Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for Michael Botticelli as nominee to be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Botticelli has more than two decades of experience supporting those who have been affected by substance use and abuse. Prior to joining the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 2012, when he was confirmed as the Deputy Director, Mr. Botticelli served as the director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. While there, he expanded prevention, treatment, and recovery services, and worked to implement evidence-based programs, including a youth treatment system, early intervention and treatment programs, and overdose prevention programs. During Mr. Botticelli's tenure as director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services, he confronted the issues of heroin and prescription drug abuse head-on and worked to ensure that police officers in Quincy, MA were trained and equipped to resuscitate overdose victims using naloxone, an emergency opioid overdose reversal medication. Since October 2010, Quincy police officers have administered naloxone 220 times, almost always resulting in successful overdose reversal. This program has been replicated in communities throughout the country. As chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I had the opportunity to work closely with Mr. Botticelli during his time as Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Most recently, Mr. Botticelli testified at a hearing I chaired to address America's addiction to prescription opioids and heroin, where he emphasized the need for increased prescriber education to reduce prescription drug abuse and expanded access to naloxone nationwide. In addition, Mr. Botticelli has committed to working with my office to address the import, manufacture, and distribution of dangerous synthetic drugs, which take far too many lives, far too early. At a previous hearing on the topic, he provided valuable insight into the threat that synthetic drugs pose and it is my hope that we can continue to work together as the Senate considers legislation to address this threat. Mr. Botticelli has also been very clear about the fact that marijuana remains illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, and has done much to disavow the notion that marijuana is harmless. As a person in recovery himself, Mr. Botticelli brings a unique perspective to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I believe this perspective will enable him to successfully implement a national drug control strategy that recognizes the need for both supply and demand reduction and appropriately incorporates an effective public health approach that is coupled with law enforcement efforts. I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Botticelli as he leads the Office of National Drug Control Policy in implementing a whole of government approach to combatting illegal and illicit drug use. I believe Michael Botticelli will serve with distinction as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act, a piece of legislation that serves as an update to the historic California Desert Protection Act of 1994. This bill reflects our attempt to achieve consensus among the various uses of desert land and the many stakeholders involved. This bill is bipartisan and it charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. It protects additional desert land. It helps manage my State's natural resources. It balances competing interests. It includes provisions on recreation and renewable energy development. Overall, it ensures that the California desert will remain what it is today: a true American treasure. This bill has been a long time in the making. Only three months after I was sworn in as Senator, in January 1993, I introduced the Desert Protection Act. I picked up where my predecessors left off, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994. This law was the largest land conservation designation in the continental United States: It protected or increased existing protection for 9.6 million acres of desert land. It established the iconic national parks of Joshua Tree and Death Valley, as well as the Mojave National Preserve. It helped save habitats for endangered species. It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California-- a boon for the economy. It has ensured that the beautiful landscapes will be enjoyed for generations. I recently visited the desert to celebrate the 20-year anniversary of that legislation becoming law. I was once again reminded how stunning the special land is. Simply put, it is an icon of the American West. I became even more convinced: now is the time to do even more. This is why I am introducing new legislation--to build upon the legacy of 1994. The bill I am introducing today has a simple goal: to help manage California's desert resources with a well-planned approach that balances conservation, recreation, energy production and other needs. This bill is first and foremost a bipartisan bill. It brings so many groups together: Environmental groups; State and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; the Defense Department; energy companies; California's public utility companies; and many others. To account for all the uses of the desert, this whole effort was based on an attempt to find consensus. We have worked very hard over the years to build that consensus. We have consulted these stakeholders over the past 6 years. We have had thousands of hours of discussions. They have provided invaluable input and I am grateful for all of them coming to the table. The cornerstone of the legislation is the creation of two new national monuments: First is the Mojave Trails National Monument, which would encompass 965,000 acres. Of that, 196,000 acres is Caetellus lands, the areas acquired or donated to the Federal Government between 1999 and 2004 with the purpose of conserving land for the American public. It should be noted that this donated land, which stretches from the Mexican border to San Bernardino county, was the largest land donation to the U.S. Government in the continental United States. But recently, the aim to conserve it was threatened by the development of some solar energy projects. That is why this bill is necessary: to ensure that the intention of those generous donors, to protect this land in perpetuity, is actually realized. The second monument designation is the Sand to Snow National Monument. This would be made up of 135,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley to the top of Mount San Gorgonio. The Mojave Trails National Monument is essential as it contains important wildlife corridors and habitats. The Sand to Snow National Monument, likewise, would be one of the most environmentally diverse monuments in the country, including habitat for 240 species of migrating and breeding birds. The bill has many other conservation provisions including: designating six BLM wilderness areas, covering 250,000 acres of land, designating 77 miles along 4 waterways as Wild and Scenic River; adding land to the Death Valley National Park, 39,000 acres, Mojave National Preserve, 22,000 acres, and Joshua Tree National Park, 4,500 acres. Conserving pristine desert land such as this is most definitely in the interests of our country. The California desert is a very special place and it deserves to stay that way. The bill also designates five existing BLM Off-Highway Vehicle Areas, covering approximately 142,000 acres of desert, as permanent Off- Highway Vehicle, OHV, recreation areas. As has been stated, the desert has many uses, and motorists have long used the area for recreation. These provisions give off-highway enthusiasts the certainty they need. Their use of the desert will be protected as much as conservation areas are. In fact, in this regard we have had success in recent years. Congressman Paul Cook and I brokered an agreement for the mixed use of Johnson Valley, which was the subject of debate between the Marine Corps and off-road vehicle enthusiasts. We brought the parties together and reached a compromise. We made clear what land was for off-roading, what land was for Marine Corps training only and what land was to be shared. This model of compromise should be instructive. When the parties come together, as they have in the case of this bill, we can achieve an equitable and fair distribution of the land. Another use of the desert land that we must take into account is renewable energy. Let me be clear: developing cleaner energy is important for California's economy and for our efforts to fight global warming. But I also feel strongly that we must be very careful where these facilities are located. Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place. In April 2009 there were 28 solar and wind energy proposals on lands proposed to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development. Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. So what happened in the nearly 6 years since then? First, the Energy and Interior Departments developed new solar energy zones. These zones allow projects to be developed on lands least likely to harm plant and wildlife species, and allow projects to be completed faster and with fewer conflicts. This is a smart compromise. Second, California has worked closely with Federal agencies to develop the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere. Today, none of the land proposed for renewable development or transmission as part of these initiatives conflicts with the conservation proposed in this bill. This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward. The bill I am introducing also takes additional action to help promote responsible renewable energy development. Specifically, the bill requires the Interior Department to exchange approximately 370,000 acres of small, isolated parcels of State land for Federal land. By swapping state land that is often surrounded by wilderness and national parks for other federal land, these exchanges will provide California with sites for renewable energy production, recreation or other uses. I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard. The text of this legislation represents a consensus effort. Most importantly, I hope they recognize the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. It is the right thing to do, and the California desert needs it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act, a piece of legislation that serves as an update to the historic California Desert Protection Act of 1994. This bill reflects our attempt to achieve consensus among the various uses of desert land and the many stakeholders involved. This bill is bipartisan and it charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. It protects additional desert land. It helps manage my State's natural resources. It balances competing interests. It includes provisions on recreation and renewable energy development. Overall, it ensures that the California desert will remain what it is today: a true American treasure. This bill has been a long time in the making. Only three months after I was sworn in as Senator, in January 1993, I introduced the Desert Protection Act. I picked up where my predecessors left off, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994. This law was the largest land conservation designation in the continental United States: It protected or increased existing protection for 9.6 million acres of desert land. It established the iconic national parks of Joshua Tree and Death Valley, as well as the Mojave National Preserve. It helped save habitats for endangered species. It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California-- a boon for the economy. It has ensured that the beautiful landscapes will be enjoyed for generations. I recently visited the desert to celebrate the 20-year anniversary of that legislation becoming law. I was once again reminded how stunning the special land is. Simply put, it is an icon of the American West. I became even more convinced: now is the time to do even more. This is why I am introducing new legislation--to build upon the legacy of 1994. The bill I am introducing today has a simple goal: to help manage California's desert resources with a well-planned approach that balances conservation, recreation, energy production and other needs. This bill is first and foremost a bipartisan bill. It brings so many groups together: Environmental groups; State and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; the Defense Department; energy companies; California's public utility companies; and many others. To account for all the uses of the desert, this whole effort was based on an attempt to find consensus. We have worked very hard over the years to build that consensus. We have consulted these stakeholders over the past 6 years. We have had thousands of hours of discussions. They have provided invaluable input and I am grateful for all of them coming to the table. The cornerstone of the legislation is the creation of two new national monuments: First is the Mojave Trails National Monument, which would encompass 965,000 acres. Of that, 196,000 acres is Caetellus lands, the areas acquired or donated to the Federal Government between 1999 and 2004 with the purpose of conserving land for the American public. It should be noted that this donated land, which stretches from the Mexican border to San Bernardino county, was the largest land donation to the U.S. Government in the continental United States. But recently, the aim to conserve it was threatened by the development of some solar energy projects. That is why this bill is necessary: to ensure that the intention of those generous donors, to protect this land in perpetuity, is actually realized. The second monument designation is the Sand to Snow National Monument. This would be made up of 135,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley to the top of Mount San Gorgonio. The Mojave Trails National Monument is essential as it contains important wildlife corridors and habitats. The Sand to Snow National Monument, likewise, would be one of the most environmentally diverse monuments in the country, including habitat for 240 species of migrating and breeding birds. The bill has many other conservation provisions including: designating six BLM wilderness areas, covering 250,000 acres of land, designating 77 miles along 4 waterways as Wild and Scenic River; adding land to the Death Valley National Park, 39,000 acres, Mojave National Preserve, 22,000 acres, and Joshua Tree National Park, 4,500 acres. Conserving pristine desert land such as this is most definitely in the interests of our country. The California desert is a very special place and it deserves to stay that way. The bill also designates five existing BLM Off-Highway Vehicle Areas, covering approximately 142,000 acres of desert, as permanent Off- Highway Vehicle, OHV, recreation areas. As has been stated, the desert has many uses, and motorists have long used the area for recreation. These provisions give off-highway enthusiasts the certainty they need. Their use of the desert will be protected as much as conservation areas are. In fact, in this regard we have had success in recent years. Congressman Paul Cook and I brokered an agreement for the mixed use of Johnson Valley, which was the subject of debate between the Marine Corps and off-road vehicle enthusiasts. We brought the parties together and reached a compromise. We made clear what land was for off-roading, what land was for Marine Corps training only and what land was to be shared. This model of compromise should be instructive. When the parties come together, as they have in the case of this bill, we can achieve an equitable and fair distribution of the land. Another use of the desert land that we must take into account is renewable energy. Let me be clear: developing cleaner energy is important for California's economy and for our efforts to fight global warming. But I also feel strongly that we must be very careful where these facilities are located. Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place. In April 2009 there were 28 solar and wind energy proposals on lands proposed to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development. Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. So what happened in the nearly 6 years since then? First, the Energy and Interior Departments developed new solar energy zones. These zones allow projects to be developed on lands least likely to harm plant and wildlife species, and allow projects to be completed faster and with fewer conflicts. This is a smart compromise. Second, California has worked closely with Federal agencies to develop the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere. Today, none of the land proposed for renewable development or transmission as part of these initiatives conflicts with the conservation proposed in this bill. This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward. The bill I am introducing also takes additional action to help promote responsible renewable energy development. Specifically, the bill requires the Interior Department to exchange approximately 370,000 acres of small, isolated parcels of State land for Federal land. By swapping state land that is often surrounded by wilderness and national parks for other federal land, these exchanges will provide California with sites for renewable energy production, recreation or other uses. I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard. The text of this legislation represents a consensus effort. Most importantly, I hope they recognize the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. It is the right thing to do, and the California desert needs it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I come today to support legislation to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, without any extraneous or politically controversial policy riders. Let me be clear. The immigration provisions that are approved in the House are bill killers. We have now had three votes on cloture. The votes have held steady. It is clear the votes are not here to pass a bill out of the Senate with the riders attached to it. I just want to speak of the importance of the Department of Homeland Security because I was in the Senate when the Department was developed. It is a combination of 22 agencies. It has over 200,000 employees. Over the years it has become more and more vital to efforts to prevent terrorist attacks on this country. So how, you might ask? TSA, a member of that Department, funded by that Department, screens airline passengers within the United States, while Customs and Border Protection screens passenger data of travelers entering the country. So it is irresponsible to endanger these missions in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris, Ottawa, Sydney, and elsewhere. Secondly, DHS plays a critical role in responding to natural disasters. Resources and personnel from FEMA, which is funded through DHS, are vital in times of flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and other disasters. Third, DHS also guards against cyber warfare through network security, electronic crimes investigations, and State and local cybercrime training. So it is hard to fathom delaying $861 million for cyber security the same day we learn about the massive cyber attack against Anthem Blue Cross. A number of key national security programs unrelated to immigration would also be in danger. These include the Federal Air Marshal Service, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, and DHS intelligence activities. Ironically, blocking this bill over immigration riders would also delay increased funding for border patrols and more manpower to combat human smuggling and trafficking, which so many Members of this Congress want. Holding up this bill will also delay and reduce more than $2.5 billion in grants for State and local law enforcement agencies and emergency responders. This puts our country in jeopardy. These grants help with transit and port security, firefighter assistance, and State homeland security. Make no mistake, the Department of Homeland Security is very active in securing our borders and deporting dangerous individuals. It has a wonderful Secretary. I think every Member of this body appreciates Jeh Johnson and knows the role he played with managing the sudden influx of children into our country on the southern border. We know of his effectiveness in bringing together what has been a very ungainly combination of 22 agencies into a smoothly run entity. This must be very disappointing to him. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 315,943 people, focusing its efforts on removing criminals, and the agency was successful in that goal. Fifty-six percent of those removed last year had been convicted of crimes. That is 177,960 fewer criminals on our streets. I would say good job. Rather than holding DHS and our national security hostage, I urge my colleagues to support the bill introduced by Senators Mikulski and Shaheen to provide full funding for DHS at levels necessary to do its job. We can't keep funding this agency with short-term continuing resolutions. It doesn't make sense. We certainly can't keep threatening to shut it down. Yesterday in our joint meeting I had an opportunity to say what this body was like when I came to it. I think I can say with certainty this wouldn't have happened 20 years ago. We would have recognized the importance of the agency and told people to come back with another bill at another time. The importance of getting some regular order in our appropriations bills is important because we are not getting regular appropriations bills passed. This is so important that I think everyone thought it wouldn't be disturbed. Instead, these policy riders are stuck on it, and the people who put them on know they are offensive to just about half of this body and it is going to present a major challenge to get a bill passed. Let me talk a little bit about the issue; that is, the five riders that Republicans want to add to the bill. The goal of the riders, I think--and I think everyone would agree with this--is to unravel temporary actions President Obama has taken in an effort to make sense of what is, we all admit, a broken immigration system. These actions, I would note, wouldn't have been necessary if the House had voted on the bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill that passed in 2013 by a vote of 68 to 32--68 to 32. It was the product of months of intense negotiations and hearings. I remember it well. There were eight bipartisan Members who negotiated a bill to put before the Judiciary Committee. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee debated the bill for weeks. A total of some 300 amendments were filed, with 212 amendments in committee that were considered, half of which were Republican, and 136 amendments were adopted. The House refused to even debate this bill, which in my view--and I have been here a long time--has been the result of one of the most profound bipartisan efforts on a big bill in the last 20 years. The House even refused to recognize it by a debate, let alone a vote, let alone passing something, some part of the bill, so there could be a conference and differences reconciled. Now the House comes to us by putting what they know are going to be highly problematic riders on what is an absolutely crucial appropriations bill. This is the kind of thing I tried to say yesterday. It just doesn't make sense to me. It would not have happened some time ago. People would not have tried to force their will through on an important bill when they knew they didn't have the votes. If three votes on cloture don't show that, I don't know what really will. The Presiding Officer knows this as well as I do. But the root of the problem is that we have more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in our country, and Congress only provides enough funding to deport around 400,000 people a year. Clearly we can't deport everybody. So choices have to be made. So do we focus limited enforcement resources on real threats, such as criminals and terrorists? I say yes. Or, do we spread our resources thin, treating murderers the same way we treat school children who have been in the country for years? I say no. I stand firmly with the President in the belief that we must focus on actual threats and we must prioritize. One of the temporary programs that the other side seeks to eliminate is known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. I hate acronyms, but the acronym is DACA. This program allows law-abiding individuals brought to the United States as children to remain here without fear of being deported from the only home they have ever known. They can stay for 3-year increments as long as they don't break the law. Republicans want to scrap this program and place these individuals into the same category as dangerous criminals. In California, my State, that would mean 450,000 young people who were brought to the United States as children, who have lived nowhere else, would immediately be eligible for deportation. The House riders also seek to remove protections for parents of United States citizens and permanent residents, including 1.1 million parents in California. That would have the effect of breaking up many families that have lived here for years. I personally know of it happening in San Diego, when, in the middle of the night, immigration officers came into a home, picked up the parents and deported them, leaving the three children in the home. The parents had been here, they were working, they had paid their taxes, and now the children were left. Fortunately, as I understand that incident, relatives were able to come because the children were born here, and they helped to take care of them. But we can imagine the cases where there was no one to help. So this clearly has an effect of breaking up many families that may have lived here for years. So let me be clear. The political--I really believe they are political--riders weighing down this appropriations bill are not designed to fix our immigration system but rather to weaken it--and with the goal of embarrassing the President. We should not do that on any bill--let alone a bill as important as this one. It is not just Senate Democrats who think these riders are bad policy. Sixty-two percent of Americans in last month's January poll supported ``an Executive Order that would allow some illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay here temporarily and apply for a work permit if certain requirements are met.'' So 62 percent of the people said yes to that question. That is precisely what the President has done. A combined 69 percent of Americans supported an immigration policy that lets unauthorized immigrants remain in the United States, 54 percent supported a path to citizenship, and another 15 percent supported legal status but no path to citizenship. So to the extent we get our guidance from the American people rather than from this or that political party, we can see what the view of Americans are on this. I think it is because we have had this issue debated in this forum several times. This isn't the first big immigration bill. It is the second in about the last 6 or 8 years that has come out of committee, come to the floor with an agreement, and fallen apart. And it had been negotiated in a bipartisan manner. So then to have this bill that we passed go to the House, and the House would have a legitimate chance to make any amendments they might want to make--rather than put this rider on this bill--and pass over to us a bill which could then go to conference and we could work on around a table--the way business should be done--to come together to present what we can agree upon in both Houses to pass into law. That is the process here, and that is one of the really big changes in this body over recent history. We always tried to follow regular order. Appropriations bills in regular order now are really nonexistent. It is really too bad because it weakens the committee structure, it weakens the institution as a whole, it makes us beholden to a few, and it doesn't do the people's business. And, as I said yesterday, it is one of the reasons why our favorability rating as a Congress is something near 16 percent favorable. So I say, please, let's take these policy riders off. Let's learn from the experience. Let's pass this bill. It is a new Congress. I recognize the bill has to be reintroduced, but the immigration bill certainly can be reintroduced. We have had a lot of experience in working it, and we can do it once again. Then perhaps the House would be willing to look at it, to debate it, and maybe even then to give us the respect of voting on it. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, even though we have made great strides in the treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer, this disease continues to be the second leading cause of death for women in the United States. When women receive their mammography report and it comes out normal, they usually move on with their day thinking everything is just fine. This may be the case, but for women with dense breast tissue this ``normal'' report doesn't capture the whole picture. This is because cancer may still be present and missed on their mammogram because it is obscured by dense breast tissue. It is vital for women to be told this simple, yet potentially life- saving, information about their own health so they can discuss with their doctor if additional screening makes sense for them. That could be the difference between catching breast cancer early and surviving, or waiting until its too late because you were never told your full medical information. Even though there is a risk for cancer being missed, when women receive their mammogram report there is currently no federal requirement to include notice that they have dense breast tissue. This is the case even though the radiologist makes that determination upon reading the mammogram This bill is a simple solution. It requires that women be informed on the mammogram report, that they already receive, if they have dense breast tissue, and that they may want to talk with their doctor if they have questions and if they might benefit from additional screening. Withholding this kind of medical information from women just doesn't make any sense. This bill doesn't change any state laws. It sets a minimum Federal standard, so any state that wants to have additional reporting requirements may do so. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research and improved screening for patients with dense breast tissue. Early detection is the key to beating cancer. Every patient deserves access to their own information, especially when it may be what saves their life. I want to thank Senator Ayotte for working with me on this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us, and Senators Gillibrand, Boxer, Heitkamp, Baldwin, Brown, Mikulski, Stabenow, Capito, Shaheen, Casey, Hirono, McCaskill, and Warren in cosponsoring the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. This bill is supported by organizations including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, and Susan G. Komen. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, even though we have made great strides in the treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer, this disease continues to be the second leading cause of death for women in the United States. When women receive their mammography report and it comes out normal, they usually move on with their day thinking everything is just fine. This may be the case, but for women with dense breast tissue this ``normal'' report doesn't capture the whole picture. This is because cancer may still be present and missed on their mammogram because it is obscured by dense breast tissue. It is vital for women to be told this simple, yet potentially life- saving, information about their own health so they can discuss with their doctor if additional screening makes sense for them. That could be the difference between catching breast cancer early and surviving, or waiting until its too late because you were never told your full medical information. Even though there is a risk for cancer being missed, when women receive their mammogram report there is currently no federal requirement to include notice that they have dense breast tissue. This is the case even though the radiologist makes that determination upon reading the mammogram This bill is a simple solution. It requires that women be informed on the mammogram report, that they already receive, if they have dense breast tissue, and that they may want to talk with their doctor if they have questions and if they might benefit from additional screening. Withholding this kind of medical information from women just doesn't make any sense. This bill doesn't change any state laws. It sets a minimum Federal standard, so any state that wants to have additional reporting requirements may do so. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research and improved screening for patients with dense breast tissue. Early detection is the key to beating cancer. Every patient deserves access to their own information, especially when it may be what saves their life. I want to thank Senator Ayotte for working with me on this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us, and Senators Gillibrand, Boxer, Heitkamp, Baldwin, Brown, Mikulski, Stabenow, Capito, Shaheen, Casey, Hirono, McCaskill, and Warren in cosponsoring the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. This bill is supported by organizations including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, and Susan G. Komen. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans-- SAV--Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill addresses a true public health crisis facing our Nation's military members and veterans: suicide. You see, an estimated 22 veterans commit suicide every day. According to data from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, young veterans are particularly at risk, dying by suicide more often than both Active-Duty troops and civilians. In fact, the Department of Defense, DOD, reports that in 2012 and 2013 more veterans died by committing suicide than died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is a serious problem that must be addressed. The legislation being considered today is named for a marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who committed suicide in 2011. He was 28. After being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, Clay Hunt sought VA medical care for post-traumatic stress disorder. He constantly voiced concerns about the care he was receiving, both in terms of scheduling and the treatment received, which consisted solely of medication. Clay decided to move closer to his family but had to wait months to see a psychiatrist at the VA medical center. After the appointment, Clay called his mother on his way home and told her that the VA is way too stressful of a place and that he can't go back. Two weeks later, Clay took his own life. Despite Clay Hunt's proactive and open approach to seeking care to address his injuries, the VA system did not adequately address his needs. Unfortunately, this story is far too common. In 2014, Jeremy Sears, a Camp Pendleton, CA, marine who survived several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, also took his own life after struggling to receive adequate care from the San Diego VA Medical Center. It took the VA 16 months to respond to Jeremy's disability claim. After the long wait, Jeremy received a letter that he had been denied all disability payments, despite reporting symptoms of traumatic brain injury and hearing loss from his military service. The 35-year-old former Camp Pendleton marine tragically took his own life almost 2 years after being discharged from service. These tragedies are unacceptable, and it is our moral duty to ensure that the men and women who bravely serve our country have access to the mental health care needed to address serious mental health conditions like depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. What does this bill do? The SAV Act is an important bill that will improve the delivery of mental health care to veterans and will address obstacles in the VA and DOD health care systems. Under this bill, special care and attention will be given to service personnel transitioning from Active-Duty to veteran status through community outreach and peer support groups. The legislation also calls for a one-stop Web site with suicide prevention resources for veterans. In addition, to make recruitment of mental health professionals easier, the bill creates new incentives for psychiatrists who agree to serve at the VA. Both Department of Defense and VA suicide-prevention programs will also be required to be evaluated each year to increase accountability and improve care. Lastly, this bill empowers the VA to collaborate with Veteran Service Organizations and nonprofit mental health organizations to combat veteran suicide. Suicide is a deadly epidemic for veterans that the Federal Government must address. This bill will be a starting point, by requiring the VA to prioritize suicide prevention. However, Congress must continue to work to address this critical public health issue, and I hope this will be one of many steps we will take to prevent veteran and military suicides. I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans, SAV, Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I have submitted a resolution with Senator Kirk recognizing January as National Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Month. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Toomey, Klobuchar, Coons, Rubio, Murray, Wyden, Brown, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Kaine, Heitkamp, King, and Markey in sponsoring this resolution. January 1 is the anniversary of the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation, and February 1 is the anniversary of the date that President Abraham Lincoln signed the joint resolution sending the Thirteenth Amendment--which abolished slavery--to the States for ratification. In 2009, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution I introduced to establish January as Human Trafficking Awareness Month. That resolution was made to raise awareness of, and opposition to, the human trafficking. It is important that we continue to bring attention to and raise awareness of this horrific practice. Human trafficking is a crime in which persons are forced to work against their will in sweatshops, prostitution rings, farms, private homes, and other enterprises. The traffickers use force, threats of force, and coercion to ensure that their victims believe they have no other choice but to work for their captors. Frequently, human trafficking goes undetected because the victims are not only afraid of their traffickers, but they have been taught by their traffickers to fear law enforcement. Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the world, behind the drug trade. A 2014 Urban Institute study found that pimps in Atlanta can make nearly $33,000 in just one week, which amounts to over $1.7 million a year. The overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims in the United States are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, children are often victims of this horrendous crime. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has reported that one in seven endangered runaways are victims of sex trafficking. Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. Unfortunately, such abuse is common around the world. According to the United Nations, there are nearly 21 million people currently serving in some form of involuntary servitude. The United Nations also reported that in 16 percent of the 138 countries studied, there was not one trafficking-related conviction between 2007 and 2010. Over the past decade, Congress has taken action to enhance the tools available to prosecute perpetrators of human trafficking and to assist and protect trafficking victims. We passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and, 8 years later, passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. These laws strengthened Federal efforts to combat international and domestic human trafficking by expanding administrative subpoena authority, increasing penalties for traffickers, and authorizing the Justice Department to seek preventive detention of those charged with trafficking offenses. Despite these important laws, further action is needed. Earlier this year, Senator Portman and I introduced the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015. This bill would reduce the demand for human trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in sex trafficking. In addition, I am pleased to join Senator Kirk in introducing the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act or the SAVE Act. This bill would strike at child sex trafficking where it is increasingly occurring--the Internet--by prohibiting Internet companies from profiting from allowing their websites to be used to traffic children. We must act with urgency to end the practice of human trafficking. For every day we wait, more lives are damaged by this horrible practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in observing National Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Month to draw attention to human trafficking and to renew our collective efforts to eliminate this practice in the United States and around the world.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline. This bill will not help our economy, it will not create permanent jobs, and it certainly is not a boon to the environment. On item after item, the Keystone pipeline just doesn't make sense for the United States. When we last debated Keystone in November, the price for a barrel of oil was about $75. That price was already down from a peak of $100 in 2014, and since then the price has dropped another $25, to less than $50 a barrel. In November, the average price of gas was nearly $3 per gallon. This week, gas averages around $2.20 per gallon--the cheapest in nearly six years--and many States are seeing gas under $2 per gallon. In fact, since this pipeline was first proposed in 2008, America has gone from the third largest producer of oil to the world's largest producer, surpassing both Russia and Saudi Arabia. As a result of new production and increasing fuel economy, the final months of 2014 saw the lowest net imports of crude oil since 1986. The Keystone Pipeline is simply not necessary for America's energy independence. Even worse, the oil that moves through the pipeline isn't necessarily for the benefit of the United States. Instead, the pipeline would be a conduit to move the oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, where it will be refined and sold on the global market. Some individual barrels may be kept in the United States, but much will be exported and prices will be set by international supply and demand. The State Department's review projected that building a pipeline would have ``little impact on the prices U.S. consumers pay for refined products such as gasoline.'' I fail to see how the United States gains any economic benefit from this project. Finally, Keystone supporters often argue that the pipeline creates large numbers of jobs. It is great that this project will create nearly 2,000 direct construction jobs over 2 years, and more indirectly. Unfortunately, those jobs are temporary. That means once the pipeline is complete in two years, operating the pipeline will support only around 50 permanent jobs. The American economy won't benefit from this bill. American companies won't benefit. American drivers won't benefit, and American workers won't benefit. The economic policies behind the pipeline just don't make sense. Unfortunately, the problems also don't end with the lack of economic value. This project also comes with substantial hazards for the environment. Extracting oil from these tar sands would essentially mean the destruction of huge swaths of land in Alberta. The tar sands are beneath 54,000 square miles of boreal forest and peat bog, an area the size of the state of New York. An estimated 20 percent of the deposits require destructive surface mining, which entails clearing huge swathes of boreal forest and top soil to get at the tar sands beneath. Already, 175,000 acres of forest have been cleared, but an additional 1 million acres of forest have already been leased for surface mining operations. This destructive form of mining generates large volumes of toxic wastewater, which must be stored in vast tailings ponds that already cover around 70 square miles. These tailings contain high concentrations of benzene and other carcinogens, as well as lead and mercury. Significantly higher levels of these pollutants have been found downstream from tar sands refineries, leading to higher rates of cancers, including leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The development of these tar sands will have negative effects on the environment and public health, and it has also contributed significantly to Canada's failure to fulfill its Kyoto Protocol obligations. I believe that Canada should rethink its approach to tar sands development. Finally, I wish like to address climate change. No matter how hard some of my colleagues hope climate change isn't real, it is, and we are already seeing harmful effects. Transforming the oil from tar sands into useful gasoline is 80 percent more carbon intensive than the processing of typical crude oil. Producing, refining, and combusting the oil that Keystone would carry will release up to 168 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year. That is 27 million metric tons more greenhouse gas emissions than would be emitted from burning the same amount of typical crude oil. To put this in context, those additional emissions over normal processing are equivalent to the annual emissions from 5.7 million cars, 1.4 million homes or nearly 8 coal-fired power plants. The economics of the Keystone Pipeline don't make sense, and the environmental risks could well be tragic. We are being asked to approve a project that will primarily benefit Canadian companies and foreign oil markets, while at the same time accepting the consequences of the harm the pipeline and tar sands oil would create. If this is about jobs, let's invest in clean energy. The Shaheen- Portman energy efficiency bill, for example, is estimated to create 190,000 jobs. If our goal is to lower fuel costs for American families, let's speed up improvements to fuel economy standards. If we want to modernize our infrastructure, let's get to work on a real transportation reauthorization bill. And if our aim is to exploit our energy resources, let's focus on wind and solar, biofuels, or the future of batteries and fuel cells. We can do better than the Keystone Pipeline, both for our economy and for the environment. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Keystone Pipeline.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would expand the definition of ``homeless'' used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure all homeless children and families are considered eligible for existing Federal homeless assistance programs. This change in the definition would be in alignment with what is already currently used by the U.S. Department of Education. According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2012-2013 school year, which accounts fora 6 percent increase from the 1,166,436 homeless students enrolled in the 2011-2012 school year. In California, 259,656 children experienced homelessness last year. This increase is nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children that were reported in California in 2003. Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD ``Point-in-Time Count'' fail to accurately reflect the upward trend in homeless families. According to the 2013 HUD ``Point-in-Time Count,'' there were only 222,197 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the number reported by the Department of Education. This issue is important because only those children and their families counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck and are turned away by providers that do not want to be reprimanded for not following HUD regulations. The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2015 would expand the homeless definition to allow HUD funded homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in self-paid motels or in doubled up situations because they have nowhere else to go. These families are especially susceptible to physical and sexual abuse, trafficking, and neglect because they are often not served by a case manager, and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers. As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive federal funding through the discretionary grant process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families. This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use federal funds to meet local priorities. I would also like to note that this legislation comes at no additional cost to taxpayers and does not impose any new mandates on service providers. Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report data on homeless individuals and families currently recorded under the existing Homeless Management Information System survey. I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill. Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain invisible and stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need. 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 to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would expand the definition of ``homeless'' used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure all homeless children and families are considered eligible for existing Federal homeless assistance programs. This change in the definition would be in alignment with what is already currently used by the U.S. Department of Education. According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2012-2013 school year, which accounts fora 6 percent increase from the 1,166,436 homeless students enrolled in the 2011-2012 school year. In California, 259,656 children experienced homelessness last year. This increase is nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children that were reported in California in 2003. Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD ``Point-in-Time Count'' fail to accurately reflect the upward trend in homeless families. According to the 2013 HUD ``Point-in-Time Count,'' there were only 222,197 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the number reported by the Department of Education. This issue is important because only those children and their families counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck and are turned away by providers that do not want to be reprimanded for not following HUD regulations. The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2015 would expand the homeless definition to allow HUD funded homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in self-paid motels or in doubled up situations because they have nowhere else to go. These families are especially susceptible to physical and sexual abuse, trafficking, and neglect because they are often not served by a case manager, and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers. As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive federal funding through the discretionary grant process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families. This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use federal funds to meet local priorities. I would also like to note that this legislation comes at no additional cost to taxpayers and does not impose any new mandates on service providers. Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report data on homeless individuals and families currently recorded under the existing Homeless Management Information System survey. I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill. Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain invisible and stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute and thank a dedicated and capable individual, Lorenzo Goco, who retired from the Senate on Friday after 20 years of expert service. For the past 6 years, Lorenzo has served as the deputy staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI. He has worked on the committee since 1995, when he was brought over by Senator Bob Kerrey. He has seen the highs and the lows of Senate life, and has made a valued contribution to the committee, to the Senate, and to the national security of the United States. Since the beginning of my chairmanship of the committee in 2009, Lorenzo has been the heart of the Democratic staff. Without drawing attention to himself, he has gotten things done--whether it meant setting the schedule and wrangling agency witnesses to attend on short notice, assisting the intelligence community to see the wisdom of the committee's approach, or bridging the divide between the majority and minority in the rare case of disagreement, Lorenzo kept the committee on track and headed in the right direction. As the deputy staff director, Lorenzo is responsible for everything but gets the credit for nothing. He has represented the SSCI at the weekly meeting of Democratic staff directors more often than the actual staff director, and he has had my full faith in representing the committee and me countless times. Often, a line of committee staffers will build in front of his door as people seek his advice on how to handle an issue or ask a question about a program. Classification prevents me from relating on the Senate floor most of the projects that Lorenzo has contributed to or overseen in his time on the committee staff. But they include numerous reviews of CIA covert actions, reviews of acquisition programs by the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office, and the budget review of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Due to CIA's declassification of the underlying information, I can say that Lorenzo was part of the committee's excellent work in investigating CIA's role in a shootdown of a missionary plane in Peru. He was instrumental in the committee's report on the prewar intelligence assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and a constant force behind the staff's work on the Study of CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. The committee's success in enacting six intelligence authorization bills in the past 6 years is in good measure a result of Lorenzo's work in drafting the legislation and the classified annexes the contain, working with other committees in the Senate and the House, and negotiating provisions with the executive branch. There are plenty of congressional staff that are passionate advocates for aggressive action for this cause or that. Other staff focus on protecting their boss and as a result are more judicious and deliberate. Some are experts on process; some are experts on substance. Lorenzo is all of the above. His depth of experience on intelligence matters is unparalleled today in the Senate. He fights strongly for what he believes in, and has at times pushed me to be stronger on a cause than I might otherwise be. But he is always cool, calm, and collected, and manages to navigate the buffeting winds and tempestuous times that we face all too often. I am sorry to see a key part of my team go, but I wish Lorenzo the best of luck. I have no doubt that he will have more time to spend with his wonderful wife Audrey and his three boys, whom I know are the source of unending pride, and perhaps the occasional bout of parental frustration. With any luck, they'll grow up like their father. Thank you, Lorenzo, for your steadfast service.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to submit an amendment with my colleagues, Senators Toomey and Flake to correct a major problem with the current Renewable Fuel Standard: the mandate for corn ethanol. We see two major problems with continuing to mandate the consumption of so much corn ethanol each year. The statute currently mandates more corn ethanol than can be used by the current vehicle fleet and gas stations. Roughly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is now used to produce ethanol, artificially pushing up food and feed prices while damaging the environment. This amendment offers a simple fix that addresses both problems: elimination of the corn ethanol mandate. Also, the amendment leaves in place the requirement that oil companies purchase and use low-carbon advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. This allows the program to focus on the fuels that best address climate change and do not compete with the food supply. Let me highlight a few of the unintended consequences of the corn ethanol mandate. The policy has led us to use roughly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop not for food but for fuel, nearly twice the rate in 2006. Using more and more corn for ethanol--in drought years as well as years with bumper crops--places unnecessary pressure on the price of corn. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June 2014 that escalating the volume of corn ethanol as currently required by statute would raise the average price of corn about 6 percent by 2017. That would increase food expenditures by $3.5 billion per year by 2017, the equivalent of about $10 per person, which most directly affects families living on the margin. Internationally, according to Tufts University researchers, the corn ethanol mandate has cost net corn importing countries $11.6 billion in higher corn prices, with more than half that cost, $6.6 billion, borne by developing countries. Higher corn prices also raise prices throughout the food supply chain by raising the cost of animal feed. For the turkey industry alone, the Renewable Fuel Standard raised feed expenses by $1.9 billion in 2013, according to the President of the National Turkey Federation. For the restaurant industry, a recent Price-Waterhouse-Coopers study projects that the corn ethanol mandate would increase costs by up to $3.2 billion a year. For the milk industry, the Western United Dairyman reported in 2013 that a combination of high feed costs and low milk prices put 105 dairies out of business in one year alone. The corn ethanol mandate also has unintended environmental consequences. In 2013, an investigative report from the Associated Press found using government satellite data that 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas alone were converted to fields of corn and soybeans since 2006. Putting virgin land under cultivation has environmental consequences, including greater runoff, greater use of fertilizer, and less land available for conservation. Another consequence of the corn ethanol mandate is that it places a regulatory requirement on oil refiners that cannot actually be satisfied--it requires more ethanol than the auto fleet and existing gas stations can accommodate, a concept called the blend wall. Under the RFS, oil refineries are required to blend 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol into the fuel supply in 2015. This far exceeds the roughly 13.5 billion gallons that our current infrastructure can accommodate. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's final 2013 rule, the ``EPA does not currently foresee a scenario in which the market could consume enough ethanol to meet the volumes stated in the statute.'' The Congressional Budget Office confirmed this judgment in its June 2014 report, saying that the statutory goal of escalating corn ethanol volumes would be ``very hard to meet in future years.'' Chevron, which operates oil refineries in my home State, is also concerned that the statutory mandate requires too much ethanol. It is Chevron's judgment that ``the required volume of renewable fuel exceeds the amount that can be safely blended into transportation fuels used by consumers.'' Facing this difficulty, the EPA has been unable to finalize the volume requirements for 2014 or 2015. This leaves the businesses seeking to develop advanced biofuel ventures without any certain prospects to guide their investments and undermines the primary purpose of the Renewable Fuel Standard. The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act would address the blend wall directly, thereby allowing EPA to continue increasing volumes of low carbon advanced biofuel. The corn industry, by contrast, does not depend on the RFS for its livelihood. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that refiners will continue to blend corn ethanol into the fuel supply in the absence of a mandate, because ethanol is the oil refiner's preferred octane booster and oxygenate. Ultimately, I believe that this bill would better serve the advanced biofuel industry by removing the blend wall as an obstacle to the industry's expansion, and providing the regulatory certainty that they need to guide their investments. These advanced biofuels have none of the same problems as corn ethanol. They do not compete directly with food, and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent compared to petroleum. I am also fundamentally committed to the vitally important public health and climate protections provided by the Clean Air Act. That is why I would like to make it crystal clear that this legislation is a narrow bill repealing the corn ethanol mandate. The bill's language explicitly clarifies that the legislation has no effect on the low- carbon advanced biofuel provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standard, and I would oppose any bill that would amend, revise or weaken the advanced biofuel provisions or other public health protections provided by the Clean Air Act. The elimination of the corn ethanol mandate is a smart, simple reform with support from the prepared food industry, the dairy, beef, and poultry industries, the oil and gas industries, hunger relief organizations, and environmental groups. The bill solves the problems of the Renewable Fuel Standard while maintaining the provisions that encourage the development, growth, and deployment of cellulosic ethanol, algae-based fuel, biodiesel, and other low-carbon advanced biofuels. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am in strong support of Sen. Warren's amendment to strike the unrelated swaps provision from this very important TRIA legislation. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of commercial end users about increased transactions costs, it is simply the wrong approach to prevent regulators from acting, if needed, to protect our financial system from risky transactions. We must afford our financial regulators with sufficient discretion to act to prevent more financial crises. The financial market regulators have already acted to provide relief for counterparties to swaps transactions with commercial end users. That makes the inclusion of this swaps provision in the TRIA legislation unnecessary. Sen. Warren's amendment would preserve the current regulatory approach to uncleared swaps transactions with commercial end users, while also allowing for sufficient regulatory discretion to impose margin requirements on the counter parties to these transactions in the future should it become necessary to protect our financial system. The inclusion of the swaps provision in this critically important terrorism risk insurance bill is a part of a disturbing trend. Some policymakers believe that Dodd-Frank should be undone. They believe that the derivatives reforms which for the first time regulated a market that contributed to the financial crisis should be dismantled piece by piece. Just last month, a major reform was repealed in a must pass appropriations bill, despite being an objectionable policy which would not have passed were it considered on its own merits. This is a troubling trend because the derivatives reforms are in place to protect our financial markets and protect the taxpayer. Title VII of Dodd-Frank introduced historic reforms of the derivatives market establishing transparency and accountability. Those who would dismantle Dodd-Frank's derivatives reforms should explain to the American people why they should once again be on the hook for deep systemic losses caused in part by these high risk financial products. It does not make sense to undo this important set of reforms. I am pleased to stand with Senator Warren and with any other Senator on either side of the aisle to defend these important reforms and defend the taxpayer. Dodd-Frank's swaps reforms are critically important to addressing the regulatory gaps in the swaps markets which contributed to the magnitude of the crisis and the costs of the response to it. We should not roll back these needed reforms. Regulators have already provided sufficient relief to counterparties on this matter and moving forward with the provision, as it is creates new risks that are unnecessary and which we may one day regret. There is no need to tie their hands on this point. I firmly support Senator Warren's important amendment because it protects the critical swaps reforms made by Dodd-Frank at a time when financial stability is important in our economic recovery. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. This bill will ensure that communities and businesses will continue to have the insurance protection they need to quickly recover after major terrorist attacks. You see, the September 11, 2001 attacks resulted in approximately $32.5 billion in claims paid by insurers to terrorism risk insurance policyholders, which makes the deadly terrorist attack the second most costly insurance event in the history of the Nation. Due to the catastrophic damage, the record breaking insurance payout, and the threat of future attacks, the private insurance industry stopped offering terrorism risk insurance. The aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks sent a shockwave through the insurance industry and the lack of the availability of terrorism risk insurance contributed to the economic recession that followed the attacks. To address the issue, Congress established the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program in 2002. The program is federally backed so private insurers can continue to offer terrorism risk insurance. The Federal Government only pays out when damage from a terrorist attack exceeds $100 million. The program is also designed so the Federal Government recoups any funds that it pays out. I also want to note that the Federal Government has not paid out a single dollar since the creation of the program in 2002. Congress has created other federally backed insurance programs to address market failures where the risk of damage due to a disaster is so large it makes insurance unaffordable. The best example of this being done at the national level is the National Flood Insurance Program. At a State level, California created a State-backed program for earthquake insurance. Since 2002, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program has worked well to make sure the Nation, and California, is prepared to rebuild in the aftermath of a major terrorism attack. Terrorism insurance is particularly important for California, due to my State's many large metropolitan areas, its public transit systems, and its many public events. The program makes sure communities and businesses across California are resilient and are prepared for the risk of a terrorist attack. The recent World Series held in California, which drew over 40,000 fans to each game at the AT&T Park in San Francisco, is a prime example of how terrorism risk insurance works to protect California. The U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest building west of the Mississippi River, is protected by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. Terrorism risk insurance provides workers' compensation protection to many of the 14.6 million members of California's labor force. California is also home to many major airports, tourist attractions, and sporting venues that all benefit from the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. The math is simple: terrorism risk insurance means businesses and local governments will have the resources to repair and rebuild should another major terrorist attack occur in the United States. I also want to point out several positive changes in the reauthorization being considered on the floor today. First, this legislation will gradually increase the ceiling at which the Federal Government would provide payments after a terrorist attack from $100 million to $200 million. It will also increase the amount of money the Federal Government would recoup after any payout from 133 percent to 135 percent. These smart reforms gradually place more risk in the hands of the private market. Due to these changes, the Congressional Budget Office actually estimates that the reauthorization of the program will save the government $450 million over the next 10 years. I do want to express my disappointment that a provision was included in the House-passed bill which would make changes to Dodd-Frank's approach to the regulation of the swaps market. Swaps, a kind of derivative instrument, played a key role in the financial crisis and we should tread carefully when considering any revisions to our swaps regulatory regime. The provision in question prevents regulators like the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission from imposing collateral requirements on counterparties to swaps transactions with commercial end users. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of commercial end users, preventing regulators from acting to impose collateral requirements on their counterparties could result in more costly risks building up in our financial system. This is the wrong approach. However, terrorism risk insurance is critically important to California and to the Nation. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along with Senator Portman, the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015. Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the world, behind the drug trade. Many steps need to be taken to combat this problem. But we cannot escape this simple truth: without demand for the services performed by trafficking victims, the problem would not exist. The bill we are introducing today would reduce the demand for human trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. In the United States, the average age that a person is first trafficked is between 12 and 14. Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. The overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims in the United States are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department of Justice. I am encouraged that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies are taking steps to combat human trafficking. Between January and June of last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered 168 trafficking victims and arrested 281 sex traffickers in ``Operation Cross Country.'' I commend these efforts, but more needs to be done to target the perpetrators who are fueling demand for trafficking crimes--the buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims. Many buyers of sex are ``hobbyists'' who purchase sex repeatedly. Because buyers are rarely arrested, much less prosecuted, the demand for commercial sex continues unabated. Without buyers, sex trafficking would cease to exist. As Luis CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, noted, ``[n]o girl or woman would be a victim of sex trafficking if there were no profits to be made from their exploitation.'' The Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015 would address this problem by incentivizing Federal and State law enforcement officers to target buyers and providing new authorities to prosecute all who engage in the crime of sex trafficking. First, the bill would clarify that buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims can be prosecuted under the Federal commercial sex trafficking statute. This provision would codify the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Jungers, which held that this statute encompasses buyers, in addition to sellers. Despite this favorable ruling, there is no guarantee that other courts will follow this precedent. Second, the bill would hold buyers and sellers of child sex acts accountable for their actions, even if they claim they were unaware of the age of a minor victim. At times, it can be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that a buyer was aware of the victim's age. Successful cases can require the child victim to testify to this fact, subjecting the victim to re-traumatization. The bill would draw a clear line: if you purchase sex from an underage child, you can be prosecuted. Period. Third, the bill would grant judges greater flexibility to impose an appropriate term of supervised release on sex traffickers. Current law contains an anomaly: a person convicted of violating the commercial sex trafficking statute or attempting to violate the statute may be subject to a longer term of supervised release than a person who is convicted of conspiring to violate the statute. Conspiring to traffic underage children is as serious as attempting to commit this crime and should be punished the same. Fourth, the bill would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to prepare annual reports on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of sex traffickers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims in the state court system. Very little data is available on the prosecutions made under anti-trafficking laws. This provision would provide additional data and encourage State and local governments to increase enforcement against sellers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims. Fifth, the Combat Human Trafficking Act would strengthen training programs operated by the Department of Justice for Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who investigate and prosecute sex trafficking offenses. Under the bill, such training programs must include components on effective methods to target and prosecute the buyers of sex acts from trafficked victims. This would equip prosecutors with the tools they need to target buyers, encouraging prosecution of these perpetrators. Training programs must also train law enforcement in connecting trafficking victims with health care providers, so that victims receive the health care services they need to recover. In addition, the bill requires that training programs for federal prosecutors include components on seeking restitution for victims of sex trafficking. An October 2014 study by The Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that federal prosecutors did not seek restitution in 37 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases brought between 2009 and 2012, even though restitution for trafficking victims is mandatory under federal law. When the prosecutor did not seek restitution, it was granted in only 10 percent of cases. These results make clear that prosecutors play a critical role in providing justice for trafficking victims. Our bill would ensure that prosecutors are specifically trained to seek restitution for victims. The bill would also require the Federal Judicial Center to provide training to judges on ordering restitution for human trafficking victims, so that judges are fully aware that federal law mandates that restitution be ordered for these victims. Overall, restitution was awarded in only 36 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases brought between 2009 and 2012, according to The Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center's study. Too many trafficking victims are not receiving the compensation they need to rebuild their lives and to which they are entitled under the law. Sixth, the bill would authorize federal and state officials to seek a wiretap to investigate and prosecute any human trafficking-related offense. Under current law, a federal law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap in an investigation under the commercial sex trafficking statute, but not under a number of other statutes that address human trafficking-related offenses, such as forced labor and involuntary servitude. Similarly, a state law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap to investigate a kidnapping offense, but not an offense for human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, or child pornography production. Our bill would fix those omissions. Finally, this legislation would strengthen