Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to establish the fourth annual Endangered

Species Day on May 15, 2009. I am introducing this legislation with Senators Collins, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Feingold, Kerry, Levin, Sanders, Whitehouse, and Akaka whose cosponsorship and support of this resolution I appreciate very much.

The designation of Endangered Species Day will provide many wonderful opportunities for Americans to familiarize themselves with the status and recovery efforts of endangered species in our own country and around the world, including such magnificent species as the polar bear.

Last year, more than 100 events were held across the country to highlight endangered species success stories, and even more are slated for this year. Educational activities were held at zoos, aquariums, libraries, and schools across the country, including Disney's Animal Kingdom in Florida, the San Diego Zoo in California, the Port Defiance Zoo and Aquarium in Tacoma, Washington, and the Bronx Zoo in New York City.

Based on the success of last year, I am confident that this year's Endangered Species Day will continue to foster increased awareness about endangered species by encouraging educational activities such as school field trips to the zoo or attending an art fair at a local library.

Endangered species recovery programs in California are great examples of the conservation and management efforts that have helped to significantly restore populations of the California condor and the California gray whale. Over 300 species classified as either endangered or threatened live in California, and efforts to protect them will ensure that they continue to do so.

Despite these success stories, we must consider what more can be done. There are over 5,000 threatened species that receive protection in the United States and abroad. An important step to preventing further threats to and endangerment of wildlife is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the problem and educating our youth on what we can do.

I would also like to commend the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who recently lifted the Bush administration's last-minute consultation rule. This will allow the United States to take immediate action to ensure that independent wildlife experts are consulted on the impacts on endangered and threatened species.

I am introducing this bill with the hope that Endangered Species Day can spark the interest in our youth to continue the conservation efforts that we have begun, but are still far from finishing.

I wish today to support the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I want to thank and commend my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership and dedication on this important issue. It is long past time that we move to bring existing Federal hate crimes law into the 21st century.

I have been an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act since it was first introduced in the Senate over a decade ago.

And I am proud to join today with my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, and others--to reintroduce this legislation, which will once and for all send a message: We will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country.

This legislation is a crucial step toward prosecuting crimes directed at thousands of individuals who are the targets of brutal and senseless violence.

The current Federal hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

This bill improves the current Federal hate crime law by including crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.

Specifically, the Matthew Shepard Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 expands on the 1968 definition of a hate crime.

Under current Federal law, hate crimes only cover attacks based on race, color, religion, and national origin.

Under the proposed bill, hate crimes will include: gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.

The bill enables States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to apply for Federal grants in order to solve hate crimes and provides Federal agents with broader authority to aid State and local police.

Additionally, the bill amends the Hate Crime Statistics Act to allow law enforcement agencies to gather additional data on violent crimes committed out of hate.

The bill also includes a ``Rule of Construction'' to ensure that it does not intrude on first amendment protected rights to freedom of speech.

I believe that it is time for Congress to expand the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate. In States that have already enacted hate crimes laws, the Federal Government must provide the resources to ensure that those crimes do not go unpunished. We can and must do more.

Across the Nation, horrific instances of violence are occurring that this bill

would work to fight against. I would like to share just a few examples:

In February 2008 in Oxnard, CA, Lawrence ``Larry'' King, a 15-year- old boy was shot and killed by a fellow classmate at his junior high school. Larry, who had told his classmates he was gay, had long been harassed and bullied at school. The way he was treated is unacceptable, and his death was a tragic and poignant reminder of why it is so important to stop bullying and violence in our schools.

In Laurel, DE, earlier this month, three teenagers were charged with robbing and assaulting a 31-year-old developmentally disabled man. The victim was walking home one Friday evening from his brother's house in the Laurel Village Mobile Home Park and was dragged into a wooden area, beaten, and robbed of his wallet and keys. The victim's mother later found him and took him to the hospital where he was treated for a concussion.

Lastly, one of the most well-known cases in California happened in West Hollywood to actor Trev Broudy in 2002. The night of the attack, Trev Broudy was hugging a man on a street. Three men with a baseball bat savagely attacked the actor and left him in a coma for approximately 10 weeks. As a result of the attack, Trev suffered brain damage, lost half of his vision, and has experienced trouble hearing.

The crimes are brutal. The attackers targeted their victims because of who they are. Yet, none of these crimes can be prosecuted as a Federal hate crime.

These are not isolated instances.

These crimes occur all too often.

According to the latest FBI statistics, there were almost 7,700 hate crime incidents in the United States in 2007. Of those, 1,789 occurred in California, with 15 percent of those based on sexual orientation.

Nationally, approximately 50.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 18 percent were motivated by religious bias, 17 percent were motivated by sexual orientation, and 13.2 percent were motivated by ethnicity or national origin bias. One percent involved a bias against a disability.

Even more disturbing is the fact that these FBI statistics show only a fraction of the problem because so many hate crimes are unreported.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization located in Montgomery, AL and internationally known for its tolerance education programs, estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000 as opposed to the nearly 8,000 cases reported to the FBI.

A close analysis of hate crimes rates demonstrates that groups that are now covered by current laws--such as African Americans, Muslims, and Jews, report similar rates of hate crimes victimizations as gays and lesbians--who are not currently protected.

Every person's life is valuable. Congress must act to protect every individual who is targeted simply because of who they are.

We must also stop the way that hate crimes terrorize communities. When people are targeted because of who they are, they often live in fear and communities suffer from tension and a lack of trust. These are crimes that damage our social fabric, and we must send a clear message that we cannot tolerate this kind of intimidation in the United States.

This is not a new bill. It was first introduced in 1998. It has passed the Senate numerous times: in 2000, 2002, and 2004 as an amendment to the Department of Defense, Authorization bill. It has also passed the House in 2007 as a stand-alone bill and in 2006 as an amendment to the Adam Walsh Act. But still, it has not been enacted into law.

In addition, last Congress, this body passed this legislation favorably as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, but the amendment was removed from the final version of the bill that the President signed.

This legislation is bipartisan and has broad coalition support. It is supported by 26 State attorneys general and over 300 law enforcement, professional, educational, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it and working to enact it into law in this Congress.

