Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senator, I have about 20 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I begin, I wish to say a few words about my colleague from California who is retiring. I very much regret that I was not able to be here for her remarks on the floor. However, I have written a rather extensive statement for the record. I want to say here and now that no one has fought for California or for this country harder. She has had a dedicated and long career of service to our country, and her accomplishments are many. Those are documented in the record, and I believe they will stand the test of time. So I want to offer my heartiest congratulations to her for 24 years of service to this country. We came to the Senate together. I have very much respected her, her work, and her diligence over these years.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In fact, the savings clause here is drafted to be nearly identical to the savings clause in a case called Verizon Communication v. Trinko. This is a Supreme Court case in which the Court took a commonsense view of the same clause as we have in this bill and concluded that clause prevented any modification to existing law. I also want to talk about process. The bill before you today is the result of 3 years of painstaking and public work. I first introduced a version of this bill in July of 2015. That bill received significant public input, including a Senate energy committee hearing last October. Based on feedback, I revised that bill and then circulated a public discussion draft in December of that year. We incorporated feedback from a variety of stakeholders, including environmentalists, water districts, and State and Federal agencies. We made dozens of changes. Incorporating all of this, I then introduced a revised bill in February of 2016. That revised bill received a second Senate hearing in the committee in May. The administration testified at that time that the bill complied with the Endangered Species Act and relevant biological opinions. The short-term operational provisions in this bill are largely the same as the bill I introduced in February. We also made the savings clause and environmental protections even stronger, referencing them no fewer than 36 times. I truly believe the long-term provision, as well as the environmental protections, would not be included in any bill under a Congress that we might expect in the future. While the short-term provisions will alleviate some suffering, I believe that the most important part of the bill is actually the long- term section. In California, we have depended on a water system that is overallocated and overstressed. I want to explain that. We have two big water systems. One is the State water system, put forward by Governor Pat Brown in the middle 1960s, when California had 16 million people. The other is the Central Valley Water Project, bonded and paid for by agriculture water contractors. That was put forward in the 1930s. By census, California today is 39.1 million people, and the number of undocumented in addition to that is estimated to be 2.5 million. I often say, and it is conservative, the State today is 40 million people with a water infrastructure created when we were 16 million people. To address the demands of a growing population and changing climate, we have long-term provisions that include $550 million in authorizations for programs, including fish and wildlife protection, desalination, storage, recycling, and water grant programs. Over the course of 3 years of work, we heard the concerns of many people about the loss of salmon. And I've been told that the pumps actually were not to blame for the high mortality rates of salmon in the past 2 years. In fact, only 56 out of an allowable 1,017 salmon were caught at these pumps. I said I was disappointed. The word is surprised. The problem has been a malfunctioning cold water valve at Shasta Dam that meant there was not enough cold water for fish in the Sacramento River. According to NOAA Fisheries, these mistakes resulted in a salmon kill of 95 percent in 2014 and a salmon kill of 98 percent in 2015. Of the $150 million in the energy and water appropriations I have acquired the past two years, we have used some to fix this problem and Shasta, in addition to other infrastructure problems. We also have $43 million of environmentally beneficial bills, some of which can be used to make sure we avoid a devastating loss to salmon. Let me tell you what that $43 million includes: $15 million for habitat restoration projects, $15 million for fish passage projects, $3 million for a long-wanted delta smelt distribution study requested by Fish and Wildlife, and a program to reduce predator fish. Let me tell you what a big problem that is in the delta. People add predator fish such as striped bass to be able to encourage a fishing industry. The smelt go where the turbid waters are. The fishing magazines say if you want to catch fish, go to the turbid water. So fishermen go to the places where the striped bass are feeding on the endangered species. Additionally, in this bill, we have money to eliminate what has been a huge growth of water hyacinth, which drain the nutrients from the water. I would also say we have about a dozen sewage treatment plants that put millions of gallons of 1.75 million gallons of ammonia per year into the delta. The delta is a troubled place, and let there be no doubt about it. There are a lot of islands, there is farming, and the soil is peat. When the levees leak, the peat soil goes into the delta, throws off trihalomethanes, and pollutes the water further. We add $10 million to connect important wildlife refuges to sources of water, and the bill also includes $515 million that can go to a new kind of water infrastructure for California. This includes $30 million for design and construction of desalination plants. These projects actually do work. What I am told is what we need to secure is a third-generation membrane because the energy coefficient of desal has been negative. With a third-generation membrane, you can turn that deficit into a positive coefficient. The bill also includes $335 million for storage and groundwater projects. The only way we will be able to weather future droughts is by holding water in wet years for dry years, and that means more storage, including groundwater storage. We have money in there for WaterSMART, and this will help fund water supply and conservation. We have $50 million included for the existing Colorado River System Conservation Program. To date, this popular program has resulted in 80,000 acre-feet of water saved throughout the West, including through projects in Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming. I wish to address my colleagues' concerns that this bill will allow the next administration to build dams all over the country without any congressional approval, and this is simply not true. Let me set the record straight about how storage projects work under this bill. The drought language here gives Congress veto authority through control of appropriations for any storage project. This means that reclamation will do the same rigorous studies it has always done, including feasibility studies and environmental impact statements. Reclamation would then submit a list of recommended projects to Congress, and Congress would decide how to fund them. If Congress has concerns, it doesn't fund the project. It is that simple. This will allow Federal funding to go to qualified, environmentally mitigated, and cost-beneficial projects on the same timeframe as projects funded under the California State water bond. That is just common sense, making sure the Federal Government partners with States such as California to ensure the best projects get funding but only with Congress's approval. It was said on this floor that groundwater projects are the best solution for California water problems, and this bill helps build those groundwater projects. Again, this proposal made so much sense 1 year ago that my colleague from California cosponsored the measure. Moreover, this is not the Federal Government building projects that States and local governments oppose. To the contrary, the bill sets up a process where the Federal Government can contribute up to 25 percent of the cost of projects built by States or local agencies in collaboration with a broad range of local agencies. The Federal Government cannot contribute more than 25 percent of the cost. They have to work with the States and local agencies that would fund the rest. This provision has also been the subject of two public hearings and the Obama administration supported it. The Obama administration stated the following in relationship to the water storage programs in the bill at the May 26 hearing in the Energy Committee: We are finding that State and local jurisdictions are developing their own funding for many of these types of projects and would like to have a federal partner but are unable to wait for an authorization for Reclamation to participate in such a project. Consequently, we are of the view that in addition to the traditional Reclamation paradigm for study, authorization, then participation in federal water projects, Congress should revisit a standing authorization that allows some kind of investment in the state and local projects as contemplated. I want to talk about the offsets on the bill. On this floor, it has been said that this is a sweetheart deal that would cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, and that is simply flatly untrue. In fact, the CBO budget office has said that the bill will save Treasury $558 million, and that is the truth. As I said, California is home to more than 40 million people and our major water infrastructure hasn't been significantly changed in the past 50 years when we had 16 million. We must modernize the system, both the infrastructure and operational flexibility, or I fear we risk eventually becoming a desert State. To the best of our ability, we have addressed concerns raised by environmentalists, water districts, Federal and State agencies, and the ag sector. This bill has bipartisan support in both Houses, and I believe these provisions will place California on a long-term path to drought resiliency. I wish to say thank you. A lot of people have had a very hard time through this drought. It is my hope that we can get this bill passed and then, on a bipartisan basis, this Congress, both Senate and House, can see that we do what we can to abate this drought and also begin to build a new water infrastructure in California. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish today to speak about the need to protect undocumented young people, commonly referred to as DREAMers, from deportation by preserving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA. President-Elect Trump has threatened to eliminate the program, which would have serious consequences for families and communities across the United States, particularly those in California. That is why I join my colleagues in the Senate to urge that President-Elect Trump allow young people to continue to study, work, and live in our country. The DACA program was announced by President Obama in 2012. It temporarily halts the threat of deportation for undocumented young people who were brought to the United States as children before their 16th birthday. DACA also provides the opportunity to obtain work permits and the documents often required to enroll in college. Around 750,000 young people have been admitted to the program, allowing them to come out of the shadows and make incredible contributions to their communities. Nearly half of DREAMers--370,000--live, work and are educated in California. They are an essential part of the fabric of our communities and it is so important for people and the President-Elect to know the very real, human side to this issue. I would like to begin with the story of one talented and ambitious Californian who has taken full advantage of the opportunity she had been given by the DACA program. Denisse Rojas arrived in the United States when she was just 10 months old, brought here from Mexico. Like many of our immigrant ancestors, her parents wanted to make a better life for her and her siblings. Denisse's family is similar to many undocumented families in California. After arriving in Fremont, CA, her father worked full-time in a restaurant while pursuing his high school diploma at night. Her mother attended community college part-time for 7 years to earn her nursing degree. Denisse excelled in high school, graduating with a 4.3 GPA. She attended U.C. Berkeley, one of the top public universities in the Nation, to study biology and sociology. 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. Denisse worked as a waitress and commuted an hour each way to classes because she couldn't afford to live on campus. After graduation, she volunteered at San Francisco General Hospital. Today, Denisse is attending medical school in New York at one of the country's top programs, and she is on track to earn her degree in 2019. To help other students navigate the admissions process and pursue careers in health and medicine, Denisse cofounded a national nonprofit organization called Pre-Health Dreamers. Pre-Health Dreamers has connected an incredible network of students, and I would like to introduce you to just a couple of them: Oscar Hernandez is a medical student at U.C. Irvine. He grew up in San Diego's Barrio Logan neighborhood and received his bachelor's degree in physiology and neuroscience from U.C. San Diego. Oscar is being specially trained to address the unique challenges in providing health care to California's Latino communities--a growing need in our State. Seung Lee is a medical student at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. His family immigrated to the United States from South Korea in 1998. Seung is also pursuing a career in medicine because he wants to help reduce inequality by increasing access to health care in his community. Through Pre-Health Dreamers, Denisse has helped bring Oscar, Seung, and many other students together as they work toward their goals. After graduation, Denisse intends to specialize in emergency medicine and work in low-income communities to provide health care to families like her own that too often go without needed treatment. Parts of California, particularly our rural communities, are very short on doctors. We desperately need people like Denisse who want to work in communities most in need of skilled health care professionals. Without the DACA program, Denisse wouldn't be able to obtain the license required to practice medicine. She would not have the proper work authorization or accompanying documents. And our country would be denied a highly qualified, motivated doctor. DREAMers are also working in classrooms across the country. Jaime Ballesteros came to the United States from the Philippines when he was 11 years old. He excelled in school but knew that being undocumented would make it much harder to go to college. Jaime's English teacher encouraged him to pursue private scholarships, and he enrolled in Drew University, a top school for teachers. Jamie was admitted into the DACA program during his junior year of college. He obtained a work permit and said filing his taxes for the first time was ``one of the happiest days of my life.'' Jamie wanted to give back to students facing the same challenges he did, and he joined Teach for America. Today he serves as a 7th grade science teacher at KIPP Academy of Innovation, a STEM charter middle school in east Los Angeles. Now, I would like to explain the application process these young people go through. They need to pay a nearly $500 application fee and provide a wide range of documents to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services showing their identity; proof they came to the United States before their 16th birthday; proof that they were present in United States on June 15, 2012; proof that they have continuously lived in United States since June 15, 2007; and confirmation that they are or have been students or honorably discharged military veterans. Potential DACA recipients must also undergo a criminal background check, during which fingerprints and photographs may be collected. Those with felony convictions or three or more misdemeanors are ineligible for the program. Once approved, DREAMers must reapply every 2 years. The renewal process allows the Department of Homeland Security to ensure young people still meet the program's requirements. Despite the program's success, exemplified by young people like Denisse, Oscar, Seung, Jamie, and many others, President-Elect Trump has threatened to immediately rescind the program. There is a very real fear that DREAMers and their families could be targeted for deportation under his administration. The fear is compounded because DREAMers trusted the government with their home and work addresses, school information, family details, and other personally identifiable information. My office has received hundreds of calls and emails from Californians who have been admitted to the program, their families and friends, as well as others who support DACA because they have seen the benefit to their communities. I would like to share just some of the feedback I have received. A professor from the University of San Francisco shared that a student sobbed in her arms in the first class after Election Day. And a wife from Forest Lake feared that her husband's status would be revoked and their family could be separated. She wrote, ``Under a Trump presidency, I, a U.S. citizen, may need to leave my home and start a new life in Mexico. Family is family, and where my husband goes, I go.'' This is unacceptable and not the America I know. We can't allow whole communities in this country to live in fear. Upon his election, President-Elect Trump said he wants to be the President for all Americans. I would urge him to meet some of these young people. He would see that DREAMers are fiercely patriotic. He would see that, in every way that matters, DREAMers are Americans. They were educated here, they work here, they pay taxes, and they contribute to communities across America. And he would see that they want to be accepted and integrated into American society. Unequivocally stating that he will not overturn DACA and will not target DREAMers for deportation would send a strong message that President-Elect Trump is serious about turning the page from the toxic campaign rhetoric and being a President for all Americans. In the event that President-Elect Trump doesn't change course, Senators Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham have committed to introducing legislation to extend deferred action status for those who currently have it. I will join this effort. I want to be crystal clear: this Senator will not sit by and do nothing if these young people are targeted for deportation. We have a moral obligation to do all we can to shield the DREAMers from deportation and keep their families together. This is not a matter of politics. This is about what is right as Americans and human beings. Denisse, Oscar, and Seung deserve the opportunity to earn their medical degrees. Jamie deserves the opportunity to continue teaching. They and other DREAMers deserve the opportunity to give back to their country--the United States of America--and I pledge that I will work to give them that opportunity.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Joe Biden, the 47th Vice President of the United States. After I came to the Senate in 1992--known as ``the Year of the Woman''--then-Senator Joe Biden invited me to lunch at his office in the Russell Senate Office Building. We sat at small table in his elegant office and discussed the importance of having a woman on the Judiciary Committee, of which he was chairman at the time. This was in the wake of the Anita Hill hearings, and there were no women on the committee. It was a real honor when Joe Biden asked me to join. He then asked Senator Carol Moseley Braun to join, giving the committee two women for the first time. Serving on the committee with him, I noticed immediately that he had a commanding presence. As I watched him chair the committee, I was impressed by the passion he displayed while working to slow the drug trade, protect women from domestic violence, and help advocate for a ban on assault weapons. These were issues that I, along with millions of other Americans, felt strongly about, and we had a champion in Joe Biden. During discussions about a proposed crime bill in 1993, I told Joe I was working on an assault weapons ban. This was in the wake of a mass shooting in San Francisco that shocked me. I told Joe we had at least 48 votes and I wanted to introduce it as an amendment to the crime bill. He laughed--a big raucous laugh--and said, ``Well, you're just a freshman. Wait till the gunners get to you.'' He may have had his doubts, but he was a staunch supporter of the amendment, and with the help of President Clinton and Chuck Schumer in the House, we were able to secure bipartisan support and pass the amendment. It was a proud day for me when it was signed into law. Joe was right about the gunners, though. The gun lobby did come after us, and they continue to oppose commonsense gun laws today. During that debate and in every fight since then, Joe Biden has been staunch, impassioned, and a committed partner. That crime bill was a monumental piece of legislation. In addition to our assault weapons ban, it put 100,000 more cops on the street, protected children from dangerous predators and included a very important piece of legislation: the Violence Against Women Act. It has been two decades since Joe introduced the Violence Against Women Act. In that time, domestic violence rates have decreased by 64 percent, conviction rates for abusers increased, and 3.4 million women and men have been helped by the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Beyond the numbers, Joe changed the debate around domestic violence with enactment of this bill. States and localities changed outdated laws. Victims were given courage to speak out and seek help, and millions of women felt empowered knowing that in America, they had the right to be free from violence and free from fear. Joe's legacy as chair of the Judiciary is matched by his time leading the Foreign Relations Committee. From atop the committee, he was a forceful advocate for peace and stability around the world. He called for strategic arms limitations with the Soviet Union, helped secure peace in the Balkans, helped bring former Soviet bloc states into NATO, called for U.S. action to end the genocide in Darfur, and spoke out against failed policies in Iraq. He was also a critic of the CIA's detention and interrogation program and backed our efforts to release the torture report. During heated debate, Joe made the argument simple and easy to understand: America will be stronger by saying the following: ``This was a mistake, we should not have done what we've done and we will not do it again.'' He was right, and our Nation is stronger for having the courage to admit that. Joe Biden's willingness to speak the truth is one of the many reasons President Obama tapped him to be his running mate. The President knew Joe would discuss every issue with the same frank honesty--whether he was offering counsel in the Oval Office or chatting with someone on the train ride back home. President Obama relied on his Vice President to oversee the recovery after the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. He was tasked with implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Ready to Work Initiative and to chair the Middle Class Task Force. Joe Biden was the perfect choice for the job. He is the product of his Catholic faith and the values instilled in him growing up in Scranton. Those same values that he carried throughout his career in Delaware and into the Vice Presidency. He is a tough individual who has faced adversity that would knock a lesser man down; yet through it all, Joe never wavered from his commitment to serving others. To those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him and to millions of Americans, Joe Biden is a good and honest man who simply wants to make the world a better place. After 44 years in this Chamber, the last 8 as the President of the Senate, Joe can leave knowing he has accomplished just that. The world is a better place thanks to you, and it is grateful for your service, Joe Biden.