Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my vote in opposition to the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. First, I would like to thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for including the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act in this defense authorization bill. I worked with Senator Cornyn to develop this important piece of legislation to update the role of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. Our bill would expand CFIUS's authority to review foreign investments in the United States and potentially block those that pose a risk to our national security. I hope our bill is retained by the conferees and included in the final defense authorization bill so that it can become law. The defense bill we are considering today also authorizes funding for a number of programs critical to California's defense industry. That includes funding for three ships: two oilers and an additional expeditionary support base ship. All three are vital to the shipbuilding industry in southern California. The bill also continues production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-18 Super Hornet aircraft, which, when coupled with the B-21 Raider, will help maintain California's edge in aerospace. However, I am deeply disappointed that the defense authorization bill also includes two nuclear weapons-related provisions that I strongly oppose. The first is the inclusion of $65 million to develop a new low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile. I vehemently oppose the development of any new nuclear weapons, and I oppose the funding included in this bill for that purpose. I remember when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is seared into my memory. My greatest hope is that humanity will never see the use of nuclear weapons again. My deepest fear, however, is that so-called low-yield nuclear weapons make such a repetition more--not less--likely. The Trump administration has argued that it needs new nuclear weapons to respond in kind to a potential Russian first-use of a low-yield weapon. That line of argument makes clear that the Trump administration is contemplating actually using nuclear weapons to fight ``limited'' nuclear wars. We are kidding ourselves if we think there is such a thing as a ``limited'' nuclear war. We should listen to the wise words of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who said in February: ``I don't think there is any such thing as a `tactical nuclear weapon.' Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer.'' That is particularly true with the low-yield weapon included in this bill. We already have 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons. We have hundreds more low-yield weapons. We are building new nuclear ballistic missile submarines, new long- range bombers, new intercontinental ballistic missiles, new nuclear cruise missiles, and new fighter aircraft capable of delivering advanced gravity bombs. We are also making investments to extend the life of our existing warheads. We have a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. We do not need to build new nuclear weapons, particularly for President Trump. While I oppose this new low-yield weapon, I appreciate that it has been the subject of considerable congressional debate and requires an explicit congressional authorization to develop. However, that explicit congressional authorization to develop new nuclear weapons will no longer be required if this defense bill becomes law. That is because, during the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup of the bill, Senator Cotton offered an amendment to eliminate all existing restrictions on the development of new, low-yield weapons. His amendment, which passed on a party line vote, would allow the Secretary of Energy to develop new weapons simply by requesting funding to do so. Removing these restrictions is an abdication of our constitutional and moral responsibility to oversee spending on the world's most dangerous weapons. I cannot support this change to Congress's authority, and therefore I am compelled to vote against the defense authorization bill because of it. As this bill moves forward, I urge the conference committee to reject the Cotton amendment and retain longstanding restrictions on the development of new low-yield nuclear weapons. Congress should not cede its authority over weapons that have the capacity to destroy us all to President Trump. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Reed's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Reed amendment would restore congressional oversight of the development of new, low-yield nuclear weapons. Since 1994, Congress has limited the Department of Energy's work on low-yield weapons. We have done so for two reasons. First, many of us believe the true purpose of low-yield nuclear weapons is not to deter nuclear attack, but rather to fight unwinnable nuclear wars. We are only fooling ourselves if we believe nuclear wars can be won. Second, we already have sufficient low-yield capabilities. They include nuclear cruise missiles and the B-61 gravity bomb. In fact, today, we are modernizing both. We are developing the LRSO, a nuclear cruise missile, at a cost of nearly $20 billion, and we are modernizing the B-61 gravity bomb at a cost of $8 billion. That is nearly $30 billion toward new, low-yield capabilities; yet some in this body would go further. During the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup of the NDAA, Senator Cotton offered an amendment to eliminate all existing restrictions on the development of new, low-yield weapons. His amendment, which passed on a party line vote, would allow the Secretary of Energy to develop new weapons simply by requesting funding to do so. That is an abdication of our constitutional responsibility to oversee spending on the world's most dangerous weapons. I cannot support this action and will oppose this NDAA if Senator Cotton's amendment is retained. It was not long ago that we debated this very issue. We would be wise to recall what happened. In 2002, the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review urged Congress to loosen congressional restrictions on low-yield weapons. I worked with Senator Kennedy to stop those efforts. With the help of Senator John Warner, we decided that we would allow basic research, but advanced development of new low-yield nuclear weapons would require congressional authorization. That position carried the day by a vote of 96-0 here in the Senate. Senator Reed's amendment before us today would preserve Congress's existing role to oversee the development of new nuclear weapons. I believe it is absolutely critical that we retain our authority, and I urge my colleagues to support the Reed amendment. Amendment No. 2366

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to solemnly remember the 49 individuals who died and the 53 who were wounded at Pulse Orlando, an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, FL, 2 years ago. I will never forget waking up in the early hours that Sunday, to hear that a 29-year-old gunman, armed with a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle, walked into a nightclub and massacred 49 individuals in one of the deadliest mass shootings ever witnessed in our country. To this day, so many lives impacted from the attack are still on the long road to recovery and healing. To all of the families and loved ones of those who were lost and injured during the attack, please continue to accept my deepest condolences. Please also know I will not rest until our country is safe from gun violence. We cannot simply sit back and do nothing while mass shootings continue to devastate our communities, our places of worship, our music venues, our schools, and our workplaces. In the days that followed the Pulse nightclub attack, I, along with Senator Nelson and a number of my colleagues, resurrected calls for legislation to allow the FBI to deny gun transfers to known or suspected terrorists who pose a public safety risk. The legislation was a direct response to Pulse. In fact, the gunman in Orlando was ISIL-inspired and fueled by hateful extremism and had previously been placed on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist after earlier investigative warnings to the FBI were made about him. And, yet, the man was allowed to walk into a gun store, pass a background check without any notification to the FBI, and walk out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a modern assault rifle with devastating killing capability. Alarming statistics over a 10-year period demonstrate that, from February 2004 through December 2014, there were 2,233 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist identified in Federal terrorist watchlist records attempted to buy or receive a gun or explosives. In 91 percent of these cases--a total of 2,043 different times--the known or suspected terrorist was cleared to buy or receive the firearm or explosives. In 2013 and 2014 alone, FBI data specifically showed that individuals on terrorist watchlists were involved in firearm- related background checks 485 times, and 455 of those--about 94 percent--were allowed to proceed. It appeared there was widespread agreement to finally take action and ensure that no one who is a known or suspected terrorist, with ISIL affiliations, would be allowed to walk into a gun store and pass a Federal background check to obtain a gun. However, because of the gun lobby's strident opposition, and Republican submission to that opposition, the legislation withered and failed. Unfortunately, the problem of mass shootings has continued to devastate this Nation. In October 2017 in Las Vegas, a single gunman with multiple assault rifles outfitted with bump stocks killed 58 people gathered to listen to a concert from his hotel room window. Numerous eyewitness accounts described the scene as a ``warzone.'' In Sutherland Springs, TX, in November 2017, a gunman walked into a church sanctuary on a Sunday, and killed 26 people, ranging from the elderly to young children. Earlier this year, a 19-year-old gunman who legally purchased an AR- 15 style rifle just after his 18th birthday used it to kill 14 of his former high school classmates and three educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. These shootings are heartbreaking. Time and again, I have stood here to ask my colleagues to show courage, to stand up to the gun lobby, and do something. These calls are only growing louder. Young people are now also taking to the streets like never before and demanding action. They are calling for weapons of war to be taken off of our streets, and they are calling for universal background checks. They are fighting for changes to our laws because they don't want to live in a country where although we are 4.4 percent of the world's population, we possess over 44 percent of the world's firearms. They don't want to live in a country where it is more politically expedient to bar doorways at schools, rather than ban assault weapons. They are calling for lawmakers to stand up and do what is right: to close loopholes in our gun laws and decisively take steps so they feel safe in their schools, their churches, and their communities. Their sentiment is captured powerfully in an article I would like to share, that was written by Glennon Doyle Melton, an author and mother of three children. ``Two weeks ago, my second and fourth grade daughters came home from school and told me that they'd had a code red drill... In case someone tries to kill us. We had to all hide in the bathroom together and be really quiet. It was really scary but the teacher said if there was a real man with a gun trying to find us, she'd cover us up and protect us from him. Tommy started crying. I tried to be brave.'' She continued: ``My three-year-old nephew had the same drill at his preschool in Virginia. Three-year-old American babies and teachers-- hiding in bathrooms, holding hands, preparing for death. We are saying to teachers: arm yourselves and fight men with assault weapons because we are too cowardly to fight the gun lobby. ``We are saying to a terrified generation of American children--We will not do what it takes to protect you. We will not even try. So just be very quiet, hide and wait. Hold your breath. Shhh.'' By failing to act, year after year, these children all across our country are being forced to live in fear and have these kinds of ``trainings.'' We are asking our teachers to not focus on teaching math and English, but to wield weapons and fight off those armed to the teeth with military-style weapons. That can't be the solution. We can no longer remain silent. We can no longer do nothing. We must stand up and fight. Our children and the generations to come demand it. I hope we will finally take action and pass these commonsense bills.