Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am delighted this morning to be on the floor with the distinguished Senator from Texas. In order to proceed, I ask unanimous consent that, as in legislative session, the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1253 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Committee on the Judiciary. We have been there for a long time, and over the years, I have come to have great respect for him. So it is a particular asset for me to be able to share the authorship of this bill. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Preventing Online Sales of E- Cigarettes to Children Act. Our commonsense bill would treat e- cigarettes the same as traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products when it comes to purchasing them online. Can you believe it? E-cigarettes can be purchased online by someone 12 years old. There is no age requirement. This bill would help prevent children from illegally obtaining e- cigarettes by ensuring that online vendors are verifying the age of their customers, properly labeling packages, and checking identification upon delivery. The law exists today, as I stated, for traditional cigarettes, and there is no reason e-cigarettes should be treated differently. An annual survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that nearly 5.3 million students are using e-cigarettes--over 5 million students. Besides being illegal, the rate of e-cigarette use among teenagers is growing. In 2019, almost 30 percent of high school students reported using an e-cigarette in the previous 30 days. That is a 50-percent increase from the year before. So the popularity of them for younger and younger children is going up and up. According to the U.S. Surgeon General report, the developing adolescent brain is uniquely sensitive to nicotine. Other studies have shown that children exposed to nicotine may be at greater risk for experiencing deficits in attention and cognition, suffering from mood disorders, and engaging in drug-seeking behavior. These effects may continue into adulthood, long after e-cigarette use has stopped. Further, new research shows that young people who use e-cigarettes are five times more likely to smoke traditional cigarettes within 1 year. Clearly, it is a come-on to children to graduate from the e- cigarette to the real cigarette. Given the effects of nicotine on children and the likelihood of their transitioning to traditional cigarette smoking, it is critical that we close any legal loopholes that allows underage youth to use e- cigarettes. Studies show that one of the easiest ways for underage users to purchase e-cigarettes is online. Our bipartisan bill would require e-cigarette retailers to meet the same requirements as those that sell traditional cigarettes online. I believe we have 27 cosponsors equally divided between our two parties, so I am very pleased about that. By applying the same safeguards we have worked on with online sales of traditional cigarettes, our bill would ensure that online e- cigarette sellers are verifying the age of their customers, properly labeling packages, and checking identification at delivery. While there is limited research on the effects that vaping has had on coronavirus patients, the virus is known to attack the lungs. People with underlying conditions are particularly susceptible. Last year, we saw a mysterious lung illness sicken thousands of people that had a history of vaping. So it stands to reason that any damage already caused by vaping may further compromise a person's ability to fight off the coronavirus. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for working with me on this important legislation and our 26 colleagues who joined as cosponsors to address the epidemic of e-cigarette use among American youth. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Coronavirus Commission Act. Representative Adam Schiff has introduced companion legislation in the House. This bill would establish a commission on the coronavirus pandemic to better understand the vulnerabilities it has revealed in our national security and healthcare system and improve our preparedness for future crises. It is crucial to improve our understanding of pandemic threats and health issues that the United States could face in the coming decades to better protect our population and mitigate the risk of a similar human and economic catastrophe. Nearly 130,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. Hospitals have struggled to secure enough personal protective equipment to keep health workers safe, testing levels remain inadequate, and a breakthrough therapeutic, let alone a vaccine, has yet to be developed. More than 41 million Americans have been laid off, and the unemployment rate is likely well over 20 percent. Large numbers of businesses have permanently closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The commission that would be created by our bill would conduct a comprehensive review of the government's coronavirus response and make recommendations on how we can be better prepared in the future. The commission would complement other oversight efforts in Congress and elsewhere. The coronavirus commission would examine U.S. Government preparedness in advance of this pandemic, the Federal Government's response to it, and provide recommendations to improve our ability to respond to and recover from future outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. This legislation is modeled after and closely mirrors legislation enacted in 2002 that created the 9/11 Commission. The Coronavirus Commission would be composed of 10 members, with the same partisan balance as the 9/11 commissioners and prohibited from being current Federal officials, with a variety of backgrounds in relevant fields, including public health, epidemiology, emergency preparedness, armed services, and intelligence; provide a full accounting to the President, Congress, and the American people of the facts and circumstances related to the outbreak in the United States, including our preparedness, the intelligence and information we had available before the virus reached the United States, and how Federal, State, and local governments, as well as the private sector, responded to the crisis; hold hearings and public events to obtain information and to educate the public; possess subpoena power to compel cooperation by relevant witnesses and materials from the Federal Government, as well as State and local governments; make specific recommendations to Congress and the executive branch to improve our preparedness for pandemic disease; have adequate staffing and resources to be able to complete expeditiously the monumental task at hand so we can be prepared for the next epidemic or pandemic to hit the nation; and the commission would be established after February 2021, hopefully when the pandemic has been overcome and after the presidential election. The coronavirus showed just how unprepared and slow we were to respond to a major outbreak, and that lack of readiness has endangered lives. We were unable to ramp up testing, we had insufficient safety equipment for doctors and nurses, and we lacked any kind of consistent Federal guidelines for States and cities. We know this will not be the last outbreak, so a 9/11 Commission- style panel is necessary to fix these mistakes going forward and apply the lessons from this pandemic to future crises. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Coronavirus Commission Act. Representative Adam Schiff has introduced companion legislation in the House. This bill would establish a commission on the coronavirus pandemic to better understand the vulnerabilities it has revealed in our national security and healthcare system and improve our preparedness for future crises. It is crucial to improve our understanding of pandemic threats and health issues that the United States could face in the coming decades to better protect our population and mitigate the risk of a similar human and economic catastrophe. Nearly 130,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. Hospitals have struggled to secure enough personal protective equipment to keep health workers safe, testing levels remain inadequate, and a breakthrough therapeutic, let alone a vaccine, has yet to be developed. More than 41 million Americans have been laid off, and the unemployment rate is likely well over 20 percent. Large numbers of businesses have permanently closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The commission that would be created by our bill would conduct a comprehensive review of the government's coronavirus response and make recommendations on how we can be better prepared in the future. The commission would complement other oversight efforts in Congress and elsewhere. The coronavirus commission would examine U.S. Government preparedness in advance of this pandemic, the Federal Government's response to it, and provide recommendations to improve our ability to respond to and recover from future outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. This legislation is modeled after and closely mirrors legislation enacted in 2002 that created the 9/11 Commission. The Coronavirus Commission would be composed of 10 members, with the same partisan balance as the 9/11 commissioners and prohibited from being current Federal officials, with a variety of backgrounds in relevant fields, including public health, epidemiology, emergency preparedness, armed services, and intelligence; provide a full accounting to the President, Congress, and the American people of the facts and circumstances related to the outbreak in the United States, including our preparedness, the intelligence and information we had available before the virus reached the United States, and how Federal, State, and local governments, as well as the private sector, responded to the crisis; hold hearings and public events to obtain information and to educate the public; possess subpoena power to compel cooperation by relevant witnesses and materials from the Federal Government, as well as State and local governments; make specific recommendations to Congress and the executive branch to improve our preparedness for pandemic disease; have adequate staffing and resources to be able to complete expeditiously the monumental task at hand so we can be prepared for the next epidemic or pandemic to hit the nation; and the commission would be established after February 2021, hopefully when the pandemic has been overcome and after the presidential election. The coronavirus showed just how unprepared and slow we were to respond to a major outbreak, and that lack of readiness has endangered lives. We were unable to ramp up testing, we had insufficient safety equipment for doctors and nurses, and we lacked any kind of consistent Federal guidelines for States and cities. We know this will not be the last outbreak, so a 9/11 Commission- style panel is necessary to fix these mistakes going forward and apply the lessons from this pandemic to future crises. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to proceeding on S. 3985, the JUSTICE Act, and want to briefly explain why. On May 25, a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on the neck of George Floyd for almost 9 minutes. Mr. Floyd repeatedly said he could not breathe and pleaded for officers to stop. The officers ignored his pleas and continued to kneel on his neck until his body went limp. George Floyd's alleged crime? Using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy groceries during a global pandemic. As a nation, we have seen far too many unarmed Black men and women killed by police. Rayshard Brooks was shot twice in the back while running away from Atlanta police. The police had been called because he had fallen asleep in his car and was blocking a fast-food drive-thru. Breonna Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot eight times by Louisville police while asleep in her home. Eric Garner was choked to death by an NYPD officer for selling cigarettes. Freddie Gray was killed after being taken into custody by Baltimore police for possessing a knife. Walter Scott was shot in the back by North Charleston police after being stopped for a bad brake light. Stephon Clark was killed by Sacramento police in his grandmother's backyard for breaking windows. And Michael Brown was shot six times by Ferguson police while his hands were raised in the air. Over the past month, millions of people--of all races, ages, and backgrounds--have taken to the streets throughout the Nation to protest these killings and to demand real police reform. We need to respond with legislation that truly meets this moment, a bill that actually holds law enforcement agencies and offices accountable under the law. The Republican JUSTICE Act is nowhere near enough. It simply does not impose accountability on law enforcement. Specifically, it does not create a national use of force standard. For example, in California, lethal force may only be used to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person. It does not end racial profiling; in other words, it does not stop police from using race to target individuals, a practice I would hope that everyone agrees must cease. It does not prohibit no-knock warrants in drug cases, the very type of warrant that led to the death of Breonna Taylor. It does not reform qualified immunity, a legal defense that has allowed officers to avoid accountability even when they have broken the law. Instead of fixing these problems, the JUSTICE Act collects more information and data on problems we already know exist. We do not need more information. We need to address the underlying issues of systemic racism and police use of force. That is where the Justice in Policing Act comes in. Senator Booker and Senator Harris introduced this bill earlier this month. It should be our starting point. The bill makes meaningful reforms. For example, it requires that police departments ban choke holds and carotid holds in order to receive Federal funds. It prohibits the use of racial profiling by police officers. It creates a national police misconduct registry that would collect disciplinary or termination history of officers so potential employers would know of an officer's past misconduct. It gives subpoena authority to the Justice Department to conduct ``pattern or practice'' investigations. It eliminates the defense of ``qualified immunity'' so that police officers can be held civilly liable under the law for misconduct. And it amends Federal criminal law so officers can more effectively be charged for violating people's constitutional and legal rights. Meaningful reform is long overdue, and rather than rushing a weak bill to the floor, the Senate Judiciary Committee should take up the Justice in Policing Act as soon as possible. This is how the Senate is supposed to work. We should not be trying to address this important issue by rushing an insufficient bill to the floor. Now is the time for leadership, courage, and real police reform. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Cory Wilson to a Mississippi seat on the Fifth Circuit. Judge Wilson has a troubling record on a number of critically important issues. That record makes clear Judge Wilson is far outside of the judicial mainstream. I believe that record is and should be disqualifying. First, Judge Wilson has a long record of working to undermine voting rights. He has been a longtime proponent of voter ID laws--which disproportionately harm communities of color, students, voters with disabilities, and the elderly--and has made false claims about the prevalence of voter fraud. He has likewise expressed opposition to enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and has made unsubstantiated claims that voter suppression is nonexistent. As I have noted before, Judge Wilson's troubling record on voting rights is highly relevant to his nomination. The Fifth Circuit is a majority-minority circuit; 55 percent of those who live in the circuit are people of color. The Senate should not confirm a nominee who would work to further restrict the right to vote from the bench. Second, Judge Wilson has been a staunch opponent of the Affordable Care Act. He referred to the ACA's passage as ``perverse'' and ``illegitimate.'' He called upon the Supreme Court to strike down the law, writing: ``For the sake of the Constitution, I hope the Court strikes down the law and reinvigorates some semblance of the limited government the Founders intended.'' As of June 22, more than 120,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, and nearly 2.3 million have been infected. Now is not the time to advance a judicial nominee whose opposition to the ACA would strip tens of millions of Americans of healthcare, including those with preexisting conditions. Third, Judge Wilson has made extreme partisan comments that call into question his ability to rule fairly and impartially. In op-eds in a Mississippi newspaper, he likened President Obama to ``a fit-throwing teenager'' and called him ``King Barack'' and ``President Make- Believe.'' In tweets that he has kept public even while serving as a State court judge, Judge Wilson called Hillary Clinton ``Crooked Clinton'' and said she was ``criminal and clueless.'' He also called Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a ``claptrap.'' The Senate should not confirm a nominee who cannot be trusted to put aside extreme partisanship to rule in an unbiased and impartial manner. Fourth, Judge Wilson has sought to undermine the rights of LGBT Americans. In 2016, while serving in the Mississippi legislature, Judge Wilson supported HB 1523, a bill providing legal cover for businesses to deny services to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. In a 2012 op-ed, Judge Wilson argued that ``gay marriage is a pander to liberal interest groups and an attempt to cast Republicans as intolerant, uncaring and even bigoted.'' Judge Wilson's past support for anti-LGBT legislation and his comments demeaning the fight for marriage equality raise questions about his ability to rule objectively on any case implicating LGBT rights. Finally, Judge Wilson has been an ardent opponent of women's reproductive rights, making it abundantly clear that he supports ``the complete and immediate reversal of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.'' Judge Wilson will be the 200th Article III judge appointed by this President and confirmed by this Senate. Unfortunately, Judge Wilson's record of hostility to voting rights, the ACA, the rights of LGBT Americans, and women's reproductive rights is not unique to him. In fact, it is clear that so many of this administration's judicial nominees have been selected precisely because of those viewpoints. This is not something to celebrate. After all, those who have gained healthcare because of the ACA deserve the security of knowing their coverage is not at risk from the Federal judiciary. And those who seek to vindicate their rights--to vote, to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions, and to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity-- deserve a judiciary that will rule fairly and impartially. I will vote against Judge Wilson's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Military Aviators Cancer Incidence Study Act,'' which I introduced today. This legislation would require the Department of Defense