Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act with my colleague Senator Chuck Grassley. This legislation addresses the significant challenges associated with prosecuting those who manufacture and traffic deadly synthetic drugs, including synthetic opioids, like clandestinely produced fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones. Synthetic drugs pose an increasing threat to our Nation. They hit our communities in cycles and cause devastation. For example, in Corpus Christi, TX, there were 31 EMS calls in 1 day related to synthetic drugs. In Syracuse, NY, 18 individuals were taken to the emergency room in a 24-hour period after taking synthetic marijuana, and in Cincinnati, OH, a shocking 174 overdoses occurred over 6 days. These overdoses were largely attributed to heroin laced with carfentanil, a synthetic opioid that is 100,000 times stronger than morphine. In 2012, Congress outlawed many synthetic drugs, but manufacturers did not stop producing them. Instead, they began producing controlled substance analogues which mimic the effects of controlled substances, such as opioids, marijuana, PCP, and LSD. The new drug, even though it has an effect on the body that is similar to a controlled substance, may no longer be illegal under Federal law because it is not listed in one of the five schedules of the Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, these drugs are shipped to our country and marketed as legal alternatives to illegal drugs. This makes enforcement efforts difficult. Synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, are deadly. Since 2015, 130 deaths have been linked to the drug in the Bay area of California. Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 15,000 deaths in 2015 involved synthetic opioids other than methadone, which includes fentanyl. That is equivalent to 42 deaths per day. Like other synthetic drugs, illicit fentanyl and its analogues are clandestinely produced, and primarily enter the United States in one of three ways: (1) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to the United States via international mail; (2) Mexican drug traffickers produce it with precursor chemicals from China and smuggle it across the Southwest Border; or (3) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to Canada, where it is smuggled across the northern border. The point is, regardless of the type, synthetic drugs pose a deadly and quickly evolving public health threat. It is clear that the current system for scheduling controlled substances and prosecuting controlled substance analogues is not able to keep up with the speed with which new synthetic drugs are produced or to prevent the deaths they cause. That is why the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Drugs Act to provide the Department of Justice with new tools, using a multifaceted approach. First, the bill immediately controls 13 fentanyl analogues that law enforcement has come into contact with. These substances have already caused 162 overdose deaths in the United States. Second, while the existing Federal Analogue Enforcement Act allows prosecutors to charge those who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substance analogues, the law contains definition of a controlled substance analogue that is vague and often misinterpreted. As a result, court cases using this law result in a drawn out and expensive battle of the experts. Moreover, because because controlled substance analogues are not listed as federally controlled substances, even if a prosecutor in one case successfully proves that a substance is a controlled substance analogue, this ruling is not applied across the board. A different person charged with manufacturing the exact same substance in another case is not automatically guilty of a crime. Instead, the prosecutor in the new case has to reprove that the substance in question is an analogue all over again. Therefore, to ensure that prosecutors do not have to reprove that a substance is an analogue each and every time it appears, the bill establishes a new schedule A. The legislation authorizes the Attorney General to add new synthetic drugs, including fentanyl and other analogues, to this new schedule, and make them illegal through an expedited, temporary scheduling process. It also authorizes the Attorney General to permanently schedule these substances, either in schedule A or in another schedule, like schedule I. This provides the Attorney General with the maximum flexibility needed to better combat these dangerous drugs. Those found guilty of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing schedule A substances would be subject to existing schedule III penalties, or a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for a first offense. The Department of Justice has told my staff that this approach will allow them to act quickly when new and dangerous substances threaten our communities. Recognizing that the vast majority of synthetic drugs originate from outside of the United States, the legislation imposes criminal penalties for the illegal import and export of substances designated as schedule A. It also authorizes penalties for those who manufacture or distribute these substances while intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe they will ultimately be imported into the United States. Third, the bill maintains the ability of prosecutors to charge defendants using the Federal Analogue Enforcement Act, but clarifies the definition of a controlled substance analogue within the Act. Specifically, the language clarifies that the chemical structure of the substance must be similar to that of schedule I or II controlled substance to be considered a controlled substance analogue. On top of this, the substance must also have a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect on the body that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance or the person manufacturing, distributing or dispensing the drug must represent or intend for the drug to have an effect that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance. If prosecutors successfully prove a substance is a controlled substance analogue under the new definition, those who traffic the drug could face higher penalties than those assigned to schedule A, because the penalty would be associated with the drug it mimics. Finally, those trafficking these substances do not market them as synthetic drugs. Instead, they mislabel the products, which are often sold at gas stations and convenience stores. To prevent this from happening, the bill requires all schedule A substances to be properly labeled and establishes civil penalties for failure to do so. This provision will allow civil enforcement action to be taken to remove mislabeled products from the shelves of gas stations and convenience stores. I want to close by sharing the story of one of my constituents, a young man named Connor Eckhardt. Unfortunately, a synthetic drug known as Spice claimed his life. Connor took one hit of the drug, which, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, is a mixture of herbs and spices that is typically sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. His brain swelled, causing him to go into a coma, and he never woke up. Sadly, Connor's story has become all too common. And this is unacceptable. That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act. Law enforcement must have the ability to swiftly bring those who manufacture, distribute, and dispense these deadly drugs to justice. I look forward to working with and obtaining feedback from my colleagues and other stakeholders on this bill, which provides new and necessary authorities to combat synthetic drugs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act with my colleague Senator Chuck Grassley. This legislation addresses the significant challenges associated with prosecuting those who manufacture and traffic deadly synthetic drugs, including synthetic opioids, like clandestinely produced fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones. Synthetic drugs pose an increasing threat to our Nation. They hit our communities in cycles and cause devastation. For example, in Corpus Christi, TX, there were 31 EMS calls in 1 day related to synthetic drugs. In Syracuse, NY, 18 individuals were taken to the emergency room in a 24-hour period after taking synthetic marijuana, and in Cincinnati, OH, a shocking 174 overdoses occurred over 6 days. These overdoses were largely attributed to heroin laced with carfentanil, a synthetic opioid that is 100,000 times stronger than morphine. In 2012, Congress outlawed many synthetic drugs, but manufacturers did not stop producing them. Instead, they began producing controlled substance analogues which mimic the effects of controlled substances, such as opioids, marijuana, PCP, and LSD. The new drug, even though it has an effect on the body that is similar to a controlled substance, may no longer be illegal under Federal law because it is not listed in one of the five schedules of the Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, these drugs are shipped to our country and marketed as legal alternatives to illegal drugs. This makes enforcement efforts difficult. Synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, are deadly. Since 2015, 130 deaths have been linked to the drug in the Bay area of California. Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 15,000 deaths in 2015 involved synthetic opioids other than methadone, which includes fentanyl. That is equivalent to 42 deaths per day. Like other synthetic drugs, illicit fentanyl and its analogues are clandestinely produced, and primarily enter the United States in one of three ways: (1) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to the United States via international mail; (2) Mexican drug traffickers produce it with precursor chemicals from China and smuggle it across the Southwest Border; or (3) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to Canada, where it is smuggled across the northern border. The point is, regardless of the type, synthetic drugs pose a deadly and quickly evolving public health threat. It is clear that the current system for scheduling controlled substances and prosecuting controlled substance analogues is not able to keep up with the speed with which new synthetic drugs are produced or to prevent the deaths they cause. That is why the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Drugs Act to provide the Department of Justice with new tools, using a multifaceted approach. First, the bill immediately controls 13 fentanyl analogues that law enforcement has come into contact with. These substances have already caused 162 overdose deaths in the United States. Second, while the existing Federal Analogue Enforcement Act allows prosecutors to charge those who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substance analogues, the law contains definition of a controlled substance analogue that is vague and often misinterpreted. As a result, court cases using this law result in a drawn out and expensive battle of the experts. Moreover, because because controlled substance analogues are not listed as federally controlled substances, even if a prosecutor in one case successfully proves that a substance is a controlled substance analogue, this ruling is not applied across the board. A different person charged with manufacturing the exact same substance in another case is not automatically guilty of a crime. Instead, the prosecutor in the new case has to reprove that the substance in question is an analogue all over again. Therefore, to ensure that prosecutors do not have to reprove that a substance is an analogue each and every time it appears, the bill establishes a new schedule A. The legislation authorizes the Attorney General to add new synthetic drugs, including fentanyl and other analogues, to this new schedule, and make them illegal through an expedited, temporary scheduling process. It also authorizes the Attorney General to permanently schedule these substances, either in schedule A or in another schedule, like schedule I. This provides the Attorney General with the maximum flexibility needed to better combat these dangerous drugs. Those found guilty of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing schedule A substances would be subject to existing schedule III penalties, or a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for a first offense. The Department of Justice has told my staff that this approach will allow them to act quickly when new and dangerous substances threaten our communities. Recognizing that the vast majority of synthetic drugs originate from outside of the United States, the legislation imposes criminal penalties for the illegal import and export of substances designated as schedule A. It also authorizes penalties for those who manufacture or distribute these substances while intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe they will ultimately be imported into the United States. Third, the bill maintains the ability of prosecutors to charge defendants using the Federal Analogue Enforcement Act, but clarifies the definition of a controlled substance analogue within the Act. Specifically, the language clarifies that the chemical structure of the substance must be similar to that of schedule I or II controlled substance to be considered a controlled substance analogue. On top of this, the substance must also have a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect on the body that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance or the person manufacturing, distributing or dispensing the drug must represent or intend for the drug to have an effect that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance. If prosecutors successfully prove a substance is a controlled substance analogue under the new definition, those who traffic the drug could face higher penalties than those assigned to schedule A, because the penalty would be associated with the drug it mimics. Finally, those trafficking these substances do not market them as synthetic drugs. Instead, they mislabel the products, which are often sold at gas stations and convenience stores. To prevent this from happening, the bill requires all schedule A substances to be properly labeled and establishes civil penalties for failure to do so. This provision will allow civil enforcement action to be taken to remove mislabeled products from the shelves of gas stations and convenience stores. I want to close by sharing the story of one of my constituents, a young man named Connor Eckhardt. Unfortunately, a synthetic drug known as Spice claimed his life. Connor took one hit of the drug, which, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, is a mixture of herbs and spices that is typically sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. His brain swelled, causing him to go into a coma, and he never woke up. Sadly, Connor's story has become all too common. And this is unacceptable. That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act. Law enforcement must have the ability to swiftly bring those who manufacture, distribute, and dispense these deadly drugs to justice. I look forward to working with and obtaining feedback from my colleagues and other stakeholders on this bill, which provides new and necessary authorities to combat synthetic drugs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 140, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act, a common sense fix to improve