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor our colleagues who are leaving us at the end of this Congress, six individuals who have done a lot to shape how the Senate operates today. First I would like to thank my three Republican colleagues who are departing. Thank you not only for their service to our country but your willingness to work with me and other members of my party on a number of issues. Dan Coats Mr. President, Senator Coats and I served on the Intelligence Committee together. He was a supporter of many of our efforts, including our encryption bill to require all companies to abide by lawful court orders. Mark Kirk Mr. President, Senator Mark Kirk took a brave stance on gun violence issues, bucking his party by cosponsoring our amendment to close the terrorist loophole. Kelly Ayotte Mr. President, Senator Ayotte and I have worked very closely to improve breast cancer detection. I am hopeful that together we can pass our bill before the end of this Congress. I would also like to speak to three of my closest colleagues on our side of the aisle. Over the past 24 years, I have had the pleasure of serving in the Senate with Harry Reid, Barbara Mikulski, and Barbara Boxer, and I am grateful not just for our working relationships but for the close friendships I have formed with each of them. Harry Reid Mr. President, Senator Reid has served in Congress since 1983, and he has been our party's leader for the past decade. Despite more than three decades in Washington, Senator Reid still retains the values instilled in him while growing up in Searchlight, NV. Often described as a tough fighter, he has respect from both sides of the aisle for being a consensus builder who is willing to constantly work to find a deal. One issue on which Senator Reid and I share a passion is Lake Tahoe, the High Sierra lake that straddles the California-Nevada border. Twenty years ago, Harry invited President Bill Clinton to announce a major commitment to restoring the health of Lake Tahoe. That first summit launched a public-private partnership that has now invested $1.2 billion in conservation and restoration projects around the lake. This year, Senator Reid told me he wanted to turn the annual summit into a celebration by inviting President Obama to speak. The event was a huge success, with more than 7,000 people attending. I will miss Harry's passion and leadership, but if anyone deserves a break, it is him. Barbara Mikulski Mr. President, Barbara Mikulski is another fearless leader whom I admire. When I first came to the Senate in November of 1992, there were only three female Senators: Jocelyn Burdick of North Dakota, who retired a month later; Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas; and, of course, Senator Barb. Senator Mikulski often quips, ``I may be short, but I won't be overlooked.'' History certainly will not overlook the contributions she has made. Rising to become the first woman to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski is often described as a trailblazer. To the women in the Senate, she is a mentor, the dean of the Senate women. From three women in 1992 to 20 women senators today--and 21 in the next Congress, much of that progress can be attributed to the leadership of the longest serving woman in Congress, Senator Mikulski. Barbara Boxer Mr. President, finally, I would like to talk about my partner from California, Barbara Boxer. Senator Boxer and I were elected to the Senate on the same day in 1992, the ``Year of the Woman.'' The day Barbara was sworn in was historic; it was the first time two women represented their State together in the Senate. That is an honor I am grateful to have shared with my good friend. From the Marin County Board of Supervisors, to the House of Representatives, to the United States Senate--Senator Boxer has been a champion for families, children, consumers, and the environment. She rose to become the chair and now ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I have great respect for Senator Boxer's passion, dedication, and enthusiasm for protecting the environment. No one does it better. She led an effort to protect California's coast from offshore drilling. She authored the California Missions Preservation Act to restore and protect the 21 historic missions in California. She helped create Pinnacles National Park, Fort Ord National Monument, and Caesar Chavez National Monument. And she led the effort to expand the Gulf of Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. In California, there are now more than 1 million acres of protected wilderness thanks to Senator Boxer. But she was more than just a champion for our environment. In the Senate, Barbara was a staunch advocate for issues related to children. She pushed to protect children from dangerous toys by removing lead or other dangerous chemicals and requiring cautionary warnings on children's products sold over the Internet. She fought to remove arsenic from drinking water to protect children. As chair of the After School Caucus, she wrote legislation to secure Federal funding for afterschool programs. Thanks to Senator Boxer, 1.6 million children now have a safe place to go after school. She fought for our servicemembers. She founded the Military Families Caucus to provide support for the families of servicemembers. She helped establish the West Coast Combat Care Center in San Diego, so that southern California veterans with traumatic wounds would have access to quality care. And Senator Boxer fought for consumers. She authored a bipartisan measure to prevent a conflict of interest with banks acting as real estate brokers. After the housing crisis, she wrote measures to protect homeowners whose mortgage is transferred or sold. And she pushed for legislation to help homeowners refinance with lower rates--thanks to that effort, 1 million borrowers were able to save thousands of dollars in interest payments each year. And finally, Barbara was a staunch defender of women's rights. She led the floor fight to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and pushed back against repeated attacks on women's health and a woman's right to privacy. Her efforts led to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act that protects women from domestic and sexual abuse. She worked closely with then-Senator Joe Biden to pass that landmark bill. After she announced her retirement, the Vice President said: ``You always knew in the Senate if you had Barbara on your side, you didn't need much more.'' Well, I have been lucky to have Barbara by my side for the past 24 years. She has been a strong advocate for the people of California, and I am grateful to have served with her. I am also grateful for the friendship we have shared over the years. Barbara and her husband, Stewart, are two of the kindest, most caring people I have had the pleasure of knowing. Their marriage of more than 50 years has brought them considerable joy. Together they raised two wonderful children and are now blessed with four grandchildren. I am sure she is looking forward to spending more time with them. While she may be retiring from the Senate, the passion Barbara displayed for public service will not end. I know she will continue to advocate and remain a powerful voice for the causes she championed here in the United States Senate. I look forward to seeing what she is able to accomplish in the next phase of her life and offer her best wishes in a well-deserved retirement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a true leader in every sense of the word. James R. Clapper, Jr., has had a defining impact on the U.S. Intelligence Community over his past half- century of service. As of today, he has served 2,190 days as the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, which makes him the longest serving DNI, surpassing the combined time of all the Directors who served before him. Director Clapper has dedicated his life to the field of intelligence, and his contributions to the Nation are significant. Jim Clapper began his distinguished career as a rifleman in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, before becoming a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force in 1963. For 31 years, he served this Nation in various intelligence capacities, commanding signals intelligence operations both inside the United States and overseas. From 1991-1995, he served as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, retiring with the rank of lieutenant general. After 6 years in the private sector, he took over the reins of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in 2001 and spearheaded its transformation into today's National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency. In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated General Clapper to serve as the Department of Defense's chief intelligence officer as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, where he served in both the Bush and Obama administrations. President Obama nominated Jim Clapper to serve as the Director of National Intelligence in 2010, only the fourth person to serve in that position since its creation in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. As the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I was initially concerned that General Clapper's military background would be inappropriate to lead a mostly civilian intelligence enterprise. He made clear his intent to lead objectively and in the best interest of intelligence, and he did. He brought important stability to this position. During the next 6 years, he and I talked frequently and discussed many topics of critical importance to this Nation. We also discussed changes he sought to implement to improve the operations of the intelligence community. These changes had, and