Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of California Superior Court Judge Josephine Staton Tucker to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Judge Tucker brings a wealth of relevant experience as a lawyer and a judge to her candidacy for the Federal bench.

For the last 8 years, she has been a trial judge on the Orange County Superior Court. She has managed a judicial calendar of up to 500 pending cases at a time. She has presided over trials on topics as diverse as commercial contract disputes, negligence and discrimination actions, felony criminal cases, and family law matters. And she has served for 2 years on the Appellate Division of the court by special appointment from the chief justice of California, giving her important experience with appeals as well as trials.

Additionally, Judge Tucker brings 15 years of litigation experience as an associate and then a partner at the law firm of Morrison Foerster

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the confirmation of Ms. Leslie Ireland, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis.

This is an individual who is well qualified, nominated to an important national security position, and whose nomination has sparked no opposition or controversy to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, for more than 3 weeks her nomination has languished on the Senate calendar as Ms. Ireland has waited to be confirmed.

Let me speak briefly about Ms. Ireland and the position to which she has been nominated.

Leslie Ireland is a 25-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency. She has substantial experience in just about all aspects of the intelligence profession. Following a successful career at the CIA, her two most recent positions were that of Iran mission manager in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and as one of the President's daily intelligence briefers.

In both capacities, she has worked extensively with all parts of the intelligence community. As the President's briefer, Ms. Ireland has been familiar not only with the breadth of intelligence analysis the community produces, but also the policy context in which intelligence is used.

She worked directly for the Nation's premier intelligence consumer-- the President. His evaluation of her professionalism and capability is reflected in the fact that he nominated her for this Senate-confirmed position.

As Iran mission manager, Leslie Ireland was given the responsibility over intelligence collection and analysis of what is perhaps our Nation's most challenging intelligence target. She oversaw, prioritized, and directed efforts to understand the Iranian government, nuclear program, military, and society. This is a position with deep management and analytic challenges.

Through Ms. Ireland's work as Iran mission manager, she was already well known to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence before she was nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of Treasury. She had appeared at numerous hearings and far more briefings, both for committee members and the staff.

Under the leadership of both of our past chairmen, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller, the committee had an Iran study group to follow, oversee, and authorize intelligence activities with respect to Iran. The staff met often with Ms. Ireland, and I believe it was a productive relationship on both sides.

So it was no surprise that when Ms. Ireland was nominated on April 12, the committee moved quickly to consider the nomination. She was voted out of the committee on May 25 with the committee's unanimous support. She is ready to assume her new duties, and it is well past time for the Senate to act.

For the benefit of my colleagues, let me say a few words about the Assistant Secretary's position. It is a fairly new one, having been created in December 2003 in that year's Intelligence Authorization Act.

The Office of Intelligence and Analysis at Treasury has one foot within the Department of the Treasury, assisting the Secretary and other senior departmental officials to set policies on sanctions and declarations.

A notable recent example is the effort by the Treasury Department to push, successfully, for the strongest international sanctions to date against Iran in United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1929. Sanctions and international efforts such as this require careful analysis and are the product of intelligence designed to shine a light on the financial and other illicit activities of bad actors, including in this case the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

At the same time, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis has its other foot inside the intelligence community. Its personnel focus and help prioritize the financial intelligence collection efforts of those agencies that collect human, signals, and geospatial intelligence that analysts need.

The Treasury office also provides expertise on financial and economic matters that are necessary for broader intelligence community issues. For example, a recent issue of great interest is the financing of terrorist groups like al-Qaida and the militant and extremist groups with which they operate, like the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Pakistani Taliban, the TTP. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis helps inform the intelligence community on this topic.

It is critical to understand the financial activities of these groups both to understand how they operate and to provide keys to disrupting them.

In Afghanistan, our troops face a well-funded Taliban enemy that relies on illicit funding for its lifeblood--and for the ammunition and improvised explosive devices that put our troops' lives at risk.

In the tribal areas of Pakistan, al-Qaida affiliated terrorist groups may be seeking to fund attacks on our homeland such as the unsuccessful car bomb attempt in Times Square. Among the most important impacts of the recent death of the third highest ranking al-Qaida figure, Shaykh Sa'id Al-Masri, is the anticipated loss to the organization's fundraising.

As North Korea continues its erratic violent behavior and considers a transition of power from Kim Jong Il to his son Kim Jong Eun, its economy has been further wrecked by a disastrous devaluation of the currency.

These are the issues that confront the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis. It is a position that has been vacant since September 2009. There is no excuse for that vacancy to continue another week. The Senate has before it a nominee who is well qualified to fill this role. She has the full support of the Intelligence Committee, and there has been no controversy or opposition to her throughout the confirmation process.

I urge the Senate to confirm Leslie Ireland.

Madam President, I just learned, by looking at one of the boards out here, that we have something called a Western Caucus, and the largest State in the Union that is bigger than all of the States in population in the caucus has not been invited to join the Western Caucus. Well, so be it. We will have to suffer along.

This measure, I believe, sets a dangerous precedent by invalidating the endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution. I strongly oppose it. I wish to make the public health argument.

What is an ``endangerment finding''? Simply put, it is a scientific determination made by the EPA that an air pollutant endangers the health and welfare of the American people and, therefore, it must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

This came about because of a 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA. What the Supreme Court said was that the EPA has an obligation to study the impact of global warming. Specifically, the majority opinion found that ``greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean

Air Act's definition of an air pollutant.'' It ordered the EPA to comply with the Clean Air Act and make a determination about whether greenhouse gases could ``reasonably endanger public health or welfare.''

In December 2009, the EPA issued the required final endangerment finding, and that final finding said:

The emission of six greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide,

methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,

and sulfur hexafluoride, threaten the public health and

welfare of current and future generations.

Accordingly, the Administrator has initiated action to curb these emissions in order to protect the health and safety. Many argue, and I happen to concur, that a national cap-and-trade system on these gases might be more efficient and less costly than having to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. Yet, the Senate has failed time and again to approve climate change legislation. We have dithered while the Earth heats.

That means right now, EPA is the only Federal agency with the statutory authority to protect the American public's health and safety from greenhouse gas pollution.

The Murkowski resolution, however, would throw out this endangerment finding. It would stop EPA dead in its tracks. This would have some real and very serious consequences. First, it would put the Senate on record rejecting scientific analysis of EPA experts. Second, it would block the implementation of a new Federal fuel economy program. Third, it would put the Senate at odds with a coalition of 115 nations that signed the Copenhagen summit agreement. The President has threatened to veto this resolution if it passes, and I would support that veto.

Now, health effects. The EPA's endangerment finding says that global warming will have four significant detrimental human health effects. One, more heat waves will mean more heat-related deaths, which is already the leading cause of weather-related deaths in our country. Two, increased extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, put human lives at risk. Katrina demonstrated that in tragic fashion. And, three, a warmer climate will likely result in an increase in the spread of several food and waterborne pathogens, including tropical diseases.

Finally, and most important to the Chair's State and my State, EPA's endangerment finding states:

Climate change is expected to increase regional ozone

pollution with associated risks in respiratory illnesses and

premature death.

California has two of the worst nonattainment regions in the country: the South Coast Basin, including Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin Valley. Experts tells us combined ozone and particulate matter contribute to up to 14,000 deaths and $71 billion in health care costs every year.