Let us send a message to all Americans that we will not turn a blind eye to hate crimes and will instead support the values of tolerance and community that unite us as Americans.

I wish today to support the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I want to thank and commend my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership and dedication on this important issue. It is long past time that we move to bring existing Federal hate crimes law into the 21st century.

I have been an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act since it was first introduced in the Senate over a decade ago.

And I am proud to join today with my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, and others--to reintroduce this legislation, which will once and for all send a message: We will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country.

This legislation is a crucial step toward prosecuting crimes directed at thousands of individuals who are the targets of brutal and senseless violence.

The current Federal hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

This bill improves the current Federal hate crime law by including crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.

Specifically, the Matthew Shepard Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 expands on the 1968 definition of a hate crime.

Under current Federal law, hate crimes only cover attacks based on race, color, religion, and national origin.

Under the proposed bill, hate crimes will include: gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability.

The bill enables States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to apply for Federal grants in order to solve hate crimes and provides Federal agents with broader authority to aid State and local police.

Additionally, the bill amends the Hate Crime Statistics Act to allow law enforcement agencies to gather additional data on violent crimes committed out of hate.

The bill also includes a ``Rule of Construction'' to ensure that it does not intrude on first amendment protected rights to freedom of speech.

I believe that it is time for Congress to expand the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute anyone who would target victims because of hate. In States that have already enacted hate crimes laws, the Federal Government must provide the resources to ensure that those crimes do not go unpunished. We can and must do more.

Across the Nation, horrific instances of violence are occurring that this bill

would work to fight against. I would like to share just a few examples:

In February 2008 in Oxnard, CA, Lawrence ``Larry'' King, a 15-year- old boy was shot and killed by a fellow classmate at his junior high school. Larry, who had told his classmates he was gay, had long been harassed and bullied at school. The way he was treated is unacceptable, and his death was a tragic and poignant reminder of why it is so important to stop bullying and violence in our schools.

In Laurel, DE, earlier this month, three teenagers were charged with robbing and assaulting a 31-year-old developmentally disabled man. The victim was walking home one Friday evening from his brother's house in the Laurel Village Mobile Home Park and was dragged into a wooden area, beaten, and robbed of his wallet and keys. The victim's mother later found him and took him to the hospital where he was treated for a concussion.

Lastly, one of the most well-known cases in California happened in West Hollywood to actor Trev Broudy in 2002. The night of the attack, Trev Broudy was hugging a man on a street. Three men with a baseball bat savagely attacked the actor and left him in a coma for approximately 10 weeks. As a result of the attack, Trev suffered brain damage, lost half of his vision, and has experienced trouble hearing.

The crimes are brutal. The attackers targeted their victims because of who they are. Yet, none of these crimes can be prosecuted as a Federal hate crime.

These are not isolated instances.

These crimes occur all too often.

According to the latest FBI statistics, there were almost 7,700 hate crime incidents in the United States in 2007. Of those, 1,789 occurred in California, with 15 percent of those based on sexual orientation.

Nationally, approximately 50.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 18 percent were motivated by religious bias, 17 percent were motivated by sexual orientation, and 13.2 percent were motivated by ethnicity or national origin bias. One percent involved a bias against a disability.

Even more disturbing is the fact that these FBI statistics show only a fraction of the problem because so many hate crimes are unreported.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization located in Montgomery, AL and internationally known for its tolerance education programs, estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000 as opposed to the nearly 8,000 cases reported to the FBI.

A close analysis of hate crimes rates demonstrates that groups that are now covered by current laws--such as African Americans, Muslims, and Jews, report similar rates of hate crimes victimizations as gays and lesbians--who are not currently protected.

Every person's life is valuable. Congress must act to protect every individual who is targeted simply because of who they are.

We must also stop the way that hate crimes terrorize communities. When people are targeted because of who they are, they often live in fear and communities suffer from tension and a lack of trust. These are crimes that damage our social fabric, and we must send a clear message that we cannot tolerate this kind of intimidation in the United States.

This is not a new bill. It was first introduced in 1998. It has passed the Senate numerous times: in 2000, 2002, and 2004 as an amendment to the Department of Defense, Authorization bill. It has also passed the House in 2007 as a stand-alone bill and in 2006 as an amendment to the Adam Walsh Act. But still, it has not been enacted into law.

In addition, last Congress, this body passed this legislation favorably as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, but the amendment was removed from the final version of the bill that the President signed.

This legislation is bipartisan and has broad coalition support. It is supported by 26 State attorneys general and over 300 law enforcement, professional, educational, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it and working to enact it into law in this Congress.

Let us send a message to all Americans that we will not turn a blind eye to hate crimes and will instead support the values of tolerance and community that unite us as Americans.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan's behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan's safety and her children's well-being may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government's position on Ms. Tan's case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a reply brief in her client's favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S.

Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order.

The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody.

In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney's negligence. Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine.

These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ``ideal'' students--``the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.'' One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ``model'' parent, one who ``attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys' teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.''

However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.--their birthplace and the only country they know to be home.

All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country.

A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes.

This is the situation facing the Tan family. While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status

through the regular family-based immigration channels.

I do not believe that it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family--including two U.S. citizen minor children--to make the choice between being separated and relocation to a country where they may face serious hardships.

The Tan family has built a stable and supportive home for themselves in the Pacifica, California community. Ms. Tan's spouse has worked for 17 years at Biddle-Shaw Insurance Services, Inc., where her employer describes her as ``hard-working . . . trustworthy and dependable.'' This couple owns their own home, and over many years they were active members of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church. At Good Shepherd, Jay was a member of the School Board and Ms. Tan was a consummate volunteer. I received a heartfelt letter from the Pastor at Good Shepherd that describes Ms. Tan as a ``dedicated mother'' and attests to the family's spirit of volunteerism and commitment at the church.

In fact, I have received 45 letters from friends and community members and 3 letters from organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, Love Exiles, and Immigration Equality, in support of Ms. Tan remaining in the U.S. I have also been contacted by Representative Jackie Speier's office in support of this case. This family has also received substantial attention from the media in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to us continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to their community in Pacifica, California.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan's behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan's safety and her children's well-being may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government's position on Ms. Tan's case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a reply brief in her client's favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S.

Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order.

The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody.

In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney's negligence. Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine.

These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ``ideal'' students--``the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.'' One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ``model'' parent, one who ``attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys' teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.''

However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.--their birthplace and the only country they know to be home.

All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country.

A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes.

This is the situation facing the Tan family. While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status

through the regular family-based immigration channels.

I do not believe that it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family--including two U.S. citizen minor children--to make the choice between being separated and relocation to a country where they may face serious hardships.

The Tan family has built a stable and supportive home for themselves in the Pacifica, California community. Ms. Tan's spouse has worked for 17 years at Biddle-Shaw Insurance Services, Inc., where her employer describes her as ``hard-working . . . trustworthy and dependable.'' This couple owns their own home, and over many years they were active members of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church. At Good Shepherd, Jay was a member of the School Board and Ms. Tan was a consummate volunteer. I received a heartfelt letter from the Pastor at Good Shepherd that describes Ms. Tan as a ``dedicated mother'' and attests to the family's spirit of volunteerism and commitment at the church.

In fact, I have received 45 letters from friends and community members and 3 letters from organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, Love Exiles, and Immigration Equality, in support of Ms. Tan remaining in the U.S. I have also been contacted by Representative Jackie Speier's office in support of this case. This family has also received substantial attention from the media in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to us continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to their community in Pacifica, California.

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

Madam President, I want to change my vote on rollcall No. 128. It was my intention to vote ``yes'' and I voted ``no.'' Since it will not change the outcome of the vote, I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed to reflect a ``yea'' vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of bills, S. 762, S. 763, and S. 764, designed to better prepare for catastrophic wildfires like the ones that recently devastated Southwestern Australia and

that have plagued much of our country for years.

California has seen unprecedented devastation from wildfires in the last 5 years.

Over 10,000 families have lost their homes.

Over 4 million acres have been burned.

In 2007, wildfires in Southern California caused the evacuation of an estimated 750,000 people--the largest evacuation in California history.

In these fires alone, more than a million acres burned, and more than 2,000 homes were destroyed.

These fires killed nine people, and injured 130. Mostly firefighters.

The financial damage is estimated to be in the billions.

Simply put, this was a disaster of epic proportions.

It was not the first. Southern California suffered similar wildfire losses just 5 years ago.

We must face the fact that catastrophic wildfires are in California's future, and the future of other States.

Experts predict that things are only going to get worse in the years to come.

Global warming, extended droughts, dangerous invasive species outbreaks, and years of poor forest and fuel management have all contributed to the explosive conditions that we now face.

The reality is that California and much of the West is tinder-dry. Fires are larger, and they burn hotter and with more intensity.

In early February we saw the tragic consequences of catastrophic wildfire in Australia. Two hundred are dead, a million acres burned, and whole communities were wiped out in a matter of hours.

Here in the U.S. we face that very same possibility, and we must do everything we can to stop a similar tragedy from devastating our neighborhoods.

The problem is that more and more people are living in areas at high risk of wildfire. There are more than 5 million homes in California alone in this high-threat ``wildland-urban interface.'' Across the rest of the country, there are nearly 40 million more homes located in the wildland urban interface.

So the question comes: What can be done?

There is no doubt that we cannot fully eliminate wildfires.

But I believe that we can take steps now to better protect communities, to improve firefighting capabilities, and to improve relief and recovery aid.

The three bills that I am introducing today will get this process started. They are the Fire Safe Communities Act, which would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfires to adopt responsible building codes and mitigation practices.

The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act, to make sure that qualified individuals, displaced by major disasters, are able to make their mortgage and rental payments.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act, to increase the amount of federal dollars available to homeowners whose rebuilding costs outstrip their insurance coverage.

The Fire Safe Communities Act will help protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of wildfires.

Most importantly, it does three key things.

It gives incentives to local communities that have adopted responsible fire-mitigation plans by allowing for greater federal reimbursement of firefighting costs during major fires.

It creates a grant program to encourage responsible development practices that meet wildland-urban interface code guidelines.

It allows for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to collaboratively work on mitigation projects that will protect homes on State and private lands

In effect, the Federal Government would become the partner of local governments as they seek to make their communities fire-safe.

As I have said, we can never stop wildfires. But we can take important steps to make these fires less destructive.

This bill starts with the first step, by putting a reliable, unambiguous definition to ``Fire Safe'' communities.

Current Wildland fire codes, such as those produced by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association, compile a comprehensive set of best practices that can be adopted by communities that are looking to protect themselves from fire damage. If properly implemented, these codes can greatly improve the fire resistance of these communities and their residents.

The fire code guidelines address water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards.

The target mitigation measures in fire codes have been proven to be effective. Firefighter groups, insurance companies, and blue ribbon panels have all come to the same conclusions. It is time that we take their advice and start making this important investment.

The bill authorizes a $25 million per year grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's, FEMA, Office of Grants, and Training.

It will help communities implement these standards, and bring the safest development practices to their neighborhoods.

This grant program will be available to local governments located in the wildlife-urban interface, and to high-threat regions that have adopted--or plan to adopt--these responsible firesafe measures.

As further incentive, this bill makes the existing Fire Management Assistance Grants program contingent on the implementation of Firesafe codes, standards and ordinances.

Today under the Fire Management Assistance Grant program, the federal government covers 75 percent of the cost of fighting wildfires.

Under this bill, communities that adopt the firesafe codes would be eligible for Federal reimbursement of up to 90 percent of their firefighting costs.

It is important to note that firesafe building codes, standards and ordinances are not mandatory. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling local governments how and where to build their buildings.

Instead these are voluntary codes; communities can choose to adopt, or not to adopt, at their discretion.

The bill does not step on the toes of local government. Rather, helps all of us reach a common goal.

I come from local government--I am 9 years a mayor, 9 years a county supervisor--and I recognize that zoning is the province of local government.

But we have a real problem here: We know that development in the wildland-urban interface is accelerating, and it is making fires more costly.

We need to take steps to improve fire safety in these areas.

This bill is an important step toward becoming better prepared.

Now I want to discuss two bills intended to improve recovery aid after disaster strikes.

