Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1993, I voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. At the time, I was concerned about a number of issues, including that NAFTA would not adequately protect American jobs--manufacturing jobs in particular--and also lacked sufficient environmental protections. Today, I voted yes on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that will replace NAFTA because it will substantially improve upon NAFTA, and in the process benefit California and the United States. There are several provisions in the agreement that will help California, including greater access to Canadian agricultural markets, including dairy; labor provisions that go far beyond past trade agreements; and $300 million to help address pollution from the Tijuana River. It also includes $215 million and renewed authorization for the North American Development Bank to address pollution along the U.S- Mexico border, a provision that comes from legislation I introduced with Senator Cornyn. The agreement sets new standards for labor protections in a trade agreement. The agreement will require Mexico to make major improvements to its labor laws, including collective bargaining reforms, establishing independent labor courts and union dispute-resolution bodies, and eliminating compulsory labor. It will substantially improve monitoring and enforcement of these labor reforms in Mexico, and make the enforcement process easier. For example, the agreement will establish benchmarks for Mexico's compliance with its labor obligations that will trigger a new labor-specific enforcement mechanism if those obligations are not met. The updates to NAFTA include several provisions that will help California's agricultural producers, including increasing access to Canada's dairy market. The agreement also puts wine, beer, and spirit products from each country on a more level playing field. I recognize that some critics think we can do more to protect the environment and fight climate change, and I agree. But we can't make the perfect the enemy of the good, and this agreement takes important steps in that area. In addition to fighting pollution along the southern border, the agreement provides increased funding for environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement, helps prevent illegal and unregulated fishing and trafficking of wildlife, protects marine species, affirms each country's commitments to international environmental agreements, and makes it easier for countries to issue regulations in the public interest. This agreement is a step in the right direction, in large part due to important improvements made by House Democrats. Those improvements helped secure many of the strong labor and environmental provisions I have just mentioned. These updates to NAFTA will also go a long way toward stabilizing our trade relationships with Mexico and Canada--two of the most important trading partners for California and the Nation. Canada and Mexico are two of the largest trading partners with the United States, each accounting for more than $600 billion in trade. The two countries are California's two largest export markets, buying nearly $50 billion of California's exports each year. Finally, it is notable that this agreement has broad bipartisan support, which I think is a sign that Congress can still work together to get important things done.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Chairman Graham and Senator Durbin, as the lead cosponsor of the ``Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act.'' This bill will ensure that fentanyl-related substances remain in Schedule I and will help deter the manufacture of fentanyl-related substances responsible for overdose deaths. In 2018, the number of fentanyl-related deaths in the United States increased from 28,000 to 32,000. This is more than double the number of heroin-related overdose deaths. It is a staggering number of lives lost that we simply cannot accept. To address the increasing deaths, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a temporary order to control fentanyl-related substances, or fentanyl analogues, as a class. That order is set to expire on February 6th. Based on the information my office has received from the DEA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is clear that this order has been effective. The number of law enforcement encounters of new fentanyl analogues has decreased from 8 to 2. That is significant and means that the order has reduced the supply of new fentanyl analogues by 75 percent. This decrease in supply has reduced the need for widespread prosecutions of fentanyl-related offenses. In fact, since the DEA's order went into effect, it is my understanding that there has only been two related prosecutions. Additionally, although the number of fentanyl-related overdose deaths has continued to increase, the rate at which these deaths has increased has declined significantly. For example, between the 12 month periods ending January 2017 and January 2018, fentanyl deaths increased by nearly 36 percent. Comparatively, between the 12 month periods ending May 2018 and May 2019, which is the latest data available, the rate of fentanyl deaths only increased by just over 9 percent. I would have preferred a long-term solution to addressing this problem that can gamer strong bipartisan support, and I am eager to continue working with my colleagues on such a solution. However, given the limited amount of time that we have before the DEA's temporary order expires, we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Given the staggering number of overdose deaths associated with fentanyl-related substances, inaction is not an option.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the resolution that Senator McSally and I introduced to declare January as ``National One Health Awareness Month.'' ``One Health'' is a term used by health experts--including those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--to focus on the connections between human, animal, and environmental health. Our resolution will help raise awareness for the ``One Health'' approach and promote efforts that simultaneously improve the health of people, animals, plants, and the environment. By using the One Health approach, global health problems including antibiotic resistance, infectious disease spread, and sequestered medical knowledge can be addressed. Antibiotic resistance is of grave concern for both people and animals. Public health specialists are working with physicians and veterinarians to minimize inappropriate antibiotic usage in their patients. By 2050, according to the United Kingdom's 2014 Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, experts expect that more people will die from antibiotic resistant microbes than die from cancer today. The best way to solve this growing problem is for specialists across a variety of disciplines to collaborate to reduce antibiotic use by promoting good sanitation and developing alternatives for antibiotics. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to 75 percent of new or emerging infectious diseases in people are spread by animals. Examples include Ebola, Zika, Rabies, Tuberculosis, and Plague. By destroying natural animal habitats through deforestation, natural disasters, and climate change, we are forcing animals and insects to migrate to new areas, thereby exposing humans to new diseases. In 2013, a two-year-old boy was the first victim of the Ebola epidemic in Western Africa. In his small village, deforestation forced the bats suspected of carrying the Ebola virus to move closer to people. Collaboration between physicians, nurses, physician assistants, nurse's aids, veterinarians, hygienists, anthropologists, epidemiologists, community engagement specialists, and military workers helped end the Ebola epidemic by attacking it from different angles. This was an example of One Health in action. Today, a similar collaborative approach is working to end the current Ebola epidemic in Central Africa. In the United States, diseases such as Lyme disease, Anaplasma, Bartonella, and Zika carried by ticks, fleas, and mosquitoes, respectively, are also spreading to new areas. In 2015, an 11-year-old Louisiana boy was accidently scratched by a kitten with fleas. He was misdiagnosed by more than thirty doctors and he became wheelchairbound. However, a ``One Health'' approach saved his life. The boy was finally correctly diagnosed with a bacterial disease acquired by the kitten's scratch once he met with a medical team that included both a physician and a veterinarian. The veterinarian understood that fleas can give cats bacteria and the physician understood that a cat's scratch can transmit the bacteria to humans. The boy was prescribed the antibiotics he needed, and he can now walk again. It is time that everybody understands the importance of One Health. With diminishing resources in the environment and a growing human population, now more than ever, fighting problems with a One Health approach must be encouraged. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Capito, and Durbin to introduce the Preventing Pill Mills Through Data Sharing Act. Millions of pills flooded small communities throughout the Nation to fuel the opioid epidemic we are facing today. Despite the fact that opioid manufacturers and distributors were required to keep complete and accurate records relating to the sale, delivery, or disposal of opioids through the Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System, often referred to as ARCOS, and to detect and disclose suspicious orders of opioids to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), these substances still reached our streets. That is why my colleagues and I previously introduced the ``Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act,'' which was enacted as part of the ``SUPPORT Act'' in 2018. As a result of that law, DEA is now required to provide to opioid manufacturers and distributors anonymized information related to the number of distributors serving a single pharmacy or practitioner, and the quantity and type of opioids being delivered to each. This information, coupied with the internal controls that these companies already use in their efforts to determine the legitimacy of opioid orders, is assisting manufacturers and distributors in their efforts to better prevent these substances from being diverted to someone other than the intended recipient who has a lawful prescription. That law also strengthened accountability by establishing civil and criminal fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to consider ARCOS data when determining whether an order for opioids is suspicious. Additionally, it increased existing civil fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to report suspicious orders and keep accurate records ten-fold, and doubled existing criminal fines. Finally, our legislation required the United States Attorney General to share standardized reports with state officials, including regulatory, licensing, attorneys general, and law enforcement agencies, related to the distribution patterns collected by the ARCOS database on a semi-annual basis. This law has ensured that opioid manufacturers and distributors have a clear picture of how many pills are going to each pharmacy, thereby helping to eradicate pill mills. To strengthen this law, my colleagues and I are introducing the ``Preventing Pill Mills Through Data Sharing Act.'' This new legislation is largely based on recommendations included in the October 2019 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report related to the DEA's response to the opioid epidemic. In that report, the DOJ OIG noted two shortcomings associated with the ARCOS system. First, not all registrants input data into the ARCOS system at the same intervals. While both opioid manufacturers and distributors are required to input data on a quarterly basis, manufacturers often input the data monthly, while distributors do so quarterly. This means that when the DEA provides the quarterly reports that drug manufacturers and distributors must use to determine whether orders are suspicious, they don't have the most up to date information. Our legislation addresses this problem by requiring all registrants to input data on a monthly basis. Second, the database only captures information for Schedule I and II drugs. As a result, addictive drugs in other schedules, which are also diverted, are not captured. This includes nine combination opioid products. For this reason, our legislation expands the reporting requirements to include controlled substances in all schedules. Our legislation also closes an existing loophole. The DEA has informed my staff that, under current law, one pharmacy is able to transfer up to five percent of its inventory of controlled substances to another pharmacy without having to immediately report to the DEA. Because these transfers are not automatically reported to the DEA through the ARCOS system, it creates a blind spot for the DEA, as well as for drug manufacturers and distributors who are required to consider data from the anonymized reports generated from the ARCOS database when determining whether an order for controlled substances is suspicious. Moreover, because pharmacies are not currently required to check the ARCOS reports provided by DEA before transferring a controlled substance to another pharmacy, they could be inadvertently supplying a pharmacy with excess amounts of pills that could easily end up on the black market. That is why our legislation applies the same reporting requirements and penalties to pharmacies transferring controlled substances, except in the limited circumstance of a transfer made for a specific patient need, as