will continue to have, a positive and lasting impact on the intelligence community. During his tenure as DNI, Director Clapper focused relentlessly on intelligence integration, with a definitive focus on mission. He made important changes in how the Office of the Director of National Intelligence operated, including creating National Intelligence Managers, who oversaw the integration efforts across the intelligence community for specific mission areas. He put in place a planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation system that set priorities, managed resources, and evaluated effectiveness of each taxpayer dollar being spent. He also began the ambitious goal of creating a common information technology infrastructure, known as the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise, IC ITE, that will dramatically serve to improve intelligence integration. In addition, Director Clapper brought increased transparency to the intelligence community so that the public can have greater confidence in our intelligence capabilities and their appropriate use. His accomplishments are too many to enumerate here, but suffice it to say that his positive legacy within the intelligence community will continue for years to come. Part of Director Clapper's strength as the Director of National Intelligence has been his deep understanding of this Nation's intelligence activities and his extensive network of colleagues with whom he worked across the intelligence enterprise to help serve the users of intelligence, be they policymakers, warfighters, law enforcement, or national security officials. His commitment to advancing women and minorities in the field of intelligence is particularly noteworthy. He selected the first woman to lead a major intelligence agency, naming Betty Sapp to be Director of the National Reconnaissance Office. He also named Tricia Long to be Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and recruited Stephanie O'Sullivan to be Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence as his partner in creating and instituting change in the intelligence community. While Jim Clapper portrays a somewhat gruff exterior, his concern for his employees and quiet sensitivities are well known to the countless staff who have received hand-written notes from him extolling exemplary work, congratulations on births and weddings, or heartfelt condolences for the loss of a loved one. Today I want to congratulate him on his remarkable career and offer my gratitude for his decades of commitment and sacrifices to this Nation. I also thank his wife, Susan, who herself was an NSA employee, for her unfailing support over their 51-year marriage that allowed for the successes that Jim has achieved. The Nation owes this patriot a debt of gratitude.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to support the 21st Century Cures Act, which would make vital investments in research to develop new treatments for deadly diseases, including cancer. The bill would also dedicate desperately needed funding to address some of our country's most pressing public health problems--opioid addiction and mental illness. First, I would like to speak about the bill's provisions for cancer and rare diseases. Cancer touches the lives of all Americans; it doesn't discriminate. We have all experienced the grief and pain that comes with losing a loved one, friend, or colleague to this terrible disease. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in our country. Nearly 40 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, according to the National Cancer Institute. We have made great strides in improving detection, treatment, and survival rates for many cancers, including early-stage breast cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Despite this progress, other cancers like pancreatic and certain brain cancers remain extremely deadly, with very low 5-year survival rates. These cancers are typically detected in late stages, and even the most cutting-edge treatments may result in just a few more months of life. The Cures Act designates nearly $4.8 billion in additional funds for medical research through the National Institutes of Health, $1.8 billion of which will expand and accelerate cancer research, in line with Vice President Biden's Cancer Moonshot Initiative. This research funding also supports important initiatives focused on precision medicine and neurological research. Next, I would like to talk about the bill's funding to combat opioid addiction, which is an epidemic in this country. Nearly 2 million Americans are addicted to opioids, and 19,000 Americans overdosed and died in 2014. This epidemic stems from a surge in the use of prescription drugs. It is not a coincidence that prescription overdose deaths quadrupled during the same period that opioid prescriptions quadrupled. In 2012, 259 million prescriptions for opioids were written. That means 80 percent of Americans could have a bottle of pills. Prescription drug abuse frequently leads to heroin addiction because these drugs affect the brain in the same way. This problem is exacerbated because heroin is significantly cheaper that prescription opioids like OxyContin or fentanyl. This crisis demands an immediate, comprehensive, national response. Congress took a first step earlier this year, passing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act in May. This bill authorizes grants to expand access to substance use disorder treatment, strengthen prescription drug monitoring programs, and supply first responders with naloxone, which can reverse the effects of an overdose. However, this bill didn't include any funding for the initiatives it authorized. The Cures Act takes that step, providing $1 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services to fund many of the prevention and treatment programs authorized by Congress earlier this year. Lastly, I would like to highlight the bill's provisions to improve our country's mental health system. This is an area where we fall far short. We don't do nearly enough to ensure those with mental illness are able to access appropriate treatment and this has ripple effects throughout society. In October, I was briefed on the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles and toured a shelter for homeless women. A significant percentage of the city's homeless population is battling mental illness. So, by improving our mental health system, we are also going to address connected issues like homelessness. Under the bill, Health and Human Services will develop a strategic plan to address mental health priorities. There is increased funding to train our doctors and nurses to better integrate substance abuse and mental health treatment into primary care visits. The bill also reauthorizes many important existing programs, including the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, and increases support for mental health and drug courts. These innovative approaches to criminal justice provide an alternative process for individuals to receive and comply with needed treatment and are supported by the law enforcement community. The bill further provides for police training when police officers encounter individuals who exhibit mental illness. I recently convened meetings in Los Angeles and San Francisco with law enforcement and community leaders, and they all stressed the importance of deescalating situations with mentally ill individuals to make sure that situations do not end with violent encounters. In closing, I reiterate my support for the 21 Century Cures Act and urge its swift passage. This is a great opportunity to spur this century's medical innovation, improve access to needed treatments, and strengthen public health.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the decision whether to override the President's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act has been a difficult one. Every Member of this body has vivid memories of September 11: the fires raging in the towers, smoke billowing from the Pentagon, a plane destined for the Capitol, but taken down by brave Americans--the sense that this Nation would never be the same. I strongly support the ability of Americans who are victims of terrorism on U.S. soil to receive compensation and their fair measure of justice. That, at its core, is the goal of this bill. I have met with the families. I know many of those killed or injured in the attacks were not only the breadwinners in their families, but also mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins and friends. I know the families' deep and abiding sense of grief is just as intense today as it was 15 years ago. This bill has elements that are very strong and have my unqualified support. For example, it expands the Antiterrorism Act to allow victims to hold accountable individuals who aid and abet or conspire to commit terrorist attacks. I have decided to support the bill today, but continue to be concerned about unintended consequences that may require Congress to revisit this bill in the future. My key concern relates to the exception to the immunity of foreign governments. Proponents of this bill argue that the exception is narrow, that it applies only if a foreign nation, with ill intent, takes unlawful actions that cause an act of terrorism on our soil. But other nations that are strongly opposed to American actions abroad could respond by using the bill as an excuse to adopt laws that target our own government's actions. A September 15 Washington Post editorial said it well: ``It is not a far-fetched concern, given this country's global use of intelligence agents, Special Operations forces and drones, all of which could be construed as state-sponsored `terrorism' when convenient.'' Those of us on the Senate Intelligence Committee know that, if other countries respond to JASTA in this manner, it could jeopardize our government's actions abroad. If that happens, it is likely that our government would be forced to defend against private lawsuits, which could pose a threat to our national security. I had hoped some agreement could be reached to narrow the bill's scope to limit those unintended consequences, such as by limiting the bill to the September 11 attacks. I believe the threat of unintended consequences is real and must be mitigated. To that end I have signed a letter with several of my colleagues who feel as I do that this issue will have to be revisited. I intend to work with my colleagues on a bill that would limit this bill to the 9/11 attacks, which were singularly devastating to our country. In addition, I intend to look into whether we should limit the bill to apply only to those directly impacted by an attack--including individuals, their estates and property damage, rather than companies with only tangential connections.