Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act. This legislation directs the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to exchange land with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, the District, in San Bernardino, CA, as part of a regional land management plan. The bill is the culmination of years of collaboration between numerous Federal and State agencies, private industry, and municipalities representing mining, flood control, water supply and wildlife conservation, among other interests. Included among the supporters of this land exchange are county of San Bernardino; city of Redlands; city of Highland; San Bernardino Water Conservation District; San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District: East Valley Water District; Endangered Habitats League; CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific; Robertson's Ready Mix and Inland Action In 1993, representatives from this diverse group formed the Wash Committee to address mining issues in the upper Santa Ana River wash area. The role of the committee subsequently expanded in 1997 to consider the broad range of land uses in the area, including natural resource conservation. The Wash Committee developed a strategy that focused best uses for more comprehensive planning and not on private property boundaries that would segment the area. The result is a forthcoming Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan expected to cover 4,500 acres. This land exchange will take place in a designated region within the Santa Ana Wash, at the junction of the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek. Currently, land within the Santa Ana Wash is owned by both the District and BLM. The land parcels owned by the district are currently used for recharging the local groundwater aquifer through more than 77 basins and also provide critical Riversidian sage scrub habitat for a number of State and federally listed species. In addition, under this plan, new land would be set aside for conservation purposes near land already managed by BLM. The exchange of land between the district and BLM will connect a current patchwork of separately owned land parcels into a consolidated open space for conservation purposes and will optimize the efficiency of mining operations and water conservation efforts. The land transfer resulting from this legislation will lead to increased habitat protection, improved connectivity in the wildlife corridor, expanded groundwater recharge for water supply, and the future establishment of public access and trails. Additionally, the legislation will allow the continued use of land and mineral resources while maintaining the biological and hydrological resources of the area in an environmentally sensitive manner. I want to applaud diverse members of the Wash Committee that worked together, including the cities of Highland and Redlands, East Valley Water District, the County of San Bernardino, Robertson's Ready Mix, CEMEX, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, along with the Federal, State and local stakeholders, for their continued efforts on the Wash Plan. This group has demonstrated that, while it takes significant time, funding, and cooperation, it is possible to simultaneously protect the environment and support local jobs, business, and community interests. I would also like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Paul Cook and Pete Aguilar, for introducing similar legislation in the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the recent passing of David Culp. He was an unassuming American hero, a man who spent much of his life working quietly but tirelessly to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and eliminate them from the face of the Earth. For more than 15 years, David led efforts at the Friends Committee on National Legislation and in the arms control community to reach that goal, working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Over the years, as I fought to oppose new nuclear weapons and to support vital arms control agreements, I always knew that David would be there with me, fighting for what was right. His persistence, his focus on concrete goals, and his constant, good-natured advocacy helped make the United States and the world a safer place. It was President Harry Truman who said: ``It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.'' David, who lived by those words, deserves enormous credit. He will be sorely missed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield one hour of the time under my control to Senator Booker.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I yield 30 minutes of my time to Senator Leahy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Klobuchar.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss why I do not think Betsy DeVos is the right person for this very important job. As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of our education system. I have supported public, charter, private, and magnet schools across the great State of California. I have always supported a parent's right to choose the right school for his or her child, and I have always believed that different models of schools provide students with more individualized experiences that are tailored to meet their needs and how they best learn and are enabled to succeed. While Mrs. DeVos is also a proponent of school choice, I believe we have very different philosophies on this issue. Personally, I can only support schools when there is accountability. Schools should be accredited, well managed with proper fiscal controls, and transparent in regard to student performance for all of the students they serve. We owe it to our parents and students to protect their right to access a high quality education. We owe it to our teachers to provide them with the resources and leadership they need to become master educators. Mrs. DeVos has never worked in the classroom or as a school administrator, and during the Senate committee hearing on her nomination, she clearly showed she does not have a firm grasp of basic tenets of education policy or program implementation. Mrs. DeVos and her family have been longtime donors to efforts to expand unregulated school choice. Their financial efforts prevented accountability efforts to go into effect that would have provided regulation over the proliferation of the for-profit charter schools throughout Michigan. Additionally, I found it troubling that, during Mrs. DeVos's confirmation hearing before the Senate Health Education and Pensions Committee, she testified that she would support the repeal of the Gun Free School Zones Act, which bans guns in schools. Mrs. DeVos cited that grizzly bears in Wyoming is one legitimate reason why guns should be allowed in schools; yet the vast majority of our Nation's schools face zero threat of an attack from grizzly bears that would justify the risk of allowing guns on their premises. Throughout my career, I have been a strong supporter of gun free school zones. And educators, parents, and students--who are all directly affected by this law--support gun free school zones. I find it problematic that Mrs. DeVos makes light of this issue and would go along with the President's opinion on this issue, considering we had 15 school shootings throughout 2016. The Secretary of Education serves in a very important role. The Secretary ensures that all of our Nation's students have equitable access to a high quality education. They ensure that students' civil rights are protected under Federal law and that schools are held accountable for the performance of all students regardless of socioeconomic status, language barrier or disability. My colleagues and I have an opportunity to stand up for our children by opposing Betsy DeVos and demand that the President put forward a highly qualified candidate that can best serve our students, parents, and teachers in this important role. I would also like to mention that I have heard from over 96,000 of my constituents, whether they left comments with my staff or wrote me a letter, explaining why Mrs. DeVos was an unacceptable candidate for Secretary of Education. I heard you all loud and clear, and I want you to know that I am here to serve you, and I will continue to be your voice. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his remarks. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with him, and we have a number of major issues forthcoming. I rise to oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to become the Attorney General of the United States. I think some of us and I certainly have lived through many difficult times in this country, but today this country is as divided as I have ever seen it. Some Republicans have said that Democrats are in the anger stage of grief, but with all due respect, those statements just trivialize what is going on in this country. It is not trivial, and it is not small. Today America is a country split in half, with at least half objecting to the actions of this President, including his nominee for Attorney General. My office has received approximately 114,000 calls and emails regarding Senator Sessions, with 112,000--more than 98 percent--opposed to this nominee. I would like to quote a few of my constituents who deeply oppose this President and this nominee and have been taking to the streets to protect the fundamental values of America. Here is one from a doctor: I marched because of the thousands of patients I've seen in the community, people of color, immigrants from all over the globe, who are terrified about the loss of their rights and the dramatic explosion of racially and culturally focused hate crimes we're reading about. I marched on Saturday because women must not be denigrated, as we've seen by the attitude exemplified by our new President in his unmeasured remarks. I marched on Saturday because I'm desperately worried that the progress this country has made in recognizing the rights of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity and religious belief, is now threatened with a roll-back to the `50s. The American process of justice is a beacon and an example to the world. Jeff Sessions must not be confirmed. Here is another: As a Californian who wants to finish school, as a Californian with ``pre-existing conditions,'' as a Latina and as the kid of a South American immigrant--I don't know what I can say other than please, please, protect us from whatever is coming as best you can. One woman who marched after the inauguration came to my office the following Monday and wrote a handwritten note explaining why she marched. Here is what it said: Our President quickly dismisses all protesters as ``professionals'' and ``sore losers.'' I am here in Washington for his first full week of the presidency to send the message that I am neither a ``professional'' nor a ``sore loser''--just an ordinary American citizen who can no longer sleep well at night worrying about how his agenda will negatively impact not only our country, but democracies all over the globe. America is already great; what Trump and his administration will do is destroy it. To my constituents--112,000 have called and emailed to oppose this nominee--let me just say