those that are applied to drug manufacturers and distributors. In 2018, we lost almost 70,000 individuals to drug overdose deaths in our country. Nearly 48,000 of these were opioid-related. Drug manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies all play a critical role in preventing future overdose deaths. The ``Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act'' has been successful. The ``Preventing Pill Mills Through Data Sharing Act'' builds on that success and will close existing loopholes in order reduce the diversion of controlled substances that are contributing to the massive number of overdose deaths in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to its passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Capito, and Durbin to introduce the Preventing Pill Mills Through Data Sharing Act. Millions of pills flooded small communities throughout the Nation to fuel the opioid epidemic we are facing today. Despite the fact that opioid manufacturers and distributors were required to keep complete and accurate records relating to the sale, delivery, or disposal of opioids through the Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System, often referred to as ARCOS, and to detect and disclose suspicious orders of opioids to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), these substances still reached our streets. That is why my colleagues and I previously introduced the ``Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act,'' which was enacted as part of the ``SUPPORT Act'' in 2018. As a result of that law, DEA is now required to provide to opioid manufacturers and distributors anonymized information related to the number of distributors serving a single pharmacy or practitioner, and the quantity and type of opioids being delivered to each. This information, coupied with the internal controls that these companies already use in their efforts to determine the legitimacy of opioid orders, is assisting manufacturers and distributors in their efforts to better prevent these substances from being diverted to someone other than the intended recipient who has a lawful prescription. That law also strengthened accountability by establishing civil and criminal fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to consider ARCOS data when determining whether an order for opioids is suspicious. Additionally, it increased existing civil fines for drug manufacturers and distributors who fail to report suspicious orders and keep accurate records ten-fold, and doubled existing criminal fines. Finally, our legislation required the United States Attorney General to share standardized reports with state officials, including regulatory, licensing, attorneys general, and law enforcement agencies, related to the distribution patterns collected by the ARCOS database on a semi-annual basis. This law has ensured that opioid manufacturers and distributors have a clear picture of how many pills are going to each pharmacy, thereby helping to eradicate pill mills. To strengthen this law, my colleagues and I are introducing the ``Preventing Pill Mills Through Data Sharing Act.'' This new legislation is largely based on recommendations included in the October 2019 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report related to the DEA's response to the opioid epidemic. In that report, the DOJ OIG noted two shortcomings associated with the ARCOS system. First, not all registrants input data into the ARCOS system at the same intervals. While both opioid manufacturers and distributors are required to input data on a quarterly basis, manufacturers often input the data monthly, while distributors do so quarterly. This means that when the DEA provides the quarterly reports that drug manufacturers and distributors must use to determine whether orders are suspicious, they don't have the most up to date information. Our legislation addresses this problem by requiring all registrants to input data on a monthly basis. Second, the database only captures information for Schedule I and II drugs. As a result, addictive drugs in other schedules, which are also diverted, are not captured. This includes nine combination opioid products. For this reason, our legislation expands the reporting requirements to include controlled substances in all schedules. Our legislation also closes an existing loophole. The DEA has informed my staff that, under current law, one pharmacy is able to transfer up to five percent of its inventory of controlled substances to another pharmacy without having to immediately report to the DEA. Because these transfers are not automatically reported to the DEA through the ARCOS system, it creates a blind spot for the DEA, as well as for drug manufacturers and distributors who are required to consider data from the anonymized reports generated from the ARCOS database when determining whether an order for controlled substances is suspicious. Moreover, because pharmacies are not currently required to check the ARCOS reports provided by DEA before transferring a controlled substance to another pharmacy, they could be inadvertently supplying a pharmacy with excess amounts of pills that could easily end up on the black market. That is why our legislation applies the same reporting requirements and penalties to pharmacies transferring controlled substances, except in the limited circumstance of a transfer made for a specific patient need, as those that are applied to drug manufacturers and distributors. In 2018, we lost almost 70,000 individuals to drug overdose deaths in our country. Nearly 48,000 of these were opioid-related. Drug manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies all play a critical role in preventing future overdose deaths. The ``Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act'' has been successful. The ``Preventing Pill Mills Through Data Sharing Act'' builds on that success and will close existing loopholes in order reduce the diversion of controlled substances that are contributing to the massive number of overdose deaths in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to its passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 2019''. This bill would prevent future tragedies like the one that happened onboard the Conception passenger vessel off the coast of Santa Cruz Island, California. This was the worst maritime disaster in modern California history, and my thoughts continue to be with the victims and their loved ones. On September 2, 2019, thirty-four people were tragically killed onboard the vessel when a fire started while passengers were sleeping below deck after a nighttime swim. The victims of the boat fire-- thirty-three passengers and one crewmember--were athletes, immigrants, CEO's, and students. All were united by love of the water, marine life, and their adventurous spirit. The Conception boat fire was a tragedy that must never be