Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Adoptive Family Relief Act, which would provide support and relief to American families seeking to bring their adoptive children from the Democratic Republic of Congo home to the U.S. It would also provide relief to similarly situated adoptive families should barriers arise in other countries in the future. I thank my colleagues, Senators Ron Johnson, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Amy Klobuchar, Barbara Boxer, and Bob Corker for joining me as original cosponsors. Within the past few years, over 350 American families have successfully adopted children from the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, since September 25, 2013, they have not been able to bring their adoptive children home to the United States because the Democratic Republic of Congo suspended the issuance of ``exit permits'' for these children until its parliament passes new laws regarding international adoption. These exit permits are necessary for adopted children to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo and be united with their American families in the U.S. As the permit suspension drags on, however, American families are repeatedly paying visa renewal and related fees, while also continuing to be separated from their adopted kids. The Adoptive Families Relief Act would grant flexibility to the United States Department of State to waive immigrant visa renewal fees for adoptive American parents in extraordinary circumstances like this, where the cause of delay is due to factors not in the control of the child or parents. The Department of State is fully supportive of this legislation and is eager to provide some relief to the many families who are affected. Under current law, adopted children from abroad must secure U.S. immigrant visas in order to travel to the United States to unite with their adoptive parents. However, these visas expire after 6 months. Ordinarily, such visas are used within the allotted 6 months. However, in rare circumstances, such as the suspension of exit permits in the Democratic Republic of Congo, adopted children are prohibited from leaving their country of birth and cannot use their U.S.-issued visas within the prescribed timeframe. Adoptive parents consequently pay $325 in visa renewal fees every 6 months if they want to preserve the validity of their adopted child's visa to travel to the U.S. To renew the visa, the child must also complete another medical exam, which costs the child's adoptive family approximately $200. Many families from across the country have already paid for at least three visas, which amounts to $975 per child, plus costs for medical exams. Additionally, many families are also paying monthly childcare or foster care fees, and some families have adopted more than one child. So, in addition to the emotional stress of being separated from their adoptive children, American parents face a financial burden while the situation goes unresolved. This bill would not change any of the substantive requirements for issuance of a renewed visa, such as necessary medical exams and background checks. It simply allows the Department of State to waive the visa renewal fee to alleviate the financial burden imposed on American families to renew their child's visa, and reimburses those who have already renewed their child's visa since the exit permit suspension. The Department of State does not anticipate this waiver authority to be used broadly based on its past experiences and its other adoption programs abroad. The bill would not be a financial burden on the United States. According to the State Department, once the initial visa, which the parents must pay for, is issued, the subsequent work for consular officers involved with renewing a visa is relatively quick and simple. The work involved to renew the visa therefore does not amount to the full cost of the visa renewal fee, so the State Department maintains it would not impact its consular resources. This legislation builds on the efforts of other members who have tried to resolve the Democratic Republic of Congo's exit permit suspension in various ways. Last April, 171 Members of Congress sent a letter to Democratic Republic of Congo President Joseph Kabila asking for his intervention. In June of 2014, 167 Members of Congress also sent a letter to President Obama requesting his outreach to President Kabila to resolve this situation. Members of Congress sent a letter to the Democratic Republic of Congo Parliament offering technical assistance on October 28, 2014, and the Senate passed S. Res. 502 in the 113th Congress, concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo's suspension of exit permits for Congolese adopted children. This year, the Senate passed an amendment to promote the return of legally adopted children from the Democratic Republic of Congo. My Senate colleagues and our staff have met with our constituents directly affected by the Democratic Republic of Congo's exit permit suspension, and heard their call for help. Furthermore, I, and other Senators, have also had individual meetings with Congolese Ambassador to the U.S., Faida Mitifu. However, since the exit permit suspension continues despite these efforts, it is imperative to bring some relief to our American adoptive parents. While we continue to urge the Democratic Republic of Congo to lift its exit permit suspension, I urge my colleagues to pass the Adoptive Family Relief Act to provide some relief to American families caught powerless in this difficult situation. Should other adoptive parents face similar obstacles in the future with their adoption process in other countries, this bill will also serve as a source of relief to them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Adoptive Family Relief Act, which would provide support and relief to American families seeking to bring their adoptive children from the Democratic Republic of Congo home to the U.S. It would also provide relief to similarly situated adoptive families should barriers arise in other countries in the future. I thank my colleagues, Senators Ron Johnson, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Amy Klobuchar, Barbara Boxer, and Bob Corker for joining me as original cosponsors. Within the past few years, over 350 American families have successfully adopted children from the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, since September 25, 2013, they have not been able to bring their adoptive children home to the United States because the Democratic Republic of Congo suspended the issuance of ``exit permits'' for these children until its parliament passes new laws regarding international adoption. These exit permits are necessary for adopted children to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo and be united with their American families in the U.S. As the permit suspension drags on, however, American families are repeatedly paying visa renewal and related fees, while also continuing to be separated from their adopted kids. The Adoptive Families Relief Act would grant flexibility to the United States Department of State to waive immigrant visa renewal fees for adoptive American parents in extraordinary circumstances like this, where the cause of delay is due to factors not in the control of the child or parents. The Department of State is fully supportive of this legislation and is eager to provide some relief to the many families who are affected. Under current law, adopted children from abroad must secure U.S. immigrant visas in order to travel to the United States to unite with their adoptive parents. However, these visas expire after 6 months. Ordinarily, such visas are used within the allotted 6 months. However, in rare circumstances, such as the suspension of exit permits in the Democratic Republic of Congo, adopted children are prohibited from leaving their country of birth and cannot use their U.S.-issued visas within the prescribed timeframe. Adoptive parents consequently pay $325 in visa renewal fees every 6 months if they want to preserve the validity of their adopted child's visa to travel to the U.S. To renew the visa, the child must also complete another medical exam, which costs the child's adoptive family approximately $200. Many families from across the country have already paid for at least three visas, which amounts to $975 per child, plus costs for medical exams. Additionally, many families are also paying monthly childcare or foster care fees, and some families have adopted more than one child. So, in addition to the emotional stress of being separated from their adoptive children, American parents face a financial burden while the situation goes unresolved. This bill would not change any of the substantive requirements for issuance of a renewed visa, such as necessary medical exams and background checks. It simply allows the Department of State to waive the visa renewal fee to alleviate the financial burden imposed on American families to renew their child's visa, and reimburses those who have already renewed their child's visa since the exit permit suspension. The Department of State does not anticipate this waiver authority to be used broadly based on its past experiences and its other adoption programs abroad. The bill would not be a financial burden on the United States. According to the State Department, once the initial visa, which the parents must pay for, is issued, the subsequent work for consular officers involved with renewing a visa is relatively quick and simple. The work involved to renew the visa therefore does not amount to the full cost of the visa renewal fee, so the State Department maintains it would not impact its consular resources. This legislation builds on the efforts of other members who have tried to resolve the Democratic Republic of Congo's exit permit suspension in various ways. Last April, 171 Members of Congress sent a letter to Democratic Republic of Congo President Joseph Kabila asking for his intervention. In June of 2014, 167 Members of Congress also sent a letter to President Obama requesting his outreach to President Kabila to resolve this situation. Members of Congress sent a letter to the Democratic Republic of Congo Parliament offering technical assistance on October 28, 2014, and the Senate passed S. Res. 502 in the 113th Congress, concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo's suspension of exit permits for Congolese adopted children. This year, the Senate passed an amendment to promote the return of legally adopted children from the Democratic Republic of Congo. My Senate colleagues and our staff have met with our constituents directly affected by the Democratic Republic of Congo's exit permit suspension, and heard their call for help. Furthermore, I, and other Senators, have also had individual meetings with Congolese Ambassador to the U.S., Faida Mitifu. However, since the exit permit suspension continues despite these efforts, it is imperative to bring some relief to our American adoptive parents. While we continue to urge the Democratic Republic of Congo to lift its exit permit suspension, I urge my colleagues to pass the Adoptive Family Relief Act to provide some relief to American families caught powerless in this difficult situation. Should other adoptive parents face similar obstacles in the future with their adoption process in other countries, this bill will also serve as a source of relief to them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I intend to vote for this bill because it provides appropriate congressional review of a tremendously important executive agreement that is now being negotiated by the world's major powers and Iran. First of all, I want to point out that a final agreement with Iran would not be a treaty. It would be an executive agreement which follows agreements in the past going back at least until 1972. In 1972, President Nixon signed the Shanghai Communique, which reestablished relations with China. In 1975, the Ford administration signed the Helsinki Final Act, which eased tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In 1986, at Reykjavik, Iceland, President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev discussed the possibility of complete nuclear disarmament. Even though no agreement was made, Reykjavik laid the groundwork for the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The next year, in 1987, the Reagan administration established the Missile Technology Control Regime. To this day it helps restrict the proliferation of nuclear-capable missiles and related technology. In 2013, the United States and Russia came together and disarmed Syria of its most lethal chemical weapons. Like a potential deal with Iran on its nuclear program, these examples are not treaties and did not require formal ratification by the Senate. That said, I don't believe there has been an agreement in recent memory that has been as difficult or as complicated as the P5+1 negotiations. Perhaps more than any other single subject in the 22 years I have been in the Senate, there has never been more secure briefings--both for the leadership of national security committees and the entire Senate--as we have received on the negotiations with Iran. This constant engagement with Congress has created an opportunity for us to get involved in a constructive manner. The elected representatives of this country should have an opportunity to weigh-in on and review this agreement. Several bills have been offered by the Banking Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, but I believe the bill that was negotiated by Senators Corker and Cardin is an appropriate mechanism for Congress to review any agreement with Iran. What this legislation is about is an agreement preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Nothing else. To put other issues on this bill jeopardizes the agreement taking shape between the United States, Russia, Germany, China, France, and the U.K. And that is because the only thing discussed in the negotiation has been a nuclear agreement. Rather than adding extra issues, we should be evaluating the final agreement as it comes together over the coming months. The bottom line is that this bill--as currently written--does not interfere with the ongoing negotiations. Adding extra issues at this time, no matter how important they may be, could derail diplomacy. As such, I will