Roughly 2.5 million Californians--that is bigger than most of these States in the Western Caucus--2.5 million Californians suffer from asthma, and it is increasing, and other air-pollution-related illnesses.

This is a matter of saving lives. It is a matter of major health concern and welfare, and it should be looked at that way. If temperatures rise as projected, these two regions of our country could see 75 to 85 percent more days with warming-related smog and ozone pollution. Fact. This means more asthma, more lung-related disease, more premature deaths from air pollution. These scientific observations are not political statements. They are fact established by scientific study after study. Yet the resolution offered today would reject this evidence.

The EPA is legally charged with protecting the public's health and welfare from air pollution. Not to do so, in my opinion, is malfeasance.

Additionally, the Murkowski resolution would invalidate the Federal fuel economy program. On April 1, the administration finalized joint standards issued by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more fondly known as NHTSA, in coordination with the State of California to require automakers to increase fleetwide fuel efficiency from the 2008 average of 27 miles per gallon to the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. This is important. It is based on the enacted Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act which I authored with Senator Olympia Snowe and others. That law requires automakers to increase fleetwide fuel economy to the maximum feasible rate beginning with 2011 vehicle models. I have been proud and encouraged to see the administration aggressively implement this program. Yet if EPA's endangerment finding is invalidated by Congress and thrown out, it would mean that the Federal fuel economy program would collapse.

If that happens, California and 14 other States are required to enforce their respective State law, regulating tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standards. According to the auto industry, this would reimpose the very patchwork of regulation they have argued against for many years. This would be a major setback. EPA Administrator Jackson has written that Senator Murkowski's resolution:

would undo the historic agreement among states, automakers,

the federal government, and other stakeholders . . . leaving

the automobile industry without explicit nationwide

uniformity that it has described as important to its

business.

State environment commissioners from nine States have written to Congress to explain that they prefer a national approach, but they will enforce their State statutes as long as the Federal Government refuses to act. So the effect of the Murkowski resolution will be to encourage a State-by-State variation of regulation. Not good. The EPA is the agency we have charged to protect our children and our environment from harmful air pollution. EPA is moving forward slowly and carefully to address this issue. Its proposed rules would apply only to the very largest sources until 2016, 6 years from now. If we in the Senate don't like EPA's proposal, we should pass a climate change bill. But the one thing we should absolutely not do is deny the existence of a problem that science says is severely dangerous to our planet.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Donald C. Stone, who is one of the most experienced members on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who has brought unique skills to the committee during his tenure. Friday, June 11 will mark Don's last day in government.

After 27 years, Don will be leaving the public sector and taking on new challenges. He has had an extraordinary career, mostly in the secret world of secured offices while he served his country well overseeing our Nation's intelligence agencies.

Don comes from this area. He grew up in Maryland and received a bachelor of arts in business administration and a master's in business administration from Loyola College in Baltimore. He now lives in Falls Church, VA, with his wife Dana and their two sons Robert and Andrew.

Don did not waste any time getting into the national security world. Right out of graduate school he went to work at the Central Intelligence Agency with the inspector general's audit staff. He worked there for 11 years on very sensitive classified projects both here and abroad, sometimes under very trying circumstances. While working with the CIA inspector general, Don had a rotational assignment with the National Reconnaissance Office's inspector general audit staff from 1993 to 1995, where he worked to make sure our Nation's spy satellite programs were run well and that the tax dollars spent in the secret world of spy agencies would pass muster if exposed to the light of review.

Don first came to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 1995 to serve as an auditor on the committee's audit team. The committee had created the audit staff in 1988 to provide `` a credible independent arm for Committee review of covert action programs and other specific Intelligence Community functions and issues.'' Don's aptitude for this work quickly led to his being named the committee's chief of the audit staff in September 1998. Mr. Stone then crossed the Capitol to work on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in March 2005 as the deputy staff director of the Subcommittee on Oversight. We were fortunate enough to bring Don back to the SSCI in January 2007 as our director of Audit and Evaluations.

During his time on the committee, Don has completed many reviews and audits to assure us that our intelligence agencies spent our tax money appropriately and legally, and that they managed their programs effectively within the law.

Over the years, Don has conducted audits of major acquisition systems, major espionage cases and their related damage assessments, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, budget and personnel growth, and information sharing. He has led the committee's review of financial statements of nominees for key intelligence positions, for keeping up with what the inspectors general of the intelligence community agencies were investigating, and for reviewing dozens of whistleblower and other complaint cases. Don has been properly persistent in reminding intelligence agencies of their need to do better.

He is also largely responsible for the effort, underway for the past several years, to push intelligence agencies to improve their financial auditability. A notable example of this was last year when the committee expressed concern and displeasure over the lack of progress that one intelligence agency was making toward being able to produce an auditable financial statement. I received a call from the agency's director, who was not very pleased about the committee's critical view. The committee staff and the agency staff met, and due in large part to Don's thorough research, the agency came away with a clearer picture of what steps it needed to take and, I hope, appreciative of the constructive role the committee was playing.

As this body of work reflects, Don has the talents required to conduct congressional oversight. He is able to see both the forest and the trees, and when necessary he can examine the individual leaves and roots. He has an extraordinary ability to focus on the details without losing knowledge of how they fit within a larger context. We have benefitted as a nation when he has cast his gaze on the workings of our national security apparatus.

At home he practices his attention to detail on his model car collection and taking up the hammer and paint brush to do the home improvement work he truly enjoys.

I would be remiss without noting Don's passion for the local sports teams. Don lives and breathes the burgundy and gold of his hometown Washington Redskins and his residence is covered in red, white and blue not just because he's a true patriot, but also because he's an avid fan of the Washington Capitals hockey team.

Don's love of hockey has rubbed off on his two sons who now play on the ice and led him to take active roles in organizing and managing a local hockey league. This year, he is serving as the president of that league and we can be certain the games are starting on time, the kids are playing hard and having fun, and the league's finances are in order.

Even with his retirement from government service, Don will be putting his skills and expertise to use in the private sector, but still working in the intelligence arena.

Donald Stone has worked in the shadows both in the clandestine world of our Nation's spy agencies and out of the public limelight. It is my pleasure that now, as he leaves public service, we can openly acknowledge and praise the admirable work he has done to keep our Nation safe.

Mr. Stone, on behalf of myself and all the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during your years of service, I am pleased to say on the Senate floor how greatly we appreciate your fine work and your exemplary career. We will miss your insights and your professionalism. And I wish you all the best as you move on to the next stage of your life.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of California Superior Court Judge Lucy Koh to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California.

Judge Koh is a well-respected lawyer and judge in California. Over the course of her career, she has been a State trial judge, an intellectual property lawyer, a Federal prosecutor, and a counsel in Congress and the Justice Department.

For the last 2 years, she has been a superior court judge for Santa Clara County and has adjudicated cases ranging from criminal prosecutions to commercial litigation matters to family law disputes.

She spent 8 years representing business clients as an intellectual property litigator at private law firms in Silicon Valley.

She spent 3 years prosecuting bank robberies, securities fraud, and other Federal crimes as an assistant U.S. attorney in southern California.

And she spent 4 years working in Washington as a special assistant to the Deputy Attorney General and a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She has received the FBI Director's Award for demonstrated excellence in prosecuting a major criminal case and has been named one of the ``Top 40 lawyers under 40'' by the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal.