affordability of health insurance on the individual market. I am pleased that Senators Hassan, Warren, Harris, Baldwin, and Leahy have joined this bill as original cosponsors, and I appreciate their support. Since its implementation, the Affordable Care Act has helped to expand health care and control out-of-pocket costs for millions of Americans. Over 20 million people who were previously uninsured now have coverage, there are no yearly or lifetime limits on coverage, and no one can be denied coverage or charged more based on their gender or because of a pre-existing health condition. The Affordable Care Act also expanded the individual marketplace, through which 18 million people currently get their coverage. Individuals who make between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and who do not have affordable employer coverage available to them, can receive a tax credit subsidy to help pay for insurance on the individual market. This credit limits the cost of insurance at 9.69 percent of an individual's income. However, someone who makes just one dollar above the income threshold immediately loses all federal assistance. This `cliff' unfairly impacts middle-income Americans who are by no means wealthy, but who make just barely too much to qualify for the tax credit. I am particularly concerned about my constituents between the ages of 50 to 64, who are facing higher premiums as they age and who need access to health services but are not yet eligible for Medicare. To address this issue, the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would eliminate the current cliff, and instead gradually phase out federal assistance based on income. Nobody would pay more than 9.69 percent of their income for insurance, and once someone's premium fell below this threshold, they would no longer receive federal assistance. For example, in my hometown of San Francisco, a 60-year-old making $50,000 currently pays $946 per month for the second-lowest cost Silver plan and does not receive federal assistance. Under this bill, their premium would be capped at $404, or 9.69 percent of their income, and the tax credit subsidy would cover the rest. This bill would create a fairer and more predictable system, ensuring that consumers on the individual market know just how much their insurance will cost and will have affordable options available. The Affordable Care Act has reduced costs and expanded benefits for many Americans, and it is critical that we build on this progress to further improve the law--not destroy it. The bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, AANS, Child Welfare League of America, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, CNS, Families USA, Lung Cancer Alliance, and National Farmers Union. This legislation is a simple fix that provides relief for middle- income Americans and strengthens affordability protections for coverage through the individual market. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017. Last week, I met with a remarkable group of anti-trafficking stakeholders in Fresno, California, who reinforced what I have long held to be true: stamping out the horrific crime of human trafficking must be among our top priorities as lawmakers. At our meeting, Central Valley law enforcement, service providers and, most importantly, survivors of human trafficking educated me about the nature and prevalence of sex and labor trafficking in the Central Valley. I learned that counties like Fresno and Tulare serve as key stops along major California trafficking circuits, with victims as young as 10- years-old being shipped to Los Angeles, Las Vegas and beyond. I also learned that in 2016 alone, Fresno Police arrested more than 140 sex buyers and traffickers. This tells me that the demand for trafficking is far too high. Central Valley law enforcement and service providers are working together to reduce this demand, crack down on traffickers, and better serve victims, through a unique, highly-coordinated and victim-centered approach that I believe ought to be emulated nationwide. Over the past seven years they have teamed up to identify and critically to provide comprehensive services to nearly 500 trafficking victims. When Central Valley law enforcement took down a trafficking ring last year, the ring leader and two of his associates were arrested and prosecuted, and approximately 50 victims were rescued, including 23 children. These victims were all provided with wraparound services, and the ring leader was sentenced to 40 years in prison. This is the kind of coordinated, victim centered work we need to support and replicate nationwide. The Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017 aims to do that. I have now met with law enforcement, service providers and survivors representing Southern, Central and Northern California. All have made one thing abundantly clear: lawmakers at all levels of government must commit whatever time and resources are needed to thwart this horrendous crime. Over the past two decades, Congress has taken action to combat human trafficking. We passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and, 8 years later, passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. And two years ago, Congress passed the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act--a landmark piece of legislation. The law focuses on reducing demand, rescuing victims, educating law enforcement and judges, and making sure that trafficking enterprises are put out of business. But it is clear that our work is far from done. The human trafficking industry continues to be one of the biggest criminal enterprises in the world and it is constantly evolving. The use of the internet to sell children for sex has escalated dramatically over the past several years. In my home State, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and her pioneering anti-trafficking team identified 47,719 internet users looking to purchase sex in Alameda County alone during a single month. Many of the victims posted on these sites are underage. In one survivor study, a staggering 75% of minor sex trafficking victims reported being bought or sold online. And last year, the Washington Post reported devastating accounts about human trafficking is also committed by Islamic State fighters, who sell young girls over platforms such as Facebook. The bill that Senator Grassley and I have introduced includes a provision that would give to law enforcement an additional tool to prevent human traffickers from accessing the internet and other tech platforms to sell minors for commercial sex. Under current current law, it is a criminal offense to advertise commercial sex acts with a minor. This legislation would add civil injunction authority to the criminal provision, providing the Department of Justice with a more readily accessible tool to deny human traffickers access to tech platforms to commit trafficking crimes. The bill also supports and strengthens efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to human trafficking crimes. It allows school resource officers at schools to train school personnel to recognize and respond to signs of child sex trafficking. This is important because kids are often recruited at schools. In one heartbreaking case in Oakland, California, a 12-year-old student with top grades suddenly changed her normal behavior. She stopped completing her assignments, became withdrawn, and began wearing provocative clothing. Eventually, she stopped going to school altogether. Her parents contacted the school looking for her, but no one was able to locate her. She was discovered 24 hours later on an online sex advertisement based out of Los Angeles. This 12-year-old girl had been groomed by a trafficker--but no one was able to recognize the signs of exploitation. Teachers and school personnel interact with these kids every day. They are critical in recognizing which kids are at risk or are about to become exploited. We need to be sure that they are familiar with the patterns and practices of human traffickers, and know how to identify and respond to suspected victims. In addition to working with Chairman Grassley on the reauthorization bill, I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar's Abolish Human Trafficking Act of 2017. One of the most important provisions of this bill is the mandatory designation of at least one Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator in each United States Attorney's Office. This is critical to ensure that our judicial system treats human trafficking offenses with the seriousness they deserve. Among other responsibilities, this Coordinator will be responsible for assisting in the prosecution of human trafficking cases. This includes the prosecution of those who solicit minors for commercial sex, a change in the law that was enacted in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. In 2015, former United States Attorney Eileen Decker conducted one of the first federal prosecutions of a buyer under this new statute. The buyer, a 59-year-old man from Torrance, admitted to lying to federal prosecutors about his conduct with a 16-year-old girl he met online and hired for commercial sex acts. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Former United States Attorney Decker remarked that this case should serve as a warning to adults who engage in this type of criminal conduct. It is critical that such prosecutions continue. Stemming the abuse and exploitation of trafficking requires confronting not only the predatory suppliers, but also those who solicit young girls for commercial sex. The designation of a Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator would ensure that those who violate human trafficking offenses, both buyers and sellers, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Human Justice Trafficking Coordinator would also be responsible for ensuring the collection of restitution for victims. Restitution for trafficking victims is mandatory under federal law. Moreover, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act requires the Justice Department to train prosecutors to seek restitution for trafficking victims, regardless of whether the victim requests restitution. Yet, we continue to see our judicial system failing to do right by victims. In a 2015 law review article, the Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center reported on the appallingly low rates of restitution orders in human trafficking prosecutions. In a study of federal human trafficking cases brought over a four period, federal courts failed to order restitution in nearly two-thirds of cases involving sex trafficking offenses. And shockingly, they found that the victims least likely to obtain restitution orders were children trafficked in the sex industry. Less than one in three defendants who commit sex trafficking offenses against children were ordered to pay restitution to their victims. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, even if restitution is ordered against a trafficker, restitution itself is not being effectively collected. In response the requests from the Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General included restitution order and collection data in the Department of Justice's report on trafficking for fiscal year 2015. Of the $4,268,358 ordered in restitution in 2015, only $987 was collected. While we may not expect to see full restitution collected in the year it is ordered, it is shocking that the total restitution collected is less than 1% of what was ordered. That is why we have tried to include additional restitution provisions in the bill to better support victims. For example, there is an additional provision in the bill to update the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015, a bill that I authored with Senator Portman. That bill mandated extensive training on restitution for prosecutors and judges. It is our hope that with these updates--and with the recent enactment of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 to make sure that prosecutors are held accountable in seeking restitution-- victims will be better supported going forward. I am hopeful that we will be able to pass these bipartisan bills this Congress. I urge my colleagues in this body to support the passage of this important, comprehensive legislation to protect trafficking victims.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act, a common sense fix to improve affordability of health insurance on the individual market. I am pleased that Senators Hassan, Warren, Harris, Baldwin, and Leahy have joined this bill as original cosponsors, and I appreciate their support. Since its implementation, the Affordable Care Act has helped to expand health care and control out-of-pocket costs for millions of Americans. Over 20 million people who were previously uninsured now have coverage, there are no yearly or lifetime limits on coverage, and no one can be denied coverage or charged more based on their gender or because of a pre-existing health condition. The Affordable Care Act also expanded the individual marketplace, through which 18 million people currently get their coverage. Individuals who make between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and who do not have affordable employer coverage available to them, can receive a tax credit subsidy to help pay for insurance on the individual market. This credit limits the cost of insurance at 9.69 percent of an individual's income. However, someone who makes just one dollar above the income threshold immediately loses all federal assistance. This `cliff' unfairly impacts middle-income Americans who are by no means wealthy, but who make just barely too much to qualify for the tax credit. I am particularly concerned about my constituents between the ages of 50 to 64, who are facing higher premiums as they age and who need access to health services but are not yet eligible for Medicare. To address this issue, the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would eliminate the current cliff, and instead gradually phase out federal assistance based on income. Nobody would pay more than 9.69 percent of their income for insurance, and once someone's premium fell below this threshold, they would no longer receive federal assistance. For example, in my hometown of San Francisco, a 60-year-old making $50,000 currently pays $946 per month for the second-lowest cost Silver plan and does not receive federal assistance. Under this bill, their premium would be capped at $404, or 9.69 percent of their income, and the tax credit subsidy would cover the rest. This bill would create a fairer and more predictable system, ensuring that consumers on the individual market know just how much their insurance will cost and will have affordable options available. The Affordable Care Act has reduced costs and expanded benefits for many Americans, and it is critical that we build on this progress to further improve the law--not destroy it. The bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, AANS, Child Welfare League of America, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, CNS, Families USA, Lung Cancer Alliance, and National Farmers Union. This legislation is a simple fix that provides relief for middle- income Americans and strengthens affordability protections for coverage through the individual market. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017. Last week, I met with a remarkable group of anti-trafficking stakeholders in Fresno, California, who reinforced what I have long held to be true: stamping out the horrific crime of human trafficking must be among our top priorities as lawmakers. At our meeting, Central Valley law enforcement, service providers and, most importantly, survivors of human trafficking educated me about the nature and prevalence of sex and labor trafficking in the Central Valley. I learned that counties like Fresno and Tulare serve as key stops along major California trafficking circuits, with victims as young as 10- years-old being shipped to Los Angeles, Las Vegas and beyond. I also learned that in 2016 alone, Fresno Police arrested more than 140 sex buyers and traffickers. This tells me that the demand for trafficking is far too high. Central Valley law enforcement and service providers are working together to reduce this demand, crack down on traffickers, and better serve victims, through a unique, highly-coordinated and victim-centered approach that I believe ought to be emulated nationwide. Over the past seven years they have teamed up to identify and critically to provide comprehensive services to nearly 500 trafficking victims. When Central Valley law enforcement took down a trafficking ring last year, the ring leader and two of his associates were arrested and prosecuted, and approximately 50 victims were rescued, including 23 children. These victims were all provided with wraparound services, and the ring leader was sentenced to 40 years in prison. This is the kind of coordinated, victim centered work we need to support and replicate nationwide. The Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017 aims to do that. I have now met with law enforcement, service providers and survivors representing Southern, Central and Northern California. All have made one thing abundantly clear: lawmakers at all levels of government must commit whatever time and resources are needed to thwart this horrendous crime. Over the past two decades, Congress has taken action to combat human trafficking. We passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and, 8 years later, passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. And two years ago, Congress passed the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act--a landmark piece of legislation. The law focuses on reducing demand, rescuing victims, educating law enforcement and judges, and making sure that trafficking enterprises are put out of business. But it is clear that our work is far from done. The human trafficking industry continues to be one of the biggest criminal enterprises in the world and it is constantly evolving. The use of the internet to sell children for sex has escalated dramatically over the past several years. In my home State, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and her pioneering anti-trafficking team identified 47,719 internet users looking to purchase sex in Alameda County alone during a single month. Many of the victims posted on these sites are underage. In one survivor study, a staggering 75% of minor sex trafficking victims reported being bought or sold online. And last year, the Washington Post reported devastating accounts about human trafficking is also committed by Islamic State fighters, who sell young girls over platforms such as Facebook. The bill that Senator Grassley and I have introduced includes a provision that would give to law enforcement an additional tool to prevent human traffickers from accessing the internet and other tech platforms to sell minors for commercial sex. Under current current law, it is a criminal offense to advertise commercial sex acts with a minor. This legislation would add civil injunction authority to the criminal provision, providing the Department of Justice with a more readily accessible tool to deny human traffickers access to tech platforms to commit trafficking crimes. The bill also supports and strengthens efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to human trafficking crimes. It allows school resource officers at schools to train school personnel to recognize and respond to signs of child sex trafficking. This is important because kids are often recruited at schools. In one heartbreaking case in Oakland, California, a 12-year-old student with top grades suddenly changed her normal behavior. She stopped completing her assignments, became withdrawn, and began wearing provocative clothing. Eventually, she stopped going to school altogether. Her parents contacted the school looking for her, but no one was able to locate her. She was discovered 24 hours later on an online sex advertisement based out of Los Angeles. This 12-year-old girl had been groomed by a trafficker--but no one was able to recognize the signs of exploitation. Teachers and school personnel interact with these kids every day. They are critical in recognizing which kids are at risk or are about to become exploited. We need to be sure that they are familiar with the patterns and practices of human traffickers, and know how to identify and respond to suspected victims. In addition to working with Chairman Grassley on the reauthorization bill, I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar's Abolish Human Trafficking Act of 2017. One of the most important provisions of this bill is the mandatory designation of at least one Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator in each United States Attorney's Office. This is critical to ensure that our judicial system treats human trafficking offenses with the seriousness they deserve. Among other responsibilities, this Coordinator will be responsible for assisting in the prosecution of human trafficking cases. This includes the prosecution of those who solicit minors for commercial sex, a change in the law that was enacted in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. In 2015, former United States Attorney Eileen Decker conducted one of the first federal prosecutions of a buyer under this new statute. The buyer, a 59-year-old man from Torrance, admitted to lying to federal prosecutors about his conduct with a 16-year-old girl he met online and hired for commercial sex acts. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Former United States Attorney Decker remarked that this case should serve as a warning to adults who engage in this type of criminal conduct. It is critical that such prosecutions continue. Stemming the abuse and exploitation of trafficking requires confronting not only the predatory suppliers, but also those who solicit young girls for commercial sex. The designation of a Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator would ensure that those who violate human trafficking offenses, both buyers and sellers, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Human Justice Trafficking Coordinator would also be responsible for ensuring the collection of restitution for victims. Restitution for trafficking victims is mandatory under federal law. Moreover, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act requires the Justice Department to train prosecutors to seek restitution for trafficking victims, regardless of whether the victim requests restitution. Yet, we continue to see our judicial system failing to do right by victims. In a 2015 law review article, the Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center reported on the appallingly low rates of restitution orders in human trafficking prosecutions. In a study of federal human trafficking cases brought over a four period, federal courts failed to order restitution in nearly two-thirds of cases involving sex trafficking offenses. And shockingly, they found that the victims least likely to obtain restitution orders were children trafficked in the sex industry. Less than one in three defendants who commit sex trafficking offenses against children were ordered to pay restitution to their victims. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, even if restitution is ordered against a trafficker, restitution itself is not being effectively collected. In response the requests from the Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General included restitution order and collection data in the Department of Justice's report on trafficking for fiscal year 2015. Of the $4,268,358 ordered in restitution in 2015, only $987 was collected. While we may not expect to see full restitution collected in the year it is ordered, it is shocking that the total restitution collected is less than 1% of what was ordered. That is why we have tried to include additional restitution provisions in the bill to better support victims. For example, there is an additional provision in the bill to update the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015, a bill that I authored with Senator Portman. That bill mandated extensive training on restitution for prosecutors and judges. It is our hope that with these updates--and with the recent enactment of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 to make sure that prosecutors are held accountable in seeking restitution-- victims will be better supported going forward. I am hopeful that we will be able to pass these bipartisan bills this Congress. I urge my colleagues in this body to support the passage of this important, comprehensive legislation to protect trafficking victims.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone Federalism Act of 2017. This good government bill provides a clear legal framework to the modern day challenges of drone regulation and empowers every level of government to issue reasonable restrictions on drone operations. I thank Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton for joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Tillis, and Ernst. Cannabidiol, or CBD, is a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana. In many instances parents, after exhausting other treatment options, have turned to CBD to as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results. However, due to existing barriers and the fact that marijuana is a schedule I drug, rigorous research that is needed to better understand the long-term safety and efficacy of CBD as a medicine, as well as the correct dosing and potential interaction with other medications, is lacking. The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to both reduce these barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date scientific evidence. It also provides a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research. It does this while maintaining safeguards to protect against illegal diversion. First, the bill directs the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to complete a scientific and medical evaluation of CBD within 1 year. Based on this evaluation, the legislation directs the Department of Justice to make a scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana. This may include transferring the schedule of CBD to another schedule, or removing it from the list of controlled substances altogether. A scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana has never been done before. Second, without sacrificing appropriate oversight, it streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. In particular, it improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. It also expedites the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process for researching CBD and marijuana. Third, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD, while simultaneously reducing the stigma associated with conducting research on a schedule I drug. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to use a schedule II Drug Enforcement Administration registration to conduct authorized medical research on CBD. Fourth, the bill allows medical schools, research institutions, practitioners, and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for authorized medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Once the FDA approves these medications, the bill allows pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and distribute them. Fifth, the bill allows parents who have children with intractable epilepsy, as well as adults with intractable epilepsy, to possess and transport CBD or other nonpsychoactive components of marijuana used to treat this disease while research is ongoing. To do so, parents and adults must provide documentation that they or their child have been treated by a board-certified neurologist for at least 6 months. They must also have documentation that the neurologist has attested that other treatment options have been exhausted and that the potential benefits outweigh the harms of using these nonpsychoactive components of marijuana. The neurologist must also agree to monitor the patient for potential adverse reactions. Finally, because existing Federal research is severely lacking, the bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to expand, intensify, and coordinate research to determine the potential medical benefits of CBD or other marijuana-derived medications on serious medical conditions. The 2016 National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research'' underscored the need to reduce research barriers, increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research purposes, and address existing research gaps. The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to do just this. This bill is critical to helping families across the country as they seek safe, effective medicines for serious illnesses. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone Federalism Act of 2017. This good government bill provides a clear legal framework to the modern day challenges of drone regulation and empowers every level of government to issue reasonable restrictions on drone operations. I thank Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton for joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Tillis, and Ernst. Cannabidiol, or CBD, is a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana. In many instances parents, after exhausting other treatment options, have turned to CBD to as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results. However, due to existing barriers and the fact that marijuana is a schedule I drug, rigorous research that is needed to better understand the long-term safety and efficacy of CBD as a medicine, as well as the correct dosing and potential interaction with other medications, is lacking. The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to both reduce these barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date scientific evidence. It also provides a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research. It does this while maintaining safeguards to protect against illegal diversion. First, the bill directs the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to complete a scientific and medical evaluation of CBD within 1 year. Based on this evaluation, the legislation directs the Department of Justice to make a scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana. This may include transferring the schedule of CBD to another schedule, or removing it from the list of controlled substances altogether. A scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana has never been done before. Second, without sacrificing appropriate oversight, it streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. In particular, it improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. It also expedites the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process for researching CBD and marijuana. Third, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD, while simultaneously reducing the stigma associated with conducting research on a schedule I drug. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to use a schedule II Drug Enforcement Administration registration to conduct authorized medical research on CBD. Fourth, the bill allows medical schools, research institutions, practitioners, and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for authorized medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Once the FDA approves these medications, the bill allows pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and distribute them. Fifth, the bill allows parents who have children with intractable epilepsy, as well as adults with intractable epilepsy, to possess and transport CBD or other nonpsychoactive components of marijuana used to treat this disease while research is ongoing. To do so, parents and adults must provide documentation that they or their child have been treated by a board-certified neurologist for at least 6 months. They must also have documentation that the neurologist has attested that other treatment options have been exhausted and that the potential benefits outweigh the harms of using these nonpsychoactive components of marijuana. The neurologist must also agree to monitor the patient for potential adverse reactions. Finally, because existing Federal research is severely lacking, the bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to expand, intensify, and coordinate research to determine the potential medical benefits of CBD or other marijuana-derived medications on serious medical conditions. The 2016 National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research'' underscored the need to reduce research barriers, increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research purposes, and address existing research gaps. The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to do just this. This bill is critical to helping families across the country as they seek safe, effective medicines for serious illnesses. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017: At this time, I would also like to thank Senators Blumenthal, Gillibrand, and Markey for cosponsoring this legislation. Their support is sincerely appreciated. Yesterday marked the 3rd anniversary of the horrific shooting that outraged the community of Isla Vista, California and the Nation. During this attack, the City of Isla Vista was struck by tragedy when 22-year- old Elliot Rodger went on a shooting rampage after fatally stabbing his two roommates and a friend. Armed with a Glock 34 handgun and two SIG Sauer P226 handguns, the assailant drove through the streets of Isla Vista, shooting and killing 3 young students and injuring 14 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus before taking his own life. The Isla Vista community was in shock, and we as a nation struggled to comprehend how this tragedy could have been prevented. As more facts emerged about the assailant, we learned that he had a history of mental health concerns and violent behavior. He had been prescribed medications used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and at age 18 Rodgers had begun to refuse the mental health treatment he had been receiving. Local deputies had also encountered him several times through conflicts and fights he had with friends and roommates. And less than a month before his deadly rampage, a concerned friend had called a county mental health staff member, and, after speaking with the assailant's mother, law enforcement conducted a welfare check at Rodger's apartment. At that point, Rodger's murderous plot was well underway, and had the police searched his room, they would have found a stockpile of guns and ammunition along with papers detailing his plans to kill. This individual should have never been able to obtain a firearm--and the bill I am introducing today would enable law enforcement and family members to intervene and prevent attackers like this assailant from carrying out atrocious acts of gun violence in the future. Over 30,000 people die each year from gun violence, and on average, 7 children and teens are killed by guns every day. We know that families and friends are in the best position to recognize early signs of trouble before tragedy occurs. However, family members and law enforcement officials commonly have no legal means of taking preventive steps to stop a troubled individual from committing an act of gun violence before it occurs. To solve this problem, the State of California enacted a law in the aftermath of the Isla Vista attack that enables family members or law enforcement officers to ask a court for a gun violence prevention order. Modeled on California's existing laws on domestic violence, when a judge believes there is sufficient evidence that an individual is a danger to themselves or others, the gun violence prevention order temporarily prohibits an individual from purchasing firearms or ammunition. And under a higher burden of proof, a court can also issue a warrant to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession. Based on this California law and other State laws, the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 would create a new law enforcement grant under the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program at the Department of Justice and incentivize States to take intervening measures to prevent gun violence. Specifically, this legislation would ensure that families and others can seek a gun violence prevention order from a court to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a threat to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. This legislation also ensures that a court can issue a gun violence prevention warrant requiring law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if the court determines that the individual poses a threat. Because criminal background checks are critical to preventing gun crimes, this legislation also requires the Department of Justice and comparable state law enforcement agencies to keep their background check databases up to date and requires courts to notify these agencies when a gun violence prevention order is issued. Importantly, this legislation also protects due process rights by providing written notice and multiple opportunities for the court to make independent determinations on the matter. Additionally, the Department of Justice and State law enforcement agencies would be required to protect the affected individual's confidentiality. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the victims and survivors of the Isla Vista attack and what this legislation means to their community. Many of the victims and survivors of this attack were students and young adults. They had their whole lives ahead of them. As communities across California and our Nation mark the third anniversary of this terrible tragedy, let us remember the lives of Weihan Wang, Cheng Yuan Hong, George Chen, Veronika Weiss, Katherine Cooper, and Christopher Michaels-Martinez. The families of these victims will never be the same again, and I will never forget hearing their stories in the aftermath of this attack. As a mother and grandmother, I cannot imagine the pain they have gone through. As the elected leaders of this body, we must never forget what happened in Isla Vista and take steps to keep our communities safe from the gun violence that continues to endanger them. We have seen the costs of inaction, and the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 is a step we can take to protect communities across America and ensure that other communities do not experience the pain that Isla Vista went through. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering the victims of this attack and supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017: At this time, I would also like to thank Senators Blumenthal, Gillibrand, and Markey for cosponsoring this legislation. Their support is sincerely appreciated. Yesterday marked the 3rd anniversary of the horrific shooting that outraged the community of Isla Vista, California and the Nation. During this attack, the City of Isla Vista was struck by tragedy when 22-year- old Elliot Rodger went on a shooting rampage after fatally stabbing his two roommates and a friend. Armed with a Glock 34 handgun and two SIG Sauer P226 handguns, the assailant drove through the streets of Isla Vista, shooting and killing 3 young students and injuring 14 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus before taking his own life. The Isla Vista community was in shock, and we as a nation struggled to comprehend how this tragedy could have been prevented. As more facts emerged about the assailant, we learned that he had a history of mental health concerns and violent behavior. He had been prescribed medications used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and at age 18 Rodgers had begun to refuse the mental health treatment he had been receiving. Local deputies had also encountered him several times through conflicts and fights he had with friends and roommates. And less than a month before his deadly rampage, a concerned friend had called a county mental health staff member, and, after speaking with the assailant's mother, law enforcement conducted a welfare check at Rodger's apartment. At that point, Rodger's murderous plot was well underway, and had the police searched his room, they would have found a stockpile of guns and ammunition along with papers detailing his plans to kill. This individual should have never been able to obtain a firearm--and the bill I am introducing today would enable law enforcement and family members to intervene and prevent attackers like this assailant from carrying out atrocious acts of gun violence in the future. Over 30,000 people die each year from gun violence, and on average, 7 children and teens are killed by guns every day. We know that families and friends are in the best position to recognize early signs of trouble before tragedy occurs. However, family members and law enforcement officials commonly have no legal means of taking preventive steps to stop a troubled individual from committing an act of gun violence before it occurs. To solve this problem, the State of California enacted a law in the aftermath of the Isla Vista attack that enables family members or law enforcement officers to ask a court for a gun violence prevention order. Modeled on California's existing laws on domestic violence, when a judge believes there is sufficient evidence that an individual is a danger to themselves or others, the gun violence prevention order temporarily prohibits an individual from purchasing firearms or ammunition. And under a higher burden of proof, a court can also issue a warrant to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession. Based on this California law and other State laws, the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 would create a new law enforcement grant under the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program at the Department of Justice and incentivize States to take intervening measures to prevent gun violence. Specifically, this legislation would ensure that families and others can seek a gun violence prevention order from a court to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a threat to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. This legislation also ensures that a court can issue a gun violence prevention warrant requiring law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if the court determines that the individual poses a threat. Because criminal background checks are critical to preventing gun crimes, this legislation also requires the Department of Justice and comparable state law enforcement agencies to keep their background check databases up to date and requires courts to notify these agencies when a gun violence prevention order is issued. Importantly, this legislation also protects due process rights by providing written notice and multiple opportunities for the court to make independent determinations on the matter. Additionally, the Department of Justice and State law enforcement agencies would be required to protect the affected individual's confidentiality. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the victims and survivors of the Isla Vista attack and what this legislation means to their community. Many of the victims and survivors of this attack were students and young adults. They had their whole lives ahead of them. As communities across California and our Nation mark the third anniversary of this terrible tragedy, let us remember the lives of Weihan Wang, Cheng Yuan Hong, George Chen, Veronika Weiss, Katherine Cooper, and Christopher Michaels-Martinez. The families of these victims will never be the same again, and I will never forget hearing their stories in the aftermath of this attack. As a mother and grandmother, I cannot imagine the pain they have gone through. As the elected leaders of this body, we must never forget what happened in Isla Vista and take steps to keep our communities safe from the gun violence that continues to endanger them. We have seen the costs of inaction, and the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 is a step we can take to protect communities across America and ensure that other communities do not experience the pain that Isla Vista went through. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering the victims of this attack and supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the safety oversight of products that affect every single family on a daily basis. Whether it's shampoo or shaving cream, lotion or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, personal care products are a part of our everyday lives. I thank Senator Collins for her support and hard work on this important legislation. However, even though our bodies absorb many chemicals in these products through our skin and even our nails, their ingredients are largely unregulated. It's time to modernize our safety oversight and correct this problem. Most people assume these products have up-to-date federal oversight, but in reality the Food and Drug Administration's authority to do so is sorely outdated--in fact, it's based on a law from the 1930s that has changed little over the past eight decades. There are questions about the safety of some ingredients in these products, which not only leads to health concerns but also causes uncertainty for companies working to innovate and expand domestically. Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer groups. Those stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and Drug Administration. Together, we have drafted bipartisan legislation that puts commonsense measures in place and has the support of both industry and consumer and health organizations. The Personal Care Products Safety Act sets up a process for reviewing the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The bill requires manufacturers to register so consumers know who produces personal care products sold in the United States. The legislation also modernizes authority for the Food and Drug Administration so the agency is better equipped to deal with public health concerns, such as being able to recall contaminated products if companies choose not to do so voluntarily. The updated system is completely paid for by industry fees. Companies will provide information about the ingredients in their products to the Food and Drug Administration, and attest to their safety. Many companies manufacturing in the United States currently follow strict voluntary standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the lack of federal standards leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, the agency sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies meet minimum requirements. Companies will also need to report adverse health events related to their products to the Food and Drug Administration. Last year, we heard about WEN shampoo, a product that was causing significant hair loss. Among those affected were children, including a little girl named Eliana who lost all of her hair after using WEN. She shared her story with my office and several of my colleagues. What's shocking is that the company received more than 20,000 reports of this happening, but under current law WEN had no legal obligation to tell the Food and Drug Administration. Under this legislation, companies would be required to do so. Another example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also called methylene glycol when mixed with water, in the popular hair treatment called a Brazilian blowout. Formaldehyde is released into the air during this beauty treatment. It can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Over the long-term, formaldehyde has been linked to cancer. I am also greatly concerned about the effect on the health of salon professionals who are constantly exposed to a variety of chemicals daily. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be exposed to, this legislation also ensures that the salon products they use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings. The Food and Drug Administration will be required to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the likely exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public comments. Public input will be critical to the review process. There will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on, not only the safety of particular ingredients but also, which ingredients should be a priority for review. After review, the Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting. The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the federal oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the market. We have worked closely with small businesses to ensure that the legislation recognizes their needs and supports their growth. This legislation incorporates changes to increase flexibility for small businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. The bill recognizes the unique nature of the handmade cosmetic industry and meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation. I am pleased that the major organizations representing these small businesses (Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild), have said that the provisions within this legislation ``afford producers in the handmade cosmetic industry the opportunity to continue to innovate, grow, create jobs and produce safe, quality handmade products in communities across the nation.'' I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Au Naturale, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Herban Lifestyle, The Honest Company, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Babo Botanicals, Goddess Garden Organics, Caregiver Action Network, March of Dimes, EO Products, Eclair Naturals, Juice Beauty, National Psoriasis Foundation, and the following major companies that together represent over 99 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson and Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, and L'Oreal. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join with my colleagues in introducing a rescission bill to nullify President Trump's Executive Order 13798, titled ``Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.'' Unfortunately, this Executive Order does not live up to its title. Instead, it furthers the aim of this administration to diminish critical protections for women, minorities, and LGBT Americans. I am deeply troubled by Section 3 of the Order, which paves the way for the Trump administration to roll back protections to preventive health services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), especially for women and LGBT individuals. Through new regulations issued pursuant to this Order, companies could use ``conscience-based'' objections to deny their employees coverage for preventive services that they have a right to under the ACA. This means that because of their employers' moral objection, women could lose access to contraception, and those in the LGBT community could lose access to essential services, including cancer screenings or counseling for domestic violence. I respect that we all have religious and moral convictions, but it is wrong to put employers' religious views above individuals' rights to access basic health care. I also note that this section of the Order invites members of the President's Cabinet to eliminate an accommodation President Obama administration made allowing religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, including large universities and hospital systems, to opt out of providing their employees with contraception coverage based on religious objections. Importantly, women working for objecting employers can receive contraception coverage directly through their insurance companies. Seven federal courts of appeals have upheld this accommodation in the face of religiously based challenges. But with this Order, the President signals that his administration is likely to do away with the accommodation, which would deny contraception access to women whose bosses want to make this important and intimate decision for them. The Order also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to all agencies on ``religious liberty protections in Federal law.'' This language is concerning as it opens the door for the Attorney General to eliminate protections in federal rules and regulations for LGBT individuals and minorities. The Attorney General's duty is to enforce and protect the civil rights and constitutional freedoms of all Americans. This Order's direction for guidance that could change the implementation of critical rules affording equal treatment for all in America is a disturbing step backward. For example, there are rules protecting same-sex spouses' ability to visit their partners in the hospital and ensuring that LGBT individuals have equal access to federally funded emergency housing. Under this provision, however, new religious exemptions may be implemented to weaken these protections. Shelters could turn LGBT families away because of who they love. As the Human Rights Campaign has described, this provision opens the door to a ``license to discriminate'' even where basic services funded with government dollars are at stake. This Executive Order opens the door to weakening the enforcement of longstanding tax laws against individuals, houses of worship, and other religious organizations engaging in political campaign speech. Notably, the Johnson Amendment was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and is part of our tax code. It prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity on behalf of candidates. The Johnson Amendment does not bar nonpartisan voter education and registration activities, which are important to a strong democracy, nor does it prohibit speech on moral issues. The President has promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Doing so could have a significant impact on political campaign fundraising and would change the current tax consideration for certain political contributions. While repeal of the Johnson Amendment is something only Congress has the power to do, this Executive Order clearly indicates the administration's intention to undermine the separation between tax-exempt charities and religious organizations and political campaign activity in the tax code. It remains to be seen whether the President and the administration will implement this Order in ways that will realize our worst fears about the kind of discrimination it could enable. But we know for certain that this Order represents a disturbing statement of principles and values. Instead of seeking even greater protections from discrimination, this administration has set the stage to undermine protections, especially for women and LGBT individuals. That is not what our country stands for. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill I am introducing today to nullify this troubling Executive Order. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the safety oversight of products that affect every single family on a daily basis. Whether it's shampoo or shaving cream, lotion or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, personal care products are a part of our everyday lives. I thank Senator Collins for her support and hard work on this important legislation. However, even though our bodies absorb many chemicals in these products through our skin and even our nails, their ingredients are largely unregulated. It's time to modernize our safety oversight and correct this problem. Most people assume these products have up-to-date federal oversight, but in reality the Food and Drug Administration's authority to do so is sorely outdated--in fact, it's based on a law from the 1930s that has changed little over the past eight decades. There are questions about the safety of some ingredients in these products, which not only leads to health concerns but also causes uncertainty for companies working to innovate and expand domestically. Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer groups. Those stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and Drug Administration. Together, we have drafted bipartisan legislation that puts commonsense measures in place and has the support of both industry and consumer and health organizations. The Personal Care Products Safety Act sets up a process for reviewing the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The bill requires manufacturers to register so consumers know who produces personal care products sold in the United States. The legislation also modernizes authority for the Food and Drug Administration so the agency is better equipped to deal with public health concerns, such as being able to recall contaminated products if companies choose not to do so voluntarily. The updated system is completely paid for by industry fees. Companies will provide information about the ingredients in their products to the Food and Drug Administration, and attest to their safety. Many companies manufacturing in the United States currently follow strict voluntary standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the lack of federal standards leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, the agency sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies meet minimum requirements. Companies will also need to report adverse health events related to their products to the Food and Drug Administration. Last year, we heard about WEN shampoo, a product that was causing significant hair loss. Among those affected were children, including a little girl named Eliana who lost all of her hair after using WEN. She shared her story with my office and several of my colleagues. What's shocking is that the company received more than 20,000 reports of this happening, but under current law WEN had no legal obligation to tell the Food and Drug Administration. Under this legislation, companies would be required to do so. Another example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also called methylene glycol when mixed with water, in the popular hair treatment called a Brazilian blowout. Formaldehyde is released into the air during this beauty treatment. It can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Over the long-term, formaldehyde has been linked to cancer. I am also greatly concerned about the effect on the health of salon professionals who are constantly exposed to a variety of chemicals daily. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be exposed to, this legislation also ensures that the salon products they use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings. The Food and Drug Administration will be required to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the likely exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public comments. Public input will be critical to the review process. There will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on, not only the safety of particular ingredients but also, which ingredients should be a priority for review. After review, the Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting. The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the federal oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the market. We have worked closely with small businesses to ensure that the legislation recognizes their needs and supports their growth. This legislation incorporates changes to increase flexibility for small businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. The bill recognizes the unique nature of the handmade cosmetic industry and meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation. I am pleased that the major organizations representing these small businesses (Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild), have said that the provisions within this legislation ``afford producers in the handmade cosmetic industry the opportunity to continue to innovate, grow, create jobs and produce safe, quality handmade products in communities across the nation.'' I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Au Naturale, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Herban Lifestyle, The Honest Company, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Babo Botanicals, Goddess Garden Organics, Caregiver Action Network, March of Dimes, EO Products, Eclair Naturals, Juice Beauty, National Psoriasis Foundation, and the following major companies that together represent over 99 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson and Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, and L'Oreal. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join with my colleagues in introducing a rescission bill to nullify President Trump's Executive Order 13798, titled ``Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.'' Unfortunately, this Executive Order does not live up to its title. Instead, it furthers the aim of this administration to diminish critical protections for women, minorities, and LGBT Americans. I am deeply troubled by Section 3 of the Order, which paves the way for the Trump administration to roll back protections to preventive health services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), especially for women and LGBT individuals. Through new regulations issued pursuant to this Order, companies could use ``conscience-based'' objections to deny their employees coverage for preventive services that they have a right to under the ACA. This means that because of their employers' moral objection, women could lose access to contraception, and those in the LGBT community could lose access to essential services, including cancer screenings or counseling for domestic violence. I respect that we all have religious and moral convictions, but it is wrong to put employers' religious views above individuals' rights to access basic health care. I also note that this section of the Order invites members of the President's Cabinet to eliminate an accommodation President Obama administration made allowing religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, including large universities and hospital systems, to opt out of providing their employees with contraception coverage based on religious objections. Importantly, women working for objecting employers can receive contraception coverage directly through their insurance companies. Seven federal courts of appeals have upheld this accommodation in the face of religiously based challenges. But with this Order, the President signals that his administration is likely to do away with the accommodation, which would deny contraception access to women whose bosses want to make this important and intimate decision for them. The Order also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to all agencies on ``religious liberty protections in Federal law.'' This language is concerning as it opens the door for the Attorney General to eliminate protections in federal rules and regulations for LGBT individuals and minorities. The Attorney General's duty is to enforce and protect the civil rights and constitutional freedoms of all Americans. This Order's direction for guidance that could change the implementation of critical rules affording equal treatment for all in America is a disturbing step backward. For example, there are rules protecting same-sex spouses' ability to visit their partners in the hospital and ensuring that LGBT individuals have equal access to federally funded emergency housing. Under this provision, however, new religious exemptions may be implemented to weaken these protections. Shelters could turn LGBT families away because of who they love. As the Human Rights Campaign has described, this provision opens the door to a ``license to discriminate'' even where basic services funded with government dollars are at stake. This Executive Order opens the door to weakening the enforcement of longstanding tax laws against individuals, houses of worship, and other religious organizations engaging in political campaign speech. Notably, the Johnson Amendment was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and is part of our tax code. It prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity on behalf of candidates. The Johnson Amendment does not bar nonpartisan voter education and registration activities, which are important to a strong democracy, nor does it prohibit speech on moral issues. The President has promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Doing so could have a significant impact on political campaign fundraising and would change the current tax consideration for certain political contributions. While repeal of the Johnson Amendment is something only Congress has the power to do, this Executive Order clearly indicates the administration's intention to undermine the separation between tax-exempt charities and religious organizations and political campaign activity in the tax code. It remains to be seen whether the President and the administration will implement this Order in ways that will realize our worst fears about the kind of discrimination it could enable. But we know for certain that this Order represents a disturbing statement of principles and values. Instead of seeking even greater protections from discrimination, this administration has set the stage to undermine protections, especially for women and LGBT individuals. That is not what our country stands for. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill I am introducing today to nullify this troubling Executive Order. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to express my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 66. This resolution would overturn a rule issued by the Department of Labor that is essential to providing increased access to retirement savings programs. Among all working families in America ages 32 to 61, the median family in America had only $5,000 saved in 2013. This indicates to me that we are clearly facing a retirement savings crisis. In California, 7.5 million workers don't have access to a retirement savings plan through their jobs, including 3.4 million women. Of those without a workplace retirement savings plan, almost 5 million are individuals of Color and over 3.5 million are Latino. The good news is that, when a person has access to a retirement savings program through their workplace, they are 15 times more likely to save for retirement. In California, legislators have been working for more than 4 years to create the Secure Choice program as a way of addressing the retirement crisis we face. This program allows workers to easily save for retirement through a deduction made directly from their paycheck. Those who need access to a workplace retirement program the most, individuals with lower incomes, are far less likely to have that access. These are the people who stand to gain the most from the Secure Choice program and lose the most by Congress halting its progress. Let me share some examples of the people who would be impacted. Most eligible employees work for small businesses that might not be able to offer retirement savings plans on their own. Nearly half of eligible workers work in the retail, hospitality, healthcare, and manufacturing industries. This program supports lower and middle-class workers by providing access to the tools they need to control their financial future. The average wage of workers eligible for this program is $35,000, and 80 percent of eligible workers earn less than $50,000. We are in a time of deep income inequality and must stand up for programs that support the middle class, like Secure Choice. Nationwide, the bottom 90 percent of households have seen their income drop compared to what it was in 1970. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent has seen their household income triple. As workers struggle to make ends meet, it is appalling to me that Congress would actively take away a key resource for financial planning. Californians want to ensure that all employees have access to a retirement savings program. The Department of Labor's rule clears the way for California to set up programs like Secure Choice by clarifying employers' obligations to the accounts. This rule would also help small businesses compete for qualified workers who expect and deserve access to a workplace retirement savings program. Small Business California supports the Department of Labor's rule paving the way for these programs, and opposes this resolution. Finally, in California, our State chapter of the Chamber of Commerce specifically asked for an opinion from the Department of Labor on employer obligations. Once the Department of Labor's rule was issued, CalChamber no longer opposed the California bill. In fact, the legislation that passed in California requires the State board to report a finalized rule from the Department of Labor. Overturning the Department of Labor's rule ignores the effort and care taken in California to craft a program that works for both employees and employers. Nationally, almost half of working-age households do not have retirement savings accounts, and 55 million people don't have access to a workplace retirement plan. This is shocking. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the median retirement account savings for families ages 56 to 61 was only $17,000 in 2013. This is only slightly higher than the 2016 poverty threshold for a household of two people aged 65 and older. It is inconceivable that a family could afford to finance their retirement with only $17,000 in savings. Supporting retirement savings is not a partisan issue. In fact a bipartisan group of State treasurers oppose this resolution, as does the National Conference of State Legislatures. We are facing a retirement savings crisis in our country, and the Department of Labor's rule is a commonsense guideline that makes it easier for individuals to save for retirement. I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for American workers and support their access to retirement savings programs by opposing this resolution. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to introduce a Senate resolution to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest. On March 3, 1991, an African American named Rodney King was driving on a Los Angeles interstate when officers attempted to pull him over for allegedly speeding. By the time he pulled over and exited his car following a high-speed chase spanning 8 miles, there were multiple LA police department units on the scene. King was tasered two times, and camcorder video footage recorded by a civilian witness--George Holliday--from his nearby apartment balcony depicted the brutal beating of King by four officers who surrounded him. The officers struck King repeatedly until he was bloodied and disfigured with a fractured cheekbone, 11 broken bones at the base of the skull, and a broken ankle. The video footage shows King being struck by batons over 50 times, Holliday's video was sent to news outlets and aired around the world. It shook the Nation and raised outcries about excessive force by police officers. But even before the videotape had become public, community leaders in Los Angeles had highlighted on numerous occasions the use of excessive force by LAPD officers. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the Rodney King beating, then- Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley formed the Christopher Commission to thoroughly examine thousands of excessive force complaints made against LAPD officers in the late 1980s. So when--a year later on April 29, 1992--the four LAPD officers caught on tape were acquitted after standing trial for using excessive force against Rodney King, the entire Nation was in shock. The verdict appeared completely incompatible with the brutal videotape footage that flooded our TV screens at the time. When the verdict became public, hundreds gathered at the Los Angeles County Courthouse to protest, and a national debate immediately began over racial injustice and excessive use of force by police against racial minorities. Shortly thereafter, at the intersection of Florence and Normandie in South Central Los Angeles, the public's frustration boiled over and violence erupted, setting off a flash point that the police simply could not quell. Looting, vandalism, and physical attacks became rampant, and I will never forget the image of Reginald Denny being dragged out of his semi-trailer truck to be severely beaten in the middle of the street. From then on, the unrest overtook the city, including neighborhoods like Koreatown, Hawthorne, Compton and Long Beach. The city, quite literally, was on fire. For 6 days, the city was in a state of emergency. All told, there were more than 60 individuals who lost their lives amid the looting and fires, and thousands of individuals were injured or arrested, while countless more lost their businesses and places of employment. Over 3,600 fires were set and over 1,100 buildings in Los Angeles were damaged or destroyed. Images of the smoke clouds over the city evoked the devastation felt by so many Angelenos. The 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest was felt so deeply and so personally by so many communities throughout the city. The African American community decried not only the verdict returned against Rodney King but also mourned the death of high-schooler Latasha Harlins and so many other victims of violence and excessive use of force. The civil unrest was symptomatic of the deep frustrations felt by the African-American community against a criminal justice system that continually failed to protect them. Similarly, the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest was sharply felt by the Latino community in Los Angeles. According to one report following the unrest, one-third of those killed and half of those arrested were Latino, and countless Latino businesses were looted or destroyed. The Korean-American community in Los Angeles was also deeply impacted, referring to the unrest as ``Sa-I-Gu,'' to commemorate the date ``April 29'' in Korean to mark it as a significant date in Korean history. Amidst the torched and decimated businesses, 35 to 40 percent of the property damage was suffered by those businesses owned by Korean-Americans--with estimates of up to 1,600 Korean-American-owned stores completely destroyed. There is no question that those fateful 6 days have impacted generations of Angelenos. We must resolve to never forget the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest and what emerged from those fires. We must offer our condolences for the families who lost their loved ones or who bear the scars, both mental and physical, from that time and commend those who have worked so hard to come together to heal community rifts, rebuild a stronger Los Angeles, and continue to promote ongoing dialogue, civility, and unity among all communities. That is the purpose of this resolution we are introducing today. I want to thank Senator Harris for working with me on the resolution to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of this historic event in California. I yield the Floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to oppose the nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. I did not come to this decision lightly, but, after closely examining Mr. Acosta's record, I cannot in good conscience vote for his confirmation to be Labor Secretary on behalf of the American people. The most troubling part of Mr. Acosta's record is how he handled a 2007 sex trafficking case that he oversaw while serving as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. In that case, which left many vulnerable victims devastated when it concluded, Mr. Acosta failed to protect underage crime victims who looked to his office to vindicate their rights against billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. The case, led by Mr. Acosta's office and the FBI, involved an investigation of Mr. Epstein for his sexual abuse and exploitation of more than 30 underage girls. It ended with an agreement, negotiated by Mr. Acosta's office, in which Mr. Acosta agreed not to bring Federal charges, including sex trafficking charges, against Mr. Epstein in exchange for his guilty plea to State charges and registration as a sex offender. Thanks to this agreement, Mr. Epstein served a mere 13 months of jail time and avoided serious Federal charges that would have exposed him to lengthy prison sentences. What troubles me about this case is not just the leniency with which Mr. Epstein was treated, but how the victims themselves were treated. In 2004, I authored the Crime Victims' Rights Act with then-Senator Kyl because we both saw that victims and their families were too frequently ``ignored, cast aside, and treated as nonparticipants in a critical event in their lives.'' I strongly believe victims have a right to be heard throughout criminal case proceedings. My concern with how Mr. Acosta handled this case stems from his office's obligations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The victims have asserted that Mr. Acosta's office did not provide them with notice of the agreement before it was finalized, nor were they provided with timely notice of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea and sentencing hearings. Worse, throughout the process, the victims were denied the reasonable right to confer with the prosecutors; this flies in the face of the Crime Victims' Rights Act we authored. I am very concerned that Mr. Acosta's office did not treat the victims ``with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy'' as required by law. Rather, according to the victims, Mr. Acosta's office ``deliberately kept [them] `in the dark' so that it could enter the deal'' without hearing objections. These allegations raise serious concerns. From his position of immense power and responsibility, Mr. Acosta failed, and the consequences were devastating. Another deeply troubling aspect of Mr. Acosta's record comes from his tenure when he led the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division from August 2003 to June 2005. According to the Justice Department's inspector general, that office repeatedly used political or ideological tests to hire career civil servants in violation of federal law. During his confirmation hearing before the HELP Committee, Mr. Acosta himself admitted that discriminatory actions were taken under his supervision and that they should not have happened. At a time when the public's faith in government institutions is eroding on a daily basis, Mr. Acosta's handling of these high-profile incidents lead me to question his ability to carry out the duties of Labor Secretary with fairness and impartiality. This doubt is further compounded by statements that Mr. Acosta made during his hearing regarding whether he will exercise independence in upholding and enforcing certain rules and regulations, such as the fiduciary rule and overtime rule to protect workers. In response to such questions, Mr. Acosta avoided making a commitment to uphold these rules as Secretary of Labor, and I am greatly concerned that he may not look out for the best interests of workers. All of the issues I have outlined here simply do not allow me, in good faith, to vote in favor of Mr. Acosta's nomination. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Brown, Cardin, Durbin, Franken, Klobuchar, Murphy, Murray, Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Udall, and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2017. First and foremost, the legislation would limit the use of cluster munitions by the U.S. Armed Forces. In June 2008, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates signed a memo stating that after 2018 the United States will not use cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent unexploded ordnance rate. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would codify the Gates policy by immediately prohibiting the use of cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent failure rate. Second, this bill would make it clear that the export of U.S.-made cluster munitions must be contingent upon the receiving country not using these weapons inappropriately. Since 2008, the Congress has required that U.S.-made cluster munitions can only be used by the recipient country against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. During the 114th Congress, the Defense Department discovered that several export agreements for U.S. cluster munitions--known as letters of offer and acceptance--failed to mirror congressional restrictions on their use. Specifically, the Pentagon found that letters of offer and acceptance with South Korea and Saudi Arabia were either incomplete or missing. While the Pentagon is attempting to amend the mistake, it is imperative that the Congress make clear that U.S.-made cluster munitions must not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. As a result, the legislation requires export policies and licenses to restrict cluster munition use against clearly defined military targets and not in civilian areas. Today 119 countries have signed or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In fact, four of our closest allies--Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and France--are states parties, legally bound by all of the convention's provisions. The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. The convention also requires the destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, clearance of cluster munition remnants within 10 years, and assistance to victims, including those injured by submunitions. I am disappointed that the United States has not signed the convention but believe we can move toward doing so. This legislation states that it is the sense of Congress that No. 1, the U.S. Government should phase out the use of all cluster munitions as soon as possible; No. 2, any alternatives that the United States develops to replace cluster munitions should be compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions; and No. 3, the United States should accede to the convention as soon as possible. The United States has not widely used cluster munitions since the first weeks of the 2003 Iraq war. Unfortunately, cluster munitions have been used by others around the world with devastating effect on civilians in the past year. According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, since 2012, Syrian government forces have used at least 13 different types of cluster munitions in 360 recorded attacks. Additionally, the United States and the United Kingdom have publicly accused Russia of using these weapons in Syria, including against the moderate opposition. In Yemen, the Saudi-backed coalition has employed cluster munitions against the Houthis. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented at least 19 instances of cluster munitions use in Yemen, including with U.S.-made weapons. The U.S. Defense Department has acknowledged that U.S.-made weapons were employed in Yemen, though the Pentagon has said their use didn't violate export restrictions. Finally, there is evidence that cluster munitions were also used in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and by Kenya in Somalia. According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past 50 years, there have been 20,300 documented cluster munitions deaths in 33 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people. While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians accounted for 97 percent of cluster munition casualties in 2015. Worldwide casualties caused by cluster munitions demonstrate that they are indiscriminate weapons. While U.S.-made cluster munitions reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties when they are used correctly, U.S. ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions would help move the world toward a global ban. This legislation moves the United States toward accession by codifying the Gates policy and encouraging the Pentagon to develop alternatives to cluster munitions that are compliant with the convention. Mr. President, the Congress cannot compel the administration to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions. But, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the ``Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act'' would do exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Brown, Cardin, Durbin, Franken, Klobuchar, Murphy, Murray, Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Udall, and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2017. First and foremost, the legislation would limit the use of cluster munitions by the U.S. Armed Forces. In June 2008, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates signed a memo stating that after 2018 the United States will not use cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent unexploded ordnance rate. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would codify the Gates policy by immediately prohibiting the use of cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent failure rate. Second, this bill would make it clear that the export of U.S.-made cluster munitions must be contingent upon the receiving country not using these weapons inappropriately. Since 2008, the Congress has required that U.S.-made cluster munitions can only be used by the recipient country against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. During the 114th Congress, the Defense Department discovered that several export agreements for U.S. cluster munitions--known as letters of offer and acceptance--failed to mirror congressional restrictions on their use. Specifically, the Pentagon found that letters of offer and acceptance with South Korea and Saudi Arabia were either incomplete or missing. While the Pentagon is attempting to amend the mistake, it is imperative that the Congress make clear that U.S.-made cluster munitions must not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. As a result, the legislation requires export policies and licenses to restrict cluster munition use against clearly defined military targets and not in civilian areas. Today 119 countries have signed or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In fact, four of our closest allies--Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and France--are states parties, legally bound by all of the convention's provisions. The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. The convention also requires the destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, clearance of cluster munition remnants within 10 years, and assistance to victims, including those injured by submunitions. I am disappointed that the United States has not signed the convention but believe we can move toward doing so. This legislation states that it is the sense of Congress that No. 1, the U.S. Government should phase out the use of all cluster munitions as soon as possible; No. 2, any alternatives that the United States develops to replace cluster munitions should be compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions; and No. 3, the United States should accede to the convention as soon as possible. The United States has not widely used cluster munitions since the first weeks of the 2003 Iraq war. Unfortunately, cluster munitions have been used by others around the world with devastating effect on civilians in the past year. According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, since 2012, Syrian government forces have used at least 13 different types of cluster munitions in 360 recorded attacks. Additionally, the United States and the United Kingdom have publicly accused Russia of using these weapons in Syria, including against the moderate opposition. In Yemen, the Saudi-backed coalition has employed cluster munitions against the Houthis. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented at least 19 instances of cluster munitions use in Yemen, including with U.S.-made weapons. The U.S. Defense Department has acknowledged that U.S.-made weapons were employed in Yemen, though the Pentagon has said their use didn't violate export restrictions. Finally, there is evidence that cluster munitions were also used in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and by Kenya in Somalia. According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past 50 years, there have been 20,300 documented cluster munitions deaths in 33 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people. While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians accounted for 97 percent of cluster munition casualties in 2015. Worldwide casualties caused by cluster munitions demonstrate that they are indiscriminate weapons. While U.S.-made cluster munitions reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties when they are used correctly, U.S. ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions would help move the world toward a global ban. This legislation moves the United States toward accession by codifying the Gates policy and encouraging the Pentagon to develop alternatives to cluster munitions that are compliant with the convention. Mr. President, the Congress cannot compel the administration to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions. But, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the ``Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act'' would do exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee to speak about the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States. In committee, at the outset of the hearings, I remarked that our job was not to evaluate legal doctrines and theories or to review Judge Gorsuch's record in a vacuum. Our job is to assess how this nominee's decisions will affect the American people and whether he will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all Americans. I have had this in mind throughout the entire process. Let me begin with an aside. I represent a large State, and I do pay close attention to constituent letters, calls, and emails. A weekly report lets me know on what issues people are focused and what they think. I take this feedback very seriously. In general, my barometer has been that when I receive over 30,000 calls, emails, or letters, that is when I know an issue is reasonably meaningful to many people in the State. To be clear, I don't base my final judgment on any issue or nominee solely on the numbers of calls and letters I receive. However, this is a representative democracy. I find this to be an important measure of what California constituents are thinking. When it comes to this nomination so far, my office has received a total of 112,309 calls, emails, and letters from California constituents; and 92,799, or 83, percent, oppose this nominee and 19,510, or 17 percent, support this nominee. Let me read a few of the emails. One constituent from Silverado, CA, wrote: ``In 1971, when abortion was illegal, I was forced to have a child at age 16. That was 46 years ago. With Gorsuch, we would step back into that world where women and girls have NO choice but an illegal and unsafe abortion OR become a mother. It is wrong. The choice is untenable and dangerous. Filibuster Gorsuch and do whatever it takes.'' I was a college student in the 1950s, and I remember very much what life was like before a woman had the right to privacy, to control her reproductive system according to Roe v. Wade. Another constituent from San Diego emailed: ``As a beneficiary of the right to marry 3\1/2\ years ago, I personally understand how important Supreme Court decisions are. I also attended a segregated elementary school when I was a little boy. I do not trust that Neil Gorsuch would advocate for the best interests of women & minorities. Please do not confirm him.'' A woman from Richmond, CA, wrote: ``I believe that we, the people, will have a difficult time getting fair and equal treatment with Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court. He will help the rich corporations, and the poor and middle-class will suffer irreparably.'' I don't comment on any of these because none of these are sacrosanct, but they are opinions. Brandon Gregg from Burlingame wrote: ``The republicans did not give Merrick Garland a hearing, instead waiting until Trump could propose a young right- leaning judge who will take our country backwards. Gorsuch will not advance the agenda of human rights within our Constitution, but will plunge us back into the past where minorities had little protection, women did not have equal rights, people of color were denied the right to vote, and protections for all people that we take for granted, did not exist. This is not the world I want for myself, my children, or my grandchildren. Filibuster Gorsuch's confirmation. Please.'' The bottom line is that Californians are letting me know loud and clear that who sits on the Supreme Court matters. Unfortunately, up to now, much of the press coverage on this nomination has been about