Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act. In February of 2015, I, along with Sen. Boxer, introduced a bill under the same name. That bill from 2015 included a number of conservation and recreation provisions that the President could not include in his recent designation of three national monuments. The President's designation this past month of those new national monuments--Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow, and Castle Mountain--was a major milestone in our efforts to protect the desert. But, due to limitations under the Antiquities Act, the President's executive action left out several key parts of our desert bill from 2015. These remaining provisions were vital to many of the groups and organizations that came together to support our bill in 2015. I made a commitment to those groups to enact the entire bill, not just parts of the bill. And I intend to fulfill that promise. The remaining provisions included in today's legislation do the following: enhance recreational opportunities by establishing 142,000 acres of permanent Off-Highway Vehicle recreation areas; further expand wilderness areas in the desert, by designating five additional wilderness areas that cover 230,000 acres of land near Fort Irwin; ensure clean and free-flowing rivers, through the designation of 77 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers; add to our national parks, by expanding Death Valley National Park Wilderness by 39,000 acres and Joshua Tree National Park by 4,500 acres; expand National Scenic Areas, by adding 18,610 acres to the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County; protect important cultural resources, by requiring the Department of the Interior to protect petroglyphs and other cultural resources in San Bernardino and Imperial County; and, facilitate renewable energy development in a way that protects delicate habitat. I want to be very clear: I intend to continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate and House to advance this important bill and the wilderness protections, national park additions, recreation area designations and other renewable energy provisions that were not implemented through the Antiquities Act. This legislation balances the many competing uses for public lands across the California desert: It protects fragile ecosystems and significant cultural resources, provides for increased recreational opportunities, and encourages sensible renewable energy development. This current bill includes all of the carefully negotiated provisions from the bill I introduced in February, minus the three monuments. This bill reflects our attempt to achieve consensus among the competing uses of desert land and the many stakeholders involved, including environmental groups, State and local governments, the off- road community, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Defense Department, energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. As a result of the general public's robust participation, we have put together a bipartisan proposal that charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. We made a commitment to these stakeholders to enact these commonsense solutions, and I intend to follow through on that promise. I want to highlight some of the key provisions of this legislation: By designating five new wilderness areas, this bill protects fragile desert ecosystems across 230,000 acres of wilderness near Fort Irwin. This includes 88,000 acres of Avawatz Mountains, 8,000-acre Great Falls Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 32,500-acre Death Valley Wilderness. These proposed wilderness areas have something for everyone: Desert solitude; abundant hiking options and rock climbing routes; and horseback riding and hunting for those that wish to experience a truly remarkable backcountry experience. This bill is more than just wilderness, however. It also designates four new wild and scenic rivers, totaling 77 miles in length. These rivers and creeks are important, and rare, riparian areas in the heart of the arid desert. This designation will ensure that those rivers and creeks remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park. Conserving pristine desert land such as this is most definitely in the interests of our country. The California desert is a very special place and it deserves to stay that way. The legislation also provides permanent protection for five existing Off-Highway Vehicle Areas covering approximately 142,000 acres. The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes. Although the President's recent executive action could not include these permanent protections, off- roaders are a vital part of the coalition we put together. They deserve certainty about their future enjoyment of the land, just as conservationists now have certainty as a result of the monument designations. With this bill introduction, I renew my pledge to work closely with the off-road community. We must also take into account another use of the desert land: renewable energy. And I believe that we can accomplish the twin aims of honoring our commitment to conservation and fulfilling California's pledge to develop a clean energy portfolio. Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place. By April 2009, solar and wind companies had proposed 28 projects to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development. Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. Let me explain why this happened. First, the Energy and Interior Departments developed new solar energy zones. These zones allow projects to be developed on lands least likely to harm plant and wildlife species, and allow projects to be completed faster and with fewer conflicts. This is a smart compromise. Second, California has worked closely with Federal agencies to develop the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere. This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward. The bill I am introducing also takes additional action to help promote responsible renewable energy development through state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of isolated parcels of state lands spread across the California desert. These state-owned lands are largely unusable, due to their location inside Federal national parks, wilderness, monuments, and conservation areas. The bill addresses this problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to exchange these state lands for other BLM or General Services Administration owned property in the next ten years. By swapping state land that is often surrounded by wilderness and national parks for other federal land, these exchanges will provide California with sites for renewable energy production, recreation or other uses. I strongly urge my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to take a hard look at this legislation. We have made great strides in the past twenty years to strike the right balance between desert conservation, recreational uses, and the development of our natural resources. I believe this legislation continues in that fine tradition. Built on a foundation of consensus and compromise, this legislation fulfills our promise to the next generation that they will have the same opportunities to indulge in the best the California desert has to offer. I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. It's the right thing to do.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act. In February of 2015, I, along with Sen. Boxer, introduced a bill under the same name. That bill from 2015 included a number of conservation and recreation provisions that the President could not include in his recent designation of three national monuments. The President's designation this past month of those new national monuments--Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow, and Castle Mountain--was a major milestone in our efforts to protect the desert. But, due to limitations under the Antiquities Act, the President's executive action left out several key parts of our desert bill from 2015. These remaining provisions were vital to many of the groups and organizations that came together to support our bill in 2015. I made a commitment to those groups to enact the entire bill, not just parts of the bill. And I intend to fulfill that promise. The remaining provisions included in today's legislation do the following: enhance recreational opportunities by establishing 142,000 acres of permanent Off-Highway Vehicle recreation areas; further expand wilderness areas in the desert, by designating five additional wilderness areas that cover 230,000 acres of land near Fort Irwin; ensure clean and free-flowing rivers, through the designation of 77 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers; add to our national parks, by expanding Death Valley National Park Wilderness by 39,000 acres and Joshua Tree National Park by 4,500 acres; expand National Scenic Areas, by adding 18,610 acres to the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County; protect important cultural resources, by requiring the Department of the Interior to protect petroglyphs and other cultural resources in San Bernardino and Imperial County; and, facilitate renewable energy development in a way that protects delicate habitat. I want to be very clear: I intend to continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate and House to advance this important bill and the wilderness protections, national park additions, recreation area designations and other renewable energy provisions that were not implemented through the Antiquities Act. This legislation balances the many competing uses for public lands across the California desert: It protects fragile ecosystems and significant cultural resources, provides for increased recreational opportunities, and encourages sensible renewable energy development. This current bill includes all of the carefully negotiated provisions from the bill I introduced in February, minus the three monuments. This bill reflects our attempt to achieve consensus among the competing uses of desert land and the many stakeholders involved, including environmental groups, State and local governments, the off- road community, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Defense Department, energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. As a result of the general public's robust participation, we have put together a bipartisan proposal that charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. We made a commitment to these stakeholders to enact these commonsense solutions, and I intend to follow through on that promise. I want to highlight some of the key provisions of this legislation: By designating five new wilderness areas, this bill protects fragile desert ecosystems across 230,000 acres of wilderness near Fort Irwin. This includes 88,000 acres of Avawatz Mountains, 8,000-acre Great Falls Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 32,500-acre Death Valley Wilderness. These proposed wilderness areas have something for everyone: Desert solitude; abundant hiking options and rock climbing routes; and horseback riding and hunting for those that wish to experience a truly remarkable backcountry experience. This bill is more than just wilderness, however. It also designates four new wild and scenic rivers, totaling 77 miles in length. These rivers and creeks are important, and rare, riparian areas in the heart of the arid desert. This designation will ensure that those rivers and creeks remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park. Conserving pristine desert land such as this is most definitely in the interests of our country. The California desert is a very special place and it deserves to stay that way. The legislation also provides permanent protection for five existing Off-Highway Vehicle Areas covering approximately 142,000 acres. The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes. Although the President's recent executive action could not include these permanent protections, off- roaders are a vital part of the coalition we put together. They deserve certainty about their future enjoyment of the land, just as conservationists now have certainty as a result of the monument designations. With this bill introduction, I renew my pledge to work closely with the off-road community. We must also take into account another use of the desert land: renewable energy. And I believe that we can accomplish the twin aims of honoring our commitment to conservation and fulfilling California's pledge to develop a clean energy portfolio. Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place. By April 2009, solar and wind companies had proposed 28 projects to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development. Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. Let me explain why this happened. First, the Energy and Interior Departments developed new solar energy zones. These zones allow projects to be developed on lands least likely to harm plant and wildlife species, and allow projects to be completed faster and with fewer conflicts. This is a smart compromise. Second, California has worked closely with Federal agencies to develop the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere. This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward. The bill I am introducing also takes additional action to help promote responsible renewable energy development through state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of isolated parcels of state lands spread across the California desert. These state-owned lands are largely unusable, due to their location inside Federal national parks, wilderness, monuments, and conservation areas. The bill addresses this problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to exchange these state lands for other BLM or General Services Administration owned property in the next ten years. By swapping state land that is often surrounded by wilderness and national parks for other federal land, these exchanges will provide California with sites for renewable energy production, recreation or other uses. I strongly urge my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to take a hard look at this legislation. We have made great strides in the past twenty years to strike the right balance between desert conservation, recreational uses, and the development of our natural resources. I believe this legislation continues in that fine tradition. Built on a foundation of consensus and compromise, this legislation fulfills our promise to the next generation that they will have the same opportunities to indulge in the best the California desert has to offer. I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. It's the right thing to do.