oppose them. If a final agreement is reached, the bill requires Congress to review it within 30 days. If Members wish to prevent implementation of the agreement, the bill requires two-thirds of the Senate to vote in favor of a resolution of disapproval. The bill's requirement of an overwhelming majority to disapprove provides significant deference to the President, which is entirely appropriate. If an overwhelming majority of the Congress stands in opposition to an agreement, there is a high likelihood that the agreement will not work regardless of passage, since Congress would likely not vote to lift sanctions-- something that has to be factored in to any long-term agreement. I would like to speak briefly on the framework agreement announced on April 2, 2015. In my view it is strong and deserves to be supported. For me, the technical assessment of Energy Secretary Moniz is critical. Secretary Moniz is an extremely distinguished nuclear physicist and a man I deeply respect. According to Secretary Moniz, the framework blocks Iran's four possible pathways to a nuclear weapon. Those are the plutonium pathway through the Arak heavy water reactor, the uranium pathway through the Natanz facility, the uranium pathway through the Fordow facility, and the covert pathway, where Iran enriches nuclear material for a weapon in secret. When each of these pathways is explained in detail, the strength of the framework is apparent. First, the agreement requires Iran to redesign the Arak heavy water reactor, making it impossible to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Iran will be required to ship the reactor's spent fuel abroad for the life of the reactor; prohibited from building another heavy water reactor, and indefinitely barred from researching the critical technologies needed to build a plutonium weapon. Under the framework, Iran will be prevented from developing a plutonium bomb forever. Second, with regard to the Fordow facility, Iran will not be able to store nuclear material or conduct any enrichment-related research and development at the site. Only 1,000 of Iran's least efficient centrifuges will remain in the facility, about a third of what it has today. And they will not be used to enrich uranium. The facility, set deep in a mountainside, will become a nuclear medical research center, not a proliferation risk. Third, with regard to Natanz, Iran will operate no more than 5,060 of its first-generation centrifuges, and it will enrich uranium far short of weapons grade. As Secretary Moniz has said, not only are the 5,060 centrifuges a stark decrease from their current inventory of nearly 20,000, but they are Iran's oldest and least capable model. Iran will place its more-advanced and more-capable second-generation centrifuges in storage under IAEA seal and supervision. Natanz will be the only location where Iran is permitted to enrich uranium, and solely for peaceful purposes. Further, Iran will not be able to stockpile much of the material it can enrich at Natanz. Iran will only retain 300 kilograms of uranium gas enriched to 3.67 percent. That is a fraction of the nearly 10,000 kilograms of near-5 percent enriched uranium it has today. Finally, the framework agreement blocks Iran's covert pathway to a nuclear weapon. The framework requires unprecedented inspection of all of Iran's nuclear facilities, including suspect sites. In addition, Secretary Moniz notes that this access applies to ``the full uranium supply chain, from mines to centrifuge manufacturing and operation.'' Having eyes on Iran's entire supply chain makes it impossible for Iran to breakout using covert facilities. For instance, if uranium cannot be accounted for or if centrifuges go missing, the onus will be on Iran to explain what happened. If it cannot do so, sanctions can-- and will--be reimposed. Iran will also be required to implement the Additional Protocol and Modified Code 3.1, which forever increase Iran's obligations to provide access to all of its nuclear sites anywhere in the country. The combination of strict limits on Iran's nuclear program and highly intrusive inspections will extend Iran's breakout time--that is the time it would need to develop enough nuclear material for one nuclear weapon--from the estimated 2 to 3 months today to a year. Under the framework, the international community will know if Iran attempts to skirt its obligations and will have sufficient time to respond. If the P5+1 nations and Iran reach a final accord that reflects the framework agreement, Iran will be blocked from developing a nuclear weapon. In addition to this important goal, an agreement could possibly reopen Iran to the world. It could provide Iran an opportunity to decrease its destabilizing activities in the region. A deal could potentially lead Iran to drop its financial and military support for Hezbollah and other proxies. Perhaps more importantly, the nuclear deal could open the door to soliciting the help of Iran and Russia on an intractable and to date unsolvable issue: ending the Syrian civil war. The regime, backed by Iran, of Bashar al-Assad has killed more than 200,000 of its own people and continues to commit war crimes with chemical weapons. Besides the sheer magnitude of the death toll, the manner in which Assad has killed so many--through the continued use of chemical weapons, barrel bombs, and even starvation--is abhorrent. Further engagement with Iran could also aid our efforts to rid Iraq and Syria of ISIL and its grotesque campaign of terror. It is far from certain that Iran will change its behavior, but it is far more likely with a nuclear deal than without. Without an agreement, the likelihood of a major military confrontation in the Middle East--as well as more chaos and instability--increases dramatically. This is to no one's benefit. Without an agreement, Iran's nuclear program would be unconstrained, directly jeopardizing the security of our partners and allies in the region, including Israel. Mr. President, I intend to vote for this bill so that a comprehensive agreement with Iran will be strengthened by congressional review. It is my hope that this bill does not become a vehicle to scrap a verifiable agreement capable of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The coming months will bear that out.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the budget resolution conference report that we are considering today. In my view, this is the worst budget resolution that I have seen in my 22 years in the Senate. It represents a major step backwards for the country, and I believe we need to go back to the drawing board. Budget resolutions are as much about priorities as they are about numbers, and I believe this budget resolution sets all the wrong priorities. At a time when millions of families are still struggling to recover from the recession, this budget would raise their taxes while cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, who have only gotten wealthier in recent years. The budget calls for the elimination of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which would raise taxes by an average of $900 on 13 million working families. Yet, at the same time, the budget would eliminate the estate tax, which is only paid by 5,400 families each year who inherit estates worth more than $10 million. Let me repeat that: this budget calls for raising taxes on 13 million low-income families in order to pay for tax cuts for the 5,400 wealthiest families, representing the richest 0.2 percent of our country. Prioritizing the rich over struggling families is at the heart of what is wrong with this budget. In addition, this budget calls for dramatic funding cuts for the very Federal programs that these working families rely on most. Nationwide, the cuts required by this budget would: prevent 35,000 low-income children from enrolling in Head Start, an early childhood education program; cut Federal funding for public schools that serve more than 1.9 million low-income students; increase the cost of college for more than 8 million low-income students through cuts to Pell grants; prevent 2.2 million Americans from accessing job training services; and eliminate health coverage through Medicaid for 14 million low-income Americans. In my view, these cuts are draconian and wholly unnecessary. I also believe that these cuts would only further exacerbate income inequality and economic hopelessness, the very forces that have been fueling unrest throughout the country. The events in Baltimore that have been broadcast across the Nation in recent weeks are not only a response to years of police brutality, but also the result of whole neighborhoods being left behind economically. As a former big-city mayor, I remember a time when there was robust Federal and State support for cities to redevelop depressed neighborhoods and provide educational and employment opportunities for their citizens. That priority no longer exists, certainly not in the austere funding levels of this budget. Instead, we have seen a total abandonment of our cities over the past three decades. When I was mayor of San Francisco, the Community Development Block Grant program, CDBG, was the primary source of Federal funding to help State and local governments undertake housing, economic development, and neighborhood revitalization projects. During my time at city hall, CDBG funds peaked at $3.7 billion, which would be the equivalent of $10.6 billion in inflation-adjusted 2014 dollars. In 2014, Congress provided only $3.023 billion for CDBG, just 28 percent of that peak inflation-adjusted amount. For my city, when CDBG was at its prime, it meant we had around $28 million per year to use for police, fire departments, and economic development projects. Under the funding levels in this GOP budget, San Francisco would be slated to receive only around $16 million a year, just 20 percent of what I had when adjusting for inflation. If you care about our cities and the problems facing them, these are the dollars that can really make a difference. They work; I have seen it. Yet, they would simply not be there under this budget. At the same time, many States, including California, have cut funding for local redevelopment projects, further straining local government funding for economic development and neighborhood revitalization. Now, I recognize Congress can't solve all of the country's problems, and pouring money into cities will not cure all of their ills. But I believe the central role of the Federal Government should be to expand opportunities for the people who need it most, not those who have already succeeded in life. This budget doesn't do that. Not only does this budget not help working families, it would actually make their situation even worse. This budget would take away the healthcare of the most vulnerable, make it even harder for Americans to find a job, deny our Nation's youth the opportunity to learn, and raise taxes on those who can least afford it. The Republican priorities reflected in this budget are morally wrong and terrible for our country's future. It is time to develop a budget that helps all Americans, not just the wealthy few.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for American flower growers, having submitted a resolution designating Mother's Day, May 10, 2015, as a special day to honor the role that domestically grown flowers play in the ability of Americans to honor their mothers. This resolution is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer and Lisa Murkowski. Americans truly care about where the goods they purchase and the foods they eat are produced. They have a strong desire to support their local economies and help their communities thrive. And purchasing agricultural products grown in our country supports American farmers. American-grown agricultural products are often fresher and last longer than imports because they are not shipped as far as products grown abroad. This is also the case for American-grown flowers. The majority of Americans would prefer to buy more locally grown flowers if given the choice, yet only one out of every five flowers sold in the United States is grown in the country. Every State has access to domestically grown flowers, but three- quarters of Americans do not know where the flowers they purchase are grown. American-grown flowers create almost $42 million in economic impact per day. These flowers not only support the flower growers but also the 16,000 florists and floral establishments across the country that sell them. Many of these growers and florists run small businesses that are critical to our Nation's economic strength. They create jobs and contribute to the economy of their respective communities. These businesses produce flowers that provide a beautiful and elegant way for Americans to show affection for their family members and loved ones. The popularity of American-grown flowers is increasing, and I am pleased to see that the White House is involved in promoting American- grown flowers as well. Last year, the First Lady highlighted the beauty of domestic flowers by displaying a number of varieties at the only State Dinner of the year. The dinner featured flowers from Mississippi, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, and, I am proud to say, California. California is the largest cut flower producer in the Nation. The State grows more than 116 types of flowers, including roses, irises, lilies, tulips, and gerbera. At my home in San Francisco, I maintain a garden filled with many of the flowers and plants that flourish across California. My garden has beautiful magnolias, azaleas, pansies, and dahlias. I also have drought-resistant gazanias, which is more important than ever given the severe water shortage in the State. When you give someone a California-grown flower, it was most likely harvested within the last 48 hours. I am delighted that my State is home to the flowers that help Americans show their loved ones how much they care. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring American-grown flowers this Mother's Day. I hope that this resolution will remind consumers about how they can support local farmers when they shop for flowers this Mother's Day.