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to submit a concurrent resolution to honor the great Vin Scully--a magnificent baseball announcer for the Los Angeles Dodgers for the past 67 Major League Baseball seasons. Days ago, Scully announced his final game at Dodger Stadium. It was a game won by the Dodgers on a walk-off homerun, in dramatic fashion, to clinch the division. It was a fitting end to Scully's storied career calling baseball games in Los Angeles. When the homerun was hit, he exclaimed, ``Would you believe a homerun? And the Dodgers have clinched the division, and will celebrate on schedule.'' Seconds later, in true Scully-form, he remained silent, letting the roar of Dodgers fans take over the microphone. Scully's storytelling over the microphone has captured the imagination of not just those who have grown up in Southern California, but all over America. In fact, so many Americans recall watching Game 1 of the 1988 World Series when Kirk Gibson famously hit a walk-off homerun against Dennis Eckersley. After Scully called the homerun shot, he paused to proclaim, ``In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened.'' The call was a harbinger of things to come, because the Dodgers went on to win the series against a heavily favored Oakland Athletics team. Scully first fell in love with baseball and broadcasting as an 8 year old boy growing up in New York in 1936. He recounted this beginning in a deeply personal letter he wrote to fans recently, stating, ``God has been very generous to that little boy, allowing him to fulfill a dream of becoming a broadcaster and to live it for 67 years . . . You were simply always there for me. I have always felt that I needed you more than you needed me and that holds true this very day.'' We too are immensely fortunate to have witnessed Scully's life-long devotion to the game of baseball. Scully has announced more than 9,000 Major League Baseball games, and almost half of all of the Dodger games ever played. He is credited with teaching the game of baseball to Los Angeles. He vividly brought to life the feats of all-time Dodgers greats such as Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Duke Snider, Don Sutton, Fernando Valenzuela, Orel Hershiser, Tommy Lasorda, Mike Piazza, and Clayton Kershaw. This is why his voice evokes so many memories for so many people. But even beyond his artistic accomplishments, Vin Scully is about as fine a person as you will meet. Those who know him closely remark of his character and humility. They speak of his desire simply to be a decent man, a good husband, father, and grandfather. This humility and grace was reflected in his broadcast style. He was never one to rush, and did all he could to enhance the game he loved. Often times, he let the roar of the crowd speak for itself. I want to thank Senator Boxer for cosponsoring the resolution to honor Scully, as he takes his final curtain call from the broadcast booth next week. I also want to express my thanks to House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra for leading the House effort on this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to support Ms. Susan Gibson to serve as the next inspector general of the National Reconnaissance Office, NRO, the first to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2013, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chaired at the time, included in its Intelligence Authorization Act a provision to require Senate confirmation of the inspectors general for the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Security Agency. Ms. Gibson represents the first nominee to be considered by the Senate for the NRO position. I had the pleasure to meet Ms. Gibson earlier this year, prior to the Senate Intelligence Committee's open hearing which took place on June 7, 2016, to consider her nomination. I personally appreciated our frank discussion for it demonstrated Ms. Gibson's understanding of the role of the inspector general and the need for principled, objective, and effective oversight of every aspect of the NRO. With this confirmation, it will be Ms. Gibson's job to ensure that the NRO remains free of waste, fraud, and mismanagement, while supporting efforts to drive the organization toward more efficient and effective operations. I believe that Ms. Gibson possesses the extensive experience and background necessary to carry out this mission. It is also important that Ms. Gibson recognizes her responsibility to keep the appropriate Members of Congress fully and currently informed about the concerns she may identify at the NRO. I do not want to sugarcoat it, but this is big job. It is a big job, in part, due to NRO's size and the complexity of its mission. Ms. Gibson will be required to dig deep into some very technical and complicated programs, including some of the most classified and expensive programs. But it is also a big job because it comes with the extra responsibility of conducting oversight of an organization in which most activities are conducted in secret. The duty to the American public cannot be overstated. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on which I currently serve as vice chairman is charged with ensuring the intelligence community operates in a manner that is legal, efficient, and abides by the values of the American people. The committee requires effective and independent inspectors general to support us in this task. It is my expectation that Ms. Gibson will make full use of the authorities provided to her as an inspector general. So, again, congratulations on Ms. Gibson's well-deserved confirmation to this important position, and I want to thank her again on her continued service to the country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mike Buchwald, a dedicated member of my staff for over 9 years. Mike has served in my personal office, as my counsel, and finally, as deputy staff director for oversight and policy on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Over this time period, Mike has displayed a work ethic like none other. I have come to rely deeply on his attention to detail and exceptional command of the Nation's intelligence analysis. Before joining the committee, Mike served an associate at the international law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, where he specialized in criminal, congressional, and internal investigations of corporations and nonprofit entities as a member of the white-collar defense and strategic counseling groups. He served as a law clerk for Federal District Judge George P. Schiavelli in California, where he was born and raised. Prior to law school, he worked as a legislative assistant in my personal office for 3 years. Mike earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law and his B.A. cum laude with distinction in history from Yale University. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and has been admitted to practice law in California and the District of Columbia. Mike's accomplishments on the Intelligence committee were extensive, many of which were completed behind the scenes in furtherance of the committee's oversight mandate. Two important public reports on which Mike was involved were the 2010 report on Attempted Terrorist Attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 and the 2013 SSCI Review of Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi. Both reports were critical in helping improve our understanding of these attacks and how the U.S. Government and the intelligence community can prepare for them in the future. The sheer volume of other committee activities in which Mike was engaged are too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say that he was an integral part of my intelligence team, supporting me and the committee in the enactment of seven consecutive intelligence authorization bills and overseeing the most complex activities undertaken by our government. He has unmatched passion for congressional oversight, for the intelligence community, and for this country's national security. Mike not only served me well, but was the consummate professional with all members and committee staff on both sides of the aisle. Mike will continue to further his government career by accepting a position within the U.S. Department of Justice's National Security Division. I am certain the Department will find him to be a shining light, committed to protecting this country and its citizens. It is also important for me to acknowledge the support Mike has received from his fiancee and now wife, Jamie Lynn Poslosky. I thank her for allowing Mike to spend many late nights in the office meeting the oversight demands of the Intelligence Committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to publicly thank Mike and to wish him the very best in all his future endeavors. I will miss his insights and his ability to always have the right document at hand for any discussion or deliberations. Thank you, Mike, for your many years of service and dedication both to the country and to me personally.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is really propitious that the Senator from Nevada is in the Chair today because I am going to speak about our legislation, which is part of the WRDA bill. Let me begin by thanking the Presiding Officer for his leadership. We put this legislation together in 2015. This has to do with Lake Tahoe, and the Presiding Officer was the main author of the bill. Senator Reid, Senator Boxer, and I were supporters, and here it is in this WRDA bill. I want the Presiding Officer to know how I feel. This is how the Senate should work. We worked together for something that has benefited both of our States, and we are able to say we are getting the job done. I wish to congratulate the Presiding Officer, Senator Heller. This is so special for me. I am delighted that Senator Heller is in the Chair, and maybe I can briefly go over the last 20 years of work on Lake Tahoe to bring us to this moment. I know Senator Heller couldn't be at the summit this year, but I want him to know that he was really missed, and I want him to know that Senator Reid put together one amazing summit. As a matter of fact, I called him and said: Harry, you can't have a rock group at this summit. This is a serious thing. We meet every year, and we go over all of the science, planning, and problems at the lake. He said: Let me tell you something. I am retiring. It is my turn to do this, and I am going to do it my way. And it turned out to be great. I want the Presiding Officer to know that 7,000 people attended the summit. Our Governor spoke, but your Governor could not be there because he was committed to an event in your State. Senator Boxer spoke, Senator Reid, of course, spoke, and the President was there and also spoke. I was worried that it would be difficult if all of us spoke because there were 7,000 people expecting to hear this Las Vegas rock band called the Killers after the program. Well, I must tell you that they were the utmost in terms of an audience. After the program was finished, and before the rock group performed, I became hopeful that we now have a whole new constituency of people working for the preservation of this lake. As I mentioned, I have worked on Lake Tahoe with my colleagues for 20 years, and I believe we are at a critical moment. To understand the longstanding commitment to Lake Tahoe, one must start with the first Lake Tahoe Summit in 1997. Senator Harry Reid invited President Clinton, and President Clinton's trip put a spotlight on the declining health of the lake. The 1997 summit also launched a public-private partnership, or a Team Tahoe, made up of Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector participants, which has invested $1.9 billion in restoration of Lake Tahoe. I want to just quickly report to the Presiding Officer some of the numbers, if I may. As I stated, we have invested $1.9 billion in the lake over 20 years--$635 million is Federal dollars, $759 million is California dollars, and $124 million is Nevada dollars. As you know, southern Nevada land sales have gone into