Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now on the hate crimes amendment which takes the form of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I wish to speak on that amendment.

I begin by commending and thanking Senator Kennedy for his leadership and dedication on this issue for a long time. He has been the leader, he has been persistent, and I know he remains fully supportive.

This has been offered as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. The reason is because it is so long overdue.

This amendment will expand the Federal definition of a hate crime so that the Federal Government can prosecute crimes committed because of a person's gender, gender identity, disability, or other sexual orientation.

It would increase the Justice Department's authority to prosecute by removing old restrictions that say a hate crime must involve a victim who is attacked because of hate and attacked while voting, attending a public school, serving on a jury or involved in another specially designated activity. So the application of the existing legislation is highly limited, and this would remove that limitation.

It would authorize $5 million in Federal grants to help States, localities, and Indian tribes investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It would also allow the Federal Government to give important technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to States and localities that prosecute these kinds of crimes.

It would authorize the Department of Justice to begin programs to combat hate crimes committed by children and teenagers. This is important because this is a rising area of concern.

It would allow law enforcement to gather more data about violent hate crimes so we know how big the problem is and can work to fight against it.

Let me give a little bit of history. I have been working on hate crimes since I joined the Senate and the Judiciary Committee almost 17 years ago. I know the history of this amendment very well. In the 103rd Congress, I introduced the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act to substantially increase criminal sentences whenever a crime was committed on Federal land that had an element of hatred to it relating to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The bill was actually enacted into law in 1994, and it was an important first step.

In the 105th Congress, Senator Kennedy introduced the Hate Crimes Prevention Act for the first time, and I was one of 33 cosponsors. That was 1997, and this is the bill we are still talking about today, 12 years later. In the 106th Congress, Senator Kennedy reintroduced the bill. The bill was bipartisan, it had 43 cosponsors, but it did not pass.

In the 107th Congress, 2 years later, Senator Kennedy reintroduced it again. It was bipartisan, and this time it had 50 cosponsors. In July of 2001, it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, but a cloture vote in 2002 failed by a vote of 54 to 43. That was 7 years ago. One- half of the Senate was cosponsoring this bill, but we lost by six votes on a cloture vote.

Senator Kennedy reintroduced the bill in the 108th, the 109th, and the 110th Congresses. Each time there was broad and bipartisan support, but the bill did not pass. In this Congress, the bill has 45 cosponsors. The Attorney General has testified in support of it, and a similar bill has already passed the House. I believe it is time to pass this legislation.

Let me be candid and say I still do not understand the opposition to the bill. It does not criminalize speech. It only applies to violent acts. These are acts where the victim is targeted because of who they are--because of their race, or national origin, or disability, or religion, or gender, or their sexual orientation. We should have passed this bill many years ago.

According to the FBI, hate crimes occur in the United States at a rate of approximately one for every single hour of the day. FBI statistics are not complete because they rely on voluntary reporting from local law enforcement agencies, but they are, nonetheless, I think, chilling and compelling. In 2007, 7,264 hate crimes incidents were reported to the FBI with a total of 9,535 victims. Approximately 50 percent of the victims were attacked because of their race, 18 percent because of their religion, 16 percent because of their sexual orientation, 13 percent because of their ethnicity or national origin, and 1 percent because of a disability.

The nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that if we had information about all the hate crimes that occur in the United States, the total number would be close to 50,000.

These crimes come in all sizes and all shapes, but they have one common theme: They leave people terrified, hurt, even dead, and they rip communities apart.

I think we all remember the story of James Byrd, Jr., a 50-year-old Black man, who was savagely murdered in Jasper, TX, in 1998, 11 years ago, while this bill was under consideration. Mr. Byrd was walking home from his parents' home late one night. He was picked up by three White men in a pickup truck. They took him to the woods, they savagely beat him, they chained him to the back of the truck, and they dragged him 2 miles to his death. His torso was found at the edge of a paved road. His head and arm were found in a ditch a mile away. The three men were later discovered to be Ku Klux Klan supporters, bearing racist tattoos.

A crime like this is not just tragic for the victim and his family but it makes an entire group of people terrified to leave their homes at night, and

it tears communities apart in a potentially irreparable way. This is a heinous crime. Hate was the driving motivation and the law and the punishment ought to reflect that.

Mr. Byrd was killed 11 years ago, and things have not gotten better. Let me tell you about three trends I find particularly disturbing. First, hate crimes targeting Hispanic Americans rose 40 percent between 2003 and 2007. FBI statistics show these crimes are rising every single year. In 2003, 426 crimes against Latinos; in 2004, 475; 2005, 522;-- see it ratcheting up--2006, 576; and 2007, 595. That is a 40-percent increase in 4 years.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has reported that this increase in violence correlates with the heated debate over comprehensive immigration reform, and we have all heard the talk shows that preach hatred. This is part of the result. Regardless of the reason, though, for the trend, it is unacceptable for us to stand by and let these crimes increase.

Another example: In Shenandoah, PA, this year, a 25-year-old Mexican immigrant and father of two was beaten to death by a group of high school football players who yelled ethnic slurs as they punched and kicked him. They beat him until he was unconscious and convulsing. He died 2 days later from those injuries.

Just last week, a Latina janitor in Ladera Ranch, CA, was doing her maintenance round when two men hit her on the head and stabbed her with a switchblade while yelling racial slurs at her. Another hate crime last week.

These are brutal, and the victims are attacked because of who they are--their skin color, their religion, their heritage--and their attackers' hate and vengeance.

There is a second troubling trend. The FBI reported 1,265 hate crimes against gay men and lesbians in 2007, and these are only the crimes reported. Many more crimes against this particular community are believed to go unreported to local law enforcement. The FBI has been reporting at least 1,000 hate crimes against this community every single year since 1995.

These crimes are equally chilling. Last December, a woman in my State, in the San Francisco Bay area--in Richmond, CA--who happened to be lesbian, was attacked by four men when she got out of her car, which had a gay pride sticker on its license plate. They raped her and made comments about her sexual orientation. Then they drove her 7 blocks away and raped her over and over again before leaving her naked on the ground near a burned-out apartment complex.

This is the United States of America. In my State, too, in Oxnard, CA, a 15-year-old openly gay boy named Larry King was harassed and bullied by his classmates for many years. One day, in 2008, he was sitting in an English class in school, when a fellow classmate stood, took out a handgun and shot him in the head. Larry King died in the hospital a few days later.

It is essential we give law enforcement all the resources we need to investigate, to solve, to prosecute, and to punish these crimes.

Finally, there is a third area I am very concerned about. Most of the worst of these crimes are being committed today by young people. On election night, just last year, four young men between the ages of 18 and 21 drove to a predominantly African-American neighborhood in Staten Island, where they brutally beat a Black teenager who was walking home from watching the election results. They went on to assault another Black man, and they used their car to run over a third man they believed to be black. They injured this man so badly he was left in a coma.

In Shenandoah, the individuals who savagely beat a 25-year-old Mexican immigrant to death were all 21 or younger. And in Oxnard, the boy who shot Larry King was 14 years old. Imagine being consumed by hatred at 14 years old and what that means for the future of your life.

Why would anyone oppose giving the Department of Justice more resources to fight these crimes? These hate crimes are terrifying. These are the daily lives of Americans we are talking about--innocent people who are walking to work, driving home at night, working or, yes, sitting in our Nation's school classrooms.

This legislation is important. It will allow the Federal Government to prosecute where States or localities are not willing to. It will allow the Justice Department to assist States and localities that want to prosecute but don't have the resources or expertise they need. It does not criminalize speech. It only applies to violent acts, not expressive conduct. It is bipartisan and supported by a majority of Congress.

Twenty-six State attorneys general are advocating for it and so are more than 41 civil rights groups, 55 women's groups, 79 Latino groups, 16 gay rights groups, 63 religious organizations that represent hundreds of individual congregations, by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the United States Conference of Mayors, the American Veterans Committee, and many others.

