Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, we tried to renew the ban on assault weapons, but that failed. We tried to expand the background check, even through a compromise offered by Senator Manchin, but that effort failed. I remember that when the vote on the background check failed, the New York Daily News put the photos of the Newtown victims on the front cover. There were 20 young children, ages 6 and 7, and their educators, and the headline read: ``For Shame.'' It is time for us to stand up. It is time to force elected representatives to take action. We must expand background checks. We must make sure that the government can stop a gun from being sold to a known or suspected terrorist, and that is not too much to ask. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for just one forward comment? Our bill does the same thing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it is my belief that our amendment does cover the--Senator Leahy and Senator Nelson submitted to us an amendment, which is incorporated, which does cover the Orlando killer. I wanted the Senator to know that. Thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators, and I thank the Presiding Officer. I have listened to this debate, and I rise to urge my colleagues to allow a vote on this due process guarantee amendment. Senator Lee has filed it, I am a cosponsor, and I am delighted to be a cosponsor. We actually voted on an earlier version of this amendment in 2012, so this is nothing new. What Members may not recall is that it passed with 67 votes as an amendment to this bill for fiscal year 2013. I would also note that thanks to then-Chairman Leahy, the bill on which this amendment is based had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on February 29, 2012. So this bill has come before this body before. It got 67 votes, and it had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee 4 years ago. Unfortunately, the amendment was taken out of the NDAA in conference that year. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this amendment again this year and that the House will support it so that the law will clearly protect Americans in the United States from indefinite detention by their own government. Members may say: Well, this isn't going to happen. We are not going to do this. But we have done it. I remember as a small child going just south of San Francisco to a racetrack called Tanforan. It was no longer a racetrack; it was a detention center for Japanese Americans during World War II, and there were hundreds of families housed there for years against their will. To prevent this from ever happening again, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act of 1971 which clearly states: ``No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.'' That sounds good, but it didn't go far enough. Despite the shameful history of the indefinite detention of Americans and the legal controversy since 9/11, some in the Senate have advocated for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens during debate on the Defense authorization bill in past years. These Members have argued that the Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld supports their view. However, the Hamdi case involved an American captured by the United States military on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the Taliban. He was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, not on United States soil. That is the difference. While the Supreme Court did effectively uphold Hamdi's military detention, the Supreme Court did not accept the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial. In fact, the Hamdi decision says clearly that it covers only ``individuals falling into the limited category we are considering,'' and did not foreclose the possibility that indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen would raise a constitutional problem at a later date. Since Hamdi was decided in 2004, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the legal ambiguity when it comes to the detention of U.S. citizens apprehended in our very own country. You can look at the case of Jose Padilla. He is a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002. Padilla was initially detained by the Bush administration under a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was later designated as an enemy combatant who allegedly conspired with Al Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks, including a plot to detonate a dirty bomb inside our country. Padilla was transferred to a military brig in South Carolina, where he was detained for 3\1/2\ years while seeking his freedom by filing a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court. Now, it is important to note that Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the dirty bomb plot. Instead, he was released from military custody in November 2005 and transferred to civilian Federal custody in Florida, where he was indicted on other charges in Federal court related to terrorist plots overseas. In a 2003 decision by the Second Circuit known as Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the court of appeals held that the 2001 authorization for use of military force, which we call the AUMF, did not authorize Padilla's military detention. The decision stated: ``We conclude that clear Congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil, because 18 U.S.C. Section 4001(a), the Non- Detention Act, prohibits such detentions absent specific Congressional authorization.'' So the Padilla case bounced back and forth from the Second Circuit up to the Supreme Court and then to the Fourth Circuit. The legality of his military detention was never conclusively resolved. Thus there remains ambiguity about whether a congressional authorization for the use of military force permits the indefinite detention of United States citizens arrested on United States soil. So let me say that 12 years--let me repeat, 12 years--after Padilla was initially arrested and detained, he was finally sentenced to 21 years in prison in 2014. The simple point is that we can protect national security while also ensuring that the constitutional due process rights of every American captured within the United States are protected. That is what this amendment would do. Like the amendment that passed here in 2012 with 67 votes on this floor, this amendment would prevent the government from using a general authorization for the use of military force to apprehend Americans at home and detain them without charge or trial indefinitely. So no one could be picked up and not charged and held indefinitely. It states very simply in our legislation: ``A general authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority, on its own, shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States.'' The amendment also modifies the existing subsection (a) of the Non- Detention Act, so it covers lawful permanent residents of the United States and ensures that any detention is consistent with the Constitution. So new subsection (a) will read: ``No citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except consistent with the Constitution and pursuant to an Act of Congress