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Interstate Threats Clarification Act, which is a necessary bill to clarify the ``level of intent'' required to convict someone for making threats to injure or kidnap another person. I would like to thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, and Klobuchar for cosponsoring the bill. In June 2015, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Elonis v. United States, a case involving a man who was convicted for posting on Facebook ``crude, degrading, and violent'' threats against his co- workers, ex-wife, law enforcement personnel, and a kindergarten class. The man started posting the violent and threatening posts after his wife of nearly 7 years left him and took with her their two young children. The threats made over Facebook caused his ex-wife to feel ``extremely afraid'' for her life, leading her to obtain a restraining order against him. But that did not stop the man, who then posted on Facebook to communicate to his ex-wife that she ``[f]old up your [restraining order] and put it in your pocket / Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?'' That same month, he continued to make violent posts, including one that indicated that ``[e]nough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined / And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a Kindergarten class.'' After viewing the posts, an FBI agent and another investigator visited the man at his home, where he was ``polite but uncooperative.'' After they left, he posted the following: Little Agent lady stood so close Took all the strength I had not to turn the b**** ghost Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat Leave her bleedin' from her jugular in the arms of her partner. The post went on to threaten what would happen if he was visited again by the agent, including the possible use of explosives. Due to these threats and others, the man was convicted for making threats to inflict bodily harm under Section 875(c) of Title 18. This law prohibits the transmission of a communication that contains a threat to injure or kidnap another person. The man appealed, saying the lower court did not apply the correct level of intent for a conviction. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court overturned the conviction. The Court found that the law requires the government to prove some type of ``wrongful'' intent by the man--``negligence'' was not enough for a criminal conviction under this law. The Court's opinion, however, left significant ambiguity regarding what the government must prove for a conviction under the statute. The Supreme Court simply did not specify the exact ``level of intent'' required for a conviction. Justice Alito highlighted the problem of the ambiguity in his partial dissent, stating, ``[a]ttorneys and judges are left to guess'' as to the level of intent required. This ambiguity has left judges and prosecutors in the dark about what the law requires, and has raised concerns among domestic violence victims because prosecutors and judges may now be hesitant to fully enforce the law. This is why Congressional action is necessary. The Interstate Threats Clarification Act solves this ambiguity. It clarifies that, under Section 875(c) of Title 18, the Government has three options to obtain a conviction. It can prove that a defendant either intended, had knowledge, or recklessly disregarded the risk, that the communication would be reasonably interpreted as a threat. This is exactly what Justice Alito said would be sufficient in his opinion. As Justice Alito stated when analyzing the statute in the context of the case, ``[s]omeone who acts recklessly with respect to conveying a threat necessarily grasps that he is not engaged in innocent conduct.'' I agree. Someone who posts violent and crude threats to harm or kidnap judges, domestic violence victims, vulnerable members of society, military personnel, and law enforcement personnel, must be held accountable for their reckless conduct. This bill clarifies for judges and attorneys alike the proof required to convict those who make such threats to injure or kidnap such persons. I also appreciate the work done by a coalition of domestic violence organizations that have worked with me on the bill, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the American Association of University Women, Futures Without Violence, Jewish Women International, Legal Momentum, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. I also appreciate the strong support for the bill from law enforcement, including the National District Attorneys Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association. This bill is necessary to clarify Federal law about criminal threats and ensure that those who send them are prosecuted. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Interstate Threats Clarification Act, which is a necessary bill to clarify the ``level of intent'' required to convict someone for making threats to injure or kidnap another person. I would like to thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, and Klobuchar for cosponsoring the bill. In June 2015, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Elonis v. United States, a case involving a man who was convicted for posting on Facebook ``crude, degrading, and violent'' threats against his co- workers, ex-wife, law enforcement personnel, and a kindergarten class. The man started posting the violent and threatening posts after his wife of nearly 7 years left him and took with her their two young children. The threats made over Facebook caused his ex-wife to feel ``extremely afraid'' for her life, leading her to obtain a restraining order against him. But that did not stop the man, who then posted on Facebook to communicate to his ex-wife that she ``[f]old up your [restraining order] and put it in your pocket / Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?'' That same month, he continued to make violent posts, including one that indicated that ``[e]nough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined / And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a Kindergarten class.'' After viewing the posts, an FBI agent and another investigator visited the man at his home, where he was ``polite but uncooperative.'' After they left, he posted the following: Little Agent lady stood so close Took all the strength I had not to turn the b**** ghost Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat Leave her bleedin' from her jugular in the arms of her partner. The post went on to threaten what would happen if he was visited again by the agent, including the possible use of explosives. Due to these threats and others, the man was convicted for making threats to inflict bodily harm under Section 875(c) of Title 18. This law prohibits the transmission of a communication that contains a threat to injure or kidnap another person. The man appealed, saying the lower court did not apply the correct level of intent for a conviction. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court overturned the conviction. The Court found that the law requires the government to prove some type of ``wrongful'' intent by the man--``negligence'' was not enough for a criminal conviction under this law. The Court's opinion, however, left significant ambiguity regarding what the government must prove for a conviction under the statute. The Supreme Court simply did not specify the exact ``level of intent'' required for a conviction. Justice Alito highlighted the problem of the ambiguity in his partial dissent, stating, ``[a]ttorneys and judges are left to guess'' as to the level of intent required. This ambiguity has left judges and prosecutors in the dark about what the law requires, and has raised concerns among domestic violence victims because prosecutors and judges may now be hesitant to fully enforce the law. This is why Congressional action is necessary. The Interstate Threats Clarification Act solves this ambiguity. It clarifies that, under Section 875(c) of Title 18, the Government has three options to obtain a conviction. It can prove that a defendant either intended, had knowledge, or recklessly disregarded the risk, that the communication would be reasonably interpreted as a threat. This is exactly what Justice Alito said would be sufficient in his opinion. As Justice Alito stated when analyzing the statute in the context of the case, ``[s]omeone who acts recklessly with respect to conveying a threat necessarily grasps that he is not engaged in innocent conduct.'' I agree. Someone who posts violent and crude threats to harm or kidnap judges, domestic violence victims, vulnerable members of society, military personnel, and law enforcement personnel, must be held accountable for their reckless conduct. This bill clarifies for judges and attorneys alike the proof required to convict those who make such threats to injure or kidnap such persons. I also appreciate the work done by a coalition of domestic violence organizations that have worked with me on the bill, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the American Association of University Women, Futures Without Violence, Jewish Women International, Legal Momentum, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. I also appreciate the strong support for the bill from law enforcement, including the National District Attorneys Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association. This bill is necessary to clarify Federal law about criminal threats and ensure that those who send them are prosecuted. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the historic drought that is devastating California and much of the West. To help address this disaster, today I am introducing the California Long-Term Provisions for Water Supply and Short-Term Provisions for Emergency Drought Relief Act. Let me begin by saying that the El Nino we're seeing now in California brings with it some good news. The Sierra Nevada snowpack is the deepest it has been in 5 years, and water content is up. The California Department of Water Resources reported in early- February that the statewide snowpack stands at 25.4 inches, or 130 percent of the historical average. But we are faced with three problems. First, one El Nino--even a strong El Nino--won't be sufficient to pull us out of this drought. Experts say we need at least 3 consecutive years of above-average precipitation. Second, we lack the infrastructure needed to store much of this water. We need to do more to increase the amount of water we can hold from wet years to dry years. And while river flows are extremely high from these winter storms, we are not taking advantage of them to the extent we should. What that means is tens of thousands of acre-feet are flowing out into the Pacific Ocean rather than being collected for later use. So while California is getting some much-needed rain, it's not likely to be enough to end this historic drought. Let me be clear; this drought is hurting California. Mr. President, 69 communities are facing significant water supply and water quality issues, 2,591 wells are critically low or dry affecting some 13,000 residents; California's economy lost $2.7 billion from the drought in 2015. The agricultural sector lost approximately $1.8 billion from the drought in 2015, exceeding the $41.5 billion loss in 2014. More than 1 million acres of California farmland were fallowed in 2015, an increase of more than 600,000 acres over 2011. Since 2014, the drought has led to 35,000 permanent jobs lost in California, 21,000 seasonal and part-time agricultural jobs have also been lost. Farmworkers cannot find employment and are forced to move in with family members or friends who are also struggling. Some single mothers are traveling as far as Washington State for work to help support their families. Land subsidence from pumping too much groundwater has caused large areas of the San Joaquin Valley to sink by as much as two inches per month. As a result, bridges, aqueducts and roads have already begun to crack. Mr. President, 50 million large trees are dead or likely will die from lack of water, and another 888 million trees experienced loss of canopy cover since 2011. These are just some of the many examples of the dreadful effect the drought is having on California. The bill I am introducing today includes a wide range of provisions to address two key needs: First, long-term solutions. In addition to helping the many communities that are running out of water, we must create a new water infrastructure that is not as dependent on annual levels of rain or snow. That is why the bill includes many programs to promote long-term drought resiliency. California is now home to 40 million people, but is relying on State and Federal water infrastructure first constructed in the 1960s when California's population was just 16 million. The Central Valley Project and the State Water Project were completed in the 1970s, and neither have kept pace with the rapid growth in California's population or economy. Put another way, California's major water infrastructure has remained largely unchanged for the past 40 years while California's population has more than doubled. To address this, we must come up with long-term solutions to address these water infrastructure gaps. This must include investments in water storage projects, desalination plants and water recycling projects, as well as programs to assist vulnerable communities, fund research and support ecosystem restoration. In addition to those long-term solutions, the bill would also provide short-term, temporary solutions which are limited to the duration of the Governor's drought declaration or two years, whichever is longer. These provisions will help make the water-delivery system more efficient during this current drought, and they will do so without any mandated pumping levels. Under this bill State and Federal officials will continue to determine appropriate pumping levels, and all short-term operations must comply with existing applicable laws. Let me repeat: there are no mandated levels of pumping in this bill. Let me briefly discuss how this bill will help California and the positive impacts it will have west-wide. Over the past 2 years, my staff and I have gone through an extensive consultation process with both State and Federal agencies. We have worked through every proposal or suggestion we received from those agencies and all are incorporated in the bill I am introducing today. On the Federal side, we worked with the Department of the Interior; Department of