Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Respect for Marriage Act. Today is an historic day. The Supreme Court issued two decisions that are major victories for the cause of equality for same-sex couples in this nation. In United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which denies the federal benefits and obligations of marriage to legally married same-sex couples. I was one of 14 members of this body to vote against DOMA in 1996, and I am pleased a major part of the law has been declared unconstitutional. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court left in place a trial court injunction finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional--which will bring marriage equality back to my home State of California. I am thrilled by these decisions, which will mean a great deal for same-sex couples in California and across the Nation. Our work, however, is not done. It remains critical that Congress act to fully repeal DOMA. That is what the Respect for Marriage Act will do. This legislation is cosponsored by 40 members of the Senate--Senators Baldwin, Baucus, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Coons, Cowan, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, King, Klobuchar, Leahy, Levin, McCaskill, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murphy, Murray, Reed, Sanders, Schatz, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Warren, Whitehouse, and Wyden. I want to thank them for their strong support of this legislation. I would also like to thank Representative Jerry Nadler for his staunch leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives. Today, 12 States: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry. Because of today's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which left, in effect, a trial court order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional, my home State of California will soon once again recognize the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. I am thrilled about that result. According to the 2010 Census, there are over 131,000 same-sex married couples in this Nation--a number that is sure to grow. I think most Americans have come to recognize that same-sex couples live their lives like other married couples. They raise children together. They care for each other in good times and in bad. They take the same vows and make the same commitments as straight couples. Simply put, they are families. Like other families, they reap life's joys and bear the brunt of life's hardships together. Until the Supreme Court's decision today in United States v. Windsor, DOMA turned these families into second-class families. Under over 1,100 Federal laws, DOMA prohibited the Federal Government from recognizing the equal dignity and commitment of legally married same-sex couples. These couples were barred from filing joint tax returns, forced to pay much higher taxes on employer-provided health benefits, and stripped of protections for married couples from the estate tax. They could not receive Social Security survivor benefits, which protect a surviving spouse from becoming destitute when the other spouse passes away. Critical protections and benefits for service members and veterans were also denied. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, well over 100 statutory protections granted by Congress to servicemembers turn on marital status. Today's decision in United States v. Windsor is a major victory for equality. It says that Section 3 of DOMA--which denies Federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples--is unconstitutional because it is a denial of equal protection. The Windsor case had to do with two women--Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer--who met in 1963 and were together for over 40 years. They married in 2007. Yet when Thea died in 2009, Edie was forced to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA. Had her spouse been a man, Edie would not have had to pay those taxes. Even after the Court decision, which hinged on a bare 5-4 majority, the Respect for Marriage Act remains critically important legislation, for several reasons. First, DOMA is a discriminatory law--all of it should be fully stricken from the books. It was wrong when it was passed, and it should be repealed. Second, even after the Windsor decision, there will remain inconsistencies in how certain Federal programs are administered. For example, the Social Security Act provides Survivors' Benefits-- which are critical for families after a spouse dies--based on the law of the state where the deceased spouse was domiciled at the time of death. So, a married couple could live together for 40 years, contribute equally to the system, and then be stripped of what they have earned-- just because they moved to another state for medical reasons before one spouse passed. That's just not right. Veterans benefits are based on the law of the state where the parties resided at the time of the marriage, or when the right to benefits accrued. So, different veterans benefits might be granted or denied, depending on where a couple lived at different times, without any rhyme or reason. That is not fair to former servicemembers who may have moved around as part of their military service. This bill is simple. It would strike all of DOMA, a discriminatory law, from the U.S. Code. It would provide a clear rule that the Federal Government would recognize a marriage if that marriage is valid in the State where it was entered into. This rule will provide clarity and predictability for legally married same-sex couples, and it will be easy to administer for federal agencies tasked with ending DOMA in the programs they administer. The bill would not require any state to issue a marriage license it does not wish to issue, nor would it require any religious institution to perform any marriage. In 2011, after I first introduced this bill, I gave a press conference about it at the National Press Club. I said I was not faint- hearted about this, and that I was in it for the long march. Today, I remain committed to that cause and determined to see it through. Our work is not finished until DOMA is fully off the books, which is what this bill will do.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013. This legislation will make it easier for communities across the Nation to improve their public infrastructure by providing access to cost-effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of growth on the environment and endangered species. This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''. Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going construction and development activity. In California, the Western Riverside County multiple-species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of public land and 45,000 acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 million. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure. To date, the Western Riverside MSHCP has resulted in expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion to the county's economy. Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained. In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities. Revenue which had been generated by development fees to finance acquisition of habitat has also slowed. Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also signal increasing real estate prices that will make the acquisition of mitigation lands more challenging. That's why it is important to provide communities like Western Riverside ready access to capital now to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing HCP's billions of dollars. Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted--a very rare occurrence. These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling participating communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer: protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition. A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also expressed support for this concept when it approved a similar, albeit more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, last month. But where the WRDA provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation would broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars. 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 Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013. This legislation will make it easier for communities across the Nation to improve their public infrastructure by providing access to cost-effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of growth on the environment and endangered species. This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''. Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going construction and development activity. In California, the Western Riverside County multiple-species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of public land and 45,000 acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 million. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure. To date, the Western Riverside MSHCP has resulted in expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion to the county's economy. Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained. In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities. Revenue which had been generated by development fees to finance acquisition of habitat has also slowed. Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also signal increasing real estate prices that will make the acquisition of mitigation lands more challenging. That's why it is important to provide communities like Western Riverside ready access to capital now to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing HCP's billions of dollars. Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted--a very rare occurrence. These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling participating communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer: protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition. A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also expressed support for this concept when it approved a similar, albeit more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, last month. But where the WRDA provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation would broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars. 