that expressly authorizes such imprisonment or detention.'' Now, let me explain the impact of these changes to the law. First, the U.S. Government will continue to be able to detain U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents on a foreign battlefield pursuant to an authorization to use military force, like what we passed after 9/11. That AUMF provides the authority to detain Al Qaeda, ISIL, and affiliated terrorist fighters. In other words, if the government needs to detain an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield under a post-9/11 congressional authorization to use force, that is not barred, even if the enemy combatant is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. Indeed, the Supreme Court held in Hamdi that the AUMF is ``explicit authorization'' for that limited kind of detention. So the amendment does not disturb the Hamdi decision. Second, when acting with respect to citizens or lawful permanent residents apprehended at home, the amendment makes clear that a general authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the detention, without charge or trial, of citizens or green card holders like Padilla, who are apprehended inside the United States. Instead, they should be arrested and charged like other terrorists captured in the United States. Now, the simple point is that indefinite military detention of Americans apprehended in the United States is not the American way and must not be allowed. In the United States, the FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have proven time and again that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found on United States soil. Our law enforcement personnel have successfully arrested, detained, and convicted literally hundreds of terrorists, both before and after 9/11. Specifically, there were 580 terrorism-related convictions in the Federal criminal courts between 9/11 and the end of 2014. That is according to the Department of Justice. More recently, Federal prosecutors have charged 85 men and women around our country in connection with ISIL since March of 2014. Suspected terrorists can still be detained within the U.S. criminal justice system using at least the following four options: One, they can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held. Two, some can be held for violating immigration laws. Three, they can be held as a material witness as part of a Federal grand jury proceeding. Or, four, they can be detained under section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, which provides that an alien may be detained for up to 6 months if their release ``will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.'' Simply put, there is no shortage of authority for U.S. law enforcement to take the necessary actions on our soil to protect the homeland. Some may ask why this legislation protects green card holders as well as citizens. Others may ask why the bill does not protect all persons apprehended in the United States from indefinite military detention. Let me make clear that I would support providing the protections in this amendment to all persons in the United States, but the question comes: is there political support to expand it to cover others besides U.S. citizens and green card holders? We went through this in 2012, I believe, before the Presiding Officer was here. The overriding situation is to prevent the Federal Government from moving in and picking up Americans and holding them without charge or trial, as was done with Japanese Americans after World War II. Finally, with the passage of this, we will close out that chapter once and for all. So this is not about whether citizens apprehended in the United States, like Jose Padilla or others who would do us harm, should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be to the fullest extent the law allows, but not an innocent American picked up off the street and held without charge or trial--perhaps because of the person's name or looks or heritage. So what about how a future President might abuse his or her authority to indefinitely detain people militarily here in the United States? Our Constitution gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights. The Fifth Amendment provides that ``no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' This is a basic tenet of our Constitution and our values. People are entitled to notice of charges, to an opportunity to be heard, and to a fair proceeding before a neutral arbiter. In criminal cases, the accused also has a right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of their peers. So these protections are really a sacred part of who we are as Americans. I think it is something we all take great pride in, and now it is, once again, the time. We did this in 2012, in the fiscal year 2013 NDAA bill. It received 67 votes on this floor. I would hope that we would not be blocked from taking another vote on this. We experimented with indefinite detention during World War II. It was a mistake we all realize and a betrayal of our core values. So let's not repeat it. I want to thank Senator Lee, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Paul, Senator Cruz, and others who have worked with us on this issue over the years. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the issue of preemption and ask to engage in a colloquy with Senators Tillis and Nelson. I come to the floor today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which passed the Senate on April 19 by a vote of 95 to 3. This vote reflects the strong, bipartisan work that went into negotiating this bill, and I hope that the House will take it up. However, there is unfinished business with this bill: the need to remove section 2152. This provision of the bill would preempt any State or local laws related to the operation, manufacture, design, testing, licensing, registration, certification, operation, or maintenance of an unmanned aircraft system including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements, purpose of operations, and pilot, operator, and observer qualifications, training, and certification. This provision of the bill would be effective on the date of enactment prior to the FAA promulgating any regulations in these areas. When this came to my attention, as a former mayor, I became very alarmed about the possible reach of this provision and how it might impact local communities, State parks, schools, infrastructure, and other areas with a strong State or local interest. So I filed two amendments, and, ultimately, the managers of this bill--Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson--agreed to accept an amendment to strike the provision from the underlying bill. This is amendment No. 3704, filed by myself and Senator Tillis, and cosponsored by Senators Blumenthal, Perdue, Lee, and Markey. I would now like to yield, if I could, to my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Last month, the national women's soccer team filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaint states that women are paid just 40 percent of what men are paid--despite the fact that our women's soccer team has long been one of the best in the world. The team has won