allowed to happen again. Reports indicate the fire consumed the boat, including the salon, galley compartment, and the aft deck, and causes include overloading of the electric system, possibly from rechargeable devices with lithium ion batteries. The lack of an interconnected fire alarm system throughout the vessel meant passengers and crew were not made aware of the fire until key areas of escape were already engulfed. Critical time--time that could have saved lives--was lost. This bill addresses these issues and potential causes. While investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Coast Guard are still ongoing, it is clear regulatory changes are needed to ensure small passenger vessels have the right safety measures in place to limit the possibility of fire and help evacuate the vessel of passengers in the event a fire does start. The Conception is one of about 325 small passenger vessels built before 1996 and exempt from stricter safety standards imposed on newer vessels. This bill offers a number of common-sense provisions that will improve passenger vessel safety. These include: requiring these types of vessels to have no less than two avenues of escape from all areas accessible to passengers; mandating safety standards for the handling, storage and operation of lithium ion batteries; and, establishing standards for interconnected fire alarm systems. I appreciate the hard work of the National Transportation Safety Board and the U.S. Coast Guard Inspections and Compliance Directorate. I especially appreciate the Commandant's Marine Safety Information Bulletin issued on September 10 reminding owners, operators and masters of passenger vessels to adhere to the regulations related to firefighting, lifesaving, emergency preparation and means of escape. And, more specifically, I appreciate the attention to the issue of unsupervised charging of lithium-ion batteries and the extensive use of power strips and extension cords. Given the horrific nature of this tragedy, it is imperative that we establish stricter safety standards onboard these boats where so many children and families have such enjoyment. I believe this bill is a pragmatic, commonsense solution to improve safety on these older vessels, and I urge it to be included in the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 2019''. This bill would prevent future tragedies like the one that happened onboard the Conception passenger vessel off the coast of Santa Cruz Island, California. This was the worst maritime disaster in modern California history, and my thoughts continue to be with the victims and their loved ones. On September 2, 2019, thirty-four people were tragically killed onboard the vessel when a fire started while passengers were sleeping below deck after a nighttime swim. The victims of the boat fire-- thirty-three passengers and one crewmember--were athletes, immigrants, CEO's, and students. All were united by love of the water, marine life, and their adventurous spirit. The Conception boat fire was a tragedy that must never be allowed to happen again. Reports indicate the fire consumed the boat, including the salon, galley compartment, and the aft deck, and causes include overloading of the electric system, possibly from rechargeable devices with lithium ion batteries. The lack of an interconnected fire alarm system throughout the vessel meant passengers and crew were not made aware of the fire until key areas of escape were already engulfed. Critical time--time that could have saved lives--was lost. This bill addresses these issues and potential causes. While investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Coast Guard are still ongoing, it is clear regulatory changes are needed to ensure small passenger vessels have the right safety measures in place to limit the possibility of fire and help evacuate the vessel of passengers in the event a fire does start. The Conception is one of about 325 small passenger vessels built before 1996 and exempt from stricter safety standards imposed on newer vessels. This bill offers a number of common-sense provisions that will improve passenger vessel safety. These include: requiring these types of vessels to have no less than two avenues of escape from all areas accessible to passengers; mandating safety standards for the handling, storage and operation of lithium ion batteries; and, establishing standards for interconnected fire alarm systems. I appreciate the hard work of the National Transportation Safety Board and the U.S. Coast Guard Inspections and Compliance Directorate. I especially appreciate the Commandant's Marine Safety Information Bulletin issued on September 10 reminding owners, operators and masters of passenger vessels to adhere to the regulations related to firefighting, lifesaving, emergency preparation and means of escape. And, more specifically, I appreciate the attention to the issue of unsupervised charging of lithium-ion batteries and the extensive use of power strips and extension cords. Given the horrific nature of this tragedy, it is imperative that we establish stricter safety standards onboard these boats where so many children and families have such enjoyment. I believe this bill is a pragmatic, commonsense solution to improve safety on these older vessels, and I urge it to be included in the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the nomination of Lawrence VanDyke to a Nevada seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters and other documents relevant to Mr. VanDyke's nomination following my remarks. Mr. VanDyke's temperament and integrity have been called into question by his colleagues and the American Bar Association, which rated him ``Not Qualified'' for the Federal bench. Mr. VanDyke's record, including his opposition to rights of LGBT individuals and commonsense gun control, is far outside the mainstream. First, I want to discuss concerns raised by Mr. VanDyke's colleagues regarding his temperament, competence, and work ethic. The American Bar Association interviewed 60 of Mr. VanDyke's colleagues, including 43 lawyers, 16 judges, and one other individual who have worked with Mr. VanDyke in the four States where he has worked and who are ``in a position to assess his professional qualifications.'' In its letter to the committee, the ABA reported that Mr. VanDyke's colleagues described him as ``arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules'' and stated that he ``has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.'' As Montana's solicitor general, Mr. VanDyke's coworkers raised similar concerns. They noted that he ``avoids work'' and that he ``does not have the skills to perform, nor desire to learn how to perform, the work of a lawyer.'' These concerns were echoed by six retired justices of the Montana Supreme Court who wrote that Mr. VanDyke ``has neither the qualifications nor the temperament to serve as a