Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I submitted this resolution recognizing and commending those who boldly prevented what could have amounted to an unspeakable tragedy aboard a high-speed train headed toward Paris, France, on August 21, 2015. Those who took these courageous actions were: U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, Oregon Army National Guard Specialist Aleksander Skarlatos, California State University Sacramento student Anthony Sadler, French-American Mark Moogalian, Frenchman Damien A., and Chris Norman, a British citizen. I would particularly like to recognize U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, Oregon Army National Guard Specialist Aleksander Skarlatos, and California State University Sacramento student Anthony Sadler, three childhood friends who grew up in California, and thank them for their fearlessness, commitment to one another, and swift action that saved countless lives. That day, aboard the train carrying more than 500 passengers, a gunman armed himself with a Kalashnikov rifle, a pistol, a box cutter, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and a container of gasoline, seeking to exact serious harm on innocent passengers. In response to this threat, U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, Oregon Army National Guard Specialist Aleksander Skarlatos, college student Anthony Sadler, Mark Moogalian, Chris Norman, and Damien A. took action to protect other passengers. They subdued the gunman, risking their lives for the safety of others and representing the type of courage that should inspire us all. Initially, Damien A. and Mark Moogalian encountered the gunman and tried to disarm him. In the struggle, Mark Moogalian suffered a gunshot wound. We wish Mark Moogalian a full and speedy recovery from his wounds, and thank him for his courageous action. Upon noticing the disruption, U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone saw the gunman in the passenger car and immediately tried to subdue him. He grabbed the gunman around the neck to prevent the gunman from shooting his weapon. U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone suffered multiple box cutter wounds while wrestling the gunman. Oregon Army National Guard Specialist Aleksander Skarlatos quickly followed, as did Anthony Sadler and Chris Norman. Ultimately, the gunman was subdued, rendered unconscious, and tied up on the floor of the train. And, U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, a medical technician himself injured by the attacker's box cutter, then treated Mark Moogalian's injuries and helped save his life. The swift, decisive, and courageous actions of these men prevented what could have been the deaths of dozens of passengers. Their heroism should be recognized as an inspiration by all Americans, including by this body, and I thank all of my Senate colleagues for cosponsoring the resolution to honor their bravery and heroic acts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I concur with the statement of Democratic Leader Reid. The P5+1 agreement is an executive agreement that can remain in effect beyond this administration. In fact, portions of the agreement last 20 and 25 years, and others are forever binding on Iran. The United States has concluded other international agreements, such as the Helsinki Final Act and the Missile Technology Control Regime, that have endured. The Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action between the P5+1 and Iran is no different.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my dismay over the votes that took place earlier today on the Senate floor. The resolution of disapproval of the Iran nuclear agreement has now been voted on three times in the Senate, and it has failed to advance three times. Likewise, the House has failed in its own efforts to move a resolution of disapproval. The fact of the matter is that the nuclear agreement with Iran is a done deal, and the President now has every right to move ahead with its implementation, period. Yet we were on the Senate floor this morning, voting on a highly charged Iran amendment that the majority leader introduced. Unfortunately, the amendment was yet another political attempt to undermine the agreement. This amendment would prevent the President from providing sanctions relief to Iran-thereby scuttling the entire agreement--unless Iran does two things: recognize the State of Israel and release four Americans wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. I voted no on cloture on this amendment, and I want to take a moment to explain why. To be clear, my vote does not mean that I endorse Iran's position on Israel nor does it mean that I don't care about the American prisoners in Iran. Just because I support this diplomatic agreement does not mean I support Iran's reprehensible policies. In fact, I want nothing more than for Iran to recognize Israel as a sovereign state. I have always stood by Israel, and its security and future well-being are foremost in my mind. For those of us who are personally connected to Israel and care for her deeply, this vote is nothing more than an attempt to embarrass us and score political points. It should be obvious to the American people that, of course, we all stand with Israel--Democrats and Republicans. Since 2008, we have provided more than $25 billion to support Israel's defense. At $3.1 billion per year, Israel is the largest annual recipient of U.S. military assistance, which can be used to purchase U.S. defense equipment and services. We've also provided $3 billion specifically for missile defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow. In fiscal year 2015 alone the Congress provided $351 million for Iron Dome--twice the president's budget request. We all want Iran to recognize Israel and stop threatening its existence. We all want Iran's support for terrorist proxies on Israel's doorstep to cease. We all are disturbed by the Ayatollah's calls for Israel's destruction. But the way to truly have Israel's back is not through this amendment. On the prisoners currently held in Iran, it must be said and reiterated: No American, let alone any member of Congress, wants any of our citizens wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. These detainees deserve to be brought home, safe and sound, to their loved ones. But, again, a partisan amendment does not make that happen. The vote today was nothing more than an attempt to extract a political price for our previous vote in support of the nuclear agreement. Playing politics with one of the most important national security votes of our time does nothing to actually support Israel, nor does it do anything to free the prisoners. If my counterparts truly wanted to enhance Israel's security and free the Americans, they would stop trying to undermine the nuclear agreement with Iran-which I believe is our best opportunity to begin to turn a new page with Iran. I stand ready and eager to work with my Republican counterparts to achieve our shared goals of supporting Israel and getting our prisoners out of Iran. But we have a far better chance of achieving that through bipartisan cooperation and working together to make sure the nuclear agreement is fully implemented. It is time to move past the repeated attempts to overturn the nuclear agreement. It is extremely unfortunate we had to take the vote today, especially given all the other pressing matters before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 19 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because I believe her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the U.S. legally on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. Shirley applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States. Shirley never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Shirley's attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Shirley did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically became a deportation order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody. Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in U.S. immigration proceedings. Shirley later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney. On February 4, 2015, Shirley's spouse, Jay, a U.S. Citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Shirley's application due to the fact that Shirley still had a final order or removal. Shirley must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services. Shirley is now again faced with deportation while she seeks to close her case before the Immigration Judge. In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, Shirley's deportation would be a serious hardship to her two U.S. citizen children, Jashley and Joriene, who are minors. Joriene is a sophomore at Stanford University and is pre-Med in Human Biology. Jashley is a sophomore at Chapman University and plans to declare his Business major in spring. In addition to his studies, Jashley is involved in Stanford's Pilipino-American Student Union. Ms. Tan no longer runs her in-home daycare and is a stay-at-home mom. If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States. I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships. Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Shirley has the support of dozens of members of her community who shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 19 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because I believe her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the U.S. legally on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. Shirley applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States. Shirley never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Shirley's attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Shirley did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically became a deportation order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody. Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in U.S. immigration proceedings. Shirley later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney. On February 4, 2015, Shirley's spouse, Jay, a U.S. Citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Shirley's application due to the fact that Shirley still had a final order or removal. Shirley must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services. Shirley is now again faced with deportation while she seeks to close her case before the Immigration Judge. In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, Shirley's deportation would be a serious hardship to her two U.S. citizen children, Jashley and Joriene, who are minors. Joriene is a sophomore at Stanford University and is pre-Med in Human Biology. Jashley is a sophomore at Chapman University and plans to declare his Business major in spring. In addition to his studies, Jashley is involved in Stanford's Pilipino-American Student Union. Ms. Tan no longer runs her in-home daycare and is a stay-at-home mom. If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States. I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships. Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Shirley has the support of dozens of members of her community who shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nuclear agreement with Iran. I do so because I believe this diplomatic achievement provides the only option that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I would like to take just a moment to say thank you to our negotiating team and commend them on a job that I believe was well done and to thank them for their concerted effort to explain the agreement to the Congress over the past 2 months. I have been in this body for a long time. There have been many different agreements. I can never remember a time where the Senate has been briefed more assiduously than it has with this agreement. As the Presiding Officer knows, we sat this morning for 2 hours and listened to the top heads of our intelligence agencies discuss with us the particulars of this agreement. American negotiators have worked with negotiators from the world's major powers--the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the EU--and reached an agreement that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next 15 years and I believe longer. I cannot emphasize this enough: the agreement represents the world coming together to put an end to Iran's nuclear program. By contrast, if the Senate disapproves of this agreement, we are on our own. As of last night, 42 Senators have announced their support for the agreement. In practical terms, that means the Senate will not disapprove of this agreement. We have conducted a full review and the opponents of this deal have failed, but the opponents are still holding out the false hope that there can be a better deal. Let me be clear: there is no better deal. No one, no state, no leader has proposed one. The only alternative to the agreement we now have is no agreement at all. Should the Congress reject this accord, the United States, which led this effort, would be deserting our allies and negotiating partners. That is because this is not just an agreement between the United States and Iran. It is an agreement between the world's major powers, the largest most powerful Nations in the world, and Iran. It is one approved by the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council. Brent Scowcroft, someone I know well, see annually, and the former National Security Advisor to President George H.W. Bush, recently wrote: There is no credible alternative were Congress to prevent U.S. participation in the nuclear deal. If we walk away, we walk away alone. I think it may be helpful to remind my colleagues and the American people how we got where we are