this: I hear you. To my Republican colleagues, this is not grief about losing an election. At no time when my party lost an election or when the President was of a different party did I feel the way I feel today. For most Presidents, there is hope--a hope of unity, a hope of bringing people together, a sense of common purpose. That is what it means to be a leader of this country, the whole country--red States and blue States, all of our people. President Obama began his tenure in office with a 69-percent approval rating. President George W. Bush talked about compassionate conservatism. After a terrorist attack killed nearly 3,000 people, President Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington on September 17, 2001, and said: ``Islam is peace.'' He said: Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect. Incidentally, President Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in 1957, and here is what he said then: Under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience. Now, Mr. President, that was the man who led American and Allied forces in Europe against Nazi Germany, a regime of pure evil that targeted Jews based on their religion and exterminated millions of Jews, Poles, Serbs, Roma, Soviet citizens, gays, lesbians, and many others. President Eisenhower was saying that this country, the United States of America, would fight with her whole strength to protect the religious freedom of Muslims. ``Without that concept,'' President Eisenhower said, ``we would be something else than what we are.'' Can anybody even imagine Donald Trump uttering words like two of his Republican predecessors, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush? Instead, there is attack after attack after attack on minorities, on immigrants, on Muslims, on women, on his critics, on judges, on the press, and yes, even on truth itself. There is the President's Muslim ban Executive order, which our government says has caused between 60,000 and 100,000 visas to be revoked. That order, which caused chaos at airports around the country, is now subject to nearly 60 legal challenges in Federal courts. On Friday, a Federal judge in Washington State blocked implementation of major portions of the Executive order. The judge, appointed by President George W. Bush, was then promptly attacked on Twitter by President Donald Trump. This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit will review the stay. To say this is just a stage of grief after losing an election is really to ignore reality. Last week Sally Yates had to stand up and tell the President no. Now more than ever, it is clear how important it is that the Department of Justice be independent from the President. When she stood up, she was promptly fired by this President. And not only was she fired, but her integrity and her character were maligned in an over-the-top press statement. This woman is a career prosecutor with 27 years of experience. She was the lead prosecutor in the terrorist prosecution of 1996 Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph. She actually went after a real terrorist, and she got a conviction. The President called her a ``disgrace'' and ``weak on borders.'' Here is the point: This is the man for whom Senator Sessions has been a stalwart campaign advocate. In response to my written questions, Senator Sessions stated: ``I endorsed him in part because he was a leader advocating for issues I supported and believed in.'' Senator Sessions was a close campaign adviser and supporter of the President. He was the first Senator to endorse him. He spoke on Trump's behalf at the National Republican Convention. He appeared at numerous rallies. He attended at least 45 campaign events. During the campaign, he spoke at large rallies, smiling and laughing, while crowds chanted ``Lock her up.'' Then in October of last year, at one of the Presidential debates and again at a rally in Virginia, Candidate Trump repeatedly referred to him as ``my attorney general.'' A month after the announcement of his nomination to be Attorney General, he appeared again with the President-elect on a thank-you tour in Alabama. This was a rally where many of the President's campaign promises, such as building the wall, were repeated. Crowds once again chanted ``Lock her up.'' The President-elect introduced him, and Senator Sessions came forward. As he walked out to speak to dramatic effect, he whipped out a ``Make America Great Again'' hat, put it on, and pumped his fists into the air. Already, at this point, he had been designated to be the next Attorney General of the United States, an independent legal check on the President, a man who responds to the Constitution and the law independent of the Chief Executive. One would have thought a sense of the solemn duty of the Office of Attorney General would have counseled against appearing at yet another political rally with Trump, but it did not. At that rally, as Attorney General designate, Sessions said that the Trump campaign was ``more than a normal campaign, but a movement,'' and when he finished speaking, he thanked the President-elect for ``the opportunity to participate in a movement that I believe can help make America great again.'' So, to me, this is key. This shows how Senator Sessions views this appointment--as an ``opportunity to participate in a movement'' to advance the President's agenda. This is not the role of the Attorney General of the United States. This is more political than any Attorney General nominee in recent memory has ever been. Can we really expect him to be an Attorney General who is independent from President Trump? I do not believe so. In fact, a recent Washington Post story reports the depth of Senator Sessions' involvement in the Trump transition. The Washington Post reported that during the transition, ``Sessions became a daily presence at Trump Tower in New York, mapping out the policy agenda and making personnel decisions.'' In fact, you can search C-SPAN, the Web site, for video of Senator Sessions speaking at Trump Tower about the transition. On November 15, in the lobby of Trump Tower, he said: My former chief of staff is doing a great job under incredible demands, and the whole team is working long hours I mean, 20 hours a day kind of work and just remarkable what is happening. I'm one of the co-chairs, of five, I believe, co-chairs of the committee under Vice President-elect Pence. Then Senator Sessions said, ``Steve Bannon is a powerful intellect and a thoughtful leader that consistently provides good advice.'' We learned last week that Steve Bannon thinks the same thing about Senator Sessions. As Bannon wrote to the Washington Post just days ago, Sessions was--and I quote, and here it is--``the fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.'' The Post went on to report that Senator Sessions ``lobbied for a `shock-and-awe' period of executive action that would rattle Congress, impress Trump's base, and catch his critics unaware, according to two officials involved in the transition planning.'' The article says: ``Sessions had advocated going even faster.'' Now, we have seen the consequences of those actions, and what is the result? Division, legal challenges, people marching in the streets. Senator Sessions is not a man apart from this agenda. He is not independent of this agenda. He is part of it. He is committed to it. He is a leader of it. Now, let me move to other parts of Senator Sessions' record and what we learned from him in the hearing. I said earlier that I cannot imagine a more important time for the Department of Justice to be independent of the President. Part of that is because of what we know about the Russians and their illegal efforts to get this President elected. The Intelligence Community has reached the following conclusions about Russian activities during the election, among others: ``We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.'' Quote: ``Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the United States Democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.'' Quote: ``We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' Quote: ``We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.'' Quote: ``We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.'' These are just some of the conclusions that our intelligence agencies--all of them--have reached, including the FBI. The Department of Justice, through the National Security Division and the FBI, has an important role to play in investigating and prosecuting Russians or coconspirators in this matter. The FBI, as I said, was part of the assessment that led to the January report. Now, Senator Sessions chaired the President's National Security Advisory Committee during the campaign. That is a committee on which National Security Advisor Flynn served. So he was Trump's top person on national security, and it is no secret that explosive allegations about the President's and his campaign team's connections to Russia are out there. As a Senator, including as a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Sessions was quite critical of Russia. In 2000, he said Russia is a country where leaders lie, cheat, and steal to maintain political office. That was a floor speech on April 13, 2000. In 2014, after Russia invaded Crimea, Senator Sessions said, ``I believe a systematic effort should be undertaken so that Russia feels pain for this.'' This was in the Montgomery Advertiser, March 19, 2014. When he was a Senator in the 1990s, he and other Republican Judiciary Committee members called for a special prosecutor because of allegations of $1 million in Chinese monetary contributions to a Presidential campaign. That is from a floor speech on March 9, 2000. He pointed to the campaign connection and said that meant the Attorney General needed to appoint a special prosecutor. He said: ``This is serious business. We ought not to treat this lightly.'' Floor speech, March 9, 2000. Yet, now that our intelligence community has concluded that Russia, at the direction of Vladimir Putin, invaded the American political process with massive hacks and leaks for the purpose of favoring candidate Trump, Senator Sessions says that he has not even reviewed the intelligence community's reports. When asked in writing by myself in Question for the Record 2b after his hearing whether he had even read the intelligence assessments, classified or unclassified, he said he had not read either one. Now, that is stunning. One of the most important national security revelations in recent years, and he is nominated to be Attorney General, and he hasn't reviewed it? Why? He attended 45 campaign events, was intimately involved in the campaign and transition, but despite all of this, he would not commit himself to recuse himself. This should be of real concern to all of us. Another nation--namely, Russia--has attacked our political process in a major way: hacking a political party and leaking its internal deliberations. This time, it targeted the Democratic Party; next time, it could be the Republican Party, but whichever party it is, we can't let this continue. Intelligence and law enforcement professionals must be able to follow the facts wherever they lead. The investigation could lead to the prosecution