As a Judge, the reviews have been equally positive. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, has called her ``an exemplary jurist with an unparalleled track record,'' and described her approach as ``careful and balanced.''

She is a talented woman with a solid background in the law. I commend Senator Boxer for recommending her for the district court and the President for nominating her. I have the utmost confidence that she will serve the Northern District of California with distinction as a U.S. district judge.

Judge Koh's confirmation will also be a historic one for our Federal courts.

If confirmed, Judge Koh will be the first Korean American woman ever to serve the United States as a Federal district judge, and she will be the first Asian-American district judge appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is a district that serves one of the Nation's largest populations of Asian Pacific Americans, but for over 150 years there has not been a district judge of Asian Pacific descent on the court. Judge Koh will be the first, and her appointment is one for us all to celebrate. I urge my colleagues to support her.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to call attention to another nominee for this district court whom we unfortunately are not voting on today.

Magistrate Judge Edward Chen has also been nominated to be district judge for the Northern District of California. Here is the timeline:

The President first nominated Magistrate Judge Chen on August 6, 2009. That was over 300 days ago.

The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination to the floor on October 15, 2009.

Although the nomination was pending for 70 days, it was never acted on and there was not consent to allow the nomination to be carried over into 2010.

On January 20, 2010, the President renominated Chen, and on February 4, his nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee once again. That was over 120 days ago. Still, he has not received a vote.

I find this extremely disappointing. In my 17 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have voted against only one district court nominee. That was Leon Holmes. I had serious concerns about his views on the role of women in society, and I explained my concerns in detail in a statement on the floor. I have not voted against any other district court nominee.

Yet in just 17 months of the Obama administration, not one, not two, not three, but four district court nominees have come out of committee on straight party-line votes. And they are all still pending on the floor. I think that is a very unfortunate direction for us to go in.

Look at the merits of the Chen nomination. I understand that some have concerns because he spent time working for the American Civil Liberties Union before he became a magistrate judge. But this is a nominee with a proven track record. There is no need to ask how he will be as a judge--the evidence is in.

Chen has spent 9 years as a magistrate judge and written over 200 published opinions. There has not been a single objection in committee or on the floor to even one of his decisions.

In 2008, an impartial Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Review Panel reviewed his full record. The Panel unanimously recommended him for reappointment.

Federal prosecutors were ``uniformly positive'' about Chen and called his rulings ``balanced'' and ``well reasoned.'' The local civil bar called him ``well prepared,'' ``very intelligent,'' and ``decisive.'' The judgment was made--he is a very good judge.

I asked Republican-appointed U.S. district judges who work with Judge Chen for their opinions. Again the comments were uniformly positive.

District Judge Lowell Jensen served as the No. 2 official in the Reagan Justice Department. He called Chen ``an excellent jurist and a person of high character'' and said Chen's decisions ``reflect not only good judgment, but a complete commitment to the principles of fair trial and the application of the rule of law.''

My own bipartisan selection committee in the Northern District reviewed Chen at length. He was their consensus choice for the district court. A bipartisan selection committee under the Bush administration also recommended him. And the American Bar Association has unanimously rated him ``well qualified.''

So this is a nominee with a solid and publicly available track record. He has

strong bipartisan support in the community he has been nominated to serve. And he has the support of his two home State Senators.

It is long past time for an up-or-down vote on his nomination.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the nomination of Judge Lucy Koh, and I also urge consent on a time agreement to let us move forward on the nomination of Magistrate Judge Edward Chen.

Thank you so very much. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 4253, which would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing its lead paint renovation rule.

As we all know, lead poisoning can lead to learning and behavioral disorders so it is absolutely vital that all precautions are taken to protect children from exposure to lead paint. EPA issued the Lead Paint Renovation Rule because more than one million of America's children are still being poisoned by lead-based paint in their homes.

This new rule, which was finalized on April 22nd of this year, requires that contractors receive lead paint abatement training and certification from EPA to do work in certain facilities like homes, schools and day care centers.

I certainly appreciate the concerns that Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and other members have raised on behalf of contractors who have had difficulty getting access to their required training particularly in States like Tennessee that have recently experienced natural disasters.

Two weeks ago when the Committee marked up this bill, I committed to Senators Collins and Alexander that my staff and I would work with them, and with EPA, to see if their concerns could be addressed.

Our staffs worked with EPA for several days, but unfortunately, we were not able to come to an agreement regarding an administrative solution to this problem. However, I want to emphasize that EPA has gotten the message that Members are concerned, and they are taking steps to improve the situation.

EPA had already indicated in an April 20, 2010 memorandum that it does not plan to take enforcement actions against firms who applied for certification before the rule took effect on April 22nd and are just waiting for their paperwork to be approved.

Now they are focusing on making more training opportunities available. An estimated 250,000 contractors have already been trained, and EPA has committed to help make additional training classes available in under-represented areas and areas affected by natural disasters so that contractors in those areas aren't unduly impacted by this rule.

EPA is also working to increase the number of training providers. As of May 19th, there were 223 accredited providers offering lead paint abatement training across the country, including 119 providers that travel to multiple States.

EPA tells me that 238 additional training providers have also applied to become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than double the nation's training capacity.

I understand that some of my colleagues continue to be concerned that EPA still has not done enough. However, this amendment is not the solution we are looking for.

Supporters of this amendment have portrayed it as a common-sense solution that simply allows contractors additional time to get lead paint abatement training required by the rule.

In reality, passing this amendment would put the United States Senate on record as supporting efforts to prevent EPA from fining those who knowingly violate the provisions of the rule--even if those actions result in lead poisoning of children.

A contractor who willfully takes no precautions to contain or confine lead contaminated paint chips would be given a reprieve. I am also concerned that this amendment could excuse renovators from complying with the most basic containment and cleanup measures.

I appreciate the concerns that my colleagues have raised. But this amendment is simply a bridge too far. Loosening protections against childhood lead poisoning is the wrong message to send.

That is why the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, and the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Senator Boxer, oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment as well.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment that

I have offered, amendment No. 3939. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Snowe as a cosponsor.

Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored also by Senators Levin and Cantwell. The Dodd-Lincoln bill, as currently drafted, takes major steps to reform the $600 trillion derivatives market. I don't think people understand how big this market is. It would require every trade to be reported in real time to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It would require that all cleared contracts be traded on an exchange or on a swap execution facility, therefore, guaranteeing transparency. It would require that speculative position limits be set in aggregate for each commodity instead of contract by contract--to assure effectiveness. It would require foreign boards of trade to adhere to minimum standards comparable to those in the United States, including reporting requirements. The provision is designed to address the underlying problem of the so-called London loophole.

I very much support these positions. However, I am very concerned that the bill doesn't go far enough to address the London loophole. This loophole has allowed for the trading of United States energy commodities, such as crude oil, on foreign exchanges, without oversight from the United States regulators. This means there is no cop on the beat to shield U.S. oil prices from manipulation or excessive speculation when they are traded in foreign markets, such as commodities exchanges in London, Dubai, or Shanghai.

The amendment I am proposing along with my colleagues would allow the CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with the CFTC, which would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the enforcement authority it needs. It is supported by the chairman of the CFTC, Gary Gensler. This provision was in President Obama's original proposed financial reform bill, and I think it is critical to pass in this bill.