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 4 more years. Without Congressional action, this important and effective way of raising additional funds for critical research will expire at the end of this year. These stamps are sold for a little more than the cost of first class postage, so customers can choose to donate in a simple and easy way. Since 1998, more than 986 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold, raising over $80.4 million for breast cancer research. The funds have gone to support breast cancer research at both the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Department of Defense. For example, the National Institutes of Health has used proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp to fund the Maternal Pregnancy Factors and Breast Cancer Risk Study. This study was designed to identify possible connections between various conditions during pregnancy and breast cancer risk. After comparing information from women who delivered babies and were later diagnosed with breast cancer to women who delivered babies and were not diagnosed with breast cancer, researchers found that factors like preeclampsia or carrying twins may increase cancer risk. Knowing these risk factors helps both doctors and patients be vigilant about early screening. Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more breast cancer patients are becoming survivors. Nearly all patients with breast cancer caught in the early stages now survive. That is incredible, and a testament to how important this research has been. Though despite our great successes, the need for continued research and improved screening and treatments remains high. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the U.S. and the second leading cause of cancer deaths. One in eight women will be diagnosed, and more than 40,000 die from the disease each year. Though male breast cancer is less common, an estimated 2,350 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp provides a simple, convenient way for Americans to contribute toward this vitally important research. It also provides a symbol of hope for those affected by this disease. I thank Senator Enzi for joining me to support this bipartisan legislation and urge my colleagues to join us and ensure the stamp continues for another 4 years. This bill is supported by organizations including: the American Association of Cancer Research, AACR, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ACS CAN, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ACOG, American College of Surgeons, Are You Defense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Center for Women Policy Studies, Susan G. Komen, and the Tigerlily Foundation. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 4 more years. Without Congressional action, this important and effective way of raising additional funds for critical research will expire at the end of this year. These stamps are sold for a little more than the cost of first class postage, so customers can choose to donate in a simple and easy way. Since 1998, more than 986 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold, raising over $80.4 million for breast cancer research. The funds have gone to support breast cancer research at both the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Department of Defense. For example, the National Institutes of Health has used proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp to fund the Maternal Pregnancy Factors and Breast Cancer Risk Study. This study was designed to identify possible connections between various conditions during pregnancy and breast cancer risk. After comparing information from women who delivered babies and were later diagnosed with breast cancer to women who delivered babies and were not diagnosed with breast cancer, researchers found that factors like preeclampsia or carrying twins may increase cancer risk. Knowing these risk factors helps both doctors and patients be vigilant about early screening. Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more breast cancer patients are becoming survivors. Nearly all patients with breast cancer caught in the early stages now survive. That is incredible, and a testament to how important this research has been. Though despite our great successes, the need for continued research and improved screening and treatments remains high. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the U.S. and the second leading cause of cancer deaths. One in eight women will be diagnosed, and more than 40,000 die from the disease each year. Though male breast cancer is less common, an estimated 2,350 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp provides a simple, convenient way for Americans to contribute toward this vitally important research. It also provides a symbol of hope for those affected by this disease. I thank Senator Enzi for joining me to support this bipartisan legislation and urge my colleagues to join us and ensure the stamp continues for another 4 years. This bill is supported by organizations including: the American Association of Cancer Research, AACR, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ACS CAN, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ACOG, American College of Surgeons, Are You Defense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Center for Women Policy Studies, Susan G. Komen, and the Tigerlily Foundation. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about Loretta Lynch. While she should have been confirmed as Attorney General months ago, I want to make the following points: Her qualifications are sterling. Her education, her experience as a U.S. attorney under two Presidents, as well as her accomplishments are unassailable. I have never seen a nominee in my 22 years handle a confirmation hearing with such poise and answer questions with such command. During her hearing, I said Loretta Lynch was a combination of steel and velvet, and that, to me, sums her up perfectly. I met with her prior to her hearing and was deeply impressed. I reviewed her stellar record and found her to be a firm yet fair prosecutor--as a matter of fact, probably the prosecutor in one of the toughest districts--the Eastern District of New York--that exists in America. Having led this very large and important U.S. Attorney's Office under two Presidents, she is a proven leader and she also knows how to bring people together to get the job done. I think that is important. Let me just talk about national security. The Eastern District of New York, where Ms. Lynch served as U.S. attorney, has led the Nation in terrorism convictions among all U.S. Attorney Offices since 2001. She has overseen these cases. The six individuals connected to Najibullah Zazi, who was part of an Al Qaeda plot and planned to set off bombs on the New York subway system; Rezwanul Nafis, who attempted to use a weapon of mass destruction against the New York Federal Reserve Bank; four individuals, including Russell Defreitas, who plotted to attack JFK Airport; an individual who tried to go to Yemen to join Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; and two individuals who allegedly were members of Al Qaeda and attacked U.S. military forces overseas. In February, her office announced that three individuals had been charged with attempting and conspiring to provide material support to ISIL. Two were planning to fly to Syria to join ISIL. The third was arrested while boarding a flight to Turkey at JFK. Her office has also charged 11 individuals, alleging that they illegally worked to secure more than $50 million in high-tech equipment for Russian military and intelligence agencies. At her confirmation hearing, Lynch emphasized the importance of the government having the ``full panoply of investigative tools and techniques to deal with the ever-evolving threat of terrorism.'' In sum, I am confident she is going to be a very strong voice leading the Justice Department on issues of national security. I can only say I think, as those of us on the Intelligence Committee see--and the Presiding Officer is one of them--this becomes more important every day. Her experience is just as deep on domestic issues. As U.S. attorney for a major urban district, she clearly understands the importance of protecting us from gangs and organized crime, issues that are front and center in my home State of California. Her work in this area shows she understands local and international criminal organizations. In the last year, under her leadership, three individuals connected to a major organized crime family pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy. A gang leader was found responsible, after a five-week trial, ``for six murders, two attempted murder[s], armed robberies, murder-for-hire, narcotics, distribution, and gambling on dog fighting.'' Another gang leader was convicted and sentenced to 37 years in prison for ordering the murder of two individuals, one of whom was believed to be associated with a rival gang. Three individuals in a New York cell of an international cybercrime organization were also convicted on charges stemming from cyberattacks that resulted in $45 million in losses. She has also made combatting human trafficking a priority. Over the last decade, her office's anti-trafficking program has indicted more than 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases and rescued more than 110 victims of sex trafficking, including more than 20 minors. Simply put, Loretta Lynch has been on the frontlines in investigating and prosecuting a range of perpetrators, and I believe she will continue that work as Attorney General. I would be remiss if I did not express my extreme disappointment in the delay over Ms. Lynch's confirmation. We have before us a nominee with impeccable credentials to serve as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. During her confirmation, Senator Leahy asked a panel of witnesses who were pro and supposedly con to raise their hands if they opposed her. Not a single witness raised their hand. To me, that spoke volumes. Even Republicans who will vote against her because they disagree with the President praise her credentials and personal qualifications. But despite all of that, the Senate subjected her to, I think, an inexcusable delay. It is particularly sensitive because this would be the first African-American woman as Attorney General in the history of the United States. If you look at race relations today and the impartial and important role that the Department of Justice plays, it seems to me that her appointment may well be the most important possible appointment at this particular point in time. Her nomination has been pending for 56 days on the floor. That is more than twice as long as the seven most recent Attorneys General combined. So, hopefully, it is done now. I recognize the other side will say they could not move the nomination because of the trafficking bill or for some other reason. But the fact remains that, historically, we customarily move back and forth between executive and legislative business. We could have done that here as well. We have confirmed district judges, we have confirmed individuals who serve in various other executive capacities, including subcabinet positions. So we could have easily considered the nominee for one of the most important posts in this government. Let me conclude with this. I regret that a vote on her nomination cannot be unanimous. I hope it will be close to that. I do not think that will be possible. She is that good. She deserves a unanimous vote. She is as fine as I have seen in my time in the Senate. Senator Durbin remarked in committee that her confirmation will be a truly momentous occasion for the Senate and for our Nation. He said this should be a ``solemn, important, and historic moment for America.'' I truly believe he was right. I truly believe this is an uncommon nominee at an uncommon time who can display a tremendous will, drive, motivation, and sense of justice as our U.S. Attorney General. I am very honored to cast my vote in favor of her nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the Democratic sponsor of this amendment, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his leadership on this issue. The fact is, this amendment is essentially the same as the House stand-alone bill that passed unanimously. Members, it is a fact that approximately 76 percent of sex trafficking of underage girls takes place on the Internet--76 percent. We know at least 19 Web sites that post ads for commercial sex acts with children. They are paid for so doing. The amendment essentially does two things. It adds the word ``advertises'' as one of the sex trafficking offense verbs. Second, it clarifies that only the ``knowing'' intent and not the ``reckless disregard of the fact'' intent applies to the new offense. We have checked with the Department of Justice. We believe it meets constitutional standards. We believe it is necessary and is long overdue. I urge an ``aye'' vote of all Members.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the use of personal care products is virtually universal in this country. These products include everything from shampoo and hair dye to deodorant and lotion. Troubling examples of negative health effects call into question the safety of some of the chemicals used in these products. For example, methylene glycol, which turns into formaldehyde when heated, is a chemical in the popular hair smoothing treatment known as the ``Brazilian Blowout''. Short term exposure has been reported to cause hair loss, rashes, blistered scalps, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, shortness of breath and vomiting. Over the long term, exposure is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Some ingredients in cosmetics may only be safe for use in certain concentrations. Propyl paraben, a widely used preservative, is found in many products and mimics the hormone estrogen. This has the potential to disrupt the endocrine system, which can lead to a variety of health concerns such as reproductive system disorders. In light of this and other examples, consumers deserve to know that the products they use every day are safe. To do this, Federal oversight of the personal care products industry needs to be strengthened. Europe has a robust system of oversight for personal care products, including consumer protections like product registration and ingredient reviews, but in the United States, the industry is regulated largely on a voluntary basis, with a sparse patchwork of state regulations. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has little authority, operating under a Federal law from the 1930s that has seen little change since. Consumers rightly expect that basic protective measures to ensure the safety of personal care product ingredients are in place, but the reality is that FDA doesn't even have mandatory recall authority for products that pose significant harm to human health. I have been working with consumer groups, companies and FDA to put together a bipartisan, middle of the road bill to update the regulatory structure for personal care products, provide a streamlined national system of oversight and accountability, and review the safety of specific chemicals in these products. I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Collins, for working with me in this effort. Today we are introducing the Personal Care Products Safety Act, a comprehensive step forward. The bill, which is the result of feedback we received from a wide range of stakeholders, addresses consumer safety concerns and provides a modernized, predictable and straightforward system of compliance for companies. The Personal Care Products Safety Act will, for the first time, enable the public to know which companies, whether they are American or foreign, are producing and distributing personal care products through a registration system operated by FDA. Companies will provide information about the ingredients in their products and attest to their safety. This updated system will be supported by user fees paid by the industry. Under this legislation, FDA will review at least five chemical ingredients per year for their safety and appropriate use in personal care products. In determining which ingredients to evaluate and their safety, many factors must be considered, including how prevalent the ingredient is, the likely exposure, adverse event reports, and scientific studies from a wide range of sources. The first set of chemicals for review includes: diazolidinyl urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotion; lead acetate, which is used as a color additive in hair dyes; methylene glycol/ formaldehyde, which is used in hair treatments; propyl paraben, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion; quaternium-15, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers. FDA may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or conditions. FDA will also be empowered to require warning labels on products with certain ingredients, as appropriate, and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in certain products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting. The structure of the legislation encourages, and relies on, public input. There are many opportunities built in for consumer groups, companies, medical professionals, scientists and the public to weigh in with feedback on the ingredients that should be prioritized for review and scientific information that FDA should consider regarding the safety of those ingredients. FDA is required to provide a yearly update to Congress and the public on its progress in reviewing these ingredients and the new oversight system. Many companies follow strict voluntary standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the current lack of a Federal standard leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, FDA sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies meet a minimum standard. Companies will also need to report adverse health events related to their products to FDA. As more consumers choose to shop online, it is of growing importance that they have access to the same product information they would see in a store. This bill requires all personal care products sold online to include information that is on the label. Consumers will be able to see all ingredients listed, along with any product warnings and other important information on use. We also take steps to reduce animal testing in personal care products, and direct FDA to encourage the use of alternatives and provide specific guidance to companies on non-animal testing methods that are seen as acceptable. This legislation is the product of many different groups working together. I am pleased to have the support of the Personal Care Products Council, which represents over 600 companies, Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, HealthyWomen, and National Alliance for Hispanic Health. These individual companies have also stepped forward to independently support the bill: Johnson & Johnson, brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson's baby products; Procter & Gamble, brands include Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Ivory, CoverGirl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon; Revlon, brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum; Esteee Lauder, brands include Esteee Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors; Unilever, brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond's, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree; L'Oreeal, brands include L'Oreeal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl's, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in supporting this effort to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and to cosponsor the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the use of personal care products is virtually universal in this country. These products include everything from shampoo and hair dye to deodorant and lotion. Troubling examples of negative health effects call into question the safety of some of the chemicals used in these products. For example, methylene glycol, which turns into formaldehyde when heated, is a chemical in the popular hair smoothing treatment known as the ``Brazilian Blowout''. Short term exposure has been reported to cause hair loss, rashes, blistered scalps, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, shortness of breath and vomiting. Over the long term, exposure is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Some ingredients in cosmetics may only be safe for use in certain concentrations. Propyl paraben, a widely used preservative, is found in many products and mimics the hormone estrogen. This has the potential to disrupt the endocrine system, which can lead to a variety of health concerns such as reproductive system disorders. In light of this and other examples, consumers deserve to know that the products they use every day are safe. To do this, Federal oversight of the personal care products industry needs to be strengthened. Europe has a robust system of oversight for personal care products, including consumer protections like product registration and ingredient reviews, but in the United States, the industry is regulated largely on a voluntary basis, with a sparse patchwork of state regulations. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has little authority, operating under a Federal law from the 1930s that has seen little change since. Consumers rightly expect that basic protective measures to ensure the safety of personal care product ingredients are in place, but the reality is that FDA doesn't even have mandatory recall authority for products that pose significant harm to human health. I have been working with consumer groups, companies and FDA to put together a bipartisan, middle of the road bill to update the regulatory structure for personal care products, provide a streamlined national system of oversight and accountability, and review the safety of specific chemicals in these products. I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Collins, for working with me in this effort. Today we are introducing the Personal Care Products Safety Act, a comprehensive step forward. The bill, which is the result of feedback we received from a wide range of stakeholders, addresses consumer safety concerns and provides a modernized, predictable and straightforward system of compliance for companies. The Personal Care Products Safety Act will, for the first time, enable the public to know which companies, whether they are American or foreign, are producing and distributing personal care products through a registration system operated by FDA. Companies will provide information about the ingredients in their products and attest to their safety. This updated system will be supported by user fees paid by the industry. Under this legislation, FDA will review at least five chemical ingredients per year for their safety and appropriate use in personal care products. In determining which ingredients to evaluate and their safety, many factors must be considered, including how prevalent the ingredient is, the likely exposure, adverse event reports, and scientific studies from a wide range of sources. The first set of chemicals for review includes: diazolidinyl urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotion; lead acetate, which is used as a color additive in hair dyes; methylene glycol/ formaldehyde, which is used in hair treatments; propyl paraben, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion; quaternium-15, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers. FDA may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or conditions. FDA will also be empowered to require warning labels on products with certain ingredients, as appropriate, and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in certain products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting. The structure of the legislation encourages, and relies on, public input. There are many opportunities built in for consumer groups, companies, medical professionals, scientists and the public to weigh in with feedback on the ingredients that should be prioritized for review and scientific information that FDA should consider regarding the safety of those ingredients. FDA is required to provide a yearly update to Congress and the public on its progress in reviewing these ingredients and the new oversight system. Many companies follow strict voluntary standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the current lack of a Federal standard leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, FDA sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies meet a minimum standard. Companies will also need to report adverse health events related to their products to FDA. As more consumers choose to shop online, it is of growing importance that they have access to the same product information they would see in a store. This bill requires all personal care products sold online to include information that is on the label. Consumers will be able to see all ingredients listed, along with any product warnings and other important information on use. We also take steps to reduce animal testing in personal care products, and direct FDA to encourage the use of alternatives and provide specific guidance to companies on non-animal testing methods that are seen as acceptable. This legislation is the product of many different groups working together. I am pleased to have the support of the Personal Care Products Council, which represents over 600 companies, Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, HealthyWomen, and National Alliance for Hispanic Health. These individual companies have also stepped forward to independently support the bill: Johnson & Johnson, brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson's baby products; Procter & Gamble, brands include Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Ivory, CoverGirl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon; Revlon, brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum; Esteee Lauder, brands include Esteee Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors; Unilever, brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond's, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree; L'Oreeal, brands include L'Oreeal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl's, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in supporting this effort to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and to cosponsor the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Positive Train Control, a crash-avoidance rail safety system that can automatically stop trains in order to prevent impending collisions. The Senate Commerce Committee recently voted to advance a bill that would give railroads a 5-to-7 year extension of the deadline to implement this life-saving technology. In my view, a blanket extension is disastrous policy. Fortunately, the members of the Commerce Committee have signaled their willingness to consider improvements to this bill, and today I rise to offer such an improvement. This legislation, the Positive Train Control Safety Act, would provide a reasonable extension for the implementation of positive train control until 2018, on a case-by-case, year-by-year basis, for any railroad whose implementation plans were delayed by factors outside of their control. This provision mirrors language that already passed the Senate in 2012 as part of the transportation reauthorization bill with overwhelming support. It is a measured, realistic response to the delayed implementation we have witnessed. Overall, this bill strives to hold the railroads to their safety commitments. To understand the importance of PTC, we must revisit a terrible tragedy in my State of California, near Chatsworth. In 2008, a Los Angeles Metrolink commuter train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train, killing 25 people and injuring 135 more. Testimony from the victims who survived the crash paint a gruesome picture of the aftermath. ``Severed limbs were strewn all about and blood was pooled everywhere.'' Victims' bodies, many torn to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage. One passenger described coming across a man who had been crushed by an air vent: ``His mangled legs were all I could see, but his cries for help were very loud. Eventually he must have died, as he was calling out for his mother and then no more sounds. [. . .] I was trying to decide if I would die by fire or suffocation of smoke.'' Many victims suffered traumatic brain injuries and those sitting at tables suffered ``horrible abdominal injuries that cannot be medically resolved.'' As the National Transportation Safety Board found in its investigation, this terrible tragedy could have been prevented if the Positive Train Control