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson will be introducing a House companion measure this week as well. The CCWD is an urban water agency serving approximately 500,000 people in the eastern part of the San Francisco Bay Area region in Northern California. CCWD operates and maintains the Contra Costa Canal System, a unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP), which is owned by the United States and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior. The Contra Costa Canal System involves 48 miles of earthen canals with about 30 miles of laterals which deliver water to cities from the canal. Although the canal has been maintained, it poses a safety and flood risk. Notwithstanding significant security fencing, 81 people have tragically been drowned since the canal was placed into service and hundreds of others have been rescued. The bill I am introducing today would transfer title to the canal system to CCWD so it can begin the process of replacing this old, earthen canal with a secure buried pipeline. The conversion of the canal to a pipeline will cost CCWD approximately $650 million. CCWD has already repaid Reclamation for costs of constructing the project. After title transfer of the canal is completed, CCWD would remain a CVP M&I customer as set forth in the Long-term Renewal Contract between the United States and CCWD providing for Project Water Service and for Facilities Repayment (Contract No. I75r-3401 A-LTR1 May 10, 2005) (CVP Contract). This title transfer bill was anticipated in Article 28.3 of the CVP Contract which allows for transfer of title to the Contra Costa Canal System upon repayment of all outstanding capitalized costs of the facilities and upon authorization of Congress. Before title transfer occurs, there will be further environmental review, including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA). Title Transfer will result in lower costs and reduced administrative burden, provide greater flexibility in management of the asset, and will eliminate flood and other safety concerns. When the canal was originally built, there was no one around it. Now there are many homes and neighborhood along both sides of the structure. If the canal were to fail as has occurred with other earthen canals, homes would be flooded, and millions of dollars of property would be destroyed. Title transfer would transfer this health and safety liability for the canal to CCWD. Reclamation also benefits through lower costs and reduced administrative burden. Currently, work on the Canal System requires varying levels of coordination and documentation with Reclamation for planning, design, project implementation, maintenance, and operation. CCWD has been responsible for O&M of the Canal System for almost 50 years and its staff is intimately familiar with the system. CCWD ownership of the Canal System would eliminate much of this duplicative consultation. CCWD now finds it is doing much of the same work Reclamation conducts in its oversight and review responsibilities. Third parties including local cities, Contra Costa County, local and regional agencies, including recreation partners, and utilities working within the Canal System rights-of-way all of whom would also benefit from removing the additional layer of federal review and approval bureaucracy that increases costs and causes schedule delays. I understand that the other local partners have all expressed support for this legislation. Title Transfer to CCWD would also relieve the United States of any risk of canal failure due to erosion or earthquake. Ultimately, CCWD is seeking authorization to transfer title to all Project Works associated with the Contra Costa Canal Unit. Construction of the Rock Slough Fish Screen was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2011, and the bill I am introducing today would direct the transfer of title of Rock Slough Fish Screen following a mutual agreement on the transfer between CCWD and Reclamation. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) operates three screened intakes in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta--Rock Slough, Old River and Middle River. CCWD owns the latter two; the US Bureau of Reclamation owns Rock Slough. Operations at all three intakes are covered by the biological opinions on the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (USFWS 2008 and NMFS 2009) as well as separate opinions obtained for the original Los Vaqueros Project and the Middle River Intake under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (1992) and the Los Vaqueros Project Biological Opinions (BOs) required the Rock Slough intake to be screened. BOs from USFWS and NMFS were obtained for construction and operation of the fish screen. A transfer of ownership of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility. The primary stakeholders involve recreation and include the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), City of Antioch, and City of Walnut Creek. EBRPD operates recreation facilities along the Contra Costa Canal (trails) and at the Contra Loma Reservoir. CCWD and EBRPD executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in December 2017 that commits both agencies to work together to obtain authorization from Congress for title transfer of the Project Works to CCWD. The City of Antioch and Walnut Creek operate a Sports Complex and trails, respectively, under management agreements with Reclamation. The management agreements would be amended and assigned to CCWD, and CCWD will provide for the continuation of recreation at these facilities by the cities. The City of Concord and the EBRPD have expressed interest in the Clayton Canal. The Clayton Canal traverses the former Concord Naval Weapons Station which is being developed to support civilian uses by the City of Concord. EBRPD is also developing a regional park and conservation area within the former Naval Station property. The Clayton Canal is no longer used by CCWD and title transfer would support the efficient disposal of the facility. In summary, Mr. President, I believe title transfer is a sensible measure that will reduce flood and public safety risk by facilitating the conversion of the current earthen canal to a closed pipeline. Title transfer will also improve administrative efficiencies on the operation of the canal, and reduce the administrative burden on the federal government. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson will be introducing a House companion measure this week as well. The CCWD is an urban water agency serving approximately 500,000 people in the eastern part of the San Francisco Bay Area region in Northern California. CCWD operates and maintains the Contra Costa Canal System, a unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP), which is owned by the United States and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior. The Contra Costa Canal System involves 48 miles of earthen canals with about 30 miles of laterals which deliver water to cities from the canal. Although the canal has been maintained, it poses a safety and flood risk. Notwithstanding significant security fencing, 81 people have tragically been drowned since the canal was placed into service and hundreds of others have been rescued. The bill I am introducing today would transfer title to the canal system to CCWD so it can begin the process of replacing this old, earthen canal with a secure buried pipeline. The conversion of the canal to a pipeline will cost CCWD approximately $650 million. CCWD has already repaid Reclamation for costs of constructing the project. After title transfer of the canal is completed, CCWD would remain a CVP M&I customer as set forth in the Long-term Renewal Contract between the United States and CCWD providing for Project Water Service and for Facilities Repayment (Contract No. I75r-3401 A-LTR1 May 10, 2005) (CVP Contract). This title transfer bill was anticipated in Article 28.3 of the CVP Contract which allows for transfer of title to the Contra Costa Canal System upon repayment of all outstanding capitalized costs of the facilities and upon authorization of Congress. Before title transfer occurs, there will be further environmental review, including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA). Title Transfer will result in lower costs and reduced administrative burden, provide greater flexibility in management of the asset, and will eliminate flood and other safety concerns. When the canal was originally built, there was no one around it. Now there are many homes and neighborhood along both sides of the structure. If the canal were to fail as has occurred with other earthen canals, homes would be flooded, and millions of dollars of property would be destroyed. Title transfer would transfer this health and safety liability for the canal to CCWD. Reclamation also benefits through lower costs and reduced administrative burden. Currently, work on the Canal System requires varying levels of coordination and documentation with Reclamation for planning, design, project implementation, maintenance, and operation. CCWD has been responsible for O&M of the Canal System for almost 50 years and its staff is intimately familiar with the system. CCWD ownership of the Canal System would eliminate much of this duplicative consultation. CCWD now finds it is doing much of the same work Reclamation conducts in its oversight and review responsibilities. Third parties including local cities, Contra Costa County, local and regional agencies, including recreation partners, and utilities working within the Canal System rights-of-way all of whom would also benefit from removing the additional layer of federal review and approval bureaucracy that increases costs and causes schedule delays. I understand that the other local partners have all expressed support for this legislation. Title Transfer to CCWD would also relieve the United States of any risk of canal failure due to erosion or earthquake. Ultimately, CCWD is seeking authorization to transfer title to all Project Works associated with the Contra Costa Canal Unit. Construction of the Rock Slough Fish Screen was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2011, and the bill I am introducing today would direct the transfer of title of Rock Slough Fish Screen following a mutual agreement on the transfer between CCWD and Reclamation. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) operates three screened intakes in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta--Rock Slough, Old River and Middle River. CCWD owns the latter two; the US Bureau of Reclamation owns Rock Slough. Operations at all three intakes are covered by the biological opinions on the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (USFWS 2008 and NMFS 2009) as well as separate opinions obtained for the original Los Vaqueros Project and the Middle River Intake under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (1992) and the Los Vaqueros Project Biological Opinions (BOs) required the Rock Slough intake to be screened. BOs from USFWS and NMFS were obtained for construction and operation of the fish screen. A transfer of ownership of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility. The primary stakeholders involve recreation and include the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), City of Antioch, and City of Walnut Creek. EBRPD operates recreation facilities along the Contra Costa Canal (trails) and at the Contra Loma Reservoir. CCWD and EBRPD executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in December 2017 that commits both agencies to work together to obtain authorization from Congress for title transfer of the Project Works to CCWD. The City of Antioch and Walnut Creek operate a Sports Complex and trails, respectively, under management agreements with Reclamation. The management agreements would be amended and assigned to CCWD, and CCWD will provide for the continuation of recreation at these facilities by the cities. The City of Concord and the EBRPD have expressed interest in the Clayton Canal. The Clayton Canal traverses the former Concord Naval Weapons Station which is being developed to support civilian uses by the City of Concord. EBRPD is also developing a regional park and conservation area within the former Naval Station property. The Clayton Canal is no longer used by CCWD and title transfer would support the efficient disposal of the facility. In summary, Mr. President, I believe title transfer is a sensible measure that will reduce flood and public safety risk by facilitating the conversion of the current earthen canal to a closed pipeline. Title transfer will also improve administrative efficiencies on the operation of the canal, and reduce the administrative burden on the federal government. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Kate Kennedy, a pioneering and inspiring San Franciscan. Kate Kennedy was born in County Meath, Ireland, in 1827, the second of seven children. After her father's death in 1841, she cared for her five younger sisters, even overseeing their education at home. During Ireland's Great Famine, Kate immigrated to the United States. She worked as a seamstress in New York Before moving with the rest of her family to California in 1856. Shortly after arriving in California, she began teaching in San Francisco's public schools. She rose to become the principal of the North Cosmopolitan Grammar School, but was only paid the salary of a primary school principal because she was a woman. In response to this injustice, she began a campaign for equal pay all school teachers. Her efforts were rewarded in 1874, when the California Legislature passed a law requiring female public school teachers paid the same as male counterparts. Following her landmark victory, Kate continued to teach while advocating for other social issues like labor and tax reforms. She eventually ran for state superintendent of public instruction, becoming the first woman to run for Statewide office in California. Although she didn't win, she continued to leave a mark on her adopted State. After being transferred for political reasons to a smaller school with a lower salary, Kate fought the demotion and was ultimately fired in retaliation by the schoolboard. She sued the board, taking her case all the way to the California Supreme Court. The court sided with Kate, delivering an opinion that still serves today as the foundation of teacher tenure in California. Shortly after the court's ruling, Kate Kennedy passed away in Oakland, CA, and was buried in San Francisco's Laurel Hill Cemetery in 1890. Kate Kennedy's commitment to justice and willingness to fight for her rights is truly inspirational. As the first woman to represent California in the U.S. Senate, I am proud to honor her legacy and the historic role she played in the ongoing struggle for equality.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Gina Haspel to be CIA Director. Ms. Haspel played a central role in the CIA's rendition, detention, and interrogation program. This was one of the darkest chapters in our Nation's history, and it must not be repeated. Since her nomination, I and my staff have reviewed thousands of classified documents detailing her role in the program. The takeaway is this: Ms. Haspel was a strong supporter of the torture program. While many CIA operatives expressed hesitation or outright opposition to the program, such as John Brennan, Ms. Haspel was not one of them. As I said last week, this nomination is bigger than one person. This nomination is about reckoning with our history. It is about grappling with our country's mistakes and making clear to the world that we accept responsibility for our mistakes and they will never be repeated. I was struck by Ms. Haspel's repeated insistence at her hearing that the torture program was ``legal.'' The torture program was illegal at the time based on international treaties the United States is signatory to, including the Convention Against Torture and Geneva Convention. While the Office of Legal Counsel signed off on waterboarding and other ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' its flimsy legal analyses were withdrawn in 2003 and 2004 and should never have taken precedence over international law. The bottom line is this: No one has ever been held accountable for the torture program, and I do not believe those who were intimately involved in it deserve to lead the agency. What message does it send to the world if we reward people for presiding over what is considered to be one of the darkest chapters in our history? Of course, supporters of the torture program are constantly trying to rewrite history, so I think it is important to revisit that history here today. After a 5\1/2\ year review of the CIA's detention and interrogation program, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a 500-page declassified executive summary in December 2014. The summary was backed up by a 6,700-page classified report with nearly 38,000 footnotes citing to CIA and other official records. Every finding and conclusion is thoroughly supported by documentation. The report examined the detention of at least 119 individuals and the use of coercive interrogation techniques--in some cases amounting to torture. It is also important to note this was a bipartisan report with each key vote during the process of the report having both Democrats and Republicans voting yes. In December 2012, the Intelligence Committee approved the Report by a 9-6 vote, with one Republican voting yes. In April 2014, the committee approved the executive summary and findings and conclusions for declassification and public release by an 11-3 vote, with three Republicans voting yes. The full report remains classified. In December 2014, copies of the full, 6,700-page classified report were sent to parts of the executive branch, including the CIA, to be used broadly by those personnel with appropriate clearances to ensure that the abuses documented in the Report would never be repeated. This report was intended as an important tool to help educate our intelligence agencies about a dark chapter of our Nation's history. However, last May, when Ms. Haspel was already the Deputy Director, the CIA returned its only copy of the report at the request of Chairman Burr. The CIA Inspector General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others followed suit and also returned their copies. In fact, only three copies of the report exist outside of the Senate Intelligence Committee; all of the others are gone. Today, two copies of the full report remain under order by Federal judges, and a third exists because of President Obama's decision in December 2016 to preserve the full report with the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act. During Ms. Haspel's hearing, she stated multiple times that the CIA's rendition, detention, and interrogation program was ``legal and authorized by the highest legal authority in our country and also the President.'' I find Ms. Haspel's statement to be both misleading and incorrect. While the Office of Legal Counsel wrote several secret legal opinions used to justify the program, I don't believe those actions were ever legal, I am not aware of a single court ruling that affirmed those OLC opinions, and those OLC opinions were in conflict with the multiple international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory to. In fact, the Department of Justice conducted an investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the drafting of these torture memos and the Department's role in the implementation of interrogation practices by the CIA. On June 29, 2009, the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, the unit charged with investigating allegations of misconduct, issued its report. That report concluded former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee committed professional misconduct in the drafting of those seriously deficient legal opinions. Additionally, Jack Goldsmith, the Assistant Attorney General who led the Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004, found that their memoranda were ``riddled with error.'' He also concluded that key portions were ``plainly wrong'' and characterized them as a ``one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law.'' Moreover, the CIA program certainly didn't meet the bar set by any of the four major international legal conventions prohibiting torture. First, the Geneva Convention, ratified by the U.S. in 1949, common article 3 provides further protections against torture in times of conflict. It states that those persons no longer taking active part in hostilities, including those who are detained, are prohibited from being subjected to: ``violence of life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture'' as well as ``outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.'' Second, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the U.S. in 1948, states in article 5 that: ``no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'' Third, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the U.S. in 1992, repeats verbatim, the outlawing of torture found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Additionally article 5 of the International Covenant includes language meant to prevent states from utilizing legal work-arounds to overcome the spirit of the condemnation of torture. Fourth, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, defines torture in article 1 as: ``any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession. . . .'' I also find it appropriate to note for the record that the committee sought to use pseudonyms created specifically for this report so that the readers could connect the actions of the same CIA officer throughout the report, but without their actual name or other personally identifying information. To address the CIA's concerns, the committee agreed to reduce the number of CIA personnel listed in pseudonym from a few hundred ultimately down to 14 people who were most intimately involved in the CIA's detention and interrogation program. The CIA and the White House refused to allow these 14 individuals to be listed in pseudonym. The lack of pseudonyms and, in many cases, even a title of a CIA officer, means that connections between a person's actions and statements cannot be made and that the seniority and positions of authority of individuals in the report are hidden. In light of Ms. Haspel's nomination to be Director, we have asked repeatedly for pertinent records to be declassified, only to be stonewalled at every turn. Instead, the CIA, with Ms. Haspel as the Acting Director, has engaged in a selective declassification campaign to bolster Ms. Haspel's nomination, while keeping all potentially damaging material under wraps. Given the CIA's intransigence on Haspel's records, I am very limited in what I am able to say about her specifically. However, I am able to revisit what happened at the CIA ``black sites,'' which is detailed extensively in the report's summary. For example, one detainee, Abd al-Nashiri, was interrogated using CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, including being waterboarded at least three times. These tactics were not just morally reprehensible; they were ineffective. The committee found, based on a review of CIA interrogation records, that the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques on detainees like al-Nashiri was ineffective in obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation. Contrary to CIA claims, these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques did not produce intelligence that thwarted terrorist plots or resulted in the capture of terrorists. That intelligence was already available from other sources or from the detainees themselves before they were tortured. In fact, torture often led to false information. The report also lays out, in excruciating detail, that the program was grossly mismanaged, and the CIA provided Congress and the public with inaccurate information. Again, while I can't speak in depth about Ms. Haspel, our report makes clear that surprisingly few people were responsible for designing, carrying out, and managing the torture program. This was not something that involved the entire Agency. It was limited to the Agency's top leadership and staff, including Directors, Deputy Directors for Operations, and senior level management at the Counterterrorism Center, among others. As we know from the extremely limited information Ms. Haspel has publicly provided, she did hold positions including senior level management at the Counterterrorism Center. She has declined to answer publically when asked whether she had responsibility, supervision, or approval relevant to the CIA rendition, detention, and interrogation program. Additionally, because Ms. Haspel as the Acting Director for CIA and the Director of National Intelligence have refused to declassify any additional information, I am unable to publically discuss her exact role in late 2002. Furthermore, I am also unable to publically discuss the things I know she approved as a senior level supervisor at the Counterterrorism Center from 2003 to 2004 or discuss what she worked on as the chief of staff to the Deputy Director for Operations from 2005 to 2008. Instead, I can only reference reports by former deputy counsel of the CIA, John Rizzo, that Ms. Haspel was one of ``the staunchest advocates inside the [CIA] for destroying the tapes'' of CIA interrogations conducted under the torture program. I find the CIA's responses to requests for information about Ms. Haspel to be wholly inadequate. Ms. Haspel is not an undercover operative; she is the acting CIA Director seeking a Cabinet-level position. It is unacceptable for her or the CIA to hide her behind a wall of secrecy. I believe Senators and the American public have the right to know whether or not the nominee before us was a senior manager for a program that has been shown to be deeply flawed, as well as a number of other disturbing facts. Without the full scope of Ms. Haspel's involvement available for public review, I do not see how this body can adequately carry out its constitutionally mandated duty to advise and consent on the president's nominee. Proponents of Ms. Haspel's nomination have argued that she was just doing her job and following orders. If confirmed, what would Ms. Haspel do? Would she carry out and enforce the President's directives if they would violate our Constitution and international treaties? I am also concerned her leadership could create problems for the CIA to perform one of its core functions: cooperating with foreign governments--and European allies in particular. Specifically, her confirmation could complicate U.S.