This legislation is long overdue. There is a problem out there. It deserves to be solved. It deserves to be deterred. It deserves to be punished. This bill is long overdue.

I thank Senator Kennedy for his long history of leadership on this issue. Indeed, if we are able to pass this bill today, or whenever we vote, it will, in fact, be a major tribute to him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Carbon Market Oversight Act, which is cosponsored by Senator Snowe.

I believe this bill is necessary to ensure that future markets created by proposed climate change legislation are transparent and free from manipulation.

Our legislation would establish a comprehensive framework to regulate both primary and derivative carbon markets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC.

Trading would be transparent and electronically monitored.

Manipulation, fraud, and excessive speculation would be prohibited, and violations would be severely punished.

All carbon permits and standardized carbon derivatives would have to be traded through facilities that monitor trading, establish fair trading rules, and follow established regulatory principles.

All standardized contracts would have to be cleared through a centralized counterparty clearinghouse, to reduce systemic risk.

CFTC would maintain a centralized position accounting system to monitor all large traders across multiple markets.

Traders, dealers, and brokers would have to be educated, would have to pass an exam to demonstrate competence, and would need to maintain certification.

Bottom line: the legislation would use lessons learned in other markets to establish the most comprehensive and efficient market oversight structure in the U.S.

This legislation is necessary because cap and trade legislation would create, in an unprecedented manner, an extremely large new financial market.

Without regulation, this market would likely emerge quickly into one of the largest over-the-counter derivatives markets in the world.

Resources for the Future Economist Dallas Burtraw recently testified in Congress that putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions through ``a cap and trade program would constitute the greatest creation of government-enforced property rights since the 19th century.''

Depending on the stringency of the cap, the breadth of the program, and the cost containment measures employed, the annual value of the pollution permits alone is estimated to range from $100 billion to $370 billion. Secondary markets for futures, options, and over-the-counter derivatives are expected to be considerably larger than that market.

If we fail to establish a framework for oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a wild west.

The market would invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse.

The resulting volatility would affect consumer energy costs and harm the environmental goals of the system.

My concerns regarding the emergence of new over-the-counter derivatives markets are based on real experience, not hypothetical situations.

In 2000 and 2001, newly created California energy markets lacked the basic protections proposed in this legislation.

Specifically, there was no federal oversight to assure transparency, no limits on speculation, no prohibition on manipulation, no requirements to prevent systemic risk, no monitoring of trading to address price spikes and irregularities, and no professional requirements to ensure that energy traders and dealers knew the law and followed a professional code of conduct.

In short, the electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shock- ingly, was legal.

The market that looked more like the wild west than an efficient price discovery tool.

Enron, for instance, ran a market where only it knew the prices. It was able to manipulate natural gas and electricity prices beyond the view of any third party, and it swindled the people of California to the tune of billions of dollars.

Not until enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, years after the crisis, were we able to amend the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act to clarify that this manipulation was unlawful.

Not until the Farm Bill in 2008 were we able to close the infamous ``Enron Loophole'' that had allowed Enron to operate an unregulated electronic energy trading exchange in which prices were not public, speculation was unlimited, and there was no audit trail.

More recently, our government failed to establish a regulatory framework for over-the-counter, OTC, credit default swap and energy derivative markets.

First, energy swaps markets wreaked havoc on oil and other energy commodity prices during the speculative energy bubble of 2008.

Then, credit default swaps emerged from the shadows to bring our entire financial system to the brink of collapse.

According to the Treasury Department's recent report titled Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation, a ``lax regulatory regime for OTC derivatives'' can be blamed for creating a situation in which ``regulators were unable to identify or mitigate the enormous systemic threat that had developed.''

The Obama administration has called for Congress to rectify this failure by giving regulators tools to provide transparency, limit excessive speculation, require margins, and require clearing and other systemic risk mitigation measures.

First in California, then in energy derivatives markets, and finally in financial swaps markets, we have learned the same three lessons.

First, unregulated and non-transparent markets do not perform the price discovery function effectively. They are more volatile than supply and demand can explain.

Second, transparency leads to informed buyers and sellers, improving market functionality and price discovery. Economics stands on a basic tenet: perfect markets require perfect information. The more transparent the market, the more likely it is functioning efficiently.

Third, totally unregulated markets are prone to increased risk taking and manipulative schemes that can bring about market failure, posing a risk to our financial system.

In each of the cases I have described, we in government have learned these lessons the hard way.

A systemic or near-systemic collapse in each market reminded us that regulation plays an essential role in market functionality.

Scientists tell us that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 80 percent by 2050, and

economists believe that a cap and trade system with a greenhouse gas emissions allowance market would be the most cost-efficient way to guarantee specified levels of 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.

Senator Snowe and I introduce this legislation today so that we will not have to learn the lessons taught by recent unregulated over-the- counter derivatives markets one more time.

We propose to establish mature and effective regulation for this market before it booms, busts, and threatens our economic wellbeing.

Our legislation would establish a transparent carbon market governed by proven regulatory principles and practices to maintain stable prices that reflect supply and demand, including: transparency. We know that transparency can be provided by requiring reporting, record keeping, and publication of trading information.

Position Limits. We know that speculation can be limited by imposing comprehensive, aggregate position limits across multiple markets.

Monitoring. We know that fraud and manipulation can be prevented and identified by active, electronic monitoring of trading.

Clearing. We know that systemic risk can be mitigated by requiring margins and central counterparty clearing through a CFTC regulated clearing house.

Professional Standards. We know that trader and dealer abusive behavior can be controlled and punished if traders and dealers are governed by a code of conduct.

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 Carbon Market Oversight Act, which is cosponsored by Senator Snowe.

I believe this bill is necessary to ensure that future markets created by proposed climate change legislation are transparent and free from manipulation.

Our legislation would establish a comprehensive framework to regulate both primary and derivative carbon markets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC.

Trading would be transparent and electronically monitored.

Manipulation, fraud, and excessive speculation would be prohibited, and violations would be severely punished.

All carbon permits and standardized carbon derivatives would have to be traded through facilities that monitor trading, establish fair trading rules, and follow established regulatory principles.

All standardized contracts would have to be cleared through a centralized counterparty clearinghouse, to reduce systemic risk.

CFTC would maintain a centralized position accounting system to monitor all large traders across multiple markets.

Traders, dealers, and brokers would have to be educated, would have to pass an exam to demonstrate competence, and would need to maintain certification.

Bottom line: the legislation would use lessons learned in other markets to establish the most comprehensive and efficient market oversight structure in the U.S.

This legislation is necessary because cap and trade legislation would create, in an unprecedented manner, an extremely large new financial market.

Without regulation, this market would likely emerge quickly into one of the largest over-the-counter derivatives markets in the world.

Resources for the Future Economist Dallas Burtraw recently testified in Congress that putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions through ``a cap and trade program would constitute the greatest creation of government-enforced property rights since the 19th century.''

Depending on the stringency of the cap, the breadth of the program, and the cost containment measures employed, the annual value of the pollution permits alone is estimated to range from $100 billion to $370 billion. Secondary markets for futures, options, and over-the-counter derivatives are expected to be considerably larger than that market.

If we fail to establish a framework for oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a wild west.

The market would invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse.

The resulting volatility would affect consumer energy costs and harm the environmental goals of the system.

My concerns regarding the emergence of new over-the-counter derivatives markets are based on real experience, not hypothetical situations.

In 2000 and 2001, newly created California energy markets lacked the basic protections proposed in this legislation.

Specifically, there was no federal oversight to assure transparency, no limits on speculation, no prohibition on manipulation, no requirements to prevent systemic risk, no monitoring of trading to address price spikes and irregularities, and no professional requirements to ensure that energy traders and dealers knew the law and followed a professional code of conduct.