technology had been in place. Positive Train Control is a system for automatic train safety, which was originally recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board in 1970. Using GPS and wireless technology, Positive Train Control can automatically put the brakes on trains about to collide or derail. Positive Train Control can monitor trains and stop them if they enter the wrong track or are about to run red lights. In the Metrolink crash, it was later determined that the engineer was texting, causing him to miss a red signal and cause the deadly collision. PTC could have prevented this, as it could have forced the train to stop before running onto the same track as the oncoming freight train. This horrific accident became a rallying cry for Congress, which responded by passing the Rail Safety Improvement Act in 2008. This legislation mandated the widespread installation of PTC by the end of 2015. The railroad industry has fought PTC from start. Now, as the deadline rapidly approaches, railroads are again lobbying hard to delay installation. Many have not even begun installing PTC in any form-- something that is particularly disturbing to me. After its terrible accident, Metrolink in California has shown great leadership and plans to be the first railroad to be fully certified. Metrolink is on track do so by the federally-mandated deadline of December 31, 2015. Several other railroad companies in California are also on track to begin using PTC this year, in demonstration mode, on the path to final certification. These include the North County Transit District in San Diego and Caltrain in the Bay Area. In addition, new passenger rail services in California plan to operate with PTC from the first moment that they come on-line, including the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit line in 2016 and the first High Speed Rail segment in 2022. California is committed to safe and efficient rail. I believe my State demonstrates that railroads around the country can and should be expected to implement Positive Train Control as soon as is feasible, without unnecessary delay. The bill that the Senate Commerce Committee recently voted to advance is a no-strings-attached bill that would extend by 5 years the deadline by which PTC must be implemented. On top of that, it offers railroads an optional extension of an additional 2 years on a case-by-case basis. Extending the deadline through until the outset of 2023. Effectively, this is just kicking the can down road once more. I am deeply concerned about this blanket extension. First, it rewards those that have chosen delay over action. More troubling, it could have deadly consequences for Americans across the country. It has been 7 years since the collision at Chatsworth claimed 25 lives, and 45 years since the National Transportation Safety Board first recommended a system like Positive Train Control. Unnecessary delay is simply not acceptable. This is why I am introducing this bill today. I believe it will incentivize railroads to install PTC as quickly as possible. My bill allows case-by-case, single-year extensions through 2018 for railroads that have demonstrated good faith efforts to implement PTC. It also instructs the Department of Transportation to only grant extensions if the Secretary determines that a railroad's efforts to implement PTC were delayed due to circumstances beyond their control. In addition, the bill offers a number of other common-sense provisions relating to Positive Train Control requirements and railroad safety. These provisions reflect the lessons we have learned since the Rail Safety Improvement Act first required the implementation of PTC 6\1/2\ years ago. These provisions include bolstering the transparency of railroads' implementation efforts, by requiring regular status reports; and ensuring trains carrying crude oil or ethanol run on tracks with PTC. The provision requires better coordination between the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to ensure adequate wireless communications availability. Requiring the Department of Transportation to evaluate the effectiveness of PTC at grade crossings. Improving opportunities for railroad employees to report safety deficiencies. Protecting employees in rail work zones. Improving inspection practices on commuter railroads. Riding our rails should not be a dangerous activity. It doesn't have to be. If we have the technology to prevent collisions, we must use it. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Positive Train Control, a crash-avoidance rail safety system that can automatically stop trains in order to prevent impending collisions. The Senate Commerce Committee recently voted to advance a bill that would give railroads a 5-to-7 year extension of the deadline to implement this life-saving technology. In my view, a blanket extension is disastrous policy. Fortunately, the members of the Commerce Committee have signaled their willingness to consider improvements to this bill, and today I rise to offer such an improvement. This legislation, the Positive Train Control Safety Act, would provide a reasonable extension for the implementation of positive train control until 2018, on a case-by-case, year-by-year basis, for any railroad whose implementation plans were delayed by factors outside of their control. This provision mirrors language that already passed the Senate in 2012 as part of the transportation reauthorization bill with overwhelming support. It is a measured, realistic response to the delayed implementation we have witnessed. Overall, this bill strives to hold the railroads to their safety commitments. To understand the importance of PTC, we must revisit a terrible tragedy in my State of California, near Chatsworth. In 2008, a Los Angeles Metrolink commuter train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train, killing 25 people and injuring 135 more. Testimony from the victims who survived the crash paint a gruesome picture of the aftermath. ``Severed limbs were strewn all about and blood was pooled everywhere.'' Victims' bodies, many torn to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage. One passenger described coming across a man who had been crushed by an air vent: ``His mangled legs were all I could see, but his cries for help were very loud. Eventually he must have died, as he was calling out for his mother and then no more sounds. [. . .] I was trying to decide if I would die by fire or suffocation of smoke.'' Many victims suffered traumatic brain injuries and those sitting at tables suffered ``horrible abdominal injuries that cannot be medically resolved.'' As the National Transportation Safety Board found in its investigation, this terrible tragedy could have been prevented if the Positive Train Control technology had been in place. Positive Train Control is a system for automatic train safety, which was originally recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board in 1970. Using GPS and wireless technology, Positive Train Control can automatically put the brakes on trains about to collide or derail. Positive Train Control can monitor trains and stop them if they enter the wrong track or are about to run red lights. In the Metrolink crash, it was later determined that the engineer was texting, causing him to miss a red signal and cause the deadly collision. PTC could have prevented this, as it could have forced the train to stop before running onto the same track as the oncoming freight train. This horrific accident became a rallying cry for Congress, which responded by passing the Rail Safety Improvement Act in 2008. This legislation mandated the widespread installation of PTC by the end of 2015. The railroad industry has fought PTC from start. Now, as the deadline rapidly approaches, railroads are again lobbying hard to delay installation. Many have not even begun installing PTC in any form-- something that is particularly disturbing to me. After its terrible accident, Metrolink in California has shown great leadership and plans to be the first railroad to be fully certified. Metrolink is on track do so by the federally-mandated deadline of December 31, 2015. Several other railroad companies in California are also on track to begin using PTC this year, in demonstration mode, on the path to final certification. These include the North County Transit District in San Diego and Caltrain in the Bay Area. In addition, new passenger rail services in California plan to operate with PTC from the first moment that they come on-line, including the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit line in 2016 and the first High Speed Rail segment in 2022. California is committed to safe and efficient rail. I believe my State demonstrates that railroads around the country can and should be expected to implement Positive Train Control as soon as is feasible, without unnecessary delay. The bill that the Senate Commerce Committee recently voted to advance is a no-strings-attached bill that would extend by 5 years the deadline by which PTC must be implemented. On top of that, it offers railroads an optional extension of an additional 2 years on a case-by-case basis. Extending the deadline through until the outset of 2023. Effectively, this is just kicking the can down road once more. I am deeply concerned about this blanket extension. First, it rewards those that have chosen delay over action. More troubling, it could have deadly consequences for Americans across the country. It has been 7 years since the collision at Chatsworth claimed 25 lives, and 45 years since the National Transportation Safety Board first recommended a system like Positive Train Control. Unnecessary delay is simply not acceptable. This is why I am introducing this bill today. I believe it will incentivize railroads to install PTC as quickly as possible. My bill allows case-by-case, single-year extensions through 2018 for railroads that have demonstrated good faith efforts to implement PTC. It also instructs the Department of Transportation to only grant extensions if the Secretary determines that a railroad's efforts to implement PTC were delayed due to circumstances beyond their control. In addition, the bill offers a number of other common-sense provisions relating to Positive Train Control requirements and railroad safety. These provisions reflect the lessons we have learned since the Rail Safety Improvement Act first required the implementation of PTC 6\1/2\ years ago. These provisions include bolstering the transparency of railroads' implementation efforts, by requiring regular status reports; and ensuring trains carrying crude oil or ethanol run on tracks with PTC. The provision requires better coordination between the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to ensure adequate wireless communications availability. Requiring the Department of Transportation to evaluate the effectiveness of PTC at grade crossings. Improving opportunities for railroad employees to report safety deficiencies. Protecting employees in rail work zones. Improving inspection practices on commuter railroads. Riding our rails should not be a dangerous activity. It doesn't have to be. If we have the technology to prevent collisions, we must use it. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Waste Administration Act, a bill to establish a national nuclear waste policy. This bipartisan legislation, which has been years in the making, is also cosponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell, Lisa Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander. This legislation represents our best attempt to establish a workable, long term nuclear waste policy for the United States, something our Nation lacks today. It does so by implementing the unanimous recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. First, the bill would create a new independent entity, the Nuclear Waste Administration, with the sole purpose of managing nuclear waste. Second, the bill would authorize the siting and construction of two types of waste facilities: permanent repositories for disposal and interim facilities for storage, including a pilot facility prioritizing waste from shut down reactors. Third, the bill creates a consent-based siting process for both storage facilities and repositories, based on other countries' successful efforts. The legislation requires that local, tribal, and State governments must consent to host waste facilities by signing incentive agreements, assuring that waste is only stored in the States and communities that want and welcome it. Fourth, the bill would resume collection of the nuclear waste management fees from nuclear power ratepayers at a rate of \1/10\ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, or about $750 million annually, and would rededicate these revenues to the Nuclear Waste Administration to fund construction of waste facilities. Finally, the legislation ensures the Nuclear Waste Administration will be held accountable for meeting Federal responsibilities and stewarding Federal dollars. The Nuclear Waste Administrator will be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The administration will be overseen by a five-member Nuclear Waste Oversight Board, modeled on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and will have an Inspector General. The administration will collect fees from nuclear utilities to pay for the development of storage and disposal facilities; those fees will be immediately available without appropriation, unless otherwise limited in an appropriations or authorization act. The current balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund, now valued at $32 billion, will be available by appropriation only. Finally, if the agency fails to open a nuclear waste facility by 2025, fees paid by utilities will cease to be collected. The United States has 99 operating commercial nuclear power reactors that supply \1/5\ of our electricity and \3/5\ of our emissions-free power. However, production of this nuclear power has a significant downside: it produces nuclear waste that will take hundreds of thousands of years to decay. Unlike most nuclear nations, the United States has no program to consolidate waste in centralized facilities. Instead, we leave the waste next to operating and shut down reactors sitting in pools of water or in cement and steel dry casks. Today, nearly 