politics and process. In contrast, little has been said about how the Supreme Court affects the lives of Americans, their families, and their communities. So, let me say, in the past 24 years that I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen that the Supreme Court is, in fact, the last word in so many areas: the personal rights of all Americans, including whom they can marry, and whether women have the right to privacy that allows them to control their own bodies. The Supreme Court determines whether decisions about healthcare will be determined by families or businesses. The Supreme Court has the final say on whether States and localities will be able to pass laws that make it harder for low-income people, people of color, seniors and students to vote. The Supreme Court will decide whether corporations are able to pollute our air and water with impunity. It is the Supreme Court that will be the final world on Executive authority, whether it is used to waterboard, detain individuals indefinitely, or overreach in other ways. Each year, more than 350,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in Federal courts. The Supreme Court hears arguments for only about 80 cases a session and makes decisions on approximately 50 more cases without hearing arguments. Now, this means the Supreme Court only hears a very small percentage of cases--less than 0.02 percent. Before the current vacancy, the most significant questions were closely decided by 5-to-4 decisions, with five votes coming from Republican-appointed Justices. These include important decisions that affect our elections, like Shelby County and Citizens United, decisions that weakened the power of average voters by expanding the role of dark money and gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. We also saw a 5-to-4 decision in Heller that overturned 70 years of precedent on the Second Amendment and blocked the District of Columbia's commonsense gun regulations. As my colleague Senator Whitehouse outlined in the Judiciary Committee, in the last several years, this Supreme Court has issued an additional 11 5-to-4 decisions that promote the rights of corporations over the rights of everyday people, on topics as wide-ranging as age discrimination and harassment to limiting access to courts and juries. So who sits on the Supreme Court matters. Just look at some of the key cases that have come down since this vacancy arose last year. For example, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-to-4 on a case to determine whether unions are able to fight for fair pay and benefits for all workers by requiring them to contribute to a union's action on their behalf. We know this issue will go back to the Supreme Court. If, next time the Court rules against unions like the California Teachers Association, it will be overturning a 40-year precedent known as ``agency shop,'' and it will permit an assault on worker's rights. Also last year, the Supreme Court considered the case on North Carolina's law that reduced early voting days, eliminated same-day registration, and established new restrictive photo ID requirements to vote. The Fourth Circuit struck down North Carolina's law concluding it had ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Yet, when the Supreme Court considered it, they deadlocked 4 to 4. Who sits on that court matters. After 4 days of hearings and reviewing Judge Gorsuch's record, we have learned that he, indeed, has strong views of what the law should be and how it should be interpreted. While Judge Gorsuch was not responsive to many questions, he did tell us that he is happy to be called an originalist, and that he embraced the term. He also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what one of its provision mean. According to him, ``the Constitution isn't some ink blot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams. . . . but a carefully crafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning.'' Original public meaning--that takes us back to 13 colonies, 4 million Americans, and 1789. I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be deeply troubling. It essentially means that judges and courts should evaluate all of our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789. To freeze our understanding of the Constitution in 1789, I think, ignores the Framer's intent. But more importantly, it would ignore the vibrancy and growth of our Nation. We are no longer a society that condones slavery. We no longer permit segregation. We do not allow child labor. We recognize that women not only deserve an education but can be leaders in business, government, and their homes. We cannot turn the clock back 230 years. As Justice Brennan said, asking judges to resolve legal questions by looking only to what people believed when our country was founded was ``little more than arrogance cloaked as humility'' that ``while proponents of this facile historicism justify it as the depoliticization of the judiciary, the political underpinnings of such a choice should not escape notice.'' After all, ``[t]hose who would restrict [legal claims] to the values of 1789 specifically articulated in the Constitution turn a blind eye to social pro- gress. . . .'' This is Justice Brennan's speech in 1985 at Georgetown University. This is an important point that I think bears repeating. A judge's decision to adopt an originalist philosophy is inherently political because it discounts the expansion of constitutional protections beyond White men who owned property. Yes, that is the way it was back then. The U.S. Constitution, I deeply believe, is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves. We are not supposed to ignore social progress, and I don't believe the Founders of our country ever intended us to do so. Another concern with Judge Gorsuch's record is his extreme, conservative view of the Federal Government. For example, he has indicated he believes the longstanding legal doctrine that allows agencies to write rules to effectively implement laws should be overturned. That doctrine, as the Presiding Officer well knows, is the Chevron doctrine. It was discussed in committee. Chevron was itself a unanimous opinion authored by the liberal Justice Stevens and joined by conservatives, including Chief Justice Burger. This legal doctrine has been in place for decades and has been cited more than 15,000 times. If Chevron is overturned, as Judge Gorsuch has advocated, many important laws that Congress has passed would become ineffective. I want to give a personal example. In 2007, Senator Olympia Snowe and I finally passed legislation, thanks to Senator Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye, to increase the mileage efficiency of cars. This was critical to address because pollution was clouding up our cities, and it was important to improve the functioning of our automobiles. Our legislation required the Department of Transportation to set standards so that fuel economy would increase at least 10 miles per gallon over 10 years--that is the time we could foresee--and continue to rise after that. We instructed the agency to achieve the ``maximum feasible average fuel economy'' and directed the Secretary of Transportation to consider ``technological feasibility, economic practicality, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.'' That is directly from the bill. Here is the result. It has just been announced that this program will raise fuel economy to more than 50-miles per gallon by 2025. I think the specifics were 54 miles to the gallon. This would have been impossible in 2007 when we were trying to pass the bill. We could not possibly understand, 10 years hence, technical details of specific automobile efficiency technologies and how they would develop in the decades to come. Federal agencies simply must play a role. We need their technical expertise and ongoing involvement to ensure the legislation we pass is implemented effectively--as intended by Congress. In committee, I discussed Judge Gorsuch's textualist view. This means that he believes statutes should be interpreted only by ``the plain meaning of the language.'' Combined, this judicial philosophy includes: One, limiting laws and statues to a dictionary definition that he selected. Two, reversing precedent to say that agencies can't interpret ambiguous laws. Three, reinstating a legal doctrine to further limit agency experts. Taken together, these three points would require Congress to pass bills so that they are either so specific that they would be very limited in effect or so broad they would actually be meaningless. For example, Senator Collins and I have been working on legislation that would require the FDA to ensure the safety of personal care products such as we all use--shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, shaving creams, lotions. The FDA does not do it in this country, but they do it in Europe. Our bill asks the FDA to evaluate the safety of the chemicals that are put in these products. In committee, we had testimony about a shampoo that once used, hair fell out of the individual's head and many thousands of complaints had been registered. Congress does not have the expertise to do the chemical evaluations, and without deference to the FDA, the bill would have to be thousands of pages long to cover every contingency for every product made by hundreds of companies, and that simply is not workable. If Congress can no longer rely on Federal agencies, and if all laws can only be interpreted by limited dictionary definitions, then government would have no ability to regulate markets, defend against a financial crisis, protect workers, build safe roads, or safeguard our environment. We depend on the scientists, the biologists, the economists, the engineers, and other experts to help ensure that our laws are effectively implemented. So this is really a dastardly controlling mechanism. Under the arguments proposed by Judge Gorsuch, this would no longer occur. Instead, only congressional action would be able to address these important issues. These rules that agencies would bring would have to be written by Congress. And even that would be severely limited. Such a radical change in law would hurt ordinary Americans, certainly their safety, and certainly our communities. Let me say once again that who sits on the Supreme Court matters. The issues facing our country are consequential, and they have a real-world impact on all of us. Justices on the Supreme Court must understand that the Court's decisions have real-world consequences for men, women, and children across our Nation. Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch's record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate, and his written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my disappointment in today's vote on H.J. Res. 67 and my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 66. These resolutions overturn rules issued by the Department of Labor that are essential to providing increased access to retirement savings programs at the city and State levels. Among all working families in America ages 32 to 61, the median family in America had only $5,000 saved in 2013. This indicates to me that we are clearly facing a retirement savings crisis. In California, 7.5 million workers don't have access to a retirement savings plan through their jobs, including 3.4 million women. Of those without a workplace retirement savings plan, almost 5 million are individuals of Color, and over 3.5 million are Latino. The good news is that, when a person has access to a retirement savings program through their workplace, they are 15 times more likely to save for retirement. In California, legislators have been working for more than 4 years to create the Secure Choice program as a way of addressing the retirement crisis we face. This program allows workers to easily save for retirement through a deduction made directly from their paycheck. Those who need access to a workplace retirement program the most, individuals with lower incomes, are far less likely to have that access. These are the people who stand to gain the most from the Secure Choice program and lose the most by Congress halting its progress. Let me share some examples of the people who would be impacted. Most eligible employees work for small businesses that might not be able to offer retirement savings plans on their own, and nearly half of eligible workers work in the retail, hospitality, healthcare, and manufacturing industries. This program supports lower- and middle-class workers by providing access to the tools they need to control their financial future. The average wage of workers eligible for this program is $35,000, and 80 percent of eligible workers earn less than $50,000. We are facing a time of deep income inequality and must stand up for programs that support the middle class, like Secure Choice. Nationwide, the bottom 90 percent of households have seen their income drop compared to what it was in 1970. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent has seen their household income triple. As workers struggle to make ends meet, it is appalling to me that Congress would actively take away a key resource for financial planning. Californians want to ensure that all employees have access to a retirement savings program. The Department of Labor's State rule clears the way for California to set up programs like Secure Choice by clarifying employers' obligations to the accounts. This rule would also help small businesses compete for qualified workers who expect and deserve access to a workplace retirement savings program. Small Business California supports the Department of Labor's rule paving the way for these programs and opposes this resolution. Finally, in California, our State chapter of the Chamber of Commerce specifically asked for an opinion from the Department of Labor on employer obligations. Once the Department of Labor's rule was issued, CalChamber no longer opposed the California bill. In fact, the legislation that passed in California requires the State board to report a finalized rule from the Department of Labor. Overturning the Department of Labor's rule completely ignores the effort and care taken in California to craft a program that works for both employees and employers. Nationally, almost half of working-age households do not have retirement savings accounts, and 55 million people don't have access to a workplace retirement plan. This is shocking. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the median retirement account savings for families ages 56 to 61 was only $17,000 in 2013. This is only slightly higher than the 2016 poverty threshold for a household of two people aged 65 and older. It is inconceivable that a family could afford to finance their retirement with only $17,000 in savings. Supporting retirement savings is not a partisan issue. In fact a bipartisan group of State treasurers oppose this resolution, as does the National Conference of State Legislatures. We are facing a retirement savings crisis in our country, and the Department of Labor's rule is a simple, commonsense guideline that make it easier for individuals to save for retirement. While today's vote is a disappointing development for city programs, I will keep fighting to support California's Secure Choice program. I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for American workers and support their access to retirement savings programs by opposing H.J. Res. 66, should it come up for a vote on the Senate floor. Thank you.