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 legislation to extend a critical textile and apparel trade program with Nicaragua, currently set to expire at the end of 2014 through the end of 2024. This is a unique program which benefits not only Nicaraguan apparel factories and U.S. apparel companies and retailers, but U.S. fabric and yarn mills as well. Let me explain. In an effort to promote trade between the United States and Nicaragua, the 2006 Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, allows Nicaragua to export to the United States a limited amount of apparel products duty free regardless of the source of the yarn or fabric. Specifically, this Tariff Preference Level, TPL, allows Nicaragua to export 100 million square meter equivalents, SMEs, of apparel made with fabric from non-CAFTA countries as long as the apparel is assembled in Nicaragua. In order to ensure that U.S. fabric producers could also take advantage of this program, it contains a special rule for trousers. It requires Nicaragua to purchase one square meter of U.S. fabric for every one square meter of non-CAFTA woven trouser fabric. That is, under this ``one for one'' rule, for each export of woven trousers made from non-CAFTA fabric, Nicaragua agreed to export to the U.S. an equal amount of woven trousers made of U.S. fabric, up to a certain level 50 million square meter equivalents. This ``one for one'' feature has been especially successful, resulting in an increase in U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua and an increase in apparel production jobs in Central America. In fact, since 2006, when the program went into effect, U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua have nearly doubled from $57.3 million to $110.2 million. Nicaragua is now the fastest growing market for U.S. fabric exports to the CAFTA region. Nicaragua has also greatly benefited from this program. I would remind my colleagues that Nicaragua, with a GDP per capita of $3,300, is the poorest country in Central America and the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Approximately 42.5 percent of Nicaragua's population lives below the poverty line. It is vital that Nicaragua develop and grow new export opportunities to help lift its people out of poverty. And that is what this program has done. Since 2006, total apparel exports from Nicaragua to the U.S. have doubled. The program now accounts for 25 percent of those exports. Between 2005 and 2013, jobs in the apparel sector in Nicaragua have grown by 23 percent. That is, 13,236 new jobs have been created since CAFTA went into effect. With a program that has proven to be so successful and mutually beneficial, it is appropriate for Congress to extend it and ensure that these benefits continue. Some of my colleagues may wonder why I am introducing legislation now to extend a textile and apparel trade program that will not expire until the end of 2014. The simple answer is that an early renewal is critical for business planning purposes. U.S. companies that have taken advantage of this program are making decisions now about their long-term investments and where they will source apparel products. Extending this program several months before its expiration date will help give U.S. companies the necessary confidence to continue to invest in Nicaragua and take advantage of its benefits. If we wait until the last minute to extend the program, the ties that have been developed between U.S. and Nicaraguan companies and the benefits accrued will be put at risk. Simply put, U.S. companies will not make the commitments to Nicaragua if there is a chance the textile and apparel trade program will lapse. They will look elsewhere for new business opportunities to avoid what would in essence be a new trade barrier to U.S. textile exports and U.S. apparel companies in Nicaragua. And as U.S. apparel orders from Nicaragua decline, U.S. textile exports to Nicaragua will also decline. Jobs will be lost. U.S. companies are looking for assurances that the U.S. is committed to this program after 2014 and that is why this legislation is needed now. It is supported by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the United States Association of Importers of Textile and Apparel. It is a win-win trade program promoting jobs and economic growth in both countries. Nicaragua will be able to continue to develop a vital export industry and U.S. apparel companies, retailers, and textile manufacturers will continue to access a growing, thriving market in Central America. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend a critical textile and apparel trade program with Nicaragua, currently set to expire at the end of 2014 through the end of 2024. This is a unique program which benefits not only Nicaraguan apparel factories and U.S. apparel companies and retailers, but U.S. fabric and yarn mills as well. Let me explain. In an effort to promote trade between the United States and Nicaragua, the 2006 Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, allows Nicaragua to export to the United States a limited amount of apparel products duty free regardless of the source of the yarn or fabric. Specifically, this Tariff Preference Level, TPL, allows Nicaragua to export 100 million square meter equivalents, SMEs, of apparel made with fabric from non-CAFTA countries as long as the apparel is assembled in Nicaragua. In order to ensure that U.S. fabric producers could also take advantage of this program, it contains a special rule for trousers. It requires Nicaragua to purchase one square meter of U.S. fabric for every one square meter of non-CAFTA woven trouser fabric. That is, under this ``one for one'' rule, for each export of woven trousers made from non-CAFTA fabric, Nicaragua agreed to export to the U.S. an equal amount of woven trousers made of U.S. fabric, up to a certain level 50 million square meter equivalents. This ``one for one'' feature has been especially successful, resulting in an increase in U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua and an increase in apparel production jobs in Central America. In fact, since 2006, when the program went into effect, U.S. fabric exports to Nicaragua have nearly doubled from $57.3 million to $110.2 million. Nicaragua is now the fastest growing market for U.S. fabric exports to the CAFTA region. Nicaragua has also greatly benefited from this program. I would remind my colleagues that Nicaragua, with a GDP per capita of $3,300, is the poorest country in Central America and the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Approximately 42.5 percent of Nicaragua's population lives below the poverty line. It is vital that Nicaragua develop and grow new export opportunities to help lift its people out of poverty. And that is what this program has done. Since 2006, total apparel exports from Nicaragua to the U.S. have doubled. The program now accounts for 25 percent of those exports. Between 2005 and 2013, jobs in the apparel sector in Nicaragua have grown by 23 percent. That is, 13,236 new jobs have been created since CAFTA went into effect. With a program that has proven to be so successful and mutually beneficial, it is appropriate for Congress to extend it and ensure that these benefits continue. Some of my colleagues may wonder why I am introducing legislation now to extend a textile and apparel trade program that will not expire until the end of 2014. The simple answer is that an early renewal is critical for business planning purposes. U.S. companies that have taken advantage of this program are making decisions now about their long-term investments and where they will source apparel products. Extending this program several months before its expiration date will help give U.S. companies the necessary confidence to continue to invest in Nicaragua and take advantage of its benefits. If we wait until the last minute to extend the program, the ties that have been developed between U.S. and Nicaraguan companies and the benefits accrued will be put at risk. Simply put, U.S. companies will not make the commitments to Nicaragua if there is a chance the textile and apparel trade program will lapse. They will look elsewhere for new business opportunities to avoid what would in essence be a new trade barrier to U.S. textile exports and U.S. apparel companies in Nicaragua. And as U.S. apparel orders from Nicaragua decline, U.S. textile exports to Nicaragua will also decline. Jobs will be lost. U.S. companies are looking for assurances that the U.S. is committed to this program after 2014 and that is why this legislation is needed now. It is supported by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the United States Association of Importers of Textile and Apparel. It is a win-win trade program promoting jobs and economic growth in both countries. Nicaragua will be able to continue to develop a vital export industry and U.S. apparel companies, retailers, and textile manufacturers will continue to access a growing, thriving market in Central America. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to amendment No. 991, filed by my colleague, the junior Senator from South Dakota. This amendment would eliminate $2 billion from SNAP by limiting the funds available for cost-effective nutrition education programs. While I appreciate and share my colleague's deep commitment to deficit reduction, this amendment would do so at the expense of those who can least afford it. It is a shortsighted amendment pennywise and pound foolish. A $2 billion cut to this program would chip away at vital programs that combat obesity, a growing epidemic that weighs on our health care system and our economy. Estimates of the medical cost of adult obesity in the United States range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per year, according to the Trust for America's Health. Cutting this program may save money in the short term, but it would cripple ongoing efforts to deliver innovative and effective nutrition education to the most vulnerable populations in our country. And these education programs are working, Madam President. According to a study published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, USDA's SNAP nutrition education programs contributed to a 17 percent increase in the number of California adults who ate at least five servings of fruits and vegetables each day. The study showed that the greatest improvements in daily fruit and vegetable consumption were seen in populations with the greatest need. There was a 91 percent increase among the poorest segment of the population, those with less than $15,000 in annual income, who consumed five or more serving of fruits and vegetables per day; a 77 percent