to conduct a study to determine if there is a higher incidence of cancers occurring in military aviators as compared to similar age groups in the general population. It has been reported that the prevalence of cancer is particularly high among military aviators, particularly among fighter pilots in the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. There have been several alarming clusters of cancer diagnoses at military installations, including at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. Four commanding officers who served at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake have died of cancer. Each officer had completed thousands of flight hours in advanced jets. According to a study by the U.S. Air Force in 2008 titled ``Cancer in Fighters,'' six pilots and weapons systems officers for the F-15E Strike Eagle at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, aged 33 to 43, were diagnosed with cancer between 2002 and 2005. Each officer had completed at least 2,100 flight hours. A study by the U.S. Air Force in 2010 reported on a cluster of seven members of the Air Force Special Operations Command diagnosed with brain cancer among crew members of the C-130 between 2006 and 2009. The individuals affected were three C-130 pilots, two flight engineers, one loadmaster, and one navigator assigned to different installations around the world. And yet, there has been no comprehensive study conducted of cancer rates among military aviators. One challenge of extracting findings from previous studies by the Navy or the Air Force on cancer rates is that each study focused on pilots who are active duty members of the Armed Forces and did not include the medical records of former pilots who are veterans, which is the population in which cancer most often appears. Members of the Armed Forces who serve full military careers are not likely to be counted in data captured by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Members who served 20 years or more are eligible for health care under the TRICARE program, which is managed by the Department of Defense. Also, many members pursue private sector jobs after separating from the Armed Forces and receive health care outside of the Federal Government. Those factors have made it difficult to see if the health issues that families of military aviators are experiencing are part of larger trend. How the bill would help Our bill would require the Department of Defense in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study across the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to determine whether there is a higher incidence of cancers occurring among military aviators as compared to similar age groups in the general population. If the study determines a higher rate of cancer among military aviators, the Department of Defense would then move into a second phase of the study and report to Congress on the following: Carcinogens associated with military flight operations; The operating environments where aviators might have been exposed to increased radiation; Duty stations, dates of service, aircraft flown, and additional duties that could have increased the risk of cancer for each affected military aviator; Locations where a military aviator served or additional duties of a military aviator associated with higher incidences of cancer; Potential exposures due to service in the Armed Forces that are not related to aviation, such as exposure to burn pits or toxins in contaminated water; and The appropriate age to begin screening military aviators for cancer based on several variables. Conclusion Military aviators take enough risks while serving our country without also having to worry about contracting cancer from radiation exposure. The high prevalence of cancer among these pilots is deeply concerning, particularly the clusters of cases at China Lake. We must determine why these aviators are getting cancer and if their jobs are exposing them to dangerous carcinogens. The study is an important step to help us understand what is happening and how we can better protect our military men and women. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Military Aviators Cancer Incidence Study Act,'' which I introduced today. This legislation would require the Department of Defense to conduct a study to determine if there is a higher incidence of cancers occurring in military aviators as compared to similar age groups in the general population. It has been reported that the prevalence of cancer is particularly high among military aviators, particularly among fighter pilots in the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. There have been several alarming clusters of cancer diagnoses at military installations, including at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. Four commanding officers who served at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake have died of cancer. Each officer had completed thousands of flight hours in advanced jets. According to a study by the U.S. Air Force in 2008 titled ``Cancer in Fighters,'' six pilots and weapons systems officers for the F-15E Strike Eagle at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, aged 33 to 43, were diagnosed with cancer between 2002 and 2005. Each officer had completed at least 2,100 flight hours. A study by the U.S. Air Force in 2010 reported on a cluster of seven members of the Air Force Special Operations Command diagnosed with brain cancer among crew members of the C-130 between 2006 and 2009. The individuals affected were three C-130 pilots, two flight engineers, one loadmaster, and one navigator assigned to different installations around the world. And yet, there has been no comprehensive study conducted of cancer rates among military aviators. One challenge of extracting findings from previous studies by the Navy or the Air Force on cancer rates is that each study focused on pilots who are active duty members of the Armed Forces and did not include the medical records of former pilots who are veterans, which is the population in which cancer most often appears. Members of the Armed Forces who serve full military careers are not likely to be counted in data captured by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Members who served 20 years or more are eligible for health care under the TRICARE program, which is managed by the Department of Defense. Also, many members pursue private sector jobs after separating from the Armed Forces and receive health care outside of the Federal Government. Those factors have made it difficult to see if the health issues that families of military aviators are experiencing are part of larger trend. How the bill would help Our bill would require the Department of Defense in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study across the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to determine whether there is a higher incidence of cancers occurring among military aviators as compared to similar age groups in the general population. If the study determines a higher rate of cancer among military aviators, the Department of Defense would then move into a second phase of the study and report to Congress on the following: Carcinogens associated with military flight operations; The operating environments where aviators might have been exposed to increased radiation; Duty stations, dates of service, aircraft flown, and additional duties that could have increased the risk of cancer for each affected military aviator; Locations where a military aviator served or additional duties of a military aviator associated with higher incidences of cancer; Potential exposures due to service in the Armed Forces that are not related to aviation, such as exposure to burn pits or toxins in contaminated water; and The appropriate age to begin screening military aviators for cancer based on several variables. Conclusion Military aviators take enough risks while serving our country without also having to worry about contracting cancer from radiation exposure. The high prevalence of cancer among these pilots is deeply concerning, particularly the clusters of cases at China Lake. We must determine why these aviators are getting cancer and if their jobs are exposing them to dangerous carcinogens. The study is an important step to help us understand what is happening and how we can better protect our military men and women. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Justin Walker to the DC Circuit. There are four main reasons for my opposition, and I would like to address each. First, Judge Walker does not have the experience we would expect of a nominee to the DC Circuit, which is considered the second most powerful court in the Nation. Judge Walker was confirmed to the Western District of Kentucky on October 24, 2019. He has just 7 months of experience as a sitting Federal district court Judge. Moreover, as Judge Walker disclosed in the questionnaire he submitted to the Judiciary Committee, in those 7 months he has presided over no bench or jury trials. Although appellate judges don't preside over jury selection, sentencing, or decisions on the admissibility of evidence, they are regularly called upon to examine the decisions of district court judges on these and other matters. In light of that, Judge Walker's lack of trial experience should alone be a bar to his elevation to the circuit. Second, I have serious concerns about Judge Walker's views on Executive power and agency independence. Questions around these issues frequently come before the DC Circuit, and so Judge Walker's views are highly relevant to his nomination. Judge Walker has argued against the independence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, going so far as to claim that the FBI Director should be an ``agent'' of the President. These views are troubling in the abstract, but they are even more troubling now, with an administration that too often views the Department of Justice as a political arm of the Presidency. Judge Walker has also argued that Federal agencies have too much power when it comes to protecting the environment, consumers, and the workplace. This is an especially troubling viewpoint at a time when we need agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, commonly known as OSHA, to protect the health and safety of American workers who have continued working during the COVID-19 pandemic or will be returning to their jobs. Judge Walker's views on the ability of federal agencies to protect Americans are particularly relevant to the DC Circuit, which hears critical cases surrounding workplace and environmental safeguards. Third, Judge Walker has been an ardent opponent of the Affordable Care Act. He has called the Supreme Court's decision upholding the ACA ``indefensible'' and ``catastrophic.'' He praised then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh for providing a ``roadmap'' by which the Court could strike down the ACA. I simply cannot support a nominee who would put at risk the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans, including those with preexisting conditions who might well lose coverage without the ACA's protections. Finally, I have concerns that Judge Walker does not have the temperament required of a Federal judge. In March of this year, when he was formally sworn in to the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Walker made a number of overtly political remarks. He attacked the American Bar Association, stating that ``although we celebrate today, we cannot take for granted tomorrow or we will lose our courts and our country to critics who call us terrifying and who describe us as deplorable.'' He said that ``in Brett Kavanaugh's America, we will not surrender while you wage war on our work or our cause or our hope or our dream.'' These remarks raise questions as to whether Judge Walker can remain impartial and set aside political leanings. For all of these reasons, I will vote against Judge Walker's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to add my support for the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act. This landmark bipartisan bill directs significant funding to public lands nationwide, which will benefit communities across the country. This investment will continue to pay dividends for future generations. The purpose of this legislation is twofold. First, it provides $900 million per year in permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which supports the protection of Federal public lands and waters, including national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas, and voluntary conservation on private land. Importantly, this dedicated new funding would come from a portion of royalties on offshore oil and gas development, not the American taxpayer. Secondly, the bill establishes the National Park and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund. Similar to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, this is also funded through onshore and offshore energy revenues over 5 years, up to $1.9 billion annually for a total of $9.5 billion. Its sole purpose is to address the deferred maintenance needs of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Education. Currently, the National Park Service alone has a backlog of approximately $12 billion. This legislation will go a long way in helping to complete priority maintenance projects across America's public lands. As we face a severe economic crisis as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, I particularly want to highlight the fact that this legislation before us today is more than just a public lands bill; it is also a jobs bill that will help fulfill Congress's commitment to make public lands accessible to all Americans. The National Park System welcomed a record 327 million visitors last year, adding nearly $42 billion to our national economy and supporting more than 340,000 existing jobs. According to Pew Charitable Trusts, this bill would also create 110,000 additional jobs repairing infrastructure in our national parks. The Great American Outdoors Act also upholds Congress's long-standing commitment to ensuring access for all Americans to public lands. My hope is the investments made by this legislation will continue to fulfill the purposes laid out in the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, articulated as ``. . . preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States of America of present and future generations . . . and to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States.'' As our population continues to grow, it is even more vital to help all communities, regardless of race or income levels, enjoy access to America's beautiful open spaces, historical sites, and natural wonders. California is home to nine national parks--more than any other State--and we understand the tremendous value our public lands provide. According to the National Park Service, in 2019, 39.6 million park visitors spent an estimated $2.7 billion in local communities while visiting National Park Service lands in California. These expenditures supported a total of 36,000 jobs and $4.3 billion in economic output. That is an impressive amount by any measure, and I have witnessed the power of investments in our national parks with my own eyes in places like the California desert. For example, in 1994, I was proud to help enact the California Desert Protection Act which designated Joshua Tree as a national park and protected an additional 234,000 acres. Today, Joshua Tree is one of the most visited national parks in the country and welcomed 3 million visitors in 2019, according to the National Park Service. These visitors spent approximately $150 million in local communities surrounding the park and supported 1,860 jobs. In addition, California has been the largest recipient of Land and Water Conservation funds in the program's five-decade history. This funding has helped protect beloved places like the Lake Tahoe Basin, California Desert, Point Reyes National Seashore, Headwaters Forest, San Diego and Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuges, and the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada. According to a recent study, every $1 million spent from the Land and Water Conservation Fund supports as many as 30 jobs. Simply stated, an investment in our public lands is an investment in the health, welfare, and economies of our communities. In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who came together to prioritize these investments in our Nation's prized public lands and the communities that rely on them. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Helicopter Safety Act.'' On January 26, 2020, a helicopter carrying nine Californians flew into foggy weather, ultimately crashing minutes later. Los Angeles and the world soon learned that among the crash victims were basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna. And in the time since, we have learned the names and stories of John, Alyssa, and Keri Altobelli; Sarah and Payton Chester; Christina Mauser; and Ara Zobayan. These were spirited friends and family members connected by their love of sport, traveling to a weekend basketball tournament. The sudden and shocking nature of the accident touched many, and I have been moved by the public remembrances in Los Angeles and elsewhere in honor of the victims. But this tragedy is one that could have been averted. While the National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating the incident, a preliminary report indicates the helicopter was flying through thick clouds and fog, yet was not equipped with a terrain awareness and warning system among other safety technology. This technology provides pilots real-time, in-flight warning signals and an image of surrounding terrain. Since 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that all new and existing helicopters capable of carrying six or more passengers be equipped with terrain awareness and warning system technology. However, FAA has only required these warning systems for air ambulances. The lack of a terrain awareness and warning system left the pilot vulnerable, without an adequate understanding of his surroundings. This technology has become standard on new helicopters from Airbus, Bell, Leonardo, and Sikorsky since December 2018. This bill also requires crash-resistant flight data and voice recorders. Otherwise known as black boxes, this technology is important for when accidents do happen and mistakes are made. It would allow agencies like the NTSB to have a better understanding of the incident and provide more information to the FAA to prevent future accidents. It is clear that additional steps are needed to ensure that helicopters can fly safely, both for the sake of passengers and those on the ground. Our bill offers a commonsense approach to preventing further accidents like this one. It would simply direct the FAA to implement the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendations to require terrain awareness and warning systems and flight data and voice recorders on all helicopters carrying six or more passengers. I appreciate the hard work of the National Transportation Safety Board in developing these important recommendations, and it is long past time that the FAA heed its call. My thoughts continue to be with the victims and their loved ones impacted by this heartbreaking accident. Our bill would help prevent future tragedies like the one that occurred this past January and it is critical that Congress pass it swiftly to ensure that such loss of life was not in vain. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Restoration of Essential Conveyance Act, which I introduced today. Representatives TJ Cox and Jim Costa, both Democrats of California, have introduced companion legislation in the House. This legislation would help California water users and California's nation-leading agricultural industry comply with a recent State requirement to end the overpumping of groundwater. The stakes are huge: Bringing groundwater into balance will reduce the water supply of the San Joaquin Valley by about 2 million acre-feet per year. Unless local water agencies and the State and Federal governments take action, a recent U.C. Berkeley study has projected severe impacts from these water supply losses: 798,000 acres of land would have to be retired from agricultural production, nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half the fruit and vegetables grown in the Nation; and $5.9 billion would be lost in annual farm income. How the bill would help: One of the most cost-effective and efficient ways to restore groundwater balance is to convey floodwaters to farmlands where they can recharge the aquifer. California has the most variable precipitation of any State. When we get massive storms from atmospheric rivers, there is plenty of runoff to recharge aquifers--but only if we can effectively convey the floodwaters throughout the San Joaquin Valley to recharge areas. Here is where the challenge arises. For a variety of reasons, the ground beneath the major canals has dropped by as much as 10 to 20 feet which has caused canals designed to convey floodwaters to buckle and drop in many places. Other parts of the canals have not subsided, so the water gets stuck in the low points. As a result, these essential canals for conveying floodwaters have lost as much as 60 percent of their conveyance capacity. The bill I am introducing today would provide Federal assistance to help fix these Federal canals. Specifically, the bill would authorize $600 million in Federal funding-cost share for three major projects to repair Federal canals damaged by subsidence to achieve their lost capacity: $200 million for the Friant-Kern Canal, which would move an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year on average; $200 million for the Delta Mendota Canal, which would move an additional 62,000 acre-feet per year on average; and $200 million for California Aqueduct repairs, which would move an additional 205,000 acre-feet per year on average. While parts of the California Aqueduct are State-owned, the majority of the repairs are on its federally owned portion. The bill would also authorize $200 million in additional funding for the Environmental Restoration Goal of the San Joaquin River settlement. This provision will ensure that the bill helps to restore not only the San Joaquin Valley's water supply, but also its native salmon runs. I think it is appropriate that we consider legislation that would benefit both our water supply and the environment. Benefits of the bill: If the Federal Government covers a portion of the cost of restoring these three essential Federal canals for conveying floodwaters, it will give local farmers a fighting chance to bring their groundwater basins into balance without being forced to retire massive amounts of land. Critically, the ability to deliver floodwaters through restored Federal canals will allow the water districts to invest in their own turnouts, pumps, detention basins and other groundwater recharge projects. The South Valley Water Association, which covers just a small part of the Valley, provided my office with a list of 36 such projects for its area alone. The Public Policy Institute of California, or PPIC, has determined that groundwater recharge projects are the best option to help the San Joaquin Valley comply with the new state groundwater pumping law. PPIC projects that the Valley can make up 300,000 to 500,000 acre feet of its groundwater deficit through recharge projects. Job Losses if We Take No Action: A forthcoming study commissioned by the coalition group called the ``Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley'' estimates that required reductions in groundwater could cause a loss of up to 42,000 farm and agricultural jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. Another 40,000 jobs or more could be lost statewide each year due to reductions in valley agricultural production, putting the total at approximately 85,000 jobs statewide. Most of these impacts will fall disproportionately on economically disadvantaged communities. These impacts will be significant unless we address them through collaborative planning, policies, infrastructure, recharge, and necessary financial support. Friant-Kern Canal: Let me now turn to the three critical canals that the bill would authorize assistance to restore. The Friant-Kern Canal is a key feature of the Friant Division of the Federal Central Valley Project on the Eastside of the San Joaquin Valley. For nearly 70 years, the Friant Division successfully kept groundwater tables stable on the Eastside. This provided a sustainable source of water for farms and for thousands of Californians and more than 50 small, rural, or disadvantaged communities who rely entirely on groundwater for their household water supplies. But unsustainable groundwater pumping in the valley has reduced the Friant-Kern Canal's ability to deliver water to all who need it. Land elevation subsidence caused by over-pumping means that not all of the supplies stored at Friant Dam can be conveyed through the canal. In some areas, the canal can carry only 40 percent of what it is designed to deliver. In 2017, a very wet year in which we should have been banking as much flood water as possible, the Friant-Kern Canal couldn't deliver an additional 300,000 acre-feet of water that it would have been able to convey had its capacity not been limited by subsidence. This significant amount of water would have been destined for groundwater recharge efforts in the south San Joaquin Valley, where the impacts of reduced water deliveries, water quality issues and groundwater regulation are expected to be most severe. California Aqueduct and Delta Mendota Canal: The California Aqueduct serves more than 27 million people in Southern California and the Silicon Valley and more than 750,000 acres of the Nation's most productive farmland. But despite its name, much of the California Aqueduct is owned by the Federal Government and serves portions of Silicon Valley, small towns and communities in the northern San Joaquin Valley, and farms from Firebaugh to Kettleman City. The aqueduct represents a successful 70-year partnership between the Federal Government and the State of California. In recent years, particularly recent drought years, the California Aqueduct has subsided. It has lost as much as 20 percent of its capacity to move water to California's families, farms, and businesses. California is leading efforts to repair the aqueduct and is working to provide its share of funding, but the Federal Government will also need to pay its fair share. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $200 million toward restoring the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal stretches southward 117 miles from the C.W. Bill Jones Pumping Plant along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, parallel to the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal has lost 15 percent of its conveyance capacity due to subsidence. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $200 million toward restoring its full ability to convey floodwaters to farms needing to recharge their groundwater, and to wildlife refuges for migratory waterfowl. In conclusion, this bill responds to a potential crisis that very possibly could cause the forced retirement of nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half of America's fruits and vegetables. These are Federal canals, and the Federal Government must help give these farmers and communities reliant of the agricultural economy a fighting chance to keep their lands in production. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Restoration of Essential Conveyance Act, which I introduced today. Representatives TJ Cox and Jim Costa, both Democrats of California, have introduced companion legislation in the House. This legislation would help California water users and California's nation-leading agricultural industry comply with a recent State requirement to end the overpumping of groundwater. The stakes are huge: Bringing groundwater into balance will reduce the water supply of the San Joaquin Valley by about 2 million acre-feet per year. Unless local water agencies and the State and Federal governments take action, a recent U.C. Berkeley study has projected severe impacts from these water supply losses: 798,000 acres of land would have to be retired from agricultural production, nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half the fruit and vegetables grown in the Nation; and $5.9 billion would be lost in annual farm income. How the bill would help: One of the most cost-effective and efficient ways to restore groundwater balance is to convey floodwaters to farmlands where they can recharge the aquifer. California has the most variable precipitation of any State. When we get massive storms from atmospheric rivers, there is plenty of runoff to recharge aquifers--but only if we can effectively convey the floodwaters throughout the San Joaquin Valley to recharge areas. Here is where the challenge arises. For a variety