Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's poorest countries. This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA. The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of their citizens living on less than $1 a day. Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent. In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of U.S. tariffs. Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports. Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as the 60th largest source of U.S. imports. So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S. tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent with our values? Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the beneficiary countries in this bill. Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so. These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope for millions of people struggling with poverty. But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity. This is not about pitting one developing country against the other. Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and ensuring that we help all of those in need. In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability. Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts. Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity. Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace. It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that hold out the best hope for export growth. We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past. By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their own two feet. We will also help ourselves. First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets. This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own country. But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference programs for these countries. We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage. Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for terror. There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific countries is far less than any military intervention. We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume a larger role and contribute more effectively. When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance helps. Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more options. It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on apparel imports. There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific countries. Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about this bill. First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the absence of rule of law. Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference program? Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation. This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis. That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights. So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities. The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill. If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our efforts will fail. Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on domestic manufacturers. If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal. Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world. These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies. By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American consumer. We should seize this opportunity. I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this important initiative. 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 seven year period. As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries. Nepal has a per capita income of $540. 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 $3 a day. Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people. Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels signed a peace accord. Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a new constitution. Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a new constitution. Challenges persist for Nepal's economy. In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on garment imports were removed. This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers with cheaper labor markets. The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000 and 10,000. Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47 million in 2011. The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10. The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to 21 percent. Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garments 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 penalizing an impoverished country which cannot afford it. This makes no sense. I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which 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. But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open 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. Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries. 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. The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most, Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue. Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market. But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports. By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of living for the Nepalese people. Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences, and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this legislation. Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this commonsense measure. I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for her leadership on bringing much needed attention to the arbitrary and damaging cuts of sequestration on important government programs. I would like to start by highlighting the impact of sequestration on national security activities. A semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, is responsible for safeguarding the country's nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSA has recently embarked on a major modernization effort. The purpose is to upgrade aging infrastructure and replace aging components in nuclear weapons. These investments are being made so that NNSA can reduce the size of the stockpile, consistent with New START Treaty obligations, and certify each year that nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and effective without underground nuclear testing. Sequestration would cut close to $600 million from the nuclear weapons program, essentially freezing and reversing modernization efforts. Specifically, cuts in funding would put at risk NNSA's ability to refurbish nuclear weapons that are needed by the Air Force and Navy to meet nuclear deterrence missions, delay construction of facilities needed to replace old facilities that do not meet modern health and safety standards but are necessary to manufacture critical nuclear weapons components, result in furloughs and/or lay-offs of up to 5,000 contractors at the eight NNSA sites across the country, and reduce oversight of NNSA nuclear facilities resulting in less frequent and thorough audits and evaluations of security at the sites. This would come at a time when security lapses have occurred at a major site storing nuclear weapons materials.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. NNSA has sufficient funding to meet the 4 year goal, but securing materials is not the same as permanently removing and disposing of them. Even with the 4 year goal nearly complete, thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium enough materials for dozens of nuclear weapons still present a terrorism risk. Terrorists are indifferent to sequestration. The sequester would impose cuts of nearly $200 million from the nonproliferation program. Efforts to remove additional nuclear materials would be delayed In addition, NNSA would not be able to deploy additional radiation detection equipment at border crossings that are most vulnerable to nuclear and radiological smuggling. Of particular concern is NNSA missing the deadline to build and deploy new, more accurate sensors that can detect other countries' nuclear weapons tests. NNSA would not be able to build the sensors before the Air Force is scheduled to launch its satellites.