Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask that the amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah for his words. They are much appreciated, as is his friendship as well. I think he knows that. I believe the chairman feels certainly as strongly if not more strongly than I do. I rose to be able to make a brief statement about the sanctuary bill as in morning business, if that is possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I voted against Senator Vitter's bill. I believe it goes much too far. My longer statement is in the Record, but I want to respond to some of what I heard today. I do believe we should ensure that there is a notification prior to release of a dangerous individual with a criminal record, just as Senator Schumer said on this floor. I do believe we could take a narrow action to do just that. We could focus on dangerous individuals and not on all undocumented immigrants who happen to be taken into State or local custody. We could require notification without threatening vital law enforcement and local government funding, as Senator Vitter's bill does. I had an amendment prepared for the Judiciary Committee's consideration when the committee had scheduled the bill for markup over a series of weeks, but the committee canceled its markup, so we were on the floor today with a bill that has never been heard in full by the Judiciary Committee. Senator Vitter's bill includes a notification requirement and a detention requirement. It is not limited to those who are dangerous or have particular criminal records. It would cover a farmworker who was detained for a broken taillight or a mother who was detained for similar reasons, taking her away from her children. This is a standard that could be abused in another administration, and it is potentially a huge unfunded mandate to impose on States and localities. The bill would also impose lengthy criminal sentences at the Federal level for individuals coming across the border to see their families or to perform work that is vital to the economy of California and the Nation. For example, in California, virtually the majority, if not all, of the farmworkers are undocumented. It happens to be a fact. It is why the agriculture jobs bill was part of the immigration reform act which was before this body and passed this body and went to the House and had no action. Although Members on the other side state that this bill has support among law enforcement, I will note that the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities are opposed to this bill or have submitted letters opposing threats to Federal law enforcement funding over this issue. So, bottom line, I do believe we should do something about the circumstance that led to the tragic murder of Kate Steinle, which occurred in my city and State, and the tragic murder of Marilyn Pharis, which happened in the middle part of my State. I will support a reasonable effort to do just that, but this is not a targeted effort. It is too broad, and so I opposed it. My full statement is in the Record, but because it was spoken about on the floor, I did want to add these words. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the chairman for those words. I have one little duty left. Amendment No. 2626 Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect to Whitehouse amendment No. 2626.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Tim Scott, and Senator Cory Booker to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, bipartisan legislation to extend the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. I am a long-time supporter of this important program, which provides low-income students residing in the District of Columbia the opportunity to improve academically by attending a private school of their choice. Without this platform, D.C.'s most disadvantaged students would not have access to a high-quality education, including smaller class sizes and effective curriculum. That is not right. All students should have the same opportunity to learn and thrive. The Opportunity Scholarship is a successful and transformative program. It has shown promising results in raising student achievement. According to data released by the program administrator for the 2014- 2015 school year, 90 percent of scholarship students graduated from high school and 88 percent of those graduates are enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college or university. The Opportunity Scholarship Program's graduation rate is more than 30 percentage points higher than D.C. Public Schools' rate, which stands at only 58 percent, well below the national average of 81 percent. For the 2015-2016 school year, there were more than 8,500 names on waiting lists at D.C. charter schools, an 18 percent increase over last year. This shows the demand for high-quality education in this city and unfortunately, the shortage to meet that demand. I have worked on this legislation with my House colleague, Speaker John Boehner, for many years. I also had my staff visit schools and talk to administrators and parents about ways to improve the program so that it can fully meet the goal of providing a better education to low- income families in the District's lowest-performing schools. I am pleased that this legislation strengthens the program by requiring participating schools to acquire and maintain accreditation, and by ensuring that an evaluation study truly assess the effectiveness of the scholarship, including how it affects academic achievement for scholarship recipients. I am pleased that Senators Johnson, Scott and Booker have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. I remain fully committed to the success of the program, and I believe this reauthorization bill makes critical improvements to ensure that scholarships continue to transform the lives of the District's most vulnerable students.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Tim Scott, and Senator Cory Booker to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, bipartisan legislation to extend the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. I am a long-time supporter of this important program, which provides low-income students residing in the District of Columbia the opportunity to improve academically by attending a private school of their choice. Without this platform, D.C.'s most disadvantaged students would not have access to a high-quality education, including smaller class sizes and effective curriculum. That is not right. All students should have the same opportunity to learn and thrive. The Opportunity Scholarship is a successful and transformative program. It has shown promising results in raising student achievement. According to data released by the program administrator for the 2014- 2015 school year, 90 percent of scholarship students graduated from high school and 88 percent of those graduates are enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college or university. The Opportunity Scholarship Program's graduation rate is more than 30 percentage points higher than D.C. Public Schools' rate, which stands at only 58 percent, well below the national average of 81 percent. For the 2015-2016 school year, there were more than 8,500 names on waiting lists at D.C. charter schools, an 18 percent increase over last year. This shows the demand for high-quality education in this city and unfortunately, the shortage to meet that demand. I have worked on this legislation with my House colleague, Speaker John Boehner, for many years. I also had my staff visit schools and talk to administrators and parents about ways to improve the program so that it can fully meet the goal of providing a better education to low- income families in the District's lowest-performing schools. I am pleased that this legislation strengthens the program by requiring participating schools to acquire and maintain accreditation, and by ensuring that an evaluation study truly assess the effectiveness of the scholarship, including how it affects academic achievement for scholarship recipients. I am pleased that Senators Johnson, Scott and Booker have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. I remain fully committed to the success of the program, and I believe this reauthorization bill makes critical improvements to ensure that scholarships continue to transform the lives of the District's most vulnerable students.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, great progress has been made in improving oversight of health insurance companies, holding them accountable for how premium dollars are spent, and increasing access to affordable health insurance. Even so, there is still work to be done to protect consumers from unreasonable and excessive health insurance rate increases. Through the Affordable Care Act, health insurance rate increases greater than 10 percent must be publicly posted and include an explanation for the increase. The increases are reviewed by States, and the Federal Government steps in when States opt out from participating in the review process. This is a good first step, which has helped reduce increases, but it isn't enough. The enforcement authority to block or modify unreasonable rate increases is key to providing strong consumer protection. In 2011, 43 percent of requested rate increases for health insurance rates on the individual market were larger than 10 percent. In 2013, 25 percent of plans had an increase greater than 10 percent. This shows progress, but not enough. Health insurance companies can still get away with putting profits before patients. Affordability of health insurance is vital in continuing to decrease the number of uninsured Americans, and to ensure that families can access coverage. Currently, 13 States still have little or no authority to block or modify excessive rate increases in the individual and small group markets. Even when regulators in these States find an increase to be unreasonable and unjustified, they have no ability to block or modify the increase. The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act creates a Federal fallback option for States currently lacking this authority. This will protect consumers regardless of the State they live in, and improve accountability for insurance companies attempting to raise premium prices without adequate justification. This solution is simple: in States where the insurance regulator does not have or use authority to block unreasonable rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so. In