-German relations. While the German Government has not made a public position on Ms. Haspel's nomination, Germany is strongly opposed to torture and multiple U.S. intelligence actions outlined in the Senate Intelligence torture report have already caused rifts in U.S.-German relations. Additionally, when Ms. Haspel was promoted to CIA Deputy Director in 2017, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, headquartered in Berlin, petitioned German prosecutors to order an arrest warrant for Haspel due to her participation in the CIA torture program. While I understand the German Government is unlikely to issue an arrest warrant, Germans still remember that U.S. intelligence officials mistakenly abducted and tortured Khalid al-Masri, a German citizen in 2003. Mr. Masri, a German citizen, was seized on December 31, 2003, as he entered Macedonia because he was wrongfully believe to be an Al Qaeda terrorist traveling on false German passport. He was then turned over to the CIA, which rendered, detained, and interrogated him. After 5 months, he was dropped on a roadside in Albania. This was a grave mistake that even Ms. Haspel acknowledged in a prehearing question whether the CIA ever rendered or detained suspects who were innocent by stating: ``I understand that the CIA's Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the rendition of Khalid al- Masri and determined that CIA did not meet the standard for rendition under the September 17th, 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON).'' Even though the CIA acknowledges this mistake, it is incomprehensible that no one has been held accountable for this and other violations. If Ms. Haspel is confirmed, it would send the wrong message to the country and to the world. It would send the wrong message that America has abdicated its moral authority. It would send the wrong message that we condone behavior that belies the conscience and the values of this nation. When the Obama administration chose not to prosecute those involved in the CIA's torture program, they claimed we were moving forward, not backward. To elevate a person with reportedly intimate involvement in a torture program to lead our Central Intelligence Agency would signal to our allies and our enemies that we are looking backward. This nomination is, in effect, a referendum on whether America condones the use of torture. If confirmed, this nominee's decisions will affect the lives and safety of all Americans. Our job is to assess whether the nominee has the strength of character to stand up to her superiors when reckoning with violations of our rule of law and moral values. Unfortunately, based on Ms. Haspel's record at the CIA, the lack of public transparency regarding her tenure, and the implications for America's reputation at home and abroad, I cannot support this nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Capito, and Durbin to introduce the Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act. This legislation provides additional tools to drug manufacturers and distributors to better enable them to determine when orders of opioids are suspicious. It also provides additional tools for law enforcement to hold manufacturers and distributors who fail to identify, report, and stop suspicious orders of opioids accountable. Between 2006 and 2016, nearly 21 million opioids were distributed to two pharmacies in Williamson, West Virginia, which has a population of nearly 3,000. Even worse, between 2007 and 2008, nearly 9 million pills were distributed to a single pharmacy in Kermit, West Virginia, which has a population of only 392. In total, between 2007 and 2012, 780 million oxycodone and hydrocodone pills--two powerful opioids--were distributed to pharmacies throughout West Virginia. These two drugs contributed to 1,700 drug overdose deaths in the state. All of this happened despite the fact that opioid manufacturers and distributors are required to detect and disclose suspicious orders of opioids to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). They are also required to keep complete and accurate records relating to the sale, delivery, or disposal of opioids through the Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System, often referred to as ARCOS. While required by law to provide this information, once obtained, the DEA is not required to disclose to opioid manufacturers and distributors the total number of distributors serving a single pharmacy or practitioner, or the total quantity and type of opioids being distributed. This creates a blind spot because there is no awareness of how many drugs are entering a community. This lack of information may be part of the reason that millions of opioids were able to be delivered to small mom and pop pharmacies in West Virginia. Our bill corrects this problem by requiring the DEA to provide to opioid manufacturers and distributors anonymized information related to the number of distributors serving a single pharmacy or practitioner, and the quantity and type of opioids being delivered to each. This information, coupled with the algorithms that these companies already use in their efforts to determine the legitimacy of opioid orders, will help manufacturers and distributors better prevent these substances from being diverted to someone other than the intended recipient who has a lawful prescription. Our bill also strengthens accountability by establishing civil and criminal fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to consider ARCOS data when determining whether an order for opioids is suspicious. Additionally, it increases existing civil fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to report suspicious orders and keep accurate records ten-fold, from $10,000 to $100,000. It also doubles existing criminal fines from $250,000 to $500,000. In addition to opioid manufacturers and distributors, accurate and timely data related to the manufacture and distribution of opioids can also assist state officials in stopping suspicious orders. That is why our bill requires the United States Attorney General to share standardized reports with state officials, including regulatory, licensing, attorneys general, and law enforcement agencies, related to the distribution patterns collected by the ARCOS database on a semi- annual basis. Finally, our bill requires the Department of Justice to provide an annual report to Congress on how it is using ARCOS data to identify and stop suspicious activity related to opioids. Opioid manufacturers and distributors are on the front lines and have an important role to play in combatting the opioid crisis. In 2016, we lost 64,000 individuals to drug overdose deaths in our country. More than 42,000 of these were opioid related. Prevention is critical to reducing these deaths. The Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act will help ensure that we never have another situation in which 9 million pills are delivered to a single pharmacy in a town that has a population of less than 400 people. It will provide drug manufacturers and distributors with the tools they need to better prevent the distribution of opioids to bad actors, and will provide law enforcement with the authority to hold them accountable for failure to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to its passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Capito, and Durbin to introduce the Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act. This legislation provides additional tools to drug manufacturers and distributors to better enable them to determine when orders of opioids are suspicious. It also provides additional tools for law enforcement to hold manufacturers and distributors who fail to identify, report, and stop suspicious orders of opioids accountable. Between 2006 and 2016, nearly 21 million opioids were distributed to two pharmacies in Williamson, West Virginia, which has a population of nearly 3,000. Even worse, between 2007 and 2008, nearly 9 million pills were distributed to a single pharmacy in Kermit, West Virginia, which has a population of only 392. In total, between 2007 and 2012, 780 million oxycodone and hydrocodone pills--two powerful opioids--were distributed to pharmacies throughout West Virginia. These two drugs contributed to 1,700 drug overdose deaths in the state. All of this happened despite the fact that opioid manufacturers and distributors are required to detect and disclose suspicious orders of opioids to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). They are also required to keep complete and accurate records relating to the sale, delivery, or disposal of opioids through the Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System, often referred to as ARCOS. While required by law to provide this information, once obtained, the DEA is not required to disclose to opioid manufacturers and distributors the total number of distributors serving a single pharmacy or practitioner, or the total quantity and type of opioids being distributed. This creates a blind spot because there is no awareness of how many drugs are entering a community. This lack of information may be part of the reason that millions of opioids were able to be delivered to small mom and pop pharmacies in West Virginia. Our bill corrects this problem by requiring the DEA to provide to opioid manufacturers and distributors anonymized information related to the number of distributors serving a single pharmacy or practitioner, and the quantity and type of opioids being delivered to each. This information, coupled with the algorithms that these companies already use in their efforts to determine the legitimacy of opioid orders, will help manufacturers and distributors better prevent these substances from being diverted to someone other than the intended recipient who has a lawful prescription. Our bill also strengthens accountability by establishing civil and criminal fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to consider ARCOS data when determining whether an order for opioids is suspicious. Additionally, it increases existing civil fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to report suspicious orders and keep accurate records ten-fold, from $10,000 to $100,000. It also doubles existing criminal fines from $250,000 to $500,000. In addition to opioid manufacturers and distributors, accurate and timely data related to the manufacture and distribution of opioids can also assist state officials in stopping suspicious orders. That is why our bill requires the United States Attorney General to share standardized reports with state officials, including regulatory, licensing, attorneys general, and law enforcement agencies, related to the distribution patterns collected by the ARCOS database on a semi- annual basis. Finally, our bill requires the Department of Justice to provide an annual report to Congress on how it is using ARCOS data to identify and stop suspicious activity related to opioids. Opioid manufacturers and distributors are on the front lines and have an important role to play in combatting the opioid crisis. In 2016, we lost 64,000 individuals to drug overdose deaths in our country. More than 42,000 of these were opioid related. Prevention is critical to reducing these deaths. The Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act will