today. First of all, preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has been a longstanding and bipartisan national security objective. In 2003, Europe led the first effort to halt Iran's nuclear program. The next decade saw five separate major rounds of failed negotiations and an ever-advancing Iranian nuclear program. Iran went from having a few centrifuges spinning to being a threshold nuclear power. Following the revelations that Iran was installing centrifuges at Natanz last decade and disclosure in 2012 by our government and allies that Iran was turning a mountain near Qom into a deeply buried centrifuge chamber, Iran has seen sanctions escalate and felt international isolation, but its nuclear enrichment continued and advanced. The United States, with strong support from this Chamber, led an effort to install devastating multilateral sanctions with the goal of bringing Iran to the negotiating table. Those sanctions were effective because they were supported by the world's powers and importers of Iranian oil. In fact, the United States does not do much business with Iran. We do not import Iranian oil and U.S. banks don't process Iranian financial transactions. Unilateral U.S. sanctions are of little value by themselves, unless we are willing to sanction allies' banks. Indeed, multiple U.N. resolutions, EU sanctions, and the cooperation of our partners and allies successfully pressured Iran over its nuclear activities. Over time, the international sanctions that we helped build and continually enforced reduced Iranian oil exports from 2.5 million barrels per day to less than 1 million, reduced the number of countries that import Iranian oil from 23 to 6, prohibited Iran from repatriating more than $100 billion in foreign currency, reduced Iran's GDP by nearly 6 percent in 1 year, caused major inflation, and basically ended international investment in Iran's economy. The sanctions worked. Iran elected a reform government with a new President to negotiate an end to the sanctions and revive its economy. And despite its doubts, Iran sent a negotiating team to meet with the governments of the P5+1 nations. In November 2013 we signed the interim agreement that froze and even reversed Iran's nuclear program. According to the IAEA, and verified by U.S. intelligence, Iran has abided by the interim agreement for more than 1\1/2\ years. As we all know, in July 2015 the P5+1 signed the final agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The agreement is the result of years of careful diplomacy among the world's powers. It was only possible because other nations abided by our sanctions at their own economic sacrifice. They believe that these sanctions worked, have achieved their result, and now should be suspended as Iran dismantles much of its nuclear infrastructure. These countries, which were so critical to our ability to impose sanctions, have told us directly they won't go back to the table to negotiate a new deal. To my colleagues who plan to vote in opposition to this agreement, I hope they have thought long and hard about what message this would send to the world. The consequences of rejecting this carefully negotiated deal would reach far beyond Iran. It would signal that the United States isn't willing or able to lead the world in confronting global challenges. Since the agreement was reached, I have spoken with many diplomats and statesmen. They are scratching their heads, wondering why the U.S. Congress is lining up with Iranian hard-liners in opposition to this agreement, instead of siding with the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, along with all the other members of the U.N. Security Council. Last week, Saudi Arabia announced its support for the agreement. Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, who is known to many in this body, concluded his country's support by saying this agreement ``will contribute to security and stability in the region by preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.'' During the August recess, a former head of state from one of our closest allies sat with me and said: ``You know, we are one of the nations you trust the most. We follow U.S. leadership and have agreed to the Iran deal, and now your Congress wants to back out. Why should we ever follow you again?'' Many diplomats I have spoken with have echoed the former Prime Minister's statement. If Congress rejects the agreement, the world will be unlikely to follow us on other important issues in the future and I believe the Executive foreign policy obligations and responsibilities of a President of our country are diminished. Our ability to lead against global threats, to be the indispensable nation, I believe, ends. I understand that many Members of the Senate don't support our President, but by disapproving of this agreement we also undermine the ability of any future President to speak for the United States and carry out his or her constitutional role in conducting foreign policy. I have been involved in national security issues for many years, and I can't recall a time in recent memory when the world was united to this degree on such a complex issue. Even Russia and China are with us. We shouldn't squander the opportunity. Many of my colleagues have already described the terms of the agreement and how it constrains and allows for intrusive monitoring of Iran's nuclear program. For me, the arguments of Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz are particularly persuasive. As we all know, he is a distinguished nuclear physicist from MIT, and he played a central role in the negotiations. He is a true expert of unimpeachable integrity, and he knows the nuclear world. He has said over and over again--and I have heard it personally at least five times--that every pathway to a bomb--plutonium, uranium, and covert--is blocked by this deal. The deal blocks Iran's uranium pathway to a bomb at Natanz and Fordow by reducing Iran's installed centrifuges by two-thirds--from more than 19,000 to 6,000--for at least 10 years. It reduces Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium by more than 97 percent, to no more than 300 kilograms of 3.67 percent enriched uranium for 15 years, not enough nuclear material for a single weapon. It requires intrusive IAEA inspections of Iran's centrifuge production-- their careful labeling--and storage facilities for 20 years. And it requires IAEA inspections for 25 years of Iran's entire nuclear supply chain. The agreement blocks Iran's plutonium pathway to a bomb at Arak by modifying Iran's only heavy water reactor so that it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium and requires all spent fuel capable of being reprocessed for plutonium to be shipped out of the country. The agreement blocks Iran's covert plutonium pathway to a bomb nationwide by requiring 24/7 IAEA access to all of Iran's declared nuclear sites for 15 years and by empowering the IAEA to use its most advanced monitoring techniques and equipment to ensure Iran cannot tamper with its devices or evade nuclear monitoring, and it guarantees IAEA access to any suspected--suspected--nuclear site within 24 days, including military facilities, and providing access to all of Iran's nuclear sites under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permanently. Most notably, the agreement imposes a perpetual prohibition against Iran ever seeking, developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon. The terms of this agreement are unparalleled. The IAEA has never had this kind of access in any country. As the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I can say we have looked at this issue very carefully. As the Presiding Officer knows, as late as this morning, I can say that if Iran doesn't comply with its obligations, we will know about it, and we will be able to snap-back the sanctions that are suspended under this agreement. The administration has provided Congress with documents detailing the verification measures in this agreement. At an unclassified level, the executive branch has written: ``The United States is confident that it will be able to verify that Iran is complying with its commitments under the JCPOA, including its commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon.'' The Senate has also received a classified annex to the assessment from the intelligence community, which I think some of my colleagues have reviewed, and I would hope everyone would. The Senate Intelligence Committee has met with the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies--as I just said--as recently as this morning to receive testimony and ask questions on our ability to ensure that Iran is complying with the terms of the nuclear agreement. From the reports and those hearings, I am very comfortable saying that the covert path to a bomb is closed, period. I recognize that this agreement doesn't address other problems the United States and the international community have with Iran. Iran continues to support terrorist groups, prop up Bashar al-Assad, and undermine stability across the Middle East. It is a serial abuser of human rights and is improperly detaining American citizens. These are, of course, reprehensible policies and, of course, we will continue to oppose them. But a nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically compound these problems. In my view, this agreement presents us with an opportunity to begin a broader discussion with Iran. As Iran, hopefully, will become more integrated into the global community and give up some of its bad ways, we can test whether Iran will move toward rejoining the community of nations. Rejecting this agreement only strengthens the hard-liners who lead the chants of ``Death to America.'' Eighty-eight percent of Iranians are under the age of 54, and 41 percent are under the age of 25. They defied predictions and elected a moderate replacement to President Ahmadinejad in the hopes that Iran will chart a new course. Clearly, this agreement won't change Iran's behavior overnight, and it would be unrealistic to expect Iran's cooperation on every issue, but it would also be foolish to throw the opportunity away and to give the hard-liners another reason to turn their backs on reform. More importantly, I am not willing to cede America's global leadership to reject this nuclear agreement or ignore the possibility of resolving the region's crises in favor of the myth of a better deal. There is no better deal. For these reasons, I join the large numbers of diplomats, scientists, retired U.S. flag officers, rabbis, arms controls advocates, national security experts, and intelligence professionals in supporting this agreement with Iran. I urge my colleagues, most sincerely, to oppose the resolution of disapproval and support this historic agreement. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to facilitate additional housing and services for Southern California's veterans. It would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to leverage the resources of local governments and non-profits to build supportive housing for veterans at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center Campus. My colleague Senator Barbara Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill. Congressman Ted Lieu is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The Department of Veterans Affairs, Mayor of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors all support this legislation. Los Angeles has the largest concentration of homeless veterans in the United States, currently estimated to be 4,300. These are brave men and women who served our nation with honor, and I believe it is our duty to ensure they have access to housing and the clinical services of the Greater Los Angeles VA Health System. This legislation would provide two authorities to the department. First, it would allow the West Los Angeles VA to use enhanced-use leases to engage in public-private partnerships to provide supportive housing for veterans. Enhanced-use leases allow the department to leverage private or local funding and partners to construct new housing on the campus. For example, California passed a bond measure in 2014 that provides $600 million in funding for the construction of supportive veteran housing. I want to note that this enhanced-use leasing authority is the same authority that the department has for every other VA campus in the nation. Second, my bill would allow the West Los Angeles campus to enter into out-leases to provide critical services to veterans housed on the campus, ranging from education to recreation. Services must be provided to create a healthy and sustainable community for veterans. Veterans housed on the campus will need access to mental health care options, job training, and physical recreation. These services can be provided by community partners leasing property on the campus, such as the University of California--Los Angeles. I would like to make you aware of the long history of the West Los Angeles VA campus. This campus is approximately 400 acres and is located at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Interstate 405. The land was deeded to the Federal government by former Senator John P. Jones, for use exclusively as a ``soldier's home.'' The beautiful campus has numerous historic buildings, including a church. In 2007, I included language in an appropriations bill to prohibit the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to lease or sale any property on the West Los Angeles Campus, due to reports of mismanagement and inappropriate leasing of VA property to commercial entities. In several cases, these commercial entities had nothing to do with serving veterans. After the ban was signed into law, questionable practices continued through land-sharing agreements. This