improvement in the African American population, and a 43 percent improvement in the Latino population. The staggering cost of obesity will continue to increase until we take significant action to improve our health and diet. That's not to say that there's no room for reform; there certainly is. That is why Congress passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act 3 years ago, a bill that made significant reforms to SNAP nutrition education programs. Most notably, the law changed how the program is funded to make it more equitable. The formula now reflects the actual number of SNAP beneficiaries in each State. Some would have us believe that the amendment, which mandates an across-the-board $5 cap per recipient, is fiscally responsible. I don't think that is the case. I believe this is simply an attempt to redistribute SNAP funding to States that have shown no interest in reducing obesity among SNAP beneficiaries. Under the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, funding for the SNAP Education Program is allotted based on two factors: a State's historical contributions to healthy eating and lifestyle programs, and the number of SNAP participants in the State. The amendment offered by my colleague from South Dakota undoes that formula, instead allocating funds solely on a per-recipient basis. The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act formula was the product of a compromise. The old formula, which allowed the Federal Government to match all State contributions to programs that encourage healthy eating and lifestyles for SNAP recipients, was not affordable. By eliminating the unlimited match provision and replacing it with a block grant, the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act was able to save taxpayers more than $1 billion over 10 years. In exchange for this reduction, a new formula was created. Under the new provision, States that committed hundreds of millions of their own dollars to reduce obesity, like California and Michigan, received marginally higher obesity education funding from USDA. And States that had not dedicated their own resources to combating obesity received a relatively smaller share of the funding. Allowing the changes from 2010, which are just now being implemented, to take effect is the best way to effectively reform this program. This amendment would devastate a program that helps SNAP-eligible children and families learn to stretch their food budgets, reduce hunger, make improvements to their diets and reduce obesity. I urge my colleagues to let USDA implement the thoughtful comprehensive reforms from 2010.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, scientific studies continue to show cause for concern about the chemical Bisphenol-A, BPA, especially the effects on babies and young children. Endocrine disrupting chemicals alter the function of the body's hormonal system. BPA is a synthetic estrogen, which means that it mimics this hormone when in the body. While studies continue to examine the exact effects this endocrine disrupting chemical has on humans, consumers deserve more information. They have the right to know if it is in the food products they purchase for their families. The BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act requires that food packaging that uses BPA include a clear label informing consumers. The label would read, ``This food packaging contains BPA, an endocrine- disrupting chemical.'' This basic message would allow individuals to make informed decisions about the products they purchase. BPA is most commonly found in food products, such as the lining of cans. Parents are busy enough caring for their children and juggling what feels like a hundred things at the same time. Having factual information about whether the food they are buying at the grocery store contains BPA, a potentially harmful chemical, shouldn't be one more thing they have to go to great lengths to figure out. This legislation also directs the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to do a safety assessment of food containers containing BPA to determine if there is reasonable certainty that no harm will come from long-term low dose exposure to BPA as well as high dose exposure. This safety standard would also be used to evaluate proposed uses of alternatives to BPA. There is no use in replacing BPA in products if what we are replacing it with is just as bad or worse for human health. The President's Cancer Panel focused on reducing the environmental cancer risk in its 2008- 2009 Annual Report. BPA is just one of many chemicals that pose a potential environmental cancer risk, with links to various cancers and also potentially affecting how well cancer treatments work. This panel, appointed by former President George W. Bush, decided that even though studies are ongoing, they had enough information to state that ``the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.'' I agree with this finding and strongly believe that as scientific studies continue to seek definitive answers to the role of chemical exposure in adversely affecting human health, the very least that consumers deserve is the right to know what chemicals, such as BPA, are in the products they are purchasing. The panel specifically mentions concern that even though studies continue to link BPA with a variety of diseases, it still remains in products. I am particularly concerned about the negative health effects to children who are exposed to chemicals both while they are developing in the womb and in the first few years of their lives. Children are particularly susceptible to toxins while their bodies are developing at such a rapid pace. A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Berkley, stated that fetuses and pregnant women may be particularly susceptible to BPA exposure. The study found that exposure to BPA may have an effect on thyroid function, and suggests continued studies to confirm these findings. An article published in Health Affairs in 2011 estimated that the annual cost of diseases that can be attributed to negative environmental exposures was more than $76 billion per year in 2008. The incidence of endocrine system-related diseases continues to rise, and animal studies have shown adverse health effects in connection with exposure to BPA. A recent study by researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health examined a link between BPA exposure and an increased risk for asthma in young children. They found that there was an elevated risk associated with BPA exposure and more research is needed to determine specific links. BPA is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products and the most common exposure is through the lining of food packaging- like cans of green beans and ready-made soups. As with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without knowing if it is safe or not. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act to stand up for the right of consumers to make informed choices about the food products they buy for their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, scientific studies continue to show cause for concern about the chemical Bisphenol-A, BPA, especially the effects on babies and young children. Endocrine disrupting chemicals alter the function of the body's hormonal system. BPA is a synthetic estrogen, which means that it mimics this hormone when in the body. While studies continue to examine the exact effects this endocrine disrupting chemical has on humans, consumers deserve more information. They have the right to know if it is in the food products they purchase for their families. The BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act requires that food packaging that uses BPA include a clear label informing consumers. The label would read, ``This food packaging contains BPA, an endocrine- disrupting chemical.'' This basic message would allow individuals to make informed decisions about the products they purchase. BPA is most commonly found in food products, such as the lining of cans. Parents are busy enough caring for their children and juggling what feels like a hundred things at the same time. Having factual information about whether the food they are buying at the grocery store contains BPA, a potentially harmful chemical, shouldn't be one more thing they have to go to great lengths to figure out. This legislation also directs the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to do a safety assessment of food containers containing BPA to determine if there is reasonable certainty that no harm will come from long-term low dose exposure to BPA as well as high dose exposure. This safety standard would also be used to evaluate proposed uses of alternatives to BPA. There is no use in replacing BPA in products if what we are replacing it with is just as bad or worse for human health. The President's Cancer Panel focused on reducing the environmental cancer risk in its 2008- 2009 Annual Report. BPA is just one of many chemicals that pose a potential environmental cancer risk, with links to various cancers and also potentially affecting how well cancer treatments work. This panel, appointed by former President George W. Bush, decided that even though studies are ongoing, they had enough information to state that ``the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.'' I agree with this finding and strongly believe that as scientific studies continue to seek definitive answers to the role of chemical exposure in adversely affecting human health, the very least that consumers deserve is the right to know what chemicals, such as BPA, are in the products they are purchasing. The panel specifically mentions concern that even though studies continue to link BPA with a variety of diseases, it still remains in products. I am particularly concerned about the negative health effects to children who are exposed to chemicals both while they are developing in the womb and in the first few years of their lives. Children are particularly susceptible to toxins while their bodies are developing at such a rapid pace. A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Berkley, stated that fetuses and pregnant women may be particularly susceptible to BPA exposure. The study found that exposure to BPA may have an effect on thyroid function, and suggests continued studies to confirm these findings. An article published in Health Affairs in 2011 estimated that the annual cost of diseases that can be attributed to negative environmental exposures was more than $76 billion per year in 2008. The incidence of endocrine system-related diseases continues to rise, and animal studies have shown adverse health effects in connection with exposure to BPA. A recent study by researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health examined a link between BPA exposure and an increased risk for asthma in young children. They found that there was an elevated risk associated with BPA exposure and more research is needed to determine specific links. BPA is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products and the most common exposure is through the lining of food packaging- like cans of green beans and ready-made soups. As with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without knowing if it is safe or not. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act to stand up for the right of consumers to make informed choices about the food products they buy for their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I believe pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement propounded by the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee that I am next up to be able to speak on an amendment. But for a brief moment I want to reflect on what I have heard and the lens through which I see it. I have been here for 20 years. When I came to the Senate, it was not this way. The rules of the Senate were observed. A small minority never tried to subvert the will of a majority. I think Senator McCain said it well. We stand on the floor. We advocate for our views. We either win or lose. The dye is cast. But we have an opportunity for full deliberation. It is one thing to have a minority have their rights. It is another thing to have a minority of the minority absolutely try and handcuff a committee of the Senate. I believe that is wrong. Because what is happening here sets a precedent for future answers. And there is no reason not to have a conference committee. I think the Senator from Utah knows full well these conference committees are open to the public. They are open to the press. They are often long. They can be laborious. But it is a way of reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate. So to handcuff this Budget Committee and say it can do this but it cannot do that is not the right thing to do. I hope the credibility of the minority of the minority running this body diminishes with this debate. Amendment No. 923 Let me now go to an amendment Senator McCain and I are offering to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for tobacco production in the farm bill of America. It is No. 923. I will not call it up because I understand an agreement is--I am just told by the chairwoman of the committee that I can call up the amendment, and to this end I call up amendment No. 923.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask reading of the amendment be vitiated, and I will proceed with my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Fine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the chairwoman. She made a commitment to hold a vote on this amendment on Monday evening, and she has sought mightily to keep her word, and I very much appreciate that. This amendment is, to my view, about common sense. Tobacco is not just another crop; it causes 443,000 deaths each year. It is the leading cause of preventable death in America. The CDC estimates that tobacco costs the American economy more than $200 billion each year in health care expenses and lost productivity. A recent study estimates that annual smoking-attributable expenditures add $22 billion each year to Medicaid's bottom line. In other words, Medicaid costs $22 billion more because of tobacco. In 2004, Congress approved nearly $10 billion--$9.6 billion, to be exact--in payments over the next 10 years to tobacco farmers and quota holders in exchange for ending the tobacco program. In addition to this $10 billion, tobacco farmers also received more than $276 million in taxpayer-funded crop insurance subsidies since 2004. That is what we are trying to change. Unlike crop insurance indemnities, the tobacco insurance subsidy is not based on losses. The government pays premium support subsidies year in and year out regardless of losses. In 2012, farmers received $37.4 million in subsidies; in 2011, $33 million; in 2010, $37.1 million; in 2009, $40.1 million. If you add this up, there is $147 million in subsidies given, despite the big tobacco buyout of $10 billion, in subsidies to crop insurance. If you look at our $642 billion deficit, why would the government continue to subsidize crop insurance for tobacco? Now that is not to say tobacco farmers should not have access to crop insurance. Insurance is an important risk management tool for any business, and our amendment allows tobacco farmers to continue to purchase crop insurance. The amendment is specific. It eliminates the government's contribution to the annual cost of tobacco insurance premiums. But it does not impact the ability for crop insurance companies to sell these products. Farmers can manage weather and market risk without the mandatory taxpayer premium support. Some may say: Well, market rate insurance is not feasible for farmers. I challenge that notion. Carrot farmers do not have access to any crop insurance--federally subsidized or otherwise--neither do spinach farmers, broccoli farmers, or artichoke farmers. The list of crops with no insurance support goes on: cauliflower, celery, eggplant, cut flowers, Kiwi, kumquats, melons, garlic, raspberries, and pomegranates, to name a few. Farming without government-subsidized crop insurance is possible, contrary to what some would have you believe. I also want to remind my colleagues that tobacco farmers have done quite well by the government. In 2014, North Carolina tobacco farmers and quota owners will have received $3.9 billion in buyout payments. In other words, they have taken this money to be bought out. Kentucky quota owners and farmers will have received $2.4 billion from the government. Quota holders and farmers in Tennessee, South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia will each have received more than $600 million in buyout payments by the end of next year. Evenly divided among the thousands of tobacco quota holders and farmers nationwide, the nearly $10 billion buyout has provided very generous support. We need to remember this is not a struggling industry. Contrary to what some would have you believe, a 2012 University of Illinois study found that productivity on Kentucky tobacco farms increased by 44 percent in the last 10 years. At the same time, tobacco farmers are seeing some of their best paydays since the 2004 buyouts began. Tobacco is fetching nearly $2 a pound for some farmers. The 2012 crop was valued at $1.579 billion. To return to the question at hand, should taxpayers continue to subsidize tobacco productions, I believe the answer is no. Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. As I said, it kills 443,000 people each year. It costs $200 billion in health care and reduced productivity. I am not alone. This amendment is supported by the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the American Public Health Association, the Environmental Working Group, Doctors for America, Physicians for Responsible Medicine, and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Some would have you believe this is going to affect the small tobacco farmer. Let's take a look at it. There are 16,228 farms that grow tobacco nationwide. Well, I will not get into that. The industry is concentrated. A small number of large farms produces the vast majority of the crop. Two percent of the farms produce 50 percent of the annual tobacco crop; 10 percent, 75 percent of the annual tobacco crop. Twenty percent of farms that grow tobacco are smaller than 50 acres. Eighty percent of farms that grow tobacco are larger than 50 acres. The bottom line is most tobacco farmers are not relying on tobacco as their primary crop. Thus, it is not surprising that only 4,495--that is 72 percent of farms--have tobacco sales of more than $50,000 a year. A fair assessment shows that about 5 percent of tobacco farmers, 908, do fall into the category of small farmers who rely on tobacco as their primary farm income. The buyout expires, I believe, at the end of 2014. My point is nearly $10 billion of taxpayer funds is in the process of being expended to buy out tobacco farmers. Why should we then subsidize crop insurance? I very much hope my colleagues will join me in supporting what I think is commonsense reform. We have to say no to tobacco in America. Most of us think we have made great progress. Young people smoke less; older people smoke less; you do not smoke in public places. All of these have had a big impact. I think by eliminating this subsidy on crop insurance, it also can have a constructive impact. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this amendment is offered on behalf of Senator McCain and myself. Ladies and gentlemen, tobacco is not just another crop. It is the largest preventable cause of cancer deaths in this country. Exactly 443,000 people die every year. It costs Medicaid an additional $22 billion. In 2004 a special assessment of $9.6 billion was authorized to buy out tobacco farms in the United States. That has 1 more year to run. We subsidize tobacco crop insurance. We should not. This country should become tobacco-free. It will save lives. I urge you to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I request 1 minute to respond to Senator Burr, if I may.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, we are not talking about eliminating crop insurance. There are plenty of crops that don't have crop insurance, but this crop does. We are talking about eliminating the Federal subsidy, which amounts to $30 million-plus a year for crop insurance. With respect to my distinguished friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, I misspoke once today. This is an assessment from the tobacco industry. I thought I straightened that out. But the assessment that paid for the buyout of $9.6 billion is what I am speaking of. But this is a Federal subsidy on crop insurance. You can still get crop insurance, but it won't be federally subsidized. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, in fiscal year 2011, approximately $1.4 billion in harbor maintenance taxes, HMT, was collected nationally. Of this, over $430 million, nearly 32 percent, was collected in California, with nearly $363 million generated by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Of the amounts collected, nearly $677 million was allocated to coastal operations and maintenance budgets nationwide annually over the past 3 years. California's share of this funding is approximately $54 million, only 13 percent of what was collected in its ports. Put another way, California contributes 32 percent of the whole HMT but is receiving only 8 percent of what is allocated nationwide. Section 8004 of the bill establishes a path whereby HMT funds could be used on expanded uses to address the critical maintenance needs of California's ports. I want to clarify that the amendment submitted by the Senator from Michigan, No. 893, does not preclude or unnecessarily delay the use of HMT funds in California's largest ports. Is it your understanding that this amendment, submitted by the Senator from Michigan, will not preclude or impact funding for expanded uses under Section 8004 (b) of the bill?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the dedicated career and service to the Congress and the Nation of Ms. Margaret ``Peggy'' Evans, who is retiring at the end of this month after over 22 years of service in both the executive and legislative branches of our government. She has dedicated most of her life to helping keep our Nation and its citizens secure, and we honor her for her service. Peggy is leaving the Senate as the budget director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. During her 4 years on the committee, Peggy has been integral to the development and passage of four annual intelligence authorizations bills, including three within a span of 15 months. She oversaw the committee's budget staff in drafting the classified annexes to the bills, worked collaboratively with the intelligence community agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, and negotiated legislation with other Senate and House committees. Through her time with the committee, Peggy brought new and creative proposals to the committee and was a fierce advocate for programs that she believed would provide greater effectiveness or efficiency to the intelligence community. She also worked very closely with our committee's Technical Advisory Group, our science and technical advisors, especially in the group's review of imagery satellites, which will no doubt come to be seen as being ahead of its time. Prior to coming to Capitol Hill, Ms. Evans had served 13 years at the Central Intelligence Agency. Reflecting her many skills, she worked in both the analysis and the operations side of the CIA and also led covert action programs. Although we may not disclose the details, Peggy spent much of her CIA career countering terrorist groups and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Her next national security assignment was in the White House Office of Management and Budget. During her 5 years in that job, Peggy rose from a budget examiner to be Acting Deputy Associate Director for National Security--the President's senior civil servant adviser on the national security budget. During her time in the private sector, Peggy has also founded and led two companies, one that builds environmentally sustainable homes and one that provides environmental consulting services to homeowners, builders, and facilities managers. These companies earned numerous Energy Star and Green Home Choice Awards. She is a renaissance woman, skilled in public and private life, and the committee wishes her continued success in her professional endeavors as she returns to private life. But Peggy's devotion to the Nation's security is matched by her dedication to her family. Peggy and her husband Roger Ney have raised six children and guided them through college and into the start of their careers. With her retirement, she will have more time to spend with them and with her hobbies of reading, pottery, soccer, memorizing arcana from the ``Lord of the Rings,'' designing homes, and spending time at the beach. I am pleased to have the opportunity to publicly thank Peggy and to note my appreciation for her dedicated and dignified efforts. We will miss your insight and experience and your commitment to pursuing the right policies to protect our Nation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013 with Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow and Senator Collins as original cosponsors. This legislation establishes a single, national standard for the humane treatment of egg-laying hens. The bill text represents a historic compromise between the United Egg Producers, who represent about 90 percent of the eggs produced in the United States, and the Humane Society, the Nation's largest animal- welfare organization. The bill is supported by 14 agriculture and egg producer groups, the four major veterinary groups involved in avian medicine, five consumer organizations, and hundreds more groups nationwide. Nearly 10 years ago, voters started taking an interest in insuring that their eggs were being produced humanely. This resulted in State level legislation and a number of initiatives, including Proposition 2 in California, to reform the agriculture industry. Many of these efforts were successful. State laws governing egg production were enacted in 6 states, and a patchwork of differing state-based regulation has emerged. Compounding the problem is the lack of a standard for egg labeling. This makes it difficult for consumers to know exactly what they are purchasing and understand what the labels mean. This situation has two principal effects. First, the uncertainty stifles economic growth in this important industry. Egg producers now face difficult choices when it comes to investing in their businesses. Why expand facilities and invest in new technologies when rules may change and invalidate your investment? Why expand into new markets when those new markets may be closed to you in just a few short years? Second, consumers are limited in their ability to make choices. At the supermarket, consumers are bombarded with different labels, ``humanely-raised,'' ``cage-free,'' and ``all-natural.'' But the definitions of these labels vary, and even when they are consistent the terms are vague. One person's ``all-natural'' may not be another person's ``all-natural.'' One company's ``cage-free'' may not be another company's ``cage-free.'' This legislation addresses both problems. It increases the size of hen cages over the next 18 years and adds enrichments like perches and nests so chickens can engage in natural ``chicken'' behaviors, like scratching and nesting. It outlaws the practice of depriving hens of food and water, a once- common practice to increase egg production. It sets minimum air quality standards for hen houses, protecting workers and birds. It establishes clear requirements for egg labeling so consumers know whether the eggs they buy come from hens that are caged, cage-free, free-range, or housed in enriched cages. Farmers with 3,000 birds or fewer are exempted from the provisions of this legislation. Also, organic, cage-free and free-range egg producers will be unaffected by the housing provisions of the bill. However, they may see increased sales, as consumers are able to more clearly tell what is available on store shelves as a result of the labeling provisions. The legislation offers significant phase-in time to allow producers to make the necessary changes in the regular course of replacing their equipment. It is my understanding that hen cages generally last 10 to 15 years. So the 18-year phase-in included in the bill should offer sufficient time to implement changes to enriched cages. This legislation is important in part because it represents a compromise between old adversaries. In this agreement, egg producers and the Humane Society have joined forces to meet consumer demand, address concerns of the animal welfare community and resolve a decade-old struggle. The result is a bill widely supported by the industry, animal welfare advocates and consumers. It is an example of commonsense cooperation in what has historically been a contentious space. This bill also reflects changes already being made because of consumer demand. McDonalds, Burger King, Costco, Safeway and other companies are already phasing in new humane handling requirements for the production of the food that they sell. Further, a survey by an independent research company, the Bantam Group, found that consumers support the industry transitioning to larger cages with enrichments by a ratio of 12 to 1. Importantly, the Congressional Budget Office scores this legislation as having no cost, and a study by Agralytica, a consulting firm, found that this legislation would not have a substantial price effect on consumers. That means we can achieve these goals at little to no cost to taxpayers and consumers. This legislation has been endorsed by leading scientists in the egg industry, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the two leading avian veterinary groups. Studies show these new cages can result in lower mortality and higher productivity for hens, making them more efficient for egg producers. As many of my colleagues know, the legislation was the subject of a June 2012 Senate Agriculture Committee hearing. The hearing was attended by egg farmers from around the country--Georgia, Michigan, California, Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio--all united in their support for uniform regulations. The Secretary of Agriculture himself suggested that the legislation is a good example of ``thinking differently,'' and possibly even a way to get more Americans to support the farm bill and other rural issues. As he pointed out, egg producers deserve to know the rules of the road The agreement in this bill is just the sort of reasonable thinking and compromise that we need more of in Washington. I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013 with Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow and Senator Collins as original cosponsors. This legislation establishes a single, national standard for the humane treatment of egg-laying hens. The bill text represents a historic compromise between the United Egg Producers, who represent about 90 percent of the eggs produced in the United States, and the Humane Society, the Nation's largest animal- welfare organization. The bill is supported by 14 agriculture and egg producer groups, the four major veterinary groups involved in avian medicine, five consumer organizations, and hundreds more groups nationwide. Nearly 10 years ago, voters started taking an