help ensure that we never have another situation in which 9 million pills are delivered to a single pharmacy in a town that has a population of less than 400 people. It will provide drug manufacturers and distributors with the tools they need to better prevent the distribution of opioids to bad actors, and will provide law enforcement with the authority to hold them accountable for failure to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to its passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be our next Secretary of State. After considering his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, his work as Director of the CIA, and his record as a Congressman, I believe he doesn't possess the skillset necessary to be our country's top diplomat. The Secretary of State must be well-versed in the art of diplomacy. They must possess a deft touch necessary to operate on the world stage. Unfortunately, Mr. Pompeo's record and his rhetoric show how ill matched he is for this position. Above all, I fear that he would only reinforce President Trump's worst impulses to lash out at our adversaries rather than pursue dogged diplomacy. This is particularly concerning when it comes to Iran. The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region. By all reports, it appears President Trump is set on walking away from the Iran nuclear agreement next month, even though Iran continues to abide by its strict terms. If confirmed, I don't believe Mr. Pompeo would even try to walk the President back from that foolish decision. Instead, he would most likely feed the President's desire to leave, not because of its merits, but simply because it was negotiated by President Obama. To be clear, if the United States abandons the agreement, we will do so on our own. Our international partners--including the United Kingdom, France and Germany--have said they will remain in the agreement so long as Iran complies with it. To date, the IAEA inspectors and our own intelligence community have all said that Iran remains in full compliance. When the nuclear agreement was signed, Iran was less than a year away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Today, all of Iran's paths to a weapon--the plutonium, uranium and covert--are blocked. The fact that today Iran cannot obtain a nuclear bomb is in spite of Mr. Pompeo's efforts. During the negotiations leading up to the agreement, then-Congressman Pompeo not only called for the United States to abandon diplomatic efforts, he encouraged us to attack Iran. He said, ``It is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.'' During his recent confirmation hearing, he was unable to source that claim or name which other nations would have joined our coalition. That is an especially perplexing position since our strongest allies were all negotiating alongside the United States at the time. After the nuclear agreement came into effect, Mr. Pompeo continued his campaign by sending the Supreme Leader a highly provocative letter. He taunted Tehran, asking for a visa to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities, monitor their elections, and receive a briefing on their ballistic missile programs. His publicity stunt only served to further inflame tensions between our countries. Finally, shortly after our elections and the day before he was nominated to be the Director of the CIA, he tweeted: ``I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.'' When asked about his position during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pompeo instead simply discounted the real and dangerous possibility that Iran would restart its nuclear weapons program if we abandon the agreement. I see no reason to believe his misinformed views have changed in the past year. As troubling as Mr. Pompeo's hostile view toward Iran is, I am equally concerned by his divisive remarks about minority groups within the United States. Following the Boston Marathon bombings, Mr. Pompeo falsely suggested Muslim Americans were complicit in the attacks. The following year, he characterized U.S. counterterrorism efforts as a struggle between Islam and Christianity. After the Supreme Court's landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Mr. Pompeo said the court's opinion was a ``shocking abuse of power'' that ``flies in the face of . . . our Constitution.'' He has also claimed that the ``ideal'' family has a father and mother, a shockingly outdated view of families here in the United States and around the world. Finally, the State Department plays a leading role in providing family planning assistance abroad. Under Mr. Pompeo, I fear the State Department will retreat from providing this vital assistance. As a Member of the House, Mr. Pompeo repeatedly cosponsored legislation to limit a woman's right to choose. Specifically, he supported bills to make abortion illegal nationwide, even in the case of rape. He also repeatedly supported the ``global gag rule,'' known as the Mexico City policy, which restricts U.S. funds to any foreign health clinic that provides abortion services, even if it is legal in that country. All too often, rape is considered a weapon of war. Our global health programming should not be restricted in a manner that ignores this ugly reality. The Secretary of State is charged with representing America's values to the world and must be committed to exhausting all means of diplomacy to avoid conflict. I don't believe Mr. Pompeo can do that and shouldn't be confirmed as Secretary of State. Therefore, I will vote no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. This legislation updates the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to phase out the use of harmful drift gillnets and replace it with more sustainable fishing gear. Drift gillnets, which are approximately one to one and a half miles long, are intended to catch swordfish and thresher shark. Tragically, nearly 60 other species are accidentally 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 in to the ocean either dead or injured, making survival unlikely. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, gillnets 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 long. Under President George H.W. Bush, the United States entered binding international agreements banning such nets worldwide. Driftnets are prohibited or not utilized off the United States Atlantic and Gulf coasts or in Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, or Hawaii. Mexico permanently banned the use of these nets in 2017. However, neither domestic nor international law, as currently written, captures the drift gillnets used along the West Coast to catch swordfish and thresher shark, despite their significant impact on protected marine life. The California-based fishery is the last place in the United States where these deadly driftnets are allowed. The Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act would completely phase out the use of drift gillnets by 2020. The bill also authorizes a program, directed by 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 as well. 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, fetching a higher price. In a 2016 poll, California voters overwhelmingly supported ending 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. The Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act enjoys support from a wide group of stakeholders. I ask unanimous consent that a list of 40 supporting organizations and letters of support be included in the record. The groups include: The Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana, Sea Legacy, Mission Blue, The American Sportfishing Association, The International Game Fish Association, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Coastal Conservation Association of California. Support: Drift Gillnets Legislation International Game Fish Association California League of Conservation Voters Coastal Conservation Ass'n California American Sportfishing Ass'n The Pew Charitable Trusts The Humane Society of the U.S. Mission Blue Oceana Turtle Island Restoration Network Center for Biological Diversity Earthjustice Wild Oceans Aquarium of the Pacific Wild Aid The Otter Project The Sportfishing Conservancy California Sportfishing League Monterey Coastkeeper Shark Stewards Defenders of Wildlife California Association for Recreational Fishing

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. This legislation updates the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to phase out the use of harmful drift gillnets and replace it with more sustainable fishing gear. Drift gillnets, which are approximately one to one and a half miles long, are intended to catch swordfish and thresher shark. Tragically, nearly 60 other species are accidentally 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 in to the ocean either dead or injured, making survival unlikely. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, gillnets 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 long. Under President George H.W. Bush, the United States entered binding international agreements banning such nets worldwide. Driftnets are prohibited or not utilized off the United States Atlantic and Gulf coasts or in Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, or Hawaii. Mexico permanently banned the use of these nets in 2017. However, neither domestic nor international law, as currently written, captures the drift gillnets used along the West Coast to catch swordfish and thresher shark, despite their significant impact on protected marine life. The California-based fishery is the last place in the United States where these deadly driftnets are allowed. The Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act would completely phase out the use of drift gillnets by 2020. The bill also authorizes a program, directed by 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 as well. 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, fetching a higher price. In a 2016 poll, California voters overwhelmingly supported ending 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. The Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act enjoys support from a wide group of stakeholders. I ask unanimous consent that a list of 40 supporting organizations and letters of support be included in the record. The groups include: The Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana, Sea Legacy, Mission Blue, The American Sportfishing Association, The International Game Fish Association, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Coastal Conservation Association of California. Support: Drift Gillnets Legislation International Game Fish Association California League of Conservation Voters Coastal Conservation Ass'n California American Sportfishing Ass'n The Pew Charitable Trusts The Humane Society of the U.S. Mission Blue Oceana Turtle Island Restoration Network Center for Biological Diversity Earthjustice Wild Oceans Aquarium of the Pacific Wild Aid The Otter Project The Sportfishing Conservancy California Sportfishing League Monterey Coastkeeper Shark Stewards Defenders of Wildlife California Association for Recreational Fishing