The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act will provide much-needed relief to working families hit hard by disasters.

It would authorize FEMA to make mortgage and rental assistance available for qualified individuals in communities designated as disaster areas by the President under the Stafford Act.

It is based on an important point: While catastrophic wildfires and other disasters can destroy homes, they don't relieve people of the financial obligations that come with home ownership or lease agreements.

In most cases, these payments must still be made, even if the residence has been wiped out.

This burden is too much for many working families. They incur additional expenses--such as hotel or lodging costs--that come with being displaced following a major disaster.

FEMA used to provide mortgage and rental assistance. But these types of assistance were eliminated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

This bill would re-authorize the program, and make several changes to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

First, to qualify for assistance applicants must demonstrate that they face significant economic hardships and suffered disaster-related income loss.

The disaster-related income loss must fit into one of the following categories: your employer, or your own business, must be located in the area declared a major disaster by the President; you lose your job because your

employer or business has a significant business relationship with a company located within the Presidentially declared disaster area; or you live in a Presidentially declared disaster area, and have suffered financially due to travel restrictions and road closures post-disaster.

To qualify for this aid, applicants must also provide proof that their employment was discontinued as a result of disaster.

They must also show imminent delinquency, eviction, dispossession, or foreclosure.

Finally, this assistance is available only for up to 18 months, and is subject to income caps.

Only households with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or less, in high-cost states such as California, would be eligible.

Households in lower-cost States could be eligible if their annual adjusted gross incomes do not exceed $75,000.

In today's market conditions, the federal government needs to make sure that we do everything we can to help families stay in their homes.

The Mortgage and Rental Assistance Act will prevent foreclosures in disaster areas by helping families make their payments on time. Given the state of the housing market, this bill is of the utmost importance and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase the amount of money FEMA can provide--for rebuilding and temporary housing--in high- cost states such as California.

It is designed to help disaster victims whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. Or for low income earners who have no insurance.

Sadly, many Californians hit by wildfires or other disasters learn too late that their insurance coverage is insufficient.

This is a real problem in California. In fact, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner estimates that as many as 25 percent of the victims of the 2007 wildfires were underinsured.

Let me be clear: this bill will not cover the full costs of rebuilding.

But it will help close the gap, for qualified households in areas declared by the President to be disaster areas.

Today, FEMA can provide up to roughly $28,000 to individuals and households whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. This assistance can be used for rebuilding costs, as well as temporary housing.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase this amount to $50,000 for individuals who earn less than $100,000 per year. By increasing the amount of assistance, and targeting the program toward lower-income homeowners, the FEMA Disaster Assistance program will more efficiently help homeowners recover from disasters.

The legislation also gives the President the discretion to increase this cap, if necessary, to cover rebuilding expenses in high-cost states.

I believe this bill will provide an important step toward giving Americans the chance they need to rebuild their lives after suffering through a major disaster.

Catastrophic wildfires are not going away. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests they will occur with greater frequency and ferocity.

But we can take important steps--now--to make our communities safer.

To strengthen our firefighting capabilities.

To ensure that more relief and recovery aid is provided to victims, so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible.

These bills are not a panacea. But they are an important first step. I urge my colleagues to vote for them.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of bills, S. 762, S. 763, and S. 764, designed to better prepare for catastrophic wildfires like the ones that recently devastated Southwestern Australia and

that have plagued much of our country for years.

California has seen unprecedented devastation from wildfires in the last 5 years.

Over 10,000 families have lost their homes.

Over 4 million acres have been burned.

In 2007, wildfires in Southern California caused the evacuation of an estimated 750,000 people--the largest evacuation in California history.

In these fires alone, more than a million acres burned, and more than 2,000 homes were destroyed.

These fires killed nine people, and injured 130. Mostly firefighters.

The financial damage is estimated to be in the billions.

Simply put, this was a disaster of epic proportions.

It was not the first. Southern California suffered similar wildfire losses just 5 years ago.

We must face the fact that catastrophic wildfires are in California's future, and the future of other States.

Experts predict that things are only going to get worse in the years to come.

Global warming, extended droughts, dangerous invasive species outbreaks, and years of poor forest and fuel management have all contributed to the explosive conditions that we now face.

The reality is that California and much of the West is tinder-dry. Fires are larger, and they burn hotter and with more intensity.

In early February we saw the tragic consequences of catastrophic wildfire in Australia. Two hundred are dead, a million acres burned, and whole communities were wiped out in a matter of hours.

Here in the U.S. we face that very same possibility, and we must do everything we can to stop a similar tragedy from devastating our neighborhoods.

The problem is that more and more people are living in areas at high risk of wildfire. There are more than 5 million homes in California alone in this high-threat ``wildland-urban interface.'' Across the rest of the country, there are nearly 40 million more homes located in the wildland urban interface.

So the question comes: What can be done?

There is no doubt that we cannot fully eliminate wildfires.

But I believe that we can take steps now to better protect communities, to improve firefighting capabilities, and to improve relief and recovery aid.

The three bills that I am introducing today will get this process started. They are the Fire Safe Communities Act, which would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfires to adopt responsible building codes and mitigation practices.

The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act, to make sure that qualified individuals, displaced by major disasters, are able to make their mortgage and rental payments.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act, to increase the amount of federal dollars available to homeowners whose rebuilding costs outstrip their insurance coverage.

The Fire Safe Communities Act will help protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of wildfires.

Most importantly, it does three key things.

It gives incentives to local communities that have adopted responsible fire-mitigation plans by allowing for greater federal reimbursement of firefighting costs during major fires.

It creates a grant program to encourage responsible development practices that meet wildland-urban interface code guidelines.

It allows for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to collaboratively work on mitigation projects that will protect homes on State and private lands

In effect, the Federal Government would become the partner of local governments as they seek to make their communities fire-safe.

As I have said, we can never stop wildfires. But we can take important steps to make these fires less destructive.

This bill starts with the first step, by putting a reliable, unambiguous definition to ``Fire Safe'' communities.

Current Wildland fire codes, such as those produced by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association, compile a comprehensive set of best practices that can be adopted by communities that are looking to protect themselves from fire damage. If properly implemented, these codes can greatly improve the fire resistance of these communities and their residents.

