|
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:
- Why
Congress should conduct a full inquiry into whether there were
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;
- Why
the Energy Bill being considered by the Senate fails to address
the most urgent energy issues facing our nation; and
- Why
Californians should refuse to sign the recall petition against
Governor Davis.
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.
|
|
|