74,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is stored at commercial reactor sites. This total grows by about 2,000 metric tons each year. In addition to commercial nuclear waste, we must also address waste generated from having created our nuclear weapons stockpile and from powering our Navy. The byproducts of nuclear energy represent some of the nation's most hazardous materials, but for decades we have failed to find a solution for their safe storage and permanent disposal. Most experts agree that this failure is not a scientific problem or an engineering impossibility; it is a failure of government. Although the Federal Government signed contracts committing to pick up commercial waste beginning in 1998, this waste program has failed to take possession of a single fuel assembly. Our government has not honored its contractual obligations. We are routinely sued, and we routinely lose. So today, the taxpayer is paying power plants to store the waste at reactor sites all over the Nation. This has cost us $4.5 billion so far, and our liability continues to grow each day. The lack of action is estimated to cost taxpayers another $22.6 billion between now and 2065 if the government can start taking possession of waste in 2021. Further delays will only increase these costs. We simply cannot tolerate continued inaction. In January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future completed a 2-year comprehensive study and published unanimous recommendations for fixing our Nation's broken nuclear waste management program. The commission found that the only long-term, technically feasible solution for this waste is to dispose of it in a permanent underground repository. Until such a facility is opened, which will take many decades, spent nuclear fuel will continue to be an expensive, dangerous burden. That is why the commission also recommended that we establish an interim storage facility program to begin consolidating this dangerous waste, in addition to working on a permanent repository. Finally, after studying the experience of all nuclear nations, the commission found that siting these facilities is most likely to succeed if the host States and communities are welcome and willing partners, not adversaries. The commission recommended that we adopt a consent based nuclear facility siting process. Senators Alexander, Murkowski, Cantwell, and I introduce this legislation in order to begin implementing those recommendations, putting us on a dual track toward interim and permanent storage facilities. The bipartisan bill is the product of thoughtful collaboration, building on our work last Congress with Senator Wyden and before that with former Senator Bingaman in the 112th Congress. In my view, one of the most important provisions in this legislation is the pilot program to immediately begin consolidating nuclear waste at safer, more cost-efficient centralized facilities on an interim basis. The legislation will facilitate interim storage of nuclear waste in above-ground canisters called dry casks. These facilities would be located in willing communities, away from population centers, and on thoroughly assessed sites. Some members of Congress argue that we should ignore the need for interim storage sites and instead push forward with a plan to open Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage site. Others argue that we should push forward only with repository plans in new locations. But the debate over Yucca Mountain, a controversial waste repository proposed in the Nevada desert, which lacks State approval, is unlikely to be settled any time soon. I believe the debate over a permanent repository does not need to be settled in order to recognize the need for interim storage. Even if Congress and a future president reverse course and move forward with Yucca Mountain, interim storage facilities would still be an essential component of a badly needed national nuclear waste strategy. By creating interim storage sites, a top recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission, we would begin reducing the federal liability while providing breathing room to site and build a permanent repository. Interim storage facilities are of particular importance for the sites of decommissioned power plants that are maintained solely to store the spent nuclear fuel. In the last fourteen months alone, four nuclear power plants have been taken out of service: the Crystal River plant in Florida, the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin, the San Onofre plant in California, and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont. Until there is an interim storage facility for this waste, these sites will join the likes of Rancho Seco and Humboldt Bay, which stopped operating in the 1980s but continue to store spent nuclear fuel. All told, there are more than 6,500 metric tons of nuclear waste stored at sites that no longer have operating reactors. Interim storage facilities could also provide alternative storage locations in emergency situations, if spent nuclear fuel ever needs to be moved quickly from a reactor site. Both short- and long-term storage programs are vital. Because of the long timeline for permanent facilities, interim storage facilities allow us to achieve significant cost savings for taxpayers and utility ratepayers and finally start the process of securing waste from decommissioned plants by finally removing waste from the sites of decommissioned power plants. One thing is certain: inaction is the most costly and least safe option. Our longstanding stalemate is costly to taxpayers, utility ratepayers and communities that are involuntarily saddled with waste after local nuclear power plants have shut down. It leaves nuclear waste all over the country, stored in all different ways. It is long overdue for the government to honor its obligation to safely dispose of the nation's nuclear waste--and this bipartisan bill is the way to do that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Waste Administration Act, a bill to establish a national nuclear waste policy. This bipartisan legislation, which has been years in the making, is also cosponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell, Lisa Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander. This legislation represents our best attempt to establish a workable, long term nuclear waste policy for the United States, something our Nation lacks today. It does so by implementing the unanimous recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. First, the bill would create a new independent entity, the Nuclear Waste Administration, with the sole purpose of managing nuclear waste. Second, the bill would authorize the siting and construction of two types of waste facilities: permanent repositories for disposal and interim facilities for storage, including a pilot facility prioritizing waste from shut down reactors. Third, the bill creates a consent-based siting process for both storage facilities and repositories, based on other countries' successful efforts. The legislation requires that local, tribal, and State governments must consent to host waste facilities by signing incentive agreements, assuring that waste is only stored in the States and communities that want and welcome it. Fourth, the bill would resume collection of the nuclear waste management fees from nuclear power ratepayers at a rate of \1/10\ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, or about $750 million annually, and would rededicate these revenues to the Nuclear Waste Administration to fund construction of waste facilities. Finally, the legislation ensures the Nuclear Waste Administration will be held accountable for meeting Federal responsibilities and stewarding Federal dollars. The Nuclear Waste Administrator will be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The administration will be overseen by a five-member Nuclear Waste Oversight Board, modeled on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and will have an Inspector General. The administration will collect fees from nuclear utilities to pay for the development of storage and disposal facilities; those fees will be immediately available without appropriation, unless otherwise limited in an appropriations or authorization act. The current balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund, now valued at $32 billion, will be available by appropriation only. Finally, if the agency fails to open a nuclear waste facility by 2025, fees paid by utilities will cease to be collected. The United States has 99 operating commercial nuclear power reactors that supply \1/5\ of our electricity and \3/5\ of our emissions-free power. However, production of this nuclear power has a significant downside: it produces nuclear waste that will take hundreds of thousands of years to decay. Unlike most nuclear nations, the United States has no program to consolidate waste in centralized facilities. Instead, we leave the waste next to operating and shut down reactors sitting in pools of water or in cement and steel dry casks. Today, nearly 74,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is stored at commercial reactor sites. This total grows by about 2,000 metric tons each year. In addition to commercial nuclear waste, we must also address waste generated from having created our nuclear weapons stockpile and from powering our Navy. The byproducts of nuclear energy represent some of the nation's most hazardous materials, but for decades we have failed to find a solution for their safe storage and permanent disposal. Most experts agree that this failure is not a scientific problem or an engineering impossibility; it is a failure of government. Although the Federal Government signed contracts committing to pick up commercial waste beginning in 1998, this waste program has failed to take possession of a single fuel assembly. Our government has not honored its contractual obligations. We are routinely sued, and we routinely lose. So today, the taxpayer is paying power plants to store the waste at reactor sites all over the Nation. This has cost us $4.5 billion so far, and our liability continues to grow each day. The lack of action is estimated to cost taxpayers another $22.6 billion between now and 2065 if the government can start taking possession of waste in 2021. Further delays will only increase these costs. We simply cannot tolerate continued inaction. In January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future completed a 2-year comprehensive study and published unanimous recommendations for fixing our Nation's broken nuclear waste management program. The commission found that the only long-term, technically feasible solution for this waste is to dispose of it in a permanent underground repository. Until such a facility is opened, which will take many decades, spent nuclear fuel will continue to be an expensive, dangerous burden. That is why the commission also recommended that we establish an interim storage facility program to begin consolidating this dangerous waste, in addition to working on a permanent repository. Finally, after studying the experience of all nuclear nations, the commission found that siting these facilities is most likely to succeed if the host States and communities are welcome and willing partners, not adversaries. The commission recommended that we adopt a consent based nuclear facility siting process. Senators Alexander, Murkowski, Cantwell, and I introduce this legislation in order to begin implementing those recommendations, putting us on a dual track toward interim and permanent storage facilities. The bipartisan bill is the product of thoughtful collaboration, building on our work last Congress with Senator Wyden and before that with former Senator Bingaman in the 112th Congress. In my view, one of the most important provisions in this legislation is the pilot program to immediately begin consolidating nuclear waste at safer, more cost-efficient centralized facilities on an interim basis. The legislation will facilitate interim storage of nuclear waste in above-ground canisters called dry casks. These facilities would be located in willing communities, away from population centers, and on thoroughly assessed sites. Some members of Congress argue that we should ignore the need for interim storage sites and instead push forward with a plan to open Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage site. Others argue that we should push forward only with repository plans in new locations. But the debate over Yucca Mountain, a controversial waste repository proposed in the Nevada desert, which lacks State approval, is unlikely to be settled any time soon. I believe the debate over a permanent repository does not need to be settled in order to recognize the need for interim storage. Even if Congress and a future president reverse course and move forward with Yucca Mountain, interim storage facilities would still be an essential component of a badly needed national nuclear waste strategy. By creating interim storage sites, a top recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission, we would begin reducing the federal liability while providing breathing room to site and build a permanent repository. Interim storage facilities are of particular importance for the sites of decommissioned power plants that are maintained solely to store the spent nuclear fuel. In the last fourteen months alone, four nuclear power plants have been taken out of service: the Crystal River plant in Florida, the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin, the San Onofre plant in California, and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont. Until there is an interim storage facility for this waste, these sites will join the likes of Rancho Seco and Humboldt Bay, which stopped operating in the 1980s but continue to store spent nuclear fuel. All told, there are more than 6,500 metric tons of nuclear waste stored at sites that no longer have operating reactors. Interim storage facilities could also provide alternative storage locations in emergency situations, if spent nuclear fuel ever needs to be moved quickly from a reactor site. Both short- and long-term storage programs are vital. Because of the long timeline for permanent facilities, interim storage facilities allow us to achieve significant cost savings for taxpayers and utility ratepayers and finally start the process of securing waste from decommissioned plants by finally removing waste from the sites of decommissioned power plants. One thing is certain: inaction is the most costly and least safe option. Our longstanding stalemate is costly to taxpayers, utility ratepayers and communities that are involuntarily saddled with waste after local nuclear power plants have shut down. It leaves nuclear waste all over the country, stored in all different ways. It is long overdue for the government to honor its obligation to safely dispose of the nation's nuclear waste--and this bipartisan bill is the way to do that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I speak today regarding the introduction of a bill, cosponsored by Senator Boxer, to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with the authority to obligate and expend previously appropriated funds in order to begin construction on critical projects in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego, CA, as well as in Canandaigua, NY. In December of 2014, Congress passed the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which provided $446,800,000 for major construction projects at these Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot spend the money that has already been appropriated and begin construction on these projects because it lacks a separate authorization, which is required by law. The funding provided for the three California projects will be used to make critical, time-sensitive seismic safety corrections to structures in West Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego. These buildings, which include a spinal cord injury clinic, a mental health care facility, and a community living center, are at exceptionally high risk of collapse or suffering severe damage during an earthquake. If a major earthquake struck in proximity to one of these Medical Centers while it was in use by veterans and the Department's employees, there could be numerous injuries and deaths. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there is a greater than 99 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will strike California in the next 30 years. It is important to note that even less severe earthquakes can cause damage to seismically unsafe buildings that result in injuries and deaths. The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services believes that the damage to seismically unfit buildings caused by the magnitude 6.0 earthquake that hit Napa, CA, on August 24, 2014 at 3:20 a.m. would likely have resulted in many more deaths and injuries if it had struck during business hours when these structures were in use. As it was, the earthquake caused over 200 injuries and one fatality. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that a 6.0 magnitude earthquake hits California every 1.2 years on average. This is a terrifying figure, and it is why I strongly believe that Congress must enact this legislation without delay. I appreciate that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee worked extremely hard to pass important legislation last year to address the veterans' health care access crisis and that it, therefore, did not report a construction authorization bill. However, in the case of these four projects, the money has already been appropriated and is available for expenditure as soon as an authorization is forthcoming from Congress. More hearings and delays are unnecessary to determine whether the Senate should pass this legislation. The Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings with the Department on these projects in 2014 as it reviewed the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget Request. The Committee marked up and reported the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill in a bipartisan fashion. Congress voted in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill and approve funding for these projects as part of the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015. I want to reiterate that Congress appropriated funding for these four major medical projects in 2014, and the Department is ready to start construction today. However, due only to the lack of a separate authorization, the Department cannot start this vital work to protect our veterans and Federal employees. This is exactly why Americans believe that the Federal Government does not work. How does Congress explain this unnecessary delay to veterans who go to medical appointments in the buildings at risk of collapse or major damage? There is no reason to delay authorizing these projects when the money has already been appropriated. I urge my colleagues to join me in quickly approving this legislation so that the Department can begin modification of buildings that currently leave veterans and the Department's employees in harm's way before the next earthquake strikes California. Congress must act before the next earthquake strikes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I speak today regarding the introduction of a bill, cosponsored by Senator Boxer, to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with the authority to obligate and expend previously appropriated funds in order to begin construction on critical projects in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego, CA, as well as in Canandaigua, NY. In December of 2014, Congress passed the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which provided $446,800,000 for major construction projects at these Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot spend the money that has already been appropriated and begin construction on these projects because it lacks a separate authorization, which is required by law. The funding provided for the three California projects will be used to make critical, time-sensitive seismic safety corrections to structures in West Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego. These buildings, which include a spinal cord injury clinic, a mental health care facility, and a community living center, are at exceptionally high risk of collapse or suffering severe damage during an earthquake. If a major earthquake struck in proximity to one of these Medical Centers while it was in use by veterans and the Department's employees, there could be numerous injuries and deaths. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there is a greater than 99 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will strike California in the next 30 years. It is important to note that even less severe earthquakes can cause damage to seismically unsafe buildings that result in injuries and deaths. The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services believes that the damage to seismically unfit buildings caused by the magnitude 6.0 earthquake that hit Napa, CA, on August 24, 2014 at 3:20 a.m. would likely have resulted in many more deaths and injuries if it had struck during business hours when these structures were in use. As it was, the earthquake caused over 200 injuries and one fatality. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that a 6.0 magnitude earthquake hits California every 1.2 years on average. This is a terrifying figure, and it is why I strongly believe that Congress must enact this legislation without delay. I appreciate that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee worked extremely hard to pass important legislation last year to address the veterans' health care access crisis and that it, therefore, did not report a construction authorization bill. However, in the case of these four projects, the money has already been appropriated and is available for expenditure as soon as an authorization is forthcoming from Congress. More hearings and delays are unnecessary to determine whether the Senate should pass this legislation. The Senate Appropriations Committee held hearings with the Department on these projects in 2014 as it reviewed the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget Request. The Committee marked up and reported the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill in a bipartisan fashion. Congress voted in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill and approve funding for these projects as part of the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015. I want to reiterate that Congress appropriated funding for these four major medical projects in 2014, and the Department is ready to start construction today. However, due only to the lack of a separate authorization, the Department cannot start this vital work to protect our veterans and Federal employees. This is exactly why Americans believe that the Federal Government does not work. How does Congress explain this unnecessary delay to veterans who go to medical appointments in the buildings at risk of collapse or major damage? There is no reason to delay authorizing these projects when the money has already been appropriated. I urge my colleagues to join me in quickly approving this legislation so that the Department can begin modification of buildings that currently leave veterans and the Department's employees in harm's way before the next earthquake strikes California. Congress must act before the next earthquake strikes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I remain concerned about the high levels of exposure Americans have to Bisphenol-A, BPA, an endocrine- disrupting chemical. BPA is a synthetic estrogen, which means that it mimics this hormone when in the body. Scientific studies continue to show cause for concern, especially for the health effects on babies, children, and expectant mothers. While these studies continue to examine the exact effects that BPA has on humans, consumers deserve more information. BPA is most commonly found in food products, such as the lining of canned goods like string beans, but consumers have no clear way of knowing this. The BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act is a simple solution to fix this problem. This legislation requires that food packaging that uses BPA include a clear label that reads, ``This food packaging contains BPA, an endocrine-disrupting chemical, according to the National Institutes of Health.'' This is basic information that consumers have the right to know so they can make informed decisions about the products they wish to purchase. This legislation also directs the Department of Health and Human Services to do a safety assessment of food containers that use BPA to determine if there is reasonable certainty that no harm will come from exposure, including from low doses over the long term. This safety standard would also apply to the evaluation of alternatives to BPA to ensure that replacement chemicals are not simply causing the same harm by a different name. The legislation calls specific attention to the effects of exposure on vulnerable populations, such as infants, children, pregnant women, and workers who are exposed through production practices or handling of final products. I am particularly concerned about the negative health effects to children who are exposed to chemicals both while they are developing in the womb and in the first few years of their lives. Children are particularly susceptible to toxins while their bodies are developing at such a rapid pace. According to Dr. Heather Patisaul, a biologist at North Carolina State University, when pregnant women are exposed to BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals, three generations are impacted: the mother, the fetus, and the reproductive cells in the fetus. She cites that nearly 100 studies have shown an association between BPA exposure and negative health effects in humans. These include reproductive disorders, behavioral problems in children, and heart disease. In addition, there are over 1200 published animal studies on effects of BPA that show potential links to cancer, tumors, and brain development disorders. A recent study published in Hypertension, a journal by the American Heart Association, found that individuals who drank beverages from containers made with BPA had an acute increase in their blood pressure, compared with individuals who drank the same beverage from containers that did not use BPA. This shows the potential for an increased risk for heart disease. Another recent study, published in Endocrinology, a journal by the Endocrine Society, shows a link between fetal exposure to BPA and increased oxidative stress--an imbalance in the body's ability to protect against and repair cell damage. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93 percent of Americans have BPA in their bodies. As a society we are constantly exposed to low doses of this chemical over a long timeframe. Consumers deserve the opportunity to have more control over their own exposure and at the least should be provided information about if BPA is in the food products that they purchase. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act and stand up for the rights of consumers to have this basic information.