Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Consumer Drone Safety Act. In recent years, privately-operated unmanned aircraft have grown in popularity and capability. In many ways, this is brand new technology. It is worrisome that these new drones, which are capable of flying thousands of feet in the air and at speeds in excess of 30 miles per hour, are available commercially to completely untrained consumers. This combination of advanced new technology and broad availability has resulted in a rising number of reports of dangerous operations and narrowly avoided mid-air collisions between drones and passenger planes. Our airports, pilots and travelers deserve meaningful safety protections, as do the people on the ground, in our stadiums and on our highways. If we don't act, it's only a matter of time before we have a tragedy on our hands. The Consumer Drone Safety Act would put in place common-sense safety precautions to minimize the risk of disaster. As with any new technology, drones have attracted significant interest and have promising commercial uses, including package delivery, search and rescue, pipeline inspection, and agriculture. I agree that the possibilities for this technology are promising, if properly managed. That is why I support research to make sure that the technology is safe and can be used in ways that respect people's privacy. But there is no question that the technology comes with great risks, and its potential will never be developed if there is a big aircraft disaster. What if, for example, a drone accidentally flew into a jet engine and brought down a commercial airliner? What if an airliner, having been hit by a drone on approach to a major airport like JFK or LAX, crashes in an urban area? Safety must come first. In the last year, unlawful drone use has proliferated and it's clear that there is a high risk to public safety. In July of 2014, following an expose by Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post, I wrote to the Federal Aviation Administration asking for data about drone flights and accidents. What I received from the FAA was--simply put--startling, and it really crystallized for me the magnitude of the problem we face. In nine months last year, from March through November, there were approximately 25 incidents where a drone nearly collided in midair with a manned aircraft, sometimes requiring evasive action. In this time period, there were more than 190 incident reports. Since July 1, at least one incident per day was reported to the FAA. For example: On May 29, 2014, two aircraft on approach to LAX reported a ``trash can sized'' unmanned aircraft at 6,500 feet above ground level. On June 29, 2014, an airplane on descent to Dulles Airport reported a near midair collision with a drone that flew within 50 feet of the plane at 2,800 feet above ground level. On September 8, 2014, three separate airplanes reported ``a very close call'' with a drone on descent to LaGuardia airport at 1,900 feet above ground level. On October 12, 2014, an aircraft near Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma reported taking evasive action at 4,800 feet above ground level to avoid a drone that came between 10 to 20 feet of the plane. On February 8, 2015, a Southwest passenger jet on its way to land at LAX and reported that a small red drone flew ``right over the top'' of the plane at 4,000 feet above ground level. These close calls are absolutely unacceptable. It is not just airplanes and airports that are at risk. For example, the general manager of the Golden Gate Bridge reports that drones routinely fly over traffic on the bridge. One drone recently crashed onto the bridge roadway. Drones equipped with cameras have also flown by the bridge in areas where photography is not permitted for security reasons, which is alarming. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection--CAL FIRE-- is also growing increasingly concerned about the unsafe use of drones. It reports that during last year's fire season, there were numerous incidents involving drones. For example, in September, one of its helicopters, which was responding to the Pasqualie fire, had to brake in midair to avoid colliding with a recreational drone just 10 feet ahead of it. In May, several drones were filming an active firefight in order to post videos online. If local police hadn't been able to identify the operators and convince them to stop, CAL FIRE believes it might have had to shut down its aerial firefighting operations for the Poinsettia and Cocos fires to avoid the risk of collision. As far back as 2012, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has issued warnings about obstacles to the safe operation of drones, which include the fact that many drones cannot ``detect, sense and avoid'' other aircraft or objects in the airspace. Drones are also plagued by a phenomenon known as ``lost link''--in which the remote connection between the pilot on the ground and the aircraft is simply lost, resulting in a loss of command and control of the aircraft. The GAO's report also noted that many drones ``currently use unprotected radio spectrum and, like any other wireless technology, remain vulnerable to unintentional or intentional interference.'' GAO continued: ``This remains a key security and safety vulnerability because, in contrast to a manned aircraft in which the pilot has direct physical control of the aircraft, interruption of radio transmissions can sever the UAS's only means of control.'' Even the operators of consumer drones often know that their operations can be dangerous. Let me just read to you from one commenter on Amazon's page for a popular consumer drone: It just kept climbing as it disappeared into the clouds. I lost visual, and was sure I'd never see my Phantom again. . . . From calculations based on DJI's web site that it climbs [6 meters per second, which means it attained an altitude . . . somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 feet. I didn't realize until I got video back. The commentator continued: ``This is `not' good, though, since until I saw the video, I didn't realize I was in controlled airspace. Do `not' do this.'' This comment, to me, is really emblematic of what is happening. Consumers with no training, certification, or instruction are buying highly-capable drones with few technological safeguards. There are precautions we can take to reduce the risk of a catastrophic accident. For example, after a consumer drone crashed on the White House lawn in January 2015, the manufacturer voluntarily released a firmware update to prevent flights near Washington, D.C. The update was easy for consumers and commonsense. However, the FAA has no authority to require all manufacturers to follow suit, or to specify other areas that deserve similar protection. Another easy precaution is education of drone operators. For example, the FAA has partnered with the Academy of Model Aeronautics, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, and the Small UAV Coalition to develop an educational campaign called ``Know Before You Fly.'' This campaign includes sensible advice about staying under 400 feet in elevation, keeping the drone within range of eyesight, flying sober, and staying away from pedestrians, vehicles, and airports. However, the FAA can't require manufacturers to print this type of information and include it in the box for consumers when they buy a new drone. FAA needs the authority to require these basic safety precautions. The Consumer Drone Safety Act calls for sensible new safety regulations in how drones are manufactured