Commerce; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife Service; NOAA Fisheries; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. On the State side, we worked with the California Natural Resources Agency; California Department of Water Resources; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and the Office of the Governor of California. In addition to integrating proposals from State and Federal agency experts, we have incorporated feedback from a variety of stakeholders including environmental groups; urban and agricultural water districts; wildlife advocates and Democratic and Republican congressional offices. As part of the consultation process, we received and incorporated more than 40 suggested changes. I would first like to cover the long-term provisions. As I said, California is home to around 40 million people, but has the same water infrastructure as the 1960s, when only 16 million people lived in the state. Given the changing climate, I believe that California will become a desert state if we don't act. Droughts will only become more frequent and more severe. That's why the long-term provisions of this bill look at new sources of water and new ways to store water. These long-term provisions authorize a total of $1.3 billion and include desalination, recycling, storage, and loan assistance for drought-stricken communities. And as I said, these investments can produce a new water infrastructure not as dependent on weather. This bill increases the WaterSMART authorization by $150 million for long-term water conservation, reclamation and recycling. Some of these WaterSMART funds can then be used for a new Bureau of Reclamation program to help rural and disadvantaged communities that are running out of water. These grants would cover everything from emergency bottled water to long-term solutions like water treatment facilities. But we also need to look beyond the current emergency and consider ways we can shift these communities from vulnerable water sources like wells to more sustainable and resilient water systems. That's why this bill prioritizes money from the Environmental Protection Agency's Revolving Loan Fund for water infrastructure projects that would help drought-stricken communities that are at risk of running out of clean water. This bill also authorizes $200 million for the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, known as RIFIA. This loan- guarantee program will help water districts and municipalities fund long-term solutions to store more water and provide additional clean water. We also need to invest in desalination and water recycling. These are two of the most promising technologies that may offer long-term solutions. The bill identifies 137 local recycling and desalination projects that, if constructed, could produce upwards of 1.4 million acre feet in ``new'' water. This includes 27 desalination projects identified by the State-- totaling more than 352,000 acre-feet of water--that the Secretary of the Interior must consider funding if eligible. The bill also reauthorizes the Desalination Act and authorizes $100 million for feasibility studies and project design as well as desalinization research to improve the energy co-efficient from reverse osmosis and membrane technology. These funds run through 2020. In addition, the bill identifies 110 water recycling projects that the Secretary of the Interior must consider funding. These projects total more than 1,060,334 acre-feet of water. The bill authorizes $200 million for the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI water recycling program and streamlines the program by eliminating the hurdle of congressional authorization for individual projects. We also have to encourage public-private partnerships. That's why the bill funds a loan-guarantee program and other financing mechanisms to help make projects a reality. If all the projects identified in the bill were completed, nearly 1.4 million acre-feet of ``new'' water could be made available. Given the consensus that droughts will grow more severe, we have to increase the amount of water we can hold from wet years for use in dry years. In order to help accomplish this, the bill authorizes $600 million for water storage projects in California and other Western States. These funds would be available through 2025. But the Federal Government can't do it all on its own. California signaled that it's ready by enacting a $7.5 billion water bond. The bill therefore positions the federal government as a partner with California to take advantage of these funds to build new reservoirs and expand existing reservoirs. Recognizing that the drought has taken a toll on many aspects of life in California, including fish and wildlife, this bill authorizes $55 million for habitat restoration efforts. Measures include protections for the entire life cycle of fish, from increasing spawning habitat to reducing mortality during migration out to the ocean; reducing threats to fish, including smelt and salmon, by removing predators such as striped bass from specific locations where they prey on endangered fish; using real-time monitoring of turbidity and fish to determine pumping rates, rather than specific congressional mandates or targets; funding daily boat monitoring to survey for smelt near the pumps when turbidity levels are high and the smelt are often attracted to the pumps; funding studies to track the smelt's most current locations and make decisions that are key to running pumps in a way that is not harmful to fish, and providing $10 million in water infrastructure for refuges, a vital resource for billions of migratory birds that use the Pacific Flyway. In addition to the long-term provisions, the bill includes short- term, temporary provisions to allow for more efficient operation of the Federal and State water systems. As I stated, these emergency operations provisions last only for the length of the Governor's Emergency Declaration or 2 years--whichever is longer. These short-term provisions will allow the agencies to capture water from winter storms. Already, the snowpack is significantly higher in height and water content than the last few years, and more water is flowing down the Delta. The bill has eight key provisions that will allow for water to be captured and stored: Improved data to operate pumps. Enhanced daily monitoring and data collection will help to operate pumps more efficiently, and pump at higher levels when no fish are present and pump at reduced levels when fish are nearby. The revised bill requires daily boat monitoring to survey for smelt near the pumps when turbidity levels are high, so that pumping reductions are made based on the most up-to-date facts. The bill also authorizes studies to identify smelts' location in the Delta on a real-time basis. In addition, the bill authorizes a Delta Smelt Distribution study to identify how many smelt are in different parts of the Delta in drier and wetter years. This is critical to know what level of take of the smelt is a threat to the species. Winter storms and ``payback.'' The revised bill authorizes agencies to increase pumping during winter storms using their best judgment to determine when and by how much. Once the storms end, the agencies would no longer be required to ``payback'' water already pumped unless there was an environmental reason, such as harm to fish. This so-called ``payback'' has led to the loss of tens of thousands of acre-feet of water. Payback currently requires agencies to reduce subsequent water pumping by an equal amount of water as was captured during the storms, which results in the loss of tens of thousands of acre-feet of water that could instead be stored or transferred for use throughout the State. Agencies must explain pumping levels under the Delta Smelt Biological Opinion. The bill does not impose any mandated pumping levels, instead leaving those pumping levels up to the discretion of the water agencies. But the bill does require officials to justify the levels at which they pump. By requiring written justification for the level of pumping, the bill attempts to maximize the amount of water pumped by requiring officials to consider whether real-time monitoring justifies lowering pumping levels. This water system must be operated based on science, not intuition. I want to be clear: The revised text does not include any mandate. We removed a provision that would have mandated pumping at -5000 cubic feet per second in the Old and Middle Rivers, unless pumping at these levels would cause additional adverse effects on the Delta smelt. The 1:1 transfer ratio. The strong El Nino means more water is likely to be available for voluntary transfers from willing sellers with extra water to buyers downstream who need water. This provision helps facilitate those transfers in April and May by allowing a 1:1 transfer ratio. In past years, agencies have reduced the likelihood of transfers by requiring water users to send more water downstream than could be captured and stored at a 4:1 ratio. By allowing for a 1:1 ratio--while adhering to environmental law and biological opinions--more water transfers can be accomplished, providing water to users who truly need it. Extending the time period for water transfers by five months. The bill extends by 5 months the time period when transfers may take place. The current transfer window of July through September is extended to April through November. Extending the transfer window allows water transfers to be available during the spring planting season. All transfers must remain consistent with the biological opinions. Expediting review of transfers and the construction of barriers. Environmental reviews of water transfers and the installation of temporary barriers must be completed within 60 days, unless an environmental impact statement is required. Agencies must maximize water supplies consistent with applicable laws and biological opinions. Federal agencies can and should try to both protect species and provide water supplies. The bill makes very clear that agencies cannot harm the fish in violation of the biological opinions--but within this environmental protection mandate, the agencies should try to increase water supplies--especially during a drought emergency. This requirement complements the additional requirement that agencies must explain any harm to the fish that requires a reduction in water supplies. Delta Cross-Channel Gates. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the gates remain open as long as possible. These gates are critically important for controlling salinity in the Delta. When the gates are closed, water that would otherwise be pumped or stored is instead used to flush salty water out through the Delta. Keeping the gates open for longer will help to reduce salinity in the interior Delta and avoid releasing water unnecessarily in the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. This helps both Delta farmers and communities as well as those south of Delta. As I stated before, all of these short-term provisions are temporary and will sunset when the Governor's drought emergency expires or two years from the date of enactment, whichever is later. We have spent untold hours working on this bill. We have addressed--to the best of our ability--the concerns raised by a host of constituent groups and individuals including environmentalists, water districts, Federal and State agencies, and the agricultural sector. The bill reflects many meetings between Democrats and Republicans, water districts, cities, rural communities, farmers, fishermen, and a number of environmental groups. While this bill will not satisfy every water interest, I believe that these provisions will place California on a long-term path to drought resiliency. This is a bill that offers real help to California while adhering to the laws and biological opinions that protect fish and wildlife. The result of our efforts is a bill that stands a real chance of being approved by both parties and signed into law. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make that happen.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the historic drought that is devastating California and much of the West. To help address this disaster, today I am introducing the California Long-Term Provisions for Water Supply and Short-Term Provisions for Emergency Drought Relief Act. Let me begin by saying that the El Nino we're seeing now in California brings with it some good news. The Sierra Nevada snowpack is the deepest it has been in 5 years, and water content is up. The California Department of Water Resources reported in early- February that the statewide snowpack stands at 25.4 inches, or 130 percent of the historical average. But we are faced with three problems. First, one El Nino--even a strong El Nino--won't be sufficient to pull us out of this drought. Experts say we need at least 3 consecutive years of above-average precipitation. Second, we lack the infrastructure needed to store much of this water. We need to do more to increase the amount of water we can hold from wet years to dry years. And while river flows are extremely high from these winter storms, we are not taking advantage of them to the extent we should. What that means is tens of thousands of acre-feet are flowing out into the Pacific Ocean rather than being collected for later use. So while California is getting some much-needed rain, it's not likely to be enough to end this historic drought. Let me be clear; this drought is hurting California. Mr. President, 69 communities are facing significant water supply and water quality issues, 2,591 wells are critically low or dry affecting some 13,000 residents; California's economy lost $2.7 billion from the drought in 2015. The agricultural sector lost approximately $1.8 billion from the drought in 2015, exceeding the $41.5 billion loss in 2014. More than 1 million acres of California farmland were fallowed in 2015, an increase of more than 600,000 acres over 2011. Since 2014, the drought has led to 35,000 permanent jobs lost in California, 21,000 seasonal and part-time agricultural jobs have also been lost. Farmworkers cannot find employment and are forced to move in with family members or friends who are also struggling. Some single mothers are traveling as far as Washington State for work to help support their families. Land subsidence from pumping too much groundwater has caused large areas of the San Joaquin Valley to sink by as much as two inches per month. As a result, bridges, aqueducts and roads have already begun to crack. Mr. President, 50 million large trees are dead or likely will die from lack of water, and another 