some States, like California, companies are not required to get prior authorization for rate increases to go into effect. California insurance regulators with the Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Care review rates, but when they find rate increases to be unjustified and unreasonable, they have no authority to stop or adjust the price increases. Just a few months ago, Aetna raised rates for a small business plan that, on average, was an increase of 21 percent and affected approximately 13,000 people. The California Department of Managed Care had found the increase to be unreasonable, but couldn't stop it from going into effect. In many States we can already see that this type of authority is working, and this bill doesn't interfere at all with what they are doing. For example, in New York, insurers requested an average of a 13.5 percentage increase for 2016 premiums. Regulators disagreed and reduced the increase by nearly half, so consumers in that State will see a 7.1 percent increase instead. In Connecticut, a UnitedHealthcare plan wanted to raise rates by 12.4 percent for 2016. After regulators reviewed the request, they approved a 5.5 percent increase instead. For one plan in the State offered by ConnectiCare, a small increase was denied and consumers will actually see a reduction in their premiums for 2016. Regulators in Vermont reduced the increase that 65,000 residents of the State would have faced in 2016--the proposed hike was 8.6 percent and the approved rate increase was 5.9 percent. Any unreasonable rate increase that perpetuates year after year is unacceptable, and makes a big impact on a family's budget. All consumers deserve to have fully effective health insurance rate review and enforcement. This bill closes the final gap in this process and ensures that these protections are available for the entire country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. In that capacity, I rise to oppose consideration of the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water appropriations bill. Let me be clear, I do this reluctantly. In my view, this is a very good bill. Senator Alexander and I have put forth a well-balanced bill within the allocation levels we were provided, which was a good level. It has been a great pleasure for me over the years to work with Senator Alexander. I have the utmost respect for him. We have always worked things out, but this year I think we have a bigger issue, and I wish to address that in my remarks. First, 6 of the 12 appropriations subcommittees received base allocations lower than last year. Another four subcommittees received nominal increases but were still forced to make cuts due to rising costs beyond their control. That leaves only two subcommittees--Energy and Water Development and Homeland Security--that received real funding increases. That is why I believe considering the Energy and Water bill in isolation as we are now, rather than debating larger funding issues, is misleading. That is why I can't support the motion to proceed to the bill. We all know the vote today is not just about Energy and Water. It is about the entire appropriations process, and that is the debate we should be having. Instead of debating just this specific bill, the debate should be focused on eliminating sequestration, negotiating a budget agreement with the President and the House, and putting an end to the destructive cycle of continuing resolutions, omnibuses, and threats of government shutdown. The Republican leader has already initiated budget negotiations. I am led to believe three meetings have been held. It can be done. It is what needs to be done. I fully support that effort. That is where we should focus our efforts. Before I get into specifics of the Energy and Water funding issues, I want to take a step back and discuss two very disturbing issues I have seen from my seat on the Appropriations Committee, and I am not a newcomer. I have been on that committee since I came to the Senate, which is more than 20 years ago. They are the negative effects of sequestration and the unravelling of the overall appropriations process. The strict budget caps put in place by the 2011 Budget Control Act have been terrible for our country. These spending caps, and the across-the-board cuts used to enforce them, were designed to be so devastating that Congress would do everything it could to avert them. The problem is, the Supercommittee failed to reach the agreement in 2011, so those devastating cuts took effect. These spending caps, which have essentially frozen spending levels for the last 3 years, do not account for the increasing requirements placed on the Federal Government. The cost of veterans' health care is rising, insufficient, and has been roundly criticized. The cost of low-income housing is rising, the cost of educating our children is rising, and the cost of fighting natural disasters, such as drought and wildfires, is also rising. But the spending caps are not rising, meaning Congress is forced to make cuts to vital programs, and of course you get into the battle between the national security portfolio, such as defense, and the domestic portfolio. My portfolio on Energy and Water is part national security, because of the nuclear weapons for our country, and the domestic part is the Office of Science, the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, which is the only infrastructure program we actually have functioning. Having a static budget like this year after year, which does not even account for inflation, is no way to run a country. I am also disappointed by the collapse of the appropriations process. At one time--and I hope this is interesting to the Presiding Officer since he is a newcomer--it was the norm to pass each spending bill as a stand-alone piece of legislation. All Members could offer amendments, and each of us took ownership of the outcome. We haven't done that in a decade. It used to be that the entire Appropriations Committee, members of both sides, would support bills drafted by each subcommittee chairman and approved by the full committee. We haven't done that in 5 years. It was heresy for a bill to come out on the floor and not have members of the Appropriations Committee support it. That is all gone today. Everything changed in 2011. My Republican colleagues decided to vote against every appropriations bill to protest funding levels. The die was cast, and we have had to cope with the consequences ever since. Since fiscal year 2010, we have passed 24 short-term continuing resolutions, which do nothing but keep the government going at the funding levels of the year we were in at the time we passed the continuing resolution. That is nine more than in the preceding 5-year period. It is a 60-percent increase. When Congress can't agree on funding levels, we end up putting Federal spending on autopilot. Mr. President, 2011 also marked the year when Congress turned over the power of the purse to the executive branch. By banning the use of congressional adds, we not only admitted that we know less about our States than executive agencies, we also removed a key reason many Members voted for the appropriations bills. And contrary to conventional wisdom, congressional adds were not out of control. In 2010, the last year they were allowed, they totaled just one-half of 1 percent of spending approved by the Appropriations Committee. One- half of 1 percent were adds made by Members of this body and the other body to do public projects in their districts. I believe every Senator knows a great deal about his or her State--I really do--and projects that are important for the State's survival, and I believe they evaluate them based on the importance to the public. I believe they know what vital projects need to be funded. Removing that ability has removed individual Member's stake in an appropriations process that functions, and so it is nonfunctional today. It has damaged our ability to govern, and I deeply believe that. That is a long way of saying we need to return the appropriations process to the way it was handled in years past, and today's political vote on this bill doesn't move us in that direction. Even though I do believe the Energy and Water bill represents an acceptable compromise under the circumstances, there are still significant issues with the bill caused by low spending caps. The bill provides--and this is important--$35.4 billion. That is an increase over fiscal year 2015 funding of $1.2 billion for defense and $8 million for nondefense programs, and that is where you can see the problem. Those national security projects get an add of $1.2 billion-- and it is largely the nuclear weapons--and all of our domestic projects, such as the Office of Science, all of the energy projects, all of the innovations, the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, fixing rivers, fixing dams, dredging, and everything the Army Corps of Engineers does only get $8 million as opposed to the $1.2 billion that is added for defense. But even with that increase, there are significant shortfalls. I will give a few examples. For the past 4 years, California and the West have been suffering from a historic drought. I just came from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting. Senator Boxer and I have put together a drought bill. We have worked on it for 2 years, and we finally have a bill with some short-term fixes and some long-term projects which can increase water supply in California. Our reservoirs are at historic lows, and the Sierra Nevada snowpack, our major source of water, is at the lowest it has been in 500 years. We have millions of dead trees littering the State, increased lightning strikes, big wildfires that go up like explosions into the air because it is so dry, and the State's agriculture sector, which feeds the country, has been heavily affected. This is a $43 billion industry that saw losses of $2.2 billion last year, has lost 17,000 jobs, and on and on and on. Here are some other ways the Energy and Water bill is weakened by low spending caps. I will talk for a moment more about the Office of Science. This is money used to expand research at our National Laboratories, and we are $196 million below the President's budget request in this bill. Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs have seen an even bigger deficit with funding levels at $773 million below the President's budget request. This delays the development of vital technologies to reduce energy consumption and slash consumer spending. Defense programs are also underfunded. With higher spending caps, we could be putting into place strategies to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. We just heard about a cesium sale to shady people that I can't remember ever happening before, and whether this opens the door to more, I don't know, but I do know it is a real weakness we have. If we had some money, we could secure radiological resources at medical and industrial facilities, we could install mobile and fixed radiation detectors at ports and border crossings. We could also use additional funds to modernize the nuclear reactor infrastructure that supports the Navy. This includes developing more efficient reactor designs that can last 40 years without refueling. These are weaknesses we see in the funding picture and in our bill. As I said, I actually believe it is a good bill when you know the circumstances under which we are functioning. But this isn't just about Energy and Water, and we can't view it in isolation. As I said, Energy and Water had a decent allocation, even with the overall budget restrictions. But cuts made to other bills are far more dangerous, and we can't ignore these cuts. I will highlight a few of them. The Subcommittee harmed by the current spending caps is responsible for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The subcommittee received an allocation of $3.6 billion below last year. The Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education received cuts. These are draconian, and these programs affect our most vulnerable Americans. That is what the Presidential election is all about right now--the discontent over our inability to solve some of these problems. There is a $331 million cut to employment and training services for youth, veterans, and the unemployed. There is an $87.8 million cut to teen pregnancy prevention programs. There is a $215 million cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--disease control. They are seeing diseases that I haven't seen since my childhood, such as measles, spring up all over the State of California, and we need to do these things to keep our people safe. Vaccinations are important. There has been a $198 million cut to shelter and services for unaccompanied immigrant children, a $69 million cut to Federal student aid programs, and the elimination of a $250 million program to expand access to preschool. Expanding access to preschool is something everybody wants for low- and moderate-income 4-year-olds. The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, on the other hand, did receive an additional $1.9 billion this year. However, the committee required a $3.4 billion increase just to maintain current services. As a result, the Subcommittee was forced to cut funding for mass transit projects by more than $500 million below last year. Affordable housing assistance is slashed by $834 million, and the Community Development Block Grant Program that I used as the Mayor of San Francisco a long time ago, which could always be counted on, was reduced by $100 million. These cuts affected millions of Americans and hurt communities across the country. We should not have to choose between providing rental assistance to low-income families and providing transportation options so they can get to work. I see the Presiding Officer is nodding. I have about 3 more minutes. I ask unanimous consent to finish my statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my friend. I appreciate it. The Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee also received a misleading increase in its allocation. While the Subcommittee received an extra $965 million on paper, it actually needed $1.1 billion just to account for last year's credit from the Toyota settlement that is no longer available this year. As a result, the subcommittee was forced to cut numerous important programs below last year's levels. They include the U.S. Marshals Service, which was cut by $141 million; legal representation for immigrant children, reduced by $55 million; and Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, cut by $139 million. Here is my conclusion. My good friend and colleague Senator Alexander is rightly proud of the work he and his staff have put into the Energy and Water bill, and, as I said, it is a good bill. I sincerely wish the circumstance we find ourselves in today were different. Those of us on this side of the aisle should have a voice in what happens and how we can solve this problem. So what I plead for is, in these negotiations that are starting, by Leader McConnell, to move ahead, let's get it started and let's stop the CRs, let's stop the omnibuses, and let's stop the fights over the debt limit and shutting down the government. Let's go back to an appropriations process that this country did well by and that worked. I thank the Presiding Officer for his forbearance, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Mendenhall, a detailee to the Appropriations Committee have floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it wasn't long ago that towns such as Columbine, Aurora, Blacksburg, Newtown, and now Roseburg were unknown outside their States. But today, these towns have witnessed the worst kind of tragedy: mass shootings, bodies torn to pieces, families shattered. The common element in each has been an unstable individual who had easy access to deadly weapons. I stood here 2\1/2\ years ago to argue for restrictions on the manufacture, transfer, and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. That vote failed. I stood here to argue for universal background checks. It makes sense that there be a process to ensure a firearm isn't purchased by someone who can't legally possess it, such as a felon. Even that bill, supported by the overwhelming majority of the public, failed. Here we are once again, standing on the Senate floor, demanding action in the wake of another deadly shooting. As frustrated as I may be, I have not lost hope that the American people will rise up and force their elected representatives to take real action to help stop these senseless murders. I hope they pick up their phones and call every Senator, every Representative, and every Presidential candidate and demand to know where they stand. President Obama noted this week that the United States is the only country--the only country--that so frequently suffers these deadly attacks. Let me quote some figures. In 2013, we had 33,636 people killed by guns. In 2011, there were 146 gun deaths in the United Kingdom and 698 in Canada. In 2012, Australia saw 226 gun deaths. Last year, there were 6 gun deaths in Japan. Our number is 33,636. We cannot let that continue. Gun laws work in other countries, and they can work here too. There are simple actions that Congress can take to make a difference. An individual should not be able to buy any weapon they want online or at a gun show with no background check. An individual should not be able to purchase weapons and then immediately resell them, without background checks, to criminals. An individual who has committed domestic violence should not be able to purchase firearms. These are not drastic changes. In fact, all of these proposals are already law in some States. Congress simply must take some action. The longer we delay, the more innocent people, including children, will be killed in our schools, our office parks, our movie theaters, and our streets. I wish to conclude with a story written by blog writer Glennon Doyle Melton. She offers up a powerful tale, and I would like to read a portion of it. ``Two weeks ago, my second and fourth grade daughters came home from school and told me that they'd had a code red drill.'' She recalled her daughter saying: [The drill was] in case someone tries to kill us. We had to all hide in the bathroom together and be really quiet. It was really scary but the teacher said if there was a real man with a gun trying to find us, she'd cover us up and protect us from him. Tommy started crying. I tried to be brave. Glennon continues: My three-year-old nephew had the same drill in his preschool in Virginia. Three-year-old American babies and teachers--hiding in bathrooms, holding hands, preparing for death. We are saying to teachers: arm yourselves and fight men with assault weapons because we are too cowardly to fight the gun lobby. We are saying to a terrified generation of American children--WE WILL NOT DO WHAT IT TAKES TO PROTECT YOU. WE WILL NOT EVEN TRY. So just be very quiet, hide and wait. Hold your breath. Shhh. This is chilling. To hear what our children and grandchildren must endure, even in their earliest years. I wish to say to all of us that we must have the courage to stand up and do what it takes to provide some commonsense protection for our constituents and for our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, great progress has been made in improving oversight of health insurance companies, holding them accountable for how premium dollars are spent, and increasing access to affordable health insurance. Even so, there is still work to be done to protect consumers from unreasonable and excessive health insurance rate increases. Through the Affordable Care Act, health insurance rate increases greater than 10 percent must be publicly posted and include an explanation for the increase. The increases are reviewed by States, and the Federal Government steps in when States opt out from participating in the review process. This is a good first step, which has helped reduce increases, but it isn't enough. The enforcement authority to block or modify unreasonable rate increases is key to providing strong consumer protection. In 2011, 43 percent of requested rate increases for health insurance rates on the individual market were larger than 10 percent. In 2013, 25 percent of plans had an increase greater than 10 percent. This shows progress, but not enough. Health insurance companies can still get away with putting profits before patients. Affordability of health insurance is vital in continuing to decrease the number of uninsured Americans, and to ensure that families can access coverage. Currently, 13 States still have little or no authority to block or modify excessive rate increases in the individual and small group markets. Even when regulators in these States find an increase to be unreasonable and unjustified, they have no ability to block or modify the