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Kyle Duncan to a Louisiana seat on the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Duncan, a Washington, DC, based lawyer, has made a career advocating for ideological causes. He has a long record of arguing to undermine the rights of women, voters, LGBT Americans, and immigrants. Before I speak more in depth about Mr. Duncan's record, it is important to step back and look at the big picture on President Trump's judicial nominees. Mr. Duncan's nomination is part of the Trump administration's larger effort to remake Federal circuit courts with young, ideological nominees who are often far outside of the mainstream or, in some cases, who are unqualified. In just the last 15 months, we have seen a nominee confirmed to the D.C. Circuit who worked in the White House counsel's office on issues likely to go to the court he was appointed to, including on the White House's responses to the Russia investigation. As one Republican Senator said, this now-judge's ``conflict of interest'' was something ``a first-year law student would see.'' We have seen a nominee confirmed to the Sixth Circuit who blogged under a pseudonym and expressed extreme views and relied on rightwing sources known for discredited conspiracy theories. For example, he wrote in a blog post that the ``two greatest tragedies in our country are ``slavery and abortion.'' We have seen a nominee to the Eighth Circuit who was the first judicial nominee to receive a unanimous ``not qualified'' from the American Bar Association because of concerns about the nominee's judicial temperament and ability to be impartial and still get confirmed on a party-line vote. Unfortunately, Mr. Duncan is just the latest nominee with a controversial, partisan record that calls into question his ability to be an independent, neutral arbiter appointed to a lifetime position. We must not allow our courts to be undermined by politics instead of rooted in independence. The courts are a constitutionally created coequal, independent branch designed to be an independent check on Congress and the Executive. Unfortunately, that independence is under attack. The President has personally attacked judges who have ruled against him. He has also repeatedly declared that he has litmus tests for judicial nominees, pledging that he would only nominate individuals who pass ideological litmus tests. Our system depends on Federal judges who are independent arbiters and follow the facts and the law wherever they lead. Given this, I have been deeply troubled by efforts to stack our Federal courts by jamming controversial nominees through as quickly as possible. Federal judges serve for life, and it is critically important that parties who come before them are confident that their case is given a fair shot, that it is being evaluated on the merits. If you look at Mr. Duncan's record, he cannot demonstrate that women, LGBT Americans, and immigrants who appear before him in court would have an impartial arbiter. That should trouble all senators. I fear Mr. Duncan's confirmation to the Fifth Circuit will further diminish confidence in our judicial system. Specifically, Mr. Duncan has been at the center of efforts to roll back women's access to basic healthcare. Mr. Duncan served as one of the lead lawyers for Hobby Lobby in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's protections for women's access to contraception. Duncan advanced the argument that a corporation's religious beliefs trump a woman's right to contraceptive coverage in her health insurance plan. More than 99 percent of American women have used contraception; it is more common than a flu shot. Access to contraception contributes to improved health for women and babies, including reduced rates of prematurity. The expansion of contraception has also strengthened women's financial security by allowing them to plan when to start a family. Mr. Duncan also argued in favor of a severely restrictive anti-choice law in Texas, which would have closed 75 percent of women's health clinics that offer comprehensive reproductive health services. While medical experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, unanimously agreed that these requirements were not needed to protect women's health, Mr. Duncan argued against the science. Even the conservative Supreme Court rejected Texas's false pretense of protecting women and ruled that this law forced doctors and health centers to meet medically unnecessary requirements. The Supreme Court held the law did not provide greater protection for women's health and that it was an unconstitutional undue burden on women's reproductive rights. Mr. Duncan was also at the center of Republican efforts to disenfranchise African-American voters through discriminatory voter ID laws. After the Fourth Circuit struck down North Carolina's voter ID law, noting that it ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision,'' Duncan urged the Supreme Court to reverse that decision. In his petition to the court, he wrote that, ``The Constitution does not allow the sins of Civil Rights-era legislators to be visited on their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.'' Shockingly, this statement ignores the persisting racism in this country and argues that the challenges faced by disenfranchised voters are simply a thing of the past. What is worse, this argument is made about the right to vote. The U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to vote as one of our most foundational rights. Mr. Duncan has also repeatedly argued against recognizing same-sex couples' right to marry. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality in Obergefell, Mr. Duncan declared the decision ``imperil[ed] civic peace.'' That is an extreme statement that is simply untrue. Far from imperiling peace, our country has evolved and embraced this ruling peacefully. I asked Mr. Duncan whether he still believes that this important case has ``imperil[ed] civic peace'' in the years since it was decided. Mr. Duncan did not disavow his statement and would not answer my question. Lastly, we are a nation of immigrants. Since its founding, the United States has been built on the backs of people from all over the world coming here to build a better life for themselves and their families. Less than 2 years ago, in 2016, Duncan argued to the Supreme Court that allowing undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children to live and work would, ``exacerbate the problem of violent crime by unauthorized immigrants.'' Again, Mr. Duncan makes an assertion with no basis in fact. Rather, research shows that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans. The conservative Cato Institute found that immigrants have a lower rate of incarceration than native-born Americans. While I do not expect to agree with the views of all the judicial nominees that come before the Senate, I do expect the nominees to be within the mainstream of legal thought. I do expect the nominees to uphold basic facts, science, and constitutional principles. I fear that Mr. Duncan's record puts him outside these basic qualifications, and I cannot support his nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month to reflect on the remarkable contributions women have made to the United States and the challenges we must still face today to ensure women are able to realize their full potential as equal partners in American society. For over 30 years, we have set aside this month to pay tribute to the amazing women who have fought tirelessly for themselves, their families, and all Americans. I look back on their courage with great admiration and continue to 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,'' with four women being elected to the Senate. Today, we have a record 22 women serving in the United States Senate and 89 women serving in the House of Representatives. Even at record levels, women only account for about 20 percent of the 115th Congress, which falls far short of the 51 percent of our nation's population that are women. Still, women have proven themselves as true political forces and I have great hope for the next generations of women who will also lead the way in building a better California and United States. Women have been and continue to step up as leaders in the forefront of social change efforts, business, science, government, math, art, literature, music, film, athletics, and more. Today, half of our workforce is made up of women and more than 10 million American businesses are women owned. Where women were once turned away from attending medical and law schools, enrollment numbers are now almost evenly split between men and women. Women have risen to the top of Fortune 500 companies and fill the domes of capitols and the halls of universities. Women now also have a larger role in the U.S. Armed Forces, with more than 200,000 active-duty servicewomen proudly serving and 2 million veterans representing every branch of service. My utmost respect goes out to these women warriors who selflessly answered the call to duty and served with honor, courage, and distinction. As a United States Senator proudly representing California, I have seen first-hand some of the millions of outstanding women who achieve greatness. As we celebrate the stories of American women who defied all odds to accomplish the unprecedented, we must also honor their legacies by continuing to defend the rights they worked so hard to achieve. We have fought together on so many issues that affect women, families, and all Americans. During this month, I invite all women to pledge to continue this fight together and never relent on these important issues. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I note that the Senator who was to be on the floor is not, so I ask to proceed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to participate in the discussion on the conflict in Yemen. In 2015, I received a phone call from a Saudi official informing me that the kingdom was about to take military action in Yemen. The official said the conflict would not last long. They would launch airstrikes to push the Houthis out of Sana'a, restore Hadi to power, and broker a political compromise. That was nearly 3 years ago, and the conflict has since grown into the world's worst humanitarian disaster. More than 10,000 civilians have died, and more than 40,000 have been wounded. More than half of Yemen's healthcare facilities have been destroyed. Three-quarters of the population--almost 22 million people-- need humanitarian assistance. Eleven million require urgent assistance to survive, which means they are close to starvation. The situation for children is especially dire: 1.8 million children under the age of 5 are malnourished. Of that, more than 400,000 are so malnourished that they are now 10 times more likely to die. On top of the bloodshed and famine, the people of Yemen are facing a horrific outbreak of cholera. More than 1 million cases of cholera have been reported, potentially the worst cholera outbreak in world history. More than 2,200 people have died from it, almost one-third of whom are children. Cholera has spread because more than 80 percent of the population lack clean drinking water. We can't turn away from suffering because we are a party to this conflict. The United States is providing intelligence, military advice, logistical support, and aerial refueling to Saudi Arabia. The fact is, we are enabling a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We do all that despite there being no military solution. This has not been a brief war. It has turned into a major war that must end. The longer we permit suffering to continue, the more innocent men, women, and children are going to die. Instead of facilitating endless fighting, we should be pushing for reconciliation. I have personally urged Saudi and Iranian officials to meet to discuss their differences. To my great disappointment, they have refused to do so. Iran is expanding its influence across the Middle East. It continues to arm Hezbollah, back President Assad in Syria, and support the Houthis. Saudi Arabia and its partners will not back down. Just last week, Crown Prince Salman said his nation would pursue the same nuclear capabilities as Iran. What does that say to us? Their fight in Yemen offers no military solution. Only a political resolution will end this miserable war. It is time we separate ourselves from this bloodshed. The United States must make it clear that we will not continue to support unending conflict. That is why I support the Sanders-Lee resolution, which would require the United States to stop refueling Saudi and Emirati aircraft. Now, this seems like just a small step, and it certainly will not immediately end the war, but it is a deeply symbolic one. This resolution will send a clear message that we will no longer enable this proxy war. There is no reason a diplomatic solution can't be found to end this violence, and a strong push for reconciliation will save the lives of thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children in Yemen, but that peace is only achievable if we speak with one voice and pass the Sanders-Lee resolution, otherwise we will continue to enable this barbaric war. Thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak on the important topic of women's health, which has been under attack by the Trump administration. Through its policies and the actions of its officials, the Trump administration has undermined women's health at every opportunity. In the first year of the Trump administration, we have seen attempts to block access to Planned Parenthood, restrict women's access to birth control, legislation to ban certain medical procedures, the creation of new government offices to undermine women's healthcare, and judges nominated who openly oppose women's privacy rights. Scott Lloyd, the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, is the perfect illustration of this deeply disturbing trend. Federal court documents and extensive media reports show that Mr. Lloyd has used his official office to prevent unaccompanied minors at ORR shelters from accessing legally available reproductive healthcare. In one case, a 17-year-old young woman, referred to as Jane Doe, was transferred to an ORR shelter after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. While