The fire code guidelines address water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards.

The target mitigation measures in fire codes have been proven to be effective. Firefighter groups, insurance companies, and blue ribbon panels have all come to the same conclusions. It is time that we take their advice and start making this important investment.

The bill authorizes a $25 million per year grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's, FEMA, Office of Grants, and Training.

It will help communities implement these standards, and bring the safest development practices to their neighborhoods.

This grant program will be available to local governments located in the wildlife-urban interface, and to high-threat regions that have adopted--or plan to adopt--these responsible firesafe measures.

As further incentive, this bill makes the existing Fire Management Assistance Grants program contingent on the implementation of Firesafe codes, standards and ordinances.

Today under the Fire Management Assistance Grant program, the federal government covers 75 percent of the cost of fighting wildfires.

Under this bill, communities that adopt the firesafe codes would be eligible for Federal reimbursement of up to 90 percent of their firefighting costs.

It is important to note that firesafe building codes, standards and ordinances are not mandatory. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling local governments how and where to build their buildings.

Instead these are voluntary codes; communities can choose to adopt, or not to adopt, at their discretion.

The bill does not step on the toes of local government. Rather, helps all of us reach a common goal.

I come from local government--I am 9 years a mayor, 9 years a county supervisor--and I recognize that zoning is the province of local government.

But we have a real problem here: We know that development in the wildland-urban interface is accelerating, and it is making fires more costly.

We need to take steps to improve fire safety in these areas.

This bill is an important step toward becoming better prepared.

Now I want to discuss two bills intended to improve recovery aid after disaster strikes.

The Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act will provide much-needed relief to working families hit hard by disasters.

It would authorize FEMA to make mortgage and rental assistance available for qualified individuals in communities designated as disaster areas by the President under the Stafford Act.

It is based on an important point: While catastrophic wildfires and other disasters can destroy homes, they don't relieve people of the financial obligations that come with home ownership or lease agreements.

In most cases, these payments must still be made, even if the residence has been wiped out.

This burden is too much for many working families. They incur additional expenses--such as hotel or lodging costs--that come with being displaced following a major disaster.

FEMA used to provide mortgage and rental assistance. But these types of assistance were eliminated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

This bill would re-authorize the program, and make several changes to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

First, to qualify for assistance applicants must demonstrate that they face significant economic hardships and suffered disaster-related income loss.

The disaster-related income loss must fit into one of the following categories: your employer, or your own business, must be located in the area declared a major disaster by the President; you lose your job because your

employer or business has a significant business relationship with a company located within the Presidentially declared disaster area; or you live in a Presidentially declared disaster area, and have suffered financially due to travel restrictions and road closures post-disaster.

To qualify for this aid, applicants must also provide proof that their employment was discontinued as a result of disaster.

They must also show imminent delinquency, eviction, dispossession, or foreclosure.

Finally, this assistance is available only for up to 18 months, and is subject to income caps.

Only households with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or less, in high-cost states such as California, would be eligible.

Households in lower-cost States could be eligible if their annual adjusted gross incomes do not exceed $75,000.

In today's market conditions, the federal government needs to make sure that we do everything we can to help families stay in their homes.

The Mortgage and Rental Assistance Act will prevent foreclosures in disaster areas by helping families make their payments on time. Given the state of the housing market, this bill is of the utmost importance and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase the amount of money FEMA can provide--for rebuilding and temporary housing--in high- cost states such as California.

It is designed to help disaster victims whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. Or for low income earners who have no insurance.

Sadly, many Californians hit by wildfires or other disasters learn too late that their insurance coverage is insufficient.

This is a real problem in California. In fact, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner estimates that as many as 25 percent of the victims of the 2007 wildfires were underinsured.

Let me be clear: this bill will not cover the full costs of rebuilding.

But it will help close the gap, for qualified households in areas declared by the President to be disaster areas.

Today, FEMA can provide up to roughly $28,000 to individuals and households whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage. This assistance can be used for rebuilding costs, as well as temporary housing.

The Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act would increase this amount to $50,000 for individuals who earn less than $100,000 per year. By increasing the amount of assistance, and targeting the program toward lower-income homeowners, the FEMA Disaster Assistance program will more efficiently help homeowners recover from disasters.

The legislation also gives the President the discretion to increase this cap, if necessary, to cover rebuilding expenses in high-cost states.

I believe this bill will provide an important step toward giving Americans the chance they need to rebuild their lives after suffering through a major disaster.

Catastrophic wildfires are not going away. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests they will occur with greater frequency and ferocity.

But we can take important steps--now--to make our communities safer.

To strengthen our firefighting capabilities.

To ensure that more relief and recovery aid is provided to victims, so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible.

These bills are not a panacea. But they are an important first step. I urge my colleagues to vote for them.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of David S. Kris to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

Mr. Kris was nominated by President Obama on February 11, 2009, to fill this important position. Since then, his

nomination has been considered by the Judiciary Committee and then sequentially by the Intelligence Committee. I had the honor of chairing both of these hearings, so am as familiar with any Member with his record.

Both the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee favorably reported the nomination without dissent.

The position of the Assistant Attorney General for National Security was created in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 out of recognition that there should be a single official in the Department of Justice who is responsible for national security.

The Assistant Attorney General is the bridge between our Nation's intelligence community and the Department of Justice. He or she represents the Government before the FISA Court and is also the Government's chief counterterrorism and counterespionage prosecutor.

David Kris is highly qualified for this critically important national security position.

He has both figuratively and literally ``written the book'' on national security.

Mr. Kris spent 11 years as a prosecutor in the Justice Department, and he knows its national security functions well.

During the Bush administration, he was the Associate Deputy Attorney General for national security, where he litigated national security cases and oversaw intelligence activities. When Congress considered merging the Department's national security functions under a single office, Kris was one of the experts consulted.

After leaving Federal Government service, Mr. Kris remained very active in the field of national security law. He coauthored of the most widely used legal treatise in this area. His book, titled ``National Security Investigations and Prosecutions'', provides a step-by-step analysis of all of the law that governs Government activity in response to terrorist threats.