four of the last five Olympic Gold Medals and three of the last seven World Cups. However, the wage gap between the men and women's team is stark. Women are paid $3,600 per game while men are paid $5,000 per game. Women soccer players are awarded a win bonus of $1,350 per game. In contrast, male soccer players are awarded win bonuses of between $6,250 and $17,625 per game. That is up to 13 times more. This differential is so significant that a woman player who wins all 20 exhibition games would still make $1,000 less than a male player who lost all 20 exhibition games. Women soccer players are even given smaller per-diems when they travel. Women receive $50 per day, while men receive $62.50 per day. These examples represent the pervasiveness of wage discrimination in this country. The most successful women's soccer team in the world still earns just 40 cents for every dollar earned by men, and that needs to change. The Senate should stand in solidarity with the national women's soccer team and pass this resolution. Of course, what is happening to the women's soccer team isn't an isolated event. It is indicative of a much broader, entrenched problem in this country. Women are still paid just 79 cents for every dollar earned by men. This means that every woman who works full time is paid $10,700 less-- every year. This gap has a significant effect on the economic security of working families--40 percent of women are the primary or sole breadwinners in their families. That means 40 percent of families depend on women's wages to pay the bills. Every dollar women lose to the wage gap makes a difference. Here are just a few examples of what the wage gap costs families: $10,700 is more than 1 year's worth of groceries for a family of 4, 7 months of mortgage and utility payments, or 11 months of rent. The wage gap is even bigger for African-American and Latino women. African-American women are paid just 60 cents. Hispanic women are paid just 55 cents. We can't allow this discrimination to continue. The wage gap is a national problem. It affects all women, and the Senate must take action. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a good place to start. I have long supported this bill, which is sponsored by Senator Barbara Mikulski. The Paycheck Fairness Act would protect women from retaliation if they ask about wages and require employers to justify paying women less than men for the same job. Women often don't know they are being paid less than men, and making the system more transparent will help reduce the wage gap. The bill would also make it easier for women to take legal action under the Equal Pay Act, including class action lawsuits. Under current law, it is significantly easier to recoup lost wages if they were denied through other discriminatory practices, like failure to pay overtime. Lastly, the bill would create a training program to help women negotiate their salaries. This is a commonsense bill and one that is long overdue. President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963. At the time, women made 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. In 53 years, we have only closed the gap by 16 cents. At this rate, it will not be eliminated until 2059. Women and their families deserve better, and they can't afford to wait that long. I strongly urge the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and the resolution before us today. In closing, the Senate has an opportunity to stand up for equal pay for the women's soccer team--and all American women--by adopting this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016,'' an important bill crafted to protect-- and support--victims of sex crimes. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Grassley and Schumer. The bill reauthorizes important programs that assist States in managing sex offenders and reauthorizes the U.S. Marshals Service efforts to locate and apprehend these offenders. The bill also protects the rights of sexual assault survivors. For example, it includes provisions to ensure sexual assault survivors are notified of their rights, such as the right to have a sexual assault medical forensic examination. For many years, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and I pushed to provide victims of crime with basic protections in the criminal justice system. Those efforts culminated with the passage of the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. This bill similarly recognizes the rights of victims of sexual assault--an important step forward. Finally, the bill includes a provision that I authored, along with Senator Cornyn, to extend the time for minor victims of sex crimes to pursue justice against their perpetrators. Across this country, those who were sexually exploited as children are courageously coming forward, many years after the abuse took place. My office has heard from a number of victims from California who--in the height of their innocence as children--were subjected to untold abuse and sexual exploitation. Many of these victims were not able to come forward until many years later--after they had reached adulthood. To address this, I authored language to extend the statute of limitations for minor victims of Federal sex crimes. Specifically, section 8 of the bill extends the civil statute of limitations until the age of 28 to allow minor victims of sex offenses, including sexual abuse and child pornography, to sue their perpetrators. This brings the statute of limitations in line with a similar law that provides a remedy for victims of sex trafficking. This provision is one step in the right direction, but we must do more to reform the statute of limitations for minor victims of Federal sex offenses. Indeed, Senator Cornyn and I recently introduced legislation called the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act of 2016. This bill would clarify the law so that the civil statute of limitations for Federal sex crime victims begins to run 10 years after the later of when the victim actually discovers the injury or the violation, or when the victim turns 28 years old. This is important because victims of sex crimes are sometimes abused even before they can remember or understand the abuse--some as young as 3 years old. I am hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass the bill I have introduced separately with Senator Cornyn to address this issue. I am pleased to support the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016 today.