interest in insuring that their eggs were being produced humanely. This resulted in State level legislation and a number of initiatives, including Proposition 2 in California, to reform the agriculture industry. Many of these efforts were successful. State laws governing egg production were enacted in 6 states, and a patchwork of differing state-based regulation has emerged. Compounding the problem is the lack of a standard for egg labeling. This makes it difficult for consumers to know exactly what they are purchasing and understand what the labels mean. This situation has two principal effects. First, the uncertainty stifles economic growth in this important industry. Egg producers now face difficult choices when it comes to investing in their businesses. Why expand facilities and invest in new technologies when rules may change and invalidate your investment? Why expand into new markets when those new markets may be closed to you in just a few short years? Second, consumers are limited in their ability to make choices. At the supermarket, consumers are bombarded with different labels, ``humanely-raised,'' ``cage-free,'' and ``all-natural.'' But the definitions of these labels vary, and even when they are consistent the terms are vague. One person's ``all-natural'' may not be another person's ``all-natural.'' One company's ``cage-free'' may not be another company's ``cage-free.'' This legislation addresses both problems. It increases the size of hen cages over the next 18 years and adds enrichments like perches and nests so chickens can engage in natural ``chicken'' behaviors, like scratching and nesting. It outlaws the practice of depriving hens of food and water, a once- common practice to increase egg production. It sets minimum air quality standards for hen houses, protecting workers and birds. It establishes clear requirements for egg labeling so consumers know whether the eggs they buy come from hens that are caged, cage-free, free-range, or housed in enriched cages. Farmers with 3,000 birds or fewer are exempted from the provisions of this legislation. Also, organic, cage-free and free-range egg producers will be unaffected by the housing provisions of the bill. However, they may see increased sales, as consumers are able to more clearly tell what is available on store shelves as a result of the labeling provisions. The legislation offers significant phase-in time to allow producers to make the necessary changes in the regular course of replacing their equipment. It is my understanding that hen cages generally last 10 to 15 years. So the 18-year phase-in included in the bill should offer sufficient time to implement changes to enriched cages. This legislation is important in part because it represents a compromise between old adversaries. In this agreement, egg producers and the Humane Society have joined forces to meet consumer demand, address concerns of the animal welfare community and resolve a decade-old struggle. The result is a bill widely supported by the industry, animal welfare advocates and consumers. It is an example of commonsense cooperation in what has historically been a contentious space. This bill also reflects changes already being made because of consumer demand. McDonalds, Burger King, Costco, Safeway and other companies are already phasing in new humane handling requirements for the production of the food that they sell. Further, a survey by an independent research company, the Bantam Group, found that consumers support the industry transitioning to larger cages with enrichments by a ratio of 12 to 1. Importantly, the Congressional Budget Office scores this legislation as having no cost, and a study by Agralytica, a consulting firm, found that this legislation would not have a substantial price effect on consumers. That means we can achieve these goals at little to no cost to taxpayers and consumers. This legislation has been endorsed by leading scientists in the egg industry, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the two leading avian veterinary groups. Studies show these new cages can result in lower mortality and higher productivity for hens, making them more efficient for egg producers. As many of my colleagues know, the legislation was the subject of a June 2012 Senate Agriculture Committee hearing. The hearing was attended by egg farmers from around the country--Georgia, Michigan, California, Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio--all united in their support for uniform regulations. The Secretary of Agriculture himself suggested that the legislation is a good example of ``thinking differently,'' and possibly even a way to get more Americans to support the farm bill and other rural issues. As he pointed out, egg producers deserve to know the rules of the road The agreement in this bill is just the sort of reasonable thinking and compromise that we need more of in Washington. I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. This bill would level the playing field between brick and mortar retailers and their online counterparts by allowing States the right to collect sales taxes on remote Internet purchases. The current system of collecting online sales taxes puts brick and mortar retailers at a significant disadvantage. Mom-and-pop stores invest in office space, inventory, and hire salespeople in order to provide service to their customers. Increasingly, those efforts are falling victim to a practice known as show rooming, where potential customers enter the physical store, take up the salesperson's time, then make their purchases at home online at a discount because no sales tax is collected. I have witnessed this firsthand. Imagine you are in the women's shoe department of a nice retail store. An attentive salesperson spends a considerable amount of time with a potential customer finding the right size, trying several pairs of shoes, and answering the customer's questions. Then the customer pulls out their phone and orders the same pair of shoes online at a lower price, in effect bilking the salesperson for the time spent with the customer. Some people are brazen about doing this. Effectively, brick and mortar retailers are providing services to online retailers at no charge. This bill simply brings State sales and use tax collection into the 21st century. When the Supreme Court first considered the issue of collecting out of State online sales taxes, it was in the early 1990's and there were only a trivial amount of online sales. The ensuing two decades have brought sweeping changes to the online marketplace and the technology that facilitates online sales tax collection. Online sales continue to increase relative to conventional retail sales. And applications exist that allow retailers to easily collect taxes on out of State sales. The Marketplace Fairness Act would level the playing field by doing the following: Allow States the option to collect remote sales taxes; require States to set up a streamlined tax collection process in order to simplify remittance for online businesses, require States to provide the tax collection software to retailers free of charge, and exempt online retailers with less than $1 million in remote sales from having to collect and remit online sales taxes. It is important to note that many States are already moving to collect sales taxes on remote sales. Just last year, California came to an agreement with amazon.com that required the online sales giant to start collecting sales taxes on purchases made in California. Furthermore, State laws currently require the collection of online sales taxes. However, rather than the retailer being in charge of collection, it is up to individual taxpayers to calculate and remit the sales taxes they owe on online purchases. It is estimated that only 1.4 percent of Californians actually remit sales taxes from online purchases, a number roughly in line with other States. State and local governments, which rely in part on sales taxes to fund local schools and infrastructure, are increasingly burdened by their inability to collect sales taxes on online purchases that are lawfully owed. So this is not a new tax. It is not overly burdensome on small businesses. And it accounts for the fact that more and more retail sales will be taking place online. The Marketplace Fairness Act puts every business on a level playing field and ensures that tax loopholes do not create unfair advantages for certain retailers. It is time that our tax policy reflects fundamental changes in the retail marketplace, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to call up and make pending amendment No. 711 to the bill before us.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I happened to be on the floor and hear the remarks from the majority leader. I would like to thank him for his support of this legislation. It is extraordinarily important to me, to the people of my State, and, I believe, to a majority of Americans. I hope to make that clear during my remarks. I would like to also thank the 23 cosponsors of this legislation. They are in alphabetical order: Richard Blumenthal, Senators Boxer, Cardin, Carper, Cowan, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Hirono, Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Murphy, Murray, Reed, Rockefeller, Schatz, Schumer, Warren, and Whitehouse. I am very grateful for the willingness of the Presiding Officer and the others to step up, show courage, and do what is right for America. There are all kinds of things we confront as Members of this great Senate. There are issues of national security, the economy, health care, immigration--all tough issues. People often ask me why I care so much about assault weapons and why I stayed with this issue for more than 20 years. The answer is this: In my view, the proliferation of this specific type of weapon goes to the heart of what kind of society in which we want to live. It goes to what kind of culture we are going to raise our children in, which brings us to the horrific massacre at Newtown, CT, 4 months ago. Sandy Hook--and much has been said about it, but I can't forget-- Sandy Hook was a safe school in a safe town. Candidly, it was inconceivable that such a tragedy could happen there, but it did. I can't exaggerate how this senseless murder of 20 beautiful young children and 6 incredibly brave adults affected me and millions around this country. I think it is fair to say that this event really shocked the conscience of America. The pictures of these little victims still bring tears to the eyes of millions. I am