of reasons, the ground beneath the major canals has dropped by as much as 10 to 20 feet which has caused canals designed to convey floodwaters to buckle and drop in many places. Other parts of the canals have not subsided, so the water gets stuck in the low points. As a result, these essential canals for conveying floodwaters have lost as much as 60 percent of their conveyance capacity. The bill I am introducing today would provide Federal assistance to help fix these Federal canals. Specifically, the bill would authorize $600 million in Federal funding-cost share for three major projects to repair Federal canals damaged by subsidence to achieve their lost capacity: $200 million for the Friant-Kern Canal, which would move an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year on average; $200 million for the Delta Mendota Canal, which would move an additional 62,000 acre-feet per year on average; and $200 million for California Aqueduct repairs, which would move an additional 205,000 acre-feet per year on average. While parts of the California Aqueduct are State-owned, the majority of the repairs are on its federally owned portion. The bill would also authorize $200 million in additional funding for the Environmental Restoration Goal of the San Joaquin River settlement. This provision will ensure that the bill helps to restore not only the San Joaquin Valley's water supply, but also its native salmon runs. I think it is appropriate that we consider legislation that would benefit both our water supply and the environment. Benefits of the bill: If the Federal Government covers a portion of the cost of restoring these three essential Federal canals for conveying floodwaters, it will give local farmers a fighting chance to bring their groundwater basins into balance without being forced to retire massive amounts of land. Critically, the ability to deliver floodwaters through restored Federal canals will allow the water districts to invest in their own turnouts, pumps, detention basins and other groundwater recharge projects. The South Valley Water Association, which covers just a small part of the Valley, provided my office with a list of 36 such projects for its area alone. The Public Policy Institute of California, or PPIC, has determined that groundwater recharge projects are the best option to help the San Joaquin Valley comply with the new state groundwater pumping law. PPIC projects that the Valley can make up 300,000 to 500,000 acre feet of its groundwater deficit through recharge projects. Job Losses if We Take No Action: A forthcoming study commissioned by the coalition group called the ``Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley'' estimates that required reductions in groundwater could cause a loss of up to 42,000 farm and agricultural jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. Another 40,000 jobs or more could be lost statewide each year due to reductions in valley agricultural production, putting the total at approximately 85,000 jobs statewide. Most of these impacts will fall disproportionately on economically disadvantaged communities. These impacts will be significant unless we address them through collaborative planning, policies, infrastructure, recharge, and necessary financial support. Friant-Kern Canal: Let me now turn to the three critical canals that the bill would authorize assistance to restore. The Friant-Kern Canal is a key feature of the Friant Division of the Federal Central Valley Project on the Eastside of the San Joaquin Valley. For nearly 70 years, the Friant Division successfully kept groundwater tables stable on the Eastside. This provided a sustainable source of water for farms and for thousands of Californians and more than 50 small, rural, or disadvantaged communities who rely entirely on groundwater for their household water supplies. But unsustainable groundwater pumping in the valley has reduced the Friant-Kern Canal's ability to deliver water to all who need it. Land elevation subsidence caused by over-pumping means that not all of the supplies stored at Friant Dam can be conveyed through the canal. In some areas, the canal can carry only 40 percent of what it is designed to deliver. In 2017, a very wet year in which we should have been banking as much flood water as possible, the Friant-Kern Canal couldn't deliver an additional 300,000 acre-feet of water that it would have been able to convey had its capacity not been limited by subsidence. This significant amount of water would have been destined for groundwater recharge efforts in the south San Joaquin Valley, where the impacts of reduced water deliveries, water quality issues and groundwater regulation are expected to be most severe. California Aqueduct and Delta Mendota Canal: The California Aqueduct serves more than 27 million people in Southern California and the Silicon Valley and more than 750,000 acres of the Nation's most productive farmland. But despite its name, much of the California Aqueduct is owned by the Federal Government and serves portions of Silicon Valley, small towns and communities in the northern San Joaquin Valley, and farms from Firebaugh to Kettleman City. The aqueduct represents a successful 70-year partnership between the Federal Government and the State of California. In recent years, particularly recent drought years, the California Aqueduct has subsided. It has lost as much as 20 percent of its capacity to move water to California's families, farms, and businesses. California is leading efforts to repair the aqueduct and is working to provide its share of funding, but the Federal Government will also need to pay its fair share. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $200 million toward restoring the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal stretches southward 117 miles from the C.W. Bill Jones Pumping Plant along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, parallel to the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal has lost 15 percent of its conveyance capacity due to subsidence. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $200 million toward restoring its full ability to convey floodwaters to farms needing to recharge their groundwater, and to wildlife refuges for migratory waterfowl. In conclusion, this bill responds to a potential crisis that very possibly could cause the forced retirement of nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half of America's fruits and vegetables. These are Federal canals, and the Federal Government must help give these farmers and communities reliant of the agricultural economy a fighting chance to keep their lands in production. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the confirmation of Christopher Hanson to be a Commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Chris has diligently served the Senate and the people of California over the last 6 years as a key member of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee staff. During that time, he has advised me and the full Senate Appropriations Committee on issues surrounding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including its budget, its oversight of nuclear reactor decommissioning at San Onofre in California, and issues related to proposed new reactor technologies. He has also overseen nuclear energy research and development, radioactive waste cleanup, nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and naval reactor programs. Prior to coming to the Senate, Chris worked at the Department of Energy, where he advised the Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy and worked on appropriations issues for then-Secretary Steven Chu. In all, Chris has 25 years of experience working on the very issues at the heart of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mandate. As the Senate knows, the members and staff of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee work seamlessly together in order to produce a bipartisan bill each year. Chris's expertise, his professionalism, and his quiet, good nature are instrumental in that effort. He is respected and appreciated by Members on both sides of the aisle. It is not surprising, therefore, that Senator Alexander, our subcommittee chairman, sent a letter to the Environmental and Public Works Committee in support of Chris' nomination, which I very much appreciate. Senator Alexander and I have spoken about how much the subcommittee will miss Chris, but we are happy for him, and we look forward to working with Chris in his new role. I have every confidence that Chris will give his usual thoughtfulness and insight to the issues that come before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And I know the other Commissioners will find him to be a joy to work with. I thank Chris for his dedicated service to the people of California, to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and to the U.S. Senate, and I look forward to his success in his new role and continuing to serve the country with all the expertise and professionalism he has shown us these past 6 years.