increase. The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act creates a Federal fallback option for States currently lacking this authority. This will protect consumers regardless of the State they live in, and improve accountability for insurance companies attempting to raise premium prices without adequate justification. This solution is simple: in States where the insurance regulator does not have or use authority to block unreasonable rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so. In some States, like California, companies are not required to get prior authorization for rate increases to go into effect. California insurance regulators with the Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Care review rates, but when they find rate increases to be unjustified and unreasonable, they have no authority to stop or adjust the price increases. Just a few months ago, Aetna raised rates for a small business plan that, on average, was an increase of 21 percent and affected approximately 13,000 people. The California Department of Managed Care had found the increase to be unreasonable, but couldn't stop it from going into effect. In many States we can already see that this type of authority is working, and this bill doesn't interfere at all with what they are doing. For example, in New York, insurers requested an average of a 13.5 percentage increase for 2016 premiums. Regulators disagreed and reduced the increase by nearly half, so consumers in that State will see a 7.1 percent increase instead. In Connecticut, a UnitedHealthcare plan wanted to raise rates by 12.4 percent for 2016. After regulators reviewed the request, they approved a 5.5 percent increase instead. For one plan in the State offered by ConnectiCare, a small increase was denied and consumers will actually see a reduction in their premiums for 2016. Regulators in Vermont reduced the increase that 65,000 residents of the State would have faced in 2016--the proposed hike was 8.6 percent and the approved rate increase was 5.9 percent. Any unreasonable rate increase that perpetuates year after year is unacceptable, and makes a big impact on a family's budget. All consumers deserve to have fully effective health insurance rate review and enforcement. This bill closes the final gap in this process and ensures that these protections are available for the entire country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their efforts to include an anti-torture provision in the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, H.R. 1735. As a coauthor of this provision--Section 1045 of the conference report--I am pleased that there will now be clear limits on interrogation techniques so that the United States can never again conduct coercive and abusive interrogations or indefinite secret detentions. Section 1045 applies the restrictions on interrogations in the Army Field Manual under current law to the entire U.S. Government. The provision therefore extends to the whole of government what Congress did in 2005, by a vote of 90-9, with the Detainee Treatment Act, which banned the Department of Defense from using techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual. The Detainee Treatment Act also banned across the government the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment. Section 1045 also requires prompt access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to any detainee held by the U.S. Government. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, to provide clear legislative history as the coauthors of the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to start by asking the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, a question concerning this anti- torture provision, Section 1045. Some have raised the concerns about the exemption in this provision for Federal law enforcement agencies. The concern is that this new provision might supersede other laws, rules, and guidance that apply to Federal law enforcement agencies. The language in the Senate-passed bill made clear that Federal law enforcement agencies could use interrogation techniques outside of the Army Field Manual if those techniques are authorized, noncoercive, and ``designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.'' Does the absence of this language in the conference report somehow open the door to the use of coercive interrogation techniques by those agencies? Is that the intent of the law enforcement exception in Section 1045?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I want to thank Chairman McCain for explaining the legislative intent of the provision and for making clear that this legislation does not allow the use of coercive interrogations by Federal law enforcement agencies. I would also like to ask the Senator for his view on one additional change made to the anti-torture provision in the conference process. The Senate bill required the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with other specified officials, to review the Army Field Manual for update and revision. The Senate bill required this to be completed within a year from the date of enactment and once every 3 years thereafter. The conference report changes the timeline for that review, so that it occurs not sooner than 3 years from the date of enactment, and then every 3 years thereafter. Can the chairman of the committee clarify the reasoning behind that change?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Again, I thank the chairman and congratulate him for his very important legislative achievement. Madam President, I want to thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their efforts to include an anti-torture provision in the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, H.R. 1735. Section 1045 of the conference report establishes clear limits on interrogation techniques so that the United States can never again conduct coercive and abusive interrogations or indefinite secret detentions. Section 1045 applies the restrictions on interrogations in the Army Field Manual under current law to the entire U.S. Government. The provision therefore extends what Congress did in 2005, by a vote of 90- 9, with the Detainee Treatment Act, which banned the Department of Defense from using techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual, and also banned across the government the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment. Section 1045 also requires prompt access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to any detainee held by the U.S. Government. Both of these provisions are consistent with U.S. policy for the past several years, but Section 1045 will now codify these requirements into law. President Obama banned the use of coercive and abusive interrogation techniques by Executive order in his first few days in office, on January 22, 2009. That Executive order, No. 13491, formally prohibits--as a matter of policy--the use of interrogation techniques not specifically authorized by Army Field Manual 2-22.3 on human intelligence collector operations. Section 1045 places that restriction into law, which is long overdue. What this means is that a future President can't simply rewrite the policy--these limitations are now a matter of law and can't be undone without a future act of Congress. Section 1045(a)(2) states that an individual in custody or otherwise detained ``shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual.'' Section 1045(a)(2)(B)(i) makes clear that the ban on interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual applies to all individuals ``in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government,'' whether during or outside an armed conflict. This is a very important change. Unlike the Executive order, which only applies to armed conflict, we are saying with this law that coercive interrogations will never again be used, period. Section 1045(b) codifies a separate section of President Obama's January 2009 Executive order, requiring access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to all U.S. detainees in U.S. Government custody--which has been historically granted by the United States and other law-abiding nations and is needed to fulfill our obligations under international law, such as in the Geneva Conventions. I know my colleagues are well aware of the executive summary of the study released by the Intelligence Committee in December 2014 on the deeply flawed detention and interrogation program carried out by the CIA beginning in 2002. During my floor speech on the study in December 2014, I described how the interrogations of CIA detainees from 2002 onward were absolutely brutal and ineffective. In August of 2014, President Obama said what many of us have known for years: that the CIA's now-defunct interrogation program amounted to torture. CIA Director John Brennan has clearly stated he agrees with the ban on interrogation techniques that are not in the Army Field Manual. Director Brennan wrote the following to the Intelligence Committee in 2013 about the President's 2009 Executive Order: ``I want to reaffirm what I said during my confirmation hearing: I agree with the President's decision, and, while I am the Director of the CIA, this program will not under any circumstances be reinitiated. I personally remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence and that their use impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in the world.'' More recently, in a September 11, 2015, letter to me, Director Brennan wrote that ``CIA strictly adheres to Executive Order 13491, 3 C.F.R. 199 (2009), and fully supports efforts to codify key provisions of the executive order in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016.'' As a result of the anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A) and passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, current law already bans torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. However, the provision in this bill is still necessary because the CIA was able to employ brutal interrogation techniques based on deeply flawed legal theories that those techniques did not constitute ``torture'' or ``cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.'' Opinions written by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, which could not withstand scrutiny and have since been withdrawn, managed to twist legal reasoning beyond all recognition and find that waterboarding, sleep deprivation up to 180 hours at a time, stress positions, slamming