very impressed with this one page of the New York Daily News. I carry it when I speak to people, trying to get their votes. Some say no, and I look at this picture of these smiling faces, and in the middle, ``Shame on U.S.'' This was the cover of the New York Daily News. I think it carries the message of what we are trying to do here, and I hope to demonstrate that during the time that I speak. I think the despair that we all felt, for some of us, has changed to determination. I believe that this amendment over time will finally begin to address not only the wanton, brutal violence, but the weapon that is often used to carry out this wanton, brutal violence. To have a chance at understanding these mass shootings, we need to understand how they are perpetrated and by whom. It is impossible to know with any certainty what motivated Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. We know he exhibited clear signs of mental disturbance. We know he had an extreme aversion to normal social life, and he didn't like physical contact. He was in and out of school and spent time in special education classrooms and was home-schooled by his mother. He lived in a room with blacked-out curtains and played violent video games for hours on end. We know his mother purchased assault weapons for him and kept an arsenal at home. We know that they went target shooting together at ranges and that both were certified in gun safety. Their home was a veritable weapons depot, with many firearms, more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition, samurai swords, and even a gun safe in this young man's room. It has been reported that Adam compiled a spreadsheet documenting hundreds of victims of mass murders--something he may have used as a measuring stick for his own sadistic plot. We know one more thing: None of this information would have been caught on a background check. I say this although I support background checks. But this shows what is out there, which needs to be stopped. On that December morning, Adam Lanza started his rampage by killing his mother. He then drove to Sandy Hook and shot his way into the school. He was heavily armed. This is what he carried: a Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, a Glock handgun, a SIG Sauer handgun, ten 30-round magazines, and a Saiga 12-gauge assault shotgun. In less than 5 minutes, he fired at least 154 rounds from the Bushmaster in 2 classrooms. He stopped only when first responders arrived. He then took his own life. He died with 139 more rounds available to fire. I am sure background checks would stop many would-be murderers, but they would not have prevented Newtown. The weapons were legally purchased by his mother. While he was disturbed, he had no criminal record or record of mental illness and would not have been subject to a background check because his mother gave him these weapons. Let me be clear: Universal background checks are very important. I strongly support them, but they would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown. I have watched these mass shootings escalate over the past 40 years-- four decades of my public life. Twenty-nine have taken place in just the past decade, seven in the past year. Military-style assault weapons are often the weapon used in many of these shootings. Just 3 days before Newtown, an AR-15 assault rifle was used to kill two people and seriously wound a third at a mall in Clackamas, OR. Five months before Newtown, a gunman opened fire in a theater at a late-night performance of a brand new movie. He killed 12 and injured 58. The only reason he didn't continue was that this drum that he had in his weapon--a 100-round drum--jammed at approximately 50. Although the Aurora shooter was being treated by mental health professionals, he owned a small arsenal of weapons, including a Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, two Glock .40 caliber handguns, and a 100-round ammunition drum. A number of weapons were used in the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, where 13 were killed. The weapons were a TEC- DC9 assault pistol, a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, a Savage pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun. High-capacity ammunition magazines also play a role in these mass shootings. In 2011, a gunman in Tucson used a semiautomatic Glock handgun equipped with a 33-round magazine to kill 6 and wound 12, including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. In 2007, a Virginia Tech gunman used 2 handguns and at least 19 magazines to kill 32 and wound 17. Some of these magazines were 15-round versions. All told, he had nearly 400 rounds to fire. Has this ended with Newtown? Was Newtown such a stirring event on the conscience of America that no one would try it again? What is the answer? The answer is no. On March 18, just 3 months after Sandy Hook, a former student at the University of Central Florida planned to set off a fire alarm in his apartment and kill students as they fled. A roommate saw him with these weapons and called the police. The police came quickly and were able to prevent another massacre. Here is what he had: a .22 caliber assault rifle, known as German Sport Guns GSG-5; a .45 caliber handgun; two 110-round magazines; 4 homemade explosive devices; and a stockpile of approximately 1,000 rounds. On March 31, an AR-15 assault rifle was used to assassinate a district attorney and his wife in Texas. The district attorney's wife innocently opened the door of their home. A gunman shot and killed her with a single bullet. As her husband turned to try to get to his weapon, he was killed in a burst of at least 20 rounds. This is the offensive nature of these weapons. A shooting many years ago--because I came to know some of the victims who survived--encouraged me to submit the first bill in 1994. This was an attack by a man named Gian Luigi Ferri in a very high office building in San Francisco, CA, called 101 California Street. He came in and killed eight. He had two TEC-9s and magazines holding 50 rounds of ammunition. He killed a young mother, Jody Sposato, 30, who had recently given birth to her first child. Her neighbor said, ``She just had that little, lovely baby 10 months ago.'' I came to know Jody's husband, Steve, who was a wonderful, tall man who used to come to see me with his baby in his arms. I am delighted to see that he remarried and made a new life for himself. Ferri also killed Donald ``Mike'' Merrill, who had recently adopted two children, a son and a daughter, ages 4 and 2, with his wife Marilyn. One of the wounded, a beautiful young woman, Michelle Scully, was saved because her husband John died while jumping on her body, shielding her from the gunfire. This is how these events unfold. The tragedies they leave behind are actually never completely recoverable. Over the years, as I have watched, I have come to see that these weapons are attractive to two groups of people. There are collectors, there is target practice, some hunt, and some think they offer a strong defense. This is one group. But death tolls show there is another group who covet these firearms more for their deadly firepower--most notably, grievance killers, gang members, and juveniles. Let me mention the grievance killers. Their goal is to kill indiscriminately. These are weapons that are easy to fire quickly. They can fire many times without overheating, and they can carry ammunition- feeding devices that exceed 100 rounds. These are the weapons of choice of this group of people. The question is, Can this group of people, who will kill with these weapons, buy these weapons easily? The answer today is yes. These weapons are attractive to gang members because pistol grips and folding stocks make them easy to conceal and maneuver. These weapons pack enough firepower to confront other gangs as well as the police. I would like to tell you one other story from my home town that touched me deeply. In 2004, undercover police officers Isaac Espinoza and Barry Parker confronted a man at the corner of Newcomb Avenue and Newhall Street in San Francisco. As the officers approached, the shooter pulled out an AK-47 from beneath his coat and fired 14 rounds, killing Officer Espinoza and injuring Officer Parker, both of whom were armed. Officer Espinoza was a real star in the San Francisco Police Department. Everyone liked him, and he had real credibility on the streets and in the community. He was very special. He had been a police officer for 8 years. During that time, he received four major service awards. Police Chief Greg Suhr, the current chief, said he wouldn't have been surprised if Officer Espinoza rose to be the chief himself one day. But he is gone. He left behind his wife of 7 years, Renata, and their daughter Isabella, who was 3 at the time of his murder. Finally, assault weapons are attractive to juveniles because they are lightweight, have little recoil, and are easy to fire. The takeaway is that nowhere seems safe from these acts of mass violence, made all the more deadly because of the military features of these particular weapons. These mass killings aren't confined to dangerous areas. They happened in a mall in Clackamas. They happened in a movie theater in Aurora. They happened in a temple in Oak Creek. They happened in an office in San Francisco. Worst of all, they happen now in schools. Schools used to be safe places, but now we confront the legacy of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Newtown. President Obama relayed the story of a murdered child's mother. She said she hates when people say her son was ``in the wrong place at the wrong time.'' When are schools ever the wrong place? Schools should always be the right place for children and they should always be the right time. And that is why we must take action. I am relieved we are finally debating the issue of gun violence, in particular the amendment I offer today to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban in the underlying bill. It has been 9 years since the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and far too many deaths. The Assault Weapons Ban I offer today as an amendment has one purpose: to begin to dry up the future supply of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines over time, which will save lives. It does not affect any legally owned weapon possessed now. I fully support the bill to expand background checks, increase penalties on straw purchasers, and strengthen school security. But these provisions are only part of a solution. The weapons I