this, thanks to your Governor and also Senator Reid. Local governments contributed $99 million, and I want you to pay attention to this number: $339 million has been raised by businesses and the private sector over the 20-year period. What we have is a very real, bi-State combined effort to preserve and restore Lake Tahoe. It is a special partnership. I also want the Presiding Officer to know that during the stakeholders' luncheon, which preceded the summit, Dr. Geoff Schladow, a professor and scientist at University of California, Davis, said that his greatest concern was the fact that this lake is now warming quicker than any large lake in the world. Also, the Tahoe Environmental Research Center at UC-Davis recently released their annual ``State of the Lake'' report for 2016 which we discussed. We learned this year that the average daily minimum air temperature rose 4.3 degrees. And the average annual lake clarity depth decreased by 4.8 feet. In addition, we learned that prolonged drought and dead trees are increasing the risk for catastrophic wildfire. Sedimentation and pollution continue to decrease water quality and the lake's treasured clarity. And invasive species, like the quagga mussel, milfoil, and Asian clam, continue to threaten the lake and the economy of the region. We are going to have a continuing problem with the challenges we face, and that is why it is so important and timely to pass the Tahoe bill. I am so proud of the accomplishments that we have made together. I want to again thank the Presiding Officer for this because it is really important. Lake Tahoe is one of two big, clear lakes in the world. The other is Lake Baikal in Russia. It is the jewel of the Sierras and known throughout the world for its beauty. It is a national treasure we must protect. Let me cite what we have done and the progress we have made to date. We have completed nearly 500 projects, and 120 more are in the works. Our completed projects include erosion control on 729 miles of roads and 65,000 acres of hazardous fuels treatment. More than 16,000 acres of wildlife habitat and 1,500 acres of stream environment zones have been restored, and 2,770 linear feet of shoreline has been added to the lake. I think what we have overall now is a bi-State Team Tahoe, and I think it took us 20 years to get there. I remember when Senator Reid got President Clinton to come in 1997, as I mentioned earlier, and had a big meeting at Tahoe Commons, which many of us attended. At that time, everybody was fighting. Planning agencies were fighting with homeowners, and environmentalists were fighting with others, but that doesn't exist today. Today we have effected a team, and I am so pleased that the Senator from Nevada is in the Chair, which was completely unplanned, so I can say thank you and how very proud I am that we have achieved this and that it is part of the WRDA bill. This Tahoe bill builds off of these 20 years of collaborative work and includes $415 million over 10 years in Federal funding authorizations for wildfire fuel reduction, forest restoration projects, funding for the invasive species management program and the successful boat inspection program, funding for projects to prevent water pollution and manage stormwater, and funds for the Environmental Improvement Program, which prioritizes the most effective projects for restoration. I wish to particularly thank our colleagues, Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer. The only way you get this done is by working together, and I think the fact that they have worked together has ensured that we now have this opportunity to deal with this new challenge, which is unprecedented warming. Along those lines, just a word: As I understand what is happening, the projection is for less snow and more rain, which means more warm water. This impacts the cold-water fish in the Lake, and the Truckee River, which is fueled by Tahoe, and all of the streams that play into Lake Tahoe really depend on that snowpack. So the next few years, I think, are going to be crucial. The time to act is now, and the Federal Government must take a leading role. Close to 80 percent of the land surrounding Lake Tahoe is public land, including more than 150,000 acres of national forest. Federal lands include beaches, hiking and biking trails, campgrounds, and riding stables. So the Federal Government has a major responsibility to see that these public lands remain in prime condition. And that is what this bill would help do. I want the Presiding Officer to know that I look forward to working with him. We must continue the tradition that was set by Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer, which Senator Reid helped to start. We have to carry on. I am delighted that the Senate is working again and that this bill is part of the WRDA bill. I want to end by once again thanking the Presiding Officer for his leadership. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act of 2016, with my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Senators Grassley, Leahy, and Tillis. This narrowly focused legislation responsibly cuts the red tape that hinders marijuana research, paving the way for important studies to determine if cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive component of marijuana often referred to as CBD, can be a safe and effective medication for serious illnesses, such as intractable epilepsy. It does this while maintaining safeguards to protect against illegal diversion. First, the bill directs the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to complete a scientific and medical evaluation of CBD within one year. Based on this evaluation, the legislation directs the Department of Justice to make a scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana. This has never been done before. Second, without sacrificing appropriate oversight, it streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. In particular, it improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. It also expedites the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process for researching CBD and marijuana. Third, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD, while simultaneously reducing the stigma associated with conducting research on a Schedule I drug. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, and pharmaceutical companies to use a Schedule II Drug Enforcement Administration registration to conduct authorized medical research on CBD. Given that the security requirements for conducting research on Schedule I and II drugs are nearly identical, this change would not jeopardize important safeguards against illegal diversion. Fourth, the bill allows medical schools, research institutions, and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for authorized medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Finally, the bill allows parents who have children with intractable epilepsy, as well as adults with intractable epilepsy, to possess and transport cannabidiol or other non-psychoactive components of marijuana used to treat this disease while research is ongoing. To do so, parents and adults must be able to provide documentation that they or their child have been treated by a board-certified neurologist for at least 6 months, and have certifications from their neurologist that other treatment options have been exhausted, and that the potential benefits outweigh the harms of using these non- psychoactive components of marijuana. The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act will responsibly reduce barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date scientific evidence. I believe this bill is critical to help families across the country as they seek safe, effective medicines for serious illnesses, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act of 2016, with my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Senators Grassley, Leahy, and Tillis. This narrowly focused legislation responsibly cuts the red tape that hinders marijuana research, paving the way for important studies to determine if cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive component of marijuana often referred to as CBD, can be a safe and effective medication for serious illnesses, such as intractable epilepsy. It does this while maintaining safeguards to protect against illegal diversion. First, the bill directs the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to complete a scientific and medical evaluation of CBD within one year. Based on this evaluation, the legislation directs the Department of Justice to make a scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana. This has never been done before. Second, without sacrificing appropriate oversight, it streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. In particular, it improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. It also expedites the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process for researching CBD and marijuana. Third, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD, while simultaneously reducing the stigma associated with conducting research on a Schedule I drug. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, and pharmaceutical companies to use a Schedule II Drug Enforcement Administration registration to conduct authorized medical research on CBD. Given that the security requirements for conducting research on Schedule I and II drugs are nearly identical, this change would not jeopardize important safeguards against illegal diversion. Fourth, the bill allows medical schools, research institutions, and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for authorized medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Finally, the bill allows parents who have children with intractable epilepsy, as well as adults with intractable epilepsy, to possess and transport cannabidiol or other non-psychoactive components of marijuana used to treat this disease while research is ongoing. To do so, parents and adults must be able to provide documentation that they or their child have been treated by a board-certified neurologist for at least 6 months, and have certifications from their neurologist that other treatment options have been exhausted, and that the potential benefits outweigh the harms of using these non- psychoactive components of marijuana. The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act will responsibly reduce barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date scientific evidence. I believe this bill is critical to help families across the country as they seek safe, effective medicines for serious illnesses, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the importance of recognizing the reality of climate change. The truth is that manmade climate change is real. This past May was the planet's warmest May in the 136-year history of weather records. In fact, the last 13 months in a row all set world records for hottest average temperatures. Last year was the planet's hottest recorded year, and the last two decades include the 19 hottest years on record. Sea levels rose 7 inches in the last century. And, since the beginning of the industrial era, the acidity of the oceans has increased by 26 percent, which could destabilize the food chain. My own home State of California is seeing firsthand the effects of higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. We are in the midst of an epic drought, which scientists say has been made 15-20 percent worse due to human-induced changes in the climate. This has made a drought into a disaster. The wildfires in California are made even more terrifying by the hot, dry conditions. And the fire season now lasts 75 days longer than just 10 years ago, resulting in more and larger fires. As urgent as this issue is, it is not a surprise. We have seen these changes coming from a long way off. Scientists employed by the oil company Exxon were warning the company's leadership about climate change as early as 1977, writing that: ``There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.'' Even before that, White House scientific advisers first cautioned about climate change in 1965, explaining that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels would ``almost certainly cause significant changes'' and ``could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.'' And as far back as 1956, the New York Times reported early evidence connecting climate change with greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion. That prescient article concluded with a sad commentary: ``Coal and oil are still plentiful and cheap in many parts of the world, and there is every reason to believe that both will be consumed by industry as long as it pays to do so.'' Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, many in the Senate refuse to accept that climate change is caused by human activity. During the Keystone Pipeline debate at the end of 2014, a majority of Senators revealed they were in denial about climate change. Over the course of three votes on resolutions concerning climate change. All but one Senator could agree that climate change is ``real.'' However, only 14 Republican Senators agreed that human activity contributes to climate change, and only five of those Republican Senators would agree that human activity significantly contributes to climate change. This denial of the link between our greenhouse gas emissions and climate change makes political action very difficult. Several of my colleagues have spoken about organizations and industries that have actively contributed to the political denial of climate change. These coordinated campaigns to obscure the facts and defeat legislative solutions have succeeded in delaying action. However, whether we act now to forestall the worst changes or we are forced to react to the refugees and the floods and the fires after the fact, there is no escaping that we must reckon with the reality of climate change. Fortunately, we have already demonstrated that political progress is possible. For example, California has implemented several policies to address the problem, including a cap-and-trade program to return statewide emissions back to their 1990 levels by 2020, a renewable portfolio standard requiring 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030, regulations to double energy efficiency by 2030, a low-carbon fuel standard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels at least 10 percent by 2020, and a program to reach 1 million zero- emission vehicles by 2020. Here is the thing: Even as California is implementing these policies, the State continues to grow. The State's economy grew by 2.8 percent last year, and unemployment was reduced by 1.3 percent. Both of those figures are better than the national average. Combating climate change will grow our national economy; ignoring the reality will only weaken it. We will all be forced to recognize the reality of climate change sooner or later. The faster we act, the easier it will be to avoid catastrophic disasters, disruptions, and dislocations. This problem requires the sincere, informed collaboration individuals, businesses, and every level of government. It is hard to undertake such a collaboration, however, when well-financed special interests dig in their heels, and place profits over the public's needs. We are out of time. Let's end the denial of climate change and start building sustainable energy, water, and transportation infrastructure. This transformation will be good for our businesses and communities, and it is what the next generation needs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to John L. Martin for the excellent job he has done as director of San Francisco International Airport. After more than 30 years of public service, Mr. Martin will be retiring this summer. John has served as airport director since November 1995 and has been with the airport since 1981. He was the founding president of the California Airports Council, a statewide consortium of 30 commercial airports that was formed in December 2009, and serves on the executive committee of the Bay Area Council, as well as the board of directors of San Francisco Travel. John also served as a past member of the board of directors and vice president of the Airports Council International- Pacific Region and was a former board member of ACI-North America. During his tenure at SFO, the airport has undergone a truly impressive series of expansions and improvements. John oversaw one of the largest public works projects in the country at the time: the $2.4 billion SFO Master Plan, which included the construction of the new international terminal, a BART station linking the airport to the Bay Area, and the AirTrain light-rail system connecting all terminals. Other more recent SFO accomplishments include a new terminal 2--the first and only LEED Gold terminal in the United States--and the completion of a new Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Control tower that was completely designed and built by airport staff. Under his leadership, the airport is currently undertaking a $4.3 billion 10-year capital improvement plan, including a new four-star on- airport hotel, the redevelopment of terminal 1 and terminal 3, as well as an extension of the AirTrain system to the long-term parking garage. By the time the capital project is complete in 2023, it is anticipated that it will have created more than 36,000 jobs over the 10-year period. John exemplifies excellence in public service. Under his guidance, San Francisco International Airport has truly flourished. I thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco and the Bay Area region. Again, I congratulate John Martin on a job well done and wish him a long and healthy retirement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act. This legislation directs the transfer of land between the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, the District, and the Bureau of Land Management in San Bernardino, California, BLM. 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 on ``best uses'' for more comprehensive planning and not focusing on private property boundaries that would segment the area. The result is a project expected to produce a Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan covering 4,500 acres. The land exchange takes 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 the use of more than 77 basins, and also provide rare 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 mining efficiency and water conservation efforts. The land transfer resulting from this legislation will lead to more protection efforts for habitat, 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 work 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 Pete Aguilar and Paul Cook, 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, I am pleased to introduce the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act. This legislation directs the transfer of land between the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, the District, and the Bureau of Land Management in San Bernardino, California, BLM. 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 on ``best uses'' for more comprehensive planning and not focusing on private property boundaries that would segment the area. The result is a project expected to produce a Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan covering 4,500 acres. The land exchange takes 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 the use of more than 77 basins, and also provide rare 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 mining efficiency and water conservation efforts. The land transfer resulting from this legislation will lead to more protection efforts for habitat, 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 work 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 Pete Aguilar and Paul Cook, 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. If I may, Madam President, I thought what the Senator was proposing was that he would have 20 minutes and I would have 20 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will go first, and then he is going to do his 20 minutes, and then Mrs. Boxer will speak.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator from Texas. Amendment No. 4720 Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment to keep guns out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists. The Orlando attack again exposed a dangerous loophole in our law that allows known or suspected terrorists to legally purchase guns through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. We call this loophole the terror gap. Let me explain what that means. There are currently 10 categories of people who are blocked from buying guns through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, and here they are. They include felons, those under felony indictment, fugitives from justice, drug users or addicts, those committed to mental institutions or adjudicated as mentally defective, foreign nationals here unlawfully or those with nonimmigrant visas, such as temporary workers, those dishonorably discharged from the military, and those with a domestic violence restraining order. But one group that cannot be blocked from buying guns are those who are known or suspected terrorists on the FBI's consolidated terrorist watch list. They can buy guns, but certain aliens can't, dishonorably discharged can't, people of renounced citizenship can't, drug users can't, fugitives from justice, felons, et cetera, are the ones who cannot. We know that individuals on the watch list have exploited this loophole. According to FBI data, over the past 11 years, the success rate for known or suspected terrorists who undergo background checks to buy guns is 91 percent. So 91 percent of over 2,000 gun buyers were found by a GAO study to be able to purchase guns. Closing this dangerous loophole was first proposed by the Bush Justice Department in 2007. In fact, we derived the language in our amendment from that original bill. Our amendment would give the Attorney General the authority to block a gun sale to known or suspected terrorists. It also provides an appeals process, both administrative and judicial. Let me read that language because it is derived out of the 2007 Bush Justice Department. ``The Attorney General may deny the transfer of [a] firearm if the Attorney General determines, based on the totality of circumstances, that the transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources therefor.'' That is from that bill. In order to ensure that FBI would be alerted in the case of an individual such as Omar Mateen, our amendment also includes language proposed by Senators Leahy and Nelson. This language would ensure that any suspected terrorist who tries to buy a gun within 5 years of being investigated for terrorism crimes would automatically