888 million trees experienced loss of canopy cover since 2011. These are just some of the many examples of the dreadful effect the drought is having on California. The bill I am introducing today includes a wide range of provisions to address two key needs: First, long-term solutions. In addition to helping the many communities that are running out of water, we must create a new water infrastructure that is not as dependent on annual levels of rain or snow. That is why the bill includes many programs to promote long-term drought resiliency. California is now home to 40 million people, but is relying on State and Federal water infrastructure first constructed in the 1960s when California's population was just 16 million. The Central Valley Project and the State Water Project were completed in the 1970s, and neither have kept pace with the rapid growth in California's population or economy. Put another way, California's major water infrastructure has remained largely unchanged for the past 40 years while California's population has more than doubled. To address this, we must come up with long-term solutions to address these water infrastructure gaps. This must include investments in water storage projects, desalination plants and water recycling projects, as well as programs to assist vulnerable communities, fund research and support ecosystem restoration. In addition to those long-term solutions, the bill would also provide short-term, temporary solutions which are limited to the duration of the Governor's drought declaration or two years, whichever is longer. These provisions will help make the water-delivery system more efficient during this current drought, and they will do so without any mandated pumping levels. Under this bill State and Federal officials will continue to determine appropriate pumping levels, and all short-term operations must comply with existing applicable laws. Let me repeat: there are no mandated levels of pumping in this bill. Let me briefly discuss how this bill will help California and the positive impacts it will have west-wide. Over the past 2 years, my staff and I have gone through an extensive consultation process with both State and Federal agencies. We have worked through every proposal or suggestion we received from those agencies and all are incorporated in the bill I am introducing today. On the Federal side, we worked with the Department of the Interior; Department of Commerce; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife Service; NOAA Fisheries; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. On the State side, we worked with the California Natural Resources Agency; California Department of Water Resources; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and the Office of the Governor of California. In addition to integrating proposals from State and Federal agency experts, we have incorporated feedback from a variety of stakeholders including environmental groups; urban and agricultural water districts; wildlife advocates and Democratic and Republican congressional offices. As part of the consultation process, we received and incorporated more than 40 suggested changes. I would first like to cover the long-term provisions. As I said, California is home to around 40 million people, but has the same water infrastructure as the 1960s, when only 16 million people lived in the state. Given the changing climate, I believe that California will become a desert state if we don't act. Droughts will only become more frequent and more severe. That's why the long-term provisions of this bill look at new sources of water and new ways to store water. These long-term provisions authorize a total of $1.3 billion and include desalination, recycling, storage, and loan assistance for drought-stricken communities. And as I said, these investments can produce a new water infrastructure not as dependent on weather. This bill increases the WaterSMART authorization by $150 million for long-term water conservation, reclamation and recycling. Some of these WaterSMART funds can then be used for a new Bureau of Reclamation program to help rural and disadvantaged communities that are running out of water. These grants would cover everything from emergency bottled water to long-term solutions like water treatment facilities. But we also need to look beyond the current emergency and consider ways we can shift these communities from vulnerable water sources like wells to more sustainable and resilient water systems. That's why this bill prioritizes money from the Environmental Protection Agency's Revolving Loan Fund for water infrastructure projects that would help drought-stricken communities that are at risk of running out of clean water. This bill also authorizes $200 million for the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, known as RIFIA. This loan- guarantee program will help water districts and municipalities fund long-term solutions to store more water and provide additional clean water. We also need to invest in desalination and water recycling. These are two of the most promising technologies that may offer long-term solutions. The bill identifies 137 local recycling and desalination projects that, if constructed, could produce upwards of 1.4 million acre feet in ``new'' water. This includes 27 desalination projects identified by the State-- totaling more than 352,000 acre-feet of water--that the Secretary of the Interior must consider funding if eligible. The bill also reauthorizes the Desalination Act and authorizes $100 million for feasibility studies and project design as well as desalinization research to improve the energy co-efficient from reverse osmosis and membrane technology. These funds run through 2020. In addition, the bill identifies 110 water recycling projects that the Secretary of the Interior must consider funding. These projects total more than 1,060,334 acre-feet of water. The bill authorizes $200 million for the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI water recycling program and streamlines the program by eliminating the hurdle of congressional authorization for individual projects. We also have to encourage public-private partnerships. That's why the bill funds a loan-guarantee program and other financing mechanisms to help make projects a reality. If all the projects identified in the bill were completed, nearly 1.4 million acre-feet of ``new'' water could be made available. Given the consensus that droughts will grow more severe, we have to increase the amount of water we can hold from wet years for use in dry years. In order to help accomplish this, the bill authorizes $600 million for water storage projects in California and other Western States. These funds would be available through 2025. But the Federal Government can't do it all on its own. California signaled that it's ready by enacting a $7.5 billion water bond. The bill therefore positions the federal government as a partner with California to take advantage of these funds to build new reservoirs and expand existing reservoirs. Recognizing that the drought has taken a toll on many aspects of life in California, including fish and wildlife, this bill authorizes $55 million for habitat restoration efforts. Measures include protections for the entire life cycle of fish, from increasing spawning habitat to reducing mortality during migration out to the ocean; reducing threats to fish, including smelt and salmon, by removing predators such as striped bass from specific locations where they prey on endangered fish; using real-time monitoring of turbidity and fish to determine pumping rates, rather than specific congressional mandates or targets; funding daily boat monitoring to survey for smelt near the pumps when turbidity levels are high and the smelt are often attracted to the pumps; funding studies to track the smelt's most current locations and make decisions that are key to running pumps in a way that is not harmful to fish, and providing $10 million in water infrastructure for refuges, a vital resource for billions of migratory birds that use the Pacific Flyway. In addition to the long-term provisions, the bill includes short- term, temporary provisions to allow for more efficient operation of the Federal and State water systems. As I stated, these emergency operations provisions last only for the length of the Governor's Emergency Declaration or 2 years--whichever is longer. These short-term provisions will allow the agencies to capture water from winter storms. Already, the snowpack is significantly higher in height and water content than the last few years, and more water is flowing down the Delta. The bill has eight key provisions that will allow for water to be captured and stored: Improved data to operate pumps. Enhanced daily monitoring and data collection will help to operate pumps more efficiently, and pump at higher levels when no fish are present and pump at reduced levels when fish are nearby. The revised bill requires daily boat monitoring to survey for smelt near the pumps when turbidity levels are high, so that pumping reductions are made based on the most up-to-date facts. The bill also authorizes studies to identify smelts' location in the Delta on a real-time basis. In addition, the bill authorizes a Delta Smelt Distribution study to identify how many smelt are in different parts of the Delta in drier and wetter years. This is critical to know what level of take of the smelt is a threat to the species. Winter storms and ``payback.'' The revised bill authorizes agencies to increase pumping during winter storms using their best judgment to determine when and by how much. Once the storms end, the agencies would no longer be required to ``payback'' water already pumped unless there was an environmental reason, such as harm to fish. This so-called ``payback'' has led to the loss of tens of thousands of acre-feet of water. Payback currently requires agencies to reduce subsequent water pumping by an equal amount of water as was captured during the storms, which results in the loss of tens of thousands of acre-feet of water that could instead be stored or transferred for use throughout the State. Agencies must explain pumping levels under the Delta Smelt Biological Opinion. The bill does not impose any mandated pumping levels, instead leaving those pumping levels up to the discretion of the water agencies. But the bill does require officials to justify the levels at which they pump. By requiring written justification for the level of pumping, the bill attempts to maximize the amount of water pumped by requiring officials to consider whether real-time monitoring justifies lowering pumping levels. This water system must be operated based on science, not intuition. I want to be clear: The revised text does not include any mandate. We removed a provision that would have mandated pumping at -5000 cubic feet per second in the Old and Middle Rivers, unless pumping at these levels would cause additional adverse effects on the Delta smelt. The 1:1 transfer ratio. The strong El Nino means more water is likely to be available for voluntary transfers from willing sellers with extra water to buyers downstream who need water. This provision helps facilitate those transfers in April and May by allowing a 1:1 transfer ratio. In past years, agencies have reduced the likelihood of transfers by requiring water users to send more water downstream than could be captured and stored at a 4:1 ratio. By allowing for a 1:1 ratio--while adhering to environmental law and biological opinions--more water transfers can be accomplished, providing water to users who truly need it. Extending the time period for water transfers by five months. The bill extends by 5 months the time period when transfers may take place. The current transfer window of July through September is extended to April through November. Extending the transfer window allows water transfers to be available during the spring planting season. All transfers must remain consistent with the biological opinions. Expediting review of transfers and the construction of barriers. Environmental reviews of water transfers and the installation of temporary barriers must be completed within 60 days, unless an environmental impact statement is required. Agencies must maximize water supplies consistent with applicable laws and biological opinions. Federal agencies can and should try to both protect species and provide water supplies. The bill makes very clear that agencies cannot harm the fish in violation of the biological opinions--but within this environmental protection mandate, the agencies should try to increase water supplies--especially during a drought emergency. This requirement complements the additional requirement that agencies must explain any harm to the fish that requires a reduction in water supplies. Delta Cross-Channel Gates. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the gates remain open as long as possible. These gates are critically important for controlling salinity in the Delta. When the gates are closed, water that would otherwise be pumped or stored is instead used to flush salty water out through the Delta. Keeping the gates open for longer will help to reduce salinity in the interior Delta and avoid releasing water unnecessarily in the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. This helps both Delta farmers and communities as well as those south of Delta. As I stated before, all of these short-term provisions are temporary and will sunset when the Governor's drought emergency expires or two years from the date of enactment, whichever is later. We have spent untold hours working on this bill. We have addressed--to the best of our ability--the concerns raised by a host of constituent groups and individuals including environmentalists, water districts, Federal and State agencies, and the agricultural sector. The bill reflects many meetings between Democrats and Republicans, water districts, cities, rural communities, farmers, fishermen, and a number of environmental groups. While this bill will not satisfy every water interest, I believe that these provisions will place California on a long-term path to drought resiliency. This is a bill that offers real help to California while adhering to the laws and biological opinions that protect fish and wildlife. The result of our efforts is a bill that stands a real chance of being approved by both parties and signed into law. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make that happen.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman very much. I want Senator Corker to know that I fully support his committee's recommendation and believe the time has come to enforce and place some sanctions against North Korea. I think we all judge the world's leaders based on their actions and their stated intentions. To me there is no question that Mr. Kim's intentions are adverse to the well-being of our country. As a citizen of the western United States and a Senator representing nearly 40 million people in California, this is all very alarming, and it should alarm the world. If you take stock of North Korea's recent actions and their capabilities, the cause for concern is apparent. On January 6 of this year, North Korea detonated its fourth nuclear device. Regardless of whether it was a hydrogen bomb or not, Mr. Kim's intention is clear: he seeks a nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, the measures the international community have adopted to date have been insufficient to stop him. In October of 2006, the North Koreans first detonated a device which had an estimated yield of less than 1 kiloton. In May of 2009, they detonated a second device, roughly 2 kilotons. In February 2013, they detonated a third device, 6 kilotons to 7 kilotons, and the one this year was the fourth. I would not be surprised if their most recent test had a greater yield than the last. Not only have North Korean weapons become more lethal, but their stockpile has likely increased over time. According to a February 2015 analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security, North Korea has between 15 and 22 nuclear weapons. By the end of 2014, and they could have 20 to 100 nuclear weapons. That is deeply troubling, especially as North Korea continues to make advances in their missile program. Again, experts at the Institute for Science and International Security have warned that North Korea likely has the capability to mount a nuclear warhead on its medium-range missiles. Most of Japan and all of South Korea, each of which hosts tens of thousands of U.S. military and civilian personnel, are easily in range. And just this past weekend, they again tested an ICBM under the guise of placing a satellite in space. According to various reports, North Korea tested a three-stage likely Taepodong-2 rocket, which, in fact, did place a satellite into orbit. Again, to me, the intention is clear. They want to build a missile capable of reaching the United States. An ICBM on a launch pad is vulnerable to attack. So to evade this vulnerability, North Korea appears also to be developing a road-mobile ICBM, the KN-08, which it is estimated can reach the United States. In April of this past year, ADM Bill Gortney, the head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, said: ``We assess that it [the KN- 08] is operational today'' and that the mobile nature of the KN-08 makes it a difficult target. Gortney also said: ``Our assessment is that they [the North Koreans] have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the [U.S.] homeland.'' It is not just the nuclear weapons and missile program that give me pause. In the last several years, North Korea has committed highly provocative acts. North Korea chose to sink a South Korean naval vessel in 2010, killing 46 soldiers. It has shelled South Korean islands and planted mines along the DMZ that maimed South Korean soldiers. It has undertaken sophisticated cyber attacks against U.S. companies, Sony Pictures, and South Korean banks. Previously, North Korea walked away from the 1994 Agreed Framework and withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Most recently, it has repeatedly flouted U.N. Security Council resolutions and proliferated weapons of mass destruction technologies. With respect to its own human rights record, a 2014 United Nations Human Rights Council report makes clear that North Korea's leaders should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The United Nations has found that North Korea is committing systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations against its own people. The regime selectively distributes food to privileged individuals and routinely uses starvation to punish dissent. Torture, forced disappearances, and inhumane detention conditions are routine. In the past, the regime even jailed three generations of dissidents on the concept of guilt by association. In its prison camps alone, the United Nations estimates that hundreds of thousands of dissidents have died. One anecdote from the U.N.'s report demonstrates the total and diabolical suffering put upon the North Korean people under this regime. Ordinary Koreans must go to extraordinary lengths to survive, including prostitution, theft, and smuggling. A U.N. investigator was told of an instance when a woman was pulled off a train, and a dead, small child--no more than 2 years old--was strapped to her back. State security suspected the woman was smuggling copper but could find no evidence. After interrogating the woman for some time, they asked her to place her child on a desk before them. The woman then broke down and began to cry. When she finally placed the quiet, dead child on the desk, the officials noticed its stomach was red. They then opened the child's stomach and found about 2 kilograms of copper inside. To survive, this woman was forced to smuggle copper in her own dead child's stomach. No mother anywhere on Earth should be forced to such extremes. When it comes to the international response to North Korea and its provocative behavior, I very much regret that China has not seen fit to do more. In my view, China, in its size and capability, has the ability to rein in North Korea and is probably the only country in the region that can do so. North Korea's nuclear test facilities are close to China's border. Just like Japan and South Korea, China's security is threatened by an unstable nuclear power in its neighborhood. Yet China continues to provide the fuel, food, trade, and international protection that sustains Mr. Kim's government. In my meetings with China's Ambassador Cui in Washington, DC, I have expressed to him that China can and must do more. I have tried to impress upon him that a nuclear-armed North Korea, with ever-increasing weapons, is not in China's security interests. The United States cannot sit in silence in the face of North Korea's ever-advancing nuclear and missile programs. For some, Iran has been a big threat. For me, reading the intelligence and seeing the progress over the years of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, I believe North Korea is a very serious threat to the well-being of this country. We must protect and reassure our allies in the region. That may include placing more advanced missile defenses, both in South Korea and Japan, as well as closer trilateral military cooperation with these countries. The fact that the North Korean Government has resisted international overtures and condemnation leaves us little choice. So I come to the floor today to support the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enforcement Act of 2016. This bill will impose mandatory sanctions against North Korean persons and entities involved in weapons of mass destruction development, delivery, and proliferation; serious human rights abuses; trade in luxury goods; money laundering; smuggling; and narcotics trafficking. This legislation alone, though, will not cease North Korea's illegal activities. However, it is the beginning of a more comprehensive response to North Korea's increasingly dangerous behavior. I thank the chairman and his committee for bringing forward this legislation. I certainly intend to support it. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute and offer my heartfelt thanks to one of my most trusted advisers, David Grannis. David has served me on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for over a decade, beginning as my designee in March of 2005, then as my staff director from January of 2009 when I took over as chairman of the Committee. Over this decade, I have grown to trust his expertise and advice on all aspects of our oversight of the Intelligence Community and to rely on David's keen abilities to manage the committee in a fair and bipartisan manner, while shepherding through some of the Nation's most important and sometimes controversial legislation. Prior to joining the Intelligence Committee in 2005, David worked on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and was the senior policy adviser to Representative Jane Harman on matters of national security. Before coming to Congress, David worked for 2 years at the National Research Council's Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology on projects studying the ability to make explosives more detectable and identifiable. He has a master's of public policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he worked for now- Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who I understand recommended him to Representative Harman. David is a proven expert on both process and substance, which I am certain he developed by applying his characteristic analytic approach to everything, a skill he developed while a student in chemistry at Cornell University. David's accomplishments on the Intelligence Committee are extensive, so I will mention only a few of the highlights today. As staff director, David played a central role in assisting and guiding me and the committee through all stages of the committee's study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program, where a deft hand was required to negotiate numerous aspects of the review with the CIA and the administration. He played a significant role in prodding the administration to provide information and access to critically important material. He worked with the committee study team to declassify and secure release of a 500-page executive summary of the full 6,700-page report, a process that required months of excruciatingly detailed negotiations. The report is believed to be the largest review in congressional history. After the release of the declassified summary, David helped me and Senator McCain draft and pass legislation that will help ensure these types of harsh interrogation techniques will never be used again by the CIA or any other agency or representative of the U.S. Government. David also managed the bipartisan committee staff as it helped pass seven straight intelligence authorization bills from 2009 to the most recent one, which was signed by the President last month under the leadership of Chairman Burr. This effort, which helps ensure proper oversight of the intelligence community, was a significant achievement as no legislative guidance had been provided to the intelligence community during the previous 5 years prior to 2009. I thank David for leading the staff development of these bills and helping to successfully push them through Senate passage to bring them to the President's desk. Another recent significant accomplishment in which David's steady hand and expert advice helped achieve success is his work on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. This act, which was signed by the President last month, will help this Nation defend itself from cyber attacks by encouraging increased information sharing on cyber intrusions between private industry and the government. As staff director, David also oversaw the completion of two important committee reviews. The first one was a committee report on the 2009 Christmas Day attempted bombing of flight 253 over Detroit, and the second one was a bipartisan report on the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Each unflinchingly laid out the facts and helped determine what changes should be made as an appropriate response. David also worked to improve oversight of counterterrorism operations that helped assure the American public that Congress knew the details of what was being done by the executive branch, as well as provided recommendations for improvements. In 2007, David worked on the committee's investigation into prewar intelligence regarding Iraq. David served as the co-lead for the committee's sixth and final report on this topic, which dealt with the subject of prewar statements by senior policymakers. This was an important and sensitive subject, and David and his staff colleagues handled it with objectivity and professionalism. The report, approved by a bipartisan majority of the committee in June 2008, helped resolve a number of important questions regarding the run-up to the Iraq War. The great work that David and his colleagues did on this project ensured that the public finally received the facts and helped conclude what had at times been a contentious chapter in the committee's history. I also want to echo many of the comments that our committee staff has made about David including one that was passed onto me where a colleague said that he ``has been the rock upon which the staff's foundation is built.'' He has been a solid and stable leader that has provided the confidence that the staff needs to flourish. David's intellect and knowledge of the intelligence community and his communication skills in conveying that knowledge to committee members has gained him the respect and admiration of the entire committee. Finally, his demeanor and behavior in dealing with people, both inside and outside the committee, on both sides of the aisle and in both bodies of Congress, as well as with leaders of the intelligence community and the executive branch, is an example to be emulated. As I mentioned earlier, these are just a few of David's traits and accomplishments that I have come to rely upon while he served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. And I thank him for them. I also want to thank David's wife, Kerry Searle Grannis, for enduring the long hours and time away from home that is often a part of life in the Senate; and to acknowledge their three beautiful children--Owen, Amelia, and Nathaniel--who I hope now will have more time with their father, who can help them achieve more Boy Scout badges, excel in drama classes, and perfect that high board dive and soccer goal. Kerry has mentioned how wonderful a husband and father David has been, supporting her as she completed her Ph.D. and sharing all household chores, driving duties, and doctors' appointments for his busy crew. I know David will thrive as he begins a new set of challenges as the Principal Deputy Under Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. I wish him the very best and thank him for his many years of service and dedication to this country and to me.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I speak today regarding the introduction of a bill, cosponsored by Senators Boxer and Cardin, to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with the authority to obligate and expend appropriated funds in order to begin construction on critical projects in California, Kentucky, Maryland, and Washington. This is time-sensitive legislation, and I am working with my colleague and friend Chairman Isakson to move the bill by unanimous consent as soon as a final fiscal year 2016 funding measure is enacted. Last month, the Senate passed the fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which provided $822,800,000 for major construction projects at these Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. This bill passed without a single vote cast against it. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot spend the money appropriated for fiscal year 2016 and begin construction on these projects because it lacks a separate authorization, which is required by law. The legislation I am introducing today simply provides the authorization, as required by law, to allow the Department to move forward its fiscal year 2016 projects. The fiscal year 2016 projects include critical, time-sensitive seismic safety corrections to structures in San Francisco, West Los Angeles, Long Beach, and American Lake. These buildings, which include health care facilities, veteran housing, and a community living center, are at an 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, California 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. This is not a hypothetical situation. In 1971, the devastating San Fernando 6.6 magnitude earthquake struck and caused a total of 58 deaths. The older, deficient buildings at the San Fernando VA medical center were demolished, killing 30 patients and 10 staff. The destruction on the Federal Government's VA campus was responsible for the majority of all deaths reported in this earthquake. Had the Federal buildings been structurally sound, there is a likelihood that many of these deaths could have been prevented. If there are any Senators in this body who might want to delay moving the fiscal year 2016 construction authorizations, I urge them to think long and hard about this tragic event. In 2015, Congress did not authorize the Department's major construction projects until this past September; 10 months after funds were appropriated by Congress in the fiscal year 2015 Omnibus. I believe it would be a huge disserve to our veterans to allow such a lengthy delay to occur again. 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 as it reviewed the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request. The Senate Committee marked up and reported the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill in a bipartisan fashion. The Senate voted in a unanimous fashion to pass this bill just last month. I also understand there are concerns about the effectiveness of the Department's construction process, but the Senate's appropriations bill also included important provisions requiring the Department to work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on improving the management controls for its next major construction projects. I want to reiterate that without 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 fiscal year 2016 construction projects can move forward. 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 Senators Boxer and Cardin, to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with the authority to obligate and expend appropriated funds in order to begin construction on critical projects in California, Kentucky, Maryland, and Washington. This is time-sensitive legislation, and I am working with my colleague and friend Chairman Isakson to move the bill by unanimous consent as soon as a final fiscal year 2016 funding measure is enacted. Last month, the Senate passed the fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which provided $822,800,000 for major construction projects at these Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. This bill passed without a single vote cast against it. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot spend the money appropriated for fiscal year 2016 and begin construction on these projects because it lacks a separate authorization, which is required by law. The legislation I am introducing today simply provides the authorization, as required by law, to allow the Department to move forward its fiscal year 2016 projects. The fiscal year 2016 projects include critical, time-sensitive seismic safety corrections to structures in San Francisco, West Los Angeles, Long Beach, and American Lake. These buildings, which include health care facilities, veteran housing, and a community living center, are at an 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, California 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. This is not a hypothetical situation. In 1971, the devastating San Fernando 6.6 magnitude earthquake struck and caused a total of 58 deaths. The older, deficient buildings at the San Fernando VA medical center were demolished, killing 30 patients and 10 staff. The destruction on the Federal Government's VA campus was responsible for the majority of all deaths reported in this earthquake. Had the Federal buildings been structurally sound, there is a likelihood that many of these deaths could have been prevented. If there are any Senators in this body who might want to delay moving the fiscal year 2016 construction authorizations, I urge them to think long and hard about this tragic event. In 2015, Congress did not authorize the Department's major construction projects until this past September; 10 months after funds were appropriated by Congress in the fiscal year 2015 Omnibus. I believe it would be a huge disserve to our veterans to allow such a lengthy delay to occur again. 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 as it reviewed the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request. The Senate Committee marked up and reported the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill in a bipartisan fashion. The Senate voted in a unanimous fashion to pass this bill just last month. I also understand there are concerns about the effectiveness of the Department's construction process, but the Senate's appropriations bill also included important provisions requiring the Department to work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on improving the management controls for its next major construction projects. I want to reiterate that without 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 fiscal year 2016 construction projects can move forward. Congress must act before the next earthquake strikes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am very pleased to rise in strong support of the confirmation of Alissa Starzak to be the general counsel of the Army. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination in the vote we are about to take. Alissa was nominated for the position in July of 2014. While she was reported out favorably by the distinguished Armed Services Committee last year, she did not receive consideration by the full Senate prior to the end of the 113th Congress. The President nominated her again in January of this year, and I am very pleased that the Armed Services Committee, under the chairmanship of John McCain and the ranking member, Jack Reed, approved her nomination just a week ago, and I thank both of them for doing so. I support Alissa Starzak for the only reason that matters: She will be an excellent general counsel for the Department of the Army. First, she is a strong lawyer. Second, she cares deeply about the men and women of the U.S. Army. Given the many challenges our military faces, we can't afford to have this position remain vacant when there is a very strong candidate before us. Since mid-2011, Alissa Starzak has been a senior attorney within the Office of General Counsel of the Department of Defense. She currently serves as a deputy general counsel. She has led the Department's interactions with Congress on preparing and negotiating the annual Defense authorization, and she has had senior roles in policy discussions about detainee affairs, sexual assault, and harassment in the military. Alissa has strong expertise in the legal challenges that confront the U.S. Army, and she is well suited to provide legal guidance to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army and ensure the Department strictly obeys the law. More importantly for me, Alissa was a counsel on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from early 2007 to 2011, first under Chairman Jay Rockefeller and then continuing under my chairmanship. In that role, she worked diligently on legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, culminating in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and she drafted our Intelligence authorization bills, among other issues. From December 2007 until her departure from the committee in 2011, Alissa was one of two staff leads for our review of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. She coauthored a summary of interrogations of two early CIA detainees, Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri, that spurred the committee to approve, by a 14-to-1 vote, a full review of the entire program. As the colead of that study, Ms. Starzak reviewed many thousands of documents, drafted portions of the committee's study, and advised me and other members of the committee on the progress of the investigation. She departed the committee in 2011--that was 4 years ago--before the completion of the report, its declassification, and its public release. I know her work on the SSCI study came up during her confirmation hearing at the Armed Services Committee, and I want the record to be perfectly clear. Alissa Starzak departed the committee staff in May of 2011, well before the controversy of the CIA gaining unauthorized access to the committee staff computer network and well before the controversy over the so-called Panetta Review documents. So it is not fair to blame her for anything that happened during that time. She was not there and has not been there for 4 years. As I stated in a Senate floor statement on March 11, 2014, a portion of the CIA's Panetta Review was transported securely, consistent with its classification from a CIA off-site location to another secure facility--the committee's safe in the Senate. This relocation occurred in late 2013, more than 2 years after Ms. Starzak left the committee staff and long after she began her work at the Pentagon. She had no prior knowledge and no role in the transportation of the document to the Senate. So there should be no confusion on that point. Before coming to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Alissa Starzak worked as an attorney at the CIA's Office of General Counsel and as an associate in the international law firm of O'Melveny & Myers. She clerked for the Honorable E. Grady Jolly on the Fifth Circuit of Appeals after graduating from the University of Chicago Law School with honors. Ms. Starzak did her undergraduate work at Amherst College where she graduated magna cum laude. So Alissa Starzak has the intelligence, the right background, and the strong experience within the Department of Defense to be general counsel for the Army. I urge my colleagues to confirm Alissa Starzak. It is unfortunate that it has taken a year and a half since she was first nominated, but I am very pleased we are voting to confirm her today. I conclude by thanking Senator McCain and Senator Reed for working together to get this done. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, since no one else seeks the floor at this time, it has just been brought to my attention that there are a couple of letters here which I thought are on point, and it will become clear. This letter is from Alberto Mora: I want to state my absolute and explicit endorsement for the nomination of Alissa Starzak to be the next General Counsel of the Army. By my current affiliation with the Harvard Kennedy School's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, I served as the General Counsel of the Navy from 2001-2006. I have served alongside many of the most senior civilians in the Department of Defense, and I know what qualities successful civilian leaders should bring to their work, among them professional competence and a commitment to honorable public service. These two qualities describe Ms. Starzak. The Senate has honored me four times by confirming me for appointments in both Republican and Democratic administrations. I am familiar with and supportive of the Senate's role in confirming senior federal officials, but I fear that in Ms. Starzak's case her confirmation has been impeded for reasons unworthy of the Senate. As you are no doubt aware, she served as counsel on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for more than four years. Her work on that committee was thorough and professional; she has served the Congress and our republic ably. That she has been disparaged for her work is wrong. It sends a clear and troubling signal to every congressional staffer of both parties that his or her dedicated public service may be treated not as a credential, but as a disqualification for senior administration appointments. If that signal is confirmed by failing to confirm Ms. Starzak--not for what she did wrong, but for what she did right--it would only serve to damage the Senate, this and future administrations, and our nation. It is signed by Alberto Mora. I would also like to submit a letter from RADM John D. Hutson, U.S. Navy, head of the JAG Corps, retired. I write to express my complete and unequivocal support for the nomination of Alissa Starzak to be the next General Counsel of the Army. I have deep concerns that her nomination has been the subject of unfortunate and nasty political theater, but I am heartened to know that her nomination will receive a full floor vote on Monday, 14 December 2015. As you are no doubt aware, she served as a professional staff member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for more than four years. . . . I served as The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. I underwent the confirmation process. As the senior uniformed lawyer in our service, I spent significant time assisting nominees with confirmation. Throughout my career I worked alongside, and under, some of the most capable, professional, and brilliant people who make up the civilian ranks of appointed leaders in our government. While I don't know her personally, I am very familiar with her reputation, which is stellar. I write because I believe her case has been one that has damaged our republic. She