led to the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, of Southern California filing a lawsuit against the department in 2011 over its mismanagement of the campus. In a large part due to our new Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Robert A. McDonald, the department reached a settlement with the ACLU earlier this year to return the campus to its original purpose to serve veterans. The ACLU and the department are working to create a new Master Plan for the campus that includes community input, which I expect will include a focus on ending veteran homelessness in Los Angeles. My legislation will provide the department with the tools it needs to get veterans off the streets and ensure the West Los Angeles campus truly serves the veterans of Los Angeles. This legislation contains important oversight provisions to ensure the management mistakes of the past are not repeated. First, it maintains a restriction put in place in 2007 that prohibits any part of the West Los Angeles campus from being sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of. Second, it requires the VA to report to Congress 45 days before entering into any lease, and to provide an annual evaluation of all land-use and leases on the campus. Third, it requires regular audits by the Office of the Inspector General, OIG, and restricts the VA from entering into any new leases if the OIG finds any violation of Federal law or policy, or gross mismanagement of the campus. The VA would have to certify to Congress that it addressed any issues found by the OIG before entering into new leases on the campus. Finally, the legislation requires all land-use, including leases, to be consistent with the new Master Plan that is agreed upon for the campus. It also requires all leases to principally benefit veterans. I believe these oversight provisions will ensure that the historic mismanagement of the West Los Angeles campus will not recur. Let me conclude by saying that Congress must meet its responsibility to care for the veterans who have fought for our Nation's freedom and security. It would be a shame to leave private resources untapped in a city where 4,300 veterans are currently homeless. I hope all of my colleagues will support enacting this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to facilitate additional housing and services for Southern California's veterans. It would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to leverage the resources of local governments and non-profits to build supportive housing for veterans at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center Campus. My colleague Senator Barbara Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill. Congressman Ted Lieu is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The Department of Veterans Affairs, Mayor of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors all support this legislation. Los Angeles has the largest concentration of homeless veterans in the United States, currently estimated to be 4,300. These are brave men and women who served our nation with honor, and I believe it is our duty to ensure they have access to housing and the clinical services of the Greater Los Angeles VA Health System. This legislation would provide two authorities to the department. First, it would allow the West Los Angeles VA to use enhanced-use leases to engage in public-private partnerships to provide supportive housing for veterans. Enhanced-use leases allow the department to leverage private or local funding and partners to construct new housing on the campus. For example, California passed a bond measure in 2014 that provides $600 million in funding for the construction of supportive veteran housing. I want to note that this enhanced-use leasing authority is the same authority that the department has for every other VA campus in the nation. Second, my bill would allow the West Los Angeles campus to enter into out-leases to provide critical services to veterans housed on the campus, ranging from education to recreation. Services must be provided to create a healthy and sustainable community for veterans. Veterans housed on the campus will need access to mental health care options, job training, and physical recreation. These services can be provided by community partners leasing property on the campus, such as the University of California--Los Angeles. I would like to make you aware of the long history of the West Los Angeles VA campus. This campus is approximately 400 acres and is located at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Interstate 405. The land was deeded to the Federal government by former Senator John P. Jones, for use exclusively as a ``soldier's home.'' The beautiful campus has numerous historic buildings, including a church. In 2007, I included language in an appropriations bill to prohibit the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to lease or sale any property on the West Los Angeles Campus, due to reports of mismanagement and inappropriate leasing of VA property to commercial entities. In several cases, these commercial entities had nothing to do with serving veterans. After the ban was signed into law, questionable practices continued through land-sharing agreements. This led to the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, of Southern California filing a lawsuit against the department in 2011 over its mismanagement of the campus. In a large part due to our new Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Robert A. McDonald, the department reached a settlement with the ACLU earlier this year to return the campus to its original purpose to serve veterans. The ACLU and the department are working to create a new Master Plan for the campus that includes community input, which I expect will include a focus on ending veteran homelessness in Los Angeles. My legislation will provide the department with the tools it needs to get veterans off the streets and ensure the West Los Angeles campus truly serves the veterans of Los Angeles. This legislation contains important oversight provisions to ensure the management mistakes of the past are not repeated. First, it maintains a restriction put in place in 2007 that prohibits any part of the West Los Angeles campus from being sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of. Second, it requires the VA to report to Congress 45 days before entering into any lease, and to provide an annual evaluation of all land-use and leases on the campus. Third, it requires regular audits by the Office of the Inspector General, OIG, and restricts the VA from entering into any new leases if the OIG finds any violation of Federal law or policy, or gross mismanagement of the campus. The VA would have to certify to Congress that it addressed any issues found by the OIG before entering into new leases on the campus. Finally, the legislation requires all land-use, including leases, to be consistent with the new Master Plan that is agreed upon for the campus. It also requires all leases to principally benefit veterans. I believe these oversight provisions will ensure that the historic mismanagement of the West Los Angeles campus will not recur. Let me conclude by saying that Congress must meet its responsibility to care for the veterans who have fought for our Nation's freedom and security. It would be a shame to leave private resources untapped in a city where 4,300 veterans are currently homeless. I hope all of my colleagues will support enacting this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that although the Senate had been scheduled to vote at 10:30 on a cloture motion, that time might be changed. However, I wish to make some further remarks in addition to what I said yesterday on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. I think it is fair to say that I have been very disappointed over the past couple of days that we have not moved to this bill more quickly and that we haven't reached an agreement to take up and begin considering amendments. There has been a lot of talk about committee jurisdictions and germaneness of amendments and process issues that the American people just don't care about and which, frankly, don't make anyone safer. So I wish to take a few minutes to point out what we are really talking about. Here are a few facts and figures. As I said in my remarks yesterday, cyber attacks and cyber threats are getting more and more common and more and more devastating. This isn't going to stop. It is going to get worse, and it affects everyone. That is why last night the White House had a simple message, and I hope my colleagues will hear it. A White House spokesman said yesterday: ``Cybersecurity is an important national security issue and the Senate should take up this bill as soon as possible and pass it.'' Here is why this is so important. Last year the cyber security company McAfee and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which we call CSIS, estimated that the annual cost of cyber crime is more than $400 billion--that is the annual cost--and could cost the United States as many as 200,000 jobs. That is not my analysis; that is the analysis of security experts. Also last year the cyber security company Symantec reported that over 348 million identities were exposed through data breaches--348 million people had their data exposed. Poll information out this week from the Financial Services Roundtable shows that 46 percent of Americans were directly affected by cyber crime over the past year--that is almost one-half of the American population--and 66 percent are more concerned about cyber intrusions than they were last year. Why are people so concerned? Well, here is a list of 10 of the most noteworthy cyber breaches and attacks from the past year and a half. Of course, we all know OPM. June of this year, Office of Personnel Management. There was an announcement that roughly 22 million government employees and security clearance applicants had massive amounts of personal information stolen from OPM databases. Primera Blue Cross. In March of this year, Primera Blue Cross, a health insurer based in Washington State, said that up to 11 million customers could have been affected by a cyber breach last year. Anthem. In February 2015, Anthem, one of the Nation's largest health insurers, said that hackers breached a database that contained as many as 80 million records of current and former customers. Sony Pictures Entertainment. In November of last year, North Korean hackers broke into Sony Pictures Entertainment and not only stole vast amounts of sensitive and personal data but destroyed the company's whole internal network. Defense Industrial Base. A 2014 Senate Armed Services Committee investigation found over 20 instances in the previous year of Chinese actors penetrating the networks of defense contractors to the military's Transportation Command. JPMorgan Chase. In September of last year, it was reported that hackers broke in to their accounts and took the account information of 76 million households and 7 million small businesses. Home Depot. In September of last year, Home Depot discovered that hackers had breached their networks and may have accessed up to 56 million credit cards. EBay. In May of last year, it was reported that up to 233 million personal records of eBay users were breached. There are people here who are concerned with personal information. Look at the breach of personal information that has taken place because we haven't been able to stop it. Destructive attack on Sands Casino. In early 2014, Iran launched a cyber attack on the Sands Casino in Las Vegas that rendered thousands of their electronic systems inoperable, according to public testimony of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. Target. In December 2013, Target discovered that up to 70 million customers may have had their credit card information taken by hackers. That is just the last year and a half. This Senator remembers, before this was disclosed in 2008, when hackers broke into Citibank and broke into the Royal Bank of Scotland and robbed individuals in each one of more than $10 million. That was not made public for a long time because they didn't want anybody to know. That was 2008. That was 7 years ago, and we haven't done anything about it. Those are some of the breaches from the past year and a half. There are cyber crimes, theft of personal information, intellectual property, and money every single day. In 2011 and 2012, there were denial-of-service attacks against major Wall Street banks and Nasdaq, showing that our financial institutions are vulnerable. In 2012, Saudi Aramco, the world's largest energy oil and gas company, had three-quarters of its corporate computers wiped out in a cyber attack. We are vulnerable and these attacks will continue. This legislation, which was approved by a 14-to-1 vote in March and has been significantly improved since then, will not end these attacks, but it will greatly enhance the ability of companies and the U.S. Government to learn from each other about the threats they see and the defenses they employ. I would like to make a couple of comments about the bill on specific points, if I may. We have made some 15 privacy information improvements in this bill, and I would like to read page 16 of the bill on ``Removal of Certain Personal Information.'' An entity sharing a cyber threat indicator pursuant to this Act shall, prior to such sharing-- (A) review such cyber threat indicator to assess whether such cyber threat indicator contains any information that the entity knows at the time of sharing to be personal information of or identifying a specific person not directly related to a cybersecurity threat and remove such information; or (B) implement and utilize a technical capability configured to remove any information contained within such indicator that the entity knows at the time of sharing to be personal information of or identifying a specific person not directly related to a cybersecurity threat. That is the first personal information scrub in this bill. The second scrub is left to the agencies receiving the information. To that end, the Attorney General is directed to issue guidelines to all agencies once the information goes through the DHS portal and goes to the Defense Department or FBI or any other agency. Page 25 of the bill has details on the agencies' guidelines that will be developed to make a scrub: Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall, in coordination with the heads of the appropriate Federal entities and in consultation with officers designated under section 1062 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 2000ee- 1), develop, submit to Congress, and make available to the public interim guidelines relating to privacy and civil liberties which shall govern the receipt, retention, use, and dissemination of cyber threat indicators by a Federal entity obtained in connection with activities authorized in this Act. (2) Final guidelines.