In short, the electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shock- ingly, was legal.

The market that looked more like the wild west than an efficient price discovery tool.

Enron, for instance, ran a market where only it knew the prices. It was able to manipulate natural gas and electricity prices beyond the view of any third party, and it swindled the people of California to the tune of billions of dollars.

Not until enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, years after the crisis, were we able to amend the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act to clarify that this manipulation was unlawful.

Not until the Farm Bill in 2008 were we able to close the infamous ``Enron Loophole'' that had allowed Enron to operate an unregulated electronic energy trading exchange in which prices were not public, speculation was unlimited, and there was no audit trail.

More recently, our government failed to establish a regulatory framework for over-the-counter, OTC, credit default swap and energy derivative markets.

First, energy swaps markets wreaked havoc on oil and other energy commodity prices during the speculative energy bubble of 2008.

Then, credit default swaps emerged from the shadows to bring our entire financial system to the brink of collapse.

According to the Treasury Department's recent report titled Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation, a ``lax regulatory regime for OTC derivatives'' can be blamed for creating a situation in which ``regulators were unable to identify or mitigate the enormous systemic threat that had developed.''

The Obama administration has called for Congress to rectify this failure by giving regulators tools to provide transparency, limit excessive speculation, require margins, and require clearing and other systemic risk mitigation measures.

First in California, then in energy derivatives markets, and finally in financial swaps markets, we have learned the same three lessons.

First, unregulated and non-transparent markets do not perform the price discovery function effectively. They are more volatile than supply and demand can explain.

Second, transparency leads to informed buyers and sellers, improving market functionality and price discovery. Economics stands on a basic tenet: perfect markets require perfect information. The more transparent the market, the more likely it is functioning efficiently.

Third, totally unregulated markets are prone to increased risk taking and manipulative schemes that can bring about market failure, posing a risk to our financial system.

In each of the cases I have described, we in government have learned these lessons the hard way.

A systemic or near-systemic collapse in each market reminded us that regulation plays an essential role in market functionality.

Scientists tell us that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 80 percent by 2050, and

economists believe that a cap and trade system with a greenhouse gas emissions allowance market would be the most cost-efficient way to guarantee specified levels of 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.

Senator Snowe and I introduce this legislation today so that we will not have to learn the lessons taught by recent unregulated over-the- counter derivatives markets one more time.

We propose to establish mature and effective regulation for this market before it booms, busts, and threatens our economic wellbeing.

Our legislation would establish a transparent carbon market governed by proven regulatory principles and practices to maintain stable prices that reflect supply and demand, including: transparency. We know that transparency can be provided by requiring reporting, record keeping, and publication of trading information.

Position Limits. We know that speculation can be limited by imposing comprehensive, aggregate position limits across multiple markets.

Monitoring. We know that fraud and manipulation can be prevented and identified by active, electronic monitoring of trading.

Clearing. We know that systemic risk can be mitigated by requiring margins and central counterparty clearing through a CFTC regulated clearing house.

Professional Standards. We know that trader and dealer abusive behavior can be controlled and punished if traders and dealers are governed by a code of conduct.

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 support the confirmation of Robert S. Litt to be the second general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I also rise in support of the confirmation of Stephen W. Preston as general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, to fill the vacancy in that office that has existed since 2004. President Obama's decision to place these distinguished lawyers at the helms of these vitally important legal offices is an essential step in ensuring that the intelligence community operates within the rule of law.

On June 11, the Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am privileged to chair, favorably reported the nominations by a bipartisan 14-1 vote. The committee's support of the nominees is based on an extensive public record. We questioned them at an open hearing on May 21. That day we also placed on our website their responses to our questionnaire for presidential nominees and to additional prehearing questions about the offices for which they have been nominated.

On June 5, we placed on our website their responses to a further, extensive round of posthearing questions. We also examined financial information that is available to the public through the Office of Government Ethics and confidential communications to the committee from the nominees that supplement their public answers about how they will approach potential conflicts relating to their private law practices.

Mr. Litt is a graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School. He clerked for Judge Edward Weinfeld of the Southern District of New York and Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court. He served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York for 6 years. He later became a partner at the law firm of Williams & Connolly. Then from 1993 to 1999, after a year at the State Department, he held two important posts at the Department of Justice. There, after service as a deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, he rose to be Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. At the DOJ, his responsibilities included FISA applications, covert action reviews, computer security, and other national security matters.

He has been a partner with the law firm of Arnold and Porter since 1999 and has been active in intelligence and national security policy matters through bar association and other public activities.

Stephen Preston is a graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School. He clerked for Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and joined Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering, where he became a partner. From 1993 to 2000, Mr. Preston served in the Department of

Defense and the Department of Justice. At the Department of Defense, he was a deputy general counsel and then the principal deputy general counsel, which included a period as acting general counsel and later, general counsel for the Department of the Navy. At the Department of Justice, he was a deputy assistant attorney general in the civil division. While at DOD, the chief counsels at the defense intelligence agencies reported to him, and while at the Navy Department he had legal and oversight responsibilities for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. He has informed the committee that in his DOD and Navy positions, he dealt with other national security agencies, including the CIA.

Mr. Preston has been a partner at the law firm of WilmerHale since 2001, dealing in both his practice and public and private activities with national security matters.

The Director of National Intelligence has the statutory responsibility of ensuring compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States by the Office of the DNI and the CIA and ensuring that compliance by other elements of the intelligence community through their host executive departments. As the chief legal officer of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, the general counsel has the critically important responsibility of aiding the DNI in fulfilling this mandate.

In providing legal advice to the DNI, the general counsel must have insight into activities throughout the intelligence community including those of the general counsel offices in the various intelligence community elements. As we made clear during this nomination process, the committee expects that the ODNI general counsel will be aware of and have an opportunity to evaluate all of the significant legal decisions made throughout the intelligence community. The general counsel also represents the executive branch in proposing and negotiating legislative provisions for our annual intelligence authorization bill, which is coming up, and for other legislation that affects the equities of the intelligence community. The first ODNI general counsel, Benjamin Powell, played an indispensable role, for which our committee is deeply grateful, in working with the Congress on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The Central Intelligence Agency operates around the world outside of the law of other nations but is required to operate in strict compliance with United States law, including the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties made under the authority of the United States. The CIA general counsel serves to ensure that compliance. Because of the independent legal judgment the role requires, the position of CIA general counsel is an extremely challenging one that requires a strong and principled leader. It has been the longstanding position of the Senate, as manifested in the recommendations of the Iran-Contra Committees upon examining the significant failures they exposed, that it is essential that the CIA general counsel be confirmed by the Senate.

The CIA Office of General Counsel played a key role in the creation of the CIA detention and interrogation program. It provided significant information to the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. It participated in briefings to the National Security Council and to Congress. And it was in charge of interpreting and implementing the Office of Legal Counsel's guidance to CIA interrogators in the field.

An examination of the role of the general counsel's office in the detention and interrogation program--something that the Intelligence Committee's review of the program will explore--demonstrates how important it is that the office has a strong leader who applies both sound legal analysis and good judgment to the task of providing counsel to the Director.

As I mentioned earlier in these remarks, the nominees answered the committee's many questions both in writing and in testimony before us. Individual members of the committee may have disagreements with individual answers, and some of these were discussed in the committee's consideration of both. To some extent, the nominees are at the disadvantage of not yet knowing the often still classified context of various questions. I am confident that they will quickly learn.

Moreover, a nomination process is a two-way communication. We use it to learn about the nominees, but it is also a process in which they learn about our concerns. Both nominees now have an abundantly clear idea, for example, of the importance we place on the law's requirements for keeping the committee fully and currently informed. Of course, they will also have the responsibility of implementing the clear commitments that Directors Blair and Panetta have made to that cornerstone of accountability and oversight.