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the confirmation of Congressman John Ratcliffe to be Director of National Intelligence. I voted against John Ratcliffe for Director of National Intelligence for three key reasons. First, I do not believe Congressman Ratcliffe is qualified for the position of Director of National Intelligence, DNI. By law, a DNI requires ``extensive national security expertise.'' Past DNIs have been career civil servants or military officers with extensive experience in intelligence and foreign affairs. By contrast, Congressman Ratcliffe has been a member of Congress for 4 years and the mayor of a small town in Texas. His sole intelligence community experience is a single year on the House Intelligence Committee. I am deeply concerned that during his hearings he was unable to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the most pressing threats and challenges that we face as a nation. Second, I am very concerned with Congressman Ratcliffe's position on torture. During his nomination hearing, he refused to denounce torture. He refused to admit that certain CIA actions following 9/11 were torture. And he refused to agree that waterboarding is torture, regardless of potential changes to U.S. law. Torture is morally reprehensible, and the head of our intelligence community must be willing to say so and prevent it from happening again. Third, the DNI must not be politically motivated. The DNI directs 17 intelligence agencies with a budget of more than $60 billion and is responsible for providing objective intelligence analysis to the President. Congressman Ratcliffe is a vocal defender of President Trump and served on his impeachment defense team. I am concerned that politics would interfere in his duties if he were confirmed. We need a confirmed DNI with the right experience and objectivity to do the job. Congressman Ratcliffe was nominated for this position last year and subsequently withdrew. Nothing has changed since then to qualify him for this role.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of critical importance to California: doctor shortages. First, I want to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the entire medical community, particularly the doctors, nurses, and support staff who have been on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic. Amidst a severe shortage of protective equipment, they nevertheless continue to work around the clock to save countless lives. I--and my colleagues--are eternally grateful to you. I have heard from countless Californians who have said the same thing: we need more doctors. That is why Congress established the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program in 2007 to encourage doctors to pursue careers at public and nonprofit facilities, especially in areas experiencing physician shortages. As a result, physicians who provide care in a nonprofit or public hospital can have their student debt forgiven by the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program after making 120 qualifying monthly payments under a qualifying repayment plan. However, when the Department of Education issued implementing guidance for the program, it unintentionally excluded California and Texas physicians from being eligible to receive loan forgiveness. Under state law in California and Texas, doctors are prevented from being directly employed by corporations, including nonprofit organizations. As a result, physicians in California and Texas who provide medical services at nonprofit hospitals do not qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. To make matters worse, the United States is facing a shortage of physicians. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, our Nation can expect a shortage of up to nearly 122,000 physicians by 2032 as demand for physicians continues to grow. California alone will need an additional 10,000 primary care doctors. During this difficult and challenging time, it is clear that more medical professionals are needed. And long after this pandemic ends, we will still need more doctors to provide high-quality care, in both rural and urban areas. That is why I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan ``Stopping Doctor Shortages Act.'' This legislation would help attract more doctors to public service and address the looming physician shortage by fixing a loophole that prevents thousands of doctors from participating in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. According to the California Medical Association, this bill alone could bring as many as 10,000 physicians to California over the next ten years. Similar legislation, introduced in the House by Representatives Josh Harder, Paul Cook, Joaquin Castro, Dan Crenshaw, and Karen Bass, also enjoys bipartisan support. I would like to thank Senators John Cornyn and Kamala Harris for their support on this critical issue and for cosponsoring the bill. I ask my colleagues to join us to right a wrong and pass the ``Stopping Doctor Shortages Act'' in a timely manner as we continue to find ways to combat the coronavirus pandemic and save lives. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month to recognize the tremendous achievements women have made for the United States and pay tribute to the vital role they have played in the political, economic, and social development of this Nation. What began as a local celebration of women in Santa Rosa, California more than 40 years ago, has grown to become a nationally observed month of reflection on the many accomplishments of American women. Women's History Month gives us the opportunity to honor the many contributions women have made, while also inspiring the next generation of women leaders. I look upon the courage our predecessors displayed with great admiration, and I continue to be inspired by those who blazed the trail for women like me. This year, the United States celebrates the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees women the right to vote. I am inspired by the progress we've made over the past 100 years and hopeful we will continue to build on that momentum toward full equality. When I first came to Washington in 1992, they called it the ``Year of the Woman.'' Only two other women were serving in the Senate, and four women had just been elected to the chamber, myself included. Today, 26 women serve in the Senate and 105 women serve in the House, including the only woman to have served as Speaker. I'm proud to say that my home State of California has now sent 43 women to Congress and leads all other States in this regard. Even at these historic levels, the number of women in Congress falls far short of the 51 percent of women members we should expect based on the country's demographics. I have great confidence that future generations of women will continue to rise up and help lead the way in building a better California and United States. As with government, the business world has been transformed by powerful women at the table, as have the fields of science, music, film, athletics, literature, and many more. Women also serve in critical roles in the military, with more than 200,000 active-duty servicewomen proudly serving with honor, courage, and distinction and a growing number of women veterans representing every branch of service. The gains this Nation has made in terms of social progress would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of women. As women have fought for themselves, their families, and their communities, so too have they fought for all Americans. As a senator proudly representing California, I ask you to join me in celebrating the stories and greatness of American women who accomplished so much by continuing to defend the rights they worked so hard to attain. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to a valued and long-standing member of my staff, Iyad Shihadeh. After nearly 9 years of serving the people of California in my San Francisco office, tomorrow will be Iyad's last day. Iyad first joined my team in 2011 as a staff assistant and quickly made an impression through his diligent efforts on behalf of the Californians calling or visiting our office. Iyad was quickly promoted to the position of constituent services representative, where he managed as many as 200 casework requests simultaneously between the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security. Iyad demonstrated an aptitude for problem solving on behalf of individuals and organizations needing help navigating the Federal bureaucracy. Additionally, Iyad took charge of the office's intern program, guiding the dozens of students each year working in the San Francisco office. Many of our former State interns and staff are indebted to him for his thoughtful career advice as they made their first forays into the field of public service. In 2017, Iyad was promoted again to be the director of constituent services, in charge of a team of staff who receive, process, and advocate for the casework needs of Californians seeking assistance from Federal agencies. I have depended on Iyad's sound judgment, management capabilities, and cool head in this critical function. As all Senators know, your casework director needs to be a special person. They represent you to constituents who are in need and often have nowhere else to turn. I have been particularly lucky to have Iyad in this role; he has performed with skill and with a deft personal touch. I am proud of our casework successes under Iyad's management in recovering millions of dollars in benefits for those needing help with Social Security checks, student loans, tax refunds, veterans' benefits, and other payments from the Federal Government. He has worked on behalf of countless constituents seeking visas or other immigration benefits. When a constituent is in a foreign jail or has lost their passport overseas, Iyad has been on the case, immediately, professionally, and successfully. I am particularly thankful for Iyad's help with Maria Mendoza, a nurse from Oakland who is back in the United States with her children after Iyad's work in securing an H1-B visa; also Maria Isabel Bueso, a young woman from Guatemala who has lived in the United States for most of her life in order to receive lifesaving medication, but who was threatened last year with removal. Iyad worked with the family and with Judiciary Committee staff, and