-- (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall, in coordination with heads of the appropriate Federal entities and in consultation with officers designated under section 1062 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 2000ee-1) and such private entities with industry expertise as the Attorney General considers relevant, promulgate final guidelines relating to privacy and civil liberties which shall govern the receipt, retention, use and dissemination of cyber threat indicators by a Federal entity obtained in connection with activities authorized in this Act. Then there is a section on periodic review. Then there is a section on content: The guidelines required by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall, consistent with the need to protect information systems from cybersecurity threats and mitigate cybersecurity threats-- (A) limit the impact on privacy and civil liberties of activities by the Federal Government under this Act; (B) limit the receipt, retention, use, and dissemination of cyber threat indicators containing personal information of or identifying specific persons, including by establishing-- (i) a process. . . . And it goes on through page 27 of the bill. Everyone can pick it up and read it. Section (E) on line 27 says it must ``protect the confidentiality of cyber threat indicators containing personal information of or identifying specific persons to the greatest extent practicable. . . . '' Somebody can pick up this bill and read the section, pages 25, 26, and 27, and see the second personal information scrub that is in this bill. It happens, first, the company must scrub the information and then, second, the government must scrub the information. I think those are very substantial mandates. I have been very disappointed by our inability to move this bill. Yesterday I cited the procedural history. This is the third bill we have dealt with. It gets into a question of committee jurisdiction, but the Intelligence Committee has been working on this issue for 5 years now. We have worked with companies. We have worked with technicians. Our staffs are very well aware of all the issues and the technical difficulties in putting together a bill. The earlier bills were fragmented. This bill has a solid support from over 50 different companies and associations. I want to read just a few of them. For the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the bill; the Software Alliance supports this bill; the Information Technology Council supports this bill; yesterday I received a letter from General Motors supporting this bill; the American Bankers Association; the American Financial Services Association; the American Insurance Association; Agricultural Retailers Association; Airlines for America; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American Cable Association; American Chemistry Council; American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Gaming Association; American Gas Association; American Insurance Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Public Power Association; American Water Works Association; Association of American Railroads; Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; The Clearing House; Consumer Bankers Association; Credit Union National Association; Electronic Transactions Association; Financial Services Forum; Independent Community Bankers of America; Investment Company Institute. It goes on and on and on. I would point out Oracle and the National Association of Manufacturers support it; IBM; as I said, General Motors; and the U.S. Telecom Association support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I want to say something about jurisdiction of committees. The Homeland Security Committee is certainly free to do a bill. The Judiciary Committee is certainly free to do a bill. We have the one on the Intelligence Committee--and the Presiding Officer is a member of this committee--which has been working on this for a long time. We have done two bills previously. This bill, I believe, has hit the mark of support across the Nation, from the companies--both corporate and privately owned--that would have to use this. It is all voluntary. It does not force anybody to do anything they do not want to do. If one does share, and share according to the strictures of this bill, you are protected with liability insurance. If you reduce it to its basic elemental truth, it is the on-ramp to cyber security protection in this country. It gives companies the ability to talk to each other about a well-defined cyber threat indicator, to talk with the government, and to be able to take advice from the government. If they follow the bill, they don't have to worry about a lawsuit. That is what this bill does. So this Senator must say we have made at least 15 different privacy amendments to meet individual Senators' needs. There is a managers' package, a substitute amendment, if you will, that takes out any use of this information from being used for any other purpose--violent crime-- other than cyber security because a number of Senators weighed in, and they felt it could be used to be monitored as a surveillance bill. This is not a surveillance bill. What it is meant to be is a voluntary effort that companies can enter into with some protection if they follow this law. It gives the Attorney General the obligation to come up with secure guidelines to protect private information. It is very hard for me, candidly, to understand why this has become such a big issue because we protect privacy information. Today out in this vast land of the Internet, there is very little privacy protection. You can see that by the cyber interruptions. You can see that by the use of insurance data by company to company. You can see that by companies that are designed to accumulate data about an individual so they can sell that data to other companies, which can tell you who uses a credit card, how you use it, where you use it, and at what time you use it. To me that is a privacy violation. We have taken every step to prevent privacy violations from happening under this bill. Yet there are individuals who still raise that as a major concern. I believe it is bogus. I believe it is a detriment to us in taking this first step to protect our American industries. If we don't pass it, the thefts are going to go on and on and on. I understand that the cloture vote has been postponed until 2 o'clock. I will vote for cloture. I believe we have, in good faith-- Senator Burr and I, the committee as a whole, the staffs on both sides of the aisle--gone out of our way to listen to Senators, to present amendments where they felt they were workable and applicable to the bill. We need to get on with it because the litany I read in the last year and a half of almost half of the American people being affected by cyber crime cannot go on. I make these remarks and hope at least it can clear the air somewhat, so when a cloture vote does come at 2 o'clock, we will have the votes to proceed to the bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the State Licensing Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Lankford, Cotton, Capito, Leahy, Merkley, and Crapo. This bill provides a simple, commonsense change to the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act, SAFE Act, which became law in 2008 as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. Overall, this bipartisan bill streamlines the licensing process for financial service providers, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The SAFE Act required that state banking regulators use the electronic Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System, NMLS, to license or register mortgage loan originators. As the author of the SAFE Act, I have been pleased to see the NMLS' success over the past five years in facilitating mortgage loan originator licensing. The use of the NMLS for mortgage loan originators benefits state regulators, those seeking licenses to conduct financial services, and consumers. First, it increases efficiency and consolidates the licensing process and relevant information in one place for state regulators. This also allows for easier coordination between regulators. Second, it provides a uniform licensing process for mortgage loan originators seeking licenses. Finally, it allows consumers to verify the credentials of financial service providers to ensure that they are truly licensed or registered in the state in which they are conducting business. Today, over half of the States now use the NMLS for licensing entities other than mortgage loan originators, including for non- depository financial service providers like check cashers, debt collectors, and money transmitters. Many States require Federal background checks as part of the licensing process for financial service providers. However, the SAFE Act only provided the Attorney General with the authority to share federal background check information with the NMLS for mortgage loan originators. The FBI does not have the authority to share this information with the NMLS for any other financial service provider. This means that while the rest of the licensing process for other financial service providers can be conducted through the NMLS, the background check cannot. I believe background checks are a critical component of State licensing and regulation. It does not make sense to allow for the licensing process to be delayed by barring certain background checks from being coordinated through the NMLS. The State Licensing Efficiency Act would provide the authorization needed for the Attorney General to allow the FBI to share background check information for non-depository financial service providers with state regulators through the NMLS, just as it currently does for mortgage loan originators. Let me be clear that this bill does not change any state licensing requirements or impact any state laws. States fully retain the ability to determine when they want to use the NMLS for other financial service providers. However, should states continue to expand their utilization of the NMLS, it makes sense to allow them to fully do so by ensuring federal background checks can be coordinated through the NMLS. Additionally, this bill will help financial service providers seeking licenses in multiple states. Instead of submitting federal background check requests for each State where they are seeking a license, they can submit one request via the NMLS for Federal background check information, which will be sent to the NMLS. States conducting the licensing process will then have access to the information through the NMLS. This should reduce the number of background check processing fees paid by financial service providers seeking licenses and reduce the processing period for the background checks so that financial service providers can get licensed more efficiently. The State Licensing Efficiency Act makes a reasonable change to allow state regulators who use the NMLS for licensing financial service providers to fully benefit from a streamlined, transparent, and more efficient process. Many regulatory associations support this bill including: the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators, the Money Transmitter Regulators Association, the North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association, and the National Association of Consumer Credit Administrators. Additionally, associations representing a variety of financial service providers have voiced support, including: the Appraisal Institute, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the Money Services Round Table. 