and used. These new safety regulations apply only to consumer drones: civil unmanned aircraft that are manufactured for commercial distribution and that are equipped with an automatic stabilization system or are capable of providing a video signal allowing operations beyond the visual line of sight of the operator. Notably, this definition does not override Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which means that model aircraft flown for recreational purposes would continue to be subject to the safety guidelines of a community-based organization rather than to operational regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. The bill has operational requirements The Consumer Drone Safety Act directs the FAA to clearly lay out what is acceptable for consumer drones that are operated outside the programming of a community-based organization, detailing when, where, and under what conditions drones can be operated. This includes how high, how close to airports or stadiums, and under what weather conditions a drone may be flown. The bill has manufacturer requirements. Any drone advanced enough to fly autonomously should also be equipped with advanced safety features, including geo-fencing. But FAA does not currently have authority to require even the most basic safety precautions like providing educational materials. The Consumer Drone Safety Act authorizes FAA to set meaningful safety requirements for manufacturers. These may include geo-fencing to govern the altitude and location of flights, a transponder or other method for pilots and air traffic control to detect and identify the drones, collision-avoidance software, and precautions for the loss of a communications link, anti-tampering safeguards, and educational materials. The bill also requires manufactures to update existing consumer drones to meet these new requirements when feasible. The bill would allow FAA to exempt particular types of consumer drones from any requirement that is technologically infeasible or cost- prohibitive if other precautions enable safe operations. The Consumer Drone Safety Act is straightforward, balanced, and necessary. For the first time, it would allow the FAA to proactively respond to the increasing use and capabilities of consumer drones by requiring sensible precautions to protect the safety of our nation's airports and hospital helipads, stadiums and fairgrounds, bridges, electrical infrastructure, highways, and city sidewalks. Congress must not wait for a tragedy before taking action. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this legislation to ensure that consumer drones are built and operated safely.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Consumer Drone Safety Act. In recent years, privately-operated unmanned aircraft have grown in popularity and capability. In many ways, this is brand new technology. It is worrisome that these new drones, which are capable of flying thousands of feet in the air and at speeds in excess of 30 miles per hour, are available commercially to completely untrained consumers. This combination of advanced new technology and broad availability has resulted in a rising number of reports of dangerous operations and narrowly avoided mid-air collisions between drones and passenger planes. Our airports, pilots and travelers deserve meaningful safety protections, as do the people on the ground, in our stadiums and on our highways. If we don't act, it's only a matter of time before we have a tragedy on our hands. The Consumer Drone Safety Act would put in place common-sense safety precautions to minimize the risk of disaster. As with any new technology, drones have attracted significant interest and have promising commercial uses, including package delivery, search and rescue, pipeline inspection, and agriculture. I agree that the possibilities for this technology are promising, if properly managed. That is why I support research to make sure that the technology is safe and can be used in ways that respect people's privacy. But there is no question that the technology comes with great risks, and its potential will never be developed if there is a big aircraft disaster. What if, for example, a drone accidentally flew into a jet engine and brought down a commercial airliner? What if an airliner, having been hit by a drone on approach to a major airport like JFK or LAX, crashes in an urban area? Safety must come first. In the last year, unlawful drone use has proliferated and it's clear that there is a high risk to public safety. In July of 2014, following an expose by Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post, I wrote to the Federal Aviation Administration asking for data about drone flights and accidents. What I received from the FAA was--simply put--startling, and it really crystallized for me the magnitude of the problem we face. In nine months last year, from March through November, there were approximately 25 incidents where a drone nearly collided in midair with a manned aircraft, sometimes requiring evasive action. In this time period, there were more than 190 incident reports. Since July 1, at least one incident per day was reported to the FAA. For example: On May 29, 2014, two aircraft on approach to LAX reported a ``trash can sized'' unmanned aircraft at 6,500 feet above ground level. On June 29, 2014, an airplane on descent to Dulles Airport reported a near midair collision with a drone that flew within 50 feet of the plane at 2,800 feet above ground level. On September 8, 2014, three separate airplanes reported ``a very close call'' with a drone on descent to LaGuardia airport at 1,900 feet above ground level. On October 12, 2014, an aircraft near Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma reported taking evasive action at 4,800 feet above ground level to avoid a drone that came between 10 to 20 feet of the plane. On February 8, 2015, a Southwest passenger jet on its way to land at LAX and reported that a small red drone flew ``right over the top'' of the plane at 4,000 feet above ground level. These close calls are absolutely unacceptable. It is not just airplanes and airports that are at risk. For example, the general manager of the Golden Gate Bridge reports that drones routinely fly over traffic on the bridge. One drone recently crashed onto the bridge roadway. Drones equipped with cameras have also flown by the bridge in areas where photography is not permitted for security reasons, which is alarming. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection--CAL FIRE-- is also growing increasingly concerned about the unsafe use of drones. It reports that during last year's fire season, there were numerous incidents involving drones. For example, in September, one of its helicopters, which was responding to the Pasqualie fire, had to brake in midair to avoid colliding with a recreational drone just 10 feet ahead of it. In May, several drones were filming an active firefight in order to post videos online. If local police hadn't been able to identify the operators and convince them to stop, CAL FIRE believes it might have had to shut down its aerial firefighting operations for the Poinsettia and Cocos fires to avoid the risk of collision. As far back as 2012, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has issued warnings about obstacles to the safe operation of drones, which include the fact that many drones cannot ``detect, sense and avoid'' other aircraft or objects in the airspace. Drones are also plagued by a phenomenon known as ``lost link''--in which the remote connection between the pilot on the ground and the aircraft is simply lost, resulting in a loss of command and control of the aircraft. The GAO's report also noted that many drones ``currently use unprotected radio spectrum and, like any other wireless technology, remain vulnerable to unintentional or intentional interference.'' GAO continued: ``This remains a key security and safety vulnerability because, in contrast to a manned aircraft in which the pilot has direct physical control of the aircraft, interruption of radio transmissions can sever the UAS's only means of control.'' Even the operators of consumer drones often know that their operations can be dangerous. Let me just read to you from one commenter on Amazon's page for a popular consumer drone: It just kept climbing as it disappeared into the clouds. I lost visual, and was sure I'd never see my Phantom again. . . . From calculations based on DJI's web site that it climbs [6 meters per second, which means it attained an altitude . . . somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 feet. I didn't realize until I got video back. The commentator continued: ``This is `not' good, though, since until I saw the video, I didn't realize I was in controlled airspace. Do `not' do this.'' This comment, to me, is really emblematic of what is happening. Consumers with no training, certification, or instruction are buying highly-capable drones with few technological safeguards. There are precautions we can take to reduce the risk of a catastrophic accident. For example, after a consumer drone crashed on the White House lawn in January 2015, the manufacturer voluntarily released a firmware update to prevent flights near Washington, D.C. The update was easy for consumers and commonsense. However, the FAA has no authority to require all manufacturers to follow suit, or to specify other areas that deserve similar protection. Another easy precaution is education of drone operators. For example, the FAA has partnered with the Academy of Model Aeronautics, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, and the Small UAV Coalition to develop an educational campaign called ``Know Before You Fly.'' This campaign includes sensible advice about staying under 400 feet in elevation, keeping the drone within range of eyesight, flying sober, and staying away from pedestrians, vehicles, and airports. However, the FAA can't require manufacturers to print this type of information and include it in the box for consumers when they buy a new drone. FAA needs the authority to require these basic safety precautions. The Consumer Drone Safety Act calls for sensible new safety regulations in how drones are manufactured and used. These new safety regulations apply only to consumer drones: civil unmanned aircraft that are manufactured for commercial distribution and that are equipped with an automatic stabilization system or are capable of providing a video signal allowing operations beyond the visual line of sight of the operator. Notably, this definition does not override Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which means that model aircraft flown for recreational purposes would continue to be subject to the safety guidelines of a community-based organization rather than to operational regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. The bill has operational requirements The Consumer Drone Safety Act directs the FAA to clearly lay out what is acceptable for consumer drones that are operated outside the programming of a community-based organization, detailing when, where, and under what conditions drones can be operated. This includes how high, how close to airports or stadiums, and under what weather conditions a drone may be flown. The bill has manufacturer requirements. Any drone advanced enough to fly autonomously should also be equipped with advanced safety features, including geo-fencing. But FAA does not currently have authority to require even the most basic safety precautions like providing educational materials. The Consumer Drone Safety Act authorizes FAA to set meaningful safety requirements for manufacturers. These may include geo-fencing to govern the altitude and location of flights, a transponder or other method for pilots and air traffic control to detect and identify the drones, collision-avoidance software, and precautions for the loss of a communications link, anti-tampering safeguards, and educational materials. The bill also requires manufactures to update existing consumer drones to meet these new requirements when feasible. The bill would allow FAA to exempt particular types of consumer drones from any requirement that is technologically infeasible or cost- prohibitive if other precautions enable safe operations. The Consumer Drone Safety Act is straightforward, balanced, and necessary. For the first time, it would allow the FAA to proactively respond to the increasing use and capabilities of consumer drones by requiring sensible precautions to protect the safety of our nation's airports and hospital helipads, stadiums and fairgrounds, bridges, electrical infrastructure, highways, and city sidewalks. Congress must not wait for a tragedy before taking action. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this legislation to ensure that consumer drones are built and operated safely.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak a few moments as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have had three chances to say congratulations to the San Francisco Giants when they won the World Series over the last 5 years, and I didn't do it. Last night, the Golden State Warriors won the NBA Finals, and I want to remedy the error of my ways and come and offer the heartiest congratulations to a truly great basketball team. This team had a remarkable season. Their regular season of 67 and 15 was the sixth best in the history of the NBA, and they went 16 and 5 in the playoffs. But their dominance wasn't built on brute force; it was built on finesse, strategy, and teamwork. Steph Curry was a real superstar, offering flashes of brilliance all season. I had the occasion to meet him and have a picture taken with him, and as I stood against this tall American and put my arm around his waist, I realized how slender he was. I subsequently learned they are trying to get him to eat 6,000 calories a day--I guess to meet LeBron James. It was quite a matchup, and I was delighted to be able to watch these games. After a scary fall in game 4 against the Rockets, Steph came back in game 5 to lead the Warriors in scoring, boosting them into the finals. Last year, when I met them at a Warriors' practice, I saw a little bit about the team. And one player I hadn't met was a gentleman by the name of Andre Iguodala, who really came alive against the Cavaliers in the finals. After playing off the bench the first three games, he started the final three and was the defensive spark the Warriors needed. Now, no one can stop LeBron James, and as I watched the series, I really marveled at this man because he was a very intelligent player. Once he charged toward that basket, there were very few who could stop him. It was an amazing performance. All season long, Klay Thompson was an offensive dynamo, stepping up when the team needed him most. And of course Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, and others. And what a season for a brand new rookie coach Steve Kerr. He spent his whole life in basketball but has only a handful of months as coach under his belt. He took an undersized team with little playoff experience all the way. It was a dream come true. I would