Let me explain what has become known as the London loophole. In the wake of the California energy crisis, we learned that most energy trading had been exempted from regulation by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, at the urging of a company by the name of Enron. Using the Enron loophole, this notorious firm pioneered over- the-counter energy derivatives trading. It set up EnronOnline, an electronic market for trading physical and derivatives energy contracts. It was a marketplace with no transparency, no paper trail that could be audited, no speculative position limits, and absolutely no government oversight to prevent fraud, manipulation, or protect the public interest. Enron was a participant in every trade, and only Enron knew the prices. It used EnronOnline and other trading forums to fleece California consumers for $40 billion over 2 years of increased energy prices.

Shockingly, much of what Enron had set up was legal because Congress had stripped the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of its enforcement power. Terrible.

From 2002 on, I worked with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Levin, and many others to restore regulatory oversight to energy derivatives. We tried in 2002 on this floor, and in 2003 and 2004 to regulate energy derivatives, but we were stopped and stymied. Opponents, such as Alan Greenspan, have since said their opposition was mistaken.

Finally, in 2008--6 years after we started--we were able to close this notorious Enron loophole in an amendment to the farm bill, of all things. The amendment imposed meaningful regulation, including speculative position limits and market oversight. So the CFTC began monitoring these markets for fraud and manipulation for the first time in 10 years.

But as Congress took steps to establish regulatory oversight of domestic energy derivatives markets, Wall Street traders moved to avoid U.S. regulation. They began to turn to offshore markets.

The successor to EnronOnline, the Intercontinental Exchange in Atlanta, bought a London exchange, converted it into an electronic exchange, and began listing American oil futures abroad. That is a way speculators could go right around American regulation and avoid it.

West Texas Intermediate crude has been one of the highest volume contracts on this London exchange since 2006. This contract has what is called a price discovery impact because it is commonly referenced as the standard market price of oil. This new regulatory loophole has thus become known as the London loophole. But firms also listed American energy commodity derivatives in Dubai and Singapore and opened their electronic platforms to American traders.

This new electronically traded marketplace allows American traders, simply put, to evade American market oversight and speculation limits. The practical implication of this is that U.S. traders can use offshore electronic exchanges to artificially drive up prices of U.S. commodities without any consequences from our Nation's market regulators. This is a big problem.

In 2008, a CFTC report found that traders using this London exchange to trade U.S. crude oil futures held positions far larger than would be allowed by American regulators. In fact, from 2006 to 2008, at least one trader position exceeded United States speculation limits every single week on the London exchange, and British regulators have done nothing about it. The good news is that some steps have been taken administratively to address this loophole.

In 2008, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission negotiated an agreement with British regulators to bring greater oversight to American commodities contracts traded in London. The agreement called for speculation limits for the electronic trading of U.S. energy commodities, such as crude oil on foreign exchanges, and required recordkeeping and an audit trail so you can look at them for fraud or manipulation. Without an audit trail, it is all in the dark. But CFTC-- and here is the cruncher--has limited legal authority to enforce this agreement.

Bottom line: We need to make sure the CFTC can oversee trading of American commodities, whether it happens through a computer server located on Wall Street or in Singapore.

The Dodd-Lincoln bill currently before us includes some important provisions to help close the London loophole. As drafted, the bill will require foreign boards of trade that provide access to American traders to comply with comparable rules enforced by a foreign regulator, to publish trading information daily, to supply data to the CFTC, and to enforce position limits. However, the CFTC is unable to force a foreign board of trade to comply with those requirements. And that is just fact. This is because the CFTC's current method of overseeing foreign exchanges has tenuous legal underpinnings due to a Commodity Exchange Act provision forbidding the CFTC from regulating foreign boards of trade. In many instances, our regulatory body, the CFTC, can take action against a U.S. trader trading a U.S. commodity on a foreign exchange to prevent manipulation or excessive speculation only with the cooperation and consent of the foreign regulator.

The other more controversial option is for the CFTC to completely ban the foreign exchange from all U.S. operations. Not surprisingly, they shy away from enforcement in the face of these regulatory obstacles.

We have a bill that still does not provide strong regulation. It still allows American derivatives traders to avoid American regulations by trading on a foreign electronic platform in Dubai, London, and other places as well. That is why we--Senator Snowe, Senator Levin, Senator Cantwell, and I--are offering a proposal to allow the CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with the CFTC, which would give it the enforcement authority it needs.

Quickly, here are the benefits of the amendment.

First, the registration process itself would give CFTC the authority to impose regulatory requirements as a condition of registration.

Second, a formal registration process would assure that foreign boards of trade all follow the same set of rules.

And third, the registration process would provide a much clearer basis for CFTC decisions to refuse or withdraw permission to foreign boards of trade wishing to allow American traders on their exchange.

Finally, and most important, all of CFTC's existing enforcement authorities apply to registered entities under the Commodity Exchange Act. This amendment would allow the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to enforce its own statute with regard to foreign exchanges operating in the United States. This is a moderate, practical amendment to assure that we give our regulator the authority to enforce the statutory provisions already in the legislation.

There are powerful interests out there that are opposed to this. They want to be able to avoid our law. They want to be able to trade over the London exchange. We negotiated with them to close the Enron loophole. We had ICE in our office. They agreed to it. It took 6 months of negotiation. Do you know what they did? They then went offshore, bought the London exchange, changed it to an electronic trading platform to avoid the very agreement they agreed with, that we legislated and enacted. That is fact. Guess what. It burns me up. And I do not intend to quit because I do not like to be duped that way, whether it is Goldman Sachs and ICE or anybody else. If you give your word, you make an agreement. You do not go offshore to avoid that agreement.

Now that I have cooled down, this is a moderate, practical amendment to assure that we give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to enforce the statutory provisions already in the proposed legislation. Why would we want legislation which cannot be enforced? Why would we want legislation that ties their hands? Why would we want legislation that allows somebody simply to avoid this law by trading what amounts to $600 trillion of derivatives in Dubai or in London or in Shanghai or anywhere else?

Guess what. These electronic exchanges will be set up everywhere to avoid this bill. That is why we have to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to see that these foreign exchanges register with them and agree to abide by the laws of the United States of America.

I think it is important that we do this, and I do not intend to quit one way or another, if it takes me 6 years to get it done, as it did the last one. I have no respect for traders who look to go around U.S. law.

As we crack down on traders in our markets, we must be ever vigilant to assure that traders sitting on Wall Street do not avoid our regulations by trading on electronic exchanges with computer servers in London or Dubai or Singapore.

This amendment is an improvement of the London loophole provisions in the Dodd-Lincoln bill by making these provisions easily enforceable. It is the final piece to go in, to close the London loophole, which should never have been opened in the first place, and to ensure that our government has what it needs to protect American markets from manipulation and excessive speculation, no matter where U.S. energy commodities are traded.

I expect the big boys to speak out against it. But I will tell you something: Everybody in the West who knows how they were fleeced back in 1999 and 2000 by Enron clearly will understand the value of being able to enforce the law of this country. We should ask for no less.

I know I cannot call up the amendment at the present time, but I hope I will have that opportunity to do so later.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the SCAAP Reauthorization Act, on behalf of myself and Mr. Kyl, to assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration to State and local governments by reauthorizing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, though 2015.

We are pleased to be joined today by Senators Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, Hutchison, Bingaman, McCain, Durbin, and Crapo.

I believe that immigration policy and control of our borders is exclusively a Federal responsibility. Yet many undocumented criminal aliens are housed in our State prisons and our county jails at a cost that rises into the hundred of millions of dollars.

Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, (SCAAP), in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Under this program, States can be reimbursed for costs for housing undocumented aliens who are convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State or

local law and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days.

Over the years, Senator Kyl and I have worked to increase Congressional funding of SCAAP. Last year, Congress appropriated 393 million dollars to SCAAP. While this is only a fraction of the costs that States and localities bear for housing undocumented criminal aliens, even this level of funding is critical.

In 2009, undocumented aliens comprised approximately 11 percent of the inmates in California's State prison system. This year, the State of California is expected to spend 970.3 million dollars from the general fund on the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens. However, it is expected that California will only receive reimbursement for 10 percent of its total costs. The State of California and its counties simply cannot afford to take on these costs, which stretch already thin budgets.

When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and localities for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of our local educators, social services, and law enforcement. Insufficient SCAAP funding forces localities to engage in the ``early release'' of prisoners with misdemeanors as a cost saving measure and make cuts to other necessary public safety services. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies.

I believe this legislation will reaffirm the Federal government's commitment to working with States and localities to address their financial concerns.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the SCAAP Reauthorization Act, on behalf of myself and Mr. Kyl, to assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration to State and local governments by reauthorizing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, though 2015.

We are pleased to be joined today by Senators Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, Hutchison, Bingaman, McCain, Durbin, and Crapo.

I believe that immigration policy and control of our borders is exclusively a Federal responsibility. Yet many undocumented criminal aliens are housed in our State prisons and our county jails at a cost that rises into the hundred of millions of dollars.

Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, (SCAAP), in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Under this program, States can be reimbursed for costs for housing undocumented aliens who are convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State or

local law and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days.

Over the years, Senator Kyl and I have worked to increase Congressional funding of SCAAP. Last year, Congress appropriated 393 million dollars to SCAAP. While this is only a fraction of the costs that States and localities bear for housing undocumented criminal aliens, even this level of funding is critical.

In 2009, undocumented aliens comprised approximately 11 percent of the inmates in California's State prison system. This year, the State of California is expected to spend 970.3 million dollars from the general fund on the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens. However, it is expected that California will only receive reimbursement for 10 percent of its total costs. The State of California and its counties simply cannot afford to take on these costs, which stretch already thin budgets.

When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and localities for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of our local educators, social services, and law enforcement. Insufficient SCAAP funding forces localities to engage in the ``early release'' of prisoners with misdemeanors as a cost saving measure and make cuts to other necessary public safety services. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies.

I believe this legislation will reaffirm the Federal government's commitment to working with States and localities to address their financial concerns.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment I am offering to the Wall Street reform bill.

The Dodd-Lincoln bill, as currently drafted, takes major steps to reform the $900 trillion derivative markets. It would require every trade to be reported in real time to the CFTC; require all cleared contracts to be traded on an exchange or on a swap execution facility; require speculative position limits set in ``aggregate'' for each commodity, instead of contract by contract; and require foreign boards of trade to adhere to minimum standards comparable to those in the United States, including reporting requirements--this provision is designed to address the underlying problem of the so-called London Loophole.

I very much support these provisions. However, I am concerned that the bill doesn't go far enough to address the London loophole. This loophole has allowed for the trading of U.S. energy commodities--such as crude oil--on foreign exchanges without strong oversight from U.S. regulators.

This means that there is no cop on the beat to shield U.S. oil prices from manipulation or excessive speculation when they are traded in foreign markets, like commodities exchanges in London or Shanghai.

The amendment I am proposing would allow CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with CFTC, which would give CFTC the enforcement authority it needs. This provision was in President Obama's original proposed financial reform bill, and it is strongly supported by CFTC Chairman Gensler.

First, let me explain what has become known as the London loophole.

As Congress has taken steps to improve regulatory oversight of domestic commodity trading markets, Wall Street traders have increasingly turned to offshore markets to electronically trade U.S. energy futures--in order to evade American market oversight and speculation limits.

This new regulatory loophole earned its nickname--the London loophole--because America's most important crude oil contract--known as West Texas Intermediate--is today traded on the Intercontinental Exchange in London. This contract has what is called a price discovery impact because it is commonly referenced as the standard market price of oil.

The practical implication of this is that U.S. traders can use electronic exchanges based overseas to artificially drive up the prices of U.S. commodities--without any consequences from our Nation's market regulators. This is a major problem.

A 2008 CFTC report found that traders using this London exchange to trade U.S. crude oil futures held positions far larger than would be allowed by American regulators. In fact, from 2006 to 2008 at least one trader position exceeded U.S. speculation limits every single week on the London exchange, and British regulators had done nothing about it.

The good news is that some steps have been taken administratively to address this loophole.

In 2008, the CFTC negotiated an agreement with British regulators to bring greater oversight to American commodities contracts traded in London. The agreement called for speculation limits for the electronic trading of U.S. energy commodities--like crude oil--on foreign exchanges, and required recording-keeping and an audit trail. But CFTC has limited legal authority to enforce this agreement.

Bottom Line: We need to make sure the CFTC can oversee trading of American commodities, whether it happens through a computer server located on Wall Street or in Shanghai.

The Dodd-Lincoln bill currently before us does include some important provisions to help close the London loophole. As drafted, the bill will require foreign boards of trade that provide access to American traders to comply with comparable rules enforced by a foreign regulator, publish trading information daily, supply data to CFTC, and enforce position limits.

However, CFTC may be unable to force a Foreign Board of Trade to comply with these requirements.

This is because the CFTC's current method of overseeing foreign exchanges has tenuous legal underpinnings, due to a Commodity Exchange Act provision forbidding CFTC from ``regulating'' foreign boards of trade.

In many instances, the CFTC can take action against a U.S. trader on a foreign exchange to prevent manipulation or excessive speculation only with the cooperation and consent of the foreign regulator. The other, more controversial option is for the CFTC to completely ban the foreign exchange from all U.S. operations. Not surprisingly, the CFTC often shies away from enforcement, in the face of these regulatory obstacles.

That is why I am offering a proposal to allow CFTC to require foreign boards of trade to register with CFTC, which would give CFTC the enforcement authority it needs.

Here are the benefits of this amendment:

First, the registration process itself would give CFTC the authority to impose appropriate regulatory requirements as a condition of registration.

Second, a formal registration process would assure that foreign boards of trade all follow the same set of rules.

Third, the registration process would provide a much clearer basis for CFTC decisions to refuse or withdraw permission to foreign boards of trade wishing to allow American traders on their exchange.

Finally, and most importantly, all of CFTC's existing enforcement authorities apply to registered entities under the Commodity Exchange Act.

This amendment would therefore allow CFTC to enforce its own statute with regard to foreign exchanges operating in the United States.

This is a very moderate, practical amendment to assure that we give CFTC the authority to enforce the statutory provisions already in the proposed legislation. It would only provide the CFTC with equivalent authority to that held by virtually all foreign futures regulators-- including the British.

I have worked for many years to bring about meaningful regulation of the derivatives markets, and that is why I am so pleased that Senators Lincoln and Dodd have brought forward the strongest derivatives regulatory proposal considered by this Congress.

But as we crack down on traders in our markets, we must be ever vigilant to assure that traders sitting on Wall Street do not avoid our regulations by trading on electronic exchanges with computer servers in London, or Dubai, or Singapore.