trigger a notification to the Justice Department about the attempted purchase. As you know, in 2013 and 2014, the FBI conducted two inquiries on the Orlando gunman related to suspected terrorism. Even though the FBI was investigating him for possible terrorism, and at one point placed him on the FBI's terrorist watch list, it had no power to prevent him from purchasing weapons at a gun store. That is the key issue. It had no power to prevent him from purchasing a gun at a gun store. Had this amendment been in place, it would have allowed the Attorney General to know about the Orlando shooter's attempt to buy a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle, and then investigate to determine whether to deny the gun based off this man's entire history. Let me now explain how the terrorist screening database, also known as the consolidated terrorist watch list, works. Under this amendment, the Attorney General would look to this database to identify a known or suspected terrorist. To be included in this database, the FBI must have a reasonable suspicion--based on a totality of circumstances and objective facts--that a person is a known or suspected terrorist. Information is derived from intelligence and law enforcement sources at home and abroad. To ensure that only individuals who pose a threat to national security are placed on this list, FBI Director Comey told the Intelligence Committee in February that information is thoroughly vetted. The FBI's process is also rigorously audited to reduce the number of false positives. There are approximately 1 million records in this database, but less than one-half of 1 percent are U.S. persons. This is the net. This is the terrorist screening database. This is the product of intelligence and law enforcement. It is scrutinized, and if it is worthy, it is placed on this database--1 million records maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, fewer than 5,000 U.S. persons. That is one-half of 1 percent. This is a targeted list that is carefully put together. It is focused on known or suspected terrorists believed to represent a risk to public safety. One thing I want to say, and I will repeat this when I discuss Senator Collins' bill, but many people confuse this list with the no- fly list. The no-fly list is this dark blue center. It is 81,000 records. It is maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and it has fewer than 1,000 persons. Then there is the selectee list. It is even smaller. It is 28,000 records maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center--fewer than 1,700 U.S. persons. But you can see, if you are going to have a net, the net has to be big enough. I am going to explain to you why in a moment. Our amendment also includes due process protections. It allows an individual who believes they were mistakenly denied a gun to learn the reason for the denial and appeal that decision, both administratively with the Justice Department and judicially. This is the same appeals process currently in place for anyone who believes they are wrongly denied a gun through the NICS database, which I just went through a few minutes ago. Let me speak about two Republican proposals, why I think they wouldn't work. I am delighted the Senator from Texas is on the floor. We both sit on the Judiciary Committee. I have had the pleasure of working with him for a number of years. But his amendment requires the probable cause standard to be met. That is a very high standard because if that standard is met, there is already enough evidence to arrest the person, search their home and car, seize their property, and indict the person. It is not a practical standard to block a gun purchase. It would just be an infinitesimal part of what is actually out there. The proposal also says that somebody should be entitled to a full-blown contested hearing with counsel, but if this hearing is not completed within 72 hours, the gun sale goes through. The hearing would require the filing of an emergency petition, the service of process, the opportunity for the individual to get a lawyer, and then the actual full-blown hearing. This is nearly impossible to achieve within 72 hours, and if it isn't achieved, the terrorist gets the gun. Senator Collins has also circulated alternative language. I consider myself a friend of hers. I have great respect for her. We serve on the Intelligence Committee together. But my view is that her alternative is not enough to close the loophole that creates this terror gap and allows terrorists to buy guns. This alternative would focus on narrow parts of the database. This no-fly list--you can see how small it is--and the selectee list, which is here--the selectee list includes those persons who can fly but who receive additional screening before boarding a plane. Focusing so narrowly on these two smaller lists is not enough, and I would like to tell you why. It would leave out a huge number of known or suspected terrorists--one, as you can see. I have gone through that. I have gone through the no-fly list. If we were to focus only on the no-fly list and the selectee list, we would be leaving out 891,000 foreign nationals--names given to us by law enforcement, intelligence sources, both here and among our allies--who are on the terrorist watch list and approximately 2,300 U.S. persons determined by the FBI to be known or suspected terrorists. Focusing on the smaller lists leaves out close to 90 percent of known or suspected terrorists, covering both U.S. persons and foreigners. I remind my colleagues, you don't need to be a U.S. person to legally buy guns in this country. That makes it important to understand how this list is larger. Let me give you an example. Travelers using the Visa Waiver Program can legally buy guns. There are 20 million travelers in that program annually, and more than 100,000 of them don't go home when they should. Now I would like to share one example where a known or suspected terrorist was on the FBI's radar but likely had not been placed on the no-fly list. Over the weekend, my staff went through 86 cases and pulled out some of them. I have them here, and at this time I would like to mention one. Nader Saadeh, a U.S. citizen, was radicalized and became a devoted follower of ISIL. The FBI received a critical tip about Saadeh in April of 2015. The tip included a detailed account of his radicalization and support of ISIL. This is all available in a 13-page criminal complaint. In May, Saadeh flew from New York City to Jordan. He was detained and later arrested by the FBI. Here is someone who clearly met the definition of a known or suspected terrorist but was permitted to fly out of a major U.S. airport in the city where the 9/11 attacks occurred. This shows the danger of focusing only on narrow subsets of the terrorist watch list. To me, that just doesn't make sense. There is broad support for our amendment, including more than 260 organizations and community leaders around the country. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list be added to the Congressional Record directly following my remarks. The Justice Department and the White House support this amendment. They believe it is a workable approach to help prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons. We worked with the Justice Department, and the Justice Department made some additions to our amendment. They released a statement of support. I will read it in part: ``This amendment gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department's operational and investigative sensitivities.'' Thirty-eight Senators have cosponsored the amendment, including Republican Senator Mark Kirk, making it bipartisan. Closing the terror loophole gap is an important step, but it isn't enough. Let me explain why. Today, you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. As a matter of fact, my chief of staff, a woman, was pursued at a gun show to buy a .50-caliber rifle, which is a sniper rifle from which a bullet can travel for a mile and still go through a brick wall. You can buy a gun on the Internet without a background check. You can buy a gun on the private market without a background check. That is why we must pass the amendment offered by Senators Murphy, Schumer, Booker, and Blumenthal. This would ensure that guns sold at gun shows, over the Internet, and from person to person are subject to background checks. If we don't also make that change, known or suspected terrorists will still be able to buy guns at gun shows with no questions asked. Now, with ISIL intent on perpetrating and inspiring attacks in this country, there is an increased urgency to make it harder for terrorists to get their hands on guns. To me, this isn't a gun control issue. It is really a national security issue. If there is any doubt about that, let me briefly share a portion of CIA Director John Brennan's remarks from last week's open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said: We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks. ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. The group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel. Further, as we have seen in Orlando, San Bernardino, and elsewhere, ISIL is attempting to inspire attacks by sympathizers who have no direct links to the group. Last month for example, a senior ISIL figure publicly urged the group's followers to conduct attacks in their home countries if they were unable to travel to Syria and Iraq. Those are the words of the head of the world's most prominent intelligence agency. We should heed those words. We know ISIL adherents and sympathizers are already inside the United States. In fact, since March of 2014, Federal prosecutors have charged 86 men and women around the country in connection with the Islamic State, and 36 have been convicted. We also know that terrorists are well aware just how weak our gun laws are and that they urge their followers to exploit them. In 2011, a man by the name of Adam Gadahn, an Al Qaeda spokesman--he is actually an American who went to Syria and was a suicide bomber-- urged terrorists to take advantage of our weak gun laws. Gadahn stated on the Internet: ``America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms.'' This bears repeating. Terrorist groups--like Al Qaeda, ISIL, al- Nusra, and others--know that our gun laws are weak and can be exploited. We can't continue to do nothing in the face of such potential death and potential devastation. I have been fighting to reduce gun violence throughout my career, since my days as a county supervisor and as mayor of San Francisco. I know how difficult it is to make changes because the opposition is so extreme and opposes any measure to curtail gun violence--no matter what it is. It was against all odds that the assault weapons legislation passed in 1994, and the gun lobby fought hard not only to defeat the amendment, which succeeded, but to defeat those in the House who supported it, and that started its own reign of terror. When the Brady background check passed in 1993, multiple cloture motions on the bill failed before it ultimately passed with 63 votes, but that bill did not cover sales at gun shows, private sales, or Internet sales, which have increased significantly. After the Newtown shooting, I thought we would do something to stem the tide of these weapons. We tried.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am just about finished. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.