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Department of Energy maintains U.S. leadership in scientific and technological innovation by supporting basic research through its Office of Science. The goal is to advance energy technologies and operate world-leading facilities to accelerate scientific discoveries. Sequestration would cut about $250 million from the Office of Science. Specifically, these cuts would result in hundreds of layoffs at national labs, universities, research facilities, and private sector companies that rely on Office of Science funding grants for energy research, reduce operations of major scientific facilities, meaning less research and development in one of the highest priority research areas designing novel materials which is critical to advancing energy technologies, stop almost all construction projects that are replacing aging infrastructure at the national labs that are needed to support science missions and attract the best scientists from around the country and the world, and allow no, or very few, new awards to advance high performance computing to stay ahead of Chinese competition and develop the next generation system, known as exascale, before the U.S. reaches the limits of current technology. These cuts would come at a time when many other countries are making significant investments in energy research and development. Many experts are already warning that current investments are not sufficient to maintain U.S. competitiveness in energy technologies.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. With sequestration, the Corps would likely have to close 57 recreation areas and partially close 186 recreation sites. There would also be no funding for 52 ongoing studies that were funded in FY 2012, 65 construction projects that were funded in FY 2012, and 43 dredging projects that were funded in FY 2012. As the studies and construction projects are cost shared with non- Federal sponsors, over 115 local sponsors would be left with no Federal share to match their contributions for these studies and projects, further delaying completion of these studies and projects. In addition, only the bare minimum funding for dredging of ports and harbors will be available. This will lead to inefficiencies in transportation due to required light-loading which will ultimately lead to increases in consumer costs. The long term effect of these delays is increasing the costs of construction projects. More money needed to complete current construction projects means less or no funding for future projects already planned. I thank Senator Mikulski for the colloquy today on this issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be our next Secretary of Defense. He is eminently qualified for the position and possesses an exemplary record of service to this country. I strongly believe that a President is entitled to his cabinet selections unless there is something in an individual's record or background that is disqualifying. And there is nothing in Senator Hagel's background that is disqualifying. He is a veteran, he has been a successful CEO, and he has served at highest levels of the legislative and executive branches. I served with Senator Hagel during his two terms in the U.S. Senate-- including his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2003- 2008. I found him to be a knowledgeable and independent voice with a strong grasp of the pressing national security issues facing our country. Those of us who served with him know Senator Hagel's story well. His career began as a sergeant in the U.S. Army in Vietnam where he served with distinction and earned two Purple Hearts. Indeed, as an enlisted man, he has seen the true costs of war. He understands that the use of military force should always be a last resort and should only be undertaken with a clear strategy, clear mission and the resources to get the job done. He understands that we have a solemn obligation to take care of our returning veterans and the families and loved ones of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. As we emerge from over 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the kind of leadership we need at the Department of Defense and, more importantly, that is the kind of leadership the men and women in uniform deserve. They will take pride in the fact that Senator Hagel will be the first enlisted man and the first Vietnam veteran to head the Department. Chuck also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the USO and as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration during the Reagan administration, where he fought to ensure that our veterans received the benefits they earned, including assistance for those suffering from Agent Orange. He then went on to the private sector where he co-founded VANGUARD Cellular Systems, a leading cellular carrier in the U.S. Most recently, he co-chaired the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. Now, it is no secret that Senator Hagel has his critics, but let us take a closer look at who has endorsed his nomination. A bi-partisan group of 13 former Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, and National Security Advisors from the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations sent a letter to the Senate expressing their support for Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense arguing that he is ``uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.'' They continued: Our extensive experience working with Senator Hagel over the years has left us confident that he has the necessary background to succeed in the job of leading the largest federal agency. He has also received endorsements from 11 senior retired military leaders, over fifty Ambassadors and statesmen, and numerous veterans' organizations. A group of ten former U.S. Ambassadors--including four former Ambassadors to Israel--argued that: We can think of few more qualified, more non-partisan, more courageous or better equipped to head the Department of Defense at this critical moment in strengthening America's role in the world. The group of retired Generals and Admirals from the Army, Air Force, Marines, and Navy--including General Anthony Zinni, General Brent Scowcroft, and Admiral William Fallon--went even further. In an open letter, they argued that Senator Hagel ``would be a strong leader'' as the next Pentagon chief and that he's ``eminently qualified for the job.'' But, more importantly, they believe that he understands the challenges that our warfighters face and is the person who can best lead the Pentagon. And, even with all the accusations about Senator Hagel's views on Israel, Israeli Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that ``[Senator Hagel] certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally.'' Clearly, those of us here in the Senate who support Senator Hagel's nomination are not alone in believing he will make a fine Secretary of Defense and will serve our nation, once again, with distinction. Make no mistake, difficult challenges lie ahead. We are transitioning out of Afghanistan, but its future remains uncertain, and the threat of global terror endures, particularly in North Africa. We are on the verge of seeing massive cuts to the Pentagon's budget due to sequestration, which will negatively impact readiness and the defense industrial base. The nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea move forward, and new tests and provocations continue, including in areas such as cybersecurity. In my view, Senator Hagel has the insight, experience, and know-how to take on this daunting agenda and help protect American lives and U.S. national security interests. I look forward to supporting his nomination as the next Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Saxby Chambliss, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee Rules be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also wish to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. John D. Bennett, the Director of the National Clandestine Service, NCS, of the Central Intelligence Agency, who will retire from the CIA, for the second time, on February 28, 2013. Mr. Bennett's career spans over 30 years in the CIA during which he distinguished himself as a patriot, leader, and friend of the U.S. Senate. John Bennett also served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1975 to 1980. It is a rare opportunity to pay tribute publicly to one of the men and women who serve beyond the front lines, working in secret to protect and serve the Nation. Having ``come in from the cold,'' I am pleased to be able to say a few words about John. A Massachusetts native, Mr. Bennett received a B.A. degree in government from Harvard University in 1975 and an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University in 1991. Since joining the CIA in 1981, John served more than 17 years abroad in multiple assignments, including as chief of station in multiple countries, in Southeast Asia and Africa, where he was able to use his language fluency of French. In addition to returning from retirement to take the helm of the NCS in July 2010, he has held Senior Executive Service level Headquarters assignments as Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Community Human Intelligence from 2005-2006; Chief, Special Activities Division from 2003-2005; and Deputy Chief, Africa Division and Chief of Africa Operations from 1995- 1999. Mr. Bennett served also as the Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from May 1990 to May 1991. When Director Panetta asked John to return to service he stated: John says what he thinks and he does what he says. I trust him, and I rely on him. He has helped guide the agency through some of the most complex and challenging operations imaginable, including the historic takedown of Osama bin Laden. John Bennett served with distinction as the Director of the NCS for the past 3 years. In this capacity, John had frequent interaction with Senators and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. His professionalism, mature judgment, expertise, and frank advice earned him the respect and confidence of the committee. His sound judgment, courage, and candor also directly contributed to his successful representation of the CIA's interests before the committee and Congress. Throughout his career, John Bennett demonstrated a profound commitment to our Nation, selfless service to the CIA, deep concern for agency officers and their families, and a commitment to excellence. John is the consummate intelligence professional whose performance, in over 30 years of service, has personified those traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation expects from its professional intelligence officers. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. John Bennett for his honorable service to the Central Intelligence Agency and the people of the United States, and also to thank John's wife Kit for her support and understanding, as well as her sacrifices in allowing John to selflessly commit himself to protecting our Nation. We wish John and Kit Bennett all the best in the future.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the dedicated career and service to the Congress and the Nation of Louise Christine ``Chris'' Healey, who is retiring at the end of this week after nearly 30 years of work for the legislative branch. I am pleased to have the opportunity to publicly thank her and to note my appreciation for her dedicated and dignified efforts. Chris is leaving the Senate as the general counsel on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, serving as the top legal advisor to the committee. As committee counsel and general counsel over the past 8 years, Chris has been instrumental in the debating and drafting of every significant piece of intelligence legislation passed, and in some cases not passed, over the past decade. She was the principal drafter of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which is among the most complex pieces of legislation recently enacted, and certainly one of the most important to the security of our Nation. She has been as responsible as anyone for the passage of a string of four annual intelligence authorization bills, including the fiscal year 2013 act that was completed in December. In her time at the SSCI, Chris has exemplified the professional and bipartisan spirit of the committee, working closely with Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. She has invested herself in conducting oversight, drafting bills, carrying out investigations, and reviewing and shepherding the President's nominees to Senate-confirmed positions, among many other things. Her approach has always been dignified and calm. I am proud to be able to say that the rancor and divisiveness of the Senate over the past years has not infiltrated the work of the committee. Among the reasons we have been able to work together, review and debate serious issues, and come to bipartisan solutions is that we have people like Chris Healey who are more interested in getting the right results the right way rather than succeeding at the expense of someone else. Prior to working for the committee, Ms. Healey worked for the Government Affairs Committee on the landmark legislation that reformed the intelligence community and created the position of the Director of National Intelligence. She was a senior counsel and team leader on the 9/11 Commission. And prior to that, she spent a decade on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including as staff director. Chris has been the institutional memory of intelligence in the Congress, and her expertise and experience will be sorely missed. But while a leading voice within these congressional committees and commissions and in interactions with the nonprofit community and executive branch, Chris has managed the rare feat of having a life as well. She married musician Ryan Brown in 1989 and had her first son, Nathaniel, in 1990. Nathaniel has begun following Chris' footsteps, exploring his own work in government and politics. Chris and Ryan had their second son, Gabriel, in 1994, and he, too, has now grown up and is nearing his graduation from Oberlin College. Chris has walked to work every day from her Capitol Hill home, while supporting in many ways Ryan Brown's Opera Lafayette. He notes that in addition to her dedication to public service, Chris is an avid reader and an enthusiastic theater and concert goer, and looks forward to exploring the wider world in the years to come. I wish her the very best as she now has the time to pursue those interests, rather than being stuck in a windowless office in front of multiple computers for long hours. Mr. President, I am one of many Members of Congress to have benefited from the advice and hard work of Chris Healey, starting with Barbara Kennelly, including Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman, and ending with Jay Rockefeller and myself. On behalf of them, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, I thank Chris Healey and wish her the very best in what I know will be a long and productive retirement from the Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and honor the incredible life of John Quimby, an inspirational leader that guided and touched the lives of so many. John Quimby was born on February 12, 1935, in Prescott, AZ, to parents Henrietta and Merle Quimby. The family later moved to California and resided in Banning and Riverside. Mr. Quimby was hired as a radio announcer for a brief period of time before being elected to the San Bernardino City Council in 1957. He was the youngest person to ever serve on that body. In 1962, John Quimby was elected to the California State Assembly, representing parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Mr. Quimby became the first paraplegic to serve in the California Legislature. He contracted polio at a young age and as a result spent the majority of his life in a wheelchair. Mr. Quimby did not allow his limited mobility to prevent him from pursuing his dreams and fighting fervently for the residents of California. Over the course of his 12 years in the Assembly, John Quimby helped pass numerous laws. Most famously, he drafted the Quimby Act in 1965, which allowed cities to require developers to donate land for recreational use. As a result of this piece of legislation, hundreds of parks now exist in California that might otherwise have not. Apart from being a dedicated assemblyman, John Quimby was also a beloved figure in California politics who thrived on personal and community interaction. He had the ability to make everyone feel special and cared for. Please join me in expressing the sympathies of this body to John Quimby's brother Merle, daughter Kimberly, son John Jr., stepdaughters Mary and Virginia George, stepson Kenny, his seven grandchildren, and his seven great-grandchildren. On this day, we celebrate him, his life, and his exemplary contributions to California and the Nation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express support for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. For the last 18 years, VAWA has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, stalking and sexual assault, and it has transformed the response to these crimes at the local, State, and Federal levels. VAWA was first signed into law in 1994. This body reauthorized it in 2000 and again in 2005 on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, final approval of the VAWA reauthorization bill came to an abrupt halt in Congress last year, when some Republicans insisted on removing provisions that would provide expanded protections for gay and lesbian individuals and undocumented immigrants who are the victims of domestic abuse. In my view, these expanded protections are improvements. Domestic violence is domestic violence, regardless of the victim's immigration status or sexual orientation. Domestic violence and crimes against American women have never been partisan issues in the past. This is why, candidly, I'm surprised that I find myself on this floor urging a vote a vote on a historically bipartisan bill. Today, as a result of VAWA, more victims report incidents of domestic violence to the police, and the rate of non-fatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53 percent since 1994, according to the Department of Justice. Because of VAWA, States have the funding to implement ``evidence- based'' anti-domestic violence programs, including lethality screens, which help law enforcement