in government custody, Jane Doe discovered she was pregnant and sought access to an abortion. She satisfied all requirements under Texas law and secured her own funds to pay for the procedure. In spite of this, ORR officials repeatedly blocked her from accessing care. Jane Doe went to court and was granted approval to obtain the procedure. Nevertheless, the Trump administration's Department of Justice cruelly appealed the decision, alleging that the government has an interest in blocking her personal decision. Since Jane Doe's case, it has been uncovered that Trump administration officials have directly intervened in other similar cases. There are reports that Mr. Lloyd has denied young women access to their lawyers. Additionally, he has implemented policies that violate young women's medical privacy rights. It is also concerning that, as someone with no medical expertise or training, Mr. Lloyd has personally pressured young women about their medical options. In court documents, Mr. Lloyd acknowledged that he has never approved a request for the procedure and even admitted that he has denied such requests in the cases of rape victims. This is shocking, particularly considering that many of the young women who come into ORR custody have fled sexual and gender-based violence in their home countries. On top of that, some of these young women go through harrowing experiences along their journey to the United States, during which they are at risk of being trafficked, kidnapped, and raped. Blocking them from making their own determinations about their health and bodies only adds to the trauma they have already experienced. In light of Mr. Lloyd's shocking actions, I have called on him to resign. I find it appalling that the Trump administration believes women-- undocumented or otherwise--do not have the right to control their own bodies and make their own healthcare decisions. Young women do not lose their right to make their own healthcare decisions just because they are in government custody. ORR is responsible for protecting the well-being of the most vulnerable people: those who have been tortured, children who arrive in the country alone and without a parent, and individuals fleeing persecution. It is imperative that the leader of this office uphold this mission, rather than advancing his own personal, political agenda. We have an obligation to treat young women in government custody with the dignity and respect they deserve. The Trump administration needs to stop attacking women and start recognizing their right to control their own bodies, medical decisions, and destiny.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that honors one of the most venerable institutions in our State: the University of California. The resolution before us commemorates the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the University of California, a noteworthy milestone that must be celebrated by recognizing all of the achievements. I would like to thank my dear friend, Senator Harris, for joining me and supporting this endeavor. Throughout its history, the University of California has become a foundation, and a beacon of hope, for the State of California and the Nation as a whole. It embraces the same spirit and tenacity that defines our great State. The University of California has grown from one campus in Berkeley to a system of 10 top-ranked universities, five notable and top-notch academic medical centers, and three affiliated National Laboratories, all impacting far reaches of the State. We should recognize the University of California for what it is: the finest and most accessible public university system in this country. It was established on the premise that college is for everyone and designed with every Californian in mind. That is why the University of California's Board of Regents in 1870 decreed that women be admitted equally with men, 50 years before the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the right to vote. Diversity has always been a cornerstone of the University of California. Because of its progressive and forward-thinking ways, notable alumni include Jackie Robinson, who shattered the Major League Baseball's color barrier; Sally Ride, the first American woman in space; and the countless number of students and faculty members who are the first generation in their families to attend college. Today, the University of California has more than 273,000 enrolled students and employs more than 223,300 faculty, staff, and other academics. It has graduated more than two million living alumni. The University of California is also a national leader in scientific discovery and medical advancement, enabling transformational solutions for healthcare and the environment, enhancing our Nation's defense while reducing the global threat from terrorism, and addressing other emerging national security and energy challenges. It established itself in the fields of nuclear physics and biotechnology, revolutionized agriculture, and helped the movie industry mature, all of which are now multi-billion-dollar industries. Through its faculty and alumni, the University continues to drive technological innovation and actively partner with the private sector. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would like to end with a small anecdote. Every year in our household, we always look forward to the ``Big Game.'' For the uninitiated, this is the biggest college football game of the year: the Stanford Cardinal versus the California Golden Bears. This is the oldest college football rivalry in the West, which began in 1892, and still continues to this day. I do not hold it against those who attended Berkeley, but I will be happy to gloat when my Cardinal beat the Bears. I am not one to boast, but it must be noted that Stanford has won more ``Big Games'' than Berkeley. All quips aside, as we commemorate this momentous occasion in the storied history that is the University of California, we must remember the past and present, with an eye towards the future. The challenges before it are great, but the potential that lies within itself is even greater. I know and believe that the University of California will continue to push boundaries, explore the great unknown, stand up for American values, and continue to solve the world's most complex problems. Here is to another exceptional 150 years. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Capito, to introduce the Stopping Suspicious Orders of Opioids Act. In 2016, the opioid epidemic caused more than 42,000 deaths in the United States. In 2017, this epidemic was declared a public health emergency. Now, more than 400 State, local, and Tribal governments have filed suits (some consolidated, some individual) against opioid manufacturers and distributors for their alleged roles in fueling and perpetuating this devastating crisis. The U.S. Justice Department, or DOJ, has filed a statement of interest in these lawsuits, which are currently pending. As our Nation struggles to effectively address the opioid epidemic, one thing is clear: there is no silver bullet. Yet, it is also clear that law enforcement can play a critical role in preventing and reducing overdose deaths. That is why we must ensure that law enforcement has and uses the necessary tools to hold opioid manufacturers, distributors and others accountable when they fail to properly disclose to the Drug Enforcement Administration, or the DEA, opioid orders that are suspicious because of their size, frequency, or patterns. This simple disclosure could prevent millions of prescription opioid pills from ending up on the black market. Unfortunately, current law has inadvertently created a standard that is too high for DOJ to meet in order to take immediate action against those who fail to make these disclosures to the DEA or who fail to adequately protect against diversion. For instance, the DEA has told my staff that under current law, in order to immediately stop a drug manufacturer or distributor from distributing opioids, a pharmacy from dispensing opioids, or a practitioner from prescribing opioids, it must prove that the distribution, dispensation, or prescription of the drugs directly resulted in an immediate and substantial likelihood that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance occurred. For this reason, the bill Senator Capito and I are introducing today would change the standard in current law to make it easier to immediately stop potentially dangerous shipments of prescription opioids. It would allow DOJ to take action when it can demonstrate that an opioid manufacturer or distributor's lack of control over a prescription opioid would likely result in the drugs winding up in the hands of someone other than the intended recipient or on the black market. This change will compel opioid manufacturers and distributors to be more vigilant in their efforts to report and stop the delivery of suspicious orders of opioids as well as to protect against diversion. In the absence of such vigilance, our bill would allow DOJ to immediately stop the delivery of opioids. Our bill further ensures that bad actors are held accountable by establishing backstops and consequences for when opioid manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, and prescribers fail to take corrective action. Under current law, if there is no immediate threat to the public health or safety, opioid manufacturers, distributors, dispensers and prescribers can submit a corrective action plan to DOJ before their registrations can be revoked or suspended. DOJ does not have to accept this plan, but if it does, current law does not outline a timeframe by which the plan must be fully implemented or consequences for failure to do so. Given the magnitude of the opioid epidemic, this is unacceptable. That is why our bill would require those who manufacture, distribute, dispense or prescribe opioids to fully implement any plan that is accepted by DOJ within 30 days. Failure to do so will result in the immediate suspension of a registration until the reinstated proceedings to deny, revoke, or suspend the registration permanently have concluded. Mr. President, I have been struck by the seemingly countless examples of opioid manufacturers and distributors that have done little to safeguard against diversion that have been raised in hearings, roundtables, and in the news over the last several years. The example most often cited is that of Kermit, West Virginia, where, over a two year period nine million opioids were delivered to a single pharmacy. Between 2007 and 2012, 780 million oxycodone and hydrocodone pills were delivered to pharmacies throughout that state. This resulted in 1,728 fatal overdoses that were largely preventable. We cannot allow this to happen again. The bill Senator Capito and I are introducing today will strengthen current law by providing law enforcement with the additional tools it needs to better and more proactively combat the opioid epidemic and hold bad actors accountable. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.-