federal court of appeals judge.'' Based in part on these assessments, the ABA deemed Mr. VanDyke ``Not Qualified'' to be a Federal district court judge. The ABA has rated 97 percent of President Trump's judicial nominees since 1989. It has a process and standards. It has rated 97 percent of President Trump's judicial nominees ``Qualified'' or ``Well Qualified.'' Mr. VanDyke, then, is a clear exception. Mr. VanDyke's record on LGBT rights is also deeply troubling. In a 2004 op-ed, he wrote that there is ``ample reason for concern that same-sex marriage will hurt families, and consequentially children and society.'' Lambda Legal rightly characterized this claim as a ``stigmatizing and disproven myth.'' During his hearing, and in written questions, Mr. VanDyke was given many opportunities to disavow this statement, which is not supported by the research. He declined to do so. I asked Mr. VanDyke whether the Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges has harmed families and children, and I presented him with research showing that the children of gay and lesbian parents do as well as children raised in opposite- sex households. Still, Mr. VanDyke refused to disavow his anti-LGBT statements. In its letter to the committee, the ABA reported that some interviewees were unconvinced that Mr. VanDyke would be fair to members of the LGBT community. The ABA further noted that Mr. VanDyke ``would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBT community.'' I am concerned based on Mr. VanDyke's record and the ABA's assessment that LGBT litigants cannot expect to be treated fairly in his courtroom. Finally, I would like to highlight Mr. VanDyke's long history of advocating against commonsense gun control. As Nevada solicitor general, he undermined implementation of a 2016 ballot initiative, passed by Nevada voter that would have closed a loophole by expanding background checks for private gun sales. As Montana solicitor general, he called assault weapons bans ``ineffective'' and questioned the Federal Government's authority to regulate guns in any capacity. While running for a seat on the Montana Supreme Court in 2014, he filled out an NRA Questionnaire that highlights how far outside the mainstream his views on gun control are. On this questionnaire, Mr. VanDyke indicated that he believes all gun control laws are ``misdirected.'' He opposed banning the possession, purchase, or sale of any firearm. He also opposed assault weapons bans and requiring background checks for guns sold at gun shows. Mr. VanDyke even appeared to pledge loyalty to the NRA itself. He wrote on the questionnaire that he had stopped being a member of the organization because he ``didn't want to risk recusal if a lawsuit came before [him] where the NRA was involved.'' Mr. VanDyke willingly offered these views when he was seeking judicial office, and so I asked him to answer the same questions from the NRA's questionnaire as part of this nomination process. He declined to do so. It is distressing that a nominee would offer his views on gun control to the NRA, but not to a Member of the U.S. Senate who must vote on his lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. It is no wonder that gun safety groups, including the Giffords Law Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, fear that Mr. VanDyke has demonstrated a ``clear lack of impartiality'' and is ``incapable of serving as an impartial justice.'' The Nevada Senators strongly oppose Mr. VanDyke, in part because he lacks ties to the State. Their opposition is justified. It is hard to believe that this nominee, whose views are so far outside the mainstream and who is unqualified for the position, is the best the Nevada legal community has to offer. Federal appeals court judges must be knowledgeable, and litigants must have confidence that these judges will treat them fairly and honestly. Unfortunately, Mr. VanDyke does not meet these basic standards. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Sarah Pitlyk to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Ms. Pitlyk's record is extremely troubling and raises a number of questions about her ability to be a fair and impartial judge. Ms. Pitlyk was deemed by the American Bar Association to be Not Qualified, one of only 3 percent of people reviewed by the Bar over the past 3 years. This is the first that I have had occasion to review in total. A district court judge, as you well know, must hit the ground running. Ms. Pitlyk's lack of practical knowledge and experience would significantly disadvantage the litigants appearing before her. I also want to acknowledge the highly unusual nature of a ``Not Qualified'' rating by the Bar; 97 percent of President Trump's nominees have been rated at least ``Qualified'' by the American Bar Association. This means that Ms. Pitlyk falls in the small minority--just 3 percent--of candidates deemed not qualified by the American Bar Association. This shows how rare that rating is. The ABA has been reviewing the qualifications, as you already know, of judicial nominees since 1989. They know what they are doing, and those of us on the committee take their evaluations very seriously. Next, I want to discuss Ms. Pitlyk's record opposing women's reproductive rights and limiting access to healthcare. Ms. Pitlyk defended a State law banning abortion at 6 weeks, she opposed the Affordable Care Act's coverage for contraception, and she defended President Trump's Title X gag rule. The Trump administration's Title X gag rule prohibits referrals for abortion care and imposes onerous requirements on abortion clinics, among other things. The rule effectively pushed Planned Parenthood out of the Title X program, curtailing access to healthcare for millions of low-income women and families. Ms. Pitlyk has also filed multiple legal briefs that contain misinformation. Last year, she argued without any credible evidence that ``racism plays a profound role in the delivery of abortion services.'' In another case, Ms. Pitlyk claimed--again without evidence--that in- vitro fertilization leads to ``higher rates of birth defects, genetic disorders, and other anomalies.'' I think it is disqualifying for any judicial nominee to make unfounded and unsupported claims, especially in a court of law. Ms. Pitlyk has also made statements in her personal capacity opposing access to healthcare. Just last year, she called the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act ``unprincipled.'' Earlier this year, she said that the Supreme Court's reproductive healthcare cases have ``gross defects.'' These statements and Ms. Pitlyk's legal work raise serious concerns about her ability to apply the Supreme Court's important precedents fairly and impartially. I am deeply troubled by her record, her lack of experience, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing her nomination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from