toward restoring the rule of law in

the last 14 months of the Bush administration. The full

Senate should confirm Mukasey, lest the president's next pick

be someone with a more malleable sense of right and wrong.

Then, a paper from my State, The Sacramento Bee, got it right:

As a replacement for Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, the

nominee for U.S. attorney general, would bring a restorative

independence of mind to the job. . . . Mukasey appears likely

to operate in the open and with a higher respect for the

system of the U.S. Government than for personal ties.

A critical question.

We would expect him to urge the president to work with

Congress. The Senate should confirm Mukasey to begin the

cleanup at Justice.

This is the only chance we have. It is not as if we can turn him down and the administration is going to send us another nominee. They have already said they will not.

I do not believe that voting down this nominee will do even a bit of good in preventing torture. No one has explained why more of the same at the Justice Department would be better than putting Judge Mukasey in charge.

I do believe he will be a truly nonpolitical, nonpartisan Attorney General; that he will make his views very clear; and that, once he has the opportunity to do the evaluation he believes he needs on waterboarding, he will be willing to come before the Judiciary Committee and express his views comprehensively and definitively.

In conclusion, this nominee had no part in the administration's policies or legal opinions with respect to torture. We should not blame him for them. How can this man be the standard-bearer for torture? He is not. Why is he being treated as such?

We should give this nominee an opportunity to look at these treaties, look at the laws, read the opinions, and we should do what we are here to do--legislate and prohibit waterboarding across the board.

I thank the ranking member.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.