From Senator Dianne Feinstein
Friday, June 20, 2003
Welcome to the latest edition of my e-mail newsletter. I hope this internet publication will help keep interested Californians informed about the important issues facing our State and our Nation and provide you with details on the latest developments in the U.S. Senate.
In this edition, I am addressing several issues that have been in the news on the international, national and California fronts:
But first I would
like to return to a subject that I also believe to be immensely important:
Reauthorizing
the Assault Weapons Ban
July 1 is the 10th anniversary of the day Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-9 assault pistols. Within minutes, Ferri had murdered 8 people, and wounded 6 others.
This tragedy shook San Francisco, and the entire nation.
In
the aftermath of this shooting and other killing sprees, Congress finally banned
the manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons.
Contrary
to the rhetoric coming from the NRA, no innocent gun owner lost an assault weapon.
No gun has been confiscated as a result of the ban. And life went on - but it
went on with fewer grievance killers, juveniles, and drive-by shooters having
access to the most dangerous of firearms.
But
now the 1994 law will expire on September 13, 2004 unless Congress votes to
extend it.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and I have sponsored legislation that makes the
ban permanent and also closes a loophole that has allowed more than 50 million
large capacity ammunition clips to be approved for importation into this country
over the last 8 years.
It
is these large clips, drums, and strips that allow lone gunmen, or small groups
of teenagers, to inflict so much damage in such a small amount of time.
Some may say the current law doesn't go far enough -- and frankly I agree with
them. But in an environment where the NRA has such a stranglehold on gun legislation,
we will need all the help we can get just to maintain the current ban.
So, if you believe, as I do, that these weapons have no place on America's streets,
please contact the White House and urge the President to use his very persuasive
powers to convince members of his party in Congress to keep the ban in place.
You can also contact your own representatives in Congress and the Congressional
Leadership, especially Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Minority Leader Tom
Daschle, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and House Democratic Leader Nancy
Pelosi and urge them to support the ban.
I cannot overemphasize how important this fight is, for our own safety and for
future generations. Together, we can make a difference.
The following links will help you reach out to Congress:
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/
IRAQ and
the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
Serious questions have been raised about whether Iraq possessed stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and whether U.S. intelligence accurately analyzed
the threat.
In order to get to the bottom of this, I believe Congress should launch a full inquiry to determine if there was an intelligence failure, and, if so, to recommend steps to prevent a reoccurrence.
U.S. forces have
been scouring Iraq, but thus far have not found significant evidence of either
Weapons of Mass Destruction or an Iraqi WMD program.
As a member
of the Senate Select Committee on intelligence, I believe it is critical that
we learn whether these weapons were in Iraq and whether Iraq's capabilities
posed an imminent threat to the United States.
If, in fact, there were stockpiles of these weapons, the longer it takes to discover what happened, the more likely it is that they could fall into the wrong hands or contaminate the country.
But if there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then we must examine why the intelligence reports presented to Congress, along with statements by the President and other members of the Administration to the nation and the world, indicated there were.
A substantial number of Senators decided to vote to authorize use of force, including myself, because of the arguments that were put forward by the Administration about the intelligence that was presented to us.
Were these judgments flawed or real? Those of us in an oversight capacity of the intelligence community need to know if there was a serious intelligence failure at the heart of these judgments. And, if so, steps must be taken to ensure such an intelligence failure does not happen again.
Our nation's credibility
with the world is also at issue - and that is why I support a full inquiry.
The Energy Bill - A Misguided Approach to America's Energy Challenges
Few issues facing our country are as important as energy. How do we reduce greenhouse
gases and combat global warming? How do we protect our environment while ensuring
that our growing energy needs are met? How do we ensure that the energy markets
are more transparent to prevent another crisis like we experienced in California?
These and other urgent questions are being debated on the floor of the Senate
- and the debate is likely to last through the summer and even into the fall.
I believe that the Energy Bill presents a misguided approach to a myriad of
energy challenges.
I have recently offered a series of amendments to bring greater balance and
accountability to America's energy policies and plan to bring in others during
the continuing debate.