also like to congratulate the Warriors owners, Joe Lacob and Peter Guber, as well as the team's president, Rick Weltz. I have had the privilege of meeting these three people. Oakland can be very proud of them. They are building a new arena in San Francisco, so the whole Bay Area will have an opportunity to participate in this team's glory. These gentlemen bought the team 4 years ago. And in that short time, they have guided what was a moribund franchise into the best team in the league. So they rightly should be thanked for their accomplishment. Finally, to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, I offer my condolences, and I look forward to collecting on our wager, which Mr. President, is some Ohio beer. I trust it is going to be good beer, and I look forward to drinking it and hopefully being able to tell him that there will be another time, and his team can only but rise in glory as well. Finally, to the Warriors, I look forward to continued greatness, both in Oakland and across the bay in San Francisco. Their first title since 1975 really brought the city of Oakland together and made them proud. I say to them, thank you for some wonderful memories. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished chairman for this time. I do not think I will take 15 minutes. We have worked it down. I join Senator McCain and Ranking Member Reed--as well as Senator Collins and the other cosponsors, Senators Leahy, Paul, King, Flake, Heinrich, Whitehouse, Mikulski, Wyden, Murphy, Hirono, Warner, Baldwin, Brown and Markey--in offering an amendment that will help ensure the United States never again carries out coercive and abusive interrogation techniques or indefinite secret detentions. I am very pleased that the Senate will consider this amendment, and I urge an aye vote. The amendment we are offering today is really very simple. It applies the authorizations and restrictions for interrogations in the Army Field Manual to the entire U.S. Government. It extends what Congress did in 2005, by a vote of 90 to 9, with the Detainee Treatment Act--which I believe Senator McCain authored--which banned the Department of Defense from using techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual and also banned the government from using cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. The amendment also requires prompt access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to any detainee held by the U.S. Government. Both of these provisions are consistent with United States policy for the past several years, but this amendment would codify these requirements into law. President Obama banned the use of coercive and abusive interrogation techniques by Executive order in his first few days in office, actually on January 22, 2009. That Executive order formally prohibits--as a matter of policy--the use of interrogation techniques not specifically authorized by the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. This amendment places that restriction in law. It is long overdue. The amendment also codifies another section of President Obama's January 2009 Executive order, requiring access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to all U.S. detainees in U.S. Government custody--access which has been historically granted by the United States and other law-abiding nations and is needed to fulfill our obligations under international law, such as the Geneva Conventions. It is also important to understand that the policies in the 2009 Executive order are only guaranteed for as long as a future President agrees to leave them in place. This amendment would codify these two provisions into law. Current law already bans torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. However, this amendment is still necessary because interrogation techniques were able to be used, which were based on a deeply flawed legal theory, and those techniques, it was said, did not constitute ``torture'' or ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.'' These legal opinions could be written again. In 2009, President Obama's Executive Order settled the issue as formal policy, and this amendment will codify a prohibition on a program that was already defunct at the end of the Bush administration. CIA Director John Brennan has clearly stated that he agrees with the ban on interrogation techniques that are not in the Army Field Manual. Director Brennan wrote the following to the Intelligence Committee in 2013 about the President's 2009 Executive order: I want to reaffirm what I said during my confirmation hearing: I agree with the president's decision, and, while I am the Director of the CIA, this program will not under any circumstances be reinitiated. I personally remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence and that their use impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in the world. Furthermore, it is important to point out that the Senate and the House both required the use of the Army Field Manual across the government in the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence authorization bill. Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed that legislation. Whatever one may think about the CIA's former detention and interrogation program, we should all agree that there can be no turning back to the era of torture. Interrogation techniques that would together constitute torture do not work. They corrode our moral standing, and ultimately they undermine any counterterrorism policies they are intended to support. So before I close, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of letters and statements in support of this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and by doing so, we can recommit ourselves to the fundamental precept that the United States does not torture--without exception and without equivocation--and ensure that the mistakes of our past are never again repeated in the future. I ask for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank both Senator McCain and Senator Reed for their remarks. I particularly wish to thank Senator McCain, whose life experience, for me, has been a guidepost. I don't know anyone in this body who is more standup--and can sometimes be more stubborn, but this all comes into play as an important thing--and stands for the real, true, major issues this country faces. I will never forget a conversation I had with him on the plane back from Guantanamo. When he spoke in the Kennedy Caucus Room and used the tap language he learned as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and to see this man, so many years since that time, tap out messages that were meant for prison mates in other cells with such speed and alacrity certainly indicated that this was a very deep impression which was made on his life. I think the fact that he has shared that with others, including me, is very important. I want Senator McCain to know how much I appreciate his work on this and how grateful we are for his service to this country. He has unique courage and unique stamina, and maybe that is just all-American. Again, I thank the Senator from Arizona very much for his work, and the same for Senator Reed, the ranking member on this committee. Senator Reed is military-American through and through. Having his support has been terrific. Again, I thank both of them very much. It was a pleasure to work with both of my colleagues, and I hope this passes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last week we learned of the latest in the string of massive breaches of private information from cyber penetrations, this time of government personnel records held by the Office of Personnel Management. In its annual worldwide threat assessment, the intelligence community this year ranked cyber intrusions and attacks as the No. 1 threat to our Nation's security. Cyber attacks and threats are also a major drag on our economy, with the theft of billions and billions of dollars of intellectual property and actual money from our Nation's businesses. Quite simply, cyber attacks are a major and growing threat to every aspect of our life. It is with that background that Senator Burr and I began working early this year on a new cyber security information-sharing bill. It is a first-step bill, in that for sharing company to company or sharing cyber threat information directly with the government, a company would receive liability protection and therefore feel free to have this kind of constructive interchange. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee produced the bill in the last Congress, but it didn't receive a vote. Chairman Burr and I have been determined not only to get a vote but to get a bill signed into law. It should be evident to everybody that the only way we will get this done is if it is bipartisan. With significant compromises on both sides, we put together the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, a bill approved in March by our Intelligence Committee by an overwhelming 14-to-1 vote. That bill has been ready for Senate consideration for nearly 3 months but has not yet been brought to the floor. Last week's attack underscores why such legislation is necessary. The Democratic leader told me many weeks ago that this issue is too important for political wrangling, that he would not seek to block or slow down consideration of the bill and would work to move the bill quickly. So the bill is ready for floor consideration. Now, a number of my colleagues would like to propose amendments--as is their right--and I expect I would support some of them and would oppose some of them. The Senate should have an opportunity to fully consider the bill and to receive the input of other committees with jurisdiction in this area. Unless we do this, we won't have a bipartisan vote, I believe, because, like it or not, no matter how simple--and I have been through two bills now--this was not an easy bill to draft because there are conflicts on both sides. Filing the cyber security bill as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill prompted a lot of legitimate and understandable concern from both sides of the aisle. People want debate on the legislation, and they want an opportunity to offer relevant amendments. To do this as an amendment--when Senator Burr discussed it with me, I indicated I did not want to go on and make that proposal--I think is a mistake. I very much hope that the majority leader will reconsider this path, and that once we have finished with the Defense authorization bill, the Senate can take up, consider, and hopefully approve the cyber security legislation. I think if we do it any other way, we are in for real trouble, and this is the product of experience. So I very much hope that there can be a change in procedure and that this bill--I know our leader will agree--could come up directly following the Defense authorization bill. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I am very concerned about this. It unnecessarily limits the National Nuclear Security Administration's ability to dismantle the retired nuclear weapons that no longer have any role in our national defense. The President's budget proposed $48 million for dismantlement, and this amendment would freeze funding at that level and at specific funding levels for the next 5 years. However, the Appropriations Committee, just last month, provided an additional $4 million for dismantlement in the Energy and Water bill. I am ranking member on that committee. It was approved on a bipartisan basis, 26 to 4. This funding is appropriate and it is justified. The fact is, there are currently approximately 2,400 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. The rate at which we dismantle these warheads does not have anything to do with the 4,800 warheads that remain in the stockpile, consistent with the New START treaty. This is a treaty, not an agreement. The administration has committed accelerating dismantlement and we should support its goals of eliminating redundant nuclear weapons. I see no reason to imply congressional disapproval for this effort and to micromanage NNSA's weapons activity. Modernization and dismantlement go hand in hand. NNSA routinely shifts employees from weapons stockpile stewardship and modernization work to dismantlement to keep the workforce fully and usefully engaged. It is completely unnecessary to complicate this process. I object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up the McCain-Feinstein-Reed- Collins amendment No. 1889.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is greatly disappointing that the Senate is in session today to reconsider a vote we took before the Memorial Day recess to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Instead of passing the USA FREEDOM Act a week ago and sending it to the President, we are now poised to take the measure up this coming week, after the FISA authorities have expired. The result is that our intelligence agencies will lose important tools to protect against terrorist attacks. This is a self-inflicted harm, and one that was totally unnecessary. As I did a week ago, I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA FREEDOM Act, and I intend to vote for the legislation through the upcoming procedural votes. The bill is not perfect, but it extends the business records, lone wolf, and roving wiretap provisions and it institutes some important reforms to FISA. Unfortunately, what we have on the floor of the Senate tonight is political gamesmanship at its worst. We should have had this debate weeks or months ago, not up against the deadline. Failing that, the majority should not have defeated this motion last week when it is prepared today to pass it. We should skip the unnecessary delay of voting separately on the motion to proceed, cloture on the bill, and on the bill itself. Clearly there are 60 votes in this chamber to pass the USA FREEDOM Act, whether we do it today or if we do it next week. So the question comes: why not pass this bill today, reform the business records provision of FISA, and keep important intelligence authorities in effect? Unfortunately, the answer is that one Senator is holding this process hostage for his own political benefit. It is a travesty, and it is unconscionable. We remain a nation under threat of terrorism. Our allies remain under threat of terrorism. This is not hypothetical. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant-- ISIL--is seeking to recruit individuals to conduct attacks against the United States. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters have entered Iraq and Syria to join ISIL. There are hundreds of people inside the United States right now that ISIL is seeking to inspire, direct, and assist in carrying out an attack. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--AQAP--is developing non-metallic, undetectable bombs for use on U.S. airliners and is teaching people how to make such devices themselves. These groups are competing to be worst of the worst in international terrorism and they are coming after us. We aren't sending thousands of troops to confront ISIL in Iraq and Syria or to stop AQAP in Yemen. We aren't going to diminish their threats through partnership with local governments. The only way we are going to stop attacks against the United States and our people is by collecting good intelligence. To me, that means we need to do everything lawful and effective in intelligence to identify and thwart those attacks. The roving wiretap provision is important. It says that the FBI doesn't have to stop surveillance against a terrorist or a foreign spy when he buys a new cell phone or changes his email account. Having to do so in today's world would be ridiculous. The ``lone wolf'' provision is important. To be clear--it hasn't been used. But to be equally clear, never before have we faced the exact threat that this provision was written to address: the threat of an individual, inside this country, plotting to kill Americans without traveling abroad and training with a terrorist group first. The business records provision is important. It includes both routine requests for records--hotel bills, car rentals, travel information-- that are regular parts of law enforcement and national security investigations. It also authorizes the NSA's phone metadata program. Under this provision, the NSA gets information about phone calls to include the numbers on either end of the line, the time, and the duration of the call. It does not include the words that are spoken as part of the phone conversation, the identities of the people involved, or their location. What it does is help the Intelligence Community know more about people for whom there is a ``reasonable articulable suspicion'' of being tied to terrorist groups. If there is a terrorist in Syria talking to Americans at home, we want to know that. If a phone number, for example, in Garland, TX, is in touch with an ISIL operations chief, we need to know. That information allows the FBI to go to a court for a probable cause warrant to conduct electronic and physical surveillance of a suspect. This program is conducted under strict oversight and operational limitations. The number of people at NSA with access to the data is small--it was 22 in 2013. They have to get approval each time they do a query of the phone records; today that approval comes from the FISA Court. The query only returns information on what numbers were called by, and called, the phone number in question, and then a second hop from that number. There were 288 phone numbers approved for queries in 2012, and those queries led to 12 probable cause warrants by the FBI. The program is overseen within the NSA by multiple officials, including the inspector general and the privacy and civil liberties officer. It is overseen by the Department of Justice, which reviews every single query, and by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It is overseen by the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the House and the Senate, and it is overseen for compliance purposes by the FISA Court. So these are important tools that, because of Senate inaction and recalcitrance, will expire tonight. As a result, we make ourselves more vulnerable. I very much regret this situation that the Senate has created, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and to quickly enact the USA FREEDOM Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may a point of personal privilege. Mr. President, I would like to correct the majority leader, regretfully. I did not support the Burr bill. I do not believe that is the way to go. I have taken a good look at this. For those who want reform and want to prevent the government from holding the data, the FREEDOM Act is the only way to do it. The House has passed it. The President wants it. All of the intelligence personnel have agreed to it, and I think not to pass that bill is really to throw the whole program--that whole section 215 as well as the whole business records, the ``lone wolf,'' the roving wiretaps--into serious legal jeopardy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Senators Hatch and Wyden.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senators Hatch and Wyden, I appreciate your work on the trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance legislation. As you have said, this bill authorizes the President to conclude high-standard free-trade agreements, which are expected to tremendously benefit California and the Nation. It also reauthorizes the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to provide retraining and income support for workers displaced by international trade. In 2013, more than 7,000 Californians received assistance from this program. While I support H.R. 1314, I remain concerned that the United States must do more to help the people of Nepal recover from the earthquake and aftershocks that have devastated the country. As you know, the earthquakes have killed nearly 10,000 people, displaced more than 2.8 million others, and damaged or destroyed more than 500,000 homes. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates losses could exceed Nepal's $20 billion annual gross domestic product, which is a truly staggering figure for such a poor nation. While the international community has rushed to provide humanitarian aid, the United States can do more to assist Nepal's long-term economic recovery. Senator Hatch, do you agree that the United States should consider providing preferential treatment to Nepali exports to help the country recover?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. To that end, I have filed an amendment, No. 1438, that would provide nonsensitive Nepali exports duty-free treatment in the U.S. market. Doing so would be consistent with our response to Haiti's devastating earthquake in 2010 and would attract much needed international investment in Nepal during this time of need. While I understand that we will not have an opportunity to further amend H.R. 1314, I ask you to provide your commitment to work include my legislation in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015--also known as the Customs enforcement bill--or a similar bill as reported by a conference committee to reauthorize trade facilitation and trade enforcement functions and activities.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. I appreciate your commitment to assisting Nepal. Senator Wyden, do you also commit to include my Nepal legislation in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Wyden.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the trade legislation before the Senate. What we have done so far has been to consider: No. 1, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. This bill extends a number of trade preference programs related to Africa and Haiti. It also reauthorizes the Generalized System of Preferences Program, which expired in 2013. No. 2, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. This bill includes new trade enforcement mechanisms to protect American workers from unfair trade practices. The legislation also includes a complete ban on importing goods created by child labor, which I strongly support. No. 3, trade adjustment assistance. This bill reauthorizes Federal assistance for worker retraining and income support to those displaced by trade. In fiscal year 2013, 7,609 Californians received training under the program, so I believe it is critical that we continue this assistance. No. 4, trade promotion authority. This bill authorizes the President to conclude free-trade agreements with our trading partners. In exchange, those agreements will receive an up-or-down vote in the Congress. I voted for these bills because they will update our trade policy in a smart, effective way. The process of considering these bills has enabled me to see the extraordinary importance of trade to California's economy. In 2013, California's total gross domestic product was an estimated $2.2 trillion. That makes it the eighth largest economy in the world, surpassing that of Russia and Italy and soon to overtake Brazil. The services industry--both high-skilled professional services and lower skilled jobs in accommodation, food and administration--have lead California's economic recovery since the 2008 recession. In fact, 66 percent of all new jobs in California created over the past year were in services. Trade is critical to sustaining this job growth. In 2013, California exported $114 billion in services, which was a 58-percent growth since 2006. California's services exports substantially contributed to the overall services trade surplus of the United States, which reached over $200 billion in 2013. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is expected to boost services exports even more by prohibiting customs duties for digital products; applying the same nondiscrimination standards for digital goods as manufactured goods; prohibiting countries from requiring companies to transfer their technology, business processes, or intellectual property; and requiring strong and enforceable intellectual property rights. From Silicon Valley to Hollywood, these expected provisions will continue to drive California's services exports and our overall economy. In 2014, California exported $174.1 billion in total merchandise goods, supporting more than 775,000 jobs. That is a near 11 percent increase in jobs since 2009. Now, there is a common perception that only large businesses benefit from trade. That has not been the case in my State. Small and medium- sized businesses--and their employees--have led the way in merchandise exports in California. Some 75,175 companies exported from California in 2013, of which 95.8 percent--72,032--were small and medium-sized businesses. Increased trade could grant these firms with new opportunities to grow, and their employees could see higher wages as a result. According to an economist at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, businesses that export pay wages on average 15 percent more than firms that do not. For a high-cost State like California, higher wages are a top priority. Increasing our exports is a commonsense means to that end. I am confident that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will help California's small and medium businesses and our overall economy because that has been my State's experience with our existing free- trade partners. In 2014, of California's total merchandise exports, $70.4 billion were to nations with which the United States already has free-trade agreements. Over the past 10 years, exports from California to these free-trade partners grew by 50 percent. If the Trans-Pacific Partnership substantially reduces tariff barriers--as other agreements have--California's exports will benefit substantially. Today, my State's exports of computers and electronic products face tariffs as high as 35 percent; transportation equipment face tariffs as high as 70 percent; machinery face tariffs as high as 70 percent; and health products face tariffs as high as 30 percent. Reducing tariffs on these manufactured goods has proven to be a boon to California's economy, and I hope we can keep moving in that direction. Finally, California agriculture relies on export markets. The State's agricultural exports were valued $21.2 billion in 2013. That is far more than any other State. This trade has helped the state's agricultural industry become the largest by value in the United States. In fact, the California Department of Food and Agriculture reports that California's 77,900 farms produced $44.7 billion in output in 2013. This is a massive sum, and it will only grow with trade. According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture study, under TPP nationwide agriculture exports are expected to increase 54 percent by 2025. For California's products, reduced tariffs and scientific-based sanitary and phytosanitary standards will be key. For example, California dairy products face a tariff of up to 35 percent in Japan, while California walnuts face a tariff of 30 percent in Vietnam. In Australia, California beef has been blocked due in part to unfounded fears of mad cow disease. Reducing these trade barriers is expected to benefit dozens of agricultural commodities in my State--especially fruits, tree nuts, vegetables, dairy, beef, wine, confections, rice and citrus exports. In fact, TPP can sustain the growth of California's agricultural exports to those countries, which from 2009 to 2013 increased in value from $4.8 billion to $7.5 billion. Overall, it is apparent that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will continue to support the immense success of California's farmers, ranchers, and producers. Mr. President, the fact is that California relies on trade. It has been critical for our economic recovery and will be vital for sustaining our growth. Therefore, I am pleased to support passage of trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. With trade promotion authority in place, I hope the President can send to Congress strong and fair trade agreements. While the Trans-Pacific Partnership holds tremendous promise, it is my hope that the Obama administration concludes a final agreement that I can support. I look forward to reviewing the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the coming months.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the votes the Senate will soon take relating to three expiring provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I will vote to support the USA FREEDOM Act, the bill passed by the House last week by a vote of 338 to 88, and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. In my view, this is the only action that we can take right now that will prevent important intelligence authorities from expiring at the end of next week. Let me describe the situation in a little more detail. On Monday morning at 12:01 a.m. on June 1, three separate sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, will expire. Two of those provisions were first added to FISA in 2001 in the USA PATRIOT Act, shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11. They are the business records section, also known as section 215, and the roving wiretap provision. The business records provision was originally intended to allow the government to go to the FISA Court to get an order to be able to obtain a variety of records relevant to an investigation. The authority was, and remains, very important for the FBI. Since 2006, the business records authority in FISA has also been used by the NSA to get telephone metadata records from telephone companies-- the records of the telephone numbers and the time and duration of a call. Metadata does not include the content or the location or names of the individuals on the phone. The roving wiretap provision allows the government to use surveillance authorities under FISA, pursuant to a court order, against an individual who seeks to evade surveillance by switching communication devices. If a terrorist gets a new cell phone or changes an email address, the government can continue surveillance on that individual under the same probable cause warrant from the FISA court rather than having to go back to the Court for authority to collect information from each new phone number