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the urgent need for Congress to approve emergency funds to fight the Zika virus. The Zika virus is a rapidly growing public health threat, and the stakes for women are particularly high. I strongly believe Congress should approve the full $1.9 billion requested by the administration to fight the virus. Investing the required resources now will mean fewer cases of Zika down the road. The virus is carried by two species of mosquito. They are found in 40 States in this country. These mosquitos have been found in 12 counties in California, including the five most populous: Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino. More than 20 million people live in these counties. There have been 503 travel-related cases in the United States so far, meaning an individual was infected during a trip to Latin America, South America, or the Caribbean, where the virus is widespread. There have not yet been any reported cases of local transmission in the continental United States, although more than 700 cases have been reported in U.S. territories, including one fatality on April 29. It is only a matter of when, not if, we see the first case of local transmission, particularly as we approach the summer, when mosquitos are most active. By July, 7 States are expected to see high mosquito activity. While scientists are still working to understand the effects of the Zika virus, they are more serious than we initially thought. Zika causes severe, brain-related birth defects in babies when women are infected during pregnancy. Microcephaly, one of the most serious effects of Zika, causes babies' heads to be much smaller than normal. In severe cases, you will also see seizures, developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, feeding problems, and hearing and vision loss. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to research the virus, and it could be several years before the full range of health effects is known. The most common way people contract Zika virus is through mosquito bites, but there have been documented cases of the virus being spread from men to women through sexual contact. Scientists now believe sexual transmission is more common than initially thought. Zika symptoms are mild--fever, rash, and joint pain--meaning that many people may become infected and spread with disease without knowing they have it. Unless we act now, we could end up with a significant number of Zika carriers who don't know they are infected. As I mentioned previously, the administration has asked Congress for $1.9 billion in emergency funding to stop the spread of the Zika virus. Senator Nelson introduced a bill, which I have cosponsored, to provide the full $1.9 billion. Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio have also introduced an amendment to the bill currently under consideration to provide the full $1.9 billion. Last week, an agreement was reached between Senators Murray and Blunt on an amendment that would provide $1.1 billion in funding. I applaud their efforts and know they worked hard to come to agreement on a package that could get broad bipartisan support. The Federal Government will use these funds for a number of prevention and mitigation activities, including controlling mosquito populations, researching and testing for the virus, educating the public, and developing a vaccine. However, I think it is important to highlight what we are losing by funding the Zika response at $1.1 billion and not $1.9 billion. Reduced funding now will hinder our response in a number of ways. It will be harder to address Zika in the future, with a potentially higher cost. Notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will receive nearly $300 million less. The National Institutes of Health will receive $77 million less. The Health and Human Services Emergency Fund will receive $83 million less. This means that testing may not be as widely available as it should be, and developing a vaccine may take longer. There is also $114 million less to fight Zika abroad. We live in a global society. To prevent the spread of Zika virus, we must fight the disease where it is, not wait for it to come here. It's also important to note that we can't launch prevention and mitigation activities overnight. It takes time to address mosquito populations and distribute testing kits. If we don't approve the necessary funds now and Zika spreads, funds approved later may not be as effective. Past is prologue, and we have seen the effects of similar health crises. I remember when rubella was widespread in the United States before a vaccine was available. This is also a disease with mild symptoms. It spread easily and was particularly dangerous for pregnant women and their babies. The rubella vaccination campaign in 1969 was critical to stopping this disease, which infected 12.5 million people from 1964-1965. In 2004, the United States was declared rubella-free. We're down to an average of 11 travel-related cases per year. The point is we know enough about the Zika virus to understand that it is a serious threat. We also know from history how important it is to address public health threats as early as possible. This is especially important when the virus is carried by an insect as common as mosquitoes and the initial symptoms of the disease are mild or even undetectable. In closing, Congress cannot afford to delay. I strongly urge the Senate to approve the administration's sensible request to fight this growing public health threat. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to begin by extending my congratulations to our chairman. You are a distinguished chairman, and it really has been a great pleasure for me to work with you. I think we have accomplished a task which hopefully sets an example for other bills that will be shortly forthcoming. But, more importantly than anything, it is really the integrity, sincerity, and earnestness with which you go about this job of chairing this subcommittee. I am very pleased to be Tonto to your Lone Ranger. So thank you very much for that. The chairman has been very distinct in his remarks about pointing out some of the major features, but we have one major infrastructure program in our bill, and that, of course, is the Army Corps of Engineers--other than, I should say, the highway bill. That is $1.4 billion over the budget request. I think that is a very good number that should enable more projects that are vital all across this great land to move forward. The second is the Bureau of Reclamation, and that is $163 million over the budget request. It includes $100 million for western drought. We have 17 States within the Bureau of Reclamation's jurisdiction. What is happening with dryness in the western part of the United States is really a very serious threat to the economic and social well-being of our country. I am very pleased at that mark. All applied energy accounts are funded at levels equal to current- year levels. We have increased funding for cleaning up nuclear sites, including the WIPP site in New Mexico and the Hanford site in the State of Washington. We matched the budget request for nuclear nonproliferation. Actually, this includes MOX funding of $270 million. The chairman spent some time on the floor, and I did as well, in terms of making the point that what appropriations bills really concern is but 15 percent for what is called domestic discretionary and 15 percent for military discretionary. Together, they are but 30 percent of what the Federal Government expends and outlays each year. The fact of the matter is that 63 percent of the money that is spent in a given fiscal year--2016--goes for entitlements and mandates: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and all the other mandatory programs. They are not actually in the budget. This is the huge spending, and interest on the debt is 6.3 percent. That brings the mandatory spending up