Closing
the SUV Loophole
Senator Olympia Snow (R-Maine) and I have introduced legislation that would
require SUVs and light duty trucks to meet the same fuel economy standards as
passenger cars by 2011. Simply put, this legislation is the single most important
step the United States can take to limit dependence on foreign oil and better
protect our environment. If implemented, this amendment would:
- Save the United States 1 million barrels of oil a day;
- Reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil imports by 10 percent;
- Prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide [the number one greenhouse
gas and biggest single cause of global warming] from entering the atmosphere
each year; and
- Save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline
costs.
Fuel economy standards were first established in 1975, when light trucks made
up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road. Today, our roads look
much different - SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new
car sales.
As a result, the fuel economy of our nation's fleet is the lowest it has been
in two decades - largely because fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks
are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles. The amendment
we will offer would change that - SUVs and other light duty trucks would have
to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2011 that passenger cars meet
today.
The Bush Administration has already increased fuel economy standards to 22.2
miles per gallon by 2007 - a modest increase of 1.5 gallons over three years.
This is a welcome step, but we can - and must - do more.
That is why when debate resumes on the Energy Bill, Senator Snowe and I will
seek to amend the bill with this legislation.
Statement on Public Citizen Report Urging an Increase in Fuel Efficiency:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-suv-publiccitizen.htm
New York Times editorial supporting Feinstein-Snowe legislation to increase
fuel efficience of SUVs:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/nytsuv.htm
The Need for Oversight in Energy Trading
Three years ago, California's energy market spiraled out of control, triggering
blackouts up and down the state and forcing families and businesses to pay far
more for electricity. The crisis forced the State of California into a severe
budget shortfall. It forced the state's largest utility into bankruptcy and
nearly bankrupted the second-largest utility. Now three years and $45 billion
in costs later, we have learned how the energy markets in California were gamed
and abused.
According to an investigation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
abuse in our energy markets was pervasive and unlawful. The collapse of Enron,
the disclosure of wash trades by numerous energy trading companies, and the
lack of transparency in the energy trading sector collectively underscores the
need for more regulation of energy trading.
Yet this Energy Bill does not prevent another energy crisis, nor does it curb
illegal Enron-type manipulation, which is why I offered the "Energy Market
Oversight Amendment" to establish basic ground rules for such trading.
The amendment did not pass, but I will continue to push ahead with similar legislation
when the Senate continues debate on the Energy Bill in July.
Statement on Findings of Widespread Fraud and Manipulation in California's Energy
Crisis:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-ferc-10.htm
Senators Feinstein, Fitzgerald, Harkin, Lugar, Cantwell, Wyden, Leahy Introduce
Legislation to Establish Strong Federal Oversight Over Energy Markets:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-derivatives03.htm
The Federal Government Should Not Subsidize Nuclear Energy
Questions about nuclear safety and waste disposal make Californians very apprehensive
about nuclear power. In fact, our State has shifted away from nuclear power
over the years and residents in communities surrounding the Diablo Canyon and
San Onofre plants continue to express concerns about the safety of the remaining
reactors in California. I deeply share this concern.
Nuclear power is expensive and risky, yet I believe that if private investors
are not willing to put their own money on the line to support new nuclear plants,
then the Federal government should not put taxpayers' money at risk either.
Under the nuclear subsidy provision in this Energy Bill, however, taxpayers
would be required to subsidize up to 50 percent of construction costs of new
nuclear plants - costs estimated to be in about $15 billion dollars.
I strongly believe it is NOT in the public interest to subsidize costly nuclear
plants. Instead we should devote more resources to the development of renewable
power like solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass, instead of providing subsidies
to an industry that has not built a new power plant in decades.
Statement Opposing
Federal Subsidies for Constructing New Nuclear Plants:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-nuclear.htm
Protecting our Coastal Resources
We Californians are all too familiar with the consequences of off-shore drilling.
An oil spill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed thousands of birds,
as well as dolphins, seals, and other animals. We know this could happen again.
In
1982, the U.S. Congress passed a moratorium on new offshore leases on the California
coast, and soon after, similar restrictions were in place for coastal areas
along New England, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest.
Yet this long-established position of the federal government is threatened by
this Energy Bill, which requires a new inventory of all of the Outer Continental
Shelf resources and a study of "impediments to production." This is
little more than a backhanded effort to exert political pressure on states like
California and Florida to give up fighting offshore drilling and to create political
momentum to lift the moratoria -- something I will fiercely resist
If
we ignore the implications for moratorium areas, the inventory itself threatens
precious coastal resources with invasive technologies. The coastal states have
made it clear that they oppose this oil development, and I believe the states'
views should be respected.