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 State Licensing Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Lankford, Cotton, Capito, Leahy, Merkley, and Crapo. This bill provides a simple, commonsense change to the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act, SAFE Act, which became law in 2008 as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. Overall, this bipartisan bill streamlines the licensing process for financial service providers, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The SAFE Act required that state banking regulators use the electronic Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System, NMLS, to license or register mortgage loan originators. As the author of the SAFE Act, I have been pleased to see the NMLS' success over the past five years in facilitating mortgage loan originator licensing. The use of the NMLS for mortgage loan originators benefits state regulators, those seeking licenses to conduct financial services, and consumers. First, it increases efficiency and consolidates the licensing process and relevant information in one place for state regulators. This also allows for easier coordination between regulators. Second, it provides a uniform licensing process for mortgage loan originators seeking licenses. Finally, it allows consumers to verify the credentials of financial service providers to ensure that they are truly licensed or registered in the state in which they are conducting business. Today, over half of the States now use the NMLS for licensing entities other than mortgage loan originators, including for non- depository financial service providers like check cashers, debt collectors, and money transmitters. Many States require Federal background checks as part of the licensing process for financial service providers. However, the SAFE Act only provided the Attorney General with the authority to share federal background check information with the NMLS for mortgage loan originators. The FBI does not have the authority to share this information with the NMLS for any other financial service provider. This means that while the rest of the licensing process for other financial service providers can be conducted through the NMLS, the background check cannot. I believe background checks are a critical component of State licensing and regulation. It does not make sense to allow for the licensing process to be delayed by barring certain background checks from being coordinated through the NMLS. The State Licensing Efficiency Act would provide the authorization needed for the Attorney General to allow the FBI to share background check information for non-depository financial service providers with state regulators through the NMLS, just as it currently does for mortgage loan originators. Let me be clear that this bill does not change any state licensing requirements or impact any state laws. States fully retain the ability to determine when they want to use the NMLS for other financial service providers. However, should states continue to expand their utilization of the NMLS, it makes sense to allow them to fully do so by ensuring federal background checks can be coordinated through the NMLS. Additionally, this bill will help financial service providers seeking licenses in multiple states. Instead of submitting federal background check requests for each State where they are seeking a license, they can submit one request via the NMLS for Federal background check information, which will be sent to the NMLS. States conducting the licensing process will then have access to the information through the NMLS. This should reduce the number of background check processing fees paid by financial service providers seeking licenses and reduce the processing period for the background checks so that financial service providers can get licensed more efficiently. The State Licensing Efficiency Act makes a reasonable change to allow state regulators who use the NMLS for licensing financial service providers to fully benefit from a streamlined, transparent, and more efficient process. Many regulatory associations support this bill including: the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators, the Money Transmitter Regulators Association, the North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association, and the National Association of Consumer Credit Administrators. Additionally, associations representing a variety of financial service providers have voiced support, including: the Appraisal Institute, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the Money Services Round Table. 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 would like to speak in support of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. I had hoped Senator Burr, the chairman of the committee, would be able to deliver the remarks initially. However, he has been unfortunately delayed, and so I will go ahead with my remarks as vice chairman of the committee. There is no legislative or administrative step we can take that will end all cyber crime and cyber warfare, but as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, we have heard over the course of several years now that improving the exchange of information and the sharing of that information, company to company and company to the government, can be very helpful and yield a real and significant improvement to cyber security. Regrettably, this is the third attempt to pass a cyber security information sharing bill. In the almost 5 years that I have been working on this issue, two things have become abundantly clear about passing the bill. First, it must be bipartisan. In 2012, I cosponsored the Lieberman-Collins Cybersecurity Act, which included a title on information sharing based on a bill I had introduced. It was an important piece of legislation, but it received almost no Republican support and could not gain the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture. It became clear to me then that no cyber security legislation could pass without broad bipartisan support. The second lesson that has been learned is, it must be narrowly focused. The Lieberman-Collins bill sought to address many critical challenges to our Nation's cyber security. Then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, brought the chairmen of all committees of jurisdiction on our side together and asked them to draft legislation on cyber security in their areas. It soon became clear that addressing so many complex issues makes a bill very difficult to pass. That bill died on the Senate floor in late 2012. Based on these lessons, we have tried to take a bipartisan and focused approach so Congress can pass a cyber security information sharing bill. In the last Congress, in 2013 and 2014, then-vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee Saxby Chambliss and I sought to draft legislation on information sharing that would attract bipartisan support. We worked through a number of difficult issues together, and we were able to produce a bill that I believed would pass the Senate. The Intelligence Committee approved the bill in 2014 by a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 3, but it never reached the Senate floor due to privacy concerns about the legislation. This year, Chairman Burr and I have drafted legislation that both sides can and should support. This bill is bipartisan, it is narrowly focused, and it puts in place a number of privacy protections, many of which I will outline shortly. The bill's bipartisan vote of 14 to 1 in the Senate Intelligence Committee in March underscores this fact. I would like to thank Senator Burr for his leadership and his willingness to negotiate a bipartisan bill that can and should receive a strong vote. As he often says, neither one of us would have written this bill this way if we were doing it ourselves. This Senator believes it is also true that by negotiating this draft, we will get substantially more votes than either of us can get on our own. I very much hope that is true. I note that this bill has strong support from the private sector because it creates incentives for improving cyber security and protects companies that take responsible steps to do so. Companies are shielded from lawsuits if they properly use the authorities provided for in this bill. They can be confident that sharing information with other companies or with the government will not subject them to inappropriate regulatory action. For these reasons, this bill has the support of over 40 business groups, and it is the first bill that has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It also has the support of the most important cyber security and critical infrastructure companies in the Nation. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed into the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. At the same time, the bill includes numerous privacy protections beyond those contained in last year's bill. Senator Burr and I worked together to address the specific concerns raised by the administration, some of our Senate colleagues, and other key stakeholders. Because of these changes, the administration said yesterday that ``cyber security is an important national security issue and the Senate should take up this bill as soon as possible and pass it.'' I believe this is a good bill and will allow companies and the government to improve the security of their computer networks, but this is just a first-step bill. It will not bring an end to successful cyber attacks or thefts, but it will help to address the problem. What does this bill do? It provides clear direction for the government to share cyber threat information and defensive measures with the private sector. Two, it authorizes private companies to monitor their computer networks and to share cyber threat information and defensive measures with other companies and with the Federal, State, local, and tribal government. And three, it creates a process and rules to limit how the Federal Government will and will not use the information it receives. Companies are granted liability protection for the appropriate monitoring for cyber threats and for sharing and receiving cyber threat information. This liability protection exists for both company-to- company sharing as well as company-to-government sharing consistent with the bill's terms. Companies are also authorized to use defensive measures on their own networks for cyber security purposes. Since the bill is complicated, let me describe what the bill does in more detail. First, it recognizes that the Federal Government has information about cyber threats that it can and should share with the private sector and with State, local, and tribal governments. The bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to put in place a process that will increase the sharing of information on cyber threats already in the government's hands with the private sector and help protect an individual or a business. Importantly, as the first order of business, there will be a managers' amendment which makes changes to specifically limit the ways the government can use the cyber security information it receives. This amendment was distributed on Friday. I would urge everyone to look at it because under the amendment, this bill can only be used for cyber security purposes--no others. It is not a surveillance bill; it is strictly related to cyber security. The bill previously allowed the government to use the information to investigate and prosecute serious violent felonies. That has drawn substantial opposition, and we have removed it in the managers' package. I would now like to take a minute to go over some of the privacy protections in the bill. No. 1, the bill is strictly voluntary. It does not require companies to do anything they choose not to do. There is no requirement to share information with another company or with the government. The government cannot compel any sharing by the private sector. It is completely voluntary. No. 2, it narrowly defines the term ``cyber threat indicator'' to limit the amount of information that may be shared under the bill. Companies do not share information under this bill unless it is specifically about a cyber threat or a cyber defense--nothing else. No. 3, the authorizations are clear but limited. Companies are fully authorized to do three things: monitor their networks or provide monitoring services to their customers to identify cyber threats; use limited defensive measures to protect against cyber threats on their networks; and to share and receive information with each other and with Federal, State, and local governments. No. 4, there are mandatory steps companies must take, before sharing any cyber threat information with other companies or the government, to review the information for irrelevant privacy information. In other words, the companies must do a privacy scrub. They are required to remove any personal information that is found. Companies cannot, as it has been alleged, simply hand over customer information. No. 5, the bill requires that the Attorney General establish mandatory guidelines to protect privacy for any information the government receives. These guidelines will be public, and they will include consultation with the private sector prior to them being put together. The bill requires them to limit how long the government can retain any information and provide notification and a process to destroy mistakenly shared information. It also requires the Attorney General to create sanctions for any government official who does not follow these mandatory privacy guidelines. No. 6, the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense or the intelligence community, is the primary recipient of cyber information. In the managers' amendment, we strengthen the role the Secretary of Homeland Security has in deciding how information sharing will take place. No. 7, once the managers' amendment is adopted, the bill will restrict the government's use of voluntarily shared information, so the government cannot use this information for law enforcement purposes unrelated to cyber security and cyber crime. No. 8, the bill limits liability protections to monitoring for cyber threats and sharing information about them and only--and only--if a company complies with the bill's privacy requirements. The bill explicitly excludes protection for gross negligence or willful misconduct. No. 9, above and beyond these mandatory protections, there are a number of oversight mechanisms in the bill, including reports by heads of agencies, inspectors general, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. In sum, this bill allows for strictly voluntary sharing of cyber security information and many layers of privacy protection. It is my understanding