to nearly 70 percent of what we spend in fiscal year 2016. In fiscal year 2017, it will go up slightly from there so that the relative amount of spending that these bills contain is very small in comparison to the amount the Federal Government actually spends. There are a lot of people who think we should do more with entitlements and increase that 63 percent of total spending to even more. That is a question that remains to be seen, but how you pay for all of that is a totally different and more difficult story. I extend my congratulations to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee on passing this bill. We have not passed a free-standing Energy and Water bill on this floor for 7 years, since 2009, when Senators Dorgan and Bob Bennett were chair and ranking member. Not only are we passing the bill, but we are passing a good bill. I thank the subcommittee staff for their work. Interestingly enough, the staff had only 12 days from receiving a notional allocation, which is how much we can spend, to help us produce a bill and report it for subcommittee consideration. So let me thank Tyler Owens, Meyer Seligman, Adam DeMella, Jennifer Armstrong, and on our minority side, Doug Clapp, Chris Hanson, Samantha Nelson, and Tim Dykstra for their hard work. I would also like to recognize the work done by Senator Alexander's personal office and my own in helping get this bill passed. Frankly, I want to thank the floor staff on both sides of the aisle. They were really helpful and, in addition to that, they were patient and willing to provide some guidance. So I thank them as well. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for his leadership and willingness to settle issues to get this bill to the point where it really is ready to be voted on by this body. I think he has made the argument against the Cotton amendment eloquently and correctly. I am very grateful for the fact that he did what I think is a noble thing and changed his vote and will be voting against the Cotton amendment. Let me say something about this process. Both the chairman and I have been here for a long time, and we were here when appropriations bills were passed. The key to doing that is keeping poison pills off appropriations bills so they can be passed quickly. In addition to the arguments made by the chairman, the White House had very strong feelings and indicated they would veto this bill if it passed with this amendment. How do we start an appropriations process with a Presidential veto in the wings? I don't think we do. Hopefully, the appropriate thing will happen in this vote, and cloture will be defeated. I hope that it sends a signal--a strong signal--for the rest of the appropriations process. We want to show that we can run this place and get business done and poisons pills have no place on appropriations bills. That is my very deep belief, and that is where it once was. Once again, I thank the chair for his help, cooperation, and leadership. It is quite wonderful to be able to work with the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and I too urge a ``no'' vote on cloture. Cloture Motion

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to address the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee. Working with Senator Alexander on this bill has been a very good experience for me, and I think my friend knows that. We take great pride in getting things done. I very much appreciate his mentioning the standoff on the nuclear cruise missile legislation in some form of analogy, but I will say this: I have been in this body a long time, as has the Senator from Tennessee, and we both know that not everybody gets their vote. It just doesn't work that way. I can remember having an amendment on a bill year after year after year, and I never got a vote for it. That is not an unusual thing to happen. What has been unusual is to have one person take down a bill--particularly an appropriations bill. We were hoping we could demonstrate that we worked out our difficulties with this legislation. The Senator from Tennessee gave on some points, and I gave on some points. As my friend was good enough to mention, one of the points I gave on is something that I consider to be a very big issue which has not yet been settled, and that is a standoff nuclear cruise missile--and it has not yet been satisfactorily demonstrated to me that it is necessary--and that we do not have a satisfactory conventional weapon that can go through air defense systems. I believe we do. In any event, there is a strong constituency that feels as I do. Senator Alexander has been good enough to give me a hearing and some report language which contains some questions which the Defense Department will hopefully answer forthwith. I appreciate that, and that was enough for me. The standoff nuclear cruise missile is something we need to look more deeply into. The amendment that our side is so strongly opposed to, accompanied by the White House, is where one Senator is essentially hitting at the Iran nuclear agreement. The Iran nuclear agreement is not something that all of us don't know a lot about. A great deal of time was spent on it. There was a great deal of discussion both in subcommittees and on the floor, and there was a vote on it. So to a great extent, in my mind, it is very much a settled issue. The President has the right to go ahead with it, and I think that is very important. More importantly, Iran has kept the agreement and Iran has lived up to the terms of this nuclear-related agreement. If one thinks Iran doesn't know what is going on, one is wrong. Some of us went to meet with the Iranian Foreign Minister, and there was a question as to what is happening now, and of course there was concern. Having said that, the chairman gave me a hearing and some report language. I certainly would have no objection to giving the Senator from Arkansas a hearing, and yet I would not stand here and say that we should not protect the sanctity of that agreement, because I believe we should. I think the administration has done the right thing with the sale of this heavy water because we know if that heavy water is used in the United States of America, it will be used for peaceful purposes. A lot of it will go to a distinguished lab in the State of the Senator from Tennessee as well as other places. It can be sold to licensed businesses that do medical research and other kinds of manufacturing, such as carbon fiber, et cetera, where the nuclear component of heavy water is helpful. We know that if it goes on the open market, North Korea--if they were to be a buyer--would not use it for peaceful purposes; they would use it to help enrich plutonium for a bomb. So it makes imminent sense to me. The reason I oppose what is happening so strongly is because it is a strike at the Iran nuclear agreement, and it is seen that way by the administration. The administration has said they will veto the bill if this is in it. I don't want to lose the bill because of this--because of one Senator who wants to strike out with that agreement. I think that is the wrong thing to do. The Senator from Tennessee has been good enough to discuss this with me, and I really do appreciate that. We have