For both the ODNI and the CIA, the Nation needs a strong general counsel of unimpeachable integrity and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I cannot say that too strongly. I am pleased that our committee has determined that the two nominees are both highly qualified and well suited to serve the Nation by providing counsel to the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA. I urge my colleagues to confirm them.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to improve the administration of Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway Vehicle area by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and aiding in proper enjoyment of these Federal lands.

This bill is simple. It interchanges the administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California.

This legislation consolidates BLM's jurisdiction and management of the Off-Highway-Vehicle area while, in exchange, the Forest Service benefits by receiving small tracts of wilderness areas that are currently managed by the BLM but are contiguous to Forest Service land.

This exchange only affects land already controlled by the Federal government and will not change the designation of these lands. Furthermore, it will be beneficial to the local community which has supported this jurisdictional change.

These Federal lands, near Redding, California, have long been used by off-highway-vehicle enthusiasts. However, overlapped management of these areas by both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management has caused unnecessary burden to these recreational opportunities.

It means users need two permits, often at substantial and unnecessary cost. Likewise, the overlapping management has resulted in different opening dates for the same area of land, frustrating the local off- highway-vehicle community and the thousands of tourists who travel there every year.

This jurisdictional exchange will reduce bureaucracy to ease recreational access as well as provide for better Federal management of these areas.

The bill was developed in a collaborative manner, with input and agreement at the local level by the Forest Service and BLM, in conjunction with the local off-highway-vehicle community. The bill is also supported by the local community and the County Board of Supervisors.

This effort represents a sensible, common sense approach to problem solving and better government.

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

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to improve the administration of Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway Vehicle area by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and aiding in proper enjoyment of these Federal lands.

This bill is simple. It interchanges the administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California.

This legislation consolidates BLM's jurisdiction and management of the Off-Highway-Vehicle area while, in exchange, the Forest Service benefits by receiving small tracts of wilderness areas that are currently managed by the BLM but are contiguous to Forest Service land.

This exchange only affects land already controlled by the Federal government and will not change the designation of these lands. Furthermore, it will be beneficial to the local community which has supported this jurisdictional change.

These Federal lands, near Redding, California, have long been used by off-highway-vehicle enthusiasts. However, overlapped management of these areas by both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management has caused unnecessary burden to these recreational opportunities.

It means users need two permits, often at substantial and unnecessary cost. Likewise, the overlapping management has resulted in different opening dates for the same area of land, frustrating the local off- highway-vehicle community and the thousands of tourists who travel there every year.

This jurisdictional exchange will reduce bureaucracy to ease recreational access as well as provide for better Federal management of these areas.

The bill was developed in a collaborative manner, with input and agreement at the local level by the Forest Service and BLM, in conjunction with the local off-highway-vehicle community. The bill is also supported by the local community and the County Board of Supervisors.

This effort represents a sensible, common sense approach to problem solving and better government.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to correct a longstanding flaw in the Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index, GPCI, system that negatively impacts physicians in California and several other states.

This legislation will base California physician payments on Metropolitan Statistical Areas, MSAs. Hospital payments are developed this way, and it makes sense to pay our doctors in the same manner.

It holds harmless the counties, predominately rural ones, whose locality average would otherwise drop as other counties are reclassified.

Congressman Sam Farr, along with several California colleagues, is introducing companion legislation.

The Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index measures the cost of providing a Medicare covered service in a geographic area. Medicare payments are supposed to reflect the varying costs of rent, malpractice insurance, and other expenses necessary to operate a medical process. Counties are assigned to ``payment localities'' that are supposed to accurately capture these costs.

Here is the problem. Some of these payment localities have not changed since 1997. Others have been in place since 1966. Many areas that were rural even 10 years ago have experienced significant population growth, as metropolitan areas and suburbs have spread. Many counties now find themselves in payment localities that do not accurately reflect their true practice costs.

These payment discrepancies have a real and serious impact on physicians and the Medicare beneficiaries they are unable to serve. My home State of California has been hit particularly hard.

San Diego County physicians are underpaid by 4 percent. A number of physicians have left the county and 60 percent of remaining San Diego physicians report that they cannot recruit new doctors to their practices.

Santa Cruz County receives an 8.6 percent underpayment, and as a result, no physicians are accepting new Medicare patients. Instead, they are moving to neighboring Santa Clara, which has similar practice cost expense, but is reimbursed at a much higher rate. This means that seniors often need to travel at least 20 miles to see a physician.

Sacramento County, a major metropolitan area, is underpaid by 2.7 percent. The county's population has grown by 9.6 percent, while the number of physicians has declined by 11 percent.

Sonoma County physicians are paid at least 6.2 percent less than their geographic practice costs. They have experienced at 10 percent decline in specialists and a 9 percent decline in primary care physicians.

Health care coverage is not the same as access to health care. Seniors' Medicare cards are of no value if physicians in their community cannot afford to provide them with health care.

Physicians deserve to be fairly compensated for the work they perform. California doctors simply want to be compensated at the correct rate for the practice expenses they face.

This is not too much to ask.

The underpayment problem grows more severe every year, and the longer we wait to address it, the more drastic the solution will need to be. This legislation provides a common sense solution, increasing payment for those facing the most drastic underpayments, while protecting other counties from cuts in the process.

This is an issue of equity. It costs more to provide health care in expensive areas, and physicians serving our seniors must be fairly compensated.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to correct a longstanding flaw in the Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index, GPCI, system that negatively impacts physicians in California and several other states.

This legislation will base California physician payments on Metropolitan Statistical Areas, MSAs. Hospital payments are developed this way, and it makes sense to pay our doctors in the same manner.

It holds harmless the counties, predominately rural ones, whose locality average would otherwise drop as other counties are reclassified.

Congressman Sam Farr, along with several California colleagues, is introducing companion legislation.

The Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index measures the cost of providing a Medicare covered service in a geographic area. Medicare payments are supposed to reflect the varying costs of rent, malpractice insurance, and other expenses necessary to operate a medical process. Counties are assigned to ``payment localities'' that are supposed to accurately capture these costs.

Here is the problem. Some of these payment localities have not changed since 1997. Others have been in place since 1966. Many areas that were rural even 10 years ago have experienced significant population growth, as metropolitan areas and suburbs have spread. Many counties now find themselves in payment localities that do not accurately reflect their true practice costs.

These payment discrepancies have a real and serious impact on physicians and the Medicare beneficiaries they are unable to serve. My home State of California has been hit particularly hard.

San Diego County physicians are underpaid by 4 percent. A number of physicians have left the county and 60 percent of remaining San Diego physicians report that they cannot recruit new doctors to their practices.

Santa Cruz County receives an 8.6 percent underpayment, and as a result, no physicians are accepting new Medicare patients. Instead, they are moving to neighboring Santa Clara, which has similar practice cost expense, but is reimbursed at a much higher rate. This means that seniors often need to travel at least 20 miles to see a physician.

Sacramento County, a major metropolitan area, is underpaid by 2.7 percent. The county's population has grown by 9.6 percent, while the number of physicians has declined by 11 percent.

Sonoma County physicians are paid at least 6.2 percent less than their geographic practice costs. They have experienced at 10 percent decline in specialists and a 9 percent decline in primary care physicians.

Health care coverage is not the same as access to health care. Seniors' Medicare cards are of no value if physicians in their community cannot afford to provide them with health care.

Physicians deserve to be fairly compensated for the work they perform. California doctors simply want to be compensated at the correct rate for the practice expenses they face.

This is not too much to ask.

The underpayment problem grows more severe every year, and the longer we wait to address it, the more drastic the solution will need to be. This legislation provides a common sense solution, increasing payment for those facing the most drastic underpayments, while protecting other counties from cuts in the process.