This amendment would improve the London loophole provisions in the Dodd-Lincoln bill, by making those provisions more easily enforceable.

It is the final piece necessary to close the London loophole, ensuring that our government has what it needs to protect American markets from manipulation and excessive speculation, no matter where U.S. energy commodities are traded.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Private Activity Renewable Energy Bonds Act, legislation to enable low-cost Private Activity Bond financing for businesses and local governments which seek to create renewable, clean and efficient sources of energy.

The bill is cosponsored by Senator Brown of Ohio. In the United States House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Thompson has introduced a bipartisan companion bill cosponsored by Representatives Dean Heller and Mary Bono Mack.

The bill is supported by a host of business and government leaders and renewable energy companies including the Solar Energy Industries Association, Solar Millennium, Nano Solar, the National Association of Energy Service Companies, EnLink GeoEnergy, Johnson Controls, A123 Systems, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, and the U.S. Fuel Cell Council, as well as California Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

The bill provides businesses access to low interest tax free Private Activity Bonds, in order to fund projects that generate renewable energy; produce energy or water savings, or; develop highly efficient vehicles.

To promote such activity in a fiscally responsible manner, the legislation caps the value of bonds at $2.5 billion annually. This represents the investment necessary to replace at least one percent of U.S. electricity generation with renewable sources over the next ten years.

Private Activity Bonds have long been used to generate private involvement and investment in critically important infrastructure for our Nation--from wharves to airports, intercity rail to solid waste disposal facilities and hospitals.

In this century, however, we have new national goals.

Renewable, clean and efficient energy projects will produce jobs, get our economy back-on-track and sustain us as the global leader of a greener century.

These projects, however, require significant front-end capital investment to which the federal government cannot be the sole provider. Private Activity Bonds can prove a critical tool in garnering private investment, because their interest rates typically run a few percent points under commercially available loans.

Investors have long responded to this type of incentive. According to the IRS, Private Activity Bond issuance in 2007 was over $130 billion-- supplying capital to our markets, providing the financing to get projects off the ground.

Projects financed in part by Private Activity Bonds include additions to the San Jose and San Francisco International Airports, the Capitol Beltway High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, infrastructure improvements to the Port of Seattle, and upgrades to Children's Hospital of Orange County, Catholic Healthcare West in San Francisco, and many, many important facilities and projects.

With proper access to capital, we've already seen partnerships between States, municipalities and businesses develop into successful renewable energy programs.

In California, Energy Financing Districts finance residents who choose to install clean energy projects such as distributed solar panels on their homes.

The cost of the solar panel installation or other device is paid back through an increase in property tax only for those property owners who choose to participate in the program.

Now, going solar or installing a geothermal heat pump, which once cost tens of thousands of dollars upfront, has little or no upfront cost to the property owner. It is no wonder why 150 of these programs have been established throughout the country.

This low cost solar opportunity is just one example of the type of programs this bill seeks to support. In partnership, businesses and local governments will develop new and innovative was to create the new high quality jobs of the 21st century.

This Congress and this President have outlined goals to ensure this country leads the world in the creation of a robust, green economy.

This bill looks to connect that laudable goal with proven financing tools to get us there by aligning private sector investment power and job growth with good public policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Private Activity Renewable Energy Bonds Act, legislation to enable low-cost Private Activity Bond financing for businesses and local governments which seek to create renewable, clean and efficient sources of energy.

The bill is cosponsored by Senator Brown of Ohio. In the United States House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Thompson has introduced a bipartisan companion bill cosponsored by Representatives Dean Heller and Mary Bono Mack.

The bill is supported by a host of business and government leaders and renewable energy companies including the Solar Energy Industries Association, Solar Millennium, Nano Solar, the National Association of Energy Service Companies, EnLink GeoEnergy, Johnson Controls, A123 Systems, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, and the U.S. Fuel Cell Council, as well as California Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

The bill provides businesses access to low interest tax free Private Activity Bonds, in order to fund projects that generate renewable energy; produce energy or water savings, or; develop highly efficient vehicles.

To promote such activity in a fiscally responsible manner, the legislation caps the value of bonds at $2.5 billion annually. This represents the investment necessary to replace at least one percent of U.S. electricity generation with renewable sources over the next ten years.

Private Activity Bonds have long been used to generate private involvement and investment in critically important infrastructure for our Nation--from wharves to airports, intercity rail to solid waste disposal facilities and hospitals.

In this century, however, we have new national goals.

Renewable, clean and efficient energy projects will produce jobs, get our economy back-on-track and sustain us as the global leader of a greener century.

These projects, however, require significant front-end capital investment to which the federal government cannot be the sole provider. Private Activity Bonds can prove a critical tool in garnering private investment, because their interest rates typically run a few percent points under commercially available loans.

Investors have long responded to this type of incentive. According to the IRS, Private Activity Bond issuance in 2007 was over $130 billion-- supplying capital to our markets, providing the financing to get projects off the ground.

Projects financed in part by Private Activity Bonds include additions to the San Jose and San Francisco International Airports, the Capitol Beltway High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, infrastructure improvements to the Port of Seattle, and upgrades to Children's Hospital of Orange County, Catholic Healthcare West in San Francisco, and many, many important facilities and projects.

With proper access to capital, we've already seen partnerships between States, municipalities and businesses develop into successful renewable energy programs.

In California, Energy Financing Districts finance residents who choose to install clean energy projects such as distributed solar panels on their homes.

The cost of the solar panel installation or other device is paid back through an increase in property tax only for those property owners who choose to participate in the program.

Now, going solar or installing a geothermal heat pump, which once cost tens of thousands of dollars upfront, has little or no upfront cost to the property owner. It is no wonder why 150 of these programs have been established throughout the country.

This low cost solar opportunity is just one example of the type of programs this bill seeks to support. In partnership, businesses and local governments will develop new and innovative was to create the new high quality jobs of the 21st century.

This Congress and this President have outlined goals to ensure this country leads the world in the creation of a robust, green economy.

This bill looks to connect that laudable goal with proven financing tools to get us there by aligning private sector investment power and job growth with good public policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today once again with Senator McConnell to introduce a joint resolution renewing the ban on all imports from Burma for another year.

We are proud to be joined by Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and Lieberman and we look forward to swift action by the Senate, House, and the President on this important matter.

Now, more than ever, the people of Burma need to know that we stand by them and support their vision of a free and democratic Burma.

On May 6th, the National League for Democracy, NLD, led by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, will cease to exist.

Let me be clear: the NLD is not shutting down out of its own free will.

It is being forced to disband by an unjust and undemocratic constitution and election law, both drafted in secret and behind closed doors by the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, to solidify its grip on power.

Let me explain.

Under the terms of the new constitution, 25 percent of the seats must be set aside for the military.

Think about that: before any vote has been cast, the military is guaranteed a quarter of the seats in the new 440 member House of Representatives.

How will this new institution be any different from the current military regime?

If that is not enough to raise doubts about the military's commitment to a truly representative government, it should also be pointed out that last week the regime's Prime Minister, Thein Sein, and 22 cabinet ministers resigned from the army to form a new ``civilian'' political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party.

Any seats won by this new ``party'' in the upcoming elections will be in addition to the 25 percent set aside for active military members.

Does anyone really believe the regime has embraced democracy and the concept of civilian rule? Unfortunately, it will be business as usual for the people of Burma and the democratic opposition.

What about Suu Kyi and her National League of Democracy, winners of the last free parliamentary elections in 1990?