that the chairman of our committee is here, so I would like to skip to the conclusion of my remarks and then be able to turn this over to him. The House of Representatives has already passed two bills this year to improve cyber security information sharing. The Intelligence Committee has crafted a carefully balanced bill that passed by a 14-to- 1 vote in March and it has improved significantly since then through the managers' amendment. We very much need to take this first step on cyber security to address the almost daily reports of hacking and cyber threats. I very much hope the Senate will take action now. Now I will yield the floor. I want to thank the chairman. It has been a pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to work with you. I think I speak for every member of the committee. I am very pleased we have this bill on the floor. God willing and the Members willing, we will be able to pass it one day. I yield the floor to the chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the historic drought that is devastating California and much of the West and to introduce the California Emergency Drought Relief Act along with Senator Boxer. The toll on some of our most vulnerable communities is mounting. As of July, 2,091 wells are already dry or will soon run out of water. This puts more than 10,000 people in jeopardy. Rural and disadvantaged communities are some of the hardest hit. Just this month, the Washington Post reported that arsenic had been found in wells serving St. Anthony's mobile home park in the Coachella Valley at twice the safe concentration. In Porterville, Californians are bathing themselves with bottled water. California is also suffering a massive loss of agriculture production. A study from UC Davis estimates that farmers will fallow 563,000 acres in 2015, a 35 percent increase from last year when farmers fallowed 410,000 acres. The State's agriculture sector stands to lose $1.8 billion in direct agricultural costs this year, on top of $1.5 billion last year. The San Joaquin Valley is at the epicenter of the drought, and the possible damage to our nation's food supply is dire. The Valley is home to 90 percent of the country's tomatoes, 74 percent of our lettuce, and 95 percent of our broccoli. The drought's effects on the Valley will extend far beyond California's borders. But the devastating consequences of this drought aren't limited to a single region. UC Davis also reports that California's economy will lose an estimated $2.7 billion in 2015, along with 18,600 jobs. That is on top of $2.2 billion last year and 17,100 jobs lost. Effects on the environment are also destructive. Groundwater reserves in underground aquifers are being depleted, which is causing the surrounding land to sink. Delta smelt are at their lowest levels since surveys first began in 1959, while Chinook salmon are imperiled by warmer water in the Sacramento River. Saltwater from the San Francisco Bay threatens to contaminate freshwater in the Delta, imperiling an entire ecosystem, not to mention the ill effects on drinking water supplies and farmland. Finally, we can't ignore the increasing threat of wildfires. Since January 1, the U.S. Forest Service reports more than 5,000 fires have burned on state and federal lands, a 10 percent increase over last year. Despite the high likelihood of a strong El Nino this year, one wet season won't fix the problems. Experts estimate that California needs at least three above-average precipitation years to cover the current 37 million acre-foot deficit. Doing nothing is simply not an option. In drafting the bill we're introducing today, we started with the bill that unanimously passed the Senate in 2014. We then modified that bill, adding significant environmental protections and removing controversial provisions. We also included a range of provisions to protect and restore threatened and endangered species, as well as a number of programs to support long-term infrastructure projects like desalination, water recycling and storage. My staff and I have taken dozens of meetings since January. We have met with Congressional Republicans and Democrats, environmental groups, water districts, and State and local officials. My California staff has visited water projects throughout the State to collect ideas, and my staff in Washington has consulted closely with Federal agencies to ensure the bill adheres to environmental law. By releasing a bill this summer, months before the rainy season, Congress and the public will have ample time to review, debate and, where necessary, suggest improvements. I expect the bill will receive a committee hearing, allowing every member of Congress and the public to weigh in. Let me briefly discuss how this bill will help. Federal policy will be most effective if it is aligned with the State's goals and the State water bond. This means expanding Federal efforts to include long-term solutions such as desalination, recycling and storage. We also must look at ways to help communities that are running out of water. To help those communities, the bill includes a new program to assist areas that have suffered the brunt of the drought, communities like Porterville and others in Tulare County. Providing emergency supplies like bottled water is a no-brainer, but it is a short-term fix. We need to look beyond this emergency at ways we can shift these communities from vulnerable water sources like wells to more sustainable and resilient water systems. We also need to take a close look at desalination and water recycling. These are two of the most promising technologies that may offer long-term solutions. The bill identifies 26 desalination projects capable of producing more than 330,000 acre-feet of water. It also identifies 105 recycling projects with the potential to produce about 854,000 acre-feet of water. That is a total of 1.2 million acre-feet of clean water per year, enough for 2.4 million households. But these projects aren't cheap. That is why the bill funds a loan- guarantee program and other financing mechanisms to help make these projects a reality. Another area we should focus on is storage. This drought has showed that our reservoir capacity is insufficient. Given the consensus that droughts will grow more severe, we have to increase how much water we can hold from wet to dry years. The bill positions the Federal Government as a partner with California to build new reservoirs and expand existing reservoirs. Conservation and groundwater recharge are two more promising areas. While cities and towns are doing their part, the bill also identifies areas where the Federal, state and local governments and the ag sector can do more. Finally, the Federal Government can play a significant role in supporting research on promising technologies, from recapturing energy and improving membranes used in desalination to developing strategies to minimize environmental effects of smart-water strategies. The bill also includes a number of short-term, low-cost proposals to protect and assist in the recovery of fish populations, including salmon and smelt. This includes authorizations to implement the Endangered Species Act recovery plan for salmon; trap-and-barge fish and address predator species, two ways to reduce mortality rates; create additional spawning habitat for endangered and threatened species; and improving how water systems are managed using the latest science and technology. The bill's short-term provisions build on legislation that unanimously passed the Senate in 2014, with added protections for environmental and water rights and the removal of several provisions to address environmental concerns. The bill's short-term provisions will help move water efficiently to those areas where it is most needed. Let me be clear--this language was carefully drafted to remain consistent with environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as all biological opinions. Here are some examples of how the short-term section works. First, by operating the water systems with more precision, we will be able to monitor for endangered species like the Delta Smelt and adjust pumping levels to avoid harming fish. By doing this, more water can be moved to the communities that need it while protecting endangered and threatened species. The bill also directs agencies to open the Cross-Channel Gates on the Sacramento River during times when salmon are not migrating. This would allow thousands of acre feet of water to be moved without harming fish or water quality. For water transfers in the Delta--where water sellers and buyers can help get water where it's needed--we included many additional protections. Every transfer will be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with environmental laws. The transfers, which can only occur in April and May, must include only additional water pumped into the Delta on top of the regular river flow. Moving water more efficiently will help supply water to millions of Californians in urban areas, from Silicon Valley to Southern California. It will also increase water allocations for family farms in the San Joaquin Valley. More than 15,000 small farms served by the Friant Water Authority--with an average size of just 83 acres--would benefit. I have introduced many bills during my years in the Senate, and this may be the most difficult. Nevertheless, the goal has remained constant: a bill that can get signed into law that benefits all regions of the State. Congress worked together after Hurricanes Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast and Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast. I think we now have a bill that will help the West survive this historic drought. I look forward to a committee hearing on this bill and to public input to make it even better.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the importance of protecting women's health and protecting their access to their health care, in other words, their choice. I strongly oppose what is becoming a major effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has ensured women receive the health care they need for almost 100 years now. That was before women even had the right to vote. Its founder was thrown in jail for making birth control available, and it has been under near-constant attack since then. I think the Senate needs to stand up on behalf of millions of women across this country and vote no on any amendment that would defund Planned Parenthood. This organization is the primary health care provider for millions of American women. One in five women in this country has been to Planned Parenthood. I have received hundreds of emails and calls from women in California about their support for and experiences at Planned Parenthood. They told me that doctors there listened to them, the nurses became their friends, and they felt valued as patients. Before they went to Planned Parenthood, they were worried about their health. They didn't know if they would be able to get the care they need, and they didn't have the information to make smart, healthy lifestyle choices. One young woman from Santa Barbara told me about a health care scare she had when she was 20. Precancerous cells were discovered during her annual exam. Planned Parenthood didn't have the equipment to perform the followup procedure she needed, but that didn't keep the clinic staff from helping her. They connected her to the only OB/GYN in the city who accepted low-income patients, and she got the care she needed. She said: ``Since that early detection and intervention, I've been healthy and would not be where I am today without Planned Parenthood.'' Another young woman from Victorville, CA, told me it was hard to get information about how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and access contraception. Three girls she knew in high school became pregnant. It wasn't until she visited Planned Parenthood in college that she felt she could make responsible health care decisions. Another young woman shared her abortion story. She was 19 when she became pregnant. She felt scared and alone. She said: ``During a time when a tough decision had been made and a million thoughts were running through my mind, it was relieving to know that I was in the hands of people whose only goal was to help me.'' And 4 years later, she still uses Planned Parenthood as her primary health care provider and encourages her friends and family to also use them. I want to say just a little bit about the services Planned Parenthood provides and how it uses Federal funds. Nearly 80 percent of its patients are low income, making less than $18,000 a year. Without Planned Parenthood, many of these women could not access the most basic health care services. That bears repeating. Planned Parenthood is often the only option for women to get their annual checkup. It provides breast exams, contraception, prenatal care, cancer screenings, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. It also runs teen pregnancy prevention and health education programs that reach more than 1 million young people per year. This is what the Federal funding Planned Parenthood receives goes toward. In 2013, Planned Parenthood used Federal funds to provide the following: nearly half a million breast exams, nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings, contraception for 2.2 million patients, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections for 4.5 million patients. In addition to serving predominately low-income women, Planned Parenthood operates in some of the most underserved communities in this country. For example, without Planned Parenthood, 13 of California's 58 counties would not have a single clinic to provide family planning services to low-income women through title X programs. Attacks on Planned Parenthood