Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Kenneth Lee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Lee has 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. Lee; yet the majority moved forward with his nomination, disregarding our concerns. In doing so, the majority is violating Senate norms and traditions by--for the first time ever--ignoring the lack of a blue slip from the Judiciary Committee's ranking member. Let me repeat: This has never been done before. There was no need to proceed with Mr. Lee's nomination over our objections. As has been true of many of my Democratic colleagues, Senator Harris and I made it clear to the Trump administration that we were ready to work with the White House to find a consensus pick for this and two other Ninth Circuit California seats. Sadly, our willingness to work with the administration has not been reciprocated. Once again, the majority is insisting on moving ahead with a nomination, despite the strong objections of both home-State Senators. Senator Harris and I refused to return blue slips for Mr. Lee for two key reasons. First, Mr. Lee has a long record of controversial writings and statements on race and diversity, immigration, affirmative action, women's rights, and other issues. Second, Mr. Lee failed to disclose dozens of problematic writings to our in-state judicial commissions and to the Judiciary Committee itself. That failure raises significant doubts about Mr. Lee's candor and judgment, and it should be concerning to all Members of this body. In fact, when another nominee for the Ninth Circuit, Ryan Bounds, also failed to turn over his writings, his nomination was rejected by the Senate. Mr. Bounds had failed to identify to Oregon's in-state judicial screening commission at least five articles that took controversial positions on issues including campus sexual assault and diversity at institutions of higher education, whereas Mr. Lee failed to disclose either to my and Senator Harris's screening commissions or to the Judiciary Committee itself more than 75 articles. Importantly, several of Mr. Lee's articles demonstrate a continuity between what he wrote and the positions he has continued to advocate well into his legal career. For example, Mr. Lee was a vocal critic of affirmative action, writing: ``Our stance on affirmative action has always been that it ultimately hurts the recipients instead of helping them. . . . Black students will unfortunately be treated as inferiors because people will always assume that they were accepted solely because of their race.'' In a 2003 piece, written while he was a practicing attorney, Mr. Lee criticized the Supreme Court's opinion in the Bakke case, which upheld the use of race as one of several criteria to be considered in college admissions. Mr. Lee wrote that ``[t]he Supreme Court can no longer hide behind the wishful thinking of Bakke,'' which he said ``was based on the naive assumption that universities would consider race merely as a tie- breaker.'' Mr. Lee has not backed away from his opposition to affirmative action and so the Congressional Black Caucus wrote a letter stating: ``While many of [Mr. Lee's] most disturbing writings have come from when he was in college and law school, there is every indication that these views were well-settled and carried through his career.'' In a 2005 article, written years after he graduated from law school, Mr. Lee criticized President George W. Bush's plan to allow undocumented immigrants to work legally within the United States. Mr. Lee wrote: ``By describing illegal immigrants as `hard-working men and women' who are pursuing `better lives,' [President Bush] blurs the distinction between illegals and those who came to America following the rules.'' Mr. Lee's portrayal of undocumented immigrants is both inaccurate and troubling. Mr. Lee has also taken extreme positions on women's rights. He argued that feminism ``is not about extending equal rights and opportunities to women . . . [but] is about adhering to a stifling orthodoxy.'' He attacked feminists for ``support[ing] unfettered abortion-on-demand.'' As NARAL put it in a letter submitted to the committee, Lee's writings ``suggest a disdain for women that is concerning in any context, but especially so for someone up for a lifetime seat on the federal bench.'' In conclusion, I believe Mr. Lee's record shows that he is far outside the legal mainstream. Given the positions he has taken in dozens of articles and given his failure to disclose writings to my commission and to the Judiciary Committee I cannot support Mr. Lee's nomination to the Ninth Circuit. I will vote against Mr. Lee and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend Senator Enzi, the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act.'' Breast cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in women. One in eight women will receive a diagnosis during her lifetime--and more than 40,000 women will die from the disease this year. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp was first issued in 1998 and has since raised almost $90 million for research into new, innovative treatments for breast cancer. A 2018 study that was partially funded by revenue from stamp sales found that most women diagnosed with a common early-stage breast cancer do not actually need chemotherapy as a part of their cancer treatment. Results from this study are expected to spare up to 70,000 U.S. patients a year from the cost and side effects associated with chemotherapy without it hurting their chances of beating the disease. Think about it. Simply purchasing a stamp could help spare thousands of women the pain they may experience when undergoing chemotherapy and side effects that range from hair loss to long-term organ damage. Not to mention the expense, with one basic round of chemo costing anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000. The stamp's ability to fund critical research like this study helps us take big steps forward in treating breast cancer for only a few more cents over the standard price of sending a letter. As we come back to work after Mother's Day, I invite the Senate to pause and remember all the women who have faced a diagnosis of breast cancer, not knowing what the outcome would be. I applaud as well the family and friends who have tirelessly supported them. The Breast Cancer Stamp currently costs 65 cents, 10 cents more than a traditional Forever stamp. The additional 10 cents helps support breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense's Medical Research Program. Our bill would reauthorize the stamp for 8 more years through 2027. For these women and their families, this stamp is as meaningful to them as it is impactful to how we combat the disease now and in the future. I am honored to be joined by Senators Baldwin, Barrasso, Capito, Casey, Cramer, Collins, Daines, Duckworth, Durbin, Grassley, Hassan, Hirono, Hyde-Smith, Klobuchar, Rosen, Schatz, Shaheen, Stabenow, and Tester. I am very grateful for supporters of this bill, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American College of Surgeons, Susan G. Komen, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Are You Dense, Inc. As we celebrate the mothers in our lives this week, I urge my colleagues to join us in taking meaningful action to improve women's health. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend Senator Enzi, the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act.'' Breast cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in women. One in eight women will receive a diagnosis during her lifetime--and more than 40,000 women will die from the disease this year. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp was first issued in 1998 and has since raised almost $90 million for research into new, innovative treatments for breast cancer. A 2018 study that was partially funded by revenue from stamp sales found that most women diagnosed with a common early-stage breast cancer do not actually need chemotherapy as a part of their cancer treatment. Results from this study are expected to spare up to 70,000 U.S. patients a year from the cost and side effects associated with chemotherapy without it hurting their chances of beating the disease. Think about it. Simply purchasing a stamp could help spare thousands of women the pain they may experience when undergoing chemotherapy and side effects that range from hair loss to long-term organ damage. Not to mention the expense, with one basic round of chemo costing anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000. The stamp's ability to fund critical research like this study helps us take big steps forward in treating breast cancer for only a few more cents over the standard price of sending a letter. As we come back to work after Mother's Day, I invite the Senate to pause and remember all the women who have faced a diagnosis of breast cancer, not knowing what the outcome would be. I applaud as well the family and friends who have tirelessly supported them. The Breast Cancer Stamp currently costs 65 cents, 10 cents more than a traditional Forever stamp. The additional 10 cents helps support breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense's Medical Research Program. Our bill would reauthorize the stamp for 8 more years through 2027. For these women and their families, this stamp is as meaningful to them as it is impactful to how we combat the disease now and in the future. I am honored to be joined by Senators Baldwin, Barrasso, Capito, Casey, Cramer, Collins, Daines, Duckworth, Durbin, Grassley, Hassan, Hirono, Hyde-Smith, Klobuchar, Rosen, Schatz, Shaheen, Stabenow, and Tester. I am very grateful for supporters of this bill, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American College of Surgeons, Susan G. Komen, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Are You Dense, Inc. As we celebrate the mothers in our lives this week, I urge my colleagues to join us in taking meaningful action to improve women's health. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prevent Foreign Interference with Elections Act of 2019. This bill provides enhanced criminal penalties and additional safeguards to prevent foreign interference in our elections. To be clear, there are already laws on the books to prosecute those who interfere in U.S. elections. Indeed, Special Counsel Mueller charged Russian intelligence officers who hacked into U.S. computers and stole documents, for the purpose of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections. Special Counsel Mueller also charged the Russian Internet Research Agency and several of its employees for their role in the social media campaign that was designed to manipulate American voters. This bill, however, makes election interference a separate criminal offense. It makes clear that those who conspire with foreign actors to interfere in U.S. elections will be punished appropriately for striking at the bedrock of our democracy, This bill does five main things. First, it explicitly makes it a crime to conspire with foreign nationals to interfere in U.S. elections. Interference can be accomplished through breaking a federal criminal law, such as committing fraud, or by hacking into someone's computer, or by violating federal, state, or local election laws. As I mentioned, this bill simply leaves no doubt that working with a foreign actor to commit these offenses with the goal of interfering in a U.S. election is a crime. And it requires that those who break this law will be sentenced separately, and in addition to any other laws that were broken. Second, it makes it so that people convicted of interfering in our elections would be inadmissible into the United States. There is, however, an important exception. Those who cooperate with law enforcement to help catch those responsible for interference would be eligible for an S visa. Third, it creates a civil action, allowing the Attorney General to immediately address foreign interference once U.S. law enforcement learns of it. This is important because foreign interference can then be stopped as soon as it is discovered. Fourth, it prohibits foreign-financed elections ads, including foreign-financed issue ads and foreign-financed digital ads. These expansions will help protect the integrity of our electoral process. Fifth and finally, it prohibits providing ``substantial assistance'' to foreign nationals trying to interfere in our elections. It is important that we also hold ourselves accountable by not providing aid to those wishing to do us harm. To be clear, there was foreign interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Intelligence Community unanimously concluded that the Russian government interfered by ``blend[ing] covert intelligence operations-- such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or `trolls.' '' After a nearly two-year investigation, Special Counsel Mueller confirmed these core conclusions. Along the way, his office indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in connection with Russian hacking operations and three companies, including the Internet Research Agency and 13 of its employees for their role in the social media campaign to influence American voters. Unless we do something, this interference will happen again. And to stop it, we need to not only make clear that interference will result in criminal punishment, we must also update our election laws so that they can combat these new cyber-attacks. This bill does both. I am introducing this bill today with strong Democratic support, and I would particularly like to thank Senator Blumenthal for his leadership on this issue. It is my sincere hope, however, that my Republican colleagues will join us in this important effort as well. The issue I speak about today is one that goes to the core of our democracy. It is a bi-partisan issue that I hope both Democrats and Republicans can join in addressing. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prevent Foreign Interference with Elections Act of 2019. This bill provides enhanced criminal penalties and additional safeguards to prevent foreign interference in our elections. To be clear, there are already laws on the books to prosecute those who interfere in U.S. elections. Indeed, Special Counsel Mueller charged Russian intelligence officers who hacked into U.S. computers and stole documents, for the purpose of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections. Special Counsel Mueller also charged the Russian Internet Research Agency and several of its employees for their role in the social media campaign that was designed to manipulate American voters. This bill, however, makes election interference a separate criminal offense. It makes clear that those who conspire with foreign actors to interfere in U.S. elections will be punished appropriately for striking at the bedrock of our democracy, This bill does five main things. First, it explicitly makes it a crime to conspire with foreign nationals to interfere in U.S. elections. Interference can be accomplished through breaking a federal criminal law, such as committing fraud, or by hacking into someone's computer, or by violating federal, state, or local election laws. As I mentioned, this bill simply leaves no doubt that working with a foreign actor to commit these offenses with the goal of interfering in a U.S. election is a crime. And it requires that those who break this law will be sentenced separately, and in addition to any other laws that were broken. Second, it makes it so that people convicted of interfering in our elections would be inadmissible into the United States. There is, however, an important exception. Those who cooperate with law enforcement to help catch those responsible for interference would be eligible for an S visa. Third, it creates a civil action, allowing the Attorney General to immediately address foreign interference once U.S. law enforcement learns of it. This is important because foreign interference can then be stopped as soon as it is discovered. Fourth, it prohibits foreign-financed elections ads, including foreign-financed issue ads and foreign-financed digital ads. These expansions will help protect the integrity of our electoral process. Fifth and finally, it prohibits providing ``substantial assistance'' to foreign nationals trying to interfere in our elections. It is important that we also hold ourselves accountable by not providing aid to those wishing to do us harm. To be clear, there was foreign interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Intelligence Community unanimously concluded that the Russian government interfered by ``blend[ing] covert intelligence operations-- such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or `trolls.' '' After a nearly two-year investigation, Special Counsel Mueller confirmed these core conclusions. Along the way, his office indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in connection with Russian hacking operations and three companies, including the Internet Research Agency and 13 of its employees for their role in the social media campaign to influence American voters. Unless we do something, this interference will happen again. And to stop it, we need to not only make clear that interference will result in criminal punishment, we must also update our election laws so that they can combat these new cyber-attacks. This bill does both. I am introducing this bill today with strong Democratic support, and I would particularly like to thank Senator Blumenthal for his leadership on this issue. It is my sincere hope, however, that my Republican colleagues will join us in this important effort as well. The issue I speak about today is one that goes to the core of our democracy. It is a bi-partisan issue that I hope both Democrats and Republicans can join in addressing. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I wish to speak in support of including provisions in any reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that would ensure Tribal governments can prosecute heinous crimes on their lands. When Congress last reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA, in 2013, we made historic advancements to address domestic violence on Tribal lands. Those important steps must be preserved, but we must also fix gaps in the law that the last reauthorization left open. These gaps allow crimes against children, the elderly, and law enforcement to essentially go unpunished. As I have mentioned before, I support H.R. 1585, the bill passed by the House to reauthorize VAWA. One of the reasons I support that bill is because it addresses those gaps. Tribes should be able to address violent crimes that happen on their lands and to their most vulnerable populations. According to a 2016 Justice Department report, ``more than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime.'' That is disturbing. The report also found that 56 percent have experienced sexual violence; 56 percent have experienced physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner; and 49 percent have been stalked. For me, these numbers are even more upsetting because California has the largest Native American population in the United States. There are almost 700,000 Native Americans living in California, which has 107 federally recognized and 50 unrecognized Tribes. We must continue to respect Tribal sovereignty, to advance the very core of what sovereignty means: the right of Tribes to exercise dominion and jurisdiction over appalling crimes that occur on Tribal land. For many years, Tribal governments were unable to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians on Tribal lands. Thankfully, that changed when Congress reauthorized VAWA in 2013. The 2013 reauthorization of VAWA allowed Tribes to exercise their sovereign powers to prosecute, convict, and sentence both Indians and non-Indians who assault Indian spouses or dating partners. In other words, Tribes were finally able to prosecute anyone who committed domestic violence against an Indian on Indian land. These measures were not only necessary; they worked. In just 5 years, under these new laws, there were 142 arrests, 74 convictions, and 24 more cases pending. These charges were processed through Tribal courts that provided the requisite due process protections under our Constitution. In fact, not a single conviction was overturned because of a lack of due process. We must now build on that success. The VAWA reauthorization the House passed is a strong bill. I would note that it passed on a significant bipartisan basis, with a vote of 263-158 and 33 Republicans supporting it. This was even in the face of an active opposition campaign conducted by the National Rifle Association. But importantly, one of the reasons the House bill is a strong bill is because of its Tribal protections. For example, the House bill expands jurisdiction over non-Indians for crimes against children, elders, and law enforcement. We have a duty to prevent child abuse and elder abuse wherever they occur. It is also only right that Tribes be able to prosecute attacks on law enforcement officers. The people who protect the public deserve protection as well. These advancements ensure that Tribes are able to address acts of violence, while respecting Tribal sovereignty. We should welcome the opportunity to continue to build on our past successes. I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Ernst on these provisions and hope other Senators with significant stake in this area will join us. There are several other provisions that I believe should be included in a VAWA reauthorization. Chief among those is keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. I plan to speak about those provisions at a later date, but I mention them now because I believe that we must have a comprehensive approach to addressing domestic violence in this country. Simply put, all of the different parts of VAWA are linked. For instance, ensuring Tribal governments can prosecute domestic violence committed on Tribal lands is important, but keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers will help protect victims on Tribal lands as well. The bill passed by the House takes this sort of comprehensive approach by, for example, improving the law in the areas of housing, Tribal protections, and gun safety. I believe the Senate must do the same. There is no simple way to stop domestic violence, but we have a duty to do all that we can. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of overriding President Trump's veto of the Sanders-Murphy resolution. The resolution would end U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen, which I believe is long overdue. Saudi Arabia's conduct in the war in Yemen has been deplorable. It has purposefully attacked civilian infrastructure, including electricity generation facilities, water sanitation plants and, medical facilities. They have employed cluster munitions in civilian areas and used disproportionate force to attack military targets. In one attack, the coalition killed more than 40 children on a school bus, claiming to this day that the bus was a legitimate military target. While I am pleased that the United States is no longer refueling coalition aircraft, I support ending all U.S. assistance for the Saudi- led coalition before thousands more die. To date, more than 63,000 people have been killed as a direct result of the conflict. If the conflict continues, an estimated 22,000 more people will be killed this year. That is only direct combat deaths, which is highly misleading. The ongoing war, with U.S. support, has indirectly killed far more, with Yemen's children bearing the brunt of the suffering. Since 2014, more than 85,000 children have died of starvation. That is worth repeating: More than 85,000 children have starved to death in the last 4 years in Yemen. By the end of 2019, the total number of people in Yemen who will die from a lack of food, health services, and infrastructure is expected to top 131,000. Sixty percent of those killed will be children under the age of 5. In fact, a child in Yemen will die every 12 minutes unless we end this war. The Saudi coalition's purposeful destruction of Yemen's civilian infrastructure, targeting of medical facilities and withholding of aid has led to the world's worst humanitarian crisis: 14 million people require emergency food aid. A majority of Yemen's population does not have access to clean water, sanitation, or adequate public healthcare. Cholera and other diseases are rampant throughout Yemen as public services have collapsed. There have been 1.2 million suspected cases of cholera, resulting in 2,500 fatalities from this entirely preventable disease. Nearly three-quarters of the population--almost 22 million people--need some form of humanitarian assistance. Sadly, the actions of the Trump administration have worsened the humanitarian harm. Through the President's ``Muslim ban,'' the administration has effectively trapped civilians in Yemen, sealing their fate. The Trump administration has not accepted a single refugee from Yemen since October 2017. It has banned permanent immigration from Yemen, including immediate family members of U.S. citizens, and it has stopped issuing temporary visas. The Trump administration has even refused to redesignate Temporary Protected Status for Yemen, making more than a thousand protected Yemenis subject to deportation. The United States can help end the suffering in Yemen by halting all assistance to the Saudi-led coalition. It could also accept Yemeni refugees, resume normal immigration and extend TPS to Yemenis currently in the United States. The Trump administration has callously decided to do nothing. The Sanders-Murphy resolution would direct the President to end all U.S. support for the war in Yemen. Given the horrific consequences of the conflict, I strongly supported the resolution when it passed the Senate on March 13, 2019. I am disappointed but not surprised by the President's veto of it. The President's apparent plan is to continue to support the Saudi coalition even though it is clear that there is no military solution to this conflict. That is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the President's unconditional support for Saudi Arabia is not limited to its conduct in Yemen. Under the direction of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia murdered, dismembered, and disposed of the remains of a U.S. resident, Jamal Khashoggi. To this day, the Saudi Government continues to blame ``rogue agents'' for this heinous murder. They are holding a secret trial for the so-called accused, refusing to cooperate with international investigations, and continuing to rely on the Trump administration to shield it from accountability. Any nation that would murder a journalist inside its own diplomatic facility is no friend of the United States. Any leader who would direct another human being to be dismembered with a bone saw is not fit to lead. Let's be clear: Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for Khashoggi's murder. He is not fit to lead the kingdom and must be held accountable for this crime. Saudi Arabia has also arrested, tortured and prosecuted peaceful political activists, including women. It has kidnapped and forcefully repatriated Saudi nationals, executed religious minorities, and even illegally detained U.S. citizens. The vote before us today would send a clear message to Saudi Arabia that we do not support its heinous policy and actions. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending that message.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act.'' This bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently block new leases for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon or Washington. I'm pleased to be joined today by Senators Harris, Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, Menendez, Booker, Sanders, Whitehouse, Markey, Gillibrand, Peters in sponsoring this bill, which has been introduced in every Congress since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010. 11 people were killed and 17 others injured when the Deepwater Horizon well blew out. Oil and gas spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. Oil slicks covered the Gulf. Tar balls and toxic sludge covered beaches and wetlands. More than one-third of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster continue to affect birds and marine life, and marine biologists are still learning about the long-term effects, demonstrating the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction. Californians know all too well the dangers posed by offshore drilling. Before Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez, there was the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara. A well blowout on an offshore rig spilled more than 3 million gallons of crude oil according to some estimates--the worst spill in U.S. history at the time. The spill closed local beaches--which were covered by a thick layer of oil--and thousands of marine mammals and birds were killed. Tourists were turned away and commercial fishing operations were halted, hurting the local economy. After the Santa Barbara spill, California had enough. The State blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters--which extend three miles from the shore--and in 1994 enacted a permanent offshore drilling ban. Through local ordinances, congressional opposition, and presidential moratoria, all new drilling in federal waters off California has been blocked since 1984. Today, opposition to offshore drilling is higher than ever. Recent polling has found that nearly 70 percent of Californians oppose new drilling off our coast. Yet, on January 8, 2018, the Trump administration proposed to allow drilling in nearly all Federal waters, including in all three regions off the California coast. The leases are proposed to begin in 2020 and would lead to the first new drilling operations in these areas in more than 35 years. Sixty-eight cities and counties representing a majority of California's population have voiced their strong opposition to President Trump's misguided plan. In an addition, California's Governor, Senate, Assembly, Attorney General, Coastal Commission, Fish and Game Commission, and State Lands Commission have shared their opposition to the administration's drilling plan. Fortunately, the Administration has already suggested that its plans for offshore drilling have been delayed as they determine how to respond to legal setbacks. The plans are flawed, and should be withdrawn altogether. Those of us on the Pacific Coast do not want any further offshore oil and gas development. It is long past time to respect the substantial local opposition by passing the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act'' to permanently ban offshore drilling and protect our coast for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act.'' This bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently block new leases for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon or Washington. I'm pleased to be joined today by Senators Harris, Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, Menendez, Booker, Sanders, Whitehouse, Markey, Gillibrand, Peters in sponsoring this bill, which has been introduced in every Congress since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010. 11 people were killed and 17 others injured when the Deepwater Horizon well blew out. Oil and gas spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. Oil slicks covered the Gulf. Tar balls and toxic sludge covered beaches and wetlands. More than one-third of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster continue to affect birds and marine life, and marine biologists are still learning about the long-term effects, demonstrating the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction. Californians know all too well the dangers posed by offshore drilling. Before Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez, there was the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara. A well blowout on an offshore rig spilled more than 3 million gallons of crude oil according to some estimates--the worst spill in U.S. history at the time. The spill closed local beaches--which were covered by a thick layer of oil--and thousands of marine mammals and birds were killed. Tourists were turned away and commercial fishing operations were halted, hurting the local economy. After the Santa Barbara spill, California had enough. The State blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters--which extend three miles from the shore--and in 1994 enacted a permanent offshore drilling ban. Through local ordinances, congressional opposition, and presidential moratoria, all new drilling in federal waters off California has been blocked since 1984. Today, opposition to offshore drilling is higher than ever. Recent polling has found that nearly 70 percent of Californians oppose new drilling off our coast. Yet, on January 8, 2018, the Trump administration proposed to allow drilling in nearly all Federal waters, including in all three regions off the California coast. The leases are proposed to begin in 2020 and would lead to the first new drilling operations in these areas in more than 35 years. Sixty-eight cities and counties representing a majority of California's population have voiced their strong opposition to President Trump's misguided plan. In an addition, California's Governor, Senate, Assembly, Attorney General, Coastal Commission, Fish and Game Commission, and State Lands Commission have shared their opposition to the administration's drilling plan. Fortunately, the Administration has already suggested that its plans for offshore drilling have been delayed as they determine how to respond to legal setbacks. The plans are flawed, and should be withdrawn altogether. Those of us on the Pacific Coast do not want any further offshore oil and gas development. It is long past time to respect the substantial local opposition by passing the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act'' to permanently ban offshore drilling and protect our coast for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Choose Medicare Act, which would strengthen the Affordable Care Act and help reduce healthcare costs for all Americans. This commonsense bill would create a public healthcare option based on Medicare that would increase choice and competition in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, including California's state exchange, Covered California. I would also allow the Secretary of Health Human Services to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, increase healthcare subsidies for middle-income Americans, and allow the federal government to block unreasonable health insurance rate increases. The