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I remain concerned about the high levels of exposure Americans have to Bisphenol-A, BPA, an endocrine- disrupting chemical. BPA is a synthetic estrogen, which means that it mimics this hormone when in the body. Scientific studies continue to show cause for concern, especially for the health effects on babies, children, and expectant mothers. While these studies continue to examine the exact effects that BPA has on humans, consumers deserve more information. BPA is most commonly found in food products, such as the lining of canned goods like string beans, but consumers have no clear way of knowing this. The BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act is a simple solution to fix this problem. This legislation requires that food packaging that uses BPA include a clear label that reads, ``This food packaging contains BPA, an endocrine-disrupting chemical, according to the National Institutes of Health.'' This is basic information that consumers have the right to know so they can make informed decisions about the products they wish to purchase. This legislation also directs the Department of Health and Human Services to do a safety assessment of food containers that use BPA to determine if there is reasonable certainty that no harm will come from exposure, including from low doses over the long term. This safety standard would also apply to the evaluation of alternatives to BPA to ensure that replacement chemicals are not simply causing the same harm by a different name. The legislation calls specific attention to the effects of exposure on vulnerable populations, such as infants, children, pregnant women, and workers who are exposed through production practices or handling of final products. I am particularly concerned about the negative health effects to children who are exposed to chemicals both while they are developing in the womb and in the first few years of their lives. Children are particularly susceptible to toxins while their bodies are developing at such a rapid pace. According to Dr. Heather Patisaul, a biologist at North Carolina State University, when pregnant women are exposed to BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals, three generations are impacted: the mother, the fetus, and the reproductive cells in the fetus. She cites that nearly 100 studies have shown an association between BPA exposure and negative health effects in humans. These include reproductive disorders, behavioral problems in children, and heart disease. In addition, there are over 1200 published animal studies on effects of BPA that show potential links to cancer, tumors, and brain development disorders. A recent study published in Hypertension, a journal by the American Heart Association, found that individuals who drank beverages from containers made with BPA had an acute increase in their blood pressure, compared with individuals who drank the same beverage from containers that did not use BPA. This shows the potential for an increased risk for heart disease. Another recent study, published in Endocrinology, a journal by the Endocrine Society, shows a link between fetal exposure to BPA and increased oxidative stress--an imbalance in the body's ability to protect against and repair cell damage. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93 percent of Americans have BPA in their bodies. As a society we are constantly exposed to low doses of this chemical over a long timeframe. Consumers deserve the opportunity to have more control over their own exposure and at the least should be provided information about if BPA is in the food products that they purchase. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act and stand up for the rights of consumers to have this basic information.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I may consume. As Senator Klobuchar stated, I come to the floor to speak on the sex trafficking bill. I know it is now held up by certain language, which I will go into in the details of my remarks, but briefly, I would like to begin by describing the bill's highlights. The bill clarifies that a person who buys a sex act from a minor or other trafficking victim can be prosecuted under the Federal commercial sex trafficking statute. The bill authorizes block grants for State and local governments to develop programs to rescue trafficking victims and investigate and prosecute traffickers. The bill also includes nearly all of the provisions from the Combat Human Trafficking Act which Senator Portman and I introduced in January. I am very grateful to the authors--Senator Klobuchar, Senator Cornyn--for adding these. Those provisions establish a minimum period of 5 years of supervised release for a person who conspires to violate the commercial sex trafficking statute. It would require the Justice Department to train on investigating and prosecuting buyers, on seeking restitution, and on connecting victims with health services. It would require reporting on sex trafficking prosecutions. It would expand wiretap authority to cover all human trafficking offenses. It would expand the rights of crime victims-- something I have been interested in since Senator Kyl and I did the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights. The bill, which is not controversial, should pass, except for the surreptitious inclusion--I use this word considered--of a provision that is known as the Hyde amendment. The provision was not included by language but by cross-reference to provisions in another previously enacted appropriations bill. Here is what it says: Limitations. Amounts in the Fund, or otherwise transferred from the Fund, shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76; 128 Stat. 409) to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under division H of such Act. This provision was not included in the bill Senator Cornyn introduced last Congress, which I cosponsored. His staff approached my staff and staffs of other Senators early in 2015. They asked if I would cosponsor again. My staff asked whether the bill was identical to last year's bill and for an explanation of any changes that were made. Senator Cornyn's staff then sent back an email with a list of changes--seven changes in all. That list did not include the Hyde amendment language that had been added. That language was not mentioned to my staff at any point. In other words, an important and sensitive change was made to the bill and was not disclosed upon request. That does not excuse us for not catching this, but if you see the complicated and sort of obfuscated nature of this--I am not saying it is intended obfuscation, but all of the numbers that are in there--I think it makes it understandable. If the Hyde amendment--which is what this is--if that language comes out, this bill will pass easily. Let me address for a moment the enormous problem we are trying to address with this bill. Today, high demand and easy access fuels a huge amount of sex trafficking. Human trafficking today is the second largest criminal industry in the world. It is only behind illegal drugs. In 2005, human trafficking was a $32 billion criminal enterprise. Today, some 9 years later, it is a $150 billion estimate of illegal gains. Two-thirds of the proceeds from human trafficking come from sex trafficking. Children as young as 12, 13, and 14 can be found on the street or over the Internet. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is modern-day slavery. Those victims are moved against their will to cities throughout the country and even to other countries, wherever demand is high. Trafficking rings are also run by gangs. In San Diego, for example, profits are so great and the risk of being caught so minimal that rival gangs do not fight each other over sex trafficking, as they do when drugs are involved. Some traffickers make as much as $33,000 per week. These are numbers gathered by the Urban Institute: Atlanta, gross take per trafficker per week, $32,833; Denver, $31,200; Seattle, $18,000; Miami, $17,741; Dallas, $12,025; Washington, DC, $11,588; and San Diego, $11,129. This is weekly gross cash intake per individual trafficker. Traffickers lure victims through promises of love and money or sometimes use an older trafficked girl as a recruiter. Those criminals prey on the most vulnerable children in our society, including those who are homeless or in the foster care system. They target children who have been victims of sexual abuse. Once they have a victim under their control, they may traffic him or her from city to city based on demand. For example, this is a slide of California. It is from the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force, and it shows the route traffickers take to move victims around the State of California to meet demand. You can see these circles from Oakland to Sacramento and then down into the Inland Empire and then from Los Angeles all the way around into the Inland Empire. So you can actually track various routes. Orange County did this. The orange center here is meant to be Orange County. This particular task force is comprised of a number of Federal and local law enforcement agencies in Orange County, including Anaheim and Huntington Beach police departments, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the District Attorney's Office. Now, here it comes: Regardless of how children are first trafficked, one thing is almost universal--victims will be advertised on the Internet. By one estimate, 76 percent of child sex trafficking victims--76 percent of them are sold over the Internet. My staff and I have spoken with a number of law enforcement officials in California about the Internet's role in connecting sellers of underage children with buyers. Nearly every single official we spoke with said the Internet is the primary means to connect sellers with buyers. So this is where we next must take decisive steps to stop sex trafficking. Purveyors of these online ads must be held accountable. Senator Kirk and I have an amendment that will do that. There are at least 19 distinct Web sites that accept ads relating to trafficking underage boys and girls. Here they are: Backpage.com; EscortAds .xxx; ErosAds.com; EscortsInCollege.com; AsianEscortSF.com; EscortsInThe.us; LiveEscortReviews.com; MyProvider Guide.com; EroticMugShots.com; NaughtyReviews.com; EscortPhone List.com; RubAds.com; Eros.com; TheEroticReview.com; RubMaps.com; APerfectSin.com; EscortDater.com; MyRedBook.com; and NightShift.com. Nineteen Web sites act as purveyors of child sex trafficking in this country. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. This site I am going to show you, Backpage.com, allows a purveyor to post an advertisement for an escort or a body rub. In fact, nearly all of these ads are for commercial sex acts; many of them depict minors. When you view an ad for an escort or a body rub, you will see pictures of young girls, often with few or no clothes on. Now I am going to show you two girls. The first is a missing 17-year- old girl. She is here as a runaway. This is a listing of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a very legitimate organization which I am fully in support of. It is entitled ``Endangered Runaway,'' and it is information about her, her date of birth, her age, her sex, her race, and all of it, and where you can get in touch if you have any information. I wish to show how this is also used. This is the same girl on Backpage, and this essentially says: Hello Texas, Are you looking for an unforgettable experience? Look no further! I am 100% Great service provider! I am very down to earth, warm, sensitive, passionate, and genuinely interested in giving you a great experience. And it goes on and on. This is the same picture of this same girl. We blocked out the image, and it is shocking. It is simply shocking that this is going on to the extent it is in our country, right in a ribald way on the Internet. Law enforcement officials and anti-trafficking organizations say there are a number of key indicators that allow them to identify ads that are likely for trafficking victims. In this advertisement we see three of those key indicators. First, the title states the victim is ``New to your City.'' Anti-trafficking organizations say this is code for being underage. You may also see girls in ads described as ``new,'' ``fresh,'' or ``new in town'' to indicate they are underage. Second, we see a victim is listed from outside the area. Here she is listed as from Miami for a posting that is in the Houston area. Third, the victim also has an out-of-area phone number. Those are three indicators of what this ad is for--to sell sex with children. Law enforcement and experts confirm this point. The Cook County Sheriff's Office in Illinois found that 100 percent of women claiming to be massage therapists or platonic escorts on one Web site, Backpage, were being sold for sex. This isn't mine, this is the Cook County Sheriff's Office. The sheriff's office set up so-called dates with 618 girls via Backpage. All 618 agreed to provide sex for money. The sheriff's office concluded: ``This presents irrefutable evidence that Backpage is indeed a haven for pimps and sex solicitors who are victimizing women and girls for their own gain. Any notion that Backpage employs a legitimate business model simply does not stand up to the facts.'' This is a direct letter from Sheriff Tom Dart, Cook County, IL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a memorandum to Sheriff Tom Dart.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. I think that is correct. I suppose we could change this to have a rape implication, but the gauntlet has been thrown down. And it is not up to me alone to remove it. There was no open discussion in our committee when we discussed this that there was a highly sensitive issue in it, Senator. Now, I will plead mea culpa. And guess what. I will wave a whip and get my staff and say: Look henceforth at every code change. But my colleague and I both know that occasionally things slip through. I will plead mea culpa on that. But once I found out, I had an obligation to do something about it. So I am pleading with my colleague, let's just take it out. Let's just pass this bill. Let's put the Kirk-Feinstein amendment in. Let's go after the Internet purveyors. Let's go after 19 sites that put pictures of girls 12, 13, and 14 to be sold all around the United States, to be sold after big football games in various areas of the country. Let's go after them. Isn't that more important? I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, why then, if I may ask a question, respectfully.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Why isn't it in the House language?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can I answer that as honestly as I feel?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Because there are many of us who believe this is one small step for womankind. It is one battle we can win, and we have had loss after loss after loss. You know, many of us ran on the right to choose. I was one of them. I am old enough to have seen the way it was before, to have sentenced women who committed illegal abortions with coat hangers. That is sort of the systemic root of all of this. It is our history, Senator. We are trying to change that history, and we keep losing. So there is one small thing in this. My colleague is right, we didn't see it, and we have to live with that. I understand that. But now we see it and we are trying to do something about it and, thankfully, our party is standing up with us. So we say make that small change and we pass this bill, and maybe we can even strengthen it with amendments. My colleague has done a superior job in putting the bill together. Let it go.