are a concerted attack on access to safe, legal abortion services in this country. Make no mistake about it. The group behind this latest attack, the Center for Medical Progress, has longstanding ties to the anti-choice movement, including Operation Rescue, which is closely associated with clinic violence. While abortion accounts for only 3 percent of the health care services provided by Planned Parenthood, it is often one of the only abortion providers in a State or a region. For example, there are 10 abortion clinics in Texas. Just a few years ago, there were 36 abortion clinics. Twenty-six clinics were forced to close after Texas passed a law aimed at ending abortion in the State. The Supreme Court has put some provisions of that law on hold pending further review. But the point is that laws such as the one in Texas force much-needed facilities to close. Just 10 clinics in Texas have met the unnecessary and burdensome new requirements, and 5 of those 10 clinics are Planned Parenthood clinics. If Planned Parenthood closes, Texas loses half of its remaining abortion providers in one fell swoop. The goal of the groups pushing this effort is clear. It is to chip away bit by bit at a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions in consultation with her family and her doctor. That is their goal--no matter the cost to women across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, annual checkups, and other essential services--and in my view, this is simply wrong. I am really troubled by the aggressive tactics used by anti-choice groups, such as the illegal filming of a medical procedure and the hacking of Planned Parenthood's records. This is disturbing. We all know the danger of leaking confidential information. We know the potential for serious violence. In 1994, shortly after I came to the Senate, we passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in response to a spate of violent episodes targeting women's health clinics. Two doctors, a clinic escort, and two receptionists at a Planned Parenthood facility in Boston were killed by anti-abortion activists during three separate attacks in 1993 and 1994. This week, upon learning that her name and email address had been published, one Planned Parenthood staffer in California told my office that she refused to be intimidated because she knows that is the whole point. I am concerned that the message being sent is that it is OK to commit crimes against Planned Parenthood, its employees, and its patients; and it is not. That sort of message can be taken up by extremists and become very dangerous for women and doctors across the country. Whether you support the right to choose or not--and I very much do-- we should all be very careful here. Doctors and clinic staff who provide constitutionally protected health care services and women who access these services should not be terrorized and threatened. In closing, I will return to where I started. I believe that if there is a movement to withhold funding from Planned Parenthood, that movement will not be successful. I believe that will be defeated right here in the Senate. I do not understand why anyone would even try to do this at this time. This country has so many problems, not the least of which are things that I deal with every day in the intelligence community-- the fear of extremists, the attacks by terrorists and those who want to strike our homeland. It seems to me that we do not need this fight now, particularly a fight where those who oppose Planned Parenthood, I believe, will be seriously defeated. If a bill does come before us, I believe it is a mistake, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the historic drought that is devastating California and much of the West and to introduce the California Emergency Drought Relief Act along with Senator Boxer. The toll on some of our most vulnerable communities is mounting. As of July, 2,091 wells are already dry or will soon run out of water. This puts more than 10,000 people in jeopardy. Rural and disadvantaged communities are some of the hardest hit. Just this month, the Washington Post reported that arsenic had been found in wells serving St. Anthony's mobile home park in the Coachella Valley at twice the safe concentration. In Porterville, Californians are bathing themselves with bottled water. California is also suffering a massive loss of agriculture production. A study from UC Davis estimates that farmers will fallow 563,000 acres in 2015, a 35 percent increase from last year when farmers fallowed 410,000 acres. The State's agriculture sector stands to lose $1.8 billion in direct agricultural costs this year, on top of $1.5 billion last year. The San Joaquin Valley is at the epicenter of the drought, and the possible damage to our nation's food supply is dire. The Valley is home to 90 percent of the country's tomatoes, 74 percent of our lettuce, and 95 percent of our broccoli. The drought's effects on the Valley will extend far beyond California's borders. But the devastating consequences of this drought aren't limited to a single region. UC Davis also reports that California's economy will lose an estimated $2.7 billion in 2015, along with 18,600 jobs. That is on top of $2.2 billion last year and 17,100 jobs lost. Effects on the environment are also destructive. Groundwater reserves in underground aquifers are being depleted, which is causing the surrounding land to sink. Delta smelt are at their lowest levels since surveys first began in 1959, while Chinook salmon are imperiled by warmer water in the Sacramento River. Saltwater from the San Francisco Bay threatens to contaminate freshwater in the Delta, imperiling an entire ecosystem, not to mention the ill effects on drinking water supplies and farmland. Finally, we can't ignore the increasing threat of wildfires. Since January 1, the U.S. Forest Service reports more than 5,000 fires have burned on state and federal lands, a 10 percent increase over last year. Despite the high likelihood of a strong El Nino this year, one wet season won't fix the problems. Experts estimate that California needs at least three above-average precipitation years to cover the current 37 million acre-foot deficit. Doing nothing is simply not an option. In drafting the bill we're introducing today, we started with the bill that unanimously passed the Senate in 2014. We then modified that bill, adding significant environmental protections and removing controversial provisions. We also included a range of provisions to protect and restore threatened and endangered species, as well as a number of programs to support long-term infrastructure projects like desalination, water recycling and storage. My staff and I have taken dozens of meetings since January. We have met with Congressional Republicans and Democrats, environmental groups, water districts, and State and local officials. My California staff has visited water projects throughout the State to collect ideas, and my staff in Washington has consulted closely with Federal agencies to ensure the bill adheres to environmental law. By releasing a bill this summer, months before the rainy season, Congress and the public will have ample time to review, debate and, where necessary, suggest improvements. I expect the bill will receive a committee hearing, allowing every member of Congress and the public to weigh in. Let me briefly discuss how this bill will help. Federal policy will be most effective if it is aligned with the State's goals and the State water bond. This means expanding Federal efforts to include long-term solutions such as desalination, recycling and storage. We also must look at ways to help communities that are running out of water. To help those communities, the bill includes a new program to assist areas that have suffered the brunt of the drought, communities like Porterville and others in Tulare County. Providing emergency supplies like bottled water is a no-brainer, but it is a short-term fix. We need to look beyond this emergency at ways we can shift these communities from vulnerable water sources like wells to more sustainable and resilient water systems. We also need to take a close look at desalination and water recycling. These are two of the most promising technologies that may offer long-term solutions. The bill identifies 26 desalination projects capable of producing more than 330,000 acre-feet of water. It also identifies 105 recycling projects with the potential to produce about 854,000 acre-feet of water. That is a total of 1.2 million acre-feet of clean water per year, enough for 2.4 million households. But these projects aren't cheap. That is why the bill funds a loan- guarantee program and other financing mechanisms to help make these projects a reality. Another area we should focus on is storage. This drought has showed that our reservoir capacity is insufficient. Given the consensus that droughts will grow more severe, we have to increase how much water we can hold from wet to dry years. The bill positions the Federal Government as a partner with California to build new reservoirs and expand existing reservoirs. Conservation and groundwater recharge are two more promising areas. While cities and towns are doing their part, the bill also identifies areas where the Federal, state and local governments and the ag sector can do more. Finally, the Federal Government can play a significant role in supporting research on promising technologies, from recapturing energy and improving membranes used in desalination to developing strategies to minimize environmental effects of smart-water strategies. The bill also includes a number of short-term, low-cost proposals to protect and assist in the recovery of fish populations, including salmon and smelt. This includes authorizations to implement the Endangered Species Act recovery plan for salmon; trap-and-barge fish and address predator species, two ways to reduce mortality rates; create additional spawning habitat for endangered and threatened species; and improving how water systems are managed using the latest science and technology. The bill's short-term provisions build on legislation that unanimously passed the Senate in 2014, with added protections for environmental and water rights and the removal of several provisions to address environmental concerns. The bill's short-term provisions will help move water efficiently to those areas where it is most needed. Let me be clear--this language was carefully drafted to remain consistent with environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as all biological opinions. Here are some examples of how the short-term section works. First, by operating the water systems with more precision, we will be able to monitor for endangered species like the Delta Smelt and adjust pumping levels to avoid harming fish. By doing this, more water can be moved to the communities that need it while protecting endangered and threatened species. The bill also directs agencies to open the Cross-Channel Gates on the Sacramento River during times when salmon are not migrating. This would allow thousands of acre feet of water to be moved without harming fish or water quality. For water transfers in the Delta--where water sellers and buyers can help get water where it's needed--we included many additional protections. Every transfer will be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with environmental laws. The transfers, which can only occur in April and May, must include only additional water pumped into the Delta on top of the regular river flow. Moving water more efficiently will help supply water to millions of Californians in urban areas, from Silicon Valley to Southern California. It will also increase water allocations for family farms in the San Joaquin Valley. More than 15,000 small farms served by the Friant Water Authority--with an average size of just 83 acres--would benefit. I have introduced many bills during my years in the Senate, and this may be the most difficult. Nevertheless, the goal has remained constant: a bill that can get signed into law that benefits all regions of the State. Congress worked together after Hurricanes Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast and Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast. I think we now have a bill that will help the West survive this historic drought. I look forward to a committee hearing on this bill and to public input to make it even better.