majority of Americans support expanding healthcare choices to achieve universal coverage and lower costs for everyone. However, too many Americans are still unable to afford a private plan that covers the care they need. The Choose Medicare Act would fix this by creating a public health insurance plan that would compete alongside private insurers in the individual and group insurance marketplaces. Known as Medicare Part E, the public option health plan would offer comprehensive coverage and all of the benefits covered under traditional Medicare. Every doctor that accepts traditional Medicare would also be enrolled as a provider for the public health plan, giving patients access to a large network of doctors across the country. It would also benefit employers. Around half of Californians receive their health insurance through their work. The Choose Medicare Act would give them more options, allowing large employers to choose a plan modeled on traditional Medicare for their workers. Just as they do now, employers would cover a portion of the cost of their employees' coverage. Having access to this new public option would increase competition and choice in the employer market, and the public plan's negotiating power would help reduce health costs for employers, not just individuals. Moreover, our bill would ensure that people who receive their health coverage through the public option would be able to keep their health insurance when they change employers. Americans would no longer feel stuck in low-paying jobs because they are worried about losing their health insurance. The Choose Medicare Act would also provide funding for a new reinsurance program to partially offset the high healthcare costs paid by insurers for the sickest individuals. This reinsurance program would improve insurer participation in the Affordable Care Act exchanges and lower premiums for everyone. It would also give States the option to use this funding to address high out of-pocket costs, such as copayments, coinsurance, premiums, and deductibles. I am proud to note that this bill includes rate review legislation I have previously introduced to help keep insurance premiums down. Rather than allowing American workers to suffer under excessive premium increases, our bill would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to review, modify, and reject unjustified premium increases in States where the insurance commissioner does not have that authority. This review process has already been successful in States where it was implemented. Our bill would ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, is protected from unreasonable premiums increases. The rising cost of drug pricing is also a huge problem in our healthcare system. Our bill would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate lower drug prices with manufacturers, reducing the amount patients pay at the pharmacy. After 1 year of negotiations, if the Secretary and drug manufacturers are unable to agree on a fair price, the Secretary will then be able to use the price that the Department of Veterans Affairs or other Federal agencies that purchase prescription drugs already use. Finally, our bill would protect America's seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare from unlimited out-of-pocket costs by adding an annual out-of-pocket maximum for what they can pay. Seniors would no longer be burdened with mounting medical costs because they are enrolled in Medicare instead of private insurance. I want to thank Senator Merkley and Senator Murphy for leading our efforts on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much-needed, commonsense bill to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, give consumers more choices when picking their healthcare plan, and make healthcare more affordable for all.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act,'' which would help address the concerning rise of electronic cigarette use among America's youth. This common-sense bill would protect children by requiring online retailers of e-cigarettes to meet the same standards as those that sell regular cigarettes and other tobacco products online. E-cigarette use among teenagers has increased dramatically over the past few years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20 percent of high school students used electronic cigarettes in 2018. In comparison, only about 1.5 percent of high school students reportedly used e-cigarettes in 2011. Even more disturbing, the rise of teenage use of e-cigarettes appears to be accelerating. Between 2017 and 2018, e-cigarettes use among high school-aged children jumped 78%. Today, e-cigarettes have become the most commonly used tobacco product among America's youth. These severe levels of e-cigarette use by middle and high school-aged children are staggering. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report on e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, the developing adolescent brain is uniquely sensitive to nicotine. Studies have also shown that the development of the brain during adolescence can be permanently altered by nicotine. As a result, children exposed to nicotine may be at greater risk for acting out drug-seeking behaviors, experiencing deficits in attention and cognition, and suffering from mood disorders. These effects may continue into adulthood, long after e-cigarette use has stopped. Given the effects of nicotine on children, it is critical that we close any legal loopholes that have allowed underage youth to gain access to tobacco, particularly through e-cigarettes. Among underage e-cigarette users, 86 percent reported that they obtained the product from somewhere other than a retail store. And a recent survey of adolescent e-cigarette users showed that 32 percent of them reported purchasing their products online, making online sales the single largest source of underage purchases. Our legislation would build off the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act,'' which has been a tremendous success in preventing underage use of cigarettes. Since it passed, the number of middle and high school students who use cigarettes has been nearly cut in half. We should expand on this success by requiring e-cigarette retailers to meet the same requirements as those that sell regular cigarettes online. By applying the same safeguards that have worked with online sales of regular cigarettes, our bill would ensure that online e-cigarette sellers are verifying the age of their customers, properly labeling packages, and checking identification at delivery. In addition, our bill requires deliveries of e-cigarettes to comply with relevant State tobacco taxes and reporting requirements, as is currently required of online sales of regular cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. E-cigarette retailers will also need to register and maintain a record of their online sales, which will be accessible to State and Federal law officials. Law enforcement will be able to identify and shut down online vendors that are systematically breaking the law by marketing their e-cigarette products to children. This bill complements efforts by the Food and Drug Administration, which has recognized the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use and proposed a number of policies meant to prevent underage retail purchases, limit flavors that appeal to children, and enforce age verifications. Over the last 50 years, the United States has made remarkable progress in reducing the number of Americans that use tobacco products. However, the dramatic recent rise of e-cigarette use among our youth threatens that progress and requires a strong response. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for joining me in introducing legislation on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to address the epidemic of e-cigarette use among America's youth. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act,'' which would help address the concerning rise of electronic cigarette use among America's youth. This common-sense bill would protect children by requiring online retailers of e-cigarettes to meet the same standards as those that sell regular cigarettes and other tobacco products online. E-cigarette use among teenagers has increased dramatically over the past few years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20 percent of high school students used electronic cigarettes in 2018. In comparison, only about 1.5 percent of high school students reportedly used e-cigarettes in 2011. Even more disturbing, the rise of teenage use of e-cigarettes appears to be accelerating. Between 2017 and 2018, e-cigarettes use among high school-aged children jumped 78%. Today, e-cigarettes have become the most commonly used tobacco product among America's youth. These severe levels of e-cigarette use by middle and high school-aged children are staggering. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report on e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, the developing adolescent brain is uniquely sensitive to nicotine. Studies have also shown that the development of the brain during adolescence can be permanently altered by nicotine. As a result, children exposed to nicotine may be at greater risk for acting out drug-seeking behaviors, experiencing deficits in attention and cognition, and suffering from mood disorders. These effects may continue into adulthood, long after e-cigarette use has stopped. Given the effects of nicotine on children, it is critical that we close any legal loopholes that have allowed underage youth to gain access to tobacco, particularly through e-cigarettes. Among underage e-cigarette users, 86 percent reported that they obtained the product from somewhere other than a retail store. And a recent survey of adolescent e-cigarette users showed that 32 percent of them reported purchasing their products online, making online sales the single largest source of underage purchases. Our legislation would build off the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act,'' which has been a tremendous success in preventing underage use of cigarettes. Since it passed, the number of middle and high school students who use cigarettes has been nearly cut in half. We should expand on this success by requiring e-cigarette retailers to meet the same requirements as those that sell regular cigarettes online. By applying the same safeguards that have worked with online sales of regular cigarettes, our bill would ensure that online e-cigarette sellers are verifying the age of their customers, properly labeling packages, and checking identification at delivery. In addition, our bill requires deliveries of e-cigarettes to comply with relevant State tobacco taxes and reporting requirements, as is currently required of online sales of regular cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. E-cigarette retailers will also need to register and maintain a record of their online sales, which will be accessible to State and Federal law officials. Law enforcement will be able to identify and shut down online vendors that are systematically breaking the law by marketing their e-cigarette products to children. This bill complements efforts by the Food and Drug Administration, which has recognized the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use and proposed a number of policies meant to prevent underage retail purchases, limit flavors that appeal to children, and enforce age verifications. Over the last 50 years, the United States has made remarkable progress in reducing the number of Americans that use tobacco products. However, the dramatic recent rise of e-cigarette use among our youth threatens that progress and requires a strong response. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for joining me in introducing legislation on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to address the epidemic of e-cigarette use among America's youth. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of David Bernhardt to be Secretary of the Interior. I opposed his nomination as Deputy Secretary of the Interior because of his numerous conflicts of interest as a former lobbyist. Bernhardt's tenure, both as Deputy Secretary and now the Acting Secretary at Interior, has since confirmed my initial concerns and given rise to new ones. As a former partner at a powerful DC lobbying and law firm, Bernhardt represented numerous oil, gas, mining, and water companies with ongoing business before the Department that he now oversees. The Washington Post recently reported that he has at least 22 known conflicts of interest, the most of any of President Trump's nominees. This is particularly concerning given that Mr. Bernhardt's recusals mandated by President Trump will expire in August, and he has refused to commit to continuing recusing himself beyond then on any issues that could benefit former clients. In fact, during his recent confirmation hearing, Bernhardt stated that recusal isn't ``really is the best strategy''--an unacceptable stance. By refusing to recuse himself, Bernhardt has shown a potential willingness to put his former clients' needs before the public good. One troubling example is his relationship with Cadiz, a company that wants to profit by draining a critical aquifer in the Mojave Desert. Before coming to the Department of the Interior, Mr. Bernhardt was a partner at and led the natural resources division of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Cadiz's lobbying firm that retains a financial stake in the project. This project would destroy the treasured California desert that I have fought my entire Senate career to protect. In order to sell the water, Cadiz needs to build a more than 40-mile pipeline through the desert to connect to an aqueduct. Several months after Bernhardt was nominated as Deputy Secretary, the Department of Interior temporarily suspended its own solicitor's opinion requiring Cadiz to get Federal permits to build its pipeline along a railroad right-of-way. That solicitor's opinion was ultimately reversed 2 months after he was confirmed, completely removing the Federal permitting authority for this project. The timing of this decision is extremely troubling, particularly in light of the Interior Department's own independent science that has repeatedly questioned the sustainability of this project. The U.S. Geological Survey, which is part of the Interior Department, stated in 2002 and confirmed in 2017 that the natural recharge rate of the aquifer is only 2,000 to 10,000 acre-feet per year. Cadiz proposes to withdraw water at more than 50,000 acre-feet, or 16 billion gallons, per year for 50 years. Taking that much water would rob the desert of its most precious natural resource and harm the surrounding flora and fauna. Now the Federal Government, despite its own science saying Cadiz would take too much water and legal opinions requiring Federal review, has removed itself from the permitting process. Even the mere appearance of favoritism or special favors for Cadiz is extremely inappropriate and a concern with this nomination. I am also concerned that throughout his tenure at Interior, Bernhardt has shown a willingness to ignore the public's interest for political purposes. During President Trump's government shutdown--the longest in U.S. history--Acting Secretary Bernhardt kept most of the national parks open to avoid public backlash for the shutdown. Left open but severally understaffed, major damage occurred to parks across the country. Few places felt the impact of his poor decision more than Joshua Tree National Park. Iconic Joshua trees were cut down, cultural artifacts stolen or destroyed, and pristine desert habitat marred by vehicle traffic. I have twice requested from Mr. Bernhardt a full accounting of the damage and costs of his decision and have not received a response. I am also deeply concerned by steps Interior has recently taken to expand offshore oil drilling, despite bipartisan opposition from coastal States. Californians don't want new offshore drilling along our coast. We still remember the horror of the 1969 Santa Barbara spill, when an offshore oil rig leaked more than 100,000 barrels, the third largest oil spill behind the Exxon-Valdez and Deepwater Horizon disasters. There has been no new drilling in State waters since that spill and no new drilling in Federal waters off the coast of California since 1984. Now, the Department of the Interior is openly discussing the option of restarting such drilling. Bernhardt's ties to the fossil fuel industry give me zero confidence that the Interior Department will reach the right conclusion if he is confirmed. For the reasons I have stated, I cannot vote to confirm Mr. Bernhardt. Should he be confirmed, I again ask that he fully recuse himself from all matters related to former clients during his tenure as a lobbyist. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this nomination before voting. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand the majority is considering another change to how judicial nominees are considered. My understanding is the majority leader may move to break the rules of the Senate and cut the time that Senators can debate nominees after cloture is invoked from 30 hours to 2 hours. Just yesterday, the Senate rejected this change. The Lankford resolution was voted on and did not receive 60 votes, let alone the 67 votes required to change the rules. The resolution would also have changed postcloture debate time on circuit court and Supreme Court nominees from 30 hours total to 30 hours divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees. This means debate on a Supreme Court nomination could be limited to only 15 total hours of debate. Despite bipartisan opposition to the Lankford resolution, the majority is now considering limiting debate time by breaking longstanding rules of the Senate. Changing the rules is not only unnecessary, but also is dangerous, especially when we are talking about lifetime appointments. Further, given this administration's failure to properly vet its own nominees, the Senate should not restrict critical vetting and due diligence. There is simply no need to limit debate on President Trump's judicial nominees. In fact, President Trump's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a record pace. Through his first 2 years in office, President Trump had more circuit court nominees confirmed than any other President had at the same point in their tenure--30 total. That is on top of two Supreme Court Justices and 53 district court judges. Further, the current administration's circuit court nominees have been confirmed nearly twice as fast as President Obama's, 256 days for President Obama's nominees versus 139 days for President Trump's nominees. The rules change is also unnecessary because Senate Democrats are in no way obstructing confirmations. Senate Democrats have not required cloture votes on more than half of President Trump's district court nominees. On average, the Senate has used only 3 hours of floor time for debate on President Trump's district court nominees. In addition, a higher percentage of President Trump's district court nominees have been confirmed by voice vote as compared to President Obama's district court nominees, 49 percent versus 35 percent. In other words, Senate Democrats have not required the majority to hold rollcall votes on nearly half of President Trump's nominees to the Federal district courts. Finally, Democrats have worked with the Trump administration to identify qualified judicial nominees. For example, Delaware's two Democratic Senators, Senators Carper and Coons, worked with the White House to identify two qualified nominees to be judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Senators Durbin and Duckworth of Illinois worked with this administration to identify two highly qualified nominees to be judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Both of those nominees were confirmed unanimously. In addition, we are right now in postcloture time on the nomination of Roy Altman to the Southern District of Florida. Several Democrats voted for Mr. Altman in committee, and Democrats have not demanded a full 30 hours of debate time on Mr. Altman's nomination. Despite all of this, Republicans are nevertheless breaking the rules and pushing the Senate closer to a body that is governed simply by the whim of the majority. All of this leads to an unmistakable conclusion--shortening debate time is unnecessary. It is a response to a non-existent problem, and it is simply a power grab meant to stack the courts at an even faster rate. It is also important to stress why it is so dangerous to allow the Trump administration to stack the courts in this way, without adequate debate time. We have seen this administration fill lifetime positions with young, inexperienced nominees who are often outside the legal mainstream. We have seen them try to do this without properly vetting those same nominees, as in the case of Brett Talley, who failed to disclose to the Judiciary Committee nearly 15,000 online comments, including one in which he defended the founder of the KKK. The Senate needs sufficient time to scrutinize the records of these nominees--nominees like Matthew Kacsmaryk and Patrick Wyrick, who have led efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act; nominees like Brian Buescher, who has argued that States should go after women's reproductive rights ``bit by bit''; and nominees like Wendy Vitter, who refused to acknowledge that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided and who falsely claimed there is a connection between the use of contraceptive pills and the incidence of cancer. Two hours is simply not enough time to scrutinize these nominees' records, especially when so many of this administration's judicial nominees fail to disclose materials to the Judiciary Committee. In conclusion, all Senators, and not just those on the Judiciary Committee, need adequate time to review the records of these judicial nominees, who, if confirmed, will serve for life. All Senators need adequate time to make an informed decision about whether these nominees are qualified to decide the fate of thousands of people's lives. After all, the American people deserve to know that, if they find themselves in a Federal court, they will have an impartial, qualified, mainstream jurist who has earned the right to sit on the bench. This decision to break the rules and reduce debate time on judicial nominees not only harms the institution of the Senate, but also harms the Federal judiciary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act.'' This bill would help address our Nation's current homelessness crisis by establishing a new Federal grant program to increase support for comprehensive services paired with housing. As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--families with children, veterans, individuals with mental health conditions, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going to resolve itself on its own. According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 552,000 homeless individuals and families in the United States. Nearly 25 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 129,972 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night. In a Nation as prosperous as ours, we can and we must do better. Our city, county, state, and Federal governments must work hand-in-hand with the non-profit and private sectors to establish collaborative efforts to significantly address the issue of homelessness. The good news is that we have seen a model that works: supportive housing can truly stabilize an individual or family and change their life. Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference. One success story is the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles. This shelter allows homeless and formerly homeless women to transform their lives through a combination of permanent, supportive housing and workforce development. This would not be possible without the Center's partnerships with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Health, and other critical stakeholders. I've visited the Center, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same to see why this model works. It will take a significant investment to solve the current homelessness crisis. The ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act'' authorizes a new Federal funding grant program of $750 million per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services, and they must provide a 25 percent match for any Federal funds received. Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant program created by this bill would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any homeless population. This bill supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing local governmental entities and non-profit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will make the most effective impact. This bipartisan legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local government, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Mayors and CEOS for U.S. Housing Investment, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Counties, National Education Association, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and Treatment Communities of America. I particularly want to thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this important issue. I hope our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring the bill and moving it through the Senate. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act.'' This bill would help address our Nation's current homelessness crisis by establishing a new Federal grant program to increase support for comprehensive services paired with housing. As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--families with children, veterans, individuals with mental health conditions, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going to resolve itself on its own. According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 552,000 homeless individuals and families in the United States. Nearly 25 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 129,972 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night. In a Nation as prosperous as ours, we can and we must do better. Our city, county, state, and Federal governments must work hand-in-hand with the non-profit and private sectors to establish collaborative efforts to significantly address the issue of homelessness. The good news is that we have seen a model that works: supportive housing can truly stabilize an individual or family and change their life. Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference. One success story is the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles. This shelter allows homeless and formerly homeless women to transform their lives through a combination of permanent, supportive housing and workforce development. This would not be possible without the Center's partnerships with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Health, and other critical stakeholders. I've visited the Center, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same to see why this model works. It will take a significant investment to solve the current homelessness crisis. The ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act'' authorizes a new Federal funding grant program of $750 million per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services, and they must provide a 25 percent match for any Federal funds received. Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant program created by this bill would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any homeless population. This bill supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing local governmental entities and non-profit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will make the most effective impact. This bipartisan legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local government, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Mayors and CEOS for U.S. Housing Investment, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Counties, National Education Association, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and Treatment Communities of America. I particularly want to thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this important issue. I hope our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring the bill and moving it through the Senate. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress and which is at the desk; further, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to make remarks as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, last Friday, Special Counsel Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General Barr. On Sunday, the Attorney General provided a four-page summary of that report to Congress and the American people. Unfortunately, the Attorney General's summary tells us little about what Special Counsel Mueller actually found. In fact, according to the summary, Mueller's office spent 2 years investigating, with a team of 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents and other professional staff. The special counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing the use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. That is quite a record. The fact is, a four-page summary cannot possibly illuminate what this thorough of an investigation uncovered. I find it so disappointing that so many are rushing to judgment without being able to see the full report or all of the underlying facts. This report should be made public. As has been, I think, well stated, not only is the official government interested, but the American public is interested in our findings as well. We know the Russian Government interfered with the U.S. election. That has been reported by the intelligence community and intelligence committee--I sit on that committee--and it has been reaffirmed by the special counsel's investigation. We also know, from court filings, documents, and press reports, that the President and at least 17 people associated with his campaign had more than 100 contacts with Russia or Russia's intermediaries. However, Attorney General Barr's summary provides no information about any of these contacts or multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the campaign, and that is a quote--``multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the campaign''-- referenced in the Attorney General's summary. Congress must determine the risks to national security, whether there was, in fact, misconduct, whether existing laws are sufficient to deter and punish election interference, and what next steps are appropriate. The American people also have a right to the truth about what happened in the 2016 election and to judge the facts for themselves. Special Counsel Mueller also did not draw a conclusion, one way or the other, as to whether the President committed a crime through his efforts to obstruct the investigation. Instead, Mr. Mueller wrote: ``While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'' Since Special Counsel Mueller elected to describe the facts but did not decide whether to charge the President with a crime, we don't know why he made this decision, but clearly we do need to see the facts for ourselves to be able to make a decision about how to proceed and what, if any, additional steps are necessary. While the Attorney General concluded there was no crime of obstruction committed, we knew that was his conclusion 9 months ago when he wrote a 10-page memo explaining why the President can't be charged with obstruction of justice. Special Counsel Mueller found that there is ``evidence on both sides of the question.'' Congress and the American people should be able to see that evidence and make a determination, including what the appropriate next steps are, if any. I am very disappointed that some Republicans are saying Democrats need to move on before we even see the report or underlying evidence. Many of these Republicans called for eight congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack and demanded and received 880,000 pages of documents related to the Clinton email investigation. We have also already obtained documents related to Mueller's investigation, including classified FISA Court applications. Of course, unwarranted foot-dragging is really not good, and really bad for this country. I had thought we were past that with prior events where we did take action, and we were able to see both sides. After 37 indictments, 6 of whom were indicted Trump advisers, as well as 7 guilty pleas, surely spending more than a week on understanding what happened and asking for the full report is warranted. How can we have 37 indictments, 6 Trump advisers, as well as guilty pleas, without being able to understand what actually happened and not be afforded the material to gain that understanding? I hope this can be a bipartisan effort to ensure the full record is produced and the facts are uncovered. It is really puzzling to me why the Republican side would not want to do this. Do they presume guilt on their side, and therefore they want to hide it from the public? If you don't, why wouldn't you want whatever the true facts are to come out? The American people deserve no less. On March 14, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for Special Counsel Mueller's report to be made public. The vote was unanimous, 420 to 0--420 to 0. Both sides of the House of Representatives said this should happen. Senator Schumer, our minority leader, has now twice sought unanimous consent for the Senate to consider that resolution. These requests have been blocked by Republicans. I don't understand that. If the House can consider this, why can't we look at what the House has done? This, to my knowledge, in the quarter of a century that I have been in this body, has never happened before, where the Senate has actually refused to look at information. I very much hope there can be a change of mind and allow the U.S. Senate to do its due diligence in this matter. Hiding the information will not solve the problem. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' This legislation would update the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to phase out the use of harmful drift gillnets and replace them with more sustainable fishing gear. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Capito, for once again co-leading this important bill. Drift gillnets, which are approximately one to one and a half miles long, are intended to catch swordfish and thresher shark off the coast of California. Tragically, nearly 60 other species are frequently caught and killed in the nets, including dolphins, porpoises, whales, sea lions, and sea turtles. These are known as bycatch. While some of these species can be sold, most are wastefully thrown back into the ocean either dead or seriously injured. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, these harmful nets account for 90% of whale and porpoise species killed in West Coast Fisheries. In the 1980s, Congress enacted legislation to end the domestic use of driftnets approximately 1.5 miles or longer. Under President George H.W. Bush, the United States entered binding international agreements banning such nets worldwide. Driftnets are prohibited or are not utilized off the United States' Atlantic and Gulf coasts as well as in Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. Mexico permanently banned the use of these nets in the Gulf of California in 2017. However, neither domestic nor international law currently includes the drift gillnets used in Federal waters off the coast of California to catch swordfish and thresher shark, despite their significant impact on protected marine life. This California-based fishery is the last place in the United States where these deadly driftnets are allowed. Last year, the California legislature passed a bill, subsequently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, to phase out these large-mesh drift gillnets in State waters and establish a buyout program over a four-year period. The State law requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish a voluntary ``permit transition program'' by March 2020 that will compensate fishermen during this transition process. California has already dedicated $1 million for the program and another $1 million is being sought through a public-private partnership. Now that these nets are banned in State waters, our legislation to ban the nets in Federal waters is more timely than ever. The ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' would phase out the use of drift gillnets over the five years after enactment. The bill also authorizes the Department of Commerce to assist fishermen in transitioning from driftnets to more sustainable gear types, which studies have shown actually increase profitability. Updated fishing gear that could replace driftnets is available and has been successfully deployed in the Atlantic Ocean and in trials in the Pacific Ocean. Deep-set buoy gear, for example, allows fishermen to more accurately target swordfish and other marketable species in deep, cold water. The gear alerts fishermen immediately when they have fish on the line, so the fish can be retrieved and delivered to market quickly, thereby garnering a higher price. In a 2016 poll, California voters overwhelmingly supported efforts to end the use of drift gillnets to catch swordfish, with 87 percent of those surveyed in a poll commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts agreeing that fishermen should use less harmful gear. Our bill enjoys support from a wide range of commercial fishing companies, sportfishing groups, and environmental organizations, including: the American Sportfishing Association, the International Game Fish Association, Coastal Conservation Association of California, Yamaha USA, Okaiwa Corporation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana, Sea Legacy, and Mission Blue. Our ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' will protect valuable marine life unique to the West Coast, including several endangered species. This bill will also help fishermen to provide fresher, more profitable, and more sustainable seafood to American consumers. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' This legislation would update the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to phase out the use of harmful drift gillnets and replace them with more sustainable fishing gear. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Capito, for once again co-leading this important bill. Drift gillnets, which are approximately one to one and a half miles long, are intended to catch swordfish and thresher shark off the coast of California. Tragically, nearly 60 other species are frequently caught and killed in the nets, including dolphins, porpoises, whales, sea lions, and sea turtles. These are known as bycatch. While some of these species can be sold, most are wastefully thrown back into the ocean either dead or seriously injured. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, these harmful nets account for 90% of whale and porpoise species killed in West Coast Fisheries. In the 1980s, Congress enacted legislation to end the domestic use of driftnets approximately 1.5 miles or longer. Under President George H.W. Bush, the United States entered binding international agreements banning such nets worldwide. Driftnets are prohibited or are not utilized off the United States' Atlantic and Gulf coasts as well as in Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. Mexico permanently banned the use of these nets in the Gulf of California in 2017. However, neither domestic nor international law currently includes the drift gillnets used in Federal waters off the coast of California to catch swordfish and thresher shark, despite their significant impact on protected marine life. This California-based fishery is the last place in the United States where these deadly driftnets are allowed. Last year, the California legislature passed a bill, subsequently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, to phase out these large-mesh drift gillnets in State waters and establish a buyout program over a four-year period. The State law requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish a voluntary ``permit transition program'' by March 2020 that will compensate fishermen during this transition process. California has already dedicated $1 million for the program and another $1 million is being sought through a public-private partnership. Now that these nets are banned in State waters, our legislation to ban the nets in Federal waters is more timely than ever. The ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' would phase out the use of drift gillnets over the five years after enactment. The bill also authorizes the Department of Commerce to assist fishermen in transitioning from driftnets to more sustainable gear types, which studies have shown actually increase profitability. Updated fishing gear that could replace driftnets is available and has been successfully deployed in the Atlantic Ocean and in trials in the Pacific Ocean. Deep-set buoy gear, for example, allows fishermen to more accurately target swordfish and other marketable species in deep, cold water. The gear alerts fishermen immediately when they have fish on the line, so the fish can be retrieved and delivered to market quickly, thereby garnering a higher price. In a 2016 poll, California voters overwhelmingly supported efforts to end the use of drift gillnets to catch swordfish, with 87 percent of those surveyed in a poll commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts agreeing that fishermen should use less harmful gear. Our bill enjoys support from a wide range of commercial fishing companies, sportfishing groups, and environmental organizations, including: the American Sportfishing Association, the International Game Fish Association, Coastal Conservation Association of California, Yamaha USA, Okaiwa Corporation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana, Sea Legacy, and Mission Blue. Our ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' will protect valuable marine life unique to the West Coast, including several endangered species. This bill will also help fishermen to provide fresher, more profitable, and more sustainable seafood to American consumers. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month to recognize the tremendous achievements women have made for the United States and pay tribute to their tireless efforts to fight for themselves, their families, and all Americans. We have set aside this month for over 30 years to give us the opportunity to not only reflect on the past and observe the many accomplishments of American women, but to also inspire the next generation of women leaders. I look upon the great courage our foremothers have displayed with great admiration and continue to personally be inspired by those who blazed the trail for women like me. When I first came to Washington in 1992, they called it the ``Year of the Woman.'' Only two other women were serving in the Senate, and four women had just been elected to the chamber, myself included. Today, a quarter of the Senate is represented by women and a record 102 women serve in the House of Representatives, including the first woman speaker. I am proud of the progress we've made and hopeful we will continue to build on that momentum toward full equality.. Even at record levels, though, the number of women in Congress falls far short of the 51 percent of our Nation's population that are women. I have great hope in the next generations of women to rise up and help lead the way in building a better California and United States. As in government, women have been and continue to be leaders in major social change efforts in our Nation. The business world has been transformed by powerful women at the table, as have science, music, film, athletics, literature, and much more. Today, there are more than 10 million women owned American businesses and half of our workforce is made up of women. Enrollment numbers at medical and law schools are now almost evenly split between men and women. Our women warriors serve in critical roles in the U.S. Armed Forces, with more than 200,000 active-duty servicewomen proudly serving and a growing number of women veterans representing every branch of service. Women who have selflessly answered the call to duty have served their Nation with honor, courage, and distinction. I have the utmost respect for the dignity and valor they exhibit and they are commended. As a United States Senator proudly representing California, I ask you to join me in celebrating the stories and greatness of American women who accomplished the unprecedented and honor their legacies by continuing to defend the rights they worked so hard to achieve. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in calling for legislation to resolve the climate crisis. The need for action could not be more urgent. Every day of inaction in the U.S. Senate brings new risks of irreversible harm to our communities, our environment and future generations. Unfortunately, this week's vote is not really about climate change. The Senate has been asked to invoke cloture on a nonbinding resolution that raises but does not really answer a broad range of questions about climate change and our economy. The Senate is not ready to end debate on these issues. We have hardly begun. The Democratic Caucus is united in recognizing the realities of climate change and calling for effective solutions. However, this constitutes a minority view in the U.S. Senate. For too many years, our calls for comprehensive climate change legislation have fallen on deaf ears. The Green New Deal in all of its ambition and breadth should be recognized as a sign of the frustration that is mounting in this country as a result of Republican obstruction. I do not agree with every aspect of this particular resolution. It addresses not only climate policy but also longstanding partisan disputes over healthcare, housing, jobs, and other economic policies. These are important policy debates, but it is my view that the legislative effort to address climate change does not need to wait for agreement in these other areas. The need for action is too urgent. But whatever our disagreements about policy approaches and nonbinding resolutions, it is long past time for us to set aside disagreements about the validity of climate science. The scientific community has warned us about climate change for decades with increasing certainty and specificity, including in a report of the President's Science Advisory Committee in 1965, five assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 1990, and four national climate assessment reports of the U.S. Global Change Research Program since 2000. Most recently, a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified the disastrous consequences if we allow the world to warm by more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial temperatures. We are already at more than 1.8 degrees of warming. Sea levels have risen more than 8 inches. Ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent. Ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are melting into the sea at an accelerating pace of more than 400 gigatons per year. Allowing the world to warm another degree, as we are on a course to do between 2030 and 2052, may well surpass our ability to adapt. Continued warming will threaten rapid, widespread, and long-lasting increases in heatwaves, wildfire, disease, drought, crop failure, sea level rise, ocean acidification, mass extinction, collapsing food chains, mass population migrations, and human conflict. To avoid warming in excess of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the special report identified that we will need to cut emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. That will require rapid transitions in all sectors at an unprecedented scale. Unless the U.S. Senate can undertake the hard work of serious legislation soon, it is clear the world will be unable to meet that goal. The good news is that there are a large number of good policy ideas the Senate can consider if my Republican colleagues agree to join with us in earnest. There are bipartisan proposals for legislation to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions by placing a fee on fossil fuels. We can even rebate the revenues to cover the costs for households and industry. These are good ideas that we should explore. There are numerous examples of clean energy standards and other policy commitments at the State, local, and international level. These are also good ideas that we should explore. My own State of California has demonstrated bold, creative new ideas for cutting emissions at the same time as it has grown to be the fifth largest economy in the world. The State has mandated that 50 percent of its electricity must be from renewable sources by 2030. We are actually ahead of schedule and are on track to reach that deadline by 2020, 10 years ahead of schedule. From there, we are committed to be completely carbon neutral by 2045. My State's policies work. From the low-carbon fuel standard to the zero-emission vehicle mandates to the economy-wide cap-and-trade system, each innovative policy approach makes it easier to meet our goals. By harnessing the strength of the American economy to address climate change, we have an opportunity to create millions of new jobs while strengthening the infrastructure and industries that are critical to our future. It is long past time for the Senate to move beyond show votes on nonbinding resolutions and move on to the hard work of actual legislation. I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the resolution of disapproval before us that would terminate President Trump's phony national emergency. President Trump's national emergency declaration, which he attempts to justify using falsehoods about immigration and the Southern border, presents a serious threat to the separation of powers and the rule of law. First I would like to speak about how there really isn't an emergency at the border, then I would like to get into the constitutional problems with the President's actions. While illegal border crossings do occur, all of the numbers refute President Trump's claim that there is a crisis at the border. Those claims simply don't hold up. Unauthorized border crossings have been at their lowest levels in years. In 2000, border agencies reported more than 1.6 million apprehensions. In 2017, the agency reported just 303,916 apprehensions, one-fifth of the level just two decades ago. It is clear that investments in border security have worked. Those include additional border patrol agents, fencing in urban areas, ground sensors, drones, and increased use of E-Verify. In addition, since 2014, two-thirds of undocumented immigrants have come to the United States legally but then overstayed their visas, more than 500,000 per year. A border wall would do nothing to curb visa overstays. Dangerous criminals aren't overrunning our country. Immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. Data collected in Texas show the arrest rate for undocumented immigrants in 2015 was 40 percent lower than for the native-born population. Additionally, many immigrants are actually legally seeking asylum through the process already in place. There are often families with young children fleeing persecution and violence in Central America who have a legal right to petition our government for asylum. Under current law, they can apply for asylum by presenting themselves at a U.S. port of entry. Unfortunately, by focusing on a border wall instead of investing in modernizing entry points, President Trump's policies force many of these families to turn themselves into Border Patrol in between ports and ask for asylum or wait for long periods in Mexico in dangerous conditions. The timing of the President's declaration also undercuts his claim that this is an emergency. President Trump kicked off his Presidential campaign nearly 4 years ago by claiming that immigrants were bringing drugs and crime to the United States. Despite this, he decided to wait until more than halfway through his term to declare his emergency and only then after Congress refused to give him the money he wanted. If there were truly an emergency, the President should have declared it on day 1. He did not. Trump also emphatically rejected a bill that would have given him $25 billion for a border wall in exchange for providing Dreamers a path to citizenship. Clearly, there was no emergency then either. But the most clear statement that there is no emergency came from President Trump himself, who after declaring the emergency, said this in a Rose Garden speech: ``I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.'' We shouldn't judge the President's attempt to divert appropriated funds to his border wall through a partisan lens, but rather view it as a radical departure from our constitutional separation of powers. Through its appropriations clause, the Constitution provides Congress, not the President, with the power of the purse. Congress decides how to spend taxpayer dollars. By providing Congress with this power, our Founding Fathers imposed a key check on the President, a check that President Trump is trying to do away with. Congress exercised its power of the purse last month in a spending bill to keep the government open by including $1.35 billion for border barriers, rather than the $6 billion the President sought for a border wall. The Constitution gave the President two options at that point: sign the bill or veto it. President Trump tried to create a third path, saying he would sign the bill but still divert additional Federal dollars to the wall, his so-called emergency. In essence, the President decided to violate the Constitution so he could more quickly fulfill a campaign promise to build his border wall. One of the ironies of President Trump's decision to divert funds to a border wall that won't stop drugs or crossings is the pots of money from which he is drawing. First, the White House said it would pull $2.5 billion from a counternarcotics program that is used to support international law enforcement interdiction and apprehension efforts, as well as to fund National Guard support for State drug law enforcement operations, including in California. Second, the White House said it would take another $3.5 billion from military construction projects. These are programs that actually help improve our national security, and the President wants to take billions of dollars from them to build a wall--incredible. The long-term danger here is that President Trump will set a precedent that a Commander in Chief can interpret the Nation's laws and the Constitution any way he wants. This can't be allowed to stand. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 does allow the President to reprogram funds appropriated by Congress in case of a national emergency, like a hurricane or earthquake, but it is clear that the law was never intended to be used to explicitly overrule the will of Congress, which is how President Trump wants to use it. During the Korean war, the Supreme Court struck down a similar attempt by President Truman to use emergency powers to seize privately owned steel mills, an action inconsistent with laws passed by Congress. Even if there were an emergency--which there isn't--President Trump still wouldn't have the authority to reprogram Federal funds in this context. Specifically, the statute that President Trump relies on, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2808, allows the President, in a national emergency that ``requires the use of the armed forces,'' to spend unobligated military construction funds for military construction projects ``that are necessary to support . . . use of the armed forces.'' The situation at the border does not ``require the use of the armed forces,'' and it is unclear how the wall would be ``necessary to support'' them. If anything, the President's use of the military at the border to enforce the law raises additional questions under the Posse Comitatus Act, which has prohibited the use of the Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement for well over a century. In sum, President Trump is relying on an incredibly frail legal argument to justify this blatant power grab. It is incumbent upon Congress to hold this President accountable as he attempts to seize one of our most important powers. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval and cancel President Trump's phony emergency. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Adilene Martinez, who is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for over 20 years. I believe she merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief. Adilene, age 30, was brought to the United States by her parents Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno and Micaela Lopez Martinez. When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco. Jose and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela is a homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, is undocumented and is currently working at the San Francisco Opera House. Adilene attempted to legalize her status through several channels with her family, but the current green card backlog for relatives from Mexico is very long. In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community. The Martinez family truly exemplifies the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. With great dedication, Micaela has worked hard to raise three daughters who are advancing their education and look forward to continuing the pursuit of their goals. I believe that Adilene's continued presence in the United States would allow them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.