the rights of crime victims. The bill would amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to provide victims with the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement. The exclusion of victims in these early stages of a criminal case profoundly impairs victims' rights because, by the nature of these events, there often is no later proceeding in which victims can exercise their rights. The bill would also ensure that crime victims have access to appellate review when their rights are denied in the lower court. Regrettably, six appellate courts have mis-applied the Crime Victims' Rights Act by imposing an especially high standard for reviewing appeals by victims, requiring them to show ``clear and indisputable error''. Three other circuits have applied the correct standard: the ordinary appellate standard of legal error or abuse of discretion. This bill resolves the issue, setting a uniform standard for victims in all circuits by codifying the more victim-protecting rule, that the appellate court ``shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.'' I am pleased that this bill has the support of numerous law enforcement and anti-trafficking organizations: the Fraternal Order of Police, Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, CATW, Human Rights Project for Girls, Survivors for Solutions, Sanctuary For Families, World Hope International, Prostitution Research & Education, MISSSEY, Breaking Free, Equality Now, National Organization for Victim Assistance, Seraphim Global, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, City of Oakland, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition, and Casa Cornelia Law Center. These groups are on the forefront in the fight against sex trafficking, and I am proud to have their support. Many of the provisions in the Combat Human Trafficking Act were included in the substitute amendment to the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, S. 2646, 113th Congress, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last September. However, that bill was not enacted into law before Congress adjourned. I am hopeful that we can pass the bipartisan Combat Human Trafficking in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act. This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a ten year period. I have been a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years. I have witnessed its political struggle and sadly the deterioration of its ready-made garment industry. The Nepal Trade Preferences Act bill will promote much-needed economic development and contribute to lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries. Allow me to go over some basic facts of everyday life in Nepal. Nepal has a per capita income of $730. Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty. The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $2 a day. The 2005 phase-out of the Micro-Fiber Arrangement, which established export quotas from developing nations, has deeply damaged Nepal's apparel industry. Instead of continuing to import garments from Nepal, U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, Bangladesh and other low-cost labor markets. In fact, the number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 90,000 people to less than 5,000 today; textile and apparel exports from Nepal to the United States fell from approximately $95 million in 2005 to $45 million in 2013; and the number of garment factories plummeted from 212 to 30. Despite Nepal's poverty and the near-collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garment imports are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent. In essence, we are unfairly taxing the imports of a highly impoverished country that cannot afford it. Taxing textile and apparel imports from Nepal, which constitute .01 percent of all U.S. imports, makes no sense. I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the policies of the European Union, Canada, and Australia, which all allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free. It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010. The purpose of the ``Nepal Trade Preferences Act'' is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less. Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal. I was proud to support the President's budget request of $77 million for Nepal in fiscal year 2015. But assistance is no substitute for organic economic development. We should help the Nepalese people help themselves by reopening the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry. In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace. With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards. There is no doubt that Nepal has struggled to draft a new constitution and coalesce around a governing majority. While only Nepal can chart its political course, passing this measure would undoubtedly help regenerate Nepal's stagnant economy. Let us show our solidarity with the people of Nepal by passing this commonsense measure. I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act. This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a ten year period. I have been a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years. I have witnessed its political struggle and sadly the deterioration of its ready-made garment industry. The Nepal Trade Preferences Act bill will promote much-needed economic development and contribute to lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries. Allow me to go over some basic facts of everyday life in Nepal. Nepal has a per capita income of $730. Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty. The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $2 a day. The 2005 phase-out of the Micro-Fiber Arrangement, which established export quotas from developing nations, has deeply damaged Nepal's apparel industry. Instead of continuing to import garments from Nepal, U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, Bangladesh and other low-cost labor markets. In fact, the number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 90,000 people to less than 5,000 today; textile and apparel exports from Nepal to the United States fell from approximately $95 million in 2005 to $45 million in 2013; and the number of garment factories plummeted from 212 to 30. Despite Nepal's poverty and the near-collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garment imports are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent. In essence, we are unfairly taxing the imports of a highly impoverished country that cannot afford it. Taxing textile and apparel imports from Nepal, which constitute .01 percent of all U.S. imports, makes no sense. I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the policies of the European Union, Canada, and Australia, which all allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free. It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010. The purpose of the ``Nepal Trade Preferences Act'' is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less. Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal. I was proud to support the President's budget request of $77 million for Nepal in fiscal year 2015. But assistance is no substitute for organic economic development. We should help the Nepalese people help themselves by reopening the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry. In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace. With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards. There is no doubt that Nepal has struggled to draft a new constitution and coalesce around a governing majority. While only Nepal can chart its political course, passing this measure would undoubtedly help regenerate Nepal's stagnant economy. Let us show our solidarity with the people of Nepal by passing this commonsense measure. I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Due Process Guarantee Act, which passed the Senate in 2012 with 67 votes as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013. Unfortunately, the amendment was taken out in the Conference Committee that year. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation again this year, and this time the House will support it so that it can finally be enacted into law to protect Americans from being detained indefinitely. The bipartisan bill I am introducing today, with Senator Lee as the lead co-sponsor, is almost identical to the amendment that passed the Senate in December 2012 with 67 votes. The previous version of this bill had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on February 29, 2012. This legislation is necessary to prevent the U.S. Government from detaining its citizens indefinitely. Unfortunately, indefinite detention has been a part of America's not- too-distant past. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remains a dark spot on our Nation's legacy, and is something we should never repeat. To ensure that this reprehensible experience would never happen again, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non- Detention Act of 1971, which repealed a 1950 statue that explicitly allowed the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states: No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress. Despite the shameful history of indefinite detention of Americans and the legal controversy over the issue since 9/11, during debate on the defense authorization bill in past years, some in the Senate have advocated for allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Proponents of indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens argue that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF, that was enacted shortly after 9/11 is, quote, ``an act of Congress,'' in the language of the Non-Detention Act of 1971, that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens regardless of where they are captured. They further assert that their position is justified by the U.S. Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. However, the Hamdi case involved an American captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The divided Court did effectively uphold his military detention, so some of my colleagues use this case to argue that the military can indefinitely detain even American citizens who are arrested domestically here on U.S. soil, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan. However, the Supreme Court's opinion in the Hamdi case was a muddled decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain U.S. citizens captured in such circumstances as ``enemy combatants'' for some period, but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial. In particular, the Court limited its holding to citizens captured in an area of, quote, ``active combat operations'', unquote, and concluded that even in those circumstances the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause guarantees U.S. citizens certain rights, including the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge. The plurality's opinion stated: It [the Government] has made clear, however, that, for purposes of this case, the `enemy combatant' that it is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was `part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' in Afghanistan and who `` `engaged in an armed conflict against the United States'' there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.'' The opinion goes on to say at page 517 that ``we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe . . .'' Indeed, the plurality later emphasized that it was discussing a citizen captured on a foreign battlefield. Criticizing Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, the opinion says, ``Justice Scalia largely ignores the context of this case: a United States citizen captured in a foreign combat zone.'' The plurality italicized and emphasized the word ``foreign'' in that sentence. Thus, to the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a U.S. citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a very limited set of circumstances, namely citizens taking an active part in hostilities, who are captured in Afghanistan, and who are afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum. Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the current state of legal ambiguity when it comes to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, such as Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago in 2002. He was initially detained pursuant to a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and later designated as an ``enemy combatant'' who conspired with al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks including a plot to detonate a ``dirty bomb'' inside the U.S. Padilla was transferred to the military brig in South Carolina where he was detained for three and a half years while seeking habeas corpus relief. Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the ``dirty bomb'' plot. Instead, Padilla was released from military custody in November 2005 and transferred to Federal civilian custody in Florida where he was indicted on other charges in Federal court related to terrorist plots overseas. While he was indefinitely detailed by the military, Padilla filed a habeas corpus petition which was litigated at first in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and then in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2003 decision by the Second Circuit known as Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court of Appeals held that the AUMF did not authorize his detention, saying: ``we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4001(a) the ``Non-Detention Act'', prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, . . . passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization.'' This requirement for ``clear congressional authorization'' to detain is known as the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule.'' However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the AUMF did authorize his detention. It is worth pointing out, however, that their analysis turned entirely on the disputed claims that ``Padilla associated with forces hostile to the United States in Afghanistan,'' and, ``like Hamdi, Padilla took up arms against United States forces in that country in the same way and to the same extent as did Hamdi.'' Facing an impending Supreme Court challenge and mounting public criticism for holding a U.S. citizen arrested inside the U.S. as an enemy combatant, the Bush administration relented, and ordered Padilla transferred to civilian custody to face criminal conspiracy and material support for terrorism charges in Federal court. I believe that the time is now to end the legal ambiguities, and have Congress state clearly, once and for all, that the AUMF or other authorities do not authorize indefinite detention of Americans apprehended in the U.S. To accomplish this, we are introducing legislation again this year which affirms and strengthens the principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971. It amends the Non-Detention Act to provide clearly that no military authorization allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or Green Card holders who are apprehended inside the U.S. Like the amendment that passed with 67 votes in 2012, the bill creates a new subsection (b) of the Non-Detention Act which clearly states: ``A general authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority, on its own, shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States.'' Like the previous version, this bill amends the Non-Detention Act to codify the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule'' from the Padilla case. So new subsection (a) will read, ``No citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except consistent with the Constitution and pursuant to an act of Congress that expressly authorizes such imprisonment or detention.'' Making the Clear Statement Rule part of subsection (a) strengthens the Non-Detention Act even more by requiring Congress to be explicit if it wants to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. Subsection (b) clarifies that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority does not authorize the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S., also known as a Green Card holder. Some may ask why this legislation protects Green Card holders as well as citizens. And others may ask why the bill does not protect all persons'' apprehended in the U.S. from indefinite detention. Let me make clear that I would support providing the protections in this amendment to all persons in the United States, whether lawfully or unlawfully present. But the question comes, is there enough political support to expand this amendment to cover others besides U.S. citizens and Green Card holders? Wherever we draw the line on who should be covered by this legislation, I believe it violates fundamental American rights to allow anyone apprehended on U.S. soil to be detained without charge or trial. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven, time and again, that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil, having successfully arrested, detained and convicted hundreds of these heinous people, both before and after 9/11. Specifically, there have been 556 terrorism-related convictions in federal criminal court between 9/11 and the end of 2013, according to the Department of Justice. Also, it is important to understand that suspected terrorists who may be in the U.S. illegally can be detained within the criminal justice system using at least the following 4 options: They can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held; they can be held for violating immigration laws; they can be held as material witnesses as part of Federal grand jury proceedings; and they can be held for up to 6 months under Section 412 of the Patriot Act. I want to be very clear about what this bill is and is not about. It is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla, or others who would do us harm, should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be. But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time? The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their peers. As President Obama said when referring to the indefinite detention of non-Americans at Guantanamo: ``Imagine a future--10 years from now or 20 years from now--when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country. . . . Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children? Our sense of justice is stronger than that.'' The same questions could be asked of those who would indefinitely detain Americans arrested on U.S. soil. Is that who we are? Does that reflect the America we want to leave to our children? Now is the time to clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens and Green Card holders captured inside this country without trial or charge. The Federal Government experimented with indefinite detention of U.S. citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal of our core values. Let us not repeat it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015, which I authored along with my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham. This bill will allow the Federal Government to crack down on poachers and transnational criminal organizations involved in the global trade in illegal wildlife products. Wildlife trafficking has become a global crime that the State Department estimates is valued at between $8 to $10 billion annually. This ranks it as one of the most lucrative types of organized crime in the world, along with drug and human trafficking. Besides being a major international crime, wildlife trafficking is a morally repugnant practice that threatens some of our world's most iconic species with extinction. The most disturbing example is that of elephants and rhinoceroses. A recent study estimates that over 100,000 elephants were illegally poached in Africa from 2010 to 2012. At this rate, the African elephant is being killed faster than the species can reproduce, putting it at risk of being wiped off the face of the earth. Most disturbingly, poachers are slaughtering very young and juvenile elephants for their tusks due to the record high demand for ivory in places like China and the United States. But the illicit ivory trade is not just a threat to African elephants; it is also a problem for global security. The State Department reports that there is increasing evidence that wildlife trafficking is funding armed insurgencies like Al Shabaab and the Lord's Resistance Army. The illegal ivory trade fuels corruption and violence in Africa. The rhinoceros has also been decimated by poaching due to record high demand for its horn. Conservation organizations estimate that hundreds of rhinoceroses are illegally slaughtered in Africa each year. It is deeply concerning that the poaching rate for rhinoceroses in Africa appears to be increasing. Some populations of rhinoceroses are on the brink of extinction. The population of the Sumatran rhinoceros has plummeted by over 50 percent in the last two decades due to poaching, and it is estimated that only about 100 remain in existence. It is estimated that fewer than 10 Northern White Rhinoceroses remain alive in the wild. The problem is not just confined to elephants and rhinoceroses. Tigers, leopards, endangered sea turtles, and many other wildlife species are being decimated by poaching. At its core, this legislation increases criminal penalties for wildlife trafficking crimes. The federal government needs stiffer penalties in order to go after organized and high volume traffickers. The President asked for this authority in the National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking released last year. Specifically, this bill makes violations of the Endangered Species Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act that involve more than $10,000 of illegal wildlife products predicate offenses under the money laundering and racketeering statutes and the Travel Act. Currently, each of these wildlife laws carries a maximum prison sentence of only one year for a violation. Under this bill, wildlife trafficking violations can be subject to up to a 20-year prison sentence, as well as increased fines and penalties of up to $500,000 for an offense. These new penalties will allow the government to change the equation on wildlife crimes. Wildlife trafficking has increased at dramatic rates because the crime is high value and low risk due to weak penalties across the world. Under the new authorities, the Federal Government will have a full range of tools to prosecute the worst wildlife trafficking offenders and to put them behind bars with significant sentences. The new authorities will also act as a deterrent to the criminal organizations currently trafficking illicit wildlife products into and through the United States. As one of the largest markets for products of illicit poaching in the world, the United States has a responsibility to step up and help to combat this scourge. With this legislation, the United States will set an example for other countries on the need for each country to strengthen penalties for wildlife trafficking. It is critical that other nations around the world with large markets for illicit wildlife products step up to tackle this global problem. The Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015 will also allow fines, penalties, forfeitures, and restitution recovered through use of the bill's new authorities to be transferred to established conservation funds at the Departments of the Interior and of Commerce. This will enable the Federal Government to use the monetary penalties from a wildlife trafficking conviction to benefit the species that was harmed. Thus, the bill will both act to punish and deter criminals while supporting the conservation of those species that are directly harmed by poaching. Addressing the issue of wildlife trafficking speaks to our values and morals as a Nation. We have a responsibility to help prevent these endangered species, which have existed for thousands of years, from becoming extinct in our lifetime. It is also clear that Federal law's weak penalties for wildlife crimes have been exploited by poachers and transnational criminals. I therefore ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to enact this legislation this year. The stakes for endangered species like elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses could not be higher. If we don't crack down on wildlife trafficking, we will be complicit in the slaughter.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Boxer, Durbin, Klobuchar, Murray, Udall, Franken, Wyden and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2015. Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent. In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that: cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so. However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians. Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.'' They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a wide area. But, in reality, they pose a far more deadly threat to innocent civilians. According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past fifty years, there have been 19,419 documented cluster munitions deaths in 31 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people. While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians have accounted for 94% of cluster munition casualties. Death and injury from unexploded ordnance left behind by cluster munitions continues to kill civilians to this day. Today, 23 States remain contaminated by unexploded ordnance left from cluster munitions. Last year, nine of these countries suffered casualties from unexploded ordnance. They were: Croatia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Cambodia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam. More tragically, despite the risk they pose to civilians, cluster bombs continue to be used in conflicts. Since July 2012, Syrian government forces have used cluster munitions in 10 of the country's 14 governates. Human Rights Watch has documented that the Syrian government has used seven types of cluster munitions to date, six of which were manufactured in the former Soviet Union and the seventh of which is Egyptian-made. In 2012 and 2013, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded 1,584 deaths from government-launched cluster munitions in Syria. Approximately 97 percent of the deaths directly linked to cluster munitions were civilians. For the first time, Human Rights Watch has also obtained evidence that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, has also used cluster bombs. According to witness testimony and photographic evidence, ISIL used cluster bombs on at least two occasions near the besieged town of Kobani. Terrorist groups and other non-state actors would not be able to obtain and use cluster bombs if the world adopted the Oslo Treaty on Cluster munitions. The Oslo Treaty bans the production, sale, stockpiling and use of cluster munitions. It came into effect in 2010 and to date has been ratified by 88 nations. Under the Treaty, 22 nations have destroyed 1.16 million cluster bombs and nearly 140 million submunitions. Unfortunately, the United States is neither a signatory nor state party to the Oslo Treaty. In fact, the United States maintains a stockpile of 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent. Rather than adopting the increasing international consensus that cluster bombs should be banned, the Pentagon continues to assert that they are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.'' I respectfully disagree. The benefit of using cluster bombs is outweighed by the continuing threat they pose to civilians long after the cessation of hostilities. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would immediately ban cluster bombs with unacceptable unexploded ordnance rates and in areas where civilians are known to be present. Passing this legislation would move the United States closer to abiding by the requirements of the Oslo Treaty, which has been ratified by many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Since 2008 the Congress has banned the export of cluster munitions with a greater than one percent unexploded ordnance rate. While banning the export of these indiscriminate weapons was a positive first step, I strongly believe the United States can do better. This body cannot compel the administration to sign the Oslo Treaty. However, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would do exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, and ensure that married same-sex couples are accorded equal treatment by the federal government. When I first introduced this bill in 2011, only 5 States and the District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriage. Today, due to a combination of actions by legislatures, voters, and the courts, 36 States and D.C. recognize same-sex marriage. Florida joined the group just this week. This progress is nothing short of amazing. Over 70 percent of Americans now live in a State where same-sex couples can marry. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, has caused most federal agencies to accord equal rights and responsibilities to married same-sex couples. But, despite this progress, the mission of ensuring full equality under Federal law for married same-sex couples is still unaccomplished. This bill will accomplish that mission. It will strike DOMA from Federal law, and ensure that legally married same-sex couples are treated equally by the federal government, period. I want to thank my 41 colleagues who have cosponsored this bill. For my colleagues who have not yet supported this bill: if you believe that couples who are married should be treated that way by the federal government, you should cosponsor this bill. It is as simple as that. Two major agencies, which serve millions and millions of Americans-- the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs-- still deny benefits to some married couples depending on where the couple has lived. This bill would fix that problem. Let me address Social Security first. An example of the discrimination married same-sex couples still face is the case of Kathy Murphy and Sara Barker. According to a legal filing, this couple married in Massachusetts and shared a ranch house in Texas for nearly 30 years. In 2010, when Sara was 60 years old, she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Sara went through several surgeries and chemotherapy, and Kathy was Sara's caregiver. Sara passed away on March 10, 2012. As the complaint states: ``Kathy lost her partner of more than thirty years and the love of her life.'' In July 2014--over a year after she applied--Kathy's application for survivor's benefits from Social Security was denied because they lived in Texas together, and Texas does not recognize them as married. This cost her an estimated $1,200 per month in Federal survivor's benefits. Veterans and active-duty military personnel in same-sex marriages also are being denied equal treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Many of these brave individuals have served our country overseas or in war zones, but they may nevertheless be denied a huge range of benefits our nation grants to those who have served in the Armed Forces. A court filing by the American Military Partners Association explains that: lesbian and gay veterans and their spouses and survivors . . . will be denied or disadvantaged in obtaining spousal veterans benefits such as disability compensation, death pension benefits, home loan guarantees, and rights to burial together in national cemeteries. This is wrong. Our married gay and lesbian soldiers put their lives on the line for our country the same way other soldiers do. We owe them the same debt of gratitude we owe to all other men and women who serve, and this bill would ensure that we fulfill that solemn obligation. Continued discrimination against married same-sex couples is not limited to these benefits programs. Other Federal laws are not part of programs administered by agencies, but they nevertheless are designed to protect families, including spouses. Let me just give one example--Section 115 of Title 18. Among other things, this law makes it a crime to assault, kidnap, or murder a spouse of Federal law enforcement officer, with the intent to influence or retaliate against the officer. This law protects the ability of people like FBI agents and federal prosecutors to serve the public knowing there is protection from violence against their families. These agents and prosecutors investigate and prosecute people like drug kingpins, terrorists, and organized crime figures. But, even today, it is not clear whether this vital protection for these officers covers those in lawful same- sex marriages everywhere in the country. These public servants, who protect all of us, should not have to worry that they lack the full protection we provide to their colleagues--but that is the situation we confront today. This bill would fix it. In addition, Section 2 of DOMA--which was not expressly addressed by the Supreme Court--continues to pose a serious risk to legal relief received by victims of crime and civil wrongs. This bill would repeal it. Section 2 of DOMA is the full faith and credit provision of DOMA, and it has been the subject of many misconceptions. When DOMA was enacted, some claimed Section 2 was designed to prevent the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution from forcing a state to recognize a marriage from another state. But states have never needed permission from Congress to decide whether to recognize an out-of-state marriage. States have done that under their own laws, subject to other constitutional guarantees like the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, repealing Section 2 of DOMA simply would not force a State, or a religious institution, to recognize a particular marriage. While it is on the books, Section 2 may have a very serious impact: it may nullify legal relief awarded to victims of crime and other civil wrongs. There is a general rule that the judgments of one state's courts will be enforced in another state's courts. But Section 2 purports to exempt any ``right or claim arising from'' a same-sex marriage from this rule. Imagine a woman killed by a drunk driver. Her surviving spouse would have a civil claim for wrongful death, or might obtain restitution in a criminal case. But DOMA could prevent the court judgments in those cases from being enforced in the perpetrator's home State, allowing him to avoid the consequences of his actions. The same problem could arise in numerous types of cases, such as assaults, batteries, and insurance claims. Same-sex married couples are the only class of people who are burdened by this sort of legal disability, which hinders the court system from protecting them the same way that it does other citizens. This is wrong, and it must be repealed. As a Senator from California, I come to this bill with a strong sense of history. In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to find that a ban on interracial marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause. At the time, 29 states still prohibited interracial marriage. Prohibitions on interracial marriage then were eliminated in 13 other states, so that when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia in 1967, only 16 states retained bans on interracial marriage. I very much hope that is where we are today on same-sex marriage. People of all stripes have come to believe that loving and committed same-sex couples are worthy of the same dignity and respect other couples receive. Public opinion has changed dramatically, and 36 states now recognize same-sex marriage. The tide has shifted, I hope irreversibly so. But here, in Congress, we still have work to do. We must end the discrimination married same-sex couples continue to face at the federal level. DOMA remains on the books, where it should never have been placed. It could be revived by a different Supreme Court majority. A future administration also could interpret other laws differently than this Administration has done, potentially restricting the availability of key benefits even further. The solution is simple: pass this bill, which would eliminate DOMA and accord equal treatment under Federal law for married same-sex couples. Let me again thank my cosponsors for joining me in this effort, and to urge my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015, which I authored along with my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham. This bill will allow the Federal Government to crack down on poachers and transnational criminal organizations involved in the global trade in illegal wildlife products. Wildlife trafficking has become a global crime that the State Department estimates is valued at between $8 to $10 billion annually. This ranks it as one of the most lucrative types of organized crime in the world, along with drug and human trafficking. Besides being a major international crime, wildlife trafficking is a morally repugnant practice that threatens some of our world's most iconic species with extinction. The most disturbing example is that of elephants and rhinoceroses. A recent study estimates that over 100,000 elephants were illegally poached in Africa from 2010 to 2012. At this rate, the African elephant is being killed faster than the species can reproduce, putting it at risk of being wiped off the face of the earth. Most disturbingly, poachers are slaughtering very young and juvenile elephants for their tusks due to the record high demand for ivory in places like China and the United States. But the illicit ivory trade is not just a threat to African elephants; it is also a problem for global security. The State Department reports that there is increasing evidence that wildlife trafficking is funding armed insurgencies like Al Shabaab and the Lord's Resistance Army. The illegal ivory trade fuels corruption and violence in Africa. The rhinoceros has also been decimated by poaching due to record high demand for its horn. Conservation organizations estimate that hundreds of rhinoceroses are illegally slaughtered in Africa each year. It is deeply concerning that the poaching rate for rhinoceroses in Africa appears to be increasing. Some populations of rhinoceroses are on the brink of extinction. The population of the Sumatran rhinoceros has plummeted by over 50 percent in the last two decades due to poaching, and it is estimated that only about 100 remain in existence. It is estimated that fewer than 10 Northern White Rhinoceroses remain alive in the wild. The problem is not just confined to elephants and rhinoceroses. Tigers, leopards, endangered sea turtles, and many other wildlife species are being decimated by poaching. At its core, this legislation increases criminal penalties for wildlife trafficking crimes. The federal government needs stiffer penalties in order to go after organized and high volume traffickers. The President asked for this authority in the National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking released last year. Specifically, this bill makes violations of the Endangered Species Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act that involve more than $10,000 of illegal wildlife products predicate offenses under the money laundering and racketeering statutes and the Travel Act. Currently, each of these wildlife laws carries a maximum prison sentence of only one year for a violation. Under this bill, wildlife trafficking violations can be subject to up to a 20-year prison sentence, as well as increased fines and penalties of up to $500,000 for an offense. These new penalties will allow the government to change the equation on wildlife crimes. Wildlife trafficking has increased at dramatic rates because the crime is high value and low risk due to weak penalties across the world. Under the new authorities, the Federal Government will have a full range of tools to prosecute the worst wildlife trafficking offenders and to put them behind bars with significant sentences. The new authorities will also act as a deterrent to the criminal organizations currently trafficking illicit wildlife products into and through the United States. As one of the largest markets for products of illicit poaching in the world, the United States has a responsibility to step up and help to combat this scourge. With this legislation, the United States will set an example for other countries on the need for each country to strengthen penalties for wildlife trafficking. It is critical that other nations around the world with large markets for illicit wildlife products step up to tackle this global problem. The Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015 will also allow fines, penalties, forfeitures, and restitution recovered through use of the bill's new authorities to be transferred to established conservation funds at the Departments of the Interior and of Commerce. This will enable the Federal Government to use the monetary penalties from a wildlife trafficking conviction to benefit the species that was harmed. Thus, the bill will both act to punish and deter criminals while supporting the conservation of those species that are directly harmed by poaching. Addressing the issue of wildlife trafficking speaks to our values and morals as a Nation. We have a responsibility to help prevent these endangered species, which have existed for thousands of years, from becoming extinct in our lifetime. It is also clear that Federal law's weak penalties for wildlife crimes have been exploited by poachers and transnational criminals. I therefore ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to enact this legislation this year. The stakes for endangered species like elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses could not be higher. If we don't crack down on wildlife trafficking, we will be complicit in the slaughter.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Boxer, Durbin, Klobuchar, Murray, Udall, Franken, Wyden and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2015. Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent. In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that: cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so. However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians. Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.'' They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a wide area. But, in reality, they pose a far more deadly threat to innocent civilians. According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past fifty years, there have been 19,419 documented cluster munitions deaths in 31 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people. While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians have accounted for 94% of cluster munition casualties. Death and injury from unexploded ordnance left behind by cluster munitions continues to kill civilians to this day. Today, 23 States remain contaminated by unexploded ordnance left from cluster munitions. Last year, nine of these countries suffered casualties from unexploded ordnance. They were: Croatia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Cambodia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam. More tragically, despite the risk they pose to civilians, cluster bombs continue to be used in conflicts. Since July 2012, Syrian government forces have used cluster munitions in 10 of the country's 14 governates. Human Rights Watch has documented that the Syrian government has used seven types of cluster munitions to date, six of which were manufactured in the former Soviet Union and the seventh of which is Egyptian-made. In 2012 and 2013, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded 1,584 deaths from government-launched cluster munitions in Syria. Approximately 97 percent of the deaths directly linked to cluster munitions were civilians. For the first time, Human Rights Watch has also obtained evidence that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, has also used cluster bombs. According to witness testimony and photographic evidence, ISIL used cluster bombs on at least two occasions near the besieged town of Kobani. Terrorist groups and other non-state actors would not be able to obtain and use cluster bombs if the world adopted the Oslo Treaty on Cluster munitions. The Oslo Treaty bans the production, sale, stockpiling and use of cluster munitions. It came into effect in 2010 and to date has been ratified by 88 nations. Under the Treaty, 22 nations have destroyed 1.16 million cluster bombs and nearly 140 million submunitions. Unfortunately, the United States is neither a signatory nor state party to the Oslo Treaty. In fact, the United States maintains a stockpile of 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent. Rather than adopting the increasing international consensus that cluster bombs should be banned, the Pentagon continues to assert that they are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.'' I respectfully disagree. The benefit of using cluster bombs is outweighed by the continuing threat they pose to civilians long after the cessation of hostilities. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would immediately ban cluster bombs with unacceptable unexploded ordnance rates and in areas where civilians are known to be present. Passing this legislation would move the United States closer to abiding by the requirements of the Oslo Treaty, which has been ratified by many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Since 2008 the Congress has banned the export of cluster munitions with a greater than one percent unexploded ordnance rate. While banning the export of these indiscriminate weapons was a positive first step, I strongly believe the United States can do better. This body cannot compel the administration to sign the Oslo Treaty. However, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would do exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.