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about our education system--why it is not working and what we can do to fix it. Ensuring every child in this country gets a high-quality education is critical to our country's future. Education remains the primary tool to obtaining a good-paying job and building a middle-class life. But too many children are not getting the education they need to succeed in the 21st century workforce. Nearly 20 percent of students don't graduate from high school. For Hispanic and African-American students, the dropout rate is nearly 25 and 30 percent, respectively. Hundreds of thousands of high-skilled jobs remain unfilled, and too many Americans find themselves stuck in low-wage jobs that can't support their families. Simply put, our education system is failing our children. There are a number of reasons for this. Our education system is one- size-fits-all. Teachers are forced to teach to the test and our schools are not equipped with support services to address the many issues that prevent children from learning. In my view, the main reason we are falling short is that our education system is one-size-fits-all, which doesn't work in education. Students learn differently. Some flourish in large settings and others in small settings with more teacher attention. Students have varied needs based on where they live. Do they live in a rural area, suburb or city? What is their economic status? Is their family living in poverty? How is their home life? Are they raised in a single parent household? What are their individual interests? Do they like art and music? Or are they more interested in science and technology? A child who comes from an affluent home in the suburbs learns differently from a child living in poverty in a city. Both children can learn--if the right approach for each child is taken. We need to give States and local school districts more flexibility to do what is right for their students. Teaching to the test is another problem that plagues our education system. When the emphasis is placed on memorization rather than comprehension, or answering essay questions with a formula rather than reasoning and critical thinking, students are not actively engaged in learning. Students fail to gain the comprehension and critical thinking skills needed in college and to be successful in the workplace. That is a big reason why up to 60 percent of students who enroll in college need to take remedial English and math classes. Schools need to be places where children learn, not where children memorize. A child's life outside of school has a tremendous effect on his or her ability to succeed in school. Does a child get enough to eat at home? Are a child's parents working multiple jobs to pay the bills? Is there violence in the home? Is a child homeless? Our schools are not equipped with the support services they need, such as mental health professionals and basic health care services that help to address the issues that prevent children from learning. The good news is that we have solutions to these problems. They are in place, and they need to be implemented on a larger scale. During the 2013-2014 school year, California implemented its local control funding formula, which targets State funding for poor students, students of color, students with disabilities, foster youth, and English learners. Under this new formula, local districts can use that funding to teach these students in the way that best works for them. It has made a difference. For example, San Diego Unified School District plans to reduce class sizes from a 25-to-1 to a 22-to-1 student teacher ratio in 29 of the most disadvantaged schools. The district also plans to look at resource equity and provide expanded access to counseling services and additional services for English learners and students with disabilities. We also need to expand charter schools and provide continued support to existing, high-quality charter schools. Charter schools tailor instruction to each student and are not bound by traditional school district requirements. Every child deserves a quality education, and many children who struggle in underperforming schools go on to flourish in charter schools. Here are just a couple of examples from California: Nolan from East Los Angeles was reading below grade level when he enrolled in a charter school. Within 6 months, he had advanced two grade levels. Trina, a seventh grader in the Bay area, stated: I think KIPP teachers are extremely important because they teach us everything we need to know to reach our goal of climbing the mountain to college. I can remember back to my very first day as a KIPPster. We learned that we would need to ``work hard'' and ``be nice.'' Working hard meant that in our English classes we would be reading and writing every day. When I came to KIPP, I found out that I was at a second grade reading level in the fifth grade! I was shocked, so I worked hard and got to the sixth grade reading level by the end of the year. Parents desperately want opportunities for their children, and unfortunately the demand for charter schools remains much higher than the supply. Currently in California, approximately 150,000 students are on waiting lists. We need to continue to invest in the expansion and development of charter schools so more children receive the education they deserve now. Providing support services to at-risk students has also proven to be successful. If students are less worried about meeting their basic needs and everything that goes on in their lives outside of school, they can learn. The Monarch School for homeless students in San Diego is a great example of this. It provides food, clothing, counseling, health care, and transportation to its students. And more than 90 percent of graduates go to college or pursue vocational training. We need to fund these kinds of support services in schools where children need them the most. We know that they work. Education remains the great equalizer in this country, but we have failed in giving all of our children access to the quality education they deserve. By directing extra resources where they are needed most and giving schools the ability to do what is right for their students, we can turn things around--for our children and our country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 2087. It is pretty simple what this amendment would do, and I present it on behalf of Senator Portman and myself. It assures that homeless children have access to HUD housing. Today, we have 1.3 million children homeless in this country. In my State, we have 310,000. The problem is getting a clear definition of an individual who is homeless. This bill would allow the appropriate authorities in a school to certify that a youngster is homeless, so we don't have a conflict between the HUD certification and the school certification. It is long overdue. I believe it will be helpful. I am very hopeful this amendment will pass with a very big vote. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Portman.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution on Immigrant Heritage Month, which is recognized every June. This resolution honors the accomplishments and contributions of immigrants, pledges to celebrate our immigrant heritage, and joins the American people in commemorating our immigrant roots. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation of immigrants. Immigrants from all over the world have sought to start anew in the United States. Whether they were seeking to practice their religious and political beliefs without interference or obtain new professional or educational opportunities, the United States has been a refuge for those seeking a better life. We have benefited tremendously as a result. Immigrants have played a vital role in our Nation's history, shaping the economic, cultural, and social development of our society. Immigrants have helped build our nation's cities and railroads, developed some of our most cutting-edge businesses, and fueled inventions from the telegraph to the smartphone. Individuals and families from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas have all contributed to our Nation's fabric, enhancing the diversity and vibrancy of our communities and forming the melting pot for which our country is known. In addition, immigrants have defended our Nation since the Revolutionary War. As of this month, over 30,000 lawful permanent residents are currently serving in the United States Armed Forces. I imagine many more immigrants would join as well if they were afforded the opportunity. Between 2002 and 2015, more than 102,000 immigrants have become U.S. citizens while serving in the U.S. Military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and elsewhere. Our Nation's food supply also depends upon the work of immigrants. Over 70 percent of agricultural workers in the U.S. are foreign born. These workers help feed American families and support U.S. farms and businesses. Without their help, we would struggle to harvest our Nation's crops and feed our people. Immigrants also have made impressive contributions in business and technology. Immigrants or children-of-immigrants have started more than 25 percent of all new businesses in the U.S., including more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies. These businesses have created tens of millions of American jobs, and they exceed over $4.5 trillion in revenue annually. In Silicon Valley, over 44 percent of technology startups had at least one immigrant founder between 2006 and 2012. One of our country's greatest exports, our culture, has been enhanced by immigrants from all corners of the globe. From Broadway to Hollywood, our country's unique contributions in the performing arts, art, music, literature, media, fashion, and cuisine have been shaped by immigrants. I urge my colleagues to join me in observing Immigrant Heritage Month to recognize the contributions of immigrants to the United States, as well as our nation's strong immigrant heritage.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I commemorate the 3-year anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, commonly referred to as DACA. This program has played a vital role in empowering the Nation's undocumented immigrant youth population. Many of these young people were brought to the United States at a young age, through no fault of their own, and know no other home or country. They are woven into the fabric of California and this country. At school, they are taught American history, culture, and values. They strive to achieve the American dream. The DACA Program enables such youth to fulfill their potential and thus to maximize their contribution to their families, communities, and this country. President Obama announced the DACA Program in June 2012 to protect eligible young people from deportation for a 2-year period, while Congress considered comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act with a strong bipartisan majority, 68 to 32. This bill would have provided a pathway to citizenship for DACA grantees and others similarly situated. But the House failed to act, and so here we are today without comprehensive immigration reform. Although we have not yet succeeded in fixing our broken immigration system through congressional action, at least the DACA Program provides some temporary reprieve for these young immigrants so that they do not live in constant fear of deportation. The program enables them to get work authorization, and thus to seek higher education and contribute to the American economy. To qualify, an individual must have come to the United States when they were under 16 years of age and lived in the country continuously for at least 5 years. The individual must also receive an education, pass a background check, and pay an application fee. The State of California is home to over a quarter of the estimated 1.8 million young immigrants who potentially meet the criteria of the DACA Program. Of the approximately 660,000 DACA applications that have been approved since the program's inception in 2012, about 30 percent reside in California. This is more than any other State. To help those who are eligible, nonprofits, religious organizations, pro bono legal networks, and other volunteers in California and nationwide have risen to the occasion. They have helped, and continue to help, hundreds of thousands of DACA applicants to navigate the filing process. The benefits of DACA for these young individuals and for this country are undeniable. A recent report published by the University of California, Berkeley School of Law found that 66 percent of students granted DACA noted a positive change in post-graduate plans and greater hope for their future. All of the study's participants come from low- income households, with 88 percent living below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. Many students reported that parents could not assist them with educational costs; and, in some instances, students contributed a portion of their own earnings to provide for their families. Several students had suffered the deportation of a close relative, and over a quarter had a parent or sibling with an active case in immigration court. Imagine the day-to-day stresses of being a college student: trying to excel in the classroom, paying for food and housing, and finding future employment. For these students, they must also consider additional financial, psychological, and emotional challenges because they-- despite spending their lives in this country--are undocumented. The DACA Program gives these young people a measure of stability so they can focus on their school work and professional growth and development, not on whether they or a loved one will be deported. The DACA Program allows them to do just that and look forward. The economic impacts of the 2012 DACA Program show that the United States has much to gain from enabling eligible undocumented individuals to work lawfully within our borders. According to the University of California, Los Angeles' North American Integration and Development Center ``The DACA program of 2012-2014 appears to have spurred extraordinary growth in the earnings of DACA beneficiaries. According to the results of two recent surveys, this wage growth surpassed 240 percent, a number that far exceeds the expectations in the literature.'' All around the country, this time of year is punctuated by graduation ceremonies. Parents and grandparents beam as their children and grandchildren earn their high school, college, and graduate degrees. This year, I was one of those grandparents. My granddaughter, Eileen, graduated from Stanford, my alma mater, and I was so proud to attend the ceremony. DACA recipients and their families should have that feeling too--a feeling of hope for the future, accomplishment, and growth, and they should have it without fear of deportation right around the corner. That is what this is about. So I am pleased to commemorate the 3-year anniversary of the DACA Program, and I very much hope we can renew our commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform legislation.