now, Isabel has been given a stay from deportation. In addition to his casework efforts, Iyad has provided guidance in my San Francisco office. His steady presence has been indispensable for three State directors and four chiefs of staff. Before joining my team, Iyad graduated from Purdue University with a double major in history and political science in 2009. He received academic honors, graduating in the top 10 percent of his class. Following his lifelong passion of international issues, he dedicated himself to his studies and wrote a dissertation titled, ``They Also Served: The Untold Story of the Egyptian Labour Corps in World War One.'' In 2010, he graduated from the London School of Economics, where he received a master of science in the history of empires. His efforts afforded him a deeper knowledge of economics and globalization, and once again, he centered his academic curiosities on foreign affairs by writing his thesis on ``Money, Arms, and Superpowers: British Foreign Policy towards the War of Attrition.'' While I am sad to see him go, I am thrilled for Iyad's family as he will join them in the day-to-day management of their restaurant in south San Francisco. His energy, ideas, and ability to connect with people will undoubtedly serve his family and community well for many years to come. I am deeply grateful for the wisdom and dedication that Iyad Shihadeh has brought to our office and his dedication on behalf of the people of California. I thank Iyad and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the decision to remove a President at any point in their term--particularly 9 months before an election-- is not something we should take lightly. Impeachment should not be a tool that Congress uses to settle policy or personal disagreement. Instead, it should only be used if a President engages in misconduct so egregious that their conviction and removal is necessary and in the Nation's best interest. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65 that the Founders chose the Senate as ``the most fit depositary of this important trust'' to make such a weighty decision. They actually had faith that this body could rise above pure partisanship to conduct a fair trial and reach a just verdict. In this case, however, we could not reach bipartisan agreement--not even on how to conduct the trial. It is a fact that, for the first time in this Nation's history, the Senate will render a verdict in an impeachment hearing without hearing from a single witness and without reviewing key documents that have been withheld by the executive branch. As recently as last Friday, OMB admitted it continues to withhold key documents. Let me provide an example. In a court filing, an OMB lawyer wrote that 24 White House emails were being withheld because they ``reflect communications'' by the President, Vice President, or top advisers on the ``scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine.'' Proceeding without such vital evidence is a real mistake. I came to this trial with an open mind, to listen to the case presented by both sides and then to make a determination based on the facts. After hearing the House managers' case, it is clear that President Trump withheld U.S. aid in an effort to obtain Ukraine's assistance to win reelection by asking that Ukraine launch and make public an investigation into Joe Biden, Mr. Trump's political opponent. The President's legal team tried to argue that this didn't happen, but without seeing key documents and hearing from key fact witnesses such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, top advisers with firsthand knowledge of the President's conduct and motives, their arguments were not persuasive. So, after weighing the evidence available to us and considering the President's pattern of similar misconduct, I will vote yes on the Articles of Impeachment. The House presented a compelling factual case. Congress appropriated nearly $400 million in foreign aid to Ukraine, an ally engaged in a war with a major power, Russia. It was signed into law by President Trump, who knew what he was signing and what it entailed. President Trump also knew that Ukraine desperately needed the aid and America's partnership in its efforts against the huge power, Russia. He used that vulnerability to his advantage. He privately demanded that, in exchange for U.S. aid and a White House meeting for Ukraine's newly elected President, Ukraine's leaders had to publicly announce an investigation that would damage his political rival, Vice President Joe Biden. The President relayed those same demands to senior Ukrainian officials through both private and official government channels. This was a clear quid pro quo, and it is at the heart of the argument in the first Article of Impeachment: abuse of power. President Trump took this action to benefit himself personally and not for the good of the Nation. He violated the law by withholding appropriated funds in order to benefit himself and not our country. President Trump did not withhold these funds because of concern about corruption generally. Instead, he demanded just two specific investigations--Burisma and Biden--both intended to help him win reelection in 2020. After hearing the House managers' presentation, I think we have got to really ask ourselves, How can this President deal with any foreign nation after compromising himself in such a fashion? How can he be trusted to ensure that American elections are free from foreign interference? Other countries are watching. After the President compromised himself this way with Ukraine, what is to keep them, or any other country, from seeking benefits from the President in exchange for political or personal assistance? So, if the Senate refuses to correct this precedent now, the door to foreign political influence in our elections will be opened. The House managers also presented a strong case on the second Article of Impeachment: obstruction of Congress. Here, the facts themselves are not in dispute. President Trump ordered his administration to withhold all documents and ordered executive branch witnesses not to testify before the House began its inquiry. The President's legal team countered that he has a right to defy congressional subpoenas as a matter of executive privilege, but there is no precedent for their sweeping claim of absolute immunity from congressional oversight, particularly in the context of impeachment proceedings. President Trump has taken the position that there are no checks on his Presidential authority, effectively placing himself above the law, and I don't believe the Senate can let this stand. Unfortunately, the President's actions are not isolated incidents. Both Articles of Impeachment point to this. The articles note: ``These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in U.S. elections'' and with ``previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.'' During the 2016 campaign, President Trump welcomed Russia's assistance to defeat his opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Mueller report detailed exactly how the Trump campaign sought to work with Russia to improve his electoral chances, including providing internal campaign polling data to a Russian operative, inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton after Russia had already successfully hacked the Democratic National Committee, and obtaining information about upcoming releases of emails stolen by Russian agents and weaponizing these stolen documents to harm Hillary Clinton. When this conduct came under question, President Trump obstructed the investigation. Special Counsel Mueller catalogued not 1 or 2 but 10 clear instances where President Trump sought to interfere in this investigation. This isn't my view. This isn't anyone else's view; it is a catalogue of a group of legal professionals indicating 10 clear instances where Trump sought to interfere in the investigation. This egregious pattern of soliciting foreign interference and blocking any effort to investigate continues to this day. As recently as October, while the House impeachment inquiry was going on, President Trump stood on the White House lawn and asked China to investigate the Biden family. This trial must do impartial justice as is required by the oath we all took. After listening to the arguments of both sides, it is clear the House managers have proven their case. The President's conduct with respect to Ukraine has mirrored other parts of his Presidency, and it is all about what is best for President Trump. If we vote to acquit and allow President Trump's behavior, we will set a dangerous precedent, one that has the strong possibility of inflicting lasting damage on our country. We will be saying that any President, Republican or Democratic, can leverage their office for personal political gain. We will be inviting more foreign interference into our elections and saying it is acceptable to use the Presidency to solicit that assistance. His defense counsel admitted as much. And we will be accepting the President's extreme view that article II of the Constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wants. I am convinced this is a rare instance where this Senate has no choice but to vote to convict and remove this President. I reach this conclusion reluctantly and with deep concern but with the belief that this action is necessary and cannot and should not be ignored. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Mr. Warner.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the House managers.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I send a question to the desk on behalf of Senators Carper, Coons, Hirono, Leahy, Tester, Udall, and myself to the House managers. Thank you.