A healthy
coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Ocean-dependent
industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion to our state each year. In 1991,
the California Department of Parks and Recreation found that almost 70% of Californians
participated in beach activities, and 25% did some saltwater fishing. Californians
know what is at stake, and we have made an informed decision. We do not want
more drilling off our coast.
Senators Feinstein,
Graham, and 25 Colleagues Urge Support for an Amendment Protecting the Outer
Continental Shelf
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/section105release11.htm
California Should
Be Able to Opt Out of a National Ethanol Mandate
The Energy Bill would mandate 5 billion gallons of ethanol into our nation's
fuel supply whether or not it is needed to meet clean air standards. This is
terrible public policy, amounting to a wealth transfer of billions of dollars
from every state in the nation to a handful of ethanol producers. It is families
and businesses who will pay the higher costs that result from increased gas
prices.
This is why I offered an amendment on June 3 that would allow states such as
California -- states that do not need ethanol to meet the requirements of the
1990 Clean Air Act - to opt out of the ethanol mandate. Alaska and Hawaii are
already allowed to opt out of the ethanol mandate. Shouldn't other states have
the same flexibility to decide what goes into their gasoline in order to meet
clean air standards?
For California the ethanol mandate will force more ethanol into our fuel supply
than we need to achieve clean air. In fact, the mandate forces California to
use over 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol over eight years that the state does
not need. This is why I will continue to work to see that our state is not subjected
to this egregious policy, both for our environment and to keep our gasoline
prices down.
Senator Feinstein's Amendment Would Give States Ability to Opt-Out of Ethanol
Mandate:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-ethanol03-2nd_degree.htm
Say No to Signing the Recall Petition
Back in California, the news media has been full of stories and speculation
about a possible recall election for Governor. The following is an op-ed I have
sent to newspapers throughout California about why I think this is a bad idea:
Californians Should Not Sign the Recall Petition
An Op-ed
by Senator Dianne Feinstein
May 29, 2003
I urge Californians not
to sign the petition to recall Governor Gray Davis. This effort, I believe,
is misguided and aims to overturn an election held last November. It is an unnecessary
cost to the State and could have unexpected and adverse consequences for the
people of California.
Because of national and international circumstances, California is facing a
very difficult economic crisis. We need to focus our attention on fixing our
public schools, boosting public safety and ensuring we do not face another electricity
crisis or a water shortage in the future.
All our energy should be devoted to working together in a bipartisan manner
to solve the challenges confronting our State.
Tough decisions need to be made. We don't need the distraction of a mean-spirited
recall that will only divide our State further and make finding solutions that
much more difficult.
This recall is also a waste of money - an estimated $25 to $35 million - at
a time when the State should devote its precious financial resources to solving
the budget deficit and providing the residents and businesses of California
with the services they expect and deserve.
I believe a recall election can be appropriate when serious malfeasance and
corruption is found. But I don't believe it is right to overturn the results
of an election simply because of political differences.
Another consequence is that if the recall succeeds, and if there are several
candidates to replace the Governor, one of them could win with only a small
percentage of the vote.
This could result in a fringe candidate - either right or left - winning the
election with only 10 or 15 percent of the vote. What kind of mandate does this
give the new Governor to move a program through the Legislature?
Thirty-one recall drives have been launched against sitting California Governors
in the past. All have failed. In fact, every Governor since Pat Brown has encountered
signature gatherers trying to force a recall election.
But let's
say this one is different - and the 897,158 valid signatures of registered voters
are collected (12 % of the vote in the November Governor's election) by the
September 2 deadline.
Will this benefit our State?
What happens if the Governor is recalled and those who have launched the current
campaign don't like who wins? Will there be another recall?
For all our sakes, I hope we don't go down this road. Too much is at stake.
So, don't sign that recall petition.
FEEDBACK FROM YOU
Finally, as part of an ongoing process regarding this newsletter and my website generally, I would appreciate feedback on how you think things can be improved or if there are other ways in which I can better communicate with my constituents.
Please send any thoughts you have by logging onto to http://feinstein.senate.gov/contact.html
Best wishes,
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein