Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, to my right is an August 11, 2019, cover from the Washington Post. It shows the faces of the 423 people killed in mass shootings between the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012 and the recent shooting in Dayton, OH. This is more than a third of the 1,196 people killed in mass shootings since 1966, so shootings have grown dramatically in this country. This should not be the face of America. I think we have got to do much more to stop the plague of gun violence that continues to take the lives of the most innocent among us, including the 20 small beautiful children who lost their lives that December in Newtown. I have their photo at home, and I look at it almost every day, and it is indeed a heartbreaker. Today, I would like to speak about a few bills that I believe the Senate should be voting on right now. Specifically, we should be voting on requiring universal background checks, banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, and supporting enactment of extreme risk laws. The House passed a strong bill on universal background checks that has been sitting on Leader McConnell's desk now for more than 200 days. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, 89 percent of Americans support universal background checks, and that includes 83 percent of Republicans; yet that bill sits on Leader McConnell's desk. We have seen even more lives lost in the last several weeks while this bill languishes on the Senate calendar. The shootings in Gilroy, Dayton, El Paso, Midland-Odessa took the lives of 41 people, including a 6-year-old boy named Steven Romero. A background check could have prevented the shooter in Odessa and Midland from getting his gun. Unfortunately, he was able to purchase a firearm through a private sale that does not require a background check, and still, we wait for a vote on this bill to close the gaping loopholes of our background check system. Please, Leader McConnell, let us vote on this bill. Sadly, what has become all too common is that each of the shootings I mentioned involved an assault weapon. The Gilroy shooter used a WASR 10, which is an AK-47 style semiautomatic weapon. The rifle was equipped with a 75-round drum magazine. In this case, the shooter intentionally crossed into Nevada to purchase the gun, as the sale of assault weapons is banned in California. The Dayton shooter used an AM15 assault rifle equipped with a 100-round drum magazine. The El Paso shooter also used a WASR 10 rifle, and the shooter in Midland and Odessa used an AR-15-style rifle. These are weapons of war, plain and simple. Their main function is to kill as many people as possible. In fact, in two of these shootings-- Gilroy and Dayton--law enforcement arrived in less than a minute, but in that time, dozens of people had been injured or killed. I strongly believe that reinstating the Federal ban on assault weapons could have saved some of the lives that have been recently lost. As the New York Times reported in an op-ed titled, ``That Assault Weapons Ban? It Really Did Work,'' data shows that, compared with the decade before its adoption, the Federal assault weapons ban, in effect from September 1994 through 2004, was associated with a 25-percent drop in gun massacres--a massacre is from 6 to 8 people--and a 40-percent drop in fatalities from 81 to 49. We need to reinstate the Federal assault weapons ban. It worked before, and it will work again. We also need to ban high-capacity magazines. My legislation to ban assault weapons includes this provision, and there are standalone bills as well. Just a few weeks ago, at Northern Police Station in San Francisco, I had the opportunity to examine a 100-round magazine personally--two rounds that fit on a rifle or a revolver. I couldn't believe it, 100 rounds that could be used just round after round after round so easily. It is lightweight. It is simple to use. It is diabolical. And the only purpose of it is to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. Keeping high-capacity magazines out of the hands of mass shooters is particularly important because, many times, shootings are only stopped when the shooter has to pause and reload. In 2011, the shooter in Tucson, who shot then-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was only stopped when bystanders wrestled the shooter to the ground after he stopped firing to reload. Civilians have no use for these devices, so all they are doing is costing innocent life. Finally, the Senate should be considering legislation on extreme risk laws. Seventeen States and the District of Columbia already have them. These laws allow family members and law enforcement to go to court before a judge and get a temporary lawful order to keep a gun out of the hands of someone who is dangerous. These orders involve judicial findings, presentation of evidence, and court proceedings that protect people's due process rights. There is legislation, too. It is called the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019. It would create new grants to incentivize States to enact their own extreme risk laws. The House Judiciary Committee recently passed companion legislation, and polls have shown the majority of Americans support these measures. According to the same Washington Post-ABC News poll I mentioned earlier, 86 percent of Americans support these measures--86 percent, including 85 percent of Republicans. I hope Members will listen to this because these are needless deaths and needless murders. They need not have happened. Simply put, this body and the Senate Judiciary Committee should really be taking action today to protect against gun violence. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee passed three bills that would ban high-capacity magazines, would prohibit people convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms, and would incentivize States to create extreme risk laws. I am so disappointed our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked these commonsense measures for years, and I would appeal to them: Please, it is time for us to act. We cannot let another mass shooting go by and not take even these simple steps. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the introduction of the Protection from Robocalling Act of 2019. This bill would address the problem of illegal robocalls and spam calls. I thank Senators Klobuchar and Blumenthal for cosponsoring this legislation. Last year, I introduced this legislation to address the nuisance of illegal robocalling. Since then, these calls have become even more prevalent. For example, last month alone, an estimated 4.7 billion robocalls were placed in the United States--nearly one billion more than the year prior. That amounts to 153 million calls per day, or nearly 2,000 robocalls placed each second. Some of these calls are organized scams. In one case, one robocall company called people offering to help lower their credit card interest rates. Instead, it tricked them into giving up sensitive personal information, including their Social Security numbers. Another company dialed millions of phone numbers on the Do Not Call registry trying to find new customers for a third-party service, contacting a single number more than 1,000 times in the same year. Robocall companies are also engaged in credit card and loan scams. What's worse, robocalling is now endangering the health and safety of Americans by tying up emergency service lines. Tufts Medical Center in Boston received more than 4,500 illegal robocalls in the span of two hours last April. Each time the medical staff had to answer one of those robocalls could have been an instance when someone who needed life-saving help was unable to get through to a medical professional. One reason the problem is increasing is because the cost of making and deploying these calls is decreasing. Advances in software make it possible for one person to send out thousands of identical prerecorded messages every second, more quickly and more cheaply than employing scores of human telemarketing agents. In addition, technology is making it even easier for illegal robocallers to hide their true identity and location. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology enables robocallers to launch their call campaigns from anywhere in the world. And new technology allows illegal robocallers to disguise where they are actually calling from. This technique, known as ``spoofing,'' tricks consumers into thinking they are receiving a local call. The Federal Trade Commission now receives nearly 10,000 robocall complaints every day. With its broad consumer protection authority, the Commission plays a critical role in stopping illegal robocalling. But due to an historic exemption, the Commission has no enforcement authority over telecoms. When the FTC Act was enacted in 1914, this exemption was put in place because telecoms were monopolies and subject to heavy regulation so FTC enforcement was not needed. In the decades that followed, that regulatory oversight was rolled back, while the exemption remained in place. This created an uneven playing field. A set of federal rules and regulations protecting consumers applied to most industries, but not all. We must give the Commission the authority they need to pursue complete relief for American consumers. The Protection from Robocalling Act of 2019 removes telecoms from the common carrier exemption in the law. By eliminating this special exemption, telecoms will now have to abide by the same consumer protection standards in areas such as privacy and advertising that apply to other sectors already subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. It's a matter of fairness, as well as common sense. There's no reason that consumer data held by a broadband service should have more protection under the law than the same data held by their wireless service. Robocalls are a problem for everyone with a cell phone. It is a problem that is only going to get worse. And we can't expect our law enforcement agencies to keep up with today's technologies if their hands are tied. We need to be smarter about how we approach this problem. Going after the robocallers and installing call blocking technology on phones is fine; but we need to strike at the systems that they use to perpetrate their scams if we want to see a real difference. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that will help consumers fight back against illegal robocalling. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the introduction of the Protection from Robocalling Act of 2019. This bill would address the problem of illegal robocalls and spam calls. I thank Senators Klobuchar and Blumenthal for cosponsoring this legislation. Last year, I introduced this legislation to address the nuisance of illegal robocalling. Since then, these calls have become even more prevalent. For example, last month alone, an estimated 4.7 billion robocalls were placed in the United States--nearly one billion more than the year prior. That amounts to 153 million calls per day, or nearly 2,000 robocalls placed each second. Some of these calls are organized scams. In one case, one robocall company called people offering to help lower their credit card interest rates. Instead, it tricked them into giving up sensitive personal information, including their Social Security numbers. Another company dialed millions of phone numbers on the Do Not Call registry trying to find new customers for a third-party service, contacting a single number more than 1,000 times in the same year. Robocall companies are also engaged in credit card and loan scams. What's worse, robocalling is now endangering the health and safety of Americans by tying up emergency service lines. Tufts Medical Center in Boston received more than 4,500 illegal robocalls in the span of two hours last April. Each time the medical staff had to answer one of those robocalls could have been an instance when someone who needed life-saving help was unable to get through to a medical professional. One reason the problem is increasing is because the cost of making and deploying these calls is decreasing. Advances in software make it possible for one person to send out thousands of identical prerecorded messages every second, more quickly and more cheaply than employing scores of human telemarketing agents. In addition, technology is making it even easier for illegal robocallers to hide their true identity and location. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology enables robocallers to launch their call campaigns from anywhere in the world. And new technology allows illegal robocallers to disguise where they are actually calling from. This technique, known as ``spoofing,'' tricks consumers into thinking they are receiving a local call. The Federal Trade Commission now receives nearly 10,000 robocall complaints every day. With its broad consumer protection authority, the Commission plays a critical role in stopping illegal robocalling. But due to an historic exemption, the Commission has no enforcement authority over telecoms. When the FTC Act was enacted in 1914, this exemption was put in place because telecoms were monopolies and subject to heavy regulation so FTC enforcement was not needed. In the decades that followed, that regulatory oversight was rolled back, while the exemption remained in place. This created an uneven playing field. A set of federal rules and regulations protecting consumers applied to most industries, but not all. We must give the Commission the authority they need to pursue complete relief for American consumers. The Protection from Robocalling Act of 2019 removes telecoms from the common carrier exemption in the law. By eliminating this special exemption, telecoms will now have to abide by the same consumer protection standards in areas such as privacy and advertising that apply to other sectors already subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. It's a matter of fairness, as well as common sense. There's no reason that consumer data held by a broadband service should have more protection under the law than the same data held by their wireless service. Robocalls are a problem for everyone with a cell phone. It is a problem that is only going to get worse. And we can't expect our law enforcement agencies to keep up with today's technologies if their hands are tied. We need to be smarter about how we approach this problem. Going after the robocallers and installing call blocking technology on phones is fine; but we need to strike at the systems that they use to perpetrate their scams if we want to see a real difference. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that will help consumers fight back against illegal robocalling. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Prevention of Foreign Interference with Elections Act, which I introduced in June. The bill is cosponsored by all 10 Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, plus Senators Markey and Smith. This bill is necessary because we know foreign actors are working to influence our elections. The Mueller report showed us how Russia interfered in 2016, and we can expect it to happen again in 2020. The bill's goal is to provide enhanced criminal penalties to prevent foreign interference in our elections. The bill makes five changes to current law in order to accomplish that. First, it explicitly makes it a crime to work with foreign nationals to interfere in U.S. elections. Second, the bill prohibits Americans from helping foreign nationals funnel illegal contributions or donations into U.S. elections. Third, the bill expands restrictions on foreign-financed election ads. Notably, it restricts foreign-financed issue ads and foreign- financed digital ads. Fourth, the bill creates a civil action so that when the Attorney General learns of foreign interference, the Justice Department can immediately get an injunction. And fifth, the bill modifies immigration law so if a non-U.S. citizen is convicted of interfering in our elections, they would be inadmissible into the United States. Unless we take action, Russia or another foreign power will interfere with our elections. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when. We need to make clear that such interference will result in criminal punishment, and we must update our election laws to combat these new cyber attacks. This bill accomplishes both. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Even Playing Field Act of 2019. This legislation is an important step forward in ensuring that women in sports are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Female athletes, coaches, and trainers are consistently paid less than their male counterparts, subjected to subpar working conditions, and receive substantially less investment in their athletic programs. Simply put, the same opportunities and resources provided to men's teams are not provided to women's teams. The inequities in women's sports recently came to light in a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team against the U.S. Soccer Federation. Although the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team consistently outperforms the Men's Team--having won four FIFA Women's World Cup titles and four Olympic gold medals--the lawsuit alleges that the Women's Team is paid an average of 38 cents on the dollar compared to the men. The gender pay gap isn't limited to players, either. Jill Ellis, the coach of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team, is paid less than half of what the Men's Team coaches are paid. This is despite the fact that the Men's Team failed to even qualify for the last World Cup. Unfortunately, the disparate treatment of women in sports is not limited to pay. Megan Rapinoe, a captain of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team, said in a recent interview with CNN: ``It's really more about the investment in the game. Is the investment equal? We're talking marketing dollars and branding, investment in the youth, investment in the players, investment in the coaching staff. I don't think that that's there. I don't think that that's ever been there.'' It is clear that we must do more to promote and protect women in sports. This legislation is a step towards that goal by making critical updates to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. First, the bill would require the U.S. Olympic Committee to provide female athletes with wages, investment and working conditions equal to their male counterparts. Second, the bill would clarify that national governing bodies for amateur sports must provide investment, working conditions, wages and other compensation for amateur athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators and officials that is free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin. Third, the bill would further clarify that national governing bodies for amateur sports must provide equitable support and encouragement for participation by women in sports, including investment, working conditions, wages, and other compensation. Finally, the bill would mandate that national governing bodies submit regular reports to Congress on their compensation practices by race and gender. I hope my colleagues will consider and support this legislation. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Even Playing Field Act of 2019. This legislation is an important step forward in ensuring that women in sports are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Female athletes, coaches, and trainers are consistently paid less than their male counterparts, subjected to subpar working conditions, and receive substantially less investment in their athletic programs. Simply put, the same opportunities and resources provided to men's teams are not provided to women's teams. The inequities in women's sports recently came to light in a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team against the U.S. Soccer Federation. Although the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team consistently outperforms the Men's Team--having won four FIFA Women's World Cup titles and four Olympic gold medals--the lawsuit alleges that the Women's Team is paid an average of 38 cents on the dollar compared to the men. The gender pay gap isn't limited to players, either. Jill Ellis, the coach of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team, is paid less than half of what the Men's Team coaches are paid. This is despite the fact that the Men's Team failed to even qualify for the last World Cup. Unfortunately, the disparate treatment of women in sports is not limited to pay. Megan Rapinoe, a captain of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team, said in a recent interview with CNN: ``It's really more about the investment in the game. Is the investment equal? We're talking marketing dollars and branding, investment in the youth, investment in the players, investment in the coaching staff. I don't think that that's there. I don't think that that's ever been there.'' It is clear that we must do more to promote and protect women in sports. This legislation is a step towards that goal by making critical updates to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. First, the bill would require the U.S. Olympic Committee to provide female athletes with wages, investment and working conditions equal to their male counterparts. Second, the bill would clarify that national governing bodies for amateur sports must provide investment, working conditions, wages and other compensation for amateur athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators and officials that is free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin. Third, the bill would further clarify that national governing bodies for amateur sports must provide equitable support and encouragement for participation by women in sports, including investment, working conditions, wages, and other compensation. Finally, the bill would mandate that national governing bodies submit regular reports to Congress on their compensation practices by race and gender. I hope my colleagues will consider and support this legislation. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a Senate Resolution calling for the international community to come together and determine the ethical limits of gene- editing technology to avoid future misuse like what was recently discovered in China. Gene editing is a powerful new technology that has the potential to lead to new therapies for devastating and previously untreatable diseases. Today, there are already promising clinical trials using gene-editing technology that hope to treat cancer, sickle cell disease and other terrible diseases. However, like any new technology, there is potential for misuse and that is what happened with recent experiments in China. These experiments involving gene-edited human embryos failed in every measure to meet the ethical and scientific standards for research with human subjects. First and foremost, the scientist put the health of the mother and her children at risk by using an unproven technology without adequate safeguards. Furthermore, human clinical research must be conducted for a legitimate medical purpose. In this case, gene-editing was used to prevent the children from being able to acquire HIV. There are already safe and effective ways to prevent HIV infection that do not involve the use of gene-editing technology. In addition, clinical research participants should never be misled when obtaining informed consent. According to reports, the scientist in charge of the experiments told the participants that the study would be testing a new vaccine for HIV, which is a gross mischaracterization of the gene-editing technology. Finally, the scientist reportedly proceeded with the experiments knowing the genetic changes he created were different from what he originally intended. As a result, the children likely possess genetic mutations that did not undergo any pre-clinical testing and have never before existed in humans, leaving their long-term health in question. Moreover, these unethical experiments have the potential to create new genetic diseases that could be passed down to future generations. The international community must come together to condemn unethical human experimentation and prevent this from happening again. No one country can make this decision alone. International standards must be established to prevent unethical researchers from moving to whichever country has the loosest regulations. Already, the World Health Organization and the United States' National Academies of Sciences, along with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, have begun this important work. Our resolution makes clear that unethical human experimentation has no place in a modern society and encourages collaborative international efforts to continue. I am proud to introduce this resolution today. I hope my Senate colleagues will join us to ensure that gene-editing research is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner moving forward. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Athletics Fair Pay Act of 2019 with my colleague Senator Murray. Women and girls have made great strides in sports. Before Title IX of the Civil Rights Act was passed 47 years ago, athletic programs for girls and young women were virtually nonexistent. Now, women are world class athletes and compete in a wide range of sports including soccer, basketball, hockey, and tennis. In the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, a record 45 percent of the athletes competing at the games were women, and this year, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team won a historic fourth FIFA Women's World Cup title. Despite the incredible advancements made by women in sports, female athletes are paid significantly less than their male counterparts and are given fewer opportunities to succeed. Sports organizations in the United States still do not invest equally in girls' and women's athletics. This lack of investment means that many female athletes never reach their full potential. In addition, studies show that sports participation has a positive influence on girls' academic performance, employment opportunities, and their physical and mental health. The inequities faced by female athletes were highlighted in a wage discrimination lawsuit recently filed by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team against their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation. In addition to winning four FIFA Women's World Cup titles, the Women's Soccer Team has won four Olympic gold medals and has been ranked number one by FIFA for 10 of the last 11 years. By contrast, the U.S. Men's Soccer Team failed to qualify for last year's World Cup and has not won an Olympic medal since 1904. Yet, according to the lawsuit filed by the Women's Team, the U.S. Soccer Federation pays the women an average of 38 cents on the dollar compared to the male players. Unfortunately, the Women's Soccer Team is not alone. In 2017, the U.S. Women's Hockey Team received a pay raise from its national governing body, USA Hockey, only after the team threatened to boycott a major competition. Prior to the boycott, USA Hockey did not pay female athletes at all in non-Olympic years and paid each just $6,000 in the year leading up to an Olympic games. It is clear that we must do more to ensure that female athletes are paid equally and treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. This legislation gets us closer to that goal. This legislation updates the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to mandate that the national governing bodies chartered under the Ted Stevens Act pay female amateur athletes fairly and equally. This bill also requires national governing bodies to provide annual reports to Congress on amateur athlete pay. This new reporting requirement increases accountability and allows Congress to monitor whether the national governing bodies are complying with their equal pay obligations. I am deeply disappointed that we still need this kind of legislation in 2019. I am hopeful that the Senate will take up, and pass, this important legislation and show its support for women around the country. As a United States Senator, I will continue fighting for fair pay and equality of treatment for all women, including our nation's athletes. I thank the president, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Athletics Fair Pay Act of 2019 with my colleague Senator Murray. Women and girls have made great strides in sports. Before Title IX of the Civil Rights Act was passed 47 years ago, athletic programs for girls and young women were virtually nonexistent. Now, women are world class athletes and compete in a wide range of sports including soccer, basketball, hockey, and tennis. In the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, a record 45 percent of the athletes competing at the games were women, and this year, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team won a historic fourth FIFA Women's World Cup title. Despite the incredible advancements made by women in sports, female athletes are paid significantly less than their male counterparts and are given fewer opportunities to succeed. Sports organizations in the United States still do not invest equally in girls' and women's athletics. This lack of investment means that many female athletes never reach their full potential. In addition, studies show that sports participation has a positive influence on girls' academic performance, employment opportunities, and their physical and mental health. The inequities faced by female athletes were highlighted in a wage discrimination lawsuit recently filed by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team against their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation. In addition to winning four FIFA Women's World Cup titles, the Women's Soccer Team has won four Olympic gold medals and has been ranked number one by FIFA for 10 of the last 11 years. By contrast, the U.S. Men's Soccer Team failed to qualify for last year's World Cup and has not won an Olympic medal since 1904. Yet, according to the lawsuit filed by the Women's Team, the U.S. Soccer Federation pays the women an average of 38 cents on the dollar compared to the male players. Unfortunately, the Women's Soccer Team is not alone. In 2017, the U.S. Women's Hockey Team received a pay raise from its national governing body, USA Hockey, only after the team threatened to boycott a major competition. Prior to the boycott, USA Hockey did not pay female athletes at all in non-Olympic years and paid each just $6,000 in the year leading up to an Olympic games. It is clear that we must do more to ensure that female athletes are paid equally and treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. This legislation gets us closer to that goal. This legislation updates the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to mandate that the national governing bodies chartered under the Ted Stevens Act pay female amateur athletes fairly and equally. This bill also requires national governing bodies to provide annual reports to Congress on amateur athlete pay. This new reporting requirement increases accountability and allows Congress to monitor whether the national governing bodies are complying with their equal pay obligations. I am deeply disappointed that we still need this kind of legislation in 2019. I am hopeful that the Senate will take up, and pass, this important legislation and show its support for women around the country. As a United States Senator, I will continue fighting for fair pay and equality of treatment for all women, including our nation's athletes. I thank the president, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I understand the procedure, are we in morning business?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Daniel Bress to the Ninth Circuit in California. First, by history and tradition, this is a California seat on the Ninth Circuit. The fact is that Mr. Bress is neither a California attorney nor a California resident. In fact, he has not been a resident of the State for over a decade. He has lived and practiced in the Washington, DC, area for almost his entire adult life. As California Senators, Senator Harris and I know that experience and connection to California are really necessary for a Ninth Circuit judge to be effective on the bench. We know our State, we know our constituents, and we know the challenges they face. That is why the blue slip is so important. Honoring the blue slip ensures that Senators who understand and are accountable to their constituents have a say in judicial nominations for their home States. Senator Harris's and my blue slips were not returned. That ultimately symbolizes our objections. I was also very disappointed that the White House ignored that and moved forward with Mr. Bress's nomination. Senator Harris and I worked in good faith with the White House to find nominees acceptable to the President and to us. During our negotiations that took place, we informed the White House that we could support several other nominees who were, in fact, selected by the White House. Yet the White House and the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have claimed we were at an impasse. That is simply not true. For reasons still unknown to us, the White House abandoned our negotiations and nominated Mr. Bress for this seat instead. I am very disappointed that Republican leadership decided to schedule a vote on Mr. Bress's nomination, given both of our objections to his nomination and our concerns about a lack of connection to our State. Next, I want to discuss what I mean by a lack of connection to our State. The White House has greatly exaggerated Mr. Bress's connections to California to justify their decision to move forward with a non- California nominee. I have studied Mr. Bress's record extensively, and I would like to run through some of what I have found. Mr. Bress claims to spend a substantial amount of time working in his law firm's San Francisco office. However, as recently as November 2018, Mr. Bress's profile on the Kirkland & Ellis LLP website listed him as an attorney working exclusively in the firm's Washington, DC, office. His profile page likewise provided contact information--phone and fax-- only for the Washington, DC, office. Just before he was nominated, Mr. Bress's Kirkland & Ellis profile was revised to list him as an attorney in both the Washington, DC, and San Francisco, CA, offices of the firm. In addition, according to a review conducted by my staff, every public legal filing signed by Mr. Bress lists his office as Washington, DC. This includes legal filings submitted in California courts. Mr. Bress has never had an oral argument before the Ninth Circuit--never had an oral argument before the Ninth Circuit. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee entered a letter into the record at Mr. Bress's hearing identifying 26 cases in California courts that Mr. Bress has been involved in. However, according to Mr. Bress's Senate Judiciary questionnaire, 11 of these 26 cases were asbestos lawsuits for a single client, the chemical company BASF Catalyst. Another four cases were products liability lawsuits involving another single client, the air conditioning manufacturer United Technologies Corporation. So those are two clients. This is hardly the wide breadth of California court experience that one would expect of a Ninth Circuit court appointee. Mr. Bress does not belong to any legal organizations in California. His children do not attend school in our State. He has voted only once since high school in a California election. And he does not have a California driver's license. Finally, Mr. Bress does not own any property in California outside of one share in a family business venture. These facts, along with Mr. Bress's residency in the Washington, DC, area--he lives here; his family lives here--make clear to us that he is not a Californian, nor is he suited for the Ninth Circuit. This is something we have never experienced before; that is, bringing a judge from one coast to put him on the Ninth Circuit on the other coast. Some of my Republican colleagues have cited past instances when an attorney living and practicing in one State has been nominated and confirmed to a seat in another State. This is highly unusual. Republicans have been able to provide examples of this occurring only 4 times in the past 20 years, and in each case, it was with the support of the home State Senators. This support is simply not here in this case; this is not the case with this nominee. California is a diverse and complex State. We have over 40 million people. It is the fifth largest economy in the world. It makes up 14 percent of the U.S. economy. There are 53 Fortune 500 companies that are based in our State. We have the largest ag industry in the country. We produce more manufacturing revenue than any other State. And California technology companies produce 53 percent of all tech revenues in the United States. This vast and diverse nature of California's people and economy means the Ninth Circuit regularly considers challenging and complex issues of fact and law. These cases require not only the sharpest legal minds but lawyers and judges who know and understand the complexities facing the State of California. We have an imported judge now coming to the Ninth Circuit. One of our most critical tasks as Senators is to ensure that lifetime appointments to the Federal courts are well qualified and well suited to the seats to which they have been nominated. Home State Senators are a crucial part of this evaluation process. The Presiding Officer knows this very well. I am so disappointed that the majority has disregarded this. This disregard of blue slips represents another breakdown of Senate traditions. It is really very disturbing. One thing I have learned over 20 years here is that what goes around comes around. By doing this, it is a major violation of a precedent that this Senate has followed, I believe, to its absolute. I will vote against Mr. Bress's confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act with my colleagues. Anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana and its derivatives, like cannabidiol, commonly known as CBD, may be helpful in treating serious medical conditions. However, anecdotal evidence alone cannot be the basis for developing new medications. Rather, medication development must be based on science. Unfortunately, marijuana research is subject to burdensome regulations which may unintentionally inhibit research and medication development. The Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act will reduce these barriers without sacrificing security or enabling diversion. It will ensure that marijuana-derived medications are developed using strong scientific evidence, and provide a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research. First, the bill streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. Specifically, it requires the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly approve or deny applications to research CBD or marijuana and establishes a process by which applicants may submit supplemental information, if necessary. It also improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. These improvements will eliminate lengthy delays that researchers encounter under current regulations. Second, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for approved medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Once the FDA approves these medications, pharmaceutical companies are permitted to manufacture and distribute them. Third, the bill fosters increased communication between doctors and patients. Because it is a Schedule I drug, some doctors are hesitant to talk to their patients about the potential harms and benefits of using marijuana, CBD, or other marijuana derivatives as a treatment, for fear that they will lose their DEA registrations. Yet, if patients are using marijuana or its derivatives without their doctors' knowledge, it could impact the effectiveness of the care they receive. That is why our bill authorizes these discussions to occur. Finally, because existing Federal research is lacking, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand and coordinate research to determine the potential medical benefits of CBD or other marijuana-derived medications on serious medical conditions. I have heard from many parents who have turned to CBD as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results. I have heard similar stories from people who use marijuana to treat various other medical conditions. But a common concern echoed in many of these conversations is that there is a lack of understanding about the proper delivery mechanism, dosing, or potential interactions that CBD or marijuana may have with other medications. Some also worry because these products aren't well regulated or factory sealed, and often are labeled incorrectly. Without additional research, our ability to adequately address these concerns is limited and uninformed. The need for additional research, along with the need to increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research purposes, was highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.'' I firmly believe that we should reduce the regulatory barriers associated with researching marijuana and CBD. If and when science shows that these substances are effective in treating serious medical illnesses, we should enable products to be brought to the market with FDA approval. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act with my colleagues. Anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana and its derivatives, like cannabidiol, commonly known as CBD, may be helpful in treating serious medical conditions. However, anecdotal evidence alone cannot be the basis for developing new medications. Rather, medication development must be based on science. Unfortunately, marijuana research is subject to burdensome regulations which may unintentionally inhibit research and medication development. The Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act will reduce these barriers without sacrificing security or enabling diversion. It will ensure that marijuana-derived medications are developed using strong scientific evidence, and provide a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research. First, the bill streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. Specifically, it requires the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly approve or deny applications to research CBD or marijuana and establishes a process by which applicants may submit supplemental information, if necessary. It also improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. These improvements will eliminate lengthy delays that researchers encounter under current regulations. Second, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for approved medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Once the FDA approves these medications, pharmaceutical companies are permitted to manufacture and distribute them. Third, the bill fosters increased communication between doctors and patients. Because it is a Schedule I drug, some doctors are hesitant to talk to their patients about the potential harms and benefits of using marijuana, CBD, or other marijuana derivatives as a treatment, for fear that they will lose their DEA registrations. Yet, if patients are using marijuana or its derivatives without their doctors' knowledge, it could impact the effectiveness of the care they receive. That is why our bill authorizes these discussions to occur. Finally, because existing Federal research is lacking, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand and coordinate research to determine the potential medical benefits of CBD or other marijuana-derived medications on serious medical conditions. I have heard from many parents who have turned to CBD as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results. I have heard similar stories from people who use marijuana to treat various other medical conditions. But a common concern echoed in many of these conversations is that there is a lack of understanding about the proper delivery mechanism, dosing, or potential interactions that CBD or marijuana may have with other medications. Some also worry because these products aren't well regulated or factory sealed, and often are labeled incorrectly. Without additional research, our ability to adequately address these concerns is limited and uninformed. The need for additional research, along with the need to increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research purposes, was highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.'' I firmly believe that we should reduce the regulatory barriers associated with researching marijuana and CBD. If and when science shows that these substances are effective in treating serious medical illnesses, we should enable products to be brought to the market with FDA approval. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Drought Resiliency and Water Supply Improvement Act, which Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced today. I am the lead Democratic sponsor on the bill, and Senators Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are also original cosponsors. Drought--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark reality for California and the West. Climate change presents a triple threat to our water supply: Higher temperatures causing a dwindling snowpack, increased evaporation and other effects that will reduce our natural storage and runoff. This could decrease flow in the Colorado River by 20% or more by mid-century and as much as 40% by the end of the century. Longer and more severe droughts, including perhaps as much as an 80% chance of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration in the Colorado Basin during this century. Although this is more uncertain, the possibility of reduced overall precipitation, perhaps 10-15% less in California's Sierra Nevada mountains within the next 20-30 years. We must respond to this challenge. The bill we are introducing today does so in three fundamental ways: It significantly increases funding for an ``all-of-the above'' solution to improve our water supply, including surface and groundwater storage, conveyance, water recycling and desalination; It reforms the Bureau of Reclamation's outdated project delivery system to more quickly approve and more cost-effectively fund new projects; and It significantly invests not only in water supply projects, but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change as well. Climate Change and Drought: I would like to say more about the effects of climate change on two critical areas for California: the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Colorado River Basin. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54 percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79 percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California, because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30% of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. We need to start now to provide substitute ways for storing precipitation in the Sierras, whether through surface storage, groundwater storage, or improved infrastructure to transport floodwaters to the best recharge areas. This enhanced storage in its many forms will be helpful not only for water users but also to maintain enough cold water for salmon. Cold water reserves are critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during years of devastating droughts. The outlook for the Colorado Basin is perhaps even more challenging. The Colorado River provides a critical part of the water supply for 19 million people in southern California, but that water supply is diminishing. Already in 2019 the water demands on the Colorado River exceed average inflows to the river by 1.2 million to 1.5 million acre feet each year. That is a huge gap, and the Drought Contingency Plan that was just negotiated among the 7 Colorado River Basin states represents just the beginning of efforts needed to close even the existing gap. With climate change, far more needs to be done, especially with warmer temperatures and greatly increased evaporation in the Basin and with the considerable odds of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration. The bill we are introducing today provides the Colorado River Basin States with the tools to begin investing in a wide range of water supply projects to meet this challenge. I believe this bill will be critical for helping reach agreement in the next round of negotiations for Colorado River drought contingency plans due to be completed by 2026. Funding Authorizations in the Bill: In response to the water supply challenges presented by climate change, the bill we are introducing today significantly increases funding authorizations for a wide variety of water supply and environmental restoration projects. The proposed legislation builds on and doubles the 5-year funding authorizations in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. The bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years: $670 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and supporting conveyance; $100 million for water recycling projects; and $60 million for desalination projects. In addition, the bill authorizes $140 million for environmental restoration and compliance projects. These projects include forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits and projects to help restore threatened and endangered species affected by Bureau of Reclamation water projects. Low-Interest Loans for Water Supply Projects: The bill creates a new loan program at 30-year Treasury rates (currently about 2.6%) for water supply projects known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA). The loans would use existing criteria under the successful WIFIA program (the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act). The Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has approved loans of $2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of just over 1% of that amount or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was able to approve loans backed by just 1% of the loan amount because there is a virtually non-existent default rate for water projects. Only 4 in a thousand water infrastructure projects default, based on a study conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency. Given OMB's experience that Federal outlays need only cover 1% of the loan cost for water projects, the $125 million in authorized Federal spending in the draft bill likely could support $12.5 billion in water project lending authority. Needless to say, $12.5 billion is a meaningful amount of Federal low- interest lending assistance for new water supply projects. And, because RIFIA is limited to no more than 49 percent of total project costs, that same $125 million in RIFIA budget authority will support no less than $25.5 billion in new water infrastructure investments throughout the west. Need to Improve Reclamation's Project Delivery System: The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further. The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding new water supply projects has involved the following: Reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects: Once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3-5 years or more in many cases; and Congress then funds 100% of the project construction cost over many years of incremental appropriations, with project sponsors paying back the federal government over 50 years at little to no interest. One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed by climate change to Western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model. Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama Administration, testified in support of a new model during an October 8, 2015 hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated: The traditional Reclamation business model, in which feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then construction is authorized and funded, does not always address the needs of project sponsors at the State and local levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the availability of other available financing mechanisms, the historic federal role in financing water storage projects through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a greater emphasis on non-federal financing. Changes to Traditional Model: In response to the concerns articulated by Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the WIIN Act, makes five significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding. 1) Congressional authorization no longer required: First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual projects. It can take 3-5 years for projects to get legislatively approved or longer. In fact, zero new water recycling projects have been authorized since 2009 due to the Federal earmark ban. While Congressional authorizations are no longer required, Congress retains full veto authority over which projects get built through the appropriations process. Unless Congress approves funding for the study and construction of individual projects, Reclamation cannot proceed with them. The advantage of the appropriations process as an alternative mechanism for Congressional approval is that it occurs every year. So rather than waiting 3-5 years or longer for Congressional approval under the traditional model, Congress decides each year whether or not to fund proposed projects. 2) Non-Federal funding is required upfront: Second, the bill no longer requires 100% federal funding upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50% Federal funding for Federally-owned projects, and a maximum of 25% federal funding for non-federal projects that are built by States, water districts, or Indian tribes. Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded 50% by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 10-25% by the federal government and the remaining 25-40% by water users. Multi-partner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion will frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts. 3) Feasibility studies are expedited: Third, for the non-Federal projects authorized by the bill, the federal study process would be significantly expedited, and it does so without waiving any environmental protection requirements. The bill makes clear that federal environmental laws must be fully and strictly followed. Existing law, however, already addresses study procedures in parallel circumstances when the nonfederal entities are building a project and the federal government is only responsible for a minority of the project cost, no more than 25%. In these circumstances, the Federal government can and should expeditiously approve feasibility and other preliminary studies. There is existing precedent for such projects in the guidelines adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for feasibility studies for water recycling projects under the Title XVI program. Like all the non-federal projects in this bill, these water recycling projects are built by non-federal entities with a maximum 25% federal cost-share. The bill we are introducing today would direct Reclamation to model its feasibility study standards for all non-federal projects based on the Title XVI example. This will reduce delays in project approval and get these projects built faster. 4) The new loan program is cost-effective: Fourth, the low-interest loan program created by the bill is an exceptionally cost-effective program. As I mentioned above, OMB has validated that low-interest water project loans need to be backed by Federal appropriations totaling only 1% of the project loan amount. Federal funding of 1% of the loan amount will typically return 10-25% savings in the repayment cost of the loans for the water districts funding the projects. The total savings can be about 10% for AAA rated districts, and 20-25% for AA-rated districts. For example, the water users who are supporting the proposed Sites Reservoir in northern California have estimated that the loans authorized by this bill would allow them to pay only $512/acre-foot for water delivered by the project instead of $682/acre-foot. This is a 25% reduction in their costs. Thus, the Federal government can provide a loan at 1% of the loan amount and save the project sponsors 10-25% of the project cost. That is an exceptionally cost-effective federal investment. There are at least three significant reasons that the loans are so beneficial for the project sponsors: The sponsors pay about a 2.6% interest rate on their loans based on today's rates, versus 4% or greater rates for the alternative of municipal bond financing. The districts would not need to start loan repayments until 5 years after substantial completion of the project, a substantial cost saver. Loans are for 35 rather than 30 years, lowering annual debt service costs. Significantly, the loans include all the taxpayer protections from the successful WIFIA and TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) programs. In particular, the RIFIA loans would be limited to 49% of the project cost, and the federal loans would have senior status in the event of any default. These provisions ensure the taxpayer won't be harmed in any default where the project retains at least 50% of its value, which is extremely likely for ratepayer backed water supply projects. 5) Federal grants and loans work together: Fifth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up to 25% of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users to make up the difference where the Federal government is no longer funding 100% of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100% of the cost of new water supply projects. Under the bill we are introducing today, these communities will still have to provide a significant cost-share for improving their water supplies, and new water projects will have to be cost-effective enough to justify that investment. However, the Federal government can help build the best and most effective projects in increasing drought resiliency by providing assistance through both grants and loans. Environmental Benefits: The longer and more severe droughts coming with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities, but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to improve species' drought resiliency as well. The significant funding authorization of $140 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish, migratory birds, and forest species. Some of the authorized uses of this funding include: Improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects; Additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; Improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts; Assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State agencies and state water quality laws; and Forest, meadow and watershed restoration efforts that improve the quality, timing, or other attributes of runoff to reservoirs or groundwater storage facilities. I want to say a little more about the new authorization for forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits. Wildfire and drought are two of our biggest challenges in California, and we need new tools to respond to them. There are national forest lands and meadows upstream of many reservoirs in California that are at serious risk of catastrophic fire. If treatments of these lands restore healthier ecological conditions, it will improve water runoff into the downstream reservoirs and reduce the risk of large sedimentation dumps into the reservoirs from catastrophic fires. Restoration of these lands may not be a top priority for the Forest Service because that agency's mission does not emphasize water benefits. The bill being introduced today would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to contribute a portion of the cost of these projects. The new funding source will in turn make these multi-benefit projects more likely to be implemented. I believe it is critical that we develop new tools like this one for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and improving our drought resiliency. I and the other cosponsors of today's bill are also looking for additional ways to increase the natural environment's resiliency to droughts in our states. We have circulated language for discussion and potential inclusion in the bill that would provide additional funding for ``natural water storage projects.'' These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species. We look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multi- benefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill. In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented consistently with all federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state laws must also be followed. Offsets: Finally, the bill includes two provisions offsetting the new spending authorizations within it: It extends the existing WIIN Act provisions allowing water districts to prepay their outstanding capital debts and convert to indefinite length water supply contracts. These provisions are expected to bring in additional revenue within the 10-year scoring window. It sets up a process to deauthorize inactive water recycling project authorizations. Conclusion: California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major state-wide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people. We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state. I believe that this bill will place California on a long-term path to drought resiliency. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face due to climate change. I hope my Western colleagues will join me and the others who have introduced this bill, because drought is a serious threat for all of our states. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Drought Resiliency and Water Supply Improvement Act, which Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced today. I am the lead Democratic sponsor on the bill, and Senators Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are also original cosponsors. Drought--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark reality for California and the West. Climate change presents a triple threat to our water supply: Higher temperatures causing a dwindling snowpack, increased evaporation and other effects that will reduce our natural storage and runoff. This could decrease flow in the Colorado River by 20% or more by mid-century and as much as 40% by the end of the century. Longer and more severe droughts, including perhaps as much as an 80% chance of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration in the Colorado Basin during this century. Although this is more uncertain, the possibility of reduced overall precipitation, perhaps 10-15% less in California's Sierra Nevada mountains within the next 20-30 years. We must respond to this challenge. The bill we are introducing today does so in three fundamental ways: It significantly increases funding for an ``all-of-the above'' solution to improve our water supply, including surface and groundwater storage, conveyance, water recycling and desalination; It reforms the Bureau of Reclamation's outdated project delivery system to more quickly approve and more cost-effectively fund new projects; and It significantly invests not only in water supply projects, but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change as well. Climate Change and Drought: I would like to say more about the effects of climate change on two critical areas for California: the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Colorado River Basin. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54 percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79 percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California, because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30% of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. We need to start now to provide substitute ways for storing precipitation in the Sierras, whether through surface storage, groundwater storage, or improved infrastructure to transport floodwaters to the best recharge areas. This enhanced storage in its many forms will be helpful not only for water users but also to maintain enough cold water for salmon. Cold water reserves are critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during years of devastating droughts. The outlook for the Colorado Basin is perhaps even more challenging. The Colorado River provides a critical part of the water supply for 19 million people in southern California, but that water supply is diminishing. Already in 2019 the water demands on the Colorado River exceed average inflows to the river by 1.2 million to 1.5 million acre feet each year. That is a huge gap, and the Drought Contingency Plan that was just negotiated among the 7 Colorado River Basin states represents just the beginning of efforts needed to close even the existing gap. With climate change, far more needs to be done, especially with warmer temperatures and greatly increased evaporation in the Basin and with the considerable odds of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration. The bill we are introducing today provides the Colorado River Basin States with the tools to begin investing in a wide range of water supply projects to meet this challenge. I believe this bill will be critical for helping reach agreement in the next round of negotiations for Colorado River drought contingency plans due to be completed by 2026. Funding Authorizations in the Bill: In response to the water supply challenges presented by climate change, the bill we are introducing today significantly increases funding authorizations for a wide variety of water supply and environmental restoration projects. The proposed legislation builds on and doubles the 5-year funding authorizations in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. The bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years: $670 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and supporting conveyance; $100 million for water recycling projects; and $60 million for desalination projects. In addition, the bill authorizes $140 million for environmental restoration and compliance projects. These projects include forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits and projects to help restore threatened and endangered species affected by Bureau of Reclamation water projects. Low-Interest Loans for Water Supply Projects: The bill creates a new loan program at 30-year Treasury rates (currently about 2.6%) for water supply projects known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA). The loans would use existing criteria under the successful WIFIA program (the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act). The Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has approved loans of $2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of just over 1% of that amount or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was able to approve loans backed by just 1% of the loan amount because there is a virtually non-existent default rate for water projects. Only 4 in a thousand water infrastructure projects default, based on a study conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency. Given OMB's experience that Federal outlays need only cover 1% of the loan cost for water projects, the $125 million in authorized Federal spending in the draft bill likely could support $12.5 billion in water project lending authority. Needless to say, $12.5 billion is a meaningful amount of Federal low- interest lending assistance for new water supply projects. And, because RIFIA is limited to no more than 49 percent of total project costs, that same $125 million in RIFIA budget authority will support no less than $25.5 billion in new water infrastructure investments throughout the west. Need to Improve Reclamation's Project Delivery System: The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further. The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding new water supply projects has involved the following: Reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects: Once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3-5 years or more in many cases; and Congress then funds 100% of the project construction cost over many years of incremental appropriations, with project sponsors paying back the federal government over 50 years at little to no interest. One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed by climate change to Western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model. Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama Administration, testified in support of a new model during an October 8, 2015 hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated: The traditional Reclamation business model, in which feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then construction is authorized and funded, does not always address the needs of project sponsors at the State and local levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the availability of other available financing mechanisms, the historic federal role in financing water storage projects through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a greater emphasis on non-federal financing. Changes to Traditional Model: In response to the concerns articulated by Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the WIIN Act, makes five significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding. 1) Congressional authorization no longer required: First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual projects. It can take 3-5 years for projects to get legislatively approved or longer. In fact, zero new water recycling projects have been authorized since 2009 due to the Federal earmark ban. While Congressional authorizations are no longer required, Congress retains full veto authority over which projects get built through the appropriations process. Unless Congress approves funding for the study and construction of individual projects, Reclamation cannot proceed with them. The advantage of the appropriations process as an alternative mechanism for Congressional approval is that it occurs every year. So rather than waiting 3-5 years or longer for Congressional approval under the traditional model, Congress decides each year whether or not to fund proposed projects. 2) Non-Federal funding is required upfront: Second, the bill no longer requires 100% federal funding upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50% Federal funding for Federally-owned projects, and a maximum of 25% federal funding for non-federal projects that are built by States, water districts, or Indian tribes. Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded 50% by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 10-25% by the federal government and the remaining 25-40% by water users. Multi-partner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion will frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts. 3) Feasibility studies are expedited: Third, for the non-Federal projects authorized by the bill, the federal study process would be significantly expedited, and it does so without waiving any environmental protection requirements. The bill makes clear that federal environmental laws must be fully and strictly followed. Existing law, however, already addresses study procedures in parallel circumstances when the nonfederal entities are building a project and the federal government is only responsible for a minority of the project cost, no more than 25%. In these circumstances, the Federal government can and should expeditiously approve feasibility and other preliminary studies. There is existing precedent for such projects in the guidelines adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for feasibility studies for water recycling projects under the Title XVI program. Like all the non-federal projects in this bill, these water recycling projects are built by non-federal entities with a maximum 25% federal cost-share. The bill we are introducing today would direct Reclamation to model its feasibility study standards for all non-federal projects based on the Title XVI example. This will reduce delays in project approval and get these projects built faster. 