discussed it in our caucus. There are very strong feelings about not moving to cloture until this issue is settled. I would certainly be happy to help settle it. From the conversation Senator Alexander and I had yesterday, it is my understanding that he is willing to oppose it. I trust that is still the case. I wish to ask a question to the chairman of our subcommittee through the Chair. Is it correct that the Senator from Tennessee would stand in opposition to this amendment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator. I think that is a very wise response, and I think it is a correct response. I think it does belong in the Foreign Relations Committee. We have worked so hard to get a bill that could set a standard for this body so we could go back to regular order and begin to get appropriations bills passed in this house. Candidly, I don't want to lose that opportunity, and I think we still have it. Hope still reigns eternal, in my view, and I hope Senator Cotton will see that this is not worth taking down this bill, because I believe that would happen. I believe there are enough votes to deny cloture, and that is too bad. I don't want to see it because that means it is going to happen with other bills. It means that we are going to have what some term as poison pill amendments. The administration views this as a poison pill amendment. We know at Interior there are poison pill amendments. Both Senator Alexander and I have chaired that committee, and we know what happens. We are trying to set an example on this floor by working things out. It would seem to me that a reasonable Senator might say: All right. I am not going to hold up this bill. I made my point. I realize what is happening. I know this heavy water is going to be put to good use in this country. I know that Iran has to limit its supply at 130 metric tons, so we know this heavy water is out of Iran. As a matter of fact, it is in a storehouse in Oman. It is on the market, and the United States has said we would buy it. That is the right thing to do to set an example so that nuclear proliferation does not take place, and this is part of that. It is my hope that we will be able to resolve that. The Senator from Tennessee is imminently reasonable, and I like to believe that I am reasonable, I say to my colleague. I am hopeful that maybe before the hour of 5 p.m., we might be able to come to some agreement; otherwise, I think the cloture motion will be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I may, I want to thank the Senator from Oregon for those remarks. My colleagues might be interested to know that I was chairman of Rules, and Bob was the ranking member, and this was during the period before the first inauguration of Barack Obama. As we all know, the Rules Committee is in charge of making the arrangements for the occasion. Bob was really just a wonderful person to work with. In the first place, we worked really well together. We sat down, we went over the problems, and we talked about solutions. Then came the subject of the Senate lunch following the inaugural. Well, I didn't pay much attention to it. Then I realized that this was a huge thing. It was in National Statuary Hall. There were decorations. We had to get a fine painting. In this case, I arranged for it to be a great California landscape by Thomas Hill, which came from the museum in New York. To plan for it, there is something that has been traditional, which is the meal tasting, and Senator Bennett and his wonderful wife Joyce and my husband and I went up to the fourth floor, and the table was set as it would be set at this lunch. We did a tasting from every culinary caterer who was bidding to do the lunch, believe it or not, and I think there were four of them. So there were four entrees and four salads and four desserts. And Joyce and Bob and Dick and I sat there, and we went through the motions and did it. But it was with great humor. And the two of them together really were a very special couple. The Senator from Oregon knew him in a different way than I knew him. Bob Bennett truly was a man among men. He had a humility about him, but he also had a real can-do sense, and he really cared about his Senate term. I know Senator Alexander knew him well. It was really wonderful for me on the Rules Committee because it was much the way the Senator from Tennessee is on Energy and Water appropriations. I had a chance to meet Joyce and get to know her, and it was very special. I think we put on a very good inaugural--a bipartisan inaugural, if you will--and I just want to say thank you, Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Because this really was a man who didn't participate in any obstruction or any difficulty. He was always positive and always willing to do his part and to help. That is really very special. I would like to give my best to his family and his friends. The State of Utah had a wonderful Senator in Bob Bennett, and he will be missed. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his views and for his very instructive actions to move this bill to fruition. I know we both think it is an important bill. We know the subject that Senator Cotton has raised is also important. I think there has been a good discussion on it and understanding of the pros and cons, so I think now we can wait until Wednesday, an hour after we come in, for the vote, and we will see what the will of the Senate is. I want the chairman to know I am very grateful for the actions he has taken because this is enabling us to pass the bill and see it enacted into law, we hope. So thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the urgent need for Congress to approve emergency funds to fight the Zika virus. The Zika virus is a rapidly growing public health threat, and the stakes for women are particularly high. The virus is carried by two species of mosquito. They are found in 40 States in this country. There have been 388 travel-related cases in the United States-- meaning an individual was infected during a trip to Latin America, South America, or the Caribbean, where the virus is widespread. There have not yet been any reported cases of local transmission in the continental United States, although more than 500 cases have been reported in Puerto Rico. It is a matter of when, not if, that happens-- particularly as we approach the summer season when mosquitos are most active. Scientists are still working to understand the effects of the Zika virus, but we do know that Zika causes severe, brain-related birth defects in babies when women are infected during pregnancy. Microcephaly, one of the most serious effects of Zika, causes babies' heads to be much smaller than normal. In severe cases, you will also see seizures, developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, feeding problems, hearing loss, and vision problems. The CDC continues to research the virus, and it could be several years before the full-range of health effects is known. One of the most concerning gaps in our scientific knowledge is how the disease is transmitted from person to person. The most common way people contract the disease is through mosquito bites, but there have been documented cases of the virus being spread from men to women through sexual contact. Zika symptoms are mild--fever, rash, and joint pain--meaning that many people may become infected and spread with disease without knowing they have it. Unless we act now, we could end up with a significant number of Zika carriers who don't know they are infected. The administration has asked Congress for $1.9 billion in emergency funding to stop the spread of the Zika virus. I fully support this funding request. The Federal Government needs this money for a number of reasons, including controlling mosquito populations, researching the virus, educating the public, and developing a vaccine. As the weather warms, Zika will spread faster, particularly in States with persistent mosquito issues. We simply can't ignore public health threats of this magnitude, hoping they will go away. In closing, Congress cannot afford to delay. I strongly urge the Senate to approve the administration's sensible request to fight this growing public health threat.