First, last month, the regime, which never allowed the NLD to assume power, officially annulled its 1990 victory.

Second, under the new constitution, as a convicted ``criminal'' Suu Kyi is barred from running in the elections.

Finally, under the terms of the election law, in order to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections and remain legally active, a political party has to cut ties with any members who are convicted criminals.

Thus, the NLD had to either kick Suu Kyi out of the party and participate in the elections or face extinction.

It should come as no surprise that the NLD refused to turn its back on Suu Kyi and give its stamp of approval to the regime's sham constitution and electoral law.

I applaud their courage and their devotion to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

While I am saddened to see the regime close its doors, the spirit and the principles of the NLD will live on in the hearts and minds of the people.

I know they will one day be able to elect a truly representative government.

As Tin Oo, the NLD's deputy leader and former political prisoner said: ``We do not feel sad. We have honor. One day we will come back; we will be reincarnated by the will of the people.''

This is a clear message to the regime that an illegitimate constitution and election law cannot suppress the unyielding democratic aspirations of the people of Burma.

Now, we must send our own signal to the regime that its quest for legitimacy has failed.

We must send our own signal to the democratic opposition that we stand in solidarity with them and we will not abandon them.

Now is the time to renew the import ban on all products from Burma for another year.

Let me be clear--I am disappointed that the ban has not moved Burma any closer to national reconciliation and a democratic government.

Indeed, as I have noted, the regime has taken several steps in the wrong direction.

But we have the opportunity to review these sanctions every year.

Last year we passed legislation allowing the sanctions to be renewed, once a year, for up to three more years until 2012.

Simply put, if we fail to renew the import ban, we will reward the military regime for its decades' long record of oppression.

We will reward them for keeping the true leader of Burma, Suu Kyi, behind bars and under house arrest for the better part of 20 years.

We will reward them for forcing the National League for Democracy to close its doors.

We will reward them for 2,100 political prisoners, the use of child soldiers, the persecution of ethnic minorities, the use of rape as an instrument of war, the use of torture, the use of forced labor, and the displacement of civilians.

Indeed, the standards for lifting the sanctions are clear. The regime must make ``substantial and measureable progress'' towards ending violations of internationally recognized human rights; releasing all political prisoners; allowing freedom of speech and press; allowing freedom of association; permitting the peaceful exercise of religion; and bringing to a conclusion an agreement between the SPDC and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic nationalities on the restoration of a democratic government.

By every measure, the regime has failed to even come close to meeting these conditions. So we must act to renew the import ban.

But we cannot act alone.

I urge the United Nations and the international community to follow our lead and put pressure on the regime to abandon this process, release political prisoners, and draft a truly democratic and representative constitution.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today once again with Senator McConnell to introduce a joint resolution renewing the ban on all imports from Burma for another year.

We are proud to be joined by Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and Lieberman and we look forward to swift action by the Senate, House, and the President on this important matter.

Now, more than ever, the people of Burma need to know that we stand by them and support their vision of a free and democratic Burma.

On May 6th, the National League for Democracy, NLD, led by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, will cease to exist.

Let me be clear: the NLD is not shutting down out of its own free will.

It is being forced to disband by an unjust and undemocratic constitution and election law, both drafted in secret and behind closed doors by the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, to solidify its grip on power.

Let me explain.

Under the terms of the new constitution, 25 percent of the seats must be set aside for the military.

Think about that: before any vote has been cast, the military is guaranteed a quarter of the seats in the new 440 member House of Representatives.

How will this new institution be any different from the current military regime?

If that is not enough to raise doubts about the military's commitment to a truly representative government, it should also be pointed out that last week the regime's Prime Minister, Thein Sein, and 22 cabinet ministers resigned from the army to form a new ``civilian'' political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party.

Any seats won by this new ``party'' in the upcoming elections will be in addition to the 25 percent set aside for active military members.

Does anyone really believe the regime has embraced democracy and the concept of civilian rule? Unfortunately, it will be business as usual for the people of Burma and the democratic opposition.

What about Suu Kyi and her National League of Democracy, winners of the last free parliamentary elections in 1990?

First, last month, the regime, which never allowed the NLD to assume power, officially annulled its 1990 victory.

Second, under the new constitution, as a convicted ``criminal'' Suu Kyi is barred from running in the elections.

Finally, under the terms of the election law, in order to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections and remain legally active, a political party has to cut ties with any members who are convicted criminals.

Thus, the NLD had to either kick Suu Kyi out of the party and participate in the elections or face extinction.

It should come as no surprise that the NLD refused to turn its back on Suu Kyi and give its stamp of approval to the regime's sham constitution and electoral law.

I applaud their courage and their devotion to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

While I am saddened to see the regime close its doors, the spirit and the principles of the NLD will live on in the hearts and minds of the people.

I know they will one day be able to elect a truly representative government.

As Tin Oo, the NLD's deputy leader and former political prisoner said: ``We do not feel sad. We have honor. One day we will come back; we will be reincarnated by the will of the people.''

This is a clear message to the regime that an illegitimate constitution and election law cannot suppress the unyielding democratic aspirations of the people of Burma.

Now, we must send our own signal to the regime that its quest for legitimacy has failed.

We must send our own signal to the democratic opposition that we stand in solidarity with them and we will not abandon them.

Now is the time to renew the import ban on all products from Burma for another year.

Let me be clear--I am disappointed that the ban has not moved Burma any closer to national reconciliation and a democratic government.

Indeed, as I have noted, the regime has taken several steps in the wrong direction.

But we have the opportunity to review these sanctions every year.

Last year we passed legislation allowing the sanctions to be renewed, once a year, for up to three more years until 2012.

Simply put, if we fail to renew the import ban, we will reward the military regime for its decades' long record of oppression.

We will reward them for keeping the true leader of Burma, Suu Kyi, behind bars and under house arrest for the better part of 20 years.

We will reward them for forcing the National League for Democracy to close its doors.

We will reward them for 2,100 political prisoners, the use of child soldiers, the persecution of ethnic minorities, the use of rape as an instrument of war, the use of torture, the use of forced labor, and the displacement of civilians.

Indeed, the standards for lifting the sanctions are clear. The regime must make ``substantial and measureable progress'' towards ending violations of internationally recognized human rights; releasing all political prisoners; allowing freedom of speech and press; allowing freedom of association; permitting the peaceful exercise of religion; and bringing to a conclusion an agreement between the SPDC and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic nationalities on the restoration of a democratic government.

By every measure, the regime has failed to even come close to meeting these conditions. So we must act to renew the import ban.

But we cannot act alone.

I urge the United Nations and the international community to follow our lead and put pressure on the regime to abandon this process, release political prisoners, and draft a truly democratic and representative constitution.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

I have filed an amendment to the Wall Street reform bill before us that would remove one barrier between the unemployed and a job.

Forty-seven percent of employers use credit reports to screen at least some potential hires, according to the Society for Human Resource Management. Thirteen percent of employers checked the credit history of all hires.

Unfortunately, many of our country's 15 million unemployed are facing more challenges than ever. For instance, some have seen their credit drop precipitously as a result of the economic downturn. In some cases, their credit history is affecting their ability to find employment.

My amendment would prohibit employers from using a consumer credit report as a condition of employment. It would impact potential hires and current workers.

Put simply, an employer would not be able to hire or fire someone based upon their credit history.