Politico and a letter from the American Bar Association dated September 24, 2019, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. This bill passed the House by a vote of 263 to 158, with 33 Republicans supporting it. A week ago, along with every other Senate Democrat, I introduced the bill in the Senate. People on the frontlines helping these victims wrote this bill. This bill is not a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican bill. This bill is a survivors' bill. It is written with the help of survivors who know what is needed in the real world. The bill accomplishes two things. It preserves the advancements we made during the last reauthorization in 2013, and it includes certain meaningful improvements to the law. In particular, there are three key elements. One, it expands jurisdiction over non-Native Americans for domestic violence offenses and crimes against children, elders, and law enforcement. Violence is a big problem on Tribal lands, and the best way to address it is to allow the Tribes themselves to prosecute these crimes. Unfortunately, some, instead, want to circumvent the Tribal justice system that we know works, and this moves us in the wrong direction. Secondly, the bill builds on existing antidiscrimination protections for the LGBT community. In the 2013 reauthorization, Congress declared that Federal grant recipients could use funds to train staff to recognize and combat discrimination against LGBT individuals. Unfortunately, the law wasn't clear, and organizations are still uncertain if they can use funds for this purpose. This bill simply clarifies that intent. It is a small but very important change to help this at-risk community. There has been surprising resistance from some on the Republican side to include this modest language. Third, our bill keeps guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. It does this by adding intimate partners and stalkers to the existing list of individuals who can be banned from possessing firearms. We know the presence of a firearm in a domestic violence situation increases the odds of a woman being killed by 500 percent. That is a major increase in risk. It only makes sense to take guns away from convicted domestic abusers who may use them to kill their spouses or partners. There is simply no way to stop domestic violence, but I think we have a duty to do all we can, and this bill makes significant improvements in the law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, no later than before the end of this year, the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2843 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the only amendments in order be two germane amendments per side; that the debate on the bill be limited to 1 hour and amendments limited to 30 minutes each, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments; that upon the disposition of the amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage; and finally, that amendments and passage be subject to a 60- affirmative vote threshold, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator to yield for just a moment. I know we had some good discussions, and they broke off. I am very happy to continue to work on this. I felt it was important to enter the House bill because of the three very important provisions that I just went over, which are, in essence, the three improvements on the bill, if you will. I have no problem sitting down now so that we can discuss it. If we could find a way that we can agree, I think that would be just fine. But in the interest of time and because there has been a substantial period of time, I just decided to introduce it. The three issues are Tribal sovereignty, the LGBTQ people, and the gun provisions. Those are the three new House provisions. I hope that Senator Ernst and I can sit down and discuss it. I would be very happy to do this--sit down and discuss, if she would like. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, in response to the Senator--I am very happy to accept the invitation. We can sit down and continue to work on this, but I would point out that these three provisions have tremendous support: the Tribal sovereignty, the protections for the LGBT community, and spouse protections when a spouse has a weapon. Those are rather difficult over here. They were not in the House. But who knows? Maybe we can work something out, and I am happy to try.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, along with every other Senate Democrat, I am proud to introduce the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. This bill passed the House by a vote of 163-158, with 33 Republicans supporting it. It was written by the people on the front lines helping victims. It is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill, it is a bill crafted by and for survivors who know exactly what's need in the real world. In other words, it is the survivors' bill. As I stated before, any reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act must do two things. First, it must preserve the advancements made when it was last reauthorized in 2013. And second, it must include meaningful improvements to the law. The meaningful legal improvements in this bill are particularly important, and I would like to highlight three. First, this bill preserves the anti-discrimination protections that were made in 2013. These protections are particularly important to the LGBT community. According to the Center for Disease Control, along with 35 percent of heterosexual women, 44 percent of lesbian women, and 61 percent of bisexual women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. Similarly, the 2015 U.S. transgender survey found that 47 percent of transgender people have been sexually assaulted. Simply put, these protections are important and we should not only be preserving them, we should be doing more to strengthen them. This bill also makes meaningful improvements to the law to address domestic violence in Indian country. For example, it expands jurisdiction over non-Indians for crimes against children, elders, and law enforcement. A 2016 Justice Department report explained that ``more than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime.'' The report also found that 56 percent have experienced sexual violence, 56 percent have experienced violence at the hands of an intimate partner, and 9 percent have been stalked. For me, these numbers are even more upsetting because California has the largest Tribal population in the United States. We must continue to respect Tribal sovereignty and ensure that we are doing the most to protect the most vulnerable among us, particularly children. Finally, this bill also keeps guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Guns are the most likely way for domestic violence to take a woman's life. Women in the United States are eleven times more