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act, which is a bill to extend the time for child sexual abuse victims to seek justice against their perpetrators. I would like to thank Senator Cornyn for working closely with me on this important issue. Tragically, all over the country, victims of sexual abuse are coming forward to tell their stories of abuse and exploitation at the height of their innocence when they were children. Several from California, for example, have contacted my office, and described with great courage their pain and anguish. Each of these individual stories represents an untold amount of pain and suffering. When you look at the numbers, you cannot help but feel devastated. Indeed, the numbers reveal that no one is too far removed from being affected by deplorable crimes committed against children. Studies indicate that at least one in four girls and about one in five boys is sexually abused. It has been estimated that 90 percent of child victims never go to the authorities concerning their abuse. For many of these children, coming to grips with the trauma is extraordinarily difficult. Several research studies have described in painstaking detail the long-term effects that affect the physical, emotional, cognitive, and social development of abuse victims and sex trafficking victims. Those who are victimized when they are children typically do not come forward with their abuse--if at all--until many years later, after the victims reach adulthood. Simply put, the bill extends the civil statute of limitations in two ways for minor victims of Federal sex crimes--because these victims often need more time to realize the harm they have suffered and to seek redress. First, the bill extends the statute of limitations until the age of 28--from age 21--for minor victims of particular offenses, such as sexual abuse and child pornography. This brings the statute of limitations in line with a similar law that provides a civil remedy for victims of sex trafficking. The two laws are sections 2255 and 1595 of Title 18. This provision was recently included, at my request, in the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016, which the Judiciary Committee approved unanimously weeks ago. Second, for the laws that provide civil remedies for sex abuse and sex trafficking victims, the bill clarifies when the statute of limitations begins to run. The bill would clarify that, for both laws providing civil remedies for these victims, the time for a victim to bring a claim against the perpetrator would not begin to run until after the victim actually discovers the injury or the violation. This is significant because victims of sex crimes are sometimes abused even before they can remember the abuse--some as young as 3- years old. The bill therefore clarifies that the time for a victim to sue her perpetrator does not begin to run when the violation occurs, but rather when the victim first discovers the injury or the violation. This is also important because victims of child pornography--who are also sexually abused--may not even ``discover'' that their illegal, pornographic images are being distributed over the internet and elsewhere until later in life. The bill therefore ensures that minor victims have an extended period to seek justice against their perpetrators after discovering their injury or violation. Under current law, it is unclear from court opinions when victims must bring their claims, and Congress must make clear it has always intended these victims to have an opportunity to come forward and seek redress. I want to thank Senator Cornyn again for working so closely with me on this issue. I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act, which is a bill to extend the time for child sexual abuse victims to seek justice against their perpetrators. I would like to thank Senator Cornyn for working closely with me on this important issue. Tragically, all over the country, victims of sexual abuse are coming forward to tell their stories of abuse and exploitation at the height of their innocence when they were children. Several from California, for example, have contacted my office, and described with great courage their pain and anguish. Each of these individual stories represents an untold amount of pain and suffering. When you look at the numbers, you cannot help but feel devastated. Indeed, the numbers reveal that no one is too far removed from being affected by deplorable crimes committed against children. Studies indicate that at least one in four girls and about one in five boys is sexually abused. It has been estimated that 90 percent of child victims never go to the authorities concerning their abuse. For many of these children, coming to grips with the trauma is extraordinarily difficult. Several research studies have described in painstaking detail the long-term effects that affect the physical, emotional, cognitive, and social development of abuse victims and sex trafficking victims. Those who are victimized when they are children typically do not come forward with their abuse--if at all--until many years later, after the victims reach adulthood. Simply put, the bill extends the civil statute of limitations in two ways for minor victims of Federal sex crimes--because these victims often need more time to realize the harm they have suffered and to seek redress. First, the bill extends the statute of limitations until the age of 28--from age 21--for minor victims of particular offenses, such as sexual abuse and child pornography. This brings the statute of limitations in line with a similar law that provides a civil remedy for victims of sex trafficking. The two laws are sections 2255 and 1595 of Title 18. This provision was recently included, at my request, in the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016, which the Judiciary Committee approved unanimously weeks ago. Second, for the laws that provide civil remedies for sex abuse and sex trafficking victims, the bill clarifies when the statute of limitations begins to run. The bill would clarify that, for both laws providing civil remedies for these victims, the time for a victim to bring a claim against the perpetrator would not begin