This is an issue of equity. It costs more to provide health care in expensive areas, and physicians serving our seniors must be fairly compensated.

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

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

I regret that we must take this action once again.

I had hoped that since we last took up this resolution last year, the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, would have, at long last, heeded the voices of the people of Burma and the international community and put Burma on a path to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Sadly, the regime responded to these calls in true fashion, by trying yet again to break the will of Burma's democratic opposition and stifle any movement for change.

Just last month, the military junta arrested and detained Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Burma's democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi on trumped-up charges of violating her house arrest.

Currently standing trial--behind closed doors and without due process--she faces up to 5 years in prison if convicted. This will come on top of spending the better part of the past 19 years isolated and alone under house arrest.

The regime's actions should come as no surprise. They represent yet another attempt to hold on to power and crush any opposition.

Almost 20 years ago, it annulled parliamentary election results overwhelmingly won by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy.

Six years ago government-sponsored thugs attempted to assassinate Suu Kyi and other members of her National League for Democracy by attacking her motorcade in northern Burma.

Two years ago, the regime brutally put down pro-democracy demonstrations of the Saffron Revolution led by Buddhist monks.

And last year, we saw the regime ignore offers made by the international community and international humanitarian organizations to help Burma respond to the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis, leading to countless deaths of innocent civilians.

In addition, they imposed a new constitution on the people of Burma, one that was negotiated behind closed doors without the input of the democratic opposition and one that will entrench the military's grip on power.

The SPDC understands all too well that the vast majority of Burmese citizens embrace Suu Kyi's call for freedom and democracy and reject the junta's oppressive rule.

That is why they are trying once again to silence her voice.

We cannot allow this brutal dictatorship to succeed.

For those of my colleagues who are disappointed with the lack of progress in bringing freedom and democracy to Burma since we first enacted this ban in 2003, I share their disappointment.

But now is not the time to turn back. Now is not the time to reward the regime for its oppressive tactics by lifting any part of our sanctions regime on Burma.

It has not made ``substantial and measurable 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 renewing the import ban we express our solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition who bravely stand up to the regime and reject their abuses.

They understand that the import ban is not directed at the people of Burma, but at the military junta that dominates economic and political activity in their country and denies them their rights.

And I remind my colleagues that this import ban renewal is good for 1 year and we will have the opportunity to revisit this issue again next year.

I am hopeful that the United Nations Security Council and the international community will follow our example and put additional pressure on the SPDC to release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally and engage in a true dialogue on national reconciliation, one that will lead to a truly democratic constitution.

I urge my colleagues to pass this Joint Resolution as soon as possible.

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

Madam President, I ask to speak in morning business.

Madam President, I have come to the floor to offer a few comments on the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the bill on which we will shortly be voting cloture, I hope.

I wish to begin by paying tribute and thanking Senator Kennedy. I have had occasions to discuss this subject with him more than once. No one has been more dedicated, worked harder or longer to see this day on the floor than Senator Ted Kennedy. I thank him for it. I hope once this bill gains cloture we will pass it swiftly, and it will become the law of the land, and it will, in fact, save lives.

I would like to make three main points. The first is that tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in this country; the second is the huge financial cost to tobacco; and finally, the relationship between tobacco and cancer.

We know tobacco harms the health of Americans--those who use cigarettes and those who are exposed to secondhand smoke. But I think what most people do not know is that every year, 400,000 Americans die from tobacco use. That makes tobacco the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, killing more people each year than HIV/ AIDS, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle accidents, suicides, and murders combined. That is why it is the leading preventable cause of death.

In California, every year 36,600 adults die from their smoking; in Michigan, the number is 14,500; in New York, 25,400; in Wyoming, a very small State, 700 people die every year. Every State in this country loses people prematurely to death from smoking.

We know the high cost, the human cost of tobacco use, but I think people also do not realize my second point, and that is the tremendous financial cost. Smoking costs our health care system $96 billion every year. States pay $13.3 billion every year in Medicaid expenses and the Federal Government spends $17.6 billion. Medicare pays $27.6 billion and the VA and other Federal programs spend an additional $9.6 billion. The rest of this cost, about $28 billion, is borne by private payers. So the financial cost is $96 billion a year.

The Senate is about to embark on the enormous task of expanding health care coverage and access for the 47 million Americans without insurance. Imagine that instead of spending $96 billion every year to treat tobacco-related illnesses, we could use this money to improve our health care system. It could fund a significant portion of health reform. One, we could nearly triple the budget of the National Institutes of Health, a very good thing. Two, only 2 months of tobacco- related health spending could provide a year of health insurance for every uninsured child in America. Three--let me put it another way--we could provide health insurance to every uninsured child in America and still have $80 billion left over. That is the inordinate, inexplicable cost of tobacco products in this country. Instead, we continue to spend $96 billion every year on preventable illness caused by tobacco.

Passing this bill will not immediately end smoking or the illness it causes, but helping Americans to live healthier lives is a critical component of any long-term reform of our health care system. I believe we should view this bill as a sound, critical, and important first step on the road to broader reform.

Tobacco and cancer. My life has been surrounded by cancer, so I am very sensitive on this point. Without a doubt, cancer is one of the most expensive tobacco-related illnesses. Cigarette

smoking alone accounts for approximately 30 percent of cancer deaths annually. It is the leading cause of lung cancer, and lung cancer is the No. 1 cancer killer in this country.

Since coming to the Senate, I have tried to be committed to finding cures and treatments that will end death and suffering from cancer. My goal is in my lifetime. As I tell people, I am not that young anymore, so I want to see it come fast and soon. I have had the opportunity to talk with countless experts in oncology, biomedical research, and medicine about how to meet this goal. They all say one thing: Go after tobacco. We will not end cancer until we end tobacco use. This bill takes a major step in that direction.

In 2007, the President's cancer panel called on Congress to authorize the FDA to strictly regulate tobacco products and product marketing. This same report called the tobacco industry ``a vector of disease and death that can no more be ignored in seeking solutions to the tobacco problem than mosquitos can be ignored in seeking to eradicate malaria.'' I think that is a very good quote. I think it is really true.

Most people associate tobacco use with lung cancer, as I just have. But according to the National Cancer Institute, 90 percent of lung cancer deaths among men can be attributed to smoking--90 percent--and 80 percent of these same deaths attributed to women are from smoking as well. But there are a variety of other cancers caused by tobacco products: cancer of the mouth, of the nasal cavities, of the larynx, of the throat, of the esophagus--esophageal cancer is increasing, for some strange reason, and I suspect this has to do with it--stomach, liver, pancreas, kidney, bladder, cervix, and even acute myeloid leukemia. There is so much we do not know about cancer--how it is caused, how it progresses, how to treat it effectively. But we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that many types are caused at least in part by tobacco use. So I firmly believe the passage of this bill will lead to a reduction in cancer, and most importantly to cancer deaths, and it will give the FDA the ability to make the cigarettes currently available less toxic and less carcinogenic and less addicting.

Let me give an example. A study by researchers--namely, David Burns and Christy Anderson, both of the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine--suggests that cigarette smoke today may double the risk of lung cancer compared to cigarettes smoked by Americans 40 years ago. Now, that is amazing.

Remember all the unfiltered cigarettes of yesteryear? You would think those cigarettes would be stronger; right? No, they are saying. They attribute this to a change in the chemicals which have been added in recent years to cigarettes. The researchers compared cigarettes in the United States with cigarettes in Australia, and here is what they found: Cigarettes smoked in Australia have a much lower level of a compound known as tobacco-specific nitrosamines. This chemical is a carcinogen. It causes a type of lung cancer called adenocarcinoma. Rates of this lung cancer are much lower in Australia, leading researchers to conclude that the contents of cigarettes are exposing American smokers to a higher risk.