a detainee into a wall, and other similar techniques were not torture. OLC reached these erroneous legal judgments by ignoring the inherent brutality of the CIA's so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. While ignoring that fact, OLC claimed CIA's techniques were a necessity to keep Americans safe and OLC mistakenly found the CIA program was managed and implemented with great care, which it was not. This stood in stark contrast to the clear language of the anti- torture statute in the U.S. Code, and the Convention against Torture, which the U.S. Senate ratified in 1994. That convention, clearly and absolutely, bans torture. It says: ``No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.'' And yet so-called enhanced interrogation techniques--not allowed by the Army Field Manual, were approved, used, and abused by the Bush administration. Section 1045 will serve as an additional bulwark to prevent similar techniques from ever be used again by imposing--on all of the U.S. Government--the same restrictions that apply to the U.S. military today under the Detainee Treatment Act. In order to make sure that the legislative history is clear, I'd like to describe the minor changes that were made to the language of this anti-torture provision during the conference. As described in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of the conference, the following two minor changes were made to the amendment. First, regarding the applicability of this new provision to law enforcement interrogations, Section 1045 makes clear that the new limitations ``shall not apply to officers, employees, or agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, or other Federal law enforcement entities.'' The version that passed the Senate and this final version both have an exemption for law enforcement because law enforcement agencies do not use the Army Field Manual and are already required to use noncoercive interrogation methods in which officers question suspects in order to elicit voluntary statements. This exemption is consistent with and reinforces the relevant requirements of Executive Order 13491 on ``Ensuring Lawful Interrogations,'' which allows law enforcement agents to use only ``authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.'' For example, since at least 2004, it has been the policy of the FBI that ``no attempt be made to obtain a statement by force, threats, or promises,'' according to the Legal Handbook for FBI Special Agents which was publicly recounted by the FBI general counsel in July 24, 2004, congressional testimony. As the conferees to the defense bill wrote in their joint explanatory statement: ``The conferees recognize that law enforcement personnel may continue to use authorized non-coercive techniques of interrogation.'' The absence of this language in the final bill text should not be interpreted as any authorization for law enforcement to use any coercive interrogation techniques. The second minor change to the anti-torture amendment that was made in the conference committee is that the timing for the completion of the required update to the Army Field Manual--after the specified ``thorough review''--was changed from ``[n]ot later than one year'' to ``[n]ot sooner than three years'' in subsection (a)(6)(A) of Section 1045. This change does not alter the importance of the required review, the imperative that it be initiated in the immediate future, and that it be completed in 3 years' time. The language of the provision is clear: the conferees wanted the Secretary of Defense to be thorough and gave him 3 years to complete the review. But the amendment says that he ``shall complete'' a thorough review after 3 years, not that he ``shall initiate'' a thorough review after 3 years. It is also important to point out that, regardless of the timing of this statutorily required review, this administration or the subsequent administration may at any time revise portions or the entirety of the Army Field Manual. As Section 1045(a)(6)(A) states, revising the Army Field Manual is not optional; it is a ``requirement to update.'' Moreover, the provision makes clear that this requirement must be undertaken every 3 years. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with the title, structure, and purpose of this subsection to suggest that the initial review following enactment can be postponed indefinitely. Also, as the amendment notes, revisions to the Army Field Manual may be necessary to ensure that it complies with the legal obligations of the United States, a requirement that the executive branch is obligated to adhere to at all times. In addition, no matter when the updates to the Army Field Manual are made, the manual ``is designed to reflect best practices for interrogation to elicit reliable statements,'' as the conferees also wrote their joint explanatory statement. America's best and most experienced interrogators have consistently and emphatically stated that best practices for eliciting reliable, actionable intelligence solely involve noncoercive techniques that elicit voluntary statements. Let me now turn briefly to part (b) of Section 1045, which codifies part of President Obama's Executive order of January 2009 requiring access by the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, to all U.S. detainees in U.S. Government custody. This requirement--which is based on our obligations under international law--has had bipartisan support in previous Congresses. As we know from our own history and from the experiences of detainees around the world, closing the door to the ICRC opens the door to torture and other forms of mistreatment. Providing ICRC access is also necessary for our moral standing and critical to our efforts to defend human rights abroad. Finally, our troops depend on the promise of ICRC access should they be taken prisoner. Now is the time to ensure that we live up to the values--in practice and in law--that we expect will be accorded to our own members of the military. I have been opposed to coercive interrogations and the use of so- called enhanced interrogation techniques since I first learned of their use at Abu Ghraib and by the CIA. This bill, at long last, puts the end to them. I am very proud to have been part of the process to author and support this provision and very much thank the bill managers for their insistence that it remain in the final legislation. Whatever one may think about the CIA's former detention and interrogation program, we should all agree that there can be no turning back to the era of torture. Coercive interrogation techniques do not work, they corrode our moral standing, and ultimately, they undermine counterterrorism policies they are intended to support. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the confirmation of Dale Drozd to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Judge Drozd earned his bachelor's degree magna cum laude from San Diego State University in 1977 and his law degree from UCLA in 1980, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif. He began his legal career as a law clerk for a district judge in the same judicial district where he now serves. Following his clerkship, Judge Drozd worked as a criminal and civil litigator in Federal and State courts at the trial and appellate levels for 14 years. Then, in 1997, Judge Drozd was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of California. In 2011, he became the chief magistrate judge in that court. Over his 18-year career as a magistrate judge, he has presided over thousands of cases. He is well regarded in the legal community and among those who appear before him on a daily basis. The ABA has rated Judge Drozd ``well qualified,'' its highest rating. Five different U.S. attorneys who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations over more than 20 years have endorsed his nomination. Those former U.S. attorneys include David F. Levi, who later served on the district court and is now dean of Duke law school, as well as George O'Connell, Charles Stevens, Paul Seave, and McGregor Scott. Their letter states: ``[w]e have all known Judge Drozd for many years and are also aware of his judicial reputation in the community. He is an effective, productive, fair, and balanced jurist who is widely respected in this district.'' Their letter further recognized Judge Drozd as ``an outstanding magistrate judge,'' and went on to state that ``he will be equally effective as a district judge.'' The president of the Sacramento chapter of the Federal Bar Association wrote to the Judiciary Committee in support of this nomination. That letter notes that, although it is not typical for the Federal Bar Association ``to endorse a particular candidate or nomination,'' Judge Drozd's nomination is ``uniquely easy to support.'' The letter further stated that Judge Drozd ``is widely respected in our district and commands a high level of respect from attorneys who appear before him.'' I would also add a point from the U.S. attorneys' letter about the crushing caseload in this district. Their letter states: ``[o]ur district has an extremely heavy case load and has been operating with a vacant judgeship for two and a half years. It is vitally important to the fair administration of justice that the long-vacant judicial vacancy in our Fresno district be promptly filled.'' This is a point that bears repeating: the caseload in the Eastern District of California is extraordinarily large, and has been for many years. This district covers Sacramento and California's Central Valley, including Fresno and Bakersfield--it covers 55 percent of California's land area. The district has only six judgeships for a population of nearly 8 million people, and it has almost two times as many people per judgeship as the average U.S. district court. Over the last 6 years, the court has had nearly three times as many pending cases per judgeship--more than 1400--than the national average, 569. These numbers translate into lengthy times for cases to be resolved. Over the last several years, it has taken between 38 and 51 months for civil cases to get to trial--well above the national average of 26 months. Criminal cases now take over 20 months to be resolved currently, almost three times the national average of 7.4 months. The point is this: the Eastern District of California is in serious need of additional judges. I have worked for many years to create those positions, and I believe very strongly that they are needed. I am pleased that the Senate took the step of voting on this nomination. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Lending and Inequality Reduction Act of 2015. It is a simple bill with a straightforward goal: to increase economic activity in underserved communities to help create jobs and reduce economic inequality. We must help low and moderate income communities grow by partnering with organizations that can channel expertise and resources to these communities. The bill I am introducing today would assist community development institutions provide more funding to small businesses. This bill would increase their ability to lend in underserved communities and promote development and economic growth. The more lending they can offer to underserved communities, the more those communities can prosper. One example of this process can be found from CDC Small Business Finance, an organization that has created more than 165,000 jobs and funded more than 10,000 small businesses. In Anaheim, CA, for example, they provided $178,000 in financing to help Gretchen Shoemaker and her family successfully launch a restaurant based on Gretchen's grandmother's Southern-style cooking in an historic area of Anaheim. Another example is Leatherby Family Creamery, an ice-cream parlor in Sacramento that opened in 1982 with the goal of creating a family- friendly community gathering place. They received a loan backed by the Small Business Administration that allowed them to modernize and expand their business. Leatherby's now has three locations and has sustained itself for over 30 years despite bumps in the economy. It is truly dedicated to its communities as well, donating to over 180 associations, schools, and organizations in 2015 alone. Overall, it should be clear: these loans provided real dividends back to the communities. With more access to financial services--which my bill would provide-- there will be more improvements to businesses, nonprofits, and our communities. The bill I am introducing today would do two main things: First, it allows community development institutions to increase their lending by providing them access to loans backed by the Small Business Administration. It would do this by authorizing and making permanent an existing pilot program run by the Small Business Administration and raising the maximum loan amount so that small businesses have access to additional funding. There are currently over 95 approved lenders in the pilot program, which has approved over $214 million in over 1,650 loans. Small businesses eligible for loans under the program include small businesses located in areas of high poverty and unemployment; small businesses that have more than 50 percent of employees living in low- or moderate-income communities; and Small businesses owned by veterans. Second, this bill would expand the ability of Community Development Financial Institutions to access funding from the Federal Home Loan Bank System, which in turn allows them to provide more loans to low- income communities. These are two simple actions that can have a significant impact on small businesses and communities in California and across the country. I am proud to say that the Opportunity Finance Network, which is an association of community development financial institutions, supports this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and am hopeful that this Congress will move it forward.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Lending and Inequality Reduction Act of 2015. It is a simple bill with a straightforward goal: to increase economic activity in underserved communities to help create jobs and reduce economic inequality. We must help low and moderate income communities grow by partnering with organizations that can channel expertise and resources to these communities. The bill I am introducing today would assist community development institutions provide more funding to small businesses. This bill would increase their ability to lend in underserved communities and promote development and economic growth. The more lending they can offer to underserved communities, the more those communities can prosper. One example of this process can be found from CDC Small Business Finance, an organization that has created more than 165,000 jobs and funded more than 10,000 small businesses. In Anaheim, CA, for example, they provided $178,000 in financing to help Gretchen Shoemaker and her family successfully launch a restaurant based on Gretchen's grandmother's Southern-style cooking in an historic area of Anaheim. Another example is Leatherby Family Creamery, an ice-cream parlor in Sacramento that opened in 1982 with the goal of creating a family- friendly community gathering place. They received a loan backed by the Small Business Administration that allowed them to modernize and expand their business. Leatherby's now has three locations and has sustained itself for over 30 years despite bumps in the economy. It is truly dedicated to its communities as well, donating to over 180 associations, schools, and organizations in 2015 alone. Overall, it should be clear: these loans provided real dividends back to the communities. With more access to financial services--which my bill would provide-- there will be more improvements to businesses, nonprofits, and our communities. The bill I am introducing today would do two main things: First, it allows community development institutions to increase their lending by providing them access to loans backed by the Small Business Administration. It would do this by authorizing and making permanent an existing pilot program run by the Small Business Administration and raising the maximum loan amount so that small businesses have access to additional funding. There are currently over 95 approved lenders in the pilot program, which has approved over $214 million in over 1,650 loans. Small businesses eligible for loans under the program include small businesses located in areas of high poverty and unemployment; small businesses that have more than 50 percent of employees living in low- or moderate-income communities; and Small businesses owned by veterans. Second, this bill would expand the ability of Community Development Financial Institutions to access funding from the Federal Home Loan Bank System, which in turn allows them to provide more loans to low- income communities. These are two simple actions that can have a significant impact on small businesses and communities in California and across the country. I am proud to say that the Opportunity Finance Network, which is an association of community development financial institutions, supports this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and am hopeful that this Congress will move it forward.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise once again to speak against this callous, misguided effort to defund Planned Parenthood. This is a clear case of politics being put ahead of the country's best interests. This time the majority has tied this effort to the funding of the entire Federal Government--they are willing to shut down the government over this issue. That is preposterous. Planned Parenthood serves some of the most vulnerable women in our society. It cares for 2.7 million patients in the U.S.--5 million patients worldwide. Ninety-seven percent of the services its 700 clinics provide are basic health care, including breast exams, cervical cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception. One in five women will use Planned Parenthood as their primary health care provider at some point in their lives. Nationwide, 80 percent of Planned Parenthood patients make less than $18,000 per year. Planned Parenthood is often the only health care option for low- income women and women in rural communities. And yet here we are, facing another effort by Republicans to block funding for this vital health care provider, an effort echoed and supported by Republicans who are running for President. Since this latest attack on Planned Parenthood began in July, I've received more than 25,000 calls and emails from women and men in California who support Planned Parenthood. While the details of the stories vary, they share the same theme: Planned Parenthood was there for them at a critical time in their lives. It was the only place they could go for health care when they were in college, earning minimum wage, or struggling to provide for their children and families. It was the only place where they felt safe and respected. It provided essential tests and screenings and allowed them to plan their families, which is critical to women's economic security over the course of their lives. Here is one example from a constituent in San Francisco. She said ``Thirty-two years ago, I was broke, and Planned Parenthood was the only place that would give me birth control. I am now retired, and my life would be so different if they hadn't been there. This is so necessary for those who can't afford it.'' Another constituent from Alameda said, ``I'm calling your office for the first time because I want you to support Planned Parenthood. When I was a young woman, their medical services saved my life. I hope this phone call helps save them in return.'' To me, that is why this organization is so important to women in this country. Not only does it provide health care, it gives women the ability to make a better future for themselves and their families. I also want to address the false claim put forward by those who are pushing to defund Planned Parenthood: They claim that Planned Parenthood patients would easily find another community clinic to go to for their health care. This is just not true. Community health centers and clinics do great work, but if 2.7 million Planned Parenthood patients were suddenly without a doctor, they simply could not handle the sudden influx of new patients. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 650,000 Planned Parenthood patients would lose their access to health care. What's more, many community clinics don't provide the level of contraception care and other health care services provided by Planned Parenthood. In two-thirds of the counties where Planned Parenthood has a clinic, it serves half of the women eligible to receive family planning services under the Title X program. In California, 13 of 58 counties would not have a single clinic to provide family planning services under the Title X program without Planned Parenthood. That tells us what will happen if this funding is stripped--huge numbers of women across the country will have no place to go for vital health services. This isn't a matter of speculation. We've seen what happens when Planned Parenthood is defunded because it has happened at the state level. In 2012, Texas defunded Planned Parenthood. To serve all the women who needed access to a doctor or nurse, the remaining community clinics would have had to increase the number of patients they saw by an average of 81 percent. In other words, they would have needed to accept almost a doubling of their existing number of patients. Unsurprisingly, those clinics lacked the ability to do so. As a result, nearly 20,000 fewer women were served by the Texas Women's Health Program the following year, a 10 percent decline. The number of prescriptions for birth control was cut in half, meaning 100,000 fewer women were able to access affordable birth control. Louisiana is another State trying to defund Planned Parenthood, and recently defended its actions in court. As part of its rationale, the State actually claimed that dentists and eye doctors are capable of providing women's health care services. Let me repeat: Louisiana officials claimed that women who receive breast exams, contraceptive counseling and prescriptions, and other medical services at Planned Parenthood could go to dentists and eye doctors instead. Any woman knows that is just unrealistic. So make no mistake about it: If Planned Parenthood is defunded, many American women simply will not get the health care they need. The attacks on women's health don't stop at Planned Parenthood's door. The House of Representatives recently proposed completely eliminating the Title X program, which provides affordable family planning services to low-income women. Title X is proven to reduce abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancies. Let me repeat that: The House has proposed to eliminate a program that reduces abortions. Of course, we also know that the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times. Here in the Senate we've suffered through at least 30 similar votes. This law they want to repeal guarantees women basic preventive care like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings. It requires that prenatal care and labor and delivery are covered by insurance companies. It prevents women from being denied coverage or charged more because they're women. It's the greatest achievement for women's health in a generation; yet we wasted days and weeks on futile attempts to eliminate it. These attempts to deny women and their families access to basic health care, to defund Planned Parenthood, to eliminate funding for family planning services that reduce abortions, and to deny women the right to make their own reproductive decisions are appalling. Planned Parenthood has been under constant attack since its founding in 1916. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, was thrown in jail for providing birth control to women. The proponents of defunding Planned Parenthood have been engaged in this assault for years. The group behind this latest effort, the Center for Medical Progress, has long-standing ties to the anti-choice movement. It is currently under investigation for possible criminal activity. The individuals who obtained the footage used false identification to represent a fake medical company. The videos, which are presented to the public as the full, unedited videos, have been analyzed by forensics experts at Fusion GPS. And the truth is, they are not the full, unedited videos. Content is missing, and numerous edits have been made even to the so-called full footage videos. Many members of Congress have requested the full videos. Those requests have gone unanswered. So the point is, this is part of a sustained assault on an essential health care provider for millions of American women. I also want to reiterate the real-life consequences of the rhetoric that's been directed at Planned Parenthood and its staff. I talked about this when I spoke on this subject in July. I strongly believe that the rhetoric directed at Planned Parenthood sends a message that it is ``OK'' to intimidate its staff and patients. It is not. A few weeks ago, a Planned Parenthood health center in Washington State was severely damaged when an arsonist lit it on fire. Thankfully, no one was hurt. But I would hope that we'd learn from this event, and opponents of Planned Parenthood would think about the ramifications of their words. This is dangerous territory. In closing, we must remember that the attacks on Planned Parenthood aren't about improving women's health. They are about taking away women's rights, choices, and access to the doctors and nurses they know and trust. And quite frankly, their efforts will only jeopardize women's health by removing the only source of health care many women have available. I've seen great gains for women during my lifetime, including more education, greater workplace freedom, and the right to decide what happens to our own bodies. I simply will not stand by and watch our advances slip away. We are standing up for Planned Parenthood because we stand up for women. I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's defeat this bill and move on so we can fund the government and address many other critical issues. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to make an observation. The notice for this went out less than an hour ago. The consultations with others haven't been made. It was precipitously brought to the floor, and I can only infer that it has political implications, because the President of China is due to arrive here tomorrow and, therefore, this would be passed today, moved out of committee without a vote in front of the Senate. I don't think that is the way we should do business in this Senate. Maybe people don't believe diplomacy makes a difference, but I do. I think there will be ample time for the President to speak with the President of China and for some of us to speak as well. This is, of course--the human rights, of course--a subject. But in the absence of that, I object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my strong opposition to the bill we are going to be voting on tomorrow morning, and that is a bill to limit women's choice by banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. I would like to make several points today: Why the bill is unconstitutional, the truth about late- term abortions, the bill's rape certification requirements and the absence of a health exception, and, finally, how this debate is much more than this one bill. Let me be clear, Mr. President. This bill is just one part of a sustained assault on a woman's access to health care and her right to make decisions for herself and her family. First, this bill is unconstitutional. Similar State laws banning abortion at 20 weeks have been struck down by the courts. The Supreme Court in the controlling opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, stated: The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce. Viability refers to the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb. The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart summarizes that portion of the Casey decision stating, ``Before viability, a State may not prohibit a woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.'' In 2012, Arizona enacted a law prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. The Ninth Circuit found that statute unconstitutional. Now that is a direct case in point from one circuit. The Ninth Circuit said the law conflicted with a long line of Supreme Court cases that found bans on women's right to abortion prior to viability as unconstitutional. In that case, Arizona admitted that a fetus at 20 weeks was not viable. A conservative judge on the Ninth Circuit, Andrew Kleinfeld, said he was ``compelled'' to strike down the Arizona law based on existing precedent. The Supreme Court subsequently denied Arizona's petition to hear the case. Other State laws banning abortions at 20 weeks or earlier have also been struck down on these grounds. For example, Idaho's 20-week ban was struck down by the courts. The opinion in that case stated that the Idaho law was ``directly contrary to the court's holding in Casey that a woman has the right to `choose to have an abortion before viability and obtain it without undue interference from the State.' '' The court's rulings have been informed by medical experts, and medical experts have said repeatedly that a fetus is not viable at 20 weeks. Let me give you a good example. Dr. Hal Lawrence, the chief executive officer of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recently addressed this issue, and I would like to read a portion of his remarks: The 20-week mark is just not notable from a fetal development standpoint. More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court stipulated that abortion is legal until a fetus is viable. Well, in no way, shape, or form is a 20-week fetus viable. Now, this is a medical OB/GYN, who is head of the association speaking. Continuing to quote him: There is no evidence anywhere of a 20-week fetus surviving, even with intensive medical care. Unfortunately, some advocates of abortion bans are pointing to a new study they claim heralds 22 weeks as being the new point of viability. They suggest that we might someday reach viability at 20 weeks. It is essential that we address that now, before this becomes another myth about abortion that is accepted as reality. The doctor goes on to say: First, this new study was not conducted to add fuel to the fire of abortion rights opponents. It was intended to help give OB-GYNs and neonatologists improved understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with early premature delivery. Second, even in this study, survival at 22 weeks was only 5 percent overall. This is why the medical community refers to the ``threshold of viability,'' because there is no point at which viability is clearly established. Even among babies that receive intensive medical care, survival only reached 23 percent, and most of those babies had moderate to severe neurological impairment. Importantly, this study only looked at babies without fetal anomalies, which surely would have lowered the survival rates even more. Bottom line: A ban on abortion before viability, which is exactly what this bill represents, is unconstitutional, and the courts have spoken on the issue. Next, I would like to set