During the debate last year over rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. Kris spent significant amounts of his personal time meeting with personnel from both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to offer his expertise and judgment.

In addition to his expertise, Kris has received high marks for his commitment to the rule of law. Both committees to consider his nomination received numerous letters of support from distinguished legal and privacy rights officials and experts. Those letters are in the hearing records at both committees.

It is important for the Senate to consider this nomination and confirm Mr. Kris. Simply put, the Department of Justice needs him to get to work.

The Assistant Attorney General position, currently vacant, is the primary official overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act implementation and signs applications going to the FISA Court.

Because of the legislation passed last year, Mr. Kris will need to start immediately to prepare new certifications and supporting materials that the executive branch will have to submit to the FISA Court. As such, he would be the official at the Department of Justice most directly involved in questions of setting minimization and targeting procedures, reviewing the Attorney General's guidelines under the act, and making sure that the intelligence collection is carried out faithfully under the law.

Separately, an Assistant Attorney General should be playing a key role in the executive branch review of how to handle individuals currently held at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Kris has answered numerous questions on this topic during his confirmation hearings and shares my view that there must be an appropriate legal process upholding any decisions to detain individuals. However, he also believes, correctly in my view, that great care must be taken to ensure that anyone at Guantanamo who is transferred to other nations must not be allowed to pose a continuing threat to our national security.

I am pleased that this nomination has finally reached the floor, and I urge the confirmation of David Kris.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to reintroduce legislation to enable hundreds of former Santa Susana Field Laboratory Workers or their survivors to receive compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances.

Specifically, the Santa Susana Fair Compensation Act would provide a special status designation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act to Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees, so they can receive the benefits they deserve.

In addition, the bill would extend the ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contract employees, or atomic weapons employees who worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2009.

This revision would ensure that the Act's benefits are available to any of those workers who developed a radiation-linked cancer due to their employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

This bill fulfills the intent of Congress when it approved the act, providing compensation and care for nuclear program workers who suffered severe health problems caused by on-the-job exposure to radiation.

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is a 2,849-acre facility located about 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

During the Cold War, it was used for the development and testing of nuclear reactors and powerful rockets, including those used in America's space and ballistic missile programs.

Sadly, many workers of the Cold War era were exposed to radiation on a regular basis. But claims for compensation are hampered by incomplete and inaccurate records.

Some records show only estimated levels of exposure for workers, and are imprecise. In other cases, if records were kept, they cannot be found today.

Many Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no protective equipment--like respirators, gloves, or body suits--was provided to workers.

More than 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers, but only a small fraction have been approved. A lack of documentation, or inability to prove exposure thresholds, has hindered hundreds of claims that may well be legitimate. And, for some lab workers and their families, it is impossible to reconstruct exposure scenarios due to records having been destroyed.

Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families now face the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed more than 40 years ago, in most cases with little or no documentation.

The case of my constituent, Betty Reo, provides an example of why this legislation is necessary.

Ms. Reo's husband, Cosmo Reo, worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory as an instrumentation mechanic from April 18, 1957 until May 17, 1960.

Cosmo worked in the rocket testing pits and was exposed to hydrazine, trichlorithylene, and other cancer-causing chemicals which attack the lungs, bladder and kidneys.

Cosmo died of renal failure in 1980. Ms. Reo applied for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. She has been trying to reconstruct the exposure scenarios under which her husband worked, but without adequate documentation she has been repeatedly denied benefits.

This bill would help people like Betty Reo, people who lack the documentation necessary to prove their cases, and those who worked in any of the four areas of the Santa Susana site.

I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting these injustices and cutting through the ``red tape'' that prevents Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers, and their families, from receiving fair compensation.

For many, such as Ms. Reo, time is running out. We can no longer afford to delay, and this bill provides a straightforward solution to fix a broken system.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to reintroduce legislation to enable hundreds of former Santa Susana Field Laboratory Workers or their survivors to receive compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances.

Specifically, the Santa Susana Fair Compensation Act would provide a special status designation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act to Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees, so they can receive the benefits they deserve.

In addition, the bill would extend the ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contract employees, or atomic weapons employees who worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2009.

This revision would ensure that the Act's benefits are available to any of those workers who developed a radiation-linked cancer due to their employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

This bill fulfills the intent of Congress when it approved the act, providing compensation and care for nuclear program workers who suffered severe health problems caused by on-the-job exposure to radiation.

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is a 2,849-acre facility located about 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

During the Cold War, it was used for the development and testing of nuclear reactors and powerful rockets, including those used in America's space and ballistic missile programs.

Sadly, many workers of the Cold War era were exposed to radiation on a regular basis. But claims for compensation are hampered by incomplete and inaccurate records.

Some records show only estimated levels of exposure for workers, and are imprecise. In other cases, if records were kept, they cannot be found today.

Many Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no protective equipment--like respirators, gloves, or body suits--was provided to workers.

More than 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers, but only a small fraction have been approved. A lack of documentation, or inability to prove exposure thresholds, has hindered hundreds of claims that may well be legitimate. And, for some lab workers and their families, it is impossible to reconstruct exposure scenarios due to records having been destroyed.

Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families now face the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed more than 40 years ago, in most cases with little or no documentation.

The case of my constituent, Betty Reo, provides an example of why this legislation is necessary.

Ms. Reo's husband, Cosmo Reo, worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory as an instrumentation mechanic from April 18, 1957 until May 17, 1960.

Cosmo worked in the rocket testing pits and was exposed to hydrazine, trichlorithylene, and other cancer-causing chemicals which attack the lungs, bladder and kidneys.

Cosmo died of renal failure in 1980. Ms. Reo applied for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. She has been trying to reconstruct the exposure scenarios under which her husband worked, but without adequate documentation she has been repeatedly denied benefits.

This bill would help people like Betty Reo, people who lack the documentation necessary to prove their cases, and those who worked in any of the four areas of the Santa Susana site.

I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting these injustices and cutting through the ``red tape'' that prevents Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers, and their families, from receiving fair compensation.

For many, such as Ms. Reo, time is running out. We can no longer afford to delay, and this bill provides a straightforward solution to fix a broken system.