This suggests that lung cancer rates could be reduced by regulatory control of additives to tobacco products. That is what this bill will do. It will give the Food and Drug Administration the ability to make the cigarettes smoked in this country less dangerous, less addictive. They can ratchet down chemical components and addictive qualities that are added to tobacco to increase the addiction.

Under this bill, the FDA can reduce carcinogens such as tobacco- specific nitrosamines. Some Americans may still smoke, but the products they will smoke will be less likely to give them lung cancer. I think that is a good thing, and I hope you would agree with me.

It is time to close the decades-long loophole that has allowed tobacco to become the one product that is sold and advertised without any government oversight--without any government oversight. Think about that. Food is regulated, consumer products are regulated, medicine and medical devices are regulated, products designed to save lives are regulated. Yet tobacco companies sell products that, when used as directed, No. 1, addict people; No. 2, make them sick; and, No. 3, in some cases, kill them. So if there is one industry that deserves the strictest scrutiny of the Federal Government, it is in fact tobacco.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I know it is difficult, but I am one who has participated in something that the American Cancer Society started called C-Change. This is where the cancer society has brought together some 65 groups--advocates, individuals, providers, government officials--to deal with cancer and what causes cancer. Madam President, the one constant through all the discussions, the one thing the physicians and the scientific community were the strongest on is that tobacco causes cancer, and that is just an inescapable fact. This bill deals with it. It provides regulation, it allows for the ratcheting down of addictive components, it allows for the control of chemicals that go into tobacco products, and it will, in fact, save lives.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to establish a Cash for Clunkers proposal with my colleagues, Senators Susan Collins, Charles Schumer, and Thomas Carper.

This proposal would establish a Federal incentive program designed to encourage consumers to turn in their gas guzzling vehicles and buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

It would be authorized for 1 year, and provide for one to two million car or truck purchases. It would be funded with up to $4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to be identified by the President and approved by Congress under an expedited rescission procedure. There are approximately 47 million vehicles on the road today that could qualify for trade-in under this program.

This proposal will help stimulate auto sales at a time when sales are at historic lows.

U.S. auto sales tumbled by 37 percent from March of last year. Two of the three American auto companies have filed for bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler. Auto dealerships are closing. Tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost--and thousands more hang in the balance.

There is no question that our Nation's auto industry is in trouble, and all of us want to help.

But the whole point of a cash-for-clunkers program is to replace a clunker with a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Otherwise the program replaces a clunker with a guzzler, and destroys a good vehicle for one that is not fuel efficient.

So, the goal of the Feinstein-Collins ``cash for clunkers'' proposal is to require real fuel economy improvements--improvements that are lacking in the Auto Industry proposal.

Unfortunately, the Auto Industry proposal would allow for the scrapping of perfectly adequate vehicles in return for new gas guzzlers, like the 2009 Hummer H3T.

For example: a consumer could trade the 2005 Chevy Silverado 1500 4- wheel drive for a 2009 Hummer 3T 4-wheel drive, even though both vehicles are below size-adjusted CAFE standards for large pick-up trucks.

So this trade would be, in fact, replacing a clunker with a guzzler. The consumer would receive a voucher of $4,500 to make this trade. This is unacceptable.

In contrast, the Feinstein-Collins proposal that I am offering today would save 32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal in oil use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

To be specific, it would save 11,451 barrels of oil per day, versus 8,706 barrels in the industry proposal; save 176 gallons of gas per vehicle per year; versus 133 gallons in the industry proposal; and save 1.91 million metric tons of emissions per year; versus 1.45 million metric tons in the industry proposal.

Our proposal is supported by a coalition of those who care about reducing America's consumption of fossil fuels, including: CarMax, one of the Nation's largest car dealers; evironmental groups, including the Sierra Club; efficiency advocates, including the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS; and consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation of America.

I believe the Feinstein-Collins bill is a sensible, balanced proposal that achieves better fuel mileage--32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal--and would result in the rapid exchange of between one to two million vehicles.

Let me take a moment to outline the key differences between our proposal and the other Auto Industry proposal.

First, our bill would require that the newly purchased vehicles under this program have above-average fuel economy for their class.

For newly purchased cars: our proposal requires the vehicle get 24 miles per gallon, the current fleetwide average for cars. Auto proposal requires only 22 mpg.

For midsize SUVs and minivans: our proposal requires 20 mpg, the current fleetwide average for that class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 18 mpg.

For large pickups: our proposal requires 17 mpg, the current size adjusted

CAFE standard for this largest class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 15 mpg.

So, our bill is 2 miles per gallon better in every category of vehicle.

Second, our proposal targets some of the worst gas guzzling offenders on the road.

Under our proposal, the trade-in vehicle would be required to have a fuel economy of 17 miles per gallon or less--instead of the 18 miles per gallon threshold of the Auto Industry proposal. This would achieve greater oil savings by targeting the least efficient 47 million vehicles on the road today.

Third, our proposal would allow leased vehicles and newer used cars to qualify, in order to encourage greater participation by low-income consumers.

Our program would allow consumers who have signed three to five year leases to qualify for a voucher worth 50 percent of the value of a voucher for a new car. Last year, 18 percent of new vehicles were leased, so this is a sizable part of the auto marketplace and shouldn't be overlooked.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal makes no allowance for leased vehicle participation with typical terms, of 3 to 5 years.

Our proposal would also allow newer used cars like the 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid to be purchased through the program. 40 million used cars were sold in the U.S. last year--so I believe it makes sense to include these used cars and increase the rate of participation.

Our proposal creates a three-tier voucher system to provide the most financial payment to the consumer willing to save the most oil: $2,500 for the minimum fuel economy improvement of 7 mpg for cars and 3 mpg for trucks. $3,500 for a moderate fuel economy improvement of 10 mpg for cars, 6 mpg for mid-size SUVs, and 5 mpg for large trucks. $4,500 for the maximum fuel economy improvement of 13 mpg for cars, 9 mpg for midsize SUVs, and 7 mpg for large trucks.

So, the more you improve fuel efficiency, the more money you get.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal would scrap perfectly adequate vehicles in return for a voucher to help put more gas guzzling vehicles on the road.

In the SUV category, the Auto Industry proposal would provide consumers with a voucher of $3,500 to increase fuel economy from the traded-in vehicle to the new vehicle by only 2 mpg. For large pick-up trucks, it requires only a 1 mpg improvement.

Over the last 5 years, fuel economy standards for trucks and SUVs have gone up 2.4 mpg--so in many cases the industry proposal would subsidize people for trading in their old truck or SUV for the exact same model.

Let me discuss some examples: $3,500 to trade in the 2002 Jeep Cherokee for the 2009 Jeep Cherokee. $4,500 to trade in a 2005 four- wheel drive Chevy Silverado for a 2009 four-wheel drive Chevy Silverado. $3,500 to trade in a 2003 four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up for a four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up. $3,500 to trade in a 2002 Toyota 4-Runner for a 2009 Toyota 4-Runner SUV.

The examples go on and on.

With respect to fuel economy?

I strongly believe that--merely 2 years after passing the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act--we should not subsidize the purchase of inefficient vehicles.

This could have the effect of bringing down the fleetwide average fuel economy. In other words, it would nullify all we fought for in the passage of the first CAFE bill to improve fuel efficiency in 20 years.

But that is exactly what the Auto proposal would do: 68 percent of all cars sold last year, in 2008, 18 percent of which have below average fuel economy, 24 mpg or less--would qualify for the industry proposal. 28 percent of below-average SUVs and small pick-ups would also qualify for subsidy.

But it is in the large pick up category that the fuel economy threshold--15 miles per gallon--is remarkably weak under the Auto Industry proposal.

Under the other program, 96 percent of all new large pick-ups--not work trucks, but regular large pick-ups--which are the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road today, would qualify for subsidized purchase. More than 90 percent of below average new heavy duty pick-ups would qualify.