likely to be murdered by a firearm than in other high-income countries. The presence of guns in domestic violence situations increases the chances that a woman will be murdered by 500 percent. This bill makes modest, but necessary, improvements to the law to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. For example, the bill amends current law so that people convicted of stalking cannot possess firearms. Yet, the National Rifle Association opposes it. 33 Republicans still voted for the House bill, and I hope my Republicans colleagues in the Senate will do the same. It's the right thing to do. The different parts of the Violence Against Women Act are all linked. For instance, preserving the non-discrimination advancements made when VAWA was reauthorized in 2013 will help protect the LGBT community, but keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers will help protect LGBT victims as well. This bill takes this sort of comprehensive approach by, for example, preserving the advances made to non-discrimination protections and improving the law in the areas of Tribal protections and gun safety. There is no simple way to stop domestic violence, but we have a duty to do all that we can. I thank the president, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, along with every other Senate Democrat, I am proud to introduce the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. This bill passed the House by a vote of 163-158, with 33 Republicans supporting it. It was written by the people on the front lines helping victims. It is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill, it is a bill crafted by and for survivors who know exactly what's need in the real world. In other words, it is the survivors' bill. As I stated before, any reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act must do two things. First, it must preserve the advancements made when it was last reauthorized in 2013. And second, it must include meaningful improvements to the law. The meaningful legal improvements in this bill are particularly important, and I would like to highlight three. First, this bill preserves the anti-discrimination protections that were made in 2013. These protections are particularly important to the LGBT community. According to the Center for Disease Control, along with 35 percent of heterosexual women, 44 percent of lesbian women, and 61 percent of bisexual women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. Similarly, the 2015 U.S. transgender survey found that 47 percent of transgender people have been sexually assaulted. Simply put, these protections are important and we should not only be preserving them, we should be doing more to strengthen them. This bill also makes meaningful improvements to the law to address domestic violence in Indian country. For example, it expands jurisdiction over non-Indians for crimes against children, elders, and law enforcement. A 2016 Justice Department report explained that ``more than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime.'' The report also found that 56 percent have experienced sexual violence, 56 percent have experienced violence at the hands of an intimate partner, and 9 percent have been stalked. For me, these numbers are even more upsetting because California has the largest Tribal population in the United States. We must continue to respect Tribal sovereignty and ensure that we are doing the most to protect the most vulnerable among us, particularly children. Finally, this bill also keeps guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Guns are the most likely way for domestic violence to take a woman's life. Women in the United States are eleven times more likely to be murdered by a firearm than in other high-income countries. The presence of guns in domestic violence situations increases the chances that a woman will be murdered by 500 percent. This bill makes modest, but necessary, improvements to the law to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. For example, the bill amends current law so that people convicted of stalking cannot possess firearms. Yet, the National Rifle Association opposes it. 33 Republicans still voted for the House bill, and I hope my Republicans colleagues in the Senate will do the same. It's the right thing to do. The different parts of the Violence Against Women Act are all linked. For instance, preserving the non-discrimination advancements made when VAWA was reauthorized in 2013 will help protect the LGBT community, but keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers will help protect LGBT victims as well. This bill takes this sort of comprehensive approach by, for example, preserving the advances made to non-discrimination protections and improving the law in the areas of Tribal protections and gun safety. There is no simple way to stop domestic violence, but we have a duty to do all that we can. I thank the president, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Steven Menashi to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 2017 to 2018, Mr. Menashi served as the Acting General Counsel of the Department of Education under Secretary Betsy DeVos. Mr. Menashi has stated that, in this role, he was ``responsible for providing legal advice related to all aspects of the Department's operations, including litigation, rulemaking, regulation, and enforcement.'' Before Mr. Menashi joined the Department of Education, the Department had found that thousands of students had been defrauded by for-profit colleges. The for-profit schools had lied to students about job prospects, graduation rates, and steered them into mountains of debt. The Department had concluded that these students were entitled to relief from their student loan debt. But when Mr. Menashi arrived at the Department, he took a different view. He wrote a memo, which has since been obtained by the New York Times, arguing against full debt relief for the students. Many of these students found themselves unable to work in the fields that they had pursued at the for-profit colleges because the colleges had either suddenly closed or the degrees had proven to be worthless. Nonetheless, Mr. Menashi's idea, which the Department adopted, was to use the private Social Security earnings data of the defrauded students as a basis for limiting their relief. Even if you put aside the unfairness of Mr. Menashi's plan, there was another problem: It was illegal. Six months after Mr. Menashi's plan was implemented, and while Mr. Menashi was still at the Department, a Federal court ruled that using students' private Social Security data violated the Federal Privacy Act. The court ordered the Department to stop using the students' private information and to stop collecting on their student loans. Even after this Federal court ruling, the Department failed to comply. The Department continued to illegally collect on the