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

Madam President, I thank the manager of the bill.

The Coburn amendment would destroy a court-approved settlement of an 18-year legal battle involving the release of water from the Friant Dam, from which 15,000 farmers get their water over the restoration of salmon in the San Joaquin Valley. The agreement is agreed upon by the Governor of California, the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, the water contractors. It has a broad consensus. The reason is because the belief is--and my belief is--that the Federal Government has lost the case and, therefore, the judge would order a huge release of water from this dam which would provide a lack of certainty for the farmers and would not provide for the salmon restoration.

The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has argued against the settlement agreement--court approved--by saying its goal is 500 fish. Its goal is not 500 fish; it is 30,000. It is to restore a historic salmon fishery.

Secondly, under the settlement, the State of California relieves the Federal Government of a number of payments: $200 million from the State, and the water contractors pick up another $200 million, equaling $400 million, which the Federal Government would have had to have paid.

So this is a court settlement. It should stand. It is the right thing. I urge a no vote on the Coburn amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Mr. President. I understand that we are on the Kirk nomination; however, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the lands bill.

Mr. President, the Senate will have before it a series of amendments to the lands bill made by Senator Coburn. I rise to oppose specifically two of these amendments, amendment No. 683 and amendment No. 675, and I do so on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer.

These amendments would essentially throw out a legal settlement agreement concerning the restoration of the San Joaquin River. The settlement agreement ends 18 years of costly litigation. It is the product of 4 years of negotiation by the Bush administration, the State of California, dozens of water agencies, the Friant water users--it affects Friant, and Friant is a Division of the Central Valley Project and 15,000 farmers draw their water from this Division; it is big, it is important, it is critical--and by environmental and fishing groups.

This was a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the Federal Government saying that what was happening at Friant Dam was not sufficient in the release of water to protect the salmon.

I wish to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks a letter by the Governor of the State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, supporting the settlement agreement, and a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice supporting the settlement agreement. I also commend to my colleagues a Congressional Research Service Memorandum entitled ``Institutional and Economic Context of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement,'' spelling out the institutional and economic context of this settlement agreement.

Thank you very much.

So we have broad and strong support for the settlement agreement. Now, the question is, Why do we have it? The reason we have it is because it is my understanding that the Government has lost the case, and the result is that with or without the settlement, a Federal court will require restoration of the San Joaquin River. According to all of the parties, the court could--and we believe would--order a huge release of water from Friant Dam, negatively impacting the 15,000 farms in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project.

In contrast, the settlement agreement allows orderly restoration of the river, with minimized impacts to irrigated agricultural and municipal water users. It provides negotiated flood control and other protections for private landowners. It represents a sensible and hard- fought consensus solution. I know, because these parties came to me and asked me if I would sit down with all of the parties and try to put together this settlement agreement, and we did, in fact, do this. It is virtually supported by all of these elements.

Also, the settlement would be far less costly to the taxpayers than returning to court and having the end result of having a Federal judge manage the river. That is what the alternative is. Here is why: The settlement provides almost $400 million in non-Federal funds, so what would have had to have been funded by the Federal taxpayers will be lowered. Effectively, the costs are lowered to Federal taxpayers. The affected water districts have agreed to help fund the settlement with approximately $200 million. The State of California will provide another $200 million. If the Coburn amendment is successful and this is dropped from the bill, the Federal Government will have to pay an additional $400 million and face the fact that the judge could well order a huge release of water, not staggered to any particular time, in no orderly manner, which could have tremendous adverse impacts on the farming community.

The settlement also minimizes economic costs to the region by providing water supply certainty for users, but without the settlement water users in Friant could face more severe water losses and potentially millions of dollars of lost income and lost jobs. As I say, this is 15,000 separate farming entities, so that is unacceptable.

Critics have argued that this provision is wasteful spending and that it would cost millions of dollars for every fish restored. But the facts prove them wrong. To get the number the critics use, they assume that only 500 fish will ever be restored; that is, salmon, instead of the 30,000 salmon that will eventually return to the river each year as a self-sustaining fishery. They ignore all the other benefits of the settlement.

According to the Congressional Research Service analysis I have referenced, it is ``misleading'' to disregard the ``full array of likely project costs and benefits,'' including ``the values that Californians and U.S. citizens place on improvements in environmental quality and restored runs of salmon.''

The bottom line: The settlement offers the best possible solution to a longstanding water fight in my State. I do not believe there is anything wasteful about it. Remember, this suit has gone on for 18 years. I have talked with every one of the parties. They have all come together asking for a settlement agreement, including the Federal Government, the State of California, and actually the environmental group that sued, the NRDC, because they believe that if left to the judge, the action might be very adverse in terms of large amounts of water, rather than being staggered and done in a more sensible way, would be detrimental to the Friant farmers as well as, quite possibly, to the fish.

The other problematic amendment offered by Senator Coburn is amendment No. 675 which would remove the Government's eminent domain authority for the public lands omnibus bill, including the San Joaquin River settlement title of the lands bill.

Now, to be candid, none of us like the use of eminent domain. In the 9 years I was mayor, I refused to use eminent domain in San Francisco and, in fact, never did. But Senator Coburn's amendment ignores the basic reality that the use of eminent domain is sometimes necessary to carry out western water projects that are vital for an entire region because the water comes from one place, the State is vast, and it has to be moved to other places, and the public benefit of moving that water is enormous in the seventh largest economy on Earth.

These water projects need to have the use of eminent domain as a last resort for building water projects and flood channels on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. Otherwise, the Government clearly is not going to be able to build water conduits, water projects, and flood control elements where they are most needed. That may be different in small States, but in huge States such as California, where the water comes primarily either from the very north of the State, the Sierra Nevada mountain range, or the Colorado River--where we are being weaned off of the Colorado River, and have an

agreement to dramatically cut our take of water from the Colorado River--we have to have the conveyances to move the water around the State.

Private landowners also receive the benefit of upgraded flood protections and bypasses around key diversion points, so that fish are not diverted along with irrigation supplies. This is a very sensitive, very problematic area. It has taken a lot of work to know how to do this. The Federal Government could not build these flood and bypass measures to benefit third party landowners without the ability to acquire land through eminent domain. That is just a fact.