Gas guzzlers like these big pick-up trucks simply do not belong in this program.

I recognize that some believe this should be the goal of the program.

But these large pickups make up the least efficient class of all vehicles on the road. So, if there are 1 million more of these vehicles sold through this program--that would not have been sold otherwise--it could dramatically lower the fleetwide average fuel economy for new vehicles sold this year.

That is why I believe these inefficient, big pickup trucks don't belong in the ``cash for clunkers'' proposal.

In contrast, our proposal encourages the purchase of those vehicles that have above average fuel economy for their class.

Finally, I would like to take a few moments to counter one of the arguments from the other side.

There are those who have mistakenly claimed that this bill, which prioritizes fuel efficiency, would give an unfair advantage to foreign automakers.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the American auto industry has produced some very popular models of more fuel efficient vehicles, and our bill would incentivize their purchase.

Together, these three firms build 44 to 50 percent of all vehicle models that would qualify for our program's proposal in model year 2009.

According to EPA, in 2008, General Motors sold 1.2 million vehicles that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill. And Ford and Chrysler sold more than 465,000 and 593,000 vehicles last year, respectively, that could have met the thresholds in our proposal.

That means that there were 2.2 million fuel efficient vehicles sold last year--manufactured by the Big Three Auto companies--and all of them bought without the incentives in place.

So, just imagine how many could be sold this year with the incentives.

That is the point of this ``cash for clunkers'' bill--to encourage the sale of fuel efficient vehicles.

For many models, GM, Ford and Chrysler can scale up production of their most fuel efficient configurations of their current models in their current factories.

They can make more V-6 trucks, instead of V-8 trucks.

They can use 6-speed automatic transmissions instead of 4-speed.

They can make more 2 wheel-drive trucks.

For example, Ford makes a 15 mpg version and a 17 mpg version of its best selling 2009 F-150. It is the same truck, from the same factory.

This is true for all firms.

Chrysler builds a 17 mpg configuration and a 15 mpg configuration of its 2009 Dodge Dakota pick-up in Warren, MI.

GM builds 17 mpg configurations of the 2009 Chevy Silverado and the GMC Sierra pick-ups in Fort Wayne, IN, as well as less efficient configurations.

Ford builds 17 mpg configurations of its 2009 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pick-up in Louisville, KY, and less efficient versions as well.

But the difference is that our proposal would create an incentive for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to manufacture more of the fuel efficient, 17 mpg models.

Also last year, 100 percent of all large pickups and large vans sold that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill were either built by the Detroit Three or in an American factory.

So, I think our bill strikes a better balance.

Contrary to what some may think, I do not believe that greater fuel economy and increased auto sales have to be considered as competing goals, but rather can be understood as complementary.

I think it is evident that our bill would achieve better fuel efficiency for the consumer, and would provide a more sound investment for the taxpayer.

Our program would also allow the vouchers to be used to buy used cars or even lease a more fuel efficient vehicle.

These options are important, especially to lower income Americans who need a new car but cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. The other version of this legislation would deprive many Americans of the opportunity to participate in the program.

Bottom line--we have chosen reasonable fuel economy levels that save more oil and help all firms, including the Detroit three, sell cars at a time when sales are desperately needed.

So, I encourage my colleagues to support the Feinstein-Collins- Schumer-Carper proposal, rather than the Auto Industry proposal.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to establish a Cash for Clunkers proposal with my colleagues, Senators Susan Collins, Charles Schumer, and Thomas Carper.

This proposal would establish a Federal incentive program designed to encourage consumers to turn in their gas guzzling vehicles and buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

It would be authorized for 1 year, and provide for one to two million car or truck purchases. It would be funded with up to $4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to be identified by the President and approved by Congress under an expedited rescission procedure. There are approximately 47 million vehicles on the road today that could qualify for trade-in under this program.

This proposal will help stimulate auto sales at a time when sales are at historic lows.

U.S. auto sales tumbled by 37 percent from March of last year. Two of the three American auto companies have filed for bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler. Auto dealerships are closing. Tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost--and thousands more hang in the balance.

There is no question that our Nation's auto industry is in trouble, and all of us want to help.

But the whole point of a cash-for-clunkers program is to replace a clunker with a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Otherwise the program replaces a clunker with a guzzler, and destroys a good vehicle for one that is not fuel efficient.

So, the goal of the Feinstein-Collins ``cash for clunkers'' proposal is to require real fuel economy improvements--improvements that are lacking in the Auto Industry proposal.

Unfortunately, the Auto Industry proposal would allow for the scrapping of perfectly adequate vehicles in return for new gas guzzlers, like the 2009 Hummer H3T.

For example: a consumer could trade the 2005 Chevy Silverado 1500 4- wheel drive for a 2009 Hummer 3T 4-wheel drive, even though both vehicles are below size-adjusted CAFE standards for large pick-up trucks.

So this trade would be, in fact, replacing a clunker with a guzzler. The consumer would receive a voucher of $4,500 to make this trade. This is unacceptable.

In contrast, the Feinstein-Collins proposal that I am offering today would save 32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal in oil use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

To be specific, it would save 11,451 barrels of oil per day, versus 8,706 barrels in the industry proposal; save 176 gallons of gas per vehicle per year; versus 133 gallons in the industry proposal; and save 1.91 million metric tons of emissions per year; versus 1.45 million metric tons in the industry proposal.

Our proposal is supported by a coalition of those who care about reducing America's consumption of fossil fuels, including: CarMax, one of the Nation's largest car dealers; evironmental groups, including the Sierra Club; efficiency advocates, including the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS; and consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation of America.

I believe the Feinstein-Collins bill is a sensible, balanced proposal that achieves better fuel mileage--32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal--and would result in the rapid exchange of between one to two million vehicles.

Let me take a moment to outline the key differences between our proposal and the other Auto Industry proposal.

First, our bill would require that the newly purchased vehicles under this program have above-average fuel economy for their class.

For newly purchased cars: our proposal requires the vehicle get 24 miles per gallon, the current fleetwide average for cars. Auto proposal requires only 22 mpg.

For midsize SUVs and minivans: our proposal requires 20 mpg, the current fleetwide average for that class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 18 mpg.

For large pickups: our proposal requires 17 mpg, the current size adjusted

CAFE standard for this largest class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 15 mpg.

So, our bill is 2 miles per gallon better in every category of vehicle.

Second, our proposal targets some of the worst gas guzzling offenders on the road.

Under our proposal, the trade-in vehicle would be required to have a fuel economy of 17 miles per gallon or less--instead of the 18 miles per gallon threshold of the Auto Industry proposal. This would achieve greater oil savings by targeting the least efficient 47 million vehicles on the road today.

Third, our proposal would allow leased vehicles and newer used cars to qualify, in order to encourage greater participation by low-income consumers.

Our program would allow consumers who have signed three to five year leases to qualify for a voucher worth 50 percent of the value of a voucher for a new car. Last year, 18 percent of new vehicles were leased, so this is a sizable part of the auto marketplace and shouldn't be overlooked.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal makes no allowance for leased vehicle participation with typical terms, of 3 to 5 years.

Our proposal would also allow newer used cars like the 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid to be purchased through the program. 40 million used cars were sold in the U.S. last year--so I believe it makes sense to include these used cars and increase the rate of participation.

Our proposal creates a three-tier voucher system to provide the most financial payment to the consumer willing to save the most oil: $2,500 for the minimum fuel economy improvement of 7 mpg for cars and 3 mpg for trucks. $3,500 for a moderate fuel economy improvement of 10 mpg for cars, 6 mpg for mid-size SUVs, and 5 mpg for large trucks. $4,500 for the maximum fuel economy improvement of 13 mpg for cars, 9 mpg for midsize SUVs, and 7 mpg for large trucks.

