Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, let me answer a question with a question. Why doesn't my colleague just take it out? It is not in the House bill. Then we don't have to conference it, we don't have to have another fight, we can get the amendments in the bill to strengthen the bill, and we can move on, with the two parties together doing something that is right for the Nation. Why don't we do it?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I see it for standing up for a principle. I know something about these girls. I know something about the history of abortion in this country. I am old enough to have gone through it and know that I don't want to go back to those days. I don't want young women who take the law now so much for granted to have to return back. This is just one small step. There is nothing wrong with accommodating the minority on what is a relatively small point. In the House, 435 people over there didn't want it in. So why not accommodate the minority? The Senator just comes out a bigger person.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate it, too. And I appreciate the discussion. Principle doesn't know minority and majority. Principle is deeply held. I thank the Senator very much. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. A study of ads placed in this year's Super Bowl in Phoenix concludes that 65 percent of the ads placed on Backpage's Phoenix Web site around the weekend of the game had indicators that the ad was for a victim of sex trafficking. Simply put, there are Internet companies that are profiting off the rape and abuse of children. This must stop. One way we can combat sex trafficking over the Internet is to make it a crime for a person such as the owner of a Web site to knowingly advertise a commercial sex act with a minor. As I said, Senator Kirk and I have introduced such an amendment. It would create a new offense of knowingly advertising a commercial sex act with a minor on the Internet. The amendment is identical to a House bill that has 52 cosponsors and passed that Chamber by voice vote. If we come to a point where we are voting on amendments to Senator Cornyn's bill, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I know Senator Kirk and I would bring it to the floor. Last October, 53 attorneys general offered a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the bill that Senator Kirk and I introduced last June that is similar to the amendment. This is the list of the attorneys general. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of 53 attorneys general.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The attorneys general wrote: The use of the ``adult services sections'' on websites such as Backpage.com has created virtual brothels where children are bought and sold using euphemistic labels such as ``escorts.'' This is a quote from a letter to this effect--I don't want anybody to think this is what I am saying, it is what they are saying. The use of the term ``adult services sections'' on websites such as Backpage.com has created virtual brothels where children are bought and sold using euphemistic labels such as ``escorts.'' Put simply, if you have knowledge that an advertisement placed on your Web site is for commercial sex with a minor, then you should be prosecuted. That is what our amendment would do. I have no doubt that prohibiting misconduct by a Web site owner is constitutional. As the Supreme Court has held on several occasions: ``Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.'' In fact, the Supreme Court in 1973 wrote: ``We have no doubt that a newspaper constitutionally could be forbidden to publish a want ad proposing a sale of narcotics or soliciting prostitutes.'' This amendment targets illegal conduct--commercial sex with minors-- that would not be protected by the First Amendment. It imposes liability on Web sites that know that their sites are being used to advertise minors for sex. In conclusion, the Internet has made this industry what it is, the second largest criminal industry in the world, second only to drugs, and it is up to us to do something about it. One of our duties in this body is to protect the most vulnerable of individuals. That includes children, and this is what this amendment does. Some say other parts of the bill will help stop sex trafficking, and we don't need to touch the Internet. That makes no sense to me. Seventy-six percent of sales of sex trafficking victims begin on the Internet. So you can just touch a small part of it--this touches 76 percent of victims. We cannot allow these Web sites to continue to operate with impunity. It is time to take a stand, stop the ads, and stop the exploitation of children. I look forward to Senator Kirk coming to the floor, presenting our amendment, assuming we can get past this block. This is so much more important than putting the Hyde amendment, cloaked in difficult language, in this bill, when the House bill doesn't contain it. The House understands that it is going to have difficulty passing it with this in the bill. Why isn't that recognized in this House? If they take that out, this bill swims through.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield to the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I did.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Because of what this legislation is. This legislation is the raping and the misconduct, sexually, with young girls, girls 14, 15, and 16. What if they are impregnated? Should they be entitled to be able to go and get an abortion? Does this body really want them to be forced to bear somebody else's child? So this offers the opportunity for some funding. These aren't wealthy girls. They don't live in Beverly Hills, Hyde Park, or any of these places that are prominent. They are on the streets. They are lost, maybe lost mentally, lost physically. They may have been abused, and now they are caught up in an industry where they are held hostage in the night. I have read of some in a neighborhood in my city being handcuffed at night, stripped, so they don't have clothes and can't run away. They are put out on the streets, they are watched. They are moved around. If it becomes too hot in one area, they are moved to another. They are moved to another State, and they come from other countries. It just seems to me to have this in this bill--and, Senator, I have great respect for you. I have wanted to work with you on this. I know you are sincere. It is not in the House bill. So maybe the House understands this. I can't speak for the House.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am pleased to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Not to my knowledge. Let me put it that way. Now you can blame me and say I should have known--I am not the only one on our committee, Senator, who is in this position, either, who communicated with your staff and was under the impression that the bill was identical to last year, with the exception of seven pieces, which are not this. The seven were detailed to us.