There is a great need for water projects in my State. If we don't move, I believe California will end up a desert State. We are faced with high wildfire potential, with warming climates, and reduced water. We are in the third year of a drought.

Mr. President, you might be interested in knowing that for the big Central Valley of California, which makes California the No. 1 agricultural producer in America, most of that valley's water allocation from the Central Valley Project for this year is zero, which means fallowing, which means cutting out trees and crops. So we are in a very sensitive situation.

I urge the Senate to vote no on these Coburn amendments. I think it is very easy to come in and second-guess a situation and not know anything about 18 years of litigation and the fact that the Government is going to lose the case and having to try to work out a settlement, which gets the best for all of the parties concerned. I believe we have done it, and it has taken hours and hours of negotiation.

This has been approved by this body once. To remove the bill and the eminent domain authority from the lands bill would be tragic. Again, the Federal Government would have to pick up the costs the State of California is willing to pay under this settlement--$200 million--and the cost these water contractors are willing to provide--$200 million-- and do the whole job itself, which is going to cost an additional $400 million.

These amendments are in no way, shape, or form, cost effective, and they will hamstring California's effort to solve what is an egregious problem, and that is an increasingly drying State, which is in drought almost on a perpetual basis and is trying to solve its problems.

On behalf of Senator Boxer and I, I urge a ``no'' vote on both of these amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time not count against the time allocated for the Kirk nomination.

I thank the Chair.

Exhibit 1

State Capitol,

Sacramento, CA, May 5, 2008.

Hon. Dianne Feinstein,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Feinstein: As Congress again considers

legislation needed to implement the Settlement Agreement

reached to restore the San Joaquin River, I write to

reiterate my support of your leadership in this matter and to

urge Congress to act now to take advantage of this historic

opportunity. Restoring the San Joaquin River will provide

vital benefits to the environment, to the people of the San

Joaquin Valley, and to all Californians. I remain confident

that this settlement can be implemented to provide these

important benefits while minimizing impacts to the Friant

water users and preserving the regional economy.

The state of California has already committed substantial

funding to support the settlement effort. In November 2006,

California voters approved Proposition 84, the Water Quality,

Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection

Bond, which earmarks $100 million to support San Joaquin

River restoration. Other bond funds are available to provide

flood management improvements and to support regional water

supply reliability projects. Moreover, I have directed my

Administration to pursue all available opportunities to

contribute to the dual restoration and water management goals

of the Settlement Agreement.

Thank you again for your leadership to secure the passage

of the necessary legislation to advance the restoration of

the San Joaquin River. Please know that my Administration

remains committed to this important effort and we look

forward to continuing our work with the federal government on

this significant restoration program.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger,

Governor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported Ethanol Parity Act of 2009.

This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Bingaman, Collins, Cantwell and Martinez.

First, let me explain what this bill does.

The Imported Ethanol Parity Act instructs the President to lower the secondary ethanol import tariff, so that tariffs on ethanol are no higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline.

This would restore parity between the real tariff faced by imported gasoline and ethanol, which currently compete.

This legislation is necessary because last year's Farm Bill shifted the function of ethanol tariffs.

Historically, there has been relative parity between ethanol subsidies and ethanol tariffs. The tariffs served to ``offset'' domestic subsidies for ethanol use, thereby preventing imported ethanol from benefiting from domestic subsidies.

But after passage of the Farm Bill, these tariffs began to serve as a real barrier to trade.

The Farm Bill maintained the primary 2.5 percent tariff and extended the secondary tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, creating a combined tariff of $0.56 to $0.59 per gallon, depending on the sale price. But the Farm Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy that these tariffs are intended to offset to $0.45 per gallon.

This disparity means that an ethanol importer pays more tariff than he gets back in subsidy, and parity has been lost.

Specifically, an ethanol importer pays $0.11 to $0.14 per gallon of tariff to the U.S. Treasury that he never gets back from the ethanol subsidy.

Ethanol is therefore disadvantaged when it competes directly with other imported transportation fuels, such as gasoline and diesel.

It increases the cost of gasoline in the United States by making ethanol more expensive.

It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane. Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.

It taxes imported transportation fuel from our friends in Brazil, India, and Australia, while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax free.

It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices.

It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3 percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must diversify supply.

Bottom Line: Until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices.

This legislation responds to the Tariff's defenders.

In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill which would have eliminated the tariff.

The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders.

The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon secondary tariff on ethanol imports have always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to offset the blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, whether produced domestically or internationally.

They argue that the ethanol subsidy exists to support American farmers who produce ethanol at higher cost than foreign producers. For instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol operates as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both domestically produced and imported ethanol.''

On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''

In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated that the blender tax credit is available to refiners regardless of whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a tariff.

In 2008, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry but the U.S. taxpayer.''

I ask tariff advocates to either support this legislation or explain how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed to offset.

Bottom Line: Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to overcome a trade barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face. The tariffs cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.56-$0.59 per gallon if its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy, and it should be reduced.

Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less expensive for the United States to combat global warming.

Here is how: the fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of the greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. In California, it accounts for 40 percent of all of our emissions. To reduce this impact, we need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself.

For this reason, in the 110th Congress I introduced the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in 2020.

This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in which Congress requires oil companies to use an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least 50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.

Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of transportation fuel.

The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel requirements under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the energy content in corn ethanol, is renewable. The rest is primarily natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process.

The most recent research compiled by the California Air Resources Board concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of imported sugar based ethanol are 73 percent lower than gasoline, while the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol from the Midwest are 31 percent lower than gasoline.

Even when land use change is factored in, the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil is the single least emitting fuel option available for today's vehicles. It is only surpassed on an emissions basis by electric and fuel cell cars, which are unfortunately at least a few years away from widespread adoption.

Biofuels that protect our planet may be produced abroad, and we should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, if we import crude oil and gasoline tariff free.

This legislation accomplishes two goals: it corrects the Farm Bill's mistaken policy that imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate friendly ethanol imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive advantage over cleaner fuel that simply should not exist at a time we are trying to combat climate change.

It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff.

I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass this legislation.

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