4) The new loan program is cost-effective: Fourth, the low-interest loan program created by the bill is an exceptionally cost-effective program. As I mentioned above, OMB has validated that low-interest water project loans need to be backed by Federal appropriations totaling only 1% of the project loan amount. Federal funding of 1% of the loan amount will typically return 10-25% savings in the repayment cost of the loans for the water districts funding the projects. The total savings can be about 10% for AAA rated districts, and 20-25% for AA-rated districts. For example, the water users who are supporting the proposed Sites Reservoir in northern California have estimated that the loans authorized by this bill would allow them to pay only $512/acre-foot for water delivered by the project instead of $682/acre-foot. This is a 25% reduction in their costs. Thus, the Federal government can provide a loan at 1% of the loan amount and save the project sponsors 10-25% of the project cost. That is an exceptionally cost-effective federal investment. There are at least three significant reasons that the loans are so beneficial for the project sponsors: The sponsors pay about a 2.6% interest rate on their loans based on today's rates, versus 4% or greater rates for the alternative of municipal bond financing. The districts would not need to start loan repayments until 5 years after substantial completion of the project, a substantial cost saver. Loans are for 35 rather than 30 years, lowering annual debt service costs. Significantly, the loans include all the taxpayer protections from the successful WIFIA and TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) programs. In particular, the RIFIA loans would be limited to 49% of the project cost, and the federal loans would have senior status in the event of any default. These provisions ensure the taxpayer won't be harmed in any default where the project retains at least 50% of its value, which is extremely likely for ratepayer backed water supply projects. 5) Federal grants and loans work together: Fifth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up to 25% of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users to make up the difference where the Federal government is no longer funding 100% of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100% of the cost of new water supply projects. Under the bill we are introducing today, these communities will still have to provide a significant cost-share for improving their water supplies, and new water projects will have to be cost-effective enough to justify that investment. However, the Federal government can help build the best and most effective projects in increasing drought resiliency by providing assistance through both grants and loans. Environmental Benefits: The longer and more severe droughts coming with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities, but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to improve species' drought resiliency as well. The significant funding authorization of $140 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish, migratory birds, and forest species. Some of the authorized uses of this funding include: Improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects; Additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; Improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts; Assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State agencies and state water quality laws; and Forest, meadow and watershed restoration efforts that improve the quality, timing, or other attributes of runoff to reservoirs or groundwater storage facilities. I want to say a little more about the new authorization for forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits. Wildfire and drought are two of our biggest challenges in California, and we need new tools to respond to them. There are national forest lands and meadows upstream of many reservoirs in California that are at serious risk of catastrophic fire. If treatments of these lands restore healthier ecological conditions, it will improve water runoff into the downstream reservoirs and reduce the risk of large sedimentation dumps into the reservoirs from catastrophic fires. Restoration of these lands may not be a top priority for the Forest Service because that agency's mission does not emphasize water benefits. The bill being introduced today would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to contribute a portion of the cost of these projects. The new funding source will in turn make these multi-benefit projects more likely to be implemented. I believe it is critical that we develop new tools like this one for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and improving our drought resiliency. I and the other cosponsors of today's bill are also looking for additional ways to increase the natural environment's resiliency to droughts in our states. We have circulated language for discussion and potential inclusion in the bill that would provide additional funding for ``natural water storage projects.'' These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species. We look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multi- benefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill. In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented consistently with all federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state laws must also be followed. Offsets: Finally, the bill includes two provisions offsetting the new spending authorizations within it: It extends the existing WIIN Act provisions allowing water districts to prepay their outstanding capital debts and convert to indefinite length water supply contracts. These provisions are expected to bring in additional revenue within the 10-year scoring window. It sets up a process to deauthorize inactive water recycling project authorizations. Conclusion: California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major state-wide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people. We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state. I believe that this bill will place California on a long-term path to drought resiliency. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face due to climate change. I hope my Western colleagues will join me and the others who have introduced this bill, because drought is a serious threat for all of our states. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak in support of legislation to address the ever increasing instances of gun violence and to urge our Republican colleagues to finally join us in our effort to save lives. I became mayor of San Francisco as a result of gun violence, and from my first day in the Senate, trying to reduce the number of lives needlessly lost to gun violence has been my mission. I authored the Federal assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. Since that ban expired 15 years ago, the number of mass shootings has risen dramatically. According to data from Mother Jones, which defines a mass shooting as four or more people killed, we have suffered through 77 such massacres, leaving 643 dead and 1,055 injured. That is why I have introduced an updated assault weapons ban, which will keep weapons of war off of our streets. Compared with the 10-year period before the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban, the number of gun massacres between 1994 and 2004 fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. The fact is that the assault weapons ban worked. Firearms like the AR-15 have become the mass shooter's weapon of choice, and they become even more dangerous with the use of modifications like bump stocks. We will never forget that, in 2017 in Las Vegas, 58 people were killed and 422 wounded in our Nation's worst mass shooting. Simply put, there is no reason why civilians need weapons like these. They are not for protection, and they are not for hunting. They are weapons of war designed to take lives, and that is why we need to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Since 1966, there have been 163 mass shootings with at least four people killed; 1,165 people have lost their lives, 189 of whom were children or teenagers. The statistics on school shootings are even more sobering. Since the shooting at Columbine in 1999, there have been 239 school shootings nationwide; 302 people have been injured, 144 people killed, and 228,000 children exposed to gun violence. I have said before that I thought things were going to change after what happened in Newtown. I still have a framed copy of the Daily News cover with the pictures of the beautiful children whose lives were taken that day and the headline ``Shame on U.S.,'' for failing to pass the assault weapons ban. But things didn't change because my Republican colleagues lacked the courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association. I hope that can change now and that Senator McConnell will finally call up legislation to prevent more lives from being needlessly lost, including the lives of our children. In addition to reinstating the assault weapons ban, we should be doing more. In particular, the Senate should immediately consider the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and universal background checks. Each of these bills should be part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent further shootings, and we must act quickly. To that end, I have introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019. This bill would give grants to States to enact extreme-risk laws. These are laws that allow family members and law enforcement officers to get court orders to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Fifteen States and the District of Columbia already have extreme-risk laws on the books, and they work. San Diego has had particular success with California's law. In a little more than a year, that office has obtained 126 orders and confiscated 318 guns, including 33 assault weapons. Earlier this year, I received a letter from the San Diego city attorney. Here is an excerpt from that letter: ``Our office has found California's red flag law to be a powerful tool for protecting residents and police officers from senseless gun violence. Gun-rights advocates closely monitor our work; they have yet to bring to our attention a case where they believe the GVRO was improperly granted.'' Simply put, extreme-risk laws protect due process, and they save lives. Similarly, the Violence Against Women Act, which has already passed the House, addresses gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. It does this in three ways. First, the bill makes it a Federal crime for someone under an ex parte domestic violence order to possess a firearm. An ex parte hearing means that the abuser is not there, but there are still due process protections. The judge must still consider evidence, and the order itself is only temporary. These sorts of orders are only issued in the most dangerous situations, which is why it is so important that we ensure these sorts of abusers cannot purchase or possess firearms while the order is in place. Second, it closes the so-called boyfriend loophole. This is an important update to the law so that, if someone is convicted of committing domestic violence against the person he or she is dating, they cannot possess firearms. These are situations where someone has already been convicted of committing an act of domestic violence. The presence of firearms in domestic violence situations raises the chance that someone will die by 500 percent. Preventing this is common sense. Third and finally, the House bill prohibits people convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm. Once again, this means someone has already been convicted in a court of repeatedly following and harassing someone else. For me, there is no question that domestic abusers should be barred from purchasing or possessing firearms. There was a recent article in the Washington Post titled, ``The latest shooting attacks show how the U.S. stands apart from the world. It ends with the line: ``It may not be possible to completely replicate Australia's success, but why there has been no effort even to try is a question that puts national lawmakers to shame.'' I agree. It is far past time for my Republican colleagues to join me in passing commonsense gun reform. It is far past time to act, and we are needlessly losing more lives every day to gun violence. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. June is the month that we recognize as Pride Month to celebrate the lesbian and gay community and to acknowledge that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation; yet, today we are voting on a nominee, Mr. Kacsmaryk, whose career has been defined by opposition to the rights of LGBT Americans. He has argued against marriage equality and defended a company that refused to provide service to a same-sex couple, simply based on their sexual orientation. It is disappointing that the Senate is moving forward on his nomination, and even more disappointing that the majority has scheduled this vote during Pride Month. Mr. Kacsmaryk 's long record of opposing civil rights protections for LGBT Americans should disqualify him from service on the bench. They demonstrate that he puts his personal opinion above Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, I want to highlight some key positions in his record. In 2015, Mr. Kashmir made comments deeply critical of United States v. Windsor, the case that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Mr. Kacsmaryk claimed that the Obama administration, which refused to defend DOMA, had ``effectively collaborated with the adversary.'' Mr. Kacsmaryk's comments make clear that he believes those fighting for the right of LGBT American, including the right to marry, are adversaries. Someone making a statement like this should quite simply not be a Federal judge. He likewise claimed in a radio interview that efforts to achieve marriage equality were marked by ``lawlessness,'' adding that the Justice Department's refusal to defend DOMA was an ``abuse of rule of law principles.'' Also in 2015, Mr. Kacsmaryk submitted a brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case that guaranteed marriage equality. Mr. Kacsmaryk urged the Court to deny that the 14th Amendment extended to the right of same-sex couples to marry. He argued that finding a nationwide right to marriage equality would violate the free speech rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and he claimed that allowing gay couples to marry would ``silence religious dissenters who continue to hold to their millennia- old definition of marriage.'' The Supreme Court disagreed. In 2016, Mr. Kacsmaryk continued his efforts opposing the civil rights of LGBT individuals by defending a company that refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, simply because they were gay. Mr. Kacsmaryk denied that the business had refused to sell the cake because of the customers' sexual orientation. Instead, he claimed that the law prohibiting discrimination against LGBT individuals ``forc[ed] business owners to publicly facilitate ceremonies, rituals, and other expressive events with which they have fundamental'' disagreements. Businesses should not be permitted to discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation, but in Matthew Kacsmaryk's opinion, it is completely acceptable to do just that. Throughout his career, Mr. Kacsmaryk has taken particularly offensive positions on the rights of transgender Americans, including transgender youth. He has argued that being transgender is a ``delusion.'' He also signed onto a letter claiming that transgender people are suffering from a ``psychological condition in need of care,'' and are ``not a category of persons in need of special legal protection.'' Taken together, these positions show that Mr. Kacsmaryk has strong personal beliefs and is opposed to defending civil rights of gay and lesbian individuals. Further, when asked during his hearing whether he would recuse himself from cases involving LGBT individuals, Mr. Kacsmaryk refused. When asked in written questions how his record did not create an appearance of impropriety when it comes to deciding cases on gay rights, Mr. Kacsmaryk simply cited the Federal recusal statute, refusing to answer the question directly. In addition, Mr. Kacsmaryk has also worked to undermine women's access to reproductive healthcare. For example, he argued that the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement was unconstitutional, and then later claimed that the Obama administration's religious accommodation to that requirement was likewise unconstitutional. Without any evidence, Mr. Kacsmaryk accused the Obama administration of treating religious protections ``as a secondary consideration.'' With respect to the accommodation, which required nonprofit organizations to submit a one-page form to their insurer noting their objections, Mr. Kacsmaryk claimed the government was ``forc[ing] religious objectors to provide material aid to those who would commit the ultimately wrongful act'' of providing contraceptives. He also argued that a Washington State statute requiring all pharmacies to stock emergency contraceptives violated the rights of religious pharmacists. The statute permitted individual pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions that ran contrary to their religious beliefs. But this was not enough for Mr. Kacsmaryk, who argued that the pharmacies themselves should be exempt from the statute. He also claimed that in seeking to provide contraception to women, Washington had ``radically depart[ed] from the nationwide consensus protecting conscience rights'' for health care professionals. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Given the positions he has taken in litigation and the inflammatory comments he has made in his personal capacity, I am concerned Mr. Kacsmaryk will not bring the temperament needed to demonstrate respect for all litigants that we expect from all Federal judges. I am voting against Mr. Kacsmaryk because I believe his record shows he is far outside the legal mainstream, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address one of the most pressing immigration problems facing our nation. For the past decade, thousands of families have fled violence and poverty to seek asylum in the United States. These families include vulnerable children who must be kept safe once they arrive in the United States. However, since the beginning of the Trump Administration, several new policies have been implemented. Most disconcerting is the Trump policy to separate young children, even babies, from their mothers and fathers. Dozens of these children spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum blankets. We have also learned that the Trump Administration then deported many of these parents, leaving the children to be orphaned in this country. In fact, hundreds of children who were separated under this policy have now been apart from their parents for many months, without any immediate prospects for reunification. These children continue to experience extreme stress that leaves them vulnerable to serious, lifelong mental and physical health problems. Even when families are reunified after months apart, some children no longer recognize the mothers and fathers. This is unconscionable. Today I am introducing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act, a bill that will not only end the practice of separating families at the border, but also put in place other safeguards to protect these at-risk groups. The first component of the bill I am introducing today is the full text of the Keep Families Together Act, a bill I introduced earlier this year to halt the separation of families and which currently has more than 40 cosponsors. The President claimed to end his policy of separation in June 2018. However, we have since learned that the practice of separating families continues today. In fact, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found that thousands more children were separated than the administration initially revealed in June. Parents who try to protect their children from violence and poverty abroad should not be punished by having those children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration. Instead, families should be kept together and given an opportunity to present their cases for asylum as has been done for the past seven decades. The second part of the bill I'm introducing today ensures that families with children are not forced into prolonged, indefinite family detention in order to remain together. Child welfare experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations, have found that detention of this sort has tremendous negative effects on children's health and welfare. This bill guarantees that the Trump Administration cannot reverse the crucial protections that are currently in place under the Flores settlement agreement. The third piece of this bill would help address the backlog in our immigration courts while protecting the basic rights of children. This part of the bill contains provisions to provide adequate resources to our immigration court system. By adding additional judges and staff, courts will be able to reduce the crushing backlog of over a million pending deportation cases. The fourth component of this legislation is Senator Hirono's bill, the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, that provides counsel for unaccompanied children. This is meant to ensure that these children receive a meaningful opportunity to present their cases in immigration court. This is important because young children, including toddlers, have been forced to represent themselves in immigration court in recent years. It is simply impossible for children to understand their legal immigration status or rights, let alone explain it to a judge. This bill protects the most vulnerable children in by providing counsel when there is no parent or legal guardian available. The final part of the bill will ensure that immigration judges can manage their caseloads and prioritize the cases as needed. Currently, individuals in deportation proceedings who have been victims of human trafficking or have assisted with criminal prosecutions are often eligible for visas that would protect them from deportation. This bill would allow immigration judges to close these deportation cases quickly to protect these vulnerable individuals and conserve scarce courtroom time. This will be a crucial step in clearing the backlog of pending immigration cases. By taking these steps, we will help put our immigration system on a pathway to respect the basic rights of children, particularly those who are fleeing violence and poverty abroad. These children are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, and it is absolutely essential that our legal system should treat them with fairness and respect. These are goals that should be appealing to Democrats and Republicans alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address one of the most pressing immigration problems facing our nation. For the past decade, thousands of families have fled violence and poverty to seek asylum in the United States. These families include vulnerable children who must be kept safe once they arrive in the United States. However, since the beginning of the Trump Administration, several new policies have been implemented. Most disconcerting is the Trump policy to separate young children, even babies, from their mothers and fathers. Dozens of these children spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum blankets. We have also learned that the Trump Administration then deported many of these parents, leaving the children to be orphaned in this country. In fact, hundreds of children who were separated under this policy have now been apart from their parents for many months, without any immediate prospects for reunification. These children continue to experience extreme stress that leaves them vulnerable to serious, lifelong mental and physical health problems. Even when families are reunified after months apart, some children no longer recognize the mothers and fathers. This is unconscionable. Today I am introducing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act, a bill that will not only end the practice of separating families at the border, but also put in place other safeguards to protect these at-risk groups. The first component of the bill I am introducing today is the full text of the Keep Families Together Act, a bill I introduced earlier this year to halt the separation of families and which currently has more than 40 cosponsors. The President claimed to end his policy of separation in June 2018. However, we have since learned that the practice of separating families continues today. In fact, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found that thousands more children were separated than the administration initially revealed in June. Parents who try to protect their children from violence and poverty abroad should not be punished by having those children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration. Instead, families should be kept together and given an opportunity to present their cases for asylum as has been done for the past seven decades. The second part of the bill I'm introducing today ensures that families with children are not forced into prolonged, indefinite family detention in order to remain together. Child welfare experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations, have found that detention of this sort has tremendous negative effects on children's health and welfare. This bill guarantees that the Trump Administration cannot reverse the crucial protections that are currently in place under the Flores settlement agreement. The third piece of this bill would help address the backlog in our immigration courts while protecting the basic rights of children. This part of the bill contains provisions to provide adequate resources to our immigration court system. By adding additional judges and staff, courts will be able to reduce the crushing backlog of over a million pending deportation cases. The fourth component of this legislation is Senator Hirono's bill, the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, that provides counsel for unaccompanied children. This is meant to ensure that these children receive a meaningful opportunity to present their cases in immigration court. This is important because young children, including toddlers, have been forced to represent themselves in immigration court in recent years. It is simply impossible for children to understand their legal immigration status or rights, let alone explain it to a judge. This bill protects the most vulnerable children in by providing counsel when there is no parent or legal guardian available. The final part of the bill will ensure that immigration judges can manage their caseloads and prioritize the cases as needed. Currently, individuals in deportation proceedings who have been victims of human trafficking or have assisted with criminal prosecutions are often eligible for visas that would protect them from deportation. This bill would allow immigration judges to close these deportation cases quickly to protect these vulnerable individuals and conserve scarce courtroom time. This will be a crucial step in clearing the backlog of pending immigration cases. By taking these steps, we will help put our immigration system on a pathway to respect the basic rights of children, particularly those who are fleeing violence and poverty abroad. These children are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, and it is absolutely essential that our legal system should treat them with fairness and respect. These are goals that should be appealing to Democrats and Republicans alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from the great State of Maine. Thank you so much, Susan. Thank you for your work here, for your care, for your concern, and for your vigilance on all issues that affect women. Thank you so much. Madam President, I am very proud to join Susan Collins and all of my colleagues on the floor today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Congress's passing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Before the 19th Amendment, women were actually denied the same basic civil rights as men. We were not allowed to attend a college. We could not become doctors, lawyers, or politicians. Married women had no right to property, and even though women were required to follow the law, they had no say in electing their lawmakers. Simply put, women were second-class citizens. So it is against this backdrop that the women's suffrage movement took shape decades ago to fight to achieve equality for us, and the fight began at the polls. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson faced a tough reelection campaign. At the time, 12 States allowed women to vote. The newly formed Women's Party campaigned forcefully in most States against Wilson because of his strong opposition to women's suffrage. As a result, women voted against Wilson by notable margins, causing the first known gender gap in a Presidential election. Although Woodrow Wilson ultimately won a second term, the Women's Party made clear that they were a force to be reckoned with. I could not be more proud of the suffragists who fought for decades to secure our right to vote and laid the groundwork for a woman's right to hold office. It is because of fearless, hardworking women like Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, and Dorothy Day that I stand here today on the floor of the Senate representing the largest State in the Union, California. In the first elections held after the 19th Amendment was ratified, women won public office in 23 States. Today, women are represented in all levels of government--Federal, State, and local. In 1992, the first year I was elected to the Senate, a historic number of women won elected office. Twenty-four new women were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives that year, and four women-- Senators Murray, Boxer, Mosley-Braun, and I--were elected to the Senate. Last year, nearly a century after Congress passed the 19th Amendment, women set another record with 102 women serving in Congress and 3 more holding seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. So women are still shattering the glass ceilings. In 2014, Janet Yellen became the first woman to lead the Federal Reserve. In 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated by a major political party for President of the United States. And just this year, after being elected the first female Speaker of the House in 2007, Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to be reelected Speaker of the House. Last Congress, I became the first woman to serve as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is especially significant for me because I was inspired by Anita Hill's testimony before the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee to run for this office. Even though there are more women in leadership positions across industries, there is still work to be done. According to the American Association of University Women, in 2017 women earned between 77 cents and 53 cents for every dollar earned by men. Susan Collins, we still have a long way to go, it seems to me. In addition, women continue to face discrimination and harassment at school and in the office, as well as high rates of sexual violence. Before I close, I would like to address an issue that has unfortunately been in the news quite a bit lately; that is, the latest attacks on women's health and reproductive rights. We should not forget what Justice Ginsburg told the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings in 1992. I was there, and here is what she said: The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices. In the past month, six States have passed blatantly unconstitutional laws that effectively ban abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. These new restrictions are especially concerning in light of the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which has long signaled its opposition to women's reproductive rights. Just last month, in a case challenging abortion restrictions in Indiana, Justice Thomas authored an opinion comparing contraceptives to eugenics and demonstrated a clear hostility to Griswold and Roe. Between the Indiana case, the various unconstitutional State laws, and other reproductive rights cases on the Court's docket, many legal observers believe Roe today remains in jeopardy. As a U.S. Senator, I will continue fighting for equal rights for women, and I will honor the legacy of women who blazed the trail. I am honored to recognize those women and the progress we have made as we commemorate the 100th anniversary of Congress passing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the wonderful spirit and dedication of Ellen Tauscher, who was taken from us far too early on April 29, 2019. She was a one of a kind of person and very special to me. Ellen is survived by her daughter Katherine, who is an amazing young woman. I have seen her through some of the most difficult days and she has an equanimity and an ability second to none. Ellen's sisters Sally and Kathy and brother Jack provided very strong family support to her, especially at the end. She is truly loved. Ellen touched so many lives, and anybody who has worked with her, had dinner with her, drank a little California wine with her knows the special person she is. Ellen was one of the first women and the youngest woman ever at the age of 25 to become a member of the New York Stock Exchange in 1977. I was president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at that time, and I can tell you, being a woman on the Stock Exchange at that time was a very big deal. Ellen was to go on to work in finance for 14 years as a successful investment banker and bond trader. A few years after she moved west, Ellen gave birth to her pride and joy, the wonderful Katherine Tauscher. As a new mother herself, Ellen struggled to find good childcare, and she used that experience to create the ChildCare Registry, a service to help parents check backgrounds of childcare centers. You see, that was how she was. When she saw a problem, she worked out a solution. When Ellen Tauscher put her mind to something, there was no stopping her. Achievement was a given. Ellen ran for a seat in Congress in 1996. The newly created district was conservative, and few people thought it would go to a Democrat, but Ellen appealed to moderates on both sides of the aisle, and success, I always thought, was a given. She went on to win that seat and hold it for 12 years. As a Member of Congress, Ellen made a name for herself as a centrist, someone who could work both sides of the aisle. Her colleagues, many of whom attended the memorial service earlier this week at the National Cathedral, knew she would always do what was best for her district and for the country. Ellen sat on the House Armed Services Committee and became chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Not necessarily what you would expect from an elementary education major from New Jersey, but Ellen was a real force. She developed an expertise and substantial knowledge in arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear weapons. It was a good fit since her district was home to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That expertise and the ability to be effective in a critically important post was a big reason why then-Secretary of State Clinton selected her and President Obama nominated her to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. One of Ellen's biggest accomplishments in that role was shepherding the negotiations over the New START Treaty and helping with its ratification through the Senate in 2010. As a matter of fact, it was at her suggestion that former Senator Jon Kyl and I went to Geneva under the auspices of the Senate National Security Working Group to observe the negotiations and meet with the Russian and U.S. delegations. Ellen was so proud of the treaty, and so are we. She proved just how strong she was during this most difficult period. She did much of her work on the treaty while suffering from esophageal cancer, but she never let it slow her down. When she retired from the Federal Government, a new world would open. She was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the University Of California Board Of Regents, she chaired California's Military Advisory Council, and she served as vice chair of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Just last year, she showed she was still a player in California politics, working with Katie Merrill to create a Political Action Committee called Fight Back, and that was just what Ellen did. Ellen was brilliant. She was warm and loyal to her country, her family, and her friends, and she had a wonderful sense of humor. I saw this constantly over a glass of wine and dinner in Washington. She was always ready with something that made friends smile and even laugh. She was, for me, a best friend, and that will never change. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Daniel Collins to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Collins had been nominated to a California seat on the Ninth Circuit over the objections of Senator Harris and myself. Neither Senator Harris nor I returned blue slips for Mr. Collins, yet the majority moved forward with his nomination, disregarding our concerns. This vote on Mr. Collins follows on the heels of last week's vote on Kenneth Lee, another Ninth Circuit nominee who lacked blue slips from me and Senator Harris. So, once again, we see the majority violating Senate norms and traditions by ignoring home-State Senators, including the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, and stacking the courts with ideologues. This breakdown in Senate traditions is harmful to all of us, Democrats and Republicans. It is also unnecessary. As I have highlighted before, Democratic Senators have been willing to work with the White House to find consensus picks for the circuit courts, but that willingness has been rebuffed by the Trump administration and disregarded by the majority. The majority's decision to once again ignore blue slips is short- sighted. After all, what goes around comes around. Senator Harris and I refused to return blue slips on Mr. Collins for several reasons. I have used a bipartisan instate screening commission to vet potential nominees to California district and Ninth Circuit seats for my entire career. These are highly respected lawyers from throughout the State, and they have reviewed and recommended nominees from Democratic and Republican administrations. My instate bipartisan commission raised concerns about Mr. Collins's rigidity, temperament, and history of taking positions in litigation for the purposes of overturning precedent and challenging legal boundaries. The role of a judge is to be an impartial arbiter, not an advocate and not someone with an agenda, particularly an agenda of overturning precedent. Based on this, I am concerned that Mr. Collins has not demonstrated and does not embody the characteristics that we expect of all Federal judges. I also believe that Mr. Collins's record on women's reproductive rights, executive power, civil liberties, and criminal justice matters puts him far outside the judicial mainstream. For example, Mr. Collins was a strong advocate for the Bush administration's use of military commissions to try enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. He even went so far as to argue that the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief allowed him to bypass Congress and create these commissions without congressional approval. Mr. Collins also wrote a law review piece in which he argued that Miranda v. Arizona, a longstanding Supreme Court precedent that protects the rights of individuals, should be overturned. For the last decade, Mr. Collins has also defended numerous chemical and energy companies in lawsuits brought by homeowners, Tribes, and local governments. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits have argued that these companies contributed to climate change and its effects, such as increasing the severity of storms and causing sea levels to rise. In several of these lawsuits, Mr. Collins argued that climate change is not even real. For example, in a case representing Shell Oil Company, Mr. Collins wrote that ``climate change allegedly results from the aggregate effects of greenhouse gas emissions from billions of sources around the world accumulating in the global atmosphere over the course of centuries, and thus it cannot be attributed to . . . energy companies.'' In addition, in questions for the record, he refused to acknowledge that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it. I understand that Mr. Collins was representing clients in these lawsuits, but he was the one who chose which arguments to make, including arguments that climate change is not real. We cannot have a judge on the Ninth Circuit who denies climate change and its impacts. At his hearing, Mr. Collins was willing to answer questions from Republicans on his personal views, but not answer similar questions from Democrats. For instance, when asked how he ``feel[s] about the First Step Act,'' Mr. Collins said: ``I think that the First Step Act . . . appeared to me to be a balanced approach to reform some of the sentencing provisions which seemed unduly harsh.'' But when asked by Senator Blumenthal whether he believed Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided, Mr. Collins refused to answer. Nominees should not answer Republican questions and evade Democratic ones, especially when it comes to answering questions about Brown v. Board of Education, a monumental case whose correctness cannot and should not be questioned and has been answered by previous Republican nominees, including Chief Justice Roberts. Taken as a whole, I believe Mr. Collins is far outside the legal mainstream. Given concerns about his temperament and commitment to upholding precedent and given the positions he has taken on executive power, criminal justice, and other matters that could come before the Ninth Circuit, I cannot support Mr. Collins. I voted against Mr. Collins, and I urged my colleagues to do the same.