has been maligned for performing her duties as a public servant, and her nomination was held up because of events that occurred after she left the committee staff. I encourage you in the strongest terms to confirm her for this position. Losing her services to the rankling of partisan disputes would be to the detriment of both the Department of Defense and the country. Sincerely, John D. Hutson, Rear Admiral, USN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Requiring Reporting of Online Terrorist Activity Act, which would require technology companies to inform appropriate law enforcement authorities when they become aware of terrorist activity online. This provision is modeled after a similar requirement on technology companies under current law, which requires the companies to report instances of child pornography that they become aware of online. This legislation passed the Intelligence Committee earlier this year by a vote of 15-0 as part of our annual Intelligence Authorization Act, but it was later dropped, along with other provisions, to try to move the broader intelligence bill through the Senate. I have continued to believe that terrorists' use of the Internet is a problem that we need to address, and that the government can't do it alone. I have had conversations with the senior leaders and general counsels of major technology companies and unfortunately, I don't believe that they will report terrorist activity on their websites without a legal requirement to do so. So I am reintroducing this provision as a stand-alone bill, especially in the wake of recent terrorist attacks that highlight the problem of terrorist activity on social media. The investigation into the San Bernardino attack is ongoing, but so far, we have learned that sometime around the time of the attack, the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, or an account connected to her, posted something on her Facebook page declaring allegiance to the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant or ``ISIL.'' Facebook has publicly confirmed that the company identified and removed the account connected to Malik because praising a terrorist attack or declaring allegiance to leaders of ISIL would violate the company's standards for use. Facebook has said it is cooperating with law enforcement on the matter as part of the post-shooting investigation, but I would like to see technology companies notify law enforcement about terrorist activity they see online before an attack occurs. It is important to recognize how ISIL has used social media to reinvent terrorist recruiting and plotting over the past year and a half. I believe that now is the time for Congress to pass legislation to help law enforcement better respond to the threat. Unlike in the past when terrorists devised intricate plots years in advance, today, thousands of ISIL followers have flooded social media with a vast and persistent effort to find followers inside the United States, identify targets of opportunity, and instruct their new supporters how to conduct more small-scale, yet lethal terrorist attacks--all in a matter of days or weeks and all online without ever meeting or vetting their operative in person. This new trend shows that terrorism has adapted to the digital age, spreading first its propaganda and then its operational reach across the globe. Its lack of coordination or complexity makes it faster and harder to thwart than ever before, and the ubiquitous use of social media gives ISIL a wider direct audience than al-Qa'ida ever enjoyed. To respond, we must ensure that law enforcement is aware of the threat. To do this, Congress should pass this legislation immediately, which requires technology companies to inform the appropriate authorities when they become aware of terrorist activity. This type of requirement is not new. For years, companies have been required to notify law enforcement when they become aware of online child pornography. This bill would do essentially the same thing, but for cases of terrorism. It would not require companies to monitor their customers, nor would it chill free speech protected by the Constitution. Instead, it simply requires that clear acts of terrorist plotting or illegal activity associated with terrorism be conveyed to law enforcement. Most social media companies already devote considerable resources to remove content or suspend the accounts of individuals who post or transmit blatant terrorist-related content. But under the current system, there is no requirement that a company provide notice to law enforcement when, through the normal course of business, it becomes aware of images, posts, or other online terrorist activity. By closing that gap and requiring that companies notify law enforcement, there is a better chance the attempts by terrorist groups like ISIL to direct an individual inside the United States to conduct a violent act will be discovered and thwarted before it is too late. When technology companies see a picture of a child being exploited, they are required to inform law enforcement. Terrorist activity should be no different. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Requiring Reporting of Online Terrorist Activity Act, which would require technology companies to inform appropriate law enforcement authorities when they become aware of terrorist activity online. This provision is modeled after a similar requirement on technology companies under current law, which requires the companies to report instances of child pornography that they become aware of online. This legislation passed the Intelligence Committee earlier this year by a vote of 15-0 as part of our annual Intelligence Authorization Act, but it was later dropped, along with other provisions, to try to move the broader intelligence bill through the Senate. I have continued to believe that terrorists' use of the Internet is a problem that we need to address, and that the government can't do it alone. I have had conversations with the senior leaders and general counsels of major technology companies and unfortunately, I don't believe that they will report terrorist activity on their websites without a legal requirement to do so. So I am reintroducing this provision as a stand-alone bill, especially in the wake of recent terrorist attacks that highlight the problem of terrorist activity on social media. The investigation into the San Bernardino attack is ongoing, but so far, we have learned that sometime around the time of the attack, the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, or an account connected to her, posted something on her Facebook page declaring allegiance to the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant or ``ISIL.'' Facebook has publicly confirmed that the company identified and removed the account connected to Malik because praising a terrorist attack or declaring allegiance to leaders of ISIL would violate the company's standards for use. Facebook has said it is cooperating with law enforcement on the matter as part of the post-shooting investigation, but I would like to see technology companies notify law enforcement about terrorist activity they see online before an attack occurs. It is important to recognize how ISIL has used social media to reinvent terrorist recruiting and plotting over the past year and a half. I believe that now is the time for Congress to pass legislation to help law enforcement better respond to the threat. Unlike in the past when terrorists devised intricate plots years in advance, today, thousands of ISIL followers have flooded social media with a vast and persistent effort to find followers inside the United States, identify targets of opportunity, and instruct their new supporters how to conduct more small-scale, yet lethal terrorist attacks--all in a matter of days or weeks and all online without ever meeting or vetting their operative in person. This new trend shows that terrorism has adapted to the digital age, spreading first its propaganda and then its operational reach across the globe. Its lack of coordination or complexity makes it faster and harder to thwart than ever before, and the ubiquitous use of social media gives ISIL a wider direct audience than al-Qa'ida ever enjoyed. To respond, we must ensure that law enforcement is aware of the threat. To do this, Congress should pass this legislation immediately, which requires technology companies to inform the appropriate authorities when they become aware of terrorist activity. This type of requirement is not new. For years, companies have been required to notify law enforcement when they become aware of online child pornography. This bill would do essentially the same thing, but for cases of terrorism. It would not require companies to monitor their customers, nor would it chill free speech protected by the Constitution. Instead, it simply requires that clear acts of terrorist plotting or illegal activity associated with terrorism be conveyed to law enforcement. Most social media companies already devote considerable resources to remove content or suspend the accounts of individuals who post or transmit blatant terrorist-related content. But under the current system, there is no requirement that a company provide notice to law enforcement when, through the normal course of business, it becomes aware of images, posts, or other online terrorist activity. By closing that gap and requiring that companies notify law enforcement, there is a better chance the attempts by terrorist groups like ISIL to direct an individual inside the United States to conduct a violent act will be discovered and thwarted before it is too late. When technology companies see a picture of a child being exploited, they are required to inform law enforcement. Terrorist activity should be no different. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2910.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment which is identical to a bill I have introduced with Republican Congressman Peter King. This amendment was proposed by the Bush administration's Department of Justice in 2007. It would allow the Attorney General to prevent a person from buying a gun or explosive if, one, the recipient is a known or suspected terrorist; and, two, the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the recipient would use the firearm in connection with a terrorist act. The bill has very broad law enforcement support, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who was also chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, recently said on Meet the Press: If Congress really wants to do something instead of just talking about something, help us out with that Terrorist Watch List, those thousands of people that can purchase firearms in this country. I'm more worried about them than I am about Syrian refugees, to be quite frank with you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to praise today the work of Mr. Daniel Jones, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee staff, who is leaving the Senate tomorrow. Many of us enter public service for the simple goal of making a difference. After knowing Dan for 9 years, I can say that he is one of the few people working here on Capitol Hill who has helped make history. Without his indefatigable work on the Intelligence Committee staff, the Senate report on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program would not have been completed, nor would its executive summary have been released to the public, an effort that led to the recent passage of critically important and long overdue anti-torture legislation. Dan came to the Intelligence Committee in January 2007 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he served as an intelligence analyst. In his first 2 years on the staff, he played a key role in overseeing counterterrorism efforts and the FBI's transition from a pure law enforcement agency to an intelligence agency--a transition that has proven instrumental to the Bureau's ability to identify and thwart numerous terrorist attacks over the past several years. However, his service and focus shifted following the revelation in December 2007 that the CIA had previously destroyed interrogation videotapes that showed the brutal treatment and questioning of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Then-Chairman Jay Rockefeller assigned Dan and fellow staffer Alissa Starzak to review the CIA cables describing those interrogation sessions. For the next several months, Dan worked at his full-time job at the committee while also working nights and weekends at CIA headquarters, poring through the cables. The report that he and Alissa produced in early 2009 was graphic, and it was shocking. It demonstrated in documented fact and in the CIA's own words treatment by the U.S. Government that stood in contrast to our values and to what the committee had previously been led to believe. The report sparked a comprehensive investigation by the committee, with a 14-1 vote in March 2009, that Dan led and then saw through to its completion. While carrying out the investigation into the CIA program, Dan also co-led the committee's investigation into the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Five months later, the committee produced a bipartisan report that found 14 specific points of failure that resulted in Abdulmutallab being able to board the flight and attempt to detonate his explosive device at the direction of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. The report also made both classified and unclassified recommendations to improve our counterterrorism efforts. But back to the investigation on the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program--to say that Dan worked diligently on this study is a gross understatement. He, along with other committee staff, worked day and night, often 7 days a week, from 2009 through December 2012. He became an expert in one of the most unfortunate activities in the history of our intelligence community, going through more than 6 million pages of materials produced for the study, as well as immersing himself in the anti-torture provisions in U.S. law, as well as human rights materials, and the background of other similar historic Senate investigations. Throughout this period, Dan regularly briefed me on the team's findings. Each time, I noted the obvious toll that this was taking on him physically, but he always remained committed to concluding the report. From the end of 2012 through the end of 2014, Dan stewarded the report through two bipartisan committee votes, a lengthy period of review and meetings with the CIA, and an 8-month long redaction review leading to the release of