predict when a person is at risk of becoming the victim of deadly abuse. In my home State of California, with the help of VAWA funds, we reduced the number of domestic violence homicides committed annually by 30% between 1994--the year of VAWA's enactment--and 2010. In my days as the mayor of San Francisco, many of the most difficult calls for the city's law enforcement officers were those of domestic abuse. It was a big problem then, and it remains a big problem today. In California in 2010, there were 166,361 domestic violence calls, including more than 65,000 that involved a weapon. Fortunately, over 5,000 victims receive assistance each day from local domestic violence service providers in the State. These providers offer services that are essential to ending the cycle of abuse that is faced by so many domestic violence victims. Let me share a success story about a woman from Lake County, CA who received vital assistance from a local domestic violence center that receives Federal VAWA funding. Mary--her name has been changed to protect her confidentiality-- contacted the Lake Family Resource Center after leaving her abusive husband. Mary was assigned to a domestic violence family advocate who offered her one-on-one counseling and legal assistance. The family advocate helped Mary file and obtain a temporary restraining order against her husband. This order kept him away from Mary and gave her temporary custody of their children. The family advocate also accompanied Mary to several court hearings and was able to connect her with other local service providers. This support allowed Mary to remain independent and keep her children safe. After several months of counseling and assistance, Mary obtained full custody of her children and their lives have improved significantly. For the first time ever, the children are now able to invite friends to their home and participate in normal social activities. In addition, their grades have improved dramatically, with one child receiving the Student of the Month Award from his school. The positive impact of VAWA funding is undeniable. Yet many California service providers report a critical shortage of funds and staff to assist victims in need. Reauthorizing VAWA would address these shortages through grant programs administered by the Department of Justice that provide funding for emergency shelters, counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The bill would also continue support for State agencies, rape crisis centers, and other organizations that provide services to vulnerable women. The bill we are considering today gives increased attention to victims of sexual violence. This form of violence is particularly destructive because, for many years, our society viewed sexual violence as the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator. Although VAWA has always addressed the crime of sexual assault, a smaller percentage of grant funding has been allocated to sexual assault victims than is proportional to their rates of victimization. This reauthorization bill does three things to address this imbalance: 1. It provides an increased focus on training for law enforcement and prosecutors to address the ongoing needs of sexual assault victims. 2. The bill extends VAWA's housing protections to these victims. 3. And the bill ensures that those who are living with, but not married to, an abuser qualify for housing assistance available under VAWA. The bill also updates the Federal criminal code to clarify that cyberstalking is a crime. With increasing frequency, victims are being stalked over the Internet through e-mail, blogs, and Facebook. When stalking is done online, the message sent by the perpetrator is memorialized forever, making it more difficult for victims to put the painful experience in the past and move forward in their lives. Simply put, VAWA saves lives. It protects American women. And it is a lifeline for women and children who are in distress. To me, this bill is a no-brainer. We must continue our ongoing commitment to ending domestic and sexual violence. This commitment has always been bipartisan, and it should be again. Let's not further victimize at-risk American women because of partisan politics. Let's do our job and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with strong bipartisan support, as we always have. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the service of one of the Senate's most dedicated, loyal and capable employees, James J. Molinari. Jim has served as my State director for more than a decade, but his public service began many years ago. In 1967, Jim began his 45-year career in public service when he became a patrol officer with the San Francisco Police Department. For 27 years he rose through the ranks of the police department, and he did it all. From street patrol to investigations, undercover assignment to a Federal liaison, Jim was given the responsibilities. From 1977 through 1986, during my tenure as mayor of San Francisco, Jim was a senior staff member in the mayor's office. He was responsible for security for both the mayor and visiting dignitaries, and he served as my advisor on law enforcement matters. Jim was at my side for many of the most significant moments of my service as mayor. We hosted two Super Bowl parades in 1982 and 1985, the 1984 Democratic National Convention, and even visits by the Pope and the Queen of England. I still remember those days, and I am happy that Jim was there to share them with me. In 1992 he became a captain and commanding officer of the Planning and Research Division. I have no doubt that Jim would have kept climbing the ladder in the Police Department, but in 1994 I helped convince him that his talents were suitable for a larger stage and that he would make a fine U.S. Marshal. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton appointed Jim the United States Marshal for the Northern District of California. Jim served as a Marshal for 7 years, during which time he was responsible for the administration of Federal law enforcement for 15 northern California counties, or about 12 million people. He oversaw a $35 million budget and had a staff of about 130. In 2001, Jim decided to focus his experience on counternarcotics and became director of the San Francisco Bay Area High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. As executive director, he oversaw coordination and implementation of the agency's programs and initiatives. In 2002, I convinced Jim to return to my office as State director. As State director, Jim advises around 30 employees and oversees operations in my four State offices, in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Fresno. It is an understatement for me to call Jim one of my most trusted public policy and legislative advisors. I don't know if it's his roots as a police officer or his Italian sensibilities, but Jim is practical, he cuts through the red tape and he calls it how he sees it. Jim is a real 10. Mr. President, I ask that you and all of our colleagues join in thanking Jim Molinari for his years of service, not only to the Senate but to the State of California and the Nation. We wish him a wonderful retirement and want him to know we all appreciate his service and friendship.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2013. This bill would close a loophole in current law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. We must close this gap in our laws before it is exploited by terrorists, drug gangs, and other dangerous criminals who threaten our communities. Under current Federal law, people who are convicted in the United Sates of violent felonies like rape, murder, and terrorism are prohibited from possessing firearms. But, shockingly, Federal law does not bar criminals convicted of these same violent crimes in foreign courts from possessing guns. This outrageous loophole for foreign convicts is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Small v. United States. In that case, the Court analyzed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which states that anyone who has been convicted of a felony ``in any court'' cannot possess firearms. The Court concluded that the phrase only applied to American courts, despite the fact that the Gun Control Act had been applied to foreign felonies since 1968, the year it took effect. At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could have serious consequences. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism, and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' But whatever one may think of the Court's ruling, it is now the law of the land. We must make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the bill I am introducing today would do just that. Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18 would be amended to state that ``[the term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act. Where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law,'' the bill would expand these terms to include convictions of offenses under foreign law. In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone was convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a gun in the U.S., then they will be disqualified from gun possession under U.S. law. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' under the Gun Control Act, if either: the foreign conviction resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the United States. I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. In any event, it is clear that we should not keep in place a dangerous policy which essentially treats every foreign conviction as invalid. Ensuring that foreign convictions count as convictions under U.S. law is important for a second reason. When someone with a felony conviction is arrested for another crime, the government may charge that person with being a felon in possession of a firearm or may seek a sentence enhancement. However, if a foreign conviction is not treated as a conviction under our law, then the defendant may receive a significantly lower sentence than is appropriate given the number of convictions on his record. Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign- convicted murderers, rapists, and even terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States. With each passing day, we run a risk that foreign felons are exploiting this loophole in our law. This is unacceptable. Criminals convicted in foreign courts should not be able to have guns when U.S. law forbids those convicted of the same crimes on U.S. soil from possessing guns. We should not wait for lives to be lost before we act to close this loophole. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2013. This bill would close a loophole in current law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. We must close this gap in our laws before it is exploited by terrorists, drug gangs, and other dangerous criminals who threaten our communities. Under current Federal law, people who are convicted in the United Sates of violent felonies like rape, murder, and terrorism are prohibited from possessing firearms. But, shockingly, Federal law does not bar criminals convicted of these same violent crimes in foreign courts from possessing guns. This outrageous loophole for foreign convicts is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Small v. United States. In that case, the Court analyzed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which states that anyone who has been convicted of a felony ``in any court'' cannot possess firearms. The Court concluded that the phrase only applied to American courts, despite the fact that the Gun Control Act had been applied to foreign felonies since 1968, the year it took effect. At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could have serious consequences. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism, and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' But whatever one may think of the Court's ruling, it is now the law of the land. We must make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the bill I am introducing today would do just that. Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18 would be amended to state that ``[the term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act. Where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law,'' the bill would expand these terms to include convictions of offenses under foreign law. In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone was convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a gun in the U.S., then they will be disqualified from gun possession under U.S. law. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' under the Gun Control Act, if either: the foreign conviction resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the United States. I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. In any event, it is clear that we should not keep in place a dangerous policy which essentially treats every foreign conviction as invalid. Ensuring that foreign convictions count as convictions under U.S. law is important for a second reason. When someone with a felony conviction is arrested for another crime, the government may charge that person with being a felon in possession of a firearm or may seek a sentence enhancement. However, if a foreign conviction is not treated as a conviction under our law, then the defendant may receive a significantly lower sentence than is appropriate given the number of convictions on his record. Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign- convicted murderers, rapists, and even terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States. With each passing day, we run a risk that foreign felons are exploiting this loophole in our law. This is unacceptable. Criminals convicted in foreign courts should not be able to have guns when U.S. law forbids those convicted of the same crimes on U.S. soil from possessing guns. We should not wait for lives to be lost before we act to close this loophole. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California. This bill was first introduced in January 2011 during the 112th Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Since then, the Delta Protection Commission has completed a feasibility study, as required, and endorsed the legislation. Additionally, the National Park Service has confirmed that the study is consistent with the agency's interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the five Delta Counties to develop this legislation and look forward to continuing to partner with them as well as local, State and Federal agencies to care for and improve the Delta. This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area. The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of Federal, State, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history. It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it. In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure. Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States. The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries. These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and three million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the State. Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America. The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally. Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors. Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure. Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure. The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians. The Delta Protection Commission, established under State law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta. This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta. This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and Federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal Government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta. The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway. Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Los Angeles Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2013. This legislation, which I introduce with Senator Boxer, would require the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe regulations for helicopter operations in the skies above Los Angeles in order to reduce helicopter noise pollution in residential areas. In addition to addressing noise, the FAA's regulations would have to increase safety, minimize commercial aircraft delays, and exempt first responders and military aircraft from their limitations. The bill also would direct the FAA to consult with local communities and local helicopter operators when developing the regulations. This legislation is necessary because today the citizens of Los Angeles County suffer intrusive and disruptive low-flying helicopter traffic above their neighborhoods to an unprecedented degree. The unique terrain of Los Angeles, with its many canyons and valleys, often concentrates the high decibel level noise from low-flying helicopters on many of the millions of homes in the county. The noise interrupts daily life for Los Angeles County's residents, drowning out conversations and disrupting sleep cycles. Despite multiple efforts from several community and homeowner organizations in Los Angeles County to address these disturbances over many years, helicopter traffic in Los Angeles County is not currently regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration or any other agency. As one expert recently explained to The Los Angeles Times, a helicopter pilot is free to hover over a person's home for as many hours as he would like. The only limitation on helicopter hovering, in fact, appears to be fuel supply. Last year, at my request the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Federal Aviation Administration to begin developing solutions to this matter. In