or email address. The third provision, the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision, was added in 2004 over concern that the intelligence community may not be able to gather information on a known terrorist if it could not demonstrate his membership in a specific terrorist group. Given the threat we face today from individuals inspired by ISIL, for example, that threat is even more real today than it was a decade ago. These provisions have been reviewed by the Intelligence and the Judiciary Committees for many years and have been subject to enormous public scrutiny. For more than a year, there has been a strong desire by the American public, supported by the President and by the House of Representatives, to make a basic change in the use of the business records authority. That change is to end the bulk collection of phone records by the NSA and to replace it with a system for the government to get a FISA Court order to be able to obtain a much more specific set of records from the telecommunications providers when there is a ``reasonable, articulable suspicion'' that a phone number is associated with a foreign terrorist group. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have written to the Senate to indicate their support for this change, which they state ``preserves essential operational capabilities of the telephone metadata program and enhances other intelligence capabilities needed to protect our nation and its partners.'' I would also note that the USA FREEDOM Act will allow private companies that receive requests and orders from the government to produce information, at their own discretion, that allows them to be more transparent about those requests and orders from the government. I support this additional transparency and thank the sponsors of the USA FREEDOM legislation for including it. I have spoken to a number of technology companies, including several founded and based in California, that believe that transparency is not only good policy but that it will help them show publicly that their products and services are secure and independent from government control. So the choice before the Senate today is a clear one: whether to vote for the only sure way to continue the use of important intelligence authorities in a way that has the support of the American people, the President, the intelligence community, and the Department of Justice or to hope that the authorities will be renewed for 2 months despite clear communications from the House that it will not support such an extension. FBI Director Comey said earlier this week that the expiration of the business records and roving wiretap authorities would be a ``huge problem,'' and I believe him. Given the wide range of threats facing Americans, both at home and abroad--particularly from ISIL and Al Qaeda--we should not allow these valuable authorities to expire. To me, this is an easy choice, and I will support the USA FREEDOM Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Blunt, to introduce bipartisan legislation that would expand approved uses for the Elementary and Secondary Education Acts professional development funding to include training for teachers and school personnel on how to recognize signs of sexual abuse in students. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 865,643 children were victims of maltreatment in 2013. Approximately 7 percent, or 60,956 children, were victims of sexual abuse. The vast majority of States require that teachers report suspicions of child abuse, but most teachers do not receive any training on how to see the signs. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 61 percent of all reports of child abuse and neglect are made by professionals, yet only 17.5 percent of abuse and neglect is reported by education personnel. Given the amount of time teachers and school personnel spend with children, it is critical that the warning signs of child sexual abuse are identified and reported and that action is taken. Students must also be provided appropriate resources and support if they have been abused. The Helping Schools Protect Our Children Act of 2015 expands the list of allowable uses for Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, Title II funding to permit States to use this funding to provide training for teachers, principals, Specialized Instructional Support Personnel and paraprofessionals on how to recognize the signs of sexual abuse and handle the situation if sexual abuse is identified. Under current law, Title II provides grants to states for a variety of purposes related to recruitment, retention, and professional development of K-12 teachers and principals. Our bill would simply allow professional development funds to be used to provide school personnel with this important training. I am proud that Senator Roy Blunt has joined me as original cosponsor on this bill. It is essential that as mandated reporters, school personnel have access to the proper training to recognize abuse. When no one steps in to stop abuse, children can be scarred for their entire lives. If we learn to recognize the signs of abuse or neglect, we will be better able to foster a safe environment for young people to learn and grow. 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 today on behalf of myself and Senator Blunt, to introduce bipartisan legislation that would expand approved uses for the Elementary and Secondary Education Acts professional development funding to include training for teachers and school personnel on how to recognize signs of sexual abuse in students. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 865,643 children were victims of maltreatment in 2013. Approximately 7 percent, or 60,956 children, were victims of sexual abuse. The vast majority of States require that teachers report suspicions of child abuse, but most teachers do not receive any training on how to see the signs. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 61 percent of all reports of child abuse and neglect are made by professionals, yet only 17.5 percent of abuse and neglect is reported by education personnel. Given the amount of time teachers and school personnel spend with children, it is critical that the warning signs of child sexual abuse are identified and reported and that action is taken. Students must also be provided appropriate resources and support if they have been abused. The Helping Schools Protect Our Children Act of 2015 expands the list of allowable uses for Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, Title II funding to permit States to use this funding to provide training for teachers, principals, Specialized Instructional Support Personnel and paraprofessionals on how to recognize the signs of sexual abuse and handle the situation if sexual abuse is identified. Under current law, Title II provides grants to states for a variety of purposes related to recruitment, retention, and professional development of K-12 teachers and principals. Our bill would simply allow professional development funds to be used to provide school personnel with this important training. I am proud that Senator Roy Blunt has joined me as original cosponsor on this bill. It is essential that as mandated reporters, school personnel have access to the proper training to recognize abuse. When no one steps in to stop abuse, children can be scarred for their entire lives. If we learn to recognize the signs of abuse or neglect, we will be better able to foster a safe environment for young people to learn and grow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.