of people who helped hack and leak information hacked by Russia to help the President's campaign. It obviously has the potential to create embarrassment for the President and his people, and to implicate people involved in the campaign. So the question is a big one, and we ought to think about it. How will this nominee handle investigation and prosecution into an unprecedented and major foreign intrusion into the election of the President of the United States? Can he be independent of the White House? I do not believe he can. Let me move on to voting rights. Senator Sessions long ago testified that he thought the Voting Rights Act was an intrusive piece of legislation. He acknowledged this again in his hearing. In 1986, Senator Sessions said: ``It is a serious thing . . . for the Federal Government to come in and sue a county and say we are going to change the form of government you have been living with for 20 years.'' That implies a hesitation to use the Voting Rights Act to change certain systems of election in counties that were adopted to disenfranchise minorities. When we considered the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization of 2006, the Senator voted for it. But he also expressed skepticism about the preclearance provision of the act, section 5, which was a core part of the act. And then, when the Supreme Court narrowly ruled five to four in Shelby County--that is a decision--and that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act could no longer be enforced, Senator Sessions called it ``good news for the South.'' What does that mean? It means State after State that had been prevented from denying the right to vote by section 5 can now proceed unless they are affirmatively stopped by a new lawsuit that takes time to develop, and a wave of new laws suppressing the vote were quickly passed following the Supreme Court's ruling. He has tried to argue that he will fully enforce the Voting Rights Act. In his committee questionnaire, he pointed to 4 cases he claimed were among the 10 most significant litigated cases he personally handled. As Senator Franken demonstrated in our committee, his record of handling these cases is thin, at best. Lawyers who handled three of the cases say Senator Sessions had no substantive involvement. He did not mention them in his 1986 questionnaire, even though the cases were ongoing at that time. And now he says he played a supporting or assistance role in them. So these cases do not make me confident that as Attorney General overseeing the Civil Rights Division, he will ensure that the civil rights and voting rights laws are fairly enforced. So I asked him questions to see what he would do. I pointed out in written questions that several voter ID laws have now been struck down, or severely limited, under the Voting Rights Act. Just one example: One of the most conservative appeals courts in the Nation, the Fifth Circuit, found that Texas's law violates the Voting Rights Act. According to the courts, 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack required ID, and Black and Latino voters were far more likely than White voters to lack the required ID. The court found that the Texas law had a discriminatory effect, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Now, this means the Justice Department can protect the voting rights of Americans in these cases. So I asked him, would you continue to enforce the Voting Rights Act in these situations? There is now precedent for it. He would not answer. He tried to say that the Supreme Court has actually held that voter ID laws do not necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act. That is my written question for the record, No. 14. But the Supreme Court decision he referenced, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, did not talk about the Voting Rights Act at all. So I asked him to clarify his response. His answer indicated that it was just his own view that voter ID laws do not necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act. This was a follow-up question, No. 7a. That may be his personal view, but the courts' view is that these laws can and in some circumstances do violate the Voting Rights Act. But he still has refused to say whether he will bring those cases. Then, when asked about voter fraud by Senator Coons, Senator Sessions responded that he believes ``fraudulent activities regularly occur'' during elections. He pointed to a single report to support his view that voter ID laws are a good idea. That is Senator Coons' question for the record 9b. He refused to comment on data provided by Senator Coons that showed the rarity of in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is the only thing a voter ID law can catch. He didn't comment about the impact on hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters, many of them minorities and students, who are denied the fundamental right to vote by these laws. Now we have the President on Twitter and television claiming that millions of illegal votes were cast and that is why he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, and he is ordering his administration to investigate that. If President Trump asks Attorney General Sessions to carry out his partisan, pointless investigation, what will Senator Sessions do? Is the legendary Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department going to become President Trump's political investigator? Or will it defend and use the Voting Rights Act to protect the right to vote of millions of Americans against efforts by States to take that right away? I just don't have confidence that Jeff Sessions will fairly apply the law in this area. Now, if confirmed, what will Senator Sessions do when faced with questions on reproductive rights? Will he undermine a woman's fundamental right to control her own body and her own reproductive system? In 2015, Senator Sessions voted for legislation that would impose a nationwide ban on abortion after 20 weeks. That legislation had a penalty of jailing doctors for up to 5 years, and it would have forced survivors of rape and incest to overcome additional and medically unnecessary hurdles before they could receive an abortion. The legislation also had no exception for a woman's health and only a narrow exception to save her life. Imagine what it is like to be a woman who learns that she has serious complications late in pregnancy and that she will suffer debilitating physical health effects if she cannot get an abortion. Then imagine having to tell her that her health must suffer for the rest of her life because politicians have prohibited her from making her own health care decisions. But this is the outcome Senator Sessions voted for. Senator Sessions believes the case that established a woman's right to control her own reproductive system--Roe v. Wade--is one of the ``worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time.'' In fact, weeks ago when testifying before our committee, I asked him if this is still his view, and he said ``it is.'' He even said Roe v. Wade ``violated the Constitution.'' That statement essentially invites States to enact more and more restrictions on women's fundamental access to health care. It is a signal to those States that if they enact restrictions and are challenged in court, then the Justice Department may in fact support them and try to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, I asked him about that, and he did not rule out the Justice Department's pushing to overturn Roe. He left the door open by saying: Such decisions would depend upon the unique circumstances of the case or cases as they arise. I will not pre-judge the issues. That is the response to my question for the record 6a. He even refused to rule out punishment for women who have abortions-- a position President Trump took during the campaign. That is a response to Senator Blumenthal's question for the record 11a. So what does it mean for him, as Attorney General of the United States? It means he very well may seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. It means the Justice Department may go to court and support continued State efforts to further and further restrict the rights of women to control their own reproductive system. The bottom line: I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions will fairly and independently safeguard the freedoms of the women of America. Let me move on to immigration. Senator Sessions has been the staunchest opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, preventing the passage of legislation to strengthen the border and prevent families from being torn apart. Senator Sessions opposed immigration reform so strenuously that he drafted and distributed his own book entitled ``Immigration Handbook for the New Republican Majority.'' This handbook implied that immigrants were taking jobs from low-income minorities and abusing public benefit programs--setting people against each other. More alarmingly, Senator Sessions voted at least twice against the DREAM Act, which seeks to protect some of our country's most vulnerable youth, undocumented individuals--children--who were brought here through no choice of their own. On President Obama's Executive action to protect those children-- known as DACA--he doesn't just oppose it. He is actively seeking to take it down. A recent Washington Post article says he is lobbying for the administration to overturn DACA. It is one thing to disagree on policy, but it is quite another when the policy could crush the lives of ordinary people. In December, I wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle about the importance of DACA and what it means for Californians. I discussed the story of Denisse Rojas, brought to the United States as a 10-month-old baby. Rojas' family is similar to many families with mixed status. Her mother and father came to the United States to create a better life for their children. Denisse excelled in high school and majored in biology at UC Berkeley. She worked as a waitress and commuted an hour each way to classes because she couldn't afford to live near campus. After graduation, she volunteered at San Francisco General Hospital. Denisse dreamed of going to medical school, driven in part by a family member's early death from cancer. The disease was diagnosed at a late stage because the family's immigration status made it impossible to afford health insurance. Today, Rojas is enrolled in New York's Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, where she is on track to earn her degree in 2019. She intends to specialize in emergency medicine and work in low-income communities to provide health care to families, like her own, who would otherwise go without necessary treatment. This is the perfect case for discretion. This is the perfect case for the exercise of a just humanity. But Senator Sessions is lobbying to overturn DACA. The consequences of such a draconian and inhumane action would be devastating to thousands of people in my State, and I find it deeply disturbing that Senator Sessions would advocate for the deportation of children who have known no other country but the United States. If he doesn't believe these youth deserve some sort of prosecutorial discretion