response, the Federal Aviation Administration formed an internal working group in July 2012 to solicit input from local communities and stakeholders on helicopter noise and safety issues in Los Angeles County. As part of that process, FAA Regional Administrator Bill Withycombe hosted several public meetings in the summer and fall of 2012 that have allowed stakeholders and citizens to express their concerns and propose solutions. The Federal Aviation Administration will release a report in May 2013 evaluating a full set of voluntary and regulatory options to reduce helicopter noise and address safety issues in Los Angeles County. The study is a necessary first step in order to determine how helicopters can be regulated in Los Angeles County in a manner that provides relief to residents from helicopter noise and increase safety. But the study is only a first step. It must be followed by meaningful and effective regulations to limit the impacts of these helicopters. I introduce this legislation in order to ensure that the FAA will follow through on the regulatory options it plans to evaluate in its May 2013 report. This legislation directs the FAA to act in the interest of the millions of Americans in Los Angeles County. I appreciate the steps the FAA has taken to date, but only regulations appear capable of addressing the quality of life impact caused by helicopters in Los Angeles. Last August, thousands of people sat in the stands of the Hollywood Bowl for a night of Beethoven. Nestled into the Hollywood Hills and with little sign of the Nation's second largest city that surrounds it, the Hollywood Bowl is a unique spot to take in a concert. But just as violinist Renaud Capucon stood for a solo, an unidentified helicopter flew overhead, drowning out the sound of his music. It was an upsetting event for the audience, but it is far from unusual. The people of Los Angeles have had too many wonderful outdoor concerts and other cultural events disrupted by helicopters that fly without restriction. Choppers in L.A.'s sky have caused too many sleepless nights. Paparazzi helicopters have too often flown dangerously low and close to homes in their constant pursuit of celebrity images. The air space above Los Angeles is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration, so to bring some sanity to the skies above L.A. requires Federal action, and Federal leadership. This legislation directs the FAA to provide that leadership necessary to protect the public interest. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I look forward to working with my fellow members to enact this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay. Over the last 150 years, the water quality and health of the San Francisco Bay Estuary have been diminished by pollution, invasive species, loss of wetland habitat and other factors. The degradation has not only impacted fish and wildlife, but has also reduced the estuary's ability to support important economic activities such as commercial and sport fishing, shipping, agriculture, recreation, and tourism. Federal funding in recent years has begun the Bay's recovery process by investing in projects which improve water quality and restore critical habitat. These investments, $28 million between 2008 and 2012 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alone, were critical to spurring $22 million in matching funds and leveraging $81 million from other partners. But much work remains. That is why I am pleased to introduce the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act with Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Companion legislation will also be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jackie Speier. This bill was first introduced in the 112th Congress. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported favorably on the bill and recommended its passage on January 26, 2012. This bill recognizes the important restoration work that must be done to restore and protect the iconic San Francisco Bay by authorizing $5 million a year for restoration work between 2013 and 2017, and prioritizing funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and in turn reinvigorate recreation, tourism, and agricultural activities in and around the bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and their unique role in the creation of our National Park system. The Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco and being given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations. Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's first park rangers. In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers. The study would evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing a national historic trail commemorating the route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers from their post in the Presidio of San Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks and to any other National Parks where they may have served. The bill will identify properties associated with the Buffalo Soldiers that could be added to the National Register of Historic Places. The bill will develop educational initiatives and a public awareness campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers after the Civil War. Although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all. Furthermore, as the centennial of the National Park Service in 2016 approaches, it is an especially appropriate time to conduct research and increase public awareness of the stewardship role the Buffalo Soldiers played in the early years of the National Parks. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Los Angeles Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2013. This legislation, which I introduce with Senator Boxer, would require the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe regulations for helicopter operations in the skies above Los Angeles in order to reduce helicopter noise pollution in residential areas. In addition to addressing noise, the FAA's regulations would have to increase safety, minimize commercial aircraft delays, and exempt first responders and military aircraft from their limitations. The bill also would direct the FAA to consult with local communities and local helicopter operators when developing the regulations. This legislation is necessary because today the citizens of Los Angeles County suffer intrusive and disruptive low-flying helicopter traffic above their neighborhoods to an unprecedented degree. The unique terrain of Los Angeles, with its many canyons and valleys, often concentrates the high decibel level noise from low-flying helicopters on many of the millions of homes in the county. The noise interrupts daily life for Los Angeles County's residents, drowning out conversations and disrupting sleep cycles. Despite multiple efforts from several community and homeowner organizations in Los Angeles County to address these disturbances over many years, helicopter traffic in Los Angeles County is not currently regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration or any other agency. As one expert recently explained to The Los Angeles Times, a helicopter pilot is free to hover over a person's home for as many hours as he would like. The only limitation on helicopter hovering, in fact, appears to be fuel supply. Last year, at my request the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Federal Aviation Administration to begin developing solutions to this matter. In response, the Federal Aviation Administration formed an internal working group in July 2012 to solicit input from local communities and stakeholders on helicopter noise and safety issues in Los Angeles County. As part of that process, FAA Regional Administrator Bill Withycombe hosted several public meetings in the summer and fall of 2012 that have allowed stakeholders and citizens to express their concerns and propose solutions. The Federal Aviation Administration will release a report in May 2013 evaluating a full set of voluntary and regulatory options to reduce helicopter noise and address safety issues in Los Angeles County. The study is a necessary first step in order to determine how helicopters can be regulated in Los Angeles County in a manner that provides relief to residents from helicopter noise and increase safety. But the study is only a first step. It must be followed by meaningful and effective regulations to limit the impacts of these helicopters. I introduce this legislation in order to ensure that the FAA will follow through on the regulatory options it plans to evaluate in its May 2013 report. This legislation directs the FAA to act in the interest of the millions of Americans in Los Angeles County. I appreciate the steps the FAA has taken to date, but only regulations appear capable of addressing the quality of life impact caused by helicopters in Los Angeles. Last August, thousands of people sat in the stands of the Hollywood Bowl for a night of Beethoven. Nestled into the Hollywood Hills and with little sign of the Nation's second largest city that surrounds it, the Hollywood Bowl is a unique spot to take in a concert. But just as violinist Renaud Capucon stood for a solo, an unidentified helicopter flew overhead, drowning out the sound of his music. It was an upsetting event for the audience, but it is far from unusual. The people of Los Angeles have had too many wonderful outdoor concerts and other cultural events disrupted by helicopters that fly without restriction. Choppers in L.A.'s sky have caused too many sleepless nights. Paparazzi helicopters have too often flown dangerously low and close to homes in their constant pursuit of celebrity images. The air space above Los Angeles is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration, so to bring some sanity to the skies above L.A. requires Federal action, and Federal leadership. This legislation directs the FAA to provide that leadership necessary to protect the public interest. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I look forward to working with my fellow members to enact this important legislation. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay. Over the last 150 years, the water quality and health of the San Francisco Bay Estuary have been diminished by pollution, invasive species, loss of wetland habitat and other factors. The degradation has not only impacted fish and wildlife, but has also reduced the estuary's ability to support important economic activities such as commercial and sport fishing, shipping, agriculture, recreation, and tourism. Federal funding in recent years has begun the Bay's recovery process by investing in projects which improve water quality and restore critical habitat. These investments, $28 million between 2008 and 2012 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alone, were critical to spurring $22 million in matching funds and leveraging $81 million from other partners. But much work remains. That is why I am pleased to introduce the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act with Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Companion legislation will also be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jackie Speier. This bill was first introduced in the 112th Congress. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported favorably on the bill and recommended its passage on January 26, 2012. This bill recognizes the important restoration work that must be done to restore and protect the iconic San Francisco Bay by authorizing $5 million a year for restoration work between 2013 and 2017, and prioritizing funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and in turn reinvigorate recreation, tourism, and agricultural activities in and around the bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California. This bill was first introduced in January 2011 during the 112th Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Since then, the Delta Protection Commission has completed a feasibility study, as required, and endorsed the legislation. Additionally, the National Park Service has confirmed that the study is consistent with the agency's interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the five Delta Counties to develop this legislation and look forward to continuing to partner with them as well as local, State and Federal agencies to care for and improve the Delta. This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area. The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of Federal, State, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history. It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property. Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it. In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure. Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States. The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries. These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and three million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the State. Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America. The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally. Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors. Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure. Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure. The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians. The Delta Protection Commission, established under State law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta. This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta. This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and Federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal Government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta. The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway. Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and their unique role in the creation of our National Park system. The Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco and being given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations. Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's first park rangers. In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers. The study would evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing a national historic trail commemorating the route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers from their post in the Presidio of San Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks and to any other National Parks where they may have served. The bill will identify properties associated with the Buffalo Soldiers that could be added to the National Register of Historic Places. The bill will develop educational initiatives and a public awareness campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers after the Civil War. Although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all. Furthermore, as the centennial of the National Park Service in 2016 approaches, it is an especially appropriate time to conduct research and increase public awareness of the stewardship role the Buffalo Soldiers played in the early years of the National Parks. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2013. This legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area. The improvements will safeguard hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento. The Army Corps perpetually cites the city as one of our nation's most at-risk for severe flooding. A quick review of the Corps' National Levee Database will tell you why. Of the nearly 300 miles of levees within 10 miles of Sacramento the Corps has deemed 94 miles of levees, or 32 percent, ``unacceptable.'' An unacceptable designation means the levee is deficient to the point where it does not provide the protection it is supposed to. The Corps has deemed 29 miles of levees, only 10 percent, ``minimally acceptable.'' The Corps has yet to even review the remaining 172 miles, 58 percent. None of the 300 miles of levees within 10 miles of Sacramento received the passing grade of ``acceptable.'' But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. And the Natomas basin, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control. More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding. The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with more than 10 feet of water should a levee break. In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet. The risks are clear. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates the damage from a single flood could top $7 billion. Recognizing the need to upgrade the Natomas levees, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified $1.1 billion in essential levee improvements. According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99. In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act. The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared. Understanding the urgency of this work, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have begun work on the levee. They have invested more than $400 million in the Natomas Basin project, far more than their share, and completed about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees. I want to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for this good work. They have done the right thing, moving ahead before the federal authorization, because people's lives and property are in danger. I am proud to say the people of Sacramento have really stepped up and contributed. On two occasions county voters approved special tax assessments to begin paying for the repairs on the levee system, first in 2007 and again in 2011. The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly with 84.5 percent of voters supporting the measure. This kind of local commitment should be a model for the Nation. When such major vulnerabilities exist that threaten a community, it is imperative to act quickly. If the Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater. Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day. Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized. Just months ago Super-storm Sandy slammed into the East Coast. The destruction in New York and New Jersey reminded us that unpredictable weather events can overwhelm our infrastructure with devastating consequences. But with well-placed timely investments, much of worst damage can be averted. That's why even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, Sacramento voters stood together and passed the local tax- measure to fund this critical project. We don't know when the next flood will occur, but we do know Sacramento has a well-documented history of catastrophic flooding. Record-breaking storms hit the region in 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997. During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damage. Going back even further, an even more devastating flood in 1861 occurred when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration at the State Capitol. The flooding was so bad the state government was temporarily relocated to San Francisco. U.S. Geological Survey scientists now believe that the 1861 storm may have been an atmospheric river storm, or ``ARkStorm.'' These events, which occur every 200 to 400 years, can produce truly devastating floods. In 2011, the USGS conducted a study about the impacts of a large ARkStorm in California's Central Valley. The results were shocking. The storm would cause a 300 mile long, 20 mile wide flood zone across much of our nation's most productive agriculture lands. It would force the evacuation of 1.5 million residents and cause hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes. The study estimates the cost to private homeowners and businesses would be $725 billion, nearly three times the cost of a major earthquake in the State. The bottom line is this: the infrastructure currently in place will not stand up to a storm of this magnitude. And the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward preparing for such a disaster. This legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced with my friend and colleague Senator Boxer, the Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, last Congress. The only change is that the current bill does not include language from the previous bill that specifically allowed ``credits'' for non-federal work on the project. This modification should not be interpreted to reflect a change my support for the work of the local entities; I believe they have done the right thing by beginning construction on this project, and I support them receiving credit for their work. Instead, the modification was included to comport with work being done by Chairwoman Boxer on the upcoming Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. That bill will generically address non-Federal crediting provisions and I will work with Chairman Boxer to ensure that Sacramento can still receive credits for the work they have completed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 reintroduce the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2013. This legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area. The improvements will safeguard hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento. The Army Corps perpetually cites the city as one of our nation's most at-risk for severe flooding. A quick review of the Corps' National Levee Database will tell you why. Of the nearly 300 miles of levees within 10 miles of Sacramento the Corps has deemed 94 miles of levees, or 32 percent, ``unacceptable.'' An unacceptable designation means the levee is deficient to the point where it does not provide the protection it is supposed to. The Corps has deemed 29 miles of levees, only 10 percent, ``minimally acceptable.'' The Corps has yet to even review the remaining 172 miles, 58 percent. None of the 300 miles of levees within 10 miles of Sacramento received the passing grade of ``acceptable.'' But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. And the Natomas basin, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control. More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding. The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with more than 10 feet of water should a levee break. In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet. The risks are clear. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates the damage from a single flood could top $7 billion. Recognizing the need to upgrade the Natomas levees, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified $1.1 billion in essential levee improvements. According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99. In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act. The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared. Understanding the urgency of this work, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have begun work on the levee. They have invested more than $400 million in the Natomas Basin project, far more than their share, and completed about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees. I want to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for this good work. They have done the right thing, moving ahead before the federal authorization, because people's lives and property are in danger. I am proud to say the people of Sacramento have really stepped up and contributed. On two occasions county voters approved special tax assessments to begin paying for the repairs on the levee system, first in 2007 and again in 2011. The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly with 84.5 percent of voters supporting the measure. This kind of local commitment should be a model for the Nation. When such major vulnerabilities exist that threaten a community, it is imperative to act quickly. If the Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater. Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day. Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized. Just months ago Super-storm Sandy slammed into the East Coast. The destruction in New York and New Jersey reminded us that unpredictable weather events can overwhelm our infrastructure with devastating consequences. But with well-placed timely investments, much of worst damage can be averted. That's why even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, Sacramento voters stood together and passed the local tax- measure to fund this critical project. We don't know when the next flood will occur, but we do know Sacramento has a well-documented history of catastrophic flooding. Record-breaking storms hit the region in 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997. During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damage. Going back even further, an even more devastating flood in 1861 occurred when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration at the State Capitol. The flooding was so bad the state government was temporarily relocated to San Francisco. U.S. Geological Survey scientists now believe that the 1861 storm may have been an atmospheric river storm, or ``ARkStorm.'' These events, which occur every 200 to 400 years, can produce truly devastating floods. In 2011, the USGS conducted a study about the impacts of a large ARkStorm in California's Central Valley. The results were shocking. The storm would cause a 300 mile long, 20 mile wide flood zone across much of our nation's most productive agriculture lands. It would force the evacuation of 1.5 million residents and cause hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes. The study estimates the cost to private homeowners and businesses would be $725 billion, nearly three times the cost of a major earthquake in the State. The bottom line is this: the infrastructure currently in place will not stand up to a storm of this magnitude. And the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward preparing for such a disaster. This legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced with my friend and colleague Senator Boxer, the Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, last Congress. The only change is that the current bill does not include language from the previous bill that specifically allowed ``credits'' for non-federal work on the project. This modification should not be interpreted to reflect a change my support for the work of the local entities; I believe they have done the right thing by beginning construction on this project, and I support them receiving credit for their work. Instead, the modification was included to comport with work being done by Chairwoman Boxer on the upcoming Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. That bill will generically address non-Federal crediting provisions and I will work with Chairman Boxer to ensure that Sacramento can still receive credits for the work they have completed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.