talk about can fire hundreds of rounds a minute with velocities and energy far exceeding the standard handguns. They do not belong on the streets where they can be bought without questions asked. This amendment bans the future manufacture, possession, sales, and importation of 157 semiautomatic assault weapons by make and model. Let me list some of the most infamous models. We have here a display. They include the AK-47, the AR-15, the Bushmaster XM15, the Smith & Wesson M&P15, the Hi-Point Carbine, the UZI Mini Carbine, and the Intratec TEC-9. They include the MAC-10, the Saiga-12, the Street Sweeper, and all 157 of them are explicitly, by make and model, delineated in the bill. The bill also prospectively bans the manufacture, sale, and importation of all other assault weapons that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military characteristic, such as a pistol grip or barrel shroud. Finally, the amendment bans the manufacture and importation--as well as the future sale or transfer--of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. Here are some of these large magazines--and this is the drum that was used at Aurora. In many cases, such as the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, it is only when a shooter stops to switch magazines that police or others have the chance to take the shooter down, and he or she may well fumble in so doing. Now what does the amendment not do? To clear up some misinformation, it is also important to know what the bill does not do. It does not take away any legally owned weapon. All weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment are exempted. The amendment does not require registration. If an assault weapon is legally owned before enactment and later transferred or sold, the recipient or purchaser must pass a background check as required in the underlying bill. Finally, the amendment does not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Let me point that out. It protects legitimate hunters by excluding 2,258 specifically named firearms used for hunting and sporting purposes. It took 96 pages of legal bill language to list these hunting and sporting firearms by make and model so everyone can see clearly their hunting or sporting gun is excluded from the bill. It took my staff a long time and a lot of vetting to compile this list, but they have done it. Some have argued that the legislation would violate the Second Amendment. Candidly, that is wrong. The original Federal Assault Weapons Ban I sponsored in 1994 was repeatedly challenged in Federal Court on a variety of grounds, including the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Fourth, the Sixth, the Ninth, and the District of Columbia Circuit Courts all upheld the 1994 law, with three of them rejecting challenges based on the Second Amendment. Since these rulings, the Supreme Court, in 2008, recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment in a 5-to-4 decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller. But Heller itself clearly rejects the claim that Second Amendment rights are absolute. In Heller, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia stated: ``The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.'' And the Court said the Second Amendment does not protect ``a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purposes.'' Case made. Also, just like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable restrictions. An assault weapons ban is such a reasonable restriction, and no assault weapon ban has ever been overturned by a court of law. Don't take my word for it. Look at the Supreme Court decisions. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller specifically stated, ``Weapons most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like'' are weapons that ``may be banned.'' And there are weapons that are the like of the M-16 weapon on the street today that are covered by this bill. Third, an assault weapons ban leaves available ample means for individuals to defend themselves and their families using firearms. This amendment imposes restrictions on one class of weapons--military- style weapons--that are highly dangerous and can kill large numbers of people quickly, with increasing velocity. It leaves open ample opportunities to possess and use numerous types of firearms for defense. I have no question this bill is constitutional. A second false attack is that assault weapons covered by this ban contain only ``cosmetic features'' and are no more dangerous than any other firearm. Nonsense. Law enforcement officers and gun experts are the best ones to go to, and we have. And they have pointed out these features were designed to be added to military weapons to make them more deadly and they have the same effect on civilian versions. Some examples: The pistol grip was first added to a rifle by the German army in World War II, when it was incorporated in the STG 44, which is called a ``Storm Gun.'' This feature allows a shooter to ``spray-fire'' a large number of rounds over a broad killing zone without having to aim at each individual target. Folding stocks were added to the M1 Carbine by the U.S. Army in World War II so the weapon could be more easily transported by soldiers traveling in cramped aircraft and military vehicles. Similarly, UZI manufacturers started adding folding stocks to their weapons in the early 1950s at the request of Dutch and German military who found the traditional wooden stock to be too long for use while traveling in armored vehicles. Every law enforcement officer who testified on the Assault Weapons Ban in our Judiciary hearing was emphatic that military characteristics add to a weapon's lethality. From Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson: Assault weapons are ``meant for the battlefield.'' Milwaukee Chief of Police Edward Flynn: ``Military characteristics are not simply cosmetic in nature. These weapons are designed for combat.'' And John Walsh, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado, couldn't be more clear: These weapons, he said, are ``crafted to be as effective as possible at killing human beings.'' Now where are we today? Seven States and the District of Columbia banned assault weapons prior to the Newtown massacre. These are my own State, California, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Since Newtown, legislators in 20 States have introduced bills to either ban assault weapons or strengthen existing bans. Twenty States are now contemplating action. Connecticut and New York passed laws to tighten their existing bans to prohibit assault weapons with one military characteristic, which is what we do in this bill. Maryland expanded an existing ban on assault pistols to cover rifles and assault shotguns. In Massachusetts and New Jersey, bills have been introduced to strengthen those States' assault weapons bans. Efforts are also underway to prohibit these deadly weapons in States with no current assault weapon ban. In Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia, bills have been introduced to impose an assault weapons ban for the first time. All of these States have strong hunting or sporting traditions, but the sponsors of these bills recognize that no one needs an assault weapon to hunt or target shoot. In other States, bills have been introduced to regulate assault weapons. An Arizona bill would require the sale of any assault weapon be done through a licensed gun dealer. Bills in Kentucky and Texas would require one to obtain a license to purchase an assault weapon. The Kentucky bill would also require the registration of assault weapons and handguns. That is Kentucky. Some bills have been introduced that would go even further than the amendment I have introduced today. California is seeking to strengthen its ban, going from a one-characteristic test to a zero-characteristic test. This bill would prohibit any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine. A bill in South Carolina would require the government to seize any assault weapons used in certain crimes. Even though more States are banning assault weapons, the need for a Federal ban has never been greater. If only California or New York bans assault weapons, nothing stops an individual from buying an assault weapon in a neighboring State, then crossing the border to commit violence. At a Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Durbin mentioned that guns are coming into the city of Chicago which are being traced to the State of Mississippi. I believe if this legislation does not pass, we will see bills passed in a number of States. That will result in a confusing patchwork of laws with different standards in different States. If this bill goes down, States will, I believe, pass additional legislation. It is only a question of time. Some suggest there may not be enough support in the Senate to pass the Assault Weapons Ban. But the support is there among the American people. In poll after poll, that support is there. In no poll--even with all the discussion, even with the mobilization of gun owners and the NRA, a majority in every single national poll done shows that the majority want controls over assault weapons. I know of no poll done this year that shows less than a majority to reinstate a Federal ban on assault weapons. We have more than 170 organizations covering a wide range of groups that have endorsed the bill. Here are a few: Major Cities Chiefs; International Association of Chiefs of Police; American Medical Association; American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of Pediatrics; National Education Association; American Federation of Teachers; the Children's Defense Fund; the Sierra Club; the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; the United States Conference of Mayors; the National League of Cities; more than 800 mayors from across the country; Tom Ridge, former Governor and Homeland Security Secretary; John Warner, former Republican Senator from Virginia. Few bills ever have such broad support, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of endorsements. I have also received letters and calls from Americans across the country, from all walks of life, including gun owners, who demand that we stop these weapons of war from claiming more innocent victims. I even had a member of the NRA call me and say, ``I am a hunter and I have an AR-15 but I don't need it, and I am turning it in.'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record excerpts from these letters.

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