when it comes to deportation, how is he going to act as our Nation's leading Federal criminal prosecutor? It is no secret that he believes in an aggressive use of executive enforcement power in the area of immigration. He testified in response to Senator Flake that he favors ``a zero tolerance'' policy for immigration crimes. Immigration offenses already make up about a third of all Federal prosecutions each year. So does it make sense to increase that substantially? There certainly are more troubling crimes at the border and across the country that require the attention and resources of the Department of Justice: human trafficking, smugglers, organized crime, gangs, drug trafficking, hate crimes, white-collar crimes, civil rights, and voting rights, just to name a few. So Senator Sessions' opposition to prosecutorial discretion caused me great concern. Let's move on to criminal law. During the hearing, discussing sentencing with Senator Coons, Senator Sessions revealed his view about what a Federal prosecutor should be. He said it was ``a problematic thing'' that is ``difficult to justify'' when a prosecutor uses some discretion to bring lesser charges or not to charge the maximum drug charge available. As we know, drug prosecutions were the most common Federal charge in 2015. So Senator Sessions' view on them will have a big impact on the workload in U.S. attorneys' offices. If it becomes the nationwide policy of the Department, it will mean mandatory sentences of 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and even life in prison for drug charges will be imposed much more often, because depending on how prosecutors charge cases, the law will tie a judge's hands when it comes to a sentence. That is how our system works today. The mission of a prosecutor is to do justice, not instinctively bring the maximum charge. As then-Attorney General Robert Jackson said in 1940: The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement, you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done. For Senator Sessions to say that a prosecutor cannot exercise some judgment, based on the circumstances of a case, to seek a lesser charge or a lesser punishment, in my view, is just not correct. We have discussed mandatory minimum sentencing in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator from Illinois, distinguished as he is, has been a leader in this cause. It has been discussed for years in the context of the sentencing reform efforts led by Senators Lee, Cornyn, Durbin, Grassley, Leahy, and Whitehouse. Senator Lee, in particular, has been a passionate advocate against mandatory minimum sentencing. I believe in enforcement of the drug laws. I always have. There are difficult questions about what actions the Justice Department would take in States that have legalized marijuana in some way or another under their own laws. The bottom line is this: sensitivity and good judgment are needed in prosecutorial decisions. We want to make sure the sentence fits the crime and that resources are used wisely. Senator Sessions' comments make it clear that he generally opposes granting discretion to a prosecutor to impose a lesser charge or a lesser sentence based on the circumstances of the case before them. One thing I found striking was that in Senator Sessions' written statement to the committee, he said the following: ``I understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community.'' I have served on the Judiciary Committee for 24 years. Twenty of them have been alongside Senator Sessions. I cannot recall a single time when he spoke about supporting any kind of ``justice and fairness'' for the LGBT community or made any kind of statement like this. We looked and couldn't find one in the Congressional Record either. In fact, the statement stands at odds with his record. Let me give you a few examples. In 2011, we marked up a bill I had introduced to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, that denied married gay and lesbian couples equal protection under the law. Not only did Senator Sessions vote no--as all Republicans on the committee did--but he asked questions like, ``What about two sisters?''--as if to compare same-sex marriage to incest, a demeaning statement about hundreds of thousands of families in this country. He voted against allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military. In 2009, he voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act. He said he did not see the kind of discrimination happening against the LGBT community or women. He said the law was potentially unconstitutional, which is not an argument that, to my knowledge, has ever been accepted by a court. In 2006, he voted to enshrine discrimination in our Constitution by supporting the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage everywhere in the country. What did he say? He said the Senate had to debate the amendment because of a ``deliberate and sustained effort by leftists in America,'' ``social activists,'' and ``activist judges.'' He talked about harm to children, ignoring the fact that same-sex couples are raising children and that denying equal recognition to their families actually hurts those children. Then he went on to criticize the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which essentially said that private homosexual conduct cannot be made a crime in this Nation. The Lawrence decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a victory for freedom. How did Senator Sessions describe it? He argued the decision was wrong, and ``troubling with far-reaching ramifications.'' He said it was a ``new vision of social justice, masquerading . . . as constitutional law.'' He called Justice Scalia's dissent ``brilliant.'' That dissent, by the way, accused the Supreme Court of ``sign[ing] on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.'' When he was Attorney General of Alabama, he sought to shut down a conference of LGBT students on a public university campus in Alabama. This was despite a Supreme Court decision issued just a year earlier protecting a Christian student group from discrimination based on viewpoint. The Eleventh Circuit Court--in a panel of three judges appointed by Republican Presidents--called the State's action ``blatant viewpoint discrimination'' and characterized Sessions' arguments as ``feeble.'' Does any of this sound like the actions of a person who understands the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community? My answer is no. How will that impact the Attorney General? The Attorney General must enforce Federal hate crimes laws. The Attorney General must ensure that Federal law treats same-sex couples equally; that the right to marry and be treated equally under Federal law is recognized and protected. Here we are, I think, at a very difficult and dangerous turning point. We have a President with little apparent regard for constitutional or legal restrictions and who is willing to take to Twitter to target and abuse individuals and groups of Americans, and even belittle and demean Federal judges and the Federal court system, just as he did during the campaign. We have a President who has taken a ``shock and awe'' approach with cruel, un-American, and potentially illegal Executive orders even in his first 2 weeks in office, which this nominee reportedly urged be done even faster. We have a President who wants to bring back torture, even though-- thanks to Senator McCain--Congress has already stated it is clearly illegal. We have a President who is already angering long-term allies like Australia and making ridiculous threats of sending troops to Mexico. We have a nominee for Attorney General who is anything but independent. He was part and parcel of the Trump campaign apparatus, transition, agenda, and way of thinking. As Steve Bannon wrote in the Washington Post just days ago, Sessions was ``the fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.'' Do any of my colleagues--Republican or Democratic--think Steve Bannon didn't know what he was talking about in this email to the Washington Post? Do any of my colleagues believe that if Senator Sessions is confirmed, he is going to take off the political hat and be an even- handed Attorney General for all Americans who will tell this President no when it is merited on the basis of the law and the Constitution? I don't believe it for a second. I must vote no and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to Rex Tillerson's nomination to be our next Secretary of State. I don't believe Mr. Tillerson is an appropriate selection to be our Nation's chief diplomat. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson repeatedly evaded questions related to transparency and corporate responsibility. For instance, on multiple occasions Mr. Tillerson stated that he was unaware of Exxon's history of lobbying Congress; yet, according to lobbying disclosure forms, Exxon lobbied against a variety of Iran and Russia-related sanctions since at least 2010. When pressed on the matter, Mr. Tillerson even claimed he didn't know if Exxon lobbied for or against these energy-related sanctions bills. Additionally, I am troubled by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions about Exxon's dealings with Iran, Syria, and Sudan. According to public documents, Exxon established a joint venture with Shell to conduct business with state sponsors of terror. That joint venture--Infineum-- sold petroleum products to Iran, Sudan, and Syria, when those nations were being sanctioned by the United States. During that time, Mr. Tillerson rose from senior vice president to president and director and eventually to chairman and CEO of Exxon; yet, during his testimony, Mr. Tillerson claimed to be unaware of Infineum's purposeful evasion of sanctions. Instead of recognizing the larger national interest, Mr. Tillerson suggested that American companies could legally avoid sanctions by setting up shell companies outside of the United States. Infineum is not the only example of Exxon's history of undermining American policy. Under Mr. Tillerson's leadership, Exxon signed oil exploration contracts with the Kurds in Iraq. Doing so undermined the United States ``one Iraq'' policy and exacerbated the long-simmering conflict between the central government and the Kurds. That is because Exxon signed contracts to explore oil at six sites. Three of those sites were on disputed land claimed by both the Kurds and the Iraqi central government. By agreeing to explore in disputed territory on behalf of the Kurds, Exxon changed the facts on the ground in favor of the Kurds. Exxon's decision may have been good for Exxon, but it certainly did not benefit a stable, unified Iraq. I am also concerned by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions about Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, intervened in Syria, and meddled in our own elections; yet Mr. Tillerson refuses to offer support for international sanctions against Russia. He refuses to describe Russia's bombing of Syrian hospitals and schools--and a U.N. humanitarian aid convoy--as war crimes. Russia remains in violation of the Minsk agreement and continues to occupy Crimea, indiscriminately bomb in Syria, and hack American think tanks. Now