the executive summary of the study on December 9, 2014. He then played a key role in enacting reforms following the release of the executive summary, in particular the passage of a provision in this year's National Defense Authorization Act that will prevent the future use of coercive interrogation techniques or indefinite, secret detention in the future. While Dan is known most for his leadership on the CIA detention and interrogation review, his public service doesn't end there. Before his Federal service, Dan taught for Teach for America in an inner-city school in Baltimore, MD, and he has served on the board of his alma mater, Elizabethtown College. His dedication to service is also demonstrated by his two master's degrees, a master's of public policy from the Kennedy School of Government and a master's of arts in teaching from Johns Hopkins. I want to use this opportunity to thank Dan Jones for his indispensable work over the past 9 years and to wish him the very best as he moves on to future endeavors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to speak today in support of Planned Parenthood and express how heartbroken I am over last week's shooting in Colorado Springs. My thoughts are with the victims and their families. To experience such violence in a place dedicated to saving lives is unthinkable. I would also like to thank the staff of the clinic in Colorado Springs--and all Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. The health care services you provide are invaluable. You help so many people, and you do it in the face of so many challenges. I am grateful for your bravery and your compassion. Following last week's attack, the media reported that staff rushed to the clinic's safe room with their patients. Let me repeat: a health clinic with a safe room. That a clinic dedicated to helping women--many of whom have no other option for health care--needs a safe room is unbelievable. I have been deeply troubled over the years by the toxic rhetoric targeted at Planned Parenthood--and this dangerous rhetoric has only increased in recent months. It sends a signal that using violence to intimidate health care professionals and shut down clinics is somehow acceptable. Let me be clear: these actions are not acceptable. It is shameful and disgusting and should be universally condemned. I do believe there is a link between the poisonous rhetoric directed at these health care providers and the violence used against them. And I hope all of my colleagues in Congress--and every public official around the country--thinks carefully about the effects their words can have. An FBI intelligence assessment from September said, ``It is likely criminal or suspicious incidents will continue to be directed against reproductive health care providers, their staff and facilities.'' These incidents aren't new. Over the last 40 years, there have been more than 200 arsons and bombings at women's health care clinics. Doctors and health care staff have been murdered. Since July, four Planned Parenthood facilities have been set on fire, including one in my home State of California. This type of violence is simply abhorrent. And I strongly believe these aren't just attacks on Planned Parenthood and women's health; they are attacks on our way of life. This isn't what our country stands for. The individuals who carry out these crimes have one goal: to terrorize doctors, nurses, and clinic staff; to make them quit their jobs; to force these health care clinics to close. They want to make it harder and harder for women to access reproductive health care and make their own health care choices. In the wake of the Colorado Springs shooting, a former Planned Parenthood worker from Kansas shared some of her experiences. In the 3 years she worked at Planned Parenthood, there were four attempts to burn her clinic to the ground. Two cherry bombs were left at the door after hours. They exploded and forced the clinic to close temporarily. Windows were shot out on three occasions. And butyric acid--essentially a stink bomb--was put in the clinic's ventilation system numerous times. These aren't acts of political protest. These are serious crimes, and the perpetrators must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Before I close, I would like to reiterate just how important Planned Parenthood is for our country. Planned Parenthood serves some of the most vulnerable women in our society. It cares for 2.7 million patients in the United States. Ninety-seven percent of Planned Parenthood services carried out by its 700 clinics involve basic health care. This includes breast exams, cervical cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception. One in five women will use Planned Parenthood as their primary health care provider at some point in their lives. Nationwide, 80 percent of Planned Parenthood patients make less than $18,000 per year. And Planned Parenthood is often the only health care option for low-income women and women in rural communities. Simply put, Planned Parenthood is vital for the women of this country. It is bad enough that some politicians want to limit women's health care options by defunding Planned Parenthood. It is even more inexcusable that violence is being used to achieve what my Republican colleagues have failed to do. I stand with Planned Parenthood now more than ever. And I call for an end to the sickening campaign of violence against clinics nationwide. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Visa Waiver Program Security Enhancement Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Flake, who is the lead Republican cosponsor, as well as Senators Heitkamp, Coats, Heinrich, Johnson, Bennet, Ayotte, Warner, Baldwin, Tester, King, Klobuchar, Boxer, and Blumenthal. This bill would improve the security of the Visa Waiver Program, which is used by about 20 million travelers a year. The horrific attacks in Paris and the emergence of ISIL make it absolutely clear that we must strengthen the Visa Waiver Program to protect our country. This bill would do just that. 38 countries are now part of the Visa Waiver Program. Nationals from these countries may come to the United States for up to 90 days without a visa. Travelers through the program use an online application to gain approval to travel to the United States. Many of these travelers simply apply for approval from their home computer. Participating countries must also enter into valuable intelligence- sharing agreements with the United States. By comparison, only about 36 million people secured visas for business, tourism, and other temporary purposes to the United States from 2005 to 2010--an average of only 6 million per year. As we all know, fewer than 2,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict-- which go through a heavy vetting process--were admitted to the United States over the last 4 years. Put that in perspective: fewer than 2,000 Syrian refugees over 4 years, versus 20 million travelers through the Visa Waiver program annually. The vetting for a refugee takes 18 to 24 months, whereas an application to travel through the Visa Waiver Program can be approved within seconds. That should tell us how much of a priority improving the security of this program is. Today, there are thousands of citizens from European visa waiver countries that have gone to fight in Syria. In fact, the Visa Waiver Program includes numerous countries that have populations in which some people have become radicalized. The program includes 38 countries, including the following: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, The Netherlands, and The United Kingdom. So, nationals of these countries who travel to Iraq or Syria to train and fight may then be able to cross back into Europe and then come to this country on a visa waiver. As is now clear, some who committed the recent attacks in Paris were French and Belgian nationals. The attackers in the Charlie Hebdo attacks--the Kouachi brothers-- were born and raised in France. They were French nationals as well. The European Union Justice Commissioner said in April of this year that 5,000-6,000 Europeans could be fighting in Syria. More than 1,500 are French nationals. This is why the Visa Waiver Program, at the current time, poses a major risk--it is a quick and direct route for a terrorist to come to the United States without a visa. The group known as ISIL has publicly threatened to attack the United States and we have every reason to believe they will exploit every opportunity to do so. So we must take strong action. A major concern is also the problem with lost and stolen passports, which could be used by dangerous individuals to gain entry to the United States on the Visa Waiver Program without raising red flags. According to INTERPOL, nearly 45 million passports have been reported lost or stolen within the past 10 years. Let me repeat that: 45 million lost or stolen passports circulating worldwide. Passports typically are valid for five to 10 years, which means many of these lost or stolen passports have not yet expired. If a blank passport is stolen, it may have no expiration date at all. A foreign fighter could use one of the millions of unexpired lost and stolen passports to travel to the United States through the Visa Waiver Program in order to do us harm. Today, the first face-to-face interaction and biometric check that a first-time Visa Waiver Program traveler would have with any U.S. official is when the person reaches the port of entry, like a United States airport. That provides only a narrow window to detect that the individual is a person who is intent on committing an attack. This Visa Waiver Program Security Enhancement Act would strengthen the Visa Waiver Program in a variety of ways, making our nation safer and protecting an important stream of international tourism and commerce. First, the bill says that a national of a Visa Waiver country who has traveled to Iraq or Syria in the last five years would have to get a visa instead of using the Visa Waiver Program. The effect of this would be that the person would have to go through the normal consular process--in which biometric information would be taken, and the person interviewed--instead of traveling to the United States on a visa waiver. Second, the bill would require that biometric data, such as digital photographs or fingerprints, be provided to the U.S. government prior to boarding a plane to travel to the U.S. on the Visa Waiver Program but only for those individuals for whom we do not already have biometrics. Today, biometrics are not taken until a traveler from a Visa Waiver country first enters the United States at the port of entry. That is too late, and it leaves the opportunity for a person seeking to commit an attack against the aircraft itself to do so. We have recently seen that ISIL is willing to take down airliners. We know what sort of tragedy can happen when terrorists take control of an airplane. We must do everything we can to make sure an ISIL member does not board an aircraft bound for the United States with the intent to take it down. This bill would make the biometric requirement effective within one year, prioritizing areas of danger, and would enable the Department of Homeland Security to extend the roll-out on a country-specific basis. The Department of Homeland Security has already announced its intent to expand Customs and Border Protection preclearance to new foreign airports, including in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom--all Visa Waiver countries. As the bill is currently written, those foreign nationals who travel through the preclearance process would satisfy the biometric requirements of the bill. The simple fact is that we need to develop a way to screen and verify individuals biometrically before they get on a plane to the U.S., and this bill would do that. Third, the bill would eliminate the use of older-generation passports by any citizen of Visa Waiver Countries. Within 90 days of enactment, all Visa Waiver travelers would be required to have a valid, unexpired, machine-readable passport that is tamper-resistant and incorporates biometric identifiers. The Department of Homeland Security has announced that it will roll this out administratively, but this provision would make it a clear statutory requirement. Fourth, the bill would strengthen the intelligence sharing that is the bedrock of this program. The Department of Homeland Security has been able to gather valuable data from Visa Waiver countries under existing information sharing agreements. There are three such agreements. One relates to information regarding known or suspected terrorists. The second relates to sharing of fingerprint data pertaining to serious crimes. And the third requires provision of lost or stolen passport information directly or via INTERPOL. It is my understanding that--although countries have signed these agreements--not all have fully implemented them. This bill would require that those agreements be implemented, not just signed. The bill would also establish several new information-sharing provisions, which the Department of Homeland Security would be required to examine in assessing whether a country can join or stay in the Visa Waiver Program. One such provision would require DHS to consider whether a country contributes to and screens against INTERPOL's lost and stolen documents database. Let me explain why this is important. Simply put, INTERPOL's lost and stolen documents database is not as frequently used as it could be. Increased use of INTERPOL's database could assist all nations, including those outside the Visa Waiver Program, to prevent travel using lost or stolen passports and thus to inhibit the international movement of foreign fighters. This bill would also require DHS to consider whether a country collects and shares biometric information of refugee and asylum seekers--an important provision to help the United States ensure bad actors are prevented from traveling to the United States. It would also require DHS to consider whether a country shares intelligence about foreign fighters with the United States, as well as with international organizations like INTERPOL. Lastly, the bill would require that countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program have Federal Air Marshal agreements in place. The Paris attacks demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Visa Waiver Program creates a security risk for our country. The Visa Waiver Program Security Enhancement Act will address vulnerabilities in the Visa Waiver Program, improve information sharing, and help keep our country safe. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.