I certainly understand that some jobs require workers to display a pattern of financial responsibility. To that end, my amendment would exempt those applying for the following:

Positions at financial institutions, including banks and credit unions, that require substantive work with customer accounts and funds; jobs that require a national security or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation clearance; State or local government jobs that otherwise require a credit report; and, positions otherwise requiring credit checks by law.

This amendment is similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Steve Cohen known as the Equal Employment for All Act, H.R. 3149.

Why is this legislation needed? As of March 2010, 15 million Americans continue to struggle with unemployment, and over 2.3 million of them live in my State alone.

It is critical that obstacles to employment be removed for these victims of the economic downturn.

During these difficult times, many unemployed Americans have seen their credit scores reduced precipitously for events largely outside of their control. These events include bankruptcy, foreclosure, and credit card debt.

Millions of American homeowners have also experienced foreclosure over the past 3 years. Through the first 3 months of this year alone, 216,000 have been filed in California. Last year, more than 1 million foreclosures were filed in my State.

Foreclosures can have a devastating impact on one's credit history. Moreover, responsible alternatives to foreclosure, such as a short sale or loan modification can also affect a homeowner's credit.

A short sale can reduce a homeowner's credit score between 200 to 300 points, according to the Third Way.

And in a report prepared by First American CoreLogic, in February 2010, 35 percent of California homeowners were underwater, or owed more on their mortgage than the value of their home. This means that short sales, in which a homeowner sells a home for less than they owe, will likely continue as an alternative to foreclosure.

According to the National Bankruptcy Research Center, more than 1.4 million individuals and businesses filed for bankruptcy in 2009. This is a 32-percent increase over the prior year 2008.

Federal Reserve statistics show that average credit card debt in the U.S. per household is over $16,000.

These are disturbing trends, and display a pattern of difficult financial situations facing many Americans.

Unfortunately, if you have lost your job in this economy, these circumstances are often out of your control. But, they should not impede your ability to find another job.

I have received many heartbreaking letters from Californians facing these situations. They can't pay off debt because their debt is limiting their ability to find work.

For example, a chemist from San Diego wrote to me about her student loans, which have ballooned from $60,000 to $110,000. At the time she wrote, she had been unemployed for 15 months.

But, she feels she cannot find a job in the field she trained for due to her poor credit score.

A former job recruiter from Corona wrote to share her firsthand experience with this practice, which prevented her from hiring well- qualified, experienced candidates. This constituent, herself now unemployed and late on her mortgage payment, is worried that her credit will now prevent her from finding a new job in the recruiting field.

These are just two examples of how credit history is posing an unnecessary obstacle for the long-term unemployed.

An April 9, 2010, article in the New York Times highlighted the issue that my amendment seeks to address.

It cited testimony provided by an executive of the credit bureau TransUnion before the Oregon legislature. He stated that he was not aware of research linking job performance to the contents of a worker's credit report.

Research by Professor Jerry K. Palmer of Eastern Kentucky University has also found no correlation between worker performance and the strength of their credit report.

While credit bureaus argue that credit background checks are a helpful tool in preventing employee theft and workplace violence, little evidence supports that conclusion.

To be clear, I recognize that in some cases, a credit history is important. Mortgage brokers or bank employees working with deposits should be able to demonstrate a responsible credit history.

That is why my bill would exempt these industries from the prohibition in my amendment.

The unemployment situation in California is untenable. It is my goal to develop fiscally responsible solutions to help those in need.

My amendment does just that.

Workers should not be prevented from a job they are well-qualified for, on account of reasons beyond their control.

If my colleagues have concerns about this legislation, I am happy to work with them to improve it.

I hope this amendment will be adopted and provide assurance to workers that their credit will not keep them out of work.

Mr. President, I have also filed an amendment to the Wall Street Reform legislation that would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to undertake a study on the availability of credit to the unemployed.

An article in the Los Angeles Times in March 2010 highlighted a disturbing new trend in the payday lending industry targeting the unemployed. Specifically, payday lenders are providing cash advances to individuals using unemployment checks as collateral.

This is a troubling practice, especially for those surviving solely on their unemployment benefits.

In California, payday loans can carry interest rates of up to 459 percent.

In light of this, I believe more must be done to ensure reasonable and fair credit terms are available to the unemployed.

This Wall Street Reform bill creates a research unit within the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection housed at the Federal Reserve.

My amendment would require this unit to conduct a study on the following:

The effects of payday lending on the unemployed; the potential impacts, both positive and negative, of providing payday loans to individuals using their unemployment checks as collateral; alternative credit options for the unemployed, including the accessibility and costs associated with them; and policy recommendations that the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection could implement to prevent unscrupulous lending practices.

This report would be completed within 1-year of the bill's enactment and be made available to the public.

To be clear, my amendment would not provide the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with any new authorities, nor require it to carry out the study's recommendations. It is intended as a guide for the Bureau as it works on rules to protect consumers, notably the unemployed, from deceptive and predatory lending practices.

In California, those individuals who turn to cash advances from payday lenders can expect to pay roughly $15 in fees for every $100 they borrow.

This interest rate, when expressed in terms of an annual percentage rate, amounts to 459 percent. While this is the maximum rate that may be charged for a payday loan in California, some States, such as Delaware and Wisconsin, have no interest rate limit at all.

The maximum payday loan that can be extended to a borrower at any one time in California is $300.

So in practical terms, a borrower wishing to take out the maximum $300 payday loan will pay $45 in fees just to borrow $255.

Often, borrowers must take out additional payday loans in order to pay off their current debts. In 2006, approximately 450,000 borrowers in California made more than six back-to-back payday loans.

Such reliance on this form of credit can lead some working families to fall into a harmful spiral of debt.

Over 2.3 million people in California are out work and roughly 100,000 of them have reached the 99-week maximum for receiving unemployment benefits.

The average unemployed Californian receives roughly $300 a week in benefits, which is also the State's limit for a payday loan.

Typically, payday loans are offered as advances on paychecks and should be used in cases of emergency. Such cases include falling short on bills or rent during a difficult month.

However, unemployment, especially in this economy, can be long-term. Payday loans may not offer a sustainable solution.

Unemployment is one of the underlying factors contributing to the rise in foreclosures throughout our country. In California alone, over 215,000 foreclosures were filed in just the first 3 months of this year. In tough months, those facing the dual threat of unemployment and foreclosure need to access credit more than ever.

And now, payday lenders have made it easier for the unemployed to fall into a cycle of debt.

By offering cash advances on their primary source of income, Federal or State unemployment benefit checks, payday lenders are specifically targeting this vulnerable group of borrowers.

Now is not the time to be doing this.

Such high loan fees are a burden for those surviving solely on their unemployment benefits.

So why is this study important?

Studies and reports on the effects of payday lending are already available, some of which consider its benefits and others its burden to borrowers. But the study required by my amendment should offer much more than just the pros and cons of payday lending.

I hope this study will determine if payday lending practices, including cash advances on unemployment checks, are useful credit options for the unemployed.

If they provide a benefit, I hope the study's recommendations will make these loans more fair and reasonable to borrowers.

If not, the study should review and recommend alternative credit options for the unemployed.

As I mentioned, we all agree this is not the time to be exploiting the unemployed. Many of the unemployed are experiencing some desperate financial straits right now.

I believe policymakers should be provided with clear options to help improve the financial situation for them.