is not the time to remove sanctions against Russia, and I have little confidence Mr. Tillerson is committed to pushing back against Russian aggression. Finally, Mr. Tillerson's indifference to the two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is unacceptable. Specifically, Mr. Tillerson said that a two-state solution is a ``dream'' and openly questioned whether or not it could ever become a reality. The reality is that, without a two-state solution, Israel cannot be both a democracy and a majority-Jewish state. Today Israel is constructing settlements throughout the West Bank. Palestinian terror and incitement continue. Mr. Tillerson's almost casual dismissal of the two-state solution is disqualifying for a Secretary of State. Our chief diplomat must understand the urgency of the situation and must be willing to engage both sides in the pursuit of peace. I simply do not believe Mr. Tillerson is interested in doing so. Mr. Tillerson's lack of transparency, history of working against our national interests, close ties to Russia, and indifference to Israel's future make him unfit to serve as the Secretary of State. I intend to oppose Mr. Tillerson, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an extraordinary public servant and a dedicated leader of the U.S. intelligence community, Brig. Gen. Francis Xavier Taylor, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, I&A, at the Department of Homeland Security. I had the pleasure of presiding as chairman of the Intelligence Committee for the confirmation hearing for General Taylor in 2014 and have witnessed his leadership over the past 2 and a half years as I&A has made perhaps the most impressive progress of any intelligence agency over this time. After nearly 40 years of honorable service to our Nation, Under Secretary Taylor retired on the last day of the Obama administration. Prior to his work at DHS, Frank Taylor served for 31 years in the U.S. Air Force and at the U.S. Department of State as an ambassador for counterterrorism and head of diplomatic security. He also served as vice president of security at General Electric. For the past 2 years, he has applied the leadership skills, understanding of security at home and abroad, and his close personal friendship with Secretary Jeh Johnson to transform the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. I&A's mission is to equip the Homeland Security Enterprise with timely intelligence and information it needs to keep the homeland safe, secure, and resilient. It provides critical intelligence to the leadership of the DHS and its components; State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and private sector partners. The office itself was formed after the creation of DHS through the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and has seen significant change and disruption in its short lifetime. Due to Under Secretary Taylor's leadership, I&A is much further along on its vision of becoming a premier element of the IC, driving information sharing and delivering unique predictive intelligence and analysis to operators and decisionmakers at all levels. During his confirmation hearing, General Taylor was asked why I&A needed to exist, given the domestic mission of the FBI and the analytic work of the National Counterterrorism Center. He was asked to justify the office's existence if it produced one analytic product per employee per year. Members questioned him on the need for State and local fusion centers and the support provided to them by the Federal Government. I focused my questions on why an intelligence agency should have more than 60 percent of its staffing come from a contractor workforce. As we begin 2017, those questions are no longer applicable. Under Secretary Taylor has transformed the organization. He removed internal I&A stovepipes and realigned the organization to more closely reflect the intelligence cycle. Where homeland intelligence analysis had too often relied on repackaging products from other members of the IC, DHS collection now forms the basis of I&A production. Under Secretary Taylor also ordered that finished intelligence include DHS and State- local-tribal Partner data. Within 1 year, the organization achieved great success on this front, ensuring 80 percent of finished intelligence in fiscal year 2016 included unique homeland-derived data. Under his leadership, I&A is fulfilling the unique homeland-focused role that Congress intended. The contract workforce is below 25 percent and the office is producing valuable intelligence analysis, tips to law enforcement, compiling and improving the quality of DHS data for intelligence purposes, strengthening our watch listing capability, and lending expertise to decision makers from the President down to the cop on the beat. Under Secretary Taylor has worked tirelessly to mature and strengthen the Department's relationship with the State and local fusion centers and make information sharing a priority, changing the way the IC analyzes the domestic threat picture. When I have visited my local fusion center in San Francisco, I receive nothing but praise for the support that I&A provides and the importance of local, State, and Federal information sharing. The most recent example of this partnership is the Field Analysis Report, FAR, an intelligence report written by State and local intelligence analysts in coordination with I&A for the State and local audience. This is an important development from intelligence handed down from intelligence agencies inside the Federal beltway that, at times, misses the mark of what the local customer needs. FARs are among the most highly rated finished intelligence products coming out of I&A and are a direct result of General Taylor's vision. Under Secretary Taylor also took to heart the need to invest in the workforce and address extremely low employee morale. He has restructured the workforce, drastically reducing the ratio of supervisors to workers, streamlining management and developing what he calls ``seed corn''--young, junior intelligence professionals brought in to rejuvenate the organization and help develop a truly homeland- focused workforce. Besides shifting the balance of the staff, Under Secretary Taylor focused on hiring, growing, and investing in the workforce and ensuring that inherently governmental work is done by governmental employees and clear communication between the workforce and the leadership. Members of the Intelligence Committee spend most of our time on international events and the often controversial practices of the CIA, NSA, and FBI. We have had the luxury in the recent past not to have to worry on the intelligence coming from and provided to our homeland security professionals because of the leadership and uncommon skill of Under Secretary Frank Taylor. We owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. I wish to thank Under Secretary Taylor for his decades of exceptional service to our country and to wish him and his wife, Connie, the very best in the days and years ahead as he retires for the fourth time. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor as we have just filed a resolution--a bill actually--with 26 cosponsors that would repeal the immigration ban placed by President Trump. President Trump's Muslim ban is unnecessary, it is unconstitutional, and it is un- American. It should be repealed immediately. The Executive order prohibits individuals from Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from entering the country. It even bars relatives of Americans from visiting. The order suspends the entire U.S. refugee program, and most egregiously, Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely unless they are Christian. These provisions are not what America is all about. First, the order is unnecessary. Individuals from the 7 targeted countries and 150 other nations are already thoroughly screened. Visitors fill out visa applications. They submit photographs that run through biometric databases. Their personal information is reviewed, including names, addresses, and dates of birth. They are interviewed at a U.S. consulate. The process could take months to complete and eliminates the need for the travel ban. In addition, the move to ban refugees has no legitimate national security reason because these refugees undergo an even more thorough screening process that can take up to 2 years to complete. The vast majority of refugees are women and children who have experienced the absolute worst of humanity. Let's not forget the heart-wrenching image of the small body of Aylan Kurdi, a 3-year-old Syrian boy, washed up on a beach, dead. I will never forget this small boy in his short pants, his shoes, and his socks, lying on that beach. To turn away women and children and men in their time of dire need is not what this Nation is all about. Let me make this point: The poor execution of this Executive order has resulted in chaos and confusion. It is unclear whether the Justice Department or Homeland Security had any input. There seems to have been a disagreement about whether it would apply to green card holders. There was confusion about whether it applies to individuals already in transit or approved for travel. Even airport directors--I have spoken directly with the directors of Los Angeles International and San Francisco International, and there was confusion about how it applies. Even airport directors were left in the dark about how many people were detained and who they were. Sara Yarjani was one Californian caught up in this mess. She is an Iranian national studying at the California Institute for Human Science in San Diego under a valid student visa. After being detained at LAX for 23 hours, she was sent back to Europe, a clear violation of the nationwide stay against the order. What I am saying is that the court stay was actually violated. This is just one of more than 100 stories from the weekend. I believe this order is also unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The order violates this First Amendment by targeting Muslims and favoring Christians. The order may also violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which forbids the government from burdening the person's exercise of religion. The law bars any discrimination based on national origin in the issuance of a visa. Finally, detaining people at airports may violate their Fourth Amendment rights. This was an ill-considered overreach, as the courts showed over the weekend, and it should be repealed. So the bill that 27 of us are introducing rescinds the President's Executive order. The text is simple because the message is simple: We won't stand for these types of actions. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am so proud of the peaceful demonstrations we saw, and I join those who are so passionate about the free exercise of religion and free speech. These are our values, Mr. President, as a nation, and I will be right there with you if anyone tries to violate them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for giving me the opportunity to make some remarks for the record. I support Mike Pompeo to be Director of the CIA. I want to make clear that Congressman Pompeo has committed to following the law with respect to torture. He committed, during his open hearing, to a question I asked, to refuse any orders to restart the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques that fall outside of the Army Field Manual. However, what has happened is that his written answers to my questions for the record on torture appear to leave open the possibility that he would be open to the CIA carrying out these practices again in the future. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with Congressman Pompeo, and I asked him today to give me some statements from him that I could put directly into the record in that regard, and I wish to share these responses. I received them today, prepared by his staff. Let me quote. ``By law, any agency interrogations will be limited to techniques in the Army Field Manual.'' ``The Army Field Manual explicitly prohibits waterboarding and other techniques.'' He further recommitted to the promise he made at his hearing that he ``would `absolutely not' comply with an order that violates the law, including an order to restart a program with techniques that violated the limitations in the Army Field Manual.'' Additionally, he clarified his comments regarding which experts he intends to consult at the CIA and other organizations in the government regarding the Army Field Manual. This is where there was particularly-- I think in the Daily Beast, this question was raised, as well as in other places, so I want to clear it up. Here is his statement: He ``would listen to any items raised by the High-Value detainee Interrogation Group''--which we call the HIG--``or other career intelligence professionals that any improvements were needed to the Army Field Manual based on their professional experience.'' Moreover, he promised to provide objective analysis of Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement and insisted that he would keep the Senate informed of all CIA activities in that regard. Additionally, he has promised to put aside his previous political considerations, and he has committed to providing the President and the Congress with independent, objective intelligence analysis. Certainly, I, and certainly others, intend to hold him to these commitments. For these reasons, I am clearly voting for his confirmation and look forward to working closely with him on the Senate Intelligence Committee to make sure strong congressional oversight of the CIA continues. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my deep sorrow on the passing of Tim Mitchell. Through his absolute dedication to this institution and the special kind of person he was, Tim made the Senate a better place. Tim served as the assistant secretary for the minority. As Senator Reid shared during his September remarks in celebration of Tim's 25 years of exemplary service, Tim began his career in the Senate working for Senator Don Riegle, Jr., of Michigan. He later worked for Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota and the Democratic Policy & Communications Committee before joining the Democratic floor staff in 2001. Tim also took night classes at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law--an impressive feat. The Senate often calls for long days and longer nights. Debates on the floor may get heated, rollcall votes may drag on for hours, but Tim always kept a calm temperament and kind demeanor. He was soft spoken, but firm--not an easy feat while juggling the Members of this body's unique needs and passions. He was simply the best at what he did, and he made a real difference in how the Senate worked. The value of his service is incalculable. To Tim's family--his wife, Alicia, and his 11-year-old son, Ben--I am so sorry for your loss. I am forever grateful that you shared Tim with us for so many years. I echo Senator Reid's previous remarks: Tim's time here changed the Senate and this country for the better.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Desert Protection and Recreation Act of 2017. This bill, a decade in the making, charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. The goal is simple: to manage California's fragile desert resources in a sustainable and comprehensive manner. This bill provides something for everyone that appreciates the national treasure that is the California desert. That this bill provides something for everyone is a result of the painstaking effort to build consensus among the array of groups that use the desert, including: environmental groups; Federal, State, and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; and energy companies and California's public utility companies. As I will further describe later, the bill preserves 230,000 acres of wilderness and another 44,000 acres of national park land, each unrivaled for their unique natural landscapes. The bill also safeguards 77 miles of free-flowing rivers and the abundant life and rich biodiversity these rivers and streams often support. Importantly, the bill provides certainty to off-road enthusiasts, establishing 142,000 acres of permanent off-highway recreation areas--a first for the Nation. I made a commitment to off-roaders to enact the entire bill, not just parts of the bill. I hope to fulfill that promise. The efforts to protect the desert are a long time coming. This effort first began with the original California Desert Protection Act, signed into law more than twenty years ago. Picking up where my predecessors left off, I introduced that bill only three months after I was sworn in as a senator. Through hard work and perseverance, we were able to pass that law on the last day of the 103rd Congress, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994. The original Desert Protection Act was a crowning achievement for desert conservation, establishing 69 new Wilderness areas, creating the Mojave National Preserve, and converting Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks. All told, we were able to protect, or increase protections for, about 9.6 million acres. It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California, which is a boon for the economy. It has ensured that these enduring landscapes will be preserved for future generations. Since we passed the 1994 desert conservation bill, we've tried to build on this legacy of conservation. After years of collaboration with an array of stakeholders, we introduced new legislation in 2009. The goal of that bill was simple: to help manage California's desert resources through a comprehensive approach that balanced conservation, recreation, energy production, among other needs. After years of work, including two hearings in the Senate, we reached a major milestone this past February, when President Obama designated three new national monuments in the California desert: Castle Mountains, Mojave Trails, and Sand to Snow. Those monuments, based on the legislation I had introduced, created one of the world's largest desert reserves, encompassing nearly 1.8 million acres of America's public lands. Those monuments connect vital wildlife corridors and habitats, preserve cultural resources, and establish an important buffer to the inevitable changes climate change will usher in for these fragile desert ecosystems. While the newly-designated desert monuments formed a cornerstone for future desert protection, our work is not complete. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. While I supported President Obama's decision to create three national monuments in the Mojave Desert, his authority under the Antiquities Act did not allow him to include the many other valuable provisions in the original legislation. Our intention has always been to balance the many uses of the desert through legislation, and that remains the case today. That is why I reintroduced that legislation immediately following the President's designation, and that is why I am introducing a bill again today: to make the rest of the provisions a reality. The legislation I am introducing today therefore includes all of the provisions the President was not able to enact through executive action under the Antiquities Act. These negotiated provisions--which represent our best attempt to achieve consensus among desert stakeholders--deserve to become law. That legislation includes many additional conservation areas and provides permanent protection for five Off-Highway Recreation Areas covering approximately 142,000 acres. Off-roaders were a vital part of the coalition we put together, and unfortunately those lands could not be designated under executive action. Off-roaders deserve certainty about their future use of the land, just as there is now certainty for conservation purposes. I gave them my word that I would fight for them, and I intend to do so again in this new Congress. This bill would also expand wilderness areas in the desert, by designating five additional wilderness areas that cover 230,000 acres of land near Fort Irwin. The bill would ensure clean and free-flowing rivers, through the designation of 77 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers; add to our national parks, by expanding Death Valley National Park Wilderness by 39,000 acres and Joshua Tree National Park by 4,500 acres; expand National Scenic Areas, by adding 18,610 acres to the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County; and protect 81,000 acres of land in San Bernardino and Imperial County, and requires the Department of the Interior to protect petroglyphs and other cultural resources important to the surrounding tribes and communities. Lastly, the bill will facilitate renewable energy development in a way that protects delicate habitat. I want to highlight some of the key provisions of this legislation: By designating five new wilderness areas, this bill protects fragile desert ecosystems across 230,000 acres of wilderness near Fort Irwin. This includes 88,000 acres of Avawatz Mountains, 8,000-acre Great Falls Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 32,500-acre Death Valley Wilderness. The desert's sweeping desert vistas and rugged mountain terrain not only provide for a truly remarkable backcountry experience, but also provide vital refuge for everything from bighorn sheep and desert tortoises to Joshua Trees and Native American artifacts. This bill is more than just wilderness, however. It also designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 77 miles in length. These beautiful waterways, carved through the heart of the arid desert, are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park. The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes. We must also take into account another use of the desert land: renewable energy. I believe that we can honor our commitment to conservation while fulfilling California's pledge to develop a clean energy portfolio. Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place. By April 2009, solar and wind companies had proposed 28 projects to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development. Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. This is due in part to the state and federal governments' efforts to develop and finalize the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan--an ambitious effort to comprehensively manage renewable energy, conservation, and recreation on 22.5 million acres of California desert. By working with our state to develop this Plan, the federal government has shown it can be an effective partner in the State's efforts to combat climate change, all while protecting the magnificent, yet fragile, California desert landscape. The bill also makes use of about 370,000 acres of isolated, unusable parcels of State lands spread across the California desert. These small isolated parcels of State land in wilderness, national parks and monuments would be exchanged for Federal lands elsewhere that could potentially provide the State with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation, or other commercial purposes. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere. This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward. I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard. As you can see, there are many diverse interests in California's desert lands, an it is not easy to bring them all into agreement. But after years of painstaking efforts, they have reached agreement on this bill. Desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. Most importantly, I hope this body recognizes the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. It's the right thing to do.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Desert Protection and Recreation Act of 2017. This bill, a decade in the making, charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. The goal is simple: to manage California's fragile desert resources in a sustainable and comprehensive manner. This bill provides something for everyone that appreciates the national treasure that is the California desert. That this bill provides something for everyone is a result of the painstaking effort to build consensus among the array of groups that use the desert, including: environmental groups; Federal, State, and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; and energy companies and California's public utility companies. As I will further describe later, the bill preserves 230,000 acres of wilderness and another 44,000 acres of national park land, each unrivaled for their unique natural landscapes. The bill also safeguards 77 miles of free-flowing rivers and the abundant life and rich biodiversity these rivers and streams often support. Importantly, the bill provides certainty to off-road enthusiasts, establishing 142,000 acres of permanent off-highway recreation areas--a first for the Nation. I made a commitment to off-roaders to enact the entire bill, not just parts of the bill. I hope to fulfill that promise. The efforts to protect the desert are a long time coming. This effort first began with the original California Desert Protection Act, signed into law more than twenty years ago. Picking up where my predecessors left off, I introduced that bill only three months after I was sworn in as a senator. Through hard work and perseverance, we were able to pass that law on the last day of the 103rd Congress, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994. The original Desert Protection Act was a crowning achievement for desert conservation, establishing 69 new Wilderness areas, creating the Mojave National Preserve, and converting Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks. All told, we were able to protect, or increase protections for, about 9.6 million acres. It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California, which is a boon for the economy. It has ensured that these enduring landscapes will be preserved for future generations. Since we passed the 1994 desert conservation bill, we've tried to build on this legacy of conservation. After years of collaboration with an array of stakeholders, we introduced new legislation in 2009. The goal of that bill was simple: to help manage California's desert resources through a comprehensive approach that balanced conservation, recreation, energy production, among other needs. After years of work, including two hearings in the Senate, we reached a major milestone this past February, when President Obama designated three new national monuments in the California desert: Castle Mountains, Mojave Trails, and Sand to Snow. Those monuments, based on the legislation I had introduced, created one of the world's largest desert reserves, encompassing nearly 1.8 million acres of America's public lands. Those monuments connect vital wildlife corridors and habitats, preserve cultural resources, and establish an important buffer to the inevitable changes climate change will usher in for these fragile desert ecosystems. While the newly-designated desert monuments formed a cornerstone for future desert protection, our work is not complete. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. While I supported President Obama's decision to create three national monuments in the Mojave Desert, his authority under the Antiquities Act did not allow him to include the many other valuable provisions in the original legislation. Our intention has always been to balance the many uses of the desert through legislation, and that remains the case today. That is why I reintroduced that legislation immediately following the President's designation, and that is why I am introducing a bill again today: to make the rest of the provisions a reality. The legislation I am introducing today therefore includes all of the provisions the President was not able to enact through executive action under the Antiquities Act. These negotiated provisions--which represent our best attempt to achieve consensus among desert stakeholders--deserve to become law. That legislation includes many additional conservation areas and provides permanent protection for five Off-Highway Recreation Areas covering approximately 142,000 acres. Off-roaders were a vital part of the coalition we put together, and unfortunately those lands could not be designated under executive action. Off-roaders deserve certainty about their future use of the land, just as there is now certainty for conservation purposes. I gave them my word that I would fight for them, and I intend to do so again in this new Congress. This bill would also expand wilderness areas in the desert, by designating five additional wilderness areas that cover 230,000 acres of land near Fort Irwin. The bill would ensure clean and free-flowing rivers, through the designation of 77 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers; add to our national parks, by expanding Death Valley National Park Wilderness by 39,000 acres and Joshua Tree National Park by 4,500 acres; expand National Scenic Areas, by adding 18,610 acres to the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County; and protect 81,000 acres of land in San Bernardino and Imperial County, and requires the Department of the Interior to protect petroglyphs and other cultural resources important to the surrounding tribes and communities. Lastly, the bill will facilitate renewable energy development in a way that protects delicate habitat. I want to highlight some of the key provisions of this legislation: By designating five new wilderness areas, this bill protects fragile desert ecosystems across 230,000 acres of wilderness near Fort Irwin. This includes 88,000 acres of Avawatz Mountains, 8,000-acre Great Falls Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 32,500-acre Death Valley Wilderness. The desert's sweeping desert vistas and rugged mountain terrain not only provide for a truly remarkable backcountry experience, but also provide vital refuge for everything from bighorn sheep and desert tortoises to Joshua Trees and Native American artifacts. This bill is more than just wilderness, however. It also designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 77 miles in length. These beautiful waterways, carved through the heart of the arid desert, are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park. The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes. We must also take into account another use of the desert land: renewable energy. I believe that we can honor our commitment to conservation while fulfilling California's pledge to develop a clean energy portfolio. Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place. By April 2009, solar and wind companies had proposed 28 projects to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development. Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. This is due in part to the state and federal governments' efforts to develop and finalize the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan--an ambitious effort to comprehensively manage renewable energy, conservation, and recreation on 22.5 million acres of California desert. By working with our state to develop this Plan, the federal government has shown it can be an effective partner in the State's efforts to combat climate change, all while protecting the magnificent, yet fragile, California desert landscape. The bill also makes use of about 370,000 acres of isolated, unusable parcels of State lands spread across the California desert. These small isolated parcels of State land in wilderness, national parks and monuments would be exchanged for Federal lands elsewhere that could potentially provide the State with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation, or other commercial purposes. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere. This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward. I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard. As you can see, there are many diverse interests in California's desert lands, an it is not easy to bring them all into agreement. But after years of painstaking efforts, they have reached agreement on this bill. Desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. Most importantly, I hope this body recognizes the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. It's the right thing to do.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act, a bill to extend the time for minors to seek justice against their perpetrators. Sex crimes committed against children tragically remain a vile and dangerous reality in communities across this country. Just this past summer, as the world tuned into the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, the Indianapolis Star reported that USA Gymnastics had failed to report to law enforcement allegations of child sexual abuse committed by some of its coaches. Due to these purported failures, athletes as young as 7 years old were reported to have been abused for years, without any action taken to prevent the abuse. Since the initial Indianapolis Star report, more and more young gymnasts have come forward about their abuse. All over the world, and all over this country, sex abuse victims are bravely coming forward to tell their stories of abuse when they were children. In my home state of California, numerous victims have contacted my office. They have shared the amount of courage and strength it took to finally come forward with their experiences. These stories represent an untold amount of pain and suffering. They also represent how difficult it is to come forward until later, in adulthood. It has been estimated that 90 percent of child sex crime victims never go to the authorities concerning their abuse. To put this into context, studies indicate that at least one in four girls and about one in five boys is sexually abused. 