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Capito, to introduce the Stopping Suspicious Orders of Opioids Act. In 2016, the opioid epidemic caused more than 42,000 deaths in the United States. In 2017, this epidemic was declared a public health emergency. Now, more than 400 State, local, and Tribal governments have filed suits (some consolidated, some individual) against opioid manufacturers and distributors for their alleged roles in fueling and perpetuating this devastating crisis. The U.S. Justice Department, or DOJ, has filed a statement of interest in these lawsuits, which are currently pending. As our Nation struggles to effectively address the opioid epidemic, one thing is clear: there is no silver bullet. Yet, it is also clear that law enforcement can play a critical role in preventing and reducing overdose deaths. That is why we must ensure that law enforcement has and uses the necessary tools to hold opioid manufacturers, distributors and others accountable when they fail to properly disclose to the Drug Enforcement Administration, or the DEA, opioid orders that are suspicious because of their size, frequency, or patterns. This simple disclosure could prevent millions of prescription opioid pills from ending up on the black market. Unfortunately, current law has inadvertently created a standard that is too high for DOJ to meet in order to take immediate action against those who fail to make these disclosures to the DEA or who fail to adequately protect against diversion. For instance, the DEA has told my staff that under current law, in order to immediately stop a drug manufacturer or distributor from distributing opioids, a pharmacy from dispensing opioids, or a practitioner from prescribing opioids, it must prove that the distribution, dispensation, or prescription of the drugs directly resulted in an immediate and substantial likelihood that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance occurred. For this reason, the bill Senator Capito and I are introducing today would change the standard in current law to make it easier to immediately stop potentially dangerous shipments of prescription opioids. It would allow DOJ to take action when it can demonstrate that an opioid manufacturer or distributor's lack of control over a prescription opioid would likely result in the drugs winding up in the hands of someone other than the intended recipient or on the black market. This change will compel opioid manufacturers and distributors to be more vigilant in their efforts to report and stop the delivery of suspicious orders of opioids as well as to protect against diversion. In the absence of such vigilance, our bill would allow DOJ to immediately stop the delivery of opioids. Our bill further ensures that bad actors are held accountable by establishing backstops and consequences for when opioid manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, and prescribers fail to take corrective action. Under current law, if there is no immediate threat to the public health or safety, opioid manufacturers, distributors, dispensers and prescribers can submit a corrective action plan to DOJ before their registrations can be revoked or suspended. DOJ does not have to accept this plan, but if it does, current law does not outline a timeframe by which the plan must be fully implemented or consequences for failure to do so. Given the magnitude of the opioid epidemic, this is unacceptable. That is why our bill would require those who manufacture, distribute, dispense or prescribe opioids to fully implement any plan that is accepted by DOJ within 30 days. Failure to do so will result in the immediate suspension of a registration until the reinstated proceedings to deny, revoke, or suspend the registration permanently have concluded. Mr. President, I have been struck by the seemingly countless examples of opioid manufacturers and distributors that have done little to safeguard against diversion that have been raised in hearings, roundtables, and in the news over the last several years. The example most often cited is that of Kermit, West Virginia, where, over a two year period nine million opioids were delivered to a single pharmacy. Between 2007 and 2012, 780 million oxycodone and hydrocodone pills were delivered to pharmacies throughout that state. This resulted in 1,728 fatal overdoses that were largely preventable. We cannot allow this to happen again. The bill Senator Capito and I are introducing today will strengthen current law by providing law enforcement with the additional tools it needs to better and more proactively combat the opioid epidemic and hold bad actors accountable. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.-

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. 2155. It is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. One would think from the title that I would be all for it, but as one who went through the drop in the economy when we were on the brink of collapse, I believe this is a very bad bill. Let me go back to that time. Banks were teetering and over 300 would fail in the next 3 years. For perspective, only three banks had failed in the year of 2007. Unemployment was skyrocketing. We lost $19 trillion in household wealth. Americans lost nearly 9 million jobs. In my State of California, more than 2 million people were unemployed, 3\1/2\ million mortgages were at risk, and nearly 200,000 people filed for bankruptcy. Now that the economy has recovered and unemployment has decreased from its high point of 10 percent during the crisis, I worry that my colleagues have forgotten the magnitude of this crisis. I simply cannot. I remember sitting in caucuses hearing from our top financial officials about the potential for a total collapse of our economy. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified to the House Financial Services Committee that ``our financial system failed to do its job and came precariously close to failing altogether.'' That is not an exaggeration. For those of us who were here, who listened to the economists, who heard what was happening, we feared a total collapse. Personal conversations I had with these economists carried the most dire warnings. We should never get close to that point again. Congress spent more than $400 billion on something labeled TARP, Troubled Asset Relief Program, to help stabilize the economy. It was very controversial at the time, but we have since recouped more than we spent on that bank program. Congress then passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, putting in place policies to prevent another financial crisis, including strong protections on the largest banks. Now, just 8 years later--how quickly we forget--we are considering loosening these protections. Have we forgotten the lessons from 10 years ago and the devastating consequences for American families? As with any bill we pass, I am open to looking at how it has been implemented and making adjustments as needed. For Dodd-Frank, I agree that community banks and credit unions shouldn't be regulated the same way as the largest banks in the country. I am open to adjusting some of these regulations for them, but this bill simply goes too far. It goes beyond targeted relief for small institutions. The nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, says the probability of a large bank failing or another financial crisis will go up if this bill is enacted. One provision I am particularly worried about would roll back regulations and supervision for banks with assets between $50 billion and $250 billion. These aren't just small community banks we are talking about. Instead, this would apply to some of the largest banks in our country. Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrote that Countrywide, National City, and GMAC were all below $250 billion and ``required billions of dollars in official capital assistance and debt guarantees either for themselves or their acquiring institutions.'' Here is what Phil Angelides, who served as chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, said about this particular provision: The bill's provisions to lift the asset threshold for enhanced prudential standards and supervision from $50 billion to $250 billion would substantially reduce oversight over 25 of the nation's 38 largest banks, including institutions of over $100 billion in assets that were deemed ``Too Big to Fail'' in 2009. A number of financial institutions with less than $250 billion triggered the need for bailout assistance during the crisis and history has shown, time and time again, that the failure of financial firms that are not among the largest mega-banks can pose systemic threats to financial stability. In addition to weakening these requirements, the bill can also weaken capital requirements for even the largest banks. Sheila Bair, former Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said this could lead up to a 30-percent capital reduction at some banks. Just think of that. She also raises a question that we should all take a moment to reflect on: Why does Congress want to start designating banking activities as low or no risk, when expert financial regulators were so wrong prior to the crisis? Finally, this bill would amend the SAFE Act that I authored to ensure mortgage brokers and lenders meet minimum standards. This was necessary to curb the abusive lending practices we saw leading up to the financial crisis in which many consumers were taken advantage of through predatory lending. This was a serious problem in California. Between March and June of 2008, 406 defendants were charged in 144 mortgage fraud-related cases, and approximately $1 billion in losses were attributed to these fraudulent acts. The SAFE Act created a new system of registration and licensing that included background checks, education requirements, and testing to ensure that mortgage brokers and lenders could meet basic standards. The bill before us, interestingly enough, would allow mortgage loan originators to operate without a license--without a license--for up to 120 days if they move from a bank to a nonbank or across State lines. Allowing this transition period without ensuring that lenders have passed the licensing test we required in the SAFE Act weakens the protections we put in place for consumers. Before I conclude, I want to say that I appreciate this is a bipartisan bill. It has gone through the Banking Committee. I also understand the interest in ensuring regulations are appropriately tailored to the size and activity of financial institutions, but I am really worried that Members here have become too comfortable in our economic recovery and have forgotten where the path of deregulation ends. I oppose this bill because it simply goes too far in deregulating some of our largest institutions and weakening the protections we put in place to prevent another financial crisis. If we don't learn from past failures, we are doomed to repeat them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of Phil Angelides.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to discuss climate change. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for being a vocal advocate for addressing this issue. Climate change is real. It is happening all around us, and we can't afford to ignore this fact any longer. This past year, global temperatures were up 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the historical average. Millions of Americans came face-to-face with extreme weather events like deadly wildfires and powerful hurricanes, and these extreme weather events are only expected to get worse. If no action is taken to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the world will warm 7 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Rising temperatures will bring increasingly more severe droughts, destructive floods, deadly wildfires, and strong coastal storms. Rising temperatures are also warming our oceans, threatening to melt both polar icecaps. Last summer, the world watched as an iceberg the size of Delaware broke free from Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf. Scientists are now studying how the entire shelf may collapse and projecting what that would mean for the even larger West Antarctic Ice Sheet as oceans continue to warm. That sheet--twice the size of Texas--contains enough ice to raise sea levels by more than 10 feet. That much sea rise would submerge more than 25,000 square miles of the United States that is home to more than 12 million Americans. Rising seas and the loss of coastal land aren't the only threats we are facing due to climate change. The effects it is having on our water supply is deeply troubling. California is home to the largest agriculture sector in the United States. Our growers need access to plenty of water to help feed the whole Nation. As temperatures rise, we are seeing fewer and fewer days below freezing, greatly reducing mountain snowpack which is a critical source of water in the West. Extreme heat is also making it harder for agriculture workers to safely work outside. In the Central Valley, average temperatures are projected to rise 6 degrees by the end of this century. It is not just people who work outdoors who are feeling the health effects of climate change. Warmer temperatures are expanding the range of disease-carrying pests such as ticks and mosquitos. Lyme disease cases have tripled in the last two decades, and tropical diseases are now appearing as far north as the Gulf Coast. Californians know all too well the effects of climate change. We are still recovering from an historic drought and the most destructive wildfire season on record. But we may be in another drought by next year if we don't get more rain soon. In the absence of leadership from the Federal Government, California is stepping up and taking action. California is still honoring the Paris Agreement even though the President pulled the United States out. By 2030, California will reach 50 percent renewable electricity, double energy efficiency, and reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels. California has also grown to become the sixth largest economy in the world, showing you can still grow your economy while making smart investments in clean energy. President Trump and his allies in Congress need to wake up. We can't afford to ignore an issue as important as climate change any longer. The American people demand action.