to run until after the victim actually discovers the injury or the violation. This is significant because victims of sex crimes are sometimes abused even before they can remember the abuse--some as young as 3- years old. The bill therefore clarifies that the time for a victim to sue her perpetrator does not begin to run when the violation occurs, but rather when the victim first discovers the injury or the violation. This is also important because victims of child pornography--who are also sexually abused--may not even ``discover'' that their illegal, pornographic images are being distributed over the internet and elsewhere until later in life. The bill therefore ensures that minor victims have an extended period to seek justice against their perpetrators after discovering their injury or violation. Under current law, it is unclear from court opinions when victims must bring their claims, and Congress must make clear it has always intended these victims to have an opportunity to come forward and seek redress. I want to thank Senator Cornyn again for working so closely with me on this issue. I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I speak for a few minutes prior to the cloture vote?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, we have the Democratic leader on the floor and the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. I want him, particularly, to know how very much it has meant to me to work with him to try to reverse the deterioration of order of this body. That deterioration of order was the inability to pass an appropriations bill on its own and go back to what is called regular order. I have watched the Appropriations Committee lose prestige over the years. I have watched something happen that never happened in the early years. Members would vote for a bill in committee. They would come out, and they would sustain it on the floor. So the Appropriations Committee gained, I think, a prestige and an honor in this body. I think it has been very wounded. So the ability of Senator Alexander, my chairman, and myself to try to restore that order by sitting down and working out problems--and seeing that he gives, I give, we put together a bill, and we believe that bill can get through this body and that we can conference that bill successfully--is a really big deal to change the nature of this body, and we can show that we can get our job done. Well, into this climate, which is so amicable and so positive, comes an amendment. I go to the White House. I pick up the phone. I call the Chief of Staff. I say: This is an amendment. It may affect the Iran deal. I would like to know what the administration's position is. The word back is that the administration will veto this bill if these words are in it. So I began to learn a little bit about heavy water--what it is and what it is not--and how this all came about. So I understand the administration's problem with it, because it destroys something they are trying to do with the Iran agreement; that is, to show Iran a legal pathway with which it can proceed to go into the family of nations in a moderate way. Iran happens to have a foreign minister whom I have known for at least 15 years. I know he believes in this Iranian agreement. I know he wanted to take Iran in another direction. I know it because he proposed an earlier plan when he was Ambassador to the United Nations.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent for such time as I may consume. I will be short.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So, to make a long story short, this body discussed the joint agreement. We agreed that the President should go ahead and implement this agreement. Now, there are difficult problems because Iran is emerging and wanting to come into the family of nations in a positive way. They have to get this heavy water out. The heavy water is out. It is sitting in a store room in Oman. Iran desires to sell it, just as India sells heavy water. Canada has sold heavy water to us. That heavy water is used for peaceful purposes, as the chairman said, for fiber optics, for medical research. Our National Labs are interested in it, and there are many companies that would use it to improve fiber optics and that kind of thing. So it is a way of removing proliferation from the country. This is suddenly on our Energy and Water bill. I believe we have the votes to not enter into cloture at this time. I guess what I want to say is my very deep regret to my chairman. I don't want it to end this way. I want us to continue to work together. I truly believe that there is more in the interests of this country that we can do appropriations bills in regular order, with concurrence on both sides of the aisle, than the value of this amendment. This amendment has raised hackles all over. So why can't it be left for another day? Why does it need to be on an appropriations bill? Why can't we have the ability to do one bill in this body that does not have a poison pill on it, to set an example for future bills? This was the bill--Senator Alexander and I both know that--that was supposed to do that. Why can't a Member see this? Maybe he is a new Member. Maybe he does not understand what the years have been like. Why can't he wait for another time? I have been here 24 years. I have waited for another time plenty of times, because someone said: Your amendment won't go well with the bill. Don't do it now. We may help you later. I did it. Why destroy our chances? Because that is exactly what is happening. So I just want Chairman Alexander to know how very sad I am that we are at this point. I believe it is not necessary to be at this point. I believe we could show that we could do it. I would say that if cloture is not granted, we stand ready to continue to work to try to get a bill. But I would so appreciate it if a new Member could recognize this and say: Oh, I wanted to do this. It is my right to do it. All of that I admit, but what you are doing is going to disturb our effort to produce a series of appropriations bills without poison pill riders. I will predict that there will be more on other bills. Our effort, which the majority leader began with the Democratic leader--was to be able to put together a process where we could produce bills. Please, think about that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I understand it, the filing deadline for first- degree amendments is this afternoon at either 1:30 p.m. or 2:30 p.m. So everybody should get their amendments in. I thank Senator Alexander again for the cooperative spirit with which he is working on this bill. It is very much appreciated.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also strongly oppose this amendment. This would eliminate funding for our environmental infrastructure projects of the Army Corps of Engineers. Funding for these projects enables communities to solve local problems in a way that protects the environment. Problems are being solved, such as upgrading wastewater treatment facilities, so that our drinking water and marine resources are protected, and replacing deteriorated distribution systems with efficient systems that help conserve water. I hope we will vote this amendment down.