90 percent of those victims never go to the authorities. A great number of victims don't ever disclose their abuse. If they do, they do not come forward until many years later, after reaching adulthood. This bill extends the civil statute of limitations in two ways for minor victims of Federal sex crimes to seek justice against their perpetrators. For one, the bill extends the statute of limitations for minor victims until the age of 28, from age 21, for injuries stemming from sex crimes such as sexual abuse and child pornography. Second, for the two laws that provide civil remedies for sex abuse and sex trafficking victims, the bill clarifies that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until after the victim actually discovers the injury or the violation. This is significant because victims of sex crimes are sometimes abused even before they can remember the abuse, some as young as 3 years old. Some victims are unable to connect their abuse to the injurious symptoms they exhibit throughout their lives. The bill therefore clarifies that the limitations period begins when the victim first discovers the injury or the violation. Through these provisions, the bill ensures that minor victims have an extended period to seek justice against their perpetrators after discovering their injury or violation. I want to thank Senator Cornyn again for working so closely with me on this issue. I also want to thank the cosponsors to this bill: Senators Klobuchar, Inhofe, Franken, Flake, Gillibrand, Tillis, and Markey. I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Victims of Crime, Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, the National Children's Advocacy Center, SGS for Healing, National Crime Victim Law Institute, National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Stop the Silence, PROTECT, the National Association to Protect Children, Rights4Girls, End Rape on Campus, National Children's Alliance, Lauren's Kids, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing a lease for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, or Washington. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, and Harris in sponsoring this bill, which has been reintroduced in every Congress since 2010. The original impetus for this bill was the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010, which demonstrated yet again the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction. When the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, 11 people died and 17 others were injured. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, and more than one-third of federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing. While Deepwater Horizon served as an important reminder, the dangers of offshore oil and gas were already too well known to Californians. In 1969, the Santa Barbara oil spill leaked up to 100,000 barrels of oil, and remains the third largest oil spill in the country to this day. Like the Deepwater Horizon, the Santa Barbara oil spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It took 11 days to plug the hole with mud and cement, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. Using containment technologies still in place today, the cleanup effort relied on skimmers, detergent, and booms. There has been no new drilling in waters controlled by the State of California since then, and there has been no new drilling in Federal waters off the coast of California since 1981. Appropriately, the most recent plan from the Department of the Interior for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing will not allow new leasing off the Pacific Coast of California, Oregon or Washington through 2022. The fact is that those of us on the Pacific coast do not want any further offshore oil or gas development. In 2012 California's 19 coastal counties generated $662 billion in wages and $1.7 trillion in GDP. This accounts for 80 percent of the economic activity in the State. California's Ocean economy, including tourism, recreation, and marine transportation, accounts for over 489,000 jobs. Unlike other areas of the country, any potential fossil fuel resources off the coast of California are likely to be found within only 50 miles of the coast, because of the narrow shelf off the California coast. This means that any potential drilling, and any potential spills, would be in direct conflict with the ocean environment and economy that my state enjoys. Enacting a permanent ban on offshore drilling would protect our coast for generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing a lease for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, or Washington. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, and Harris in sponsoring this bill, which has been reintroduced in every Congress since 2010. The original impetus for this bill was the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010, which demonstrated yet again the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction. When the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, 11 people died and 17 others were injured. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, and more than one-third of federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing. While Deepwater Horizon served as an important reminder, the dangers of offshore oil and gas were already too well known to Californians. In 1969, the Santa Barbara oil spill leaked up to 100,000 barrels of oil, and remains the third largest oil spill in the country to this day. Like the Deepwater Horizon, the Santa Barbara oil spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It took 11 days to plug the hole with mud and cement, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. Using containment technologies still in place today, the cleanup effort relied on skimmers, detergent, and booms. There has been no new drilling in waters controlled by the State of California since then, and there has been no new drilling in Federal waters off the coast of California since 1981. Appropriately, the most recent plan from the Department of the Interior for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing will not allow new leasing off the Pacific Coast of California, Oregon or Washington through 2022. The fact is that those of us on the Pacific coast do not want any further offshore oil or gas development. In 2012 California's 19 coastal counties generated $662 billion in wages and $1.7 trillion in GDP. This accounts for 80 percent of the economic activity in the State. California's Ocean economy, including tourism, recreation, and marine transportation, accounts for over 489,000 jobs. Unlike other areas of the country, any potential fossil fuel resources off the coast of California are likely to be found within only 50 miles of the coast, because of the narrow shelf off the California coast. This means that any potential drilling, and any potential spills, would be in direct conflict with the ocean environment and economy that my state enjoys. Enacting a permanent ban on offshore drilling would protect our coast for generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act, a bill to extend the time for minors to seek justice against their perpetrators. Sex crimes committed against children tragically remain a vile and dangerous reality in communities across this country. Just this past summer, as the world tuned into the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, the Indianapolis Star reported that USA Gymnastics had failed to report to law enforcement allegations of child sexual abuse committed by some of its coaches. Due to these purported failures, athletes as young as 7 years old were reported to have been abused for years, without any action taken to prevent the abuse. Since the initial Indianapolis Star report, more and more young gymnasts have come forward about their abuse. All over the world, and all over this country, sex abuse victims are bravely coming forward to tell their stories of abuse when they were children. In my home state of California, numerous victims have contacted my office. They have shared the amount of courage and strength it took to finally come forward with their experiences. These stories represent an untold amount of pain and suffering. They also represent how difficult it is to come forward until later, in adulthood. It has been estimated that 90 percent of child sex crime victims never go to the authorities concerning their abuse. To put this into context, studies indicate that at least one in four girls and about one in five boys is sexually abused. 90 percent of those victims never go to the authorities. A great number of victims don't ever disclose their abuse. If they do, they do not come forward until many years later, after reaching adulthood. This bill extends the civil statute of limitations in two ways for minor victims of Federal sex crimes to seek justice against their perpetrators. For one, the bill extends the statute of limitations for minor victims until the age of 28, from age 21, for injuries stemming from sex crimes such as sexual abuse and child pornography. Second, for the two laws that provide civil remedies for sex abuse and sex trafficking victims, the bill clarifies that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until after the victim actually discovers the injury or the violation. This is significant because victims of sex crimes are sometimes abused even before they can remember the abuse, some as young as 3 years old. Some victims are unable to connect their abuse to the injurious symptoms they exhibit throughout their lives. The bill therefore clarifies that the limitations period begins when the victim first discovers the injury or the violation. Through these provisions, the bill ensures that minor victims have an extended period to seek justice against their perpetrators after discovering their injury or violation. I want to thank Senator Cornyn again for working so closely with me on this issue. I also want to thank the cosponsors to this bill: Senators Klobuchar, Inhofe, Franken, Flake, Gillibrand, Tillis, and Markey. I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Victims of Crime, Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, the National Children's Advocacy Center, SGS for Healing, National Crime Victim Law Institute, National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Stop the Silence, PROTECT, the National Association to Protect Children, Rights4Girls, End Rape on Campus, National Children's Alliance, Lauren's Kids, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator has just asked me if I would yield to her; that she has a very short set of remarks, and I am happy to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, are we going back and forth?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask the Senator--because I thought Democrats had an hour at this time, I agreed to yield to Senator Baldwin. Senator McCain, do you know how long you will be?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, you go ahead. I will defer.