So, the more you improve fuel efficiency, the more money you get.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal would scrap perfectly adequate vehicles in return for a voucher to help put more gas guzzling vehicles on the road.

In the SUV category, the Auto Industry proposal would provide consumers with a voucher of $3,500 to increase fuel economy from the traded-in vehicle to the new vehicle by only 2 mpg. For large pick-up trucks, it requires only a 1 mpg improvement.

Over the last 5 years, fuel economy standards for trucks and SUVs have gone up 2.4 mpg--so in many cases the industry proposal would subsidize people for trading in their old truck or SUV for the exact same model.

Let me discuss some examples: $3,500 to trade in the 2002 Jeep Cherokee for the 2009 Jeep Cherokee. $4,500 to trade in a 2005 four- wheel drive Chevy Silverado for a 2009 four-wheel drive Chevy Silverado. $3,500 to trade in a 2003 four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up for a four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up. $3,500 to trade in a 2002 Toyota 4-Runner for a 2009 Toyota 4-Runner SUV.

The examples go on and on.

With respect to fuel economy?

I strongly believe that--merely 2 years after passing the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act--we should not subsidize the purchase of inefficient vehicles.

This could have the effect of bringing down the fleetwide average fuel economy. In other words, it would nullify all we fought for in the passage of the first CAFE bill to improve fuel efficiency in 20 years.

But that is exactly what the Auto proposal would do: 68 percent of all cars sold last year, in 2008, 18 percent of which have below average fuel economy, 24 mpg or less--would qualify for the industry proposal. 28 percent of below-average SUVs and small pick-ups would also qualify for subsidy.

But it is in the large pick up category that the fuel economy threshold--15 miles per gallon--is remarkably weak under the Auto Industry proposal.

Under the other program, 96 percent of all new large pick-ups--not work trucks, but regular large pick-ups--which are the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road today, would qualify for subsidized purchase. More than 90 percent of below average new heavy duty pick-ups would qualify.

Gas guzzlers like these big pick-up trucks simply do not belong in this program.

I recognize that some believe this should be the goal of the program.

But these large pickups make up the least efficient class of all vehicles on the road. So, if there are 1 million more of these vehicles sold through this program--that would not have been sold otherwise--it could dramatically lower the fleetwide average fuel economy for new vehicles sold this year.

That is why I believe these inefficient, big pickup trucks don't belong in the ``cash for clunkers'' proposal.

In contrast, our proposal encourages the purchase of those vehicles that have above average fuel economy for their class.

Finally, I would like to take a few moments to counter one of the arguments from the other side.

There are those who have mistakenly claimed that this bill, which prioritizes fuel efficiency, would give an unfair advantage to foreign automakers.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the American auto industry has produced some very popular models of more fuel efficient vehicles, and our bill would incentivize their purchase.

Together, these three firms build 44 to 50 percent of all vehicle models that would qualify for our program's proposal in model year 2009.

According to EPA, in 2008, General Motors sold 1.2 million vehicles that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill. And Ford and Chrysler sold more than 465,000 and 593,000 vehicles last year, respectively, that could have met the thresholds in our proposal.

That means that there were 2.2 million fuel efficient vehicles sold last year--manufactured by the Big Three Auto companies--and all of them bought without the incentives in place.

So, just imagine how many could be sold this year with the incentives.

That is the point of this ``cash for clunkers'' bill--to encourage the sale of fuel efficient vehicles.

For many models, GM, Ford and Chrysler can scale up production of their most fuel efficient configurations of their current models in their current factories.

They can make more V-6 trucks, instead of V-8 trucks.

They can use 6-speed automatic transmissions instead of 4-speed.

They can make more 2 wheel-drive trucks.

For example, Ford makes a 15 mpg version and a 17 mpg version of its best selling 2009 F-150. It is the same truck, from the same factory.

This is true for all firms.

Chrysler builds a 17 mpg configuration and a 15 mpg configuration of its 2009 Dodge Dakota pick-up in Warren, MI.

GM builds 17 mpg configurations of the 2009 Chevy Silverado and the GMC Sierra pick-ups in Fort Wayne, IN, as well as less efficient configurations.

Ford builds 17 mpg configurations of its 2009 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pick-up in Louisville, KY, and less efficient versions as well.

But the difference is that our proposal would create an incentive for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to manufacture more of the fuel efficient, 17 mpg models.

Also last year, 100 percent of all large pickups and large vans sold that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill were either built by the Detroit Three or in an American factory.

So, I think our bill strikes a better balance.

Contrary to what some may think, I do not believe that greater fuel economy and increased auto sales have to be considered as competing goals, but rather can be understood as complementary.

I think it is evident that our bill would achieve better fuel efficiency for the consumer, and would provide a more sound investment for the taxpayer.

Our program would also allow the vouchers to be used to buy used cars or even lease a more fuel efficient vehicle.

These options are important, especially to lower income Americans who need a new car but cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. The other version of this legislation would deprive many Americans of the opportunity to participate in the program.

Bottom line--we have chosen reasonable fuel economy levels that save more oil and help all firms, including the Detroit three, sell cars at a time when sales are desperately needed.

So, I encourage my colleagues to support the Feinstein-Collins- Schumer-Carper proposal, rather than the Auto Industry proposal.

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

Madam President, shortly before the recess, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly completed her service as presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By law, after serving for a maximum of 7 years, judges of the FISA Court, who are designated from the U.S. districts courts by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve on the FISA Court in addition to their regular judicial responsibilities, are not eligible for redesignation.

Now that Judge Kollar-Kotelly has completed her distinguished service on the FISA Court, it is fitting to take note of the admirable service she has rendered as the presiding judge of an institution that is central to our Nation's commitment to conduct foreign intelligence within the rule of law.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly was appointed in 1984 to serve as an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In 1997, she was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In 2002, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist designated her to be presiding judge of the FISA Court. Her ability to earn the trust of two Presidents and a Chief Justice is noteworthy in itself.

The period of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's service as presiding judge, from 2002 to 2009, has been, of course, a period of enormous challenge for the FISA Court. The work of the court, apart from limited releases of statistical information and the rare case in which a redacted opinion has been released publicly, occurs in secrecy. But while little is publicly known about her service as presiding judge, from the vantage point of the Senate Intelligence Committee I can say with confidence that the American people should be very grateful for her leadership of this most important court.

Congratulations, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, and thanks for a job well done.

Mr. President, today I commend Chuck Mack for his contributions to the labor movement in California and his remarkable 47 years as a Teamster.

Chuck began his career as a Teamster in 1962 and has spent every year since working on behalf of his fellow union members, organizing and ensuring fair treatment and benefits for all.

First elected to a representative position in 1966, he worked as a business agent until 1971 when he briefly moved to Sacramento to lobby the legislature as part of the Teamsters Public Affairs Council.

Returning to the East Bay in 1971, Chuck successfully ran for the position of secretary-treasurer of Local 70, a position he has maintained ever since, which represents 5,000 members in Alameda County.

He was elected to the joint council in 1972, and became president of the council, which represents 55,000 members in San Francisco, in 1982. In 1996, Chuck was elected western region vice president. And, in 2003, he was appointed director of the Teamsters Port Division.

Chuck's responsibilities and leadership roles have steadily increased over the last four decades.

I know him to be a passionate, thoughtful, and committed advocate for all workers.

Whether through his efforts to protect the environment in port communities or preserve wages and benefits for truck drivers, Chuck Mack has always put the needs of his fellow Teamsters first.

Chuck will be stepping down from his Teamsters positions at Local 70, Joint Council 7, and the International Union at the end of this month.

Chuck is now moving on to another significant challenge as he becomes cochair of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust.

I wish him the very best in this new endeavor and offer my heartfelt and sincere congratulations for a job well done representing Teamsters in the bay area and across northern California for the last four decades.