the record straight on the widespread misconceptions about late-term abortions. First, they are not usual. They are extraordinarily rare. Just 1 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks. Secondly, many of the pregnancies terminated after 20 weeks occur because something has gone terribly wrong--the fetus has a fatal disease or the woman's health is in danger. Let me give an example. Christy Zink, a mother of two here in Washington, testified before Congress against this bill. In 2009, after trying for years to become pregnant, she and her husband were elated to be expecting a boy. Unfortunately, when Christy reached the 21st week of her pregnancy, the MRI revealed that her baby's brain had not developed correctly. One side of it was missing. Everything up to that point looked normal. The brain scan wasn't capable of detecting the problem any earlier. Christy and her husband consulted the best doctors hoping there was some treatment, but nothing could be done. They were devastated. If Christy's baby had made it to the end of the pregnancy, according to her doctors, he would have been in terrible pain and likely died soon after birth. Christy said, ``The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was made out of love and to spare my son's pain and suffering.'' Christy's incredibly difficult story isn't just an isolated example. There are many fatal diseases that can't be detected until later in a pregnancy, including one that causes the fetus's organs to develop outside of the body. Another, called severe brittle bone disease, causes the fetus's bones to break inside the womb. Our own colleague, Congresswoman Jackie Speier from California, someone I know very well, shared her story on the House floor in 2011. She terminated a much-wanted pregnancy at 17 weeks due to a medical complication. She said, ``To suggest that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought is preposterous.'' Congresswoman Speier is right. Making this personal medical decision is one of the most gut-wrenching decisions a woman could make, and there is no good option. But these decisions need to be made by women, in consultation with their doctors and their families, not by politicians. Every situation is different, and we shouldn't pretend to stand in a woman's shoes and make these choices for them. We shouldn't make a difficult decision even harder. Next, I wish to discuss the fact that this bill has no exception for the health of the mother. Only when a mother's health deteriorates to the point that she could die does it allow an exception. This is unconstitutional as well. The Supreme Court's controlling opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey said that even after viability, the government may restrict abortion ``except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' The Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart reiterated this point. The decision quotes Casey and other cases about the need for a health exception. It is true the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Carhart in 2007 upheld a Federal ban on a particular abortion procedure, a law many of us opposed, but the Gonzalez decision still quotes Casey and other cases about the need for a health exception, and it does not suggest that the government can completely ban abortion after a particular week of pregnancy without a health exception. The bottom line: This bill would endanger women by banning abortion even when necessary to protect the mother's health--and that is also unconstitutional. This is shocking because in no other circumstance would we restrict medical care until the patient is at risk of death. In cases where the mother is bleeding severely or has gone into septic shock, it could be too late to save her or prevent serious injury. Another shocking provision of this bill requires rape victims to provide certification from law enforcement that they have been raped, as well as proof that they have attended counseling or received medical treatment. Just a few months ago I spoke on the Senate floor in support of anti- human trafficking legislation. The bill was stalled because some of us wanted to ensure that trafficking victims had access to the medical services they needed, including abortion. There seemed to be agreement on both sides that a trafficking victim who has been raped repeatedly, imprisoned, and abused should be able to get the health care she needs. Yet under the bill we are voting on, a 13-year-old sex trafficking victim--a rape victim--would not be eligible for an exception unless she gets a note from law enforcement or a child welfare agency. I just did a sex trafficking meeting in Los Angeles with three district attorneys from big cities in California, as well as the sheriff of L.A. County and the chief of police. What they told me is the average girl, sex-trafficked, is between the ages of 12 to 14. So this isn't some outrageously small example. Let's say the victim is 12 to 14. She has been traumatized, she has been emotionally and physically abused. Supposing she was one of those in Oakland, where she was handcuffed at night and stripped naked and then worked the streets during the day. She may not be ready or even able to go to the police. She wouldn't qualify for a rape exception under this bill. That is just terrible. My Republican colleagues would force her to endure the pregnancy--the result of rape--because she didn't have the right paperwork. Finally, I wish to talk about why it is important to view this bill in the broader context of efforts to dismantle women's access to health care and ban abortion outright. Anti-choice groups have been trying to make it as hard as possible, bit by bit, piece by piece, for women to access safe, legal abortion care. Take this latest attack on Planned Parenthood. The individuals who made the highly edited videos spent years trying to befriend Planned Parenthood officials and obtain the footage--you can read about it on the front page of Politico today--and they are under investigation for possible criminal activity. They used false identification to represent a fake medical company. The videos were presented to the public as unedited, but forensics experts at the firm Fusion GPS tell us that is not the case. Content is missing and numerous edits have been made to even the so-called full footage videos. Many Members of Congress have requested the full videos. These requests have gone, as one might expect, unanswered. The point is, a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions is under sustained, unrelenting attacks, most of them by men. Historically, it has always been interesting to me to see that some of the most vocal, the most sustained voices, are male voices, and all women have asked is to be able to control their own reproductive system. As a result, more than one in three American women lives in a county without a single health care provider that offers abortion services. Today these services are unavailable for millions of low-income women in the country, just the way it was when I was young, when we had to pass the plate at Stanford so women could go to Tijuana for an abortion, and many of us felt she would kill herself if that didn't happen. As a result of new restrictions, women are once again turning to unsafe methods, much as they did before Roe v. Wade. Women were forced into unsafe conditions, often in back alleys. Some were permanently injured or died. I am old enough to remember those days. In the early 1960s, when I set sentences in California, as a member of the California Women's Board of Terms and Parole, I set a sentence--which the State had determined the sentence law at the time for abortion was 6 months to 10 years. I remember interviewing the woman when she came back. I remember her name. I said to her: Anita, why did you do this again? You should know better. She said to me: Because people are so compelling, and I felt so sorry for these women. That is what this leads to. That is what this leads to. In 2013, Bloomberg News reported on the increasing number of women in Texas buying pills on the black market to induce abortion. One woman interviewed, a mother of four, was on her way to buy these pills at a flea market. She said: You'd be amazed at how many people, young people, are taking those pills. I probably know 12 to 20 people who have done this. My cousin just went to the flea market a few months ago. That is the result of actions like this. When those of us who lived through pre-Roe recount the risks of returning to the way things were, we truly are not exaggerating. Restricting access to safe, legal abortion doesn't reduce abortions; it makes women desperate, it increases health risks, and can lead to death. At the same time women are facing these attacks on access to health care and the ability to make health care decisions, there is also an effort underway to cut programs that help new mothers and their children. Nearly 15 million children in the United States live in poverty--15 million. That is less than $24,000 a year for a family of four, and nearly half of these families don't have enough food to eat. There are more homeless children in this country--2.5 million, 500,000 of them in California alone--than ever before. One in five of these children actually lives in my State. It is astonishing to me that with all the talk about supporting children, Republicans continue to cut the very programs that support them. These are programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Head Start, child care subsidies, Medicaid, and housing assistance. House and Senate Republican budgets have proposed cutting $5 trillion from nondefense spending, which includes programs to help low-income families. These attacks on vulnerable families must stop. In conclusion, the bill we are considering today is unconstitutional, and the highest Court of the land has found that so. It would trample on a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. It would even force women to continue pregnancies in the most tragic of circumstances. But this bill is only the start. If the groups pushing this bill have their way, only the most privileged women in our country will have access to safe, legal abortion. That is how it was before Roe v. Wade. I remember it well. And the women of this Nation will not stand to return to this time. Not on this Senator's watch. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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