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, I guess I disagree with that. Those of us who believe a woman should control her own reproductive system, in concert with her family and her doctor, have objection to the government getting involved and telling us what to do. It is actually not your reproductive system--and I say ``you'' generically, as a man--it is our reproductive system. In a sense this has been a battle for our identity. I sat on a term-setting and paroling authority in California in the 1960s, when abortion was illegal. I sentenced women to State prison for abortion. It had then an indeterminate sentence of between 6 months and 10 years. I saw abortionists come back to prison. I asked one, when I was setting the sentence: Why do you keep doing this? Her first name was Anita. And she said: Because I feel so sorry for the women. That was the way it was. I remember passing the plate at Stanford for a young woman to go to Tijuana for an abortion. The morbidity that was done to women through back-alley abortions, this has opened a Pandora's box of big emotional issues for women. As to the Hyde amendment, if there is rape and you can prove it, that is right; and then there is a 12-year-old, a 13-year-old who is out on the streets as a prostitute, which is a different thing--sort of the same but sort of different. The overwhelming evil of this trade overcomes any of this, because you take a young woman, and you probably change their life for the worse for the rest of her life. Imagine your daughter being out on the street; my daughter, my granddaughters being out on the street like this and what it would do to them being handcuffed and moved and traded around the country and girls brought from Nepal through India, all over Europe. This is what is going on in the world today, and we are sitting here arguing essentially about the availability of an abortion in this area. To me, that is so secondary to the enormous harm that is being done. I have great respect for my colleague. He has been a very distinguished jurist in his State. He makes sense when he speaks on the Judiciary Committee. We have listened to each other for more than a decade now. Let this drop. Let us get on with the work of this bill-- and the work of this bill isn't completed until we get some of the amendments that relate to the bill--and then I think we can debate this another day. I would say I plead a mea culpa. I wish I had known. All I can say is I did not know. Is that my fault? Probably. But I didn't know. So if you don't know, and you make a mistake, isn't the right thing to try to set that right? That is what we have tried to do, and women on our side, and some on my colleague's side, feel very strongly about this. My colleague knows over the years we have lost virtually every battle that has been on this floor and we are tired of it. So we are taking a stand and we are going to hold that stand.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I say one more thing? It is my understanding-- breaking news coming here--that there is no language in Federal statute on sex trafficking that defines a trafficking survivor as a victim of rape. So the victim would have to prove she is a victim of rape. Now, look at what happens. I don't know if in my colleague's legal career it took him close to very young victims of this who cover up and who don't want to let people know. I am sure my colleague knows all of the vicissitudes, the hard life. We are asking someone to prove it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in re-introducing the Protecting Kids from Candy-Flavored Drugs Act of 2015, formerly known as the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act. For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavor and market their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate products, or flavoring or coloring them, all with the intent to sell the drugs to minors. Recent reports by law enforcement and by the media demonstrate the need for this legislation. Last year, a captain in the Drugs and Vice Division of an Oregon police department told my office that he ``routinely encounter[s]'' ecstasy; it is ``often found packaged with cartoon characters on the labeling[,] shaped in pacifier form[,] or with the outline of various animals stamped [on the] drug when in pill form.'' He continued that `` `[c]andy' bracelets of MDMA [ecstasy] are also common. Various unique colors of pills are also frequently encountered with the clear intent to market and make the drug appealing to the young.'' Also last year, a narcotics team member in an Oregon sheriff's office told my office that he frequently encounters gummy bears laced with Xanex. The ``only customers are juveniles,'' according to the officer. He noted that if a youth gets hooked, he will become a regular customer. Law enforcement has made several notable busts of large productions of candied or flavored drugs. In January 2013, the Drug Enforcement Administration seized THC-laden soft drinks, cookies, brownies, and candy from two phony medical marijuana dispensaries in my home state of California. These dispensaries grossed an estimated $3.5 million annually. The names of the products seized show how the purveyors of these drugs marketed them under names that resembled popular soda and candy products: bottles were labeled ``7 High,'' ``Dr. Feelgood,'' and ``Laughing Lemonade''; cookies and brownies had such names as ``White Chip Hash Brownie'' and ``Reese's Crumbled Hash Brownie; and candy was named ``Jolly Stones THC Medicated Hard Candies'' and ``Stone Candy.'' Around Halloween 2013, police seized more than 40 pounds of THC-laced candy from a campus apartment at West Chester University, outside of Philadelphia. This candy was vividly colored, in a virtual rainbow assortment--pink, yellow, orange, blue, and red. When college students are peddling these drugs, it is not hard to see how minors can become targets of the operation. Many recent incidents involve methamphetamine, a drug whose users face a ``very high'' risk of ``developing psychotic symptoms-- hallucinations and delusions,'' according to a recent Harvard Medical School publication. A 2007 article in USA Today entitled ``DEA: Flavored meth use on the rise'' stated that ``[r]eports of candy- flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' In March of 2012, police in Chicago warned parents about a drug that ``looks and smells like candy,'' called ``strawberry quick'' or ``strawberry meth.'' Because of the drug's similarity to candy, police urged parents to tell their children not to take candy from anyone, not even a classmate. Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods to lure kids to try many dangerous drugs. The dealers' logic is simple: the best way to create a life-long customer is to hook that person when he or she is young. According to an Indiana sheriff quoted in a 2007 article entitled ``Fruity meth aimed at kids,'' flavoring a drug like methamphetamine makes it ``more attractive to teens, because it takes away meth's normally bitter taste, and some dealers will tell potential users this meth is safer, and has less side effects.'' That is why the practice of flavoring or coloring drugs to entice youth is so dangerous. It deceives the young customer into believing that he or she is not actually ingesting drugs, or at least not ingesting drugs that are as potent as non-flavored drugs. One in three teens already believes there is ``only a slight or no risk in trying [methamphetamine],'' according to the 2007 National Meth Use & Attitudes Survey. When you flavor methamphetamine or market it as candy or soda, the number of teens who believe that the drug is not harmful is surely higher. The size and sophistication of some of these operations is particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and Oakland, CA. Thousands of marijuana plants, and hundreds of marijuana- related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way'' candy bars. Similarly, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, CA, that was valued at $272,400; a significant quantity had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon, or strawberry. After that raid, one DEA agent stated that ``[a]ttempting to lure new, younger customers to a dangerous drug by adding candy `flavors' is an unconscionable marketing technique.'' I completely agree. That is why we need to act now to stop those who alter drugs to make them more appealing to youth. Under current Federal law, there is no enhanced penalty for a person who alters a controlled substance to make the drug more appealing to youth. Someone who alters a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation we are introducing today would be subject to an additional penalty of up to 10 years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone is convicted of a second offense that is prohibited by the act, that person would face an additional penalty of up to 20 years. Furthermore, a prosecutor who does not charge the separate crime of candying or flavoring a drug may still seek an enhancement at sentencing, under this bill. This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I am pleased that many of the leading national law enforcement and anti-drug organizations support this bill: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, HIDTA, Directors' Association have all endorsed this legislation. The individuals that these organizations represent are on the front lines working to keep these drugs out of our communities. The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation by unanimous consent in the 111th Congress, but it was not considered in the House. The time is now for Congress to finish this work, and enact this bill into law. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Grassley in supporting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in re-introducing the Protecting Kids from Candy-Flavored Drugs Act of 2015, formerly known as the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act. For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavor and market their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate products, or flavoring or coloring them, all with the intent to sell the drugs to minors. Recent reports by law enforcement and by the media demonstrate the need for this legislation. Last year, a captain in the Drugs and Vice Division of an Oregon police department told my office that he ``routinely encounter[s]'' ecstasy; it is ``often found packaged with cartoon characters on the labeling[,] shaped in pacifier form[,] or with the outline of various animals stamped [on the] drug when in pill form.'' He continued that `` `[c]andy' bracelets of MDMA [ecstasy] are also common. Various unique colors of pills are also frequently encountered with the clear intent to market and make the drug appealing to the young.'' Also last year, a narcotics team member in an Oregon sheriff's office told my office that he frequently encounters gummy bears laced with Xanex. The ``only customers are juveniles,'' according to the officer. He noted that if a youth gets hooked, he will become a regular customer. Law enforcement has made several notable busts of large productions of candied or flavored drugs. In January 2013, the Drug Enforcement Administration seized THC-laden soft drinks, cookies, brownies, and candy from two phony medical marijuana dispensaries in my home state of California. These dispensaries grossed an estimated $3.5 million annually. The names of the products seized show how the purveyors of these drugs marketed them under names that resembled popular soda and candy products: bottles were labeled ``7 High,'' ``Dr. Feelgood,'' and ``Laughing Lemonade''; cookies and brownies had such names as ``White Chip Hash Brownie'' and ``Reese's Crumbled Hash Brownie; and candy was named ``Jolly Stones THC Medicated Hard Candies'' and ``Stone Candy.'' Around Halloween 2013, police seized more than 40 pounds of THC-laced candy from a campus apartment at West Chester University, outside of Philadelphia. This candy was vividly colored, in a virtual rainbow assortment--pink, yellow, orange, blue, and red. When college students are peddling these drugs, it is not hard to see how minors can become targets of the operation. Many recent incidents involve methamphetamine, a drug whose users face a ``very high'' risk of ``developing psychotic symptoms-- hallucinations and delusions,'' according to a recent Harvard Medical School publication. A 2007 article in USA Today entitled ``DEA: Flavored meth use on the rise'' stated that ``[r]eports of candy- flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' In March of 2012, police in Chicago warned parents about a drug that ``looks and smells like candy,'' called ``strawberry quick'' or ``strawberry meth.'' Because of the drug's similarity to candy, police urged parents to tell their children not to take candy from anyone, not even a classmate. Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, with drug dealers trying various methods to lure kids to try many dangerous drugs. The dealers' logic is simple: the best way to create a life-long customer is to hook that person when he or she is young. According to an Indiana sheriff quoted in a 2007 article entitled ``Fruity meth aimed at kids,'' flavoring a drug like methamphetamine makes it ``more attractive to teens, because it takes away meth's normally bitter taste, and some dealers will tell potential users this meth is safer, and has less side effects.'' That is why the practice of flavoring or coloring drugs to entice youth is so dangerous. It deceives the young customer into believing that he or she is not actually ingesting drugs, or at least not ingesting drugs that are as potent as non-flavored drugs. One in three teens already believes there is ``only a slight or no risk in trying [methamphetamine],'' according to the 2007 National Meth Use & Attitudes Survey. When you flavor methamphetamine or market it as candy or soda, the number of teens who believe that the drug is not harmful is surely higher. The size and sophistication of some of these operations is particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and Oakland, CA. Thousands of marijuana plants, and hundreds of marijuana- related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way'' candy bars. Similarly, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, CA, that was valued at $272,400; a significant quantity had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon, or strawberry. After that raid, one DEA agent stated that ``[a]ttempting to lure new, younger customers to a dangerous drug by adding candy `flavors' is an unconscionable marketing technique.'' I completely agree. That is why we need to act now to stop those who alter drugs to make them more appealing to youth. Under current Federal law, there is no enhanced penalty for a person who alters a controlled substance to make the drug more appealing to youth. Someone who alters a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation we are introducing today would be subject to an additional penalty of up to 10 years, in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. If someone is convicted of a second offense that is prohibited by the act, that person would face an additional penalty of up to 20 years. Furthermore, a prosecutor who does not charge the separate crime of candying or flavoring a drug may still seek an enhancement at sentencing, under this bill. This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I am pleased that many of the leading national law enforcement and anti-drug organizations support this bill: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, HIDTA, Directors' Association have all endorsed this legislation. The individuals that these organizations represent are on the front lines working to keep these drugs out of our communities. The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation by unanimous consent in the 111th Congress, but it was not considered in the House. The time is now for Congress to finish this work, and enact this bill into law. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Grassley in supporting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California. This bill was first introduced in 2011 and has been the subject of Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearings in both the 112th and 113th Congresses. Since then, the Delta Protection Commission has completed a feasibility study, as required, and endorsed the legislation. Additionally, the National Park Service has confirmed that the study is consistent with the agency's interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the five Delta Counties to develop this legislation and look forward to continuing to partner with them as well as local, State and Federal agencies to care for and improve the Delta. This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area. The purpose of the heritage area is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history. The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of Federal, State, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The bill authorizes $10 million in Federal assistance over the next 15 years to provide technical assistance and matching grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations to implement the management plan to conserve and protect the delta's natural, historical and cultural resources. It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property. It will not affect fishing or hunting. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it. In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure. Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States. The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the area each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries. These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and three million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the State. Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America. The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally. Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway. Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California. This bill was first introduced in 2011 and has been the subject of Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearings in both the 112th and 113th Congresses. Since then, the Delta Protection Commission has completed a feasibility study, as required, and endorsed the legislation. Additionally, the National Park Service has confirmed that the study is consistent with the agency's interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the five Delta Counties to develop this legislation and look forward to continuing to partner with them as well as local, State and Federal agencies to care for and improve the Delta. This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area. The purpose of the heritage area is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history. The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of Federal, State, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The bill authorizes $10 million in Federal assistance over the next 15 years to provide technical assistance and matching grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations to implement the management plan to conserve and protect the delta's natural, historical and cultural resources. It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property. It will not affect fishing or hunting. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it. In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure. Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States. The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the area each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries. These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and three million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the State. Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America. The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally. Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway. Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act, along with my colleague Senator Susan Collins. This bill will help to prevent the rise of antibiotic resistant pathogens by ensuring that antibiotics are used prudently and judiciously in the agriculture industry. Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health threat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that antibiotic- resistant bacteria cause at least 23,000 deaths and 2 million infections each year in the United States. The CDC also estimates that antibiotic resistance costs the United States $20 billion in excess health costs each year. These statistics will only worsen if we do not take meaningful steps to reduce inappropriate and unnecessary antibiotic use. The agriculture industry has long used antibiotics to increase and maintain animal weight gain and feed efficiency. The industry has also relied on administering antibiotics to stave off infections associated with poor biosecurity or sanitation in barns and feedlots. However, based on what we know now about antibiotic resistance, these practices no longer make sense. I am particularly concerned about the rise of antibiotic resistance in foodborne pathogens. Foodborne illness is already a pressing public health problem, and the United States must ensure that agricultural antibiotic use practices do not lead to antibiotic resistance in foodborne bacteria. Already, the CDC estimates that 410,000 antibiotic resistant Salmonella and Campylobacter infections occur each year. In fact, nearly 1 in 4 Campylobacter infections analyzed by the CDC is drug- resistant. The CDC has also discovered that multidrug-resistant Salmonella results in more virulent infections, causing higher rates of hospitalization and bloodstream infections than normally expected with Salmonella infections. Clearly, more needs to be done to fight antibiotic resistance. This legislation will ensure that all medically important antibiotics approved for use in livestock feed and water pose no risk to human health due to the development of antibiotic resistance. In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, took a critically important first step by issuing Guidance for Industry 213, a policy that will eliminate the use of antibiotics for feed efficiency or weight gain uses in food-animal production. I am glad that the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries plan to adopt FDA's policy. This is a victory for public health, and I am eager to see this policy fully implemented. However, FDA's judicious antibiotic use policy has a gap that must be addressed in order to fully protect public health. You see, many of the antibiotics previously approved for disease prevention and control are at high risk of abuse or misuse. Some of these approved uses are at similar low doses as the production uses being phased out by FDA judicious use policies. Other uses do not have a defined duration of use or aren't approved at a therapeutic dose expected to treat a specific bacterial pathogen. In fact, the FDA has informed my staff that there are likely 107 antibiotics approved for disease prevention or control that fall into these categories. This is a problem as some producers may rely on these drugs far too often as a way to maintain animal production or to prevent recurrent infections when these important issues could be solved with better sanitation, biosecurity, and animal husbandry. This legislation would require pharmaceutical companies to submit additional information to the FDA to demonstrate that a disease prevention or control use of the drug does not pose a risk to human health due to the development of antibiotic resistance. It would apply only to antibiotics approved for disease prevention or control that are at high risk of overuse. If there is no risk to human health, the drug sponsor would also have to provide evidence to revise the conditions of using an antibiotic for disease prevention or control to ensure the drug is only used judiciously and sparingly. These revised drug approvals would be required to specify a therapeutic dose, be shown to control a specific bacterial infection, be targeted only to the group of animals at risk of developing a specific infection, and specify a defined duration of use. The bill also includes a sense of the Senate that all medically important antibiotics should be used only on the order of a licensed veterinarian who has a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship with a producer. This means that the veterinarian is familiar with the animals to which he or she is prescribing an antibiotic. Veterinary oversight is a key component of ensuring that antibiotics are not used inappropriately or unnecessarily. This legislation, therefore, would allow for medically important antibiotics to be used to prevent or control infections when absolutely necessary and when it does not pose a risk to human health. In addition to protecting human health, this legislation will help to preserve the efficacy of antibiotic for veterinarians, so that the drugs will continue to be effective for treating livestock and poultry when no other alternatives to these drugs exist. Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health threat. If we do not act now, many more Americans will suffer and, in some cases, die from infections that are no longer treatable. This legislation will protect public health while allowing the agriculture sector to use antibiotics when absolutely necessary to preserve animal health. I ask my colleagues to work with me to enact this important bipartisan bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act, along with my colleague Senator Susan Collins. This bill will help to prevent the rise of antibiotic resistant pathogens by ensuring that antibiotics are used prudently and judiciously in the agriculture industry. Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health threat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that antibiotic- resistant bacteria cause at least 23,000 deaths and 2 million infections each year in the United States. The CDC also estimates that antibiotic resistance costs the United States $20 billion in excess health costs each year. These statistics will only worsen if we do not take meaningful steps to reduce inappropriate and unnecessary antibiotic use. The agriculture industry has long used antibiotics to increase and maintain animal weight gain and feed efficiency. The industry has also relied on administering antibiotics to stave off infections associated with poor biosecurity or sanitation in barns and feedlots. However, based on what we know now about antibiotic resistance, these practices no longer make sense. I am particularly concerned about the rise of antibiotic resistance in foodborne pathogens. Foodborne illness is already a pressing public health problem, and the United States must ensure that agricultural antibiotic use practices do not lead to antibiotic resistance in foodborne bacteria. Already, the CDC estimates that 410,000 antibiotic resistant Salmonella and Campylobacter infections occur each year. In fact, nearly 1 in 4 Campylobacter infections analyzed by the CDC is drug- resistant. The CDC has also discovered that multidrug-resistant Salmonella results in more virulent infections, causing higher rates of hospitalization and bloodstream infections than normally expected with Salmonella infections. Clearly, more needs to be done to fight antibiotic resistance. This legislation will ensure that all medically important antibiotics approved for use in livestock feed and water pose no risk to human health due to the development of antibiotic resistance. In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, took a critically important first step by issuing Guidance for Industry 213, a policy that will eliminate the use of antibiotics for feed efficiency or weight gain uses in food-animal production. I am glad that the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries plan to adopt FDA's policy. This is a victory for public health, and I am eager to see this policy fully implemented. However, FDA's judicious antibiotic use policy has a gap that must be addressed in order to fully protect public health. You see, many of the antibiotics previously approved for disease prevention and control are at high risk of abuse or misuse. Some of these approved uses are at similar low doses as the production uses being phased out by FDA judicious use policies. Other uses do not have a defined duration of use or aren't approved at a therapeutic dose expected to treat a specific bacterial pathogen. In fact, the FDA has informed my staff that there are likely 107 antibiotics approved for disease prevention or control that fall into these categories. This is a problem as some producers may rely on these drugs far too often as a way to maintain animal production or to prevent recurrent infections when these important issues could be solved with better sanitation, biosecurity, and animal husbandry. This legislation would require pharmaceutical companies to submit additional information to the FDA to demonstrate that a disease prevention or control use of the drug does not pose a risk to human health due to the development of antibiotic resistance. It would apply only to antibiotics approved for disease prevention or control that are at high risk of overuse. If there is no risk to human health, the drug sponsor would also have to provide evidence to revise the conditions of using an antibiotic for disease prevention or control to ensure the drug is only used judiciously and sparingly. These revised drug approvals would be required to specify a therapeutic dose, be shown to control a specific bacterial infection, be targeted only to the group of animals at risk of developing a specific infection, and specify a defined duration of use. The bill also includes a sense of the Senate that all medically important antibiotics should be used only on the order of a licensed veterinarian who has a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship with a producer. This means that the veterinarian is familiar with the animals to which he or she is prescribing an antibiotic. Veterinary oversight is a key component of ensuring that antibiotics are not used inappropriately or unnecessarily. This legislation, therefore, would allow for medically important antibiotics to be used to prevent or control infections when absolutely necessary and when it does not pose a risk to human health. In addition to protecting human health, this legislation will help to preserve the efficacy of antibiotic for veterinarians, so that the drugs will continue to be effective for treating livestock and poultry when no other alternatives to these drugs exist. Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health threat. If we do not act now, many more Americans will suffer and, in some cases, die from infections that are no longer treatable. This legislation will protect public health while allowing the agriculture sector to use antibiotics when absolutely necessary to preserve animal health. I ask my colleagues to work with me to enact this important bipartisan bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay is truly a national treasure. Encompassing approximately 550 square miles, it is the largest estuary on the west coast, and is vital to the Nation for both ecological and economic reasons. It is home to more than 1,000 plant and wildlife species, roughly 77 percent of California's remaining perennial estuarine wetlands, and an important stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Marshes around the bay help prevent flooding, protecting more than 40 cities in nine counties, one of the Nation's busiest seaports, and two international airports. The bay is critical to the region's economy, which if it were its own nation, would be the world's 19th largest economy. Over the last 150 years, the water quality and health of the San Francisco Bay Estuary have been diminished by pollution, invasive species, loss of wetland habitat and other factors. The degradation has not only impacted fish and wildlife, but has also reduced the estuary's ability to support important economic activities such as commercial and sport fishing, shipping, agriculture, recreation, and tourism. Federal funding in recent years has started the Bay's recovery process by investing in projects that improve water quality and restore critical habitat. These investments, $43 million between 2008 and 2015, were critical to leveraging $145 million from other partners. But much work remains. That is why I am pleased to introduce the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act with Senator Boxer, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Companion legislation has also been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jackie Speier. This bill was first introduced in the 112th Congress. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported favorably on the bill in both the 112th and 113th Congresses and recommended its passage. This bill recognizes the important restoration work that must be done to restore and protect the iconic San Francisco Bay. It authorizes $5 million a year for restoration work between 2015 and 2019, prioritizing funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and in turn reinvigorate recreation, tourism, and agricultural activities in and around the bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay is truly a national treasure. Encompassing approximately 550 square miles, it is the largest estuary on the west coast, and is vital to the Nation for both ecological and economic reasons. It is home to more than 1,000 plant and wildlife species, roughly 77 percent of California's remaining perennial estuarine wetlands, and an important stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Marshes around the bay help prevent flooding, protecting more than 40 cities in nine counties, one of the Nation's busiest seaports, and two international airports. The bay is critical to the region's economy, which if it were its own nation, would be the world's 19th largest economy. Over the last 150 years, the water quality and health of the San Francisco Bay Estuary have been diminished by pollution, invasive species, loss of wetland habitat and other factors. The degradation has not only impacted fish and wildlife, but has also reduced the estuary's ability to support important economic activities such as commercial and sport fishing, shipping, agriculture, recreation, and tourism. Federal funding in recent years has started the Bay's recovery process by investing in projects that improve water quality and restore critical habitat. These investments, $43 million between 2008 and 2015, were critical to leveraging $145 million from other partners. But much work remains. That is why I am pleased to introduce the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act with Senator Boxer, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Companion legislation has also been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jackie Speier. This bill was first introduced in the 112th Congress. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported favorably on the bill in both the 112th and 113th Congresses and recommended its passage. This bill recognizes the important restoration work that must be done to restore and protect the iconic San Francisco Bay. It authorizes $5 million a year for restoration work between 2015 and 2019, prioritizing funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and in turn reinvigorate recreation, tourism, and agricultural activities in and around the bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address what I believe is a national security and public safety weakness. The United States currently has a system in place to keep known or suspected terrorists off of airplanes. But even though they can't fly, these very same terrorists can walk into any gun store anywhere in the country and purchase a firearm. If a terrorist is too dangerous to board an airplane, that same individual is too dangerous to possess a gun. That's why we are introducing the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill to fix this glaring loophole in our background check system. This is not a hypothetical issue. Individuals with links to terrorism regularly purchase guns in the United States. According to data just received from the Government Accountability Office, between February 2004 and December 2014, there were at least 2,233 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist--individuals who at the time were on federal terrorist watch lists--tried to buy a firearm or obtain a firearm or explosives license or permit. In 91 percent of these cases, a total of 2,043 separate occasions, those known or suspected terrorists successfully passed a background check. The Kouachi brothers, the terrorists who killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, are reportedly on the U.S. no fly list. However, if they had made it to the United States, the fact that they were on terrorist watch lists would have done nothing to prevent them from legally buying firearms or explosives. One of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was reportedly placed on two terrorist watch lists in 2011. He later killed three and injured 170 with homemade explosives and killed a police officer with a handgun. In 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed one and critically injured another. According to press reports, Muhammad had been under investigation by the FBI for suspected links to terrorism after traveling to Yemen, where he was arrested for using a Somali passport. Those actions certainly would have placed him on terrorist watch lists, but would not have kept him from buying firearms. The bill that we are introducing today is very simple. It would close this dangerous loophole by giving the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from buying explosives or a gun if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. It would also give the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from obtaining a license to sell guns or explosives if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The Attorney General could use a range of tools to make this decision, most notable terrorist watch lists and the no fly list. In addition to making the decision at the discretion of the Attorney General, the bill includes other safeguards to make sure innocent individuals are not denied the ability to buy firearms or explosives. The first safeguard is that very high standards already exist for an individual to be designated as a known or suspected terrorist. The FBI or the National Counterterrorism Center must nominate the individual to be included in the Terrorist Screening Database. There must be sufficient identifying data about the person to ensure they can be accurately matched with the terrorist on the watch list. The circumstances must meet the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard. This means the facts of the case must be strong enough to reasonably determine the person is known or suspected to be engaged in terrorism. The second safeguard is that every provision in current law allowing individuals to appeal the denial of a firearm or explosive purchase will also apply to this bill. The office within the FBI that handles the background check system, known as the NICS Section, or the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section, must provide the reason for denial upon request. Individuals then have the right to correct any inaccurate records in the background check system. If a purchase is still denied, individuals can take the Justice Department to court to overturn the decision. Gun safety safety bills are often labeled as Democratic bills. That is not the case here. This bill was first proposed by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush, who recognized that keeping guns away from terrorists is good policy. Attorney General Holder has also testified that the Justice Department under President Obama continues to support this proposal. The bill has also been endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety. This group represents more than 1,000 current and former mayors, both Republican and Democrat. The legislation has also been endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I would also like to thank the bill's cosponsors: Senators Whitehouse, Schumer, Durbin, Blumenthal, Boxer, Reed, Menendez, Gillibrand, Murphy, Warren, and Markey. All of you are champions for stronger gun safety laws. The terrorist attack in Paris should be a wake-up call for everyone. This sort of terrorist attack is very possible here in the United States, and the ability for known and suspected terrorists to buy guns and explosives makes it even more likely. Congress should close this loophole in our background check system and ensure that known and suspected terrorists can't easily gain access to these weapons. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address what I believe is a national security and public safety weakness. The United States currently has a system in place to keep known or suspected terrorists off of airplanes. But even though they can't fly, these very same terrorists can walk into any gun store anywhere in the country and purchase a firearm. If a terrorist is too dangerous to board an airplane, that same individual is too dangerous to possess a gun. That's why we are introducing the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill to fix this glaring loophole in our background check system. This is not a hypothetical issue. Individuals with links to terrorism regularly purchase guns in the United States. According to data just received from the Government Accountability Office, between February 2004 and December 2014, there were at least 2,233 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist--individuals who at the time were on federal terrorist watch lists--tried to buy a firearm or obtain a firearm or explosives license or permit. In 91 percent of these cases, a total of 2,043 separate occasions, those known or suspected terrorists successfully passed a background check. The Kouachi brothers, the terrorists who killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, are reportedly on the U.S. no fly list. However, if they had made it to the United States, the fact that they were on terrorist watch lists would have done nothing to prevent them from legally buying firearms or explosives. One of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was reportedly placed on two terrorist watch lists in 2011. He later killed three and injured 170 with homemade explosives and killed a police officer with a handgun. In 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed one and critically injured another. According to press reports, Muhammad had been under investigation by the FBI for suspected links to terrorism after traveling to Yemen, where he was arrested for using a Somali passport. Those actions certainly would have placed him on terrorist watch lists, but would not have kept him from buying firearms. The bill that we are introducing today is very simple. It would close this dangerous loophole by giving the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from buying explosives or a gun if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. It would also give the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from obtaining a license to sell guns or explosives if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The Attorney General could use a range of tools to make this decision, most notable terrorist watch lists and the no fly list. In addition to making the decision at the discretion of the Attorney General, the bill includes other safeguards to make sure innocent individuals are not denied the ability to buy firearms or explosives. The first safeguard is that very high standards already exist for an individual to be designated as a known or suspected terrorist. The FBI or the National Counterterrorism Center must nominate the individual to be included in the Terrorist Screening Database. There must be sufficient identifying data about the person to ensure they can be accurately matched with the terrorist on the watch list. The circumstances must meet the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard. This means the facts of the case must be strong enough to reasonably determine the person is known or suspected to be engaged in terrorism. The second safeguard is that every provision in current law allowing individuals to appeal the denial of a firearm or explosive purchase will also apply to this bill. The office within the FBI that handles the background check system, known as the NICS Section, or the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section, must provide the reason for denial upon request. Individuals then have the right to correct any inaccurate records in the background check system. If a purchase is still denied, individuals can take the Justice Department to court to overturn the decision. Gun safety safety bills are often labeled as Democratic bills. That is not the case here. This bill was first proposed by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush, who recognized that keeping guns away from terrorists is good policy. Attorney General Holder has also testified that the Justice Department under President Obama continues to support this proposal. The bill has also been endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety. This group represents more than 1,000 current and former mayors, both Republican and Democrat. The legislation has also been endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I would also like to thank the bill's cosponsors: Senators Whitehouse, Schumer, Durbin, Blumenthal, Boxer, Reed, Menendez, Gillibrand, Murphy, Warren, and Markey. All of you are champions for stronger gun safety laws. The terrorist attack in Paris should be a wake-up call for everyone. This sort of terrorist attack is very possible here in the United States, and the ability for known and suspected terrorists to buy guns and explosives makes it even more likely. Congress should close this loophole in our background check system and ensure that known and suspected terrorists can't easily gain access to these weapons. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire- Damaged Home Rebuilding Act. This legislation is simple. It allows families living in federally- designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is destroyed by a fire. The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to block reconstruction after floods, but which have been applied to block reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as well. I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from Sacramento, Jennifer Taylor. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood burned down, and she was denied when she applied for a permit to rebuild it. The county informed her that Federal floodplain regulations required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood. Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the rest? More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant, and would not be covered by her insurance. Instead, the cost would be imposed on a family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy. When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one the family was willing to bear. But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project would cost an additional $200,000. Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their insurance. There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake. This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult time, the Federal Government is instead blocking them from rebuilding. Why? Because the Federal Government has failed to maintain adequate flood protection. It just doesn't seem fair. The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing local communities to grant variances to federal flood plain regulations without jeopardizing their participation in the program. The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the following conditions are met: communities must already have taken steps to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future. The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home. The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed structure. The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood Insurance Program. These limitations will only allow families to rebuild very limited circumstances after tragedy strikes that is unrelated to a flooding event. The number of waivers local governments can approve is capped at ten per year so that this authority is not subject to abuse. This limit will ensure that waivers are used prudently and sparingly. I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses to be constructed without adequate mitigation in an area where you know that flooding is likely. The Federal floodplain regulations were put in place to block individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their homes. They were also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding after a flood. By doing so, the Federal Government limits its liability for future flood insurance claims. Fire-damaged homes clearly represent an exception to these circumstances, however. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy. City and county governments must be empowered to make case by case judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground level. That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow them to do what makes sense for their communities and will allow families to rebuild after a fire or other non-flood disaster. This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues will work to quickly adopt the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Dr. Ashton B. Carter to be our next Secretary of Defense. I have known Dr. Carter for many years, both inside government and out, and especially as members of the Aspen Strategy Group. I have found Dr. Carter to be deeply thoughtful and extraordinarily competent. I am confident he will serve with distinction as our next Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. It is vital to swiftly confirm Dr. Carter because we face countless threats around the world, many of which know no simple resolution. On all these national security issues, I strongly believe we need someone in charge who brings leadership, experience, intellect and a strategic lens. Dr. Carter possesses all of these things, and I fully expect he will put his expertise and counsel to good use in tackling our Nation's pressing challenges. First and foremost, Dr. Carter will need to lead the Pentagon in confronting and ultimately defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL. ISIL is an unconscionably evil terrorist organization. Its barbarity knows no bounds. ISIL has burned alive Jordanian Capt. Moath al- Kasasbeh, beheaded American journalists and aid workers, and inflicts daily savagery on the people of Syria and Iraq, including the murder of civilians, women, children, and minorities. To marshal international support to sustain the global coalition and ensure ISIL is ultimately eliminated, I trust Dr. Carter to serve his country well. At the same time, Dr. Carter will need to focus on our drawdown in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent, ISIL is attempting to establish itself in the country, and the Afghan National Security Forces need our continued support. In 2011, the United States fully withdrew from Iraq only to see that country fall apart due to sectarian violence and undue foreign influence. We cannot afford the same in Afghanistan. I have discussed with Dr. Carter my view that our drawdown in Afghanistan should not be linked to an arbitrary timeline, but rather to the needs on the ground and the necessity of an orderly transition. Dr. Carter's deep history with nuclear nonproliferation issues will also be important in the coming years. Unfortunately, many of our nonproliferation programs with Russia have gone dormant due to our worsening bilateral relationship. We cannot let this continue to happen. For decades the United States and Russia have worked together to secure nuclear materials and reduce our nuclear arsenals because doing so is important not only for U.S. security, but for global security. Finding a way to work constructively with Russia on securing and eliminating nuclear material, despite its invasion of Ukraine and continued support for the Assad regime in Syria, is clearly a most difficult assignment. I think Dr. Carter is up to the task. Finally, Dr. Carter will need to deal with the extremely difficult spending limitations created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. If Congress cannot come together to find a bipartisan solution to raise the spending caps, like we did for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, overall security spending will only be allowed to increase by $1.8 billion this year, that is a less than one-half of 1 percent increase. At a time when threats to our Nation are increasing, not decreasing, I am deeply concerned that, under current law, our defense budget will not be allowed to rise to meet current threats. Dr. Carter understands this. In his confirmation hearing, he said, ``I very much hope that we can find a way together out of the wilderness of sequester.'' I fully agree, and I urge my colleagues to work together to increase the spending caps for both defense and non-defense programs. Dr. Carter is a rare combination of a strategic foreign policy thinker and an expert on the roles and procedures of the Department of Defense. In his time as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, he focused on key national security issues like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and relationships with other major world powers. In his two recent positions at the Pentagon--as Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and as the Deputy Secretary--Dr. Carter has managed the Department's business functions and ran its day-to-day operations. As Secretary, he will bring his unique experience in both sides of the job to the numerous challenges the Department and the Nation face. Dr. Carter returns to the Defense Department at a time of immense global upheaval. Leading the Defense Department in such a time is no easy task, but I believe he will prove to be an excellent pick to help our country address these challenges head-on. He has the support of the President, the military, the civilian leadership of the Department, and by virtue of this vote, the U.S. Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire- Damaged Home Rebuilding Act. This legislation is simple. It allows families living in federally- designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is destroyed by a fire. The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to block reconstruction after floods, but which have been applied to block reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as well. I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from Sacramento, Jennifer Taylor. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood burned down, and she was denied when she applied for a permit to rebuild it. The county informed her that Federal floodplain regulations required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood. Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the rest? More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant, and would not be covered by her insurance. Instead, the cost would be imposed on a family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy. When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one the family was willing to bear. But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project would cost an additional $200,000. Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their insurance. There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake. This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult time, the Federal Government is instead blocking them from rebuilding. Why? Because the Federal Government has failed to maintain adequate flood protection. It just doesn't seem fair. The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing local communities to grant variances to federal flood plain regulations without jeopardizing their participation in the program. The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the following conditions are met: communities must already have taken steps to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future. The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home. The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed structure. The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood Insurance Program. These limitations will only allow families to rebuild very limited circumstances after tragedy strikes that is unrelated to a flooding event. The number of waivers local governments can approve is capped at ten per year so that this authority is not subject to abuse. This limit will ensure that waivers are used prudently and sparingly. I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses to be constructed without adequate mitigation in an area where you know that flooding is likely. The Federal floodplain regulations were put in place to block individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their homes. They were also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding after a flood. By doing so, the Federal Government limits its liability for future flood insurance claims. Fire-damaged homes clearly represent an exception to these circumstances, however. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy. City and county governments must be empowered to make case by case judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground level. That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow them to do what makes sense for their communities and will allow families to rebuild after a fire or other non-flood disaster. This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues will work to quickly adopt the bill.