student loans of at least 16,000 defrauded students. The Department garnished wages, seized tax refunds, and wiped out some students' credit ratings. Less than 3 weeks ago, a Federal court held Secretary Betsy DeVos in contempt of court and fined the Department $100,000. The Federal magistrate judge who issued the contempt order said, ``[T]here have to be some consequences for the violation of my order 16,000 times.'' Mr. Menashi should not be rewarded for providing such bad legal advice with a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. While at the Department, Mr. Menashi also helped push new rules on campus sexual assault that the administration's own analysis concluded would dramatically reduce the number of sexual assault investigations. Under these new rules, a student who is the survivor of sexual assault would be subject to cross-examination by their attacker's representative at a live hearing. In 2018, Mr. Menashi joined the White House Counsel's Office, where he has been a member of Stephen Miller's White House Immigration Strategic Working Group. This working group has helped push a number of extreme anti-immigrant policies, including the White House's policy of separating children from their families, a problem that still has not been fully remedied, despite a court order to do so. At his hearing, Mr. Menashi refused to answer numerous basic questions about his work, including about his role in the administration's family separation policy. He also refused to answer written questions about whether he has worked or advised on matters relating to the whistleblower complaint and President Trump's call with Ukraine's President. Importantly, none of these questions asked Mr. Menashi about the substance of his advice. These questions simply sought to understand what matters he has worked on. His refusal to answer makes it difficult for us to fulfill our constitutional duty to advise and consent. Mr. Menashi's earlier career is equally troubling. He criticized ``Take Back the Night marches,'' which aim to stop campus sexual assault. He also wrote that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade had codified the ``radical abortion rights advocated by campus feminists.'' He wrote that gun control legislation is ``pointless [and] self-defeating, because guns reduce crime,'' and he claimed that a major LGBT-rights organization had ``incessantly exploited the slaying of Matthew Shepard for both financial and political benefit.'' Mr. Menashi wrote that ``charges of racism are typically overblown,'' and he compared affirmative action in college admissions to Nazi Germany's Nuremberg laws. I want to close with a quote from a letter of opposition submitted by the Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC rarely takes a position on judicial nominees, but in this instance, felt compelled to do so. The CBC writes: ``Menashi's writings show a willingness to discriminate against minorities, women and the LGBTQ community. Menashi, who has consistently spoken against diversity and inclusiveness, does not deserve a lifetime position on one of the most important appellate courts in this country.'' In light of Mr. Menashi's record, it is hardly surprising that there is bipartisan opposition to his nomination. I will vote no on Mr. Menashi's nomination, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words in memory of my good friend and former colleague Kay Hagan, who passed away this week. One of the hardest aspects of this work in the Senate is the loss of a colleague. So my thoughts are with Senator Hagan's family and friends in this difficult time. I recall well her 6 years here with both deep respect and friendship. In the time we served in this body together, I was able to get to know Kay very well, and I can honestly say I am lucky to call her a friend. She was always kind and a positive face and worked hard for her constituents and the Nation. Kay was a dedicated public servant who served North Carolinians for 16 years. She got her start in politics in the 1970s when she interned right here in the Senate. As an elevator operator during her internship, she brushed shoulders with some of the biggest names of the day. Kay later described the experience as ``infectious,'' and it inspired her own political ambitions. In 1998, that political career took her to the North Carolina State Senate. It didn't take long for Kay's talents to be noticed. She rose through the ranks quickly and became cochair of the budget committee. Her trademark pragmatism and focus on problem solving served her well in that position. Her hard work earned her a ranking as one of the top 10 most influential members in the State senate. In 2008 Kay won a race that brought her here, to the U.S. Senate, where her passion and focus continued to distinguish her. Kay was a fierce advocate for her State, using her position on the Armed Service Committee to help North Carolina's military families. Whether it was asking the tough questions on water contamination at military bases or mustering support for veterans' caregivers, Kay was always there for our servicemembers. Kay was also a breath of fresh air in the Senate. There were only 15 women serving in the Senate when she came to Washington in January 2009. When she first arrived, she soon learned that the Senate pool was only open to men. She thought that was wrong and got the rules changed. She was a firm believer in equality and making the changes you want to see in the world. No matter how big or small the issue, Kay always tried to help the people of North Carolina. Just a few months ago, she made one of her last public appearances at a groundbreaking for a new air traffic control tower at Piedmont Triad International Airport. When she was first elected to the Senate, she toured the old air traffic control tower at Piedmont and learned that a project to replace it was stalled in Washington. Kay took on the project and fought for funding to finally get it moving forward. It is through her work and diligence that the tower is being built today. From reproductive rights to veterans' healthcare to transportation infrastructure, you could always count on Kay to deliver. She will be missed by many for her warmth and devotion to public service. I send my deepest condolences to her husband, Charles ``Chip'', and her three children, Jeanette, Tilden, and Carrie. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, please.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate this week is honoring our former colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, with the unveiling of his official portrait. I come to the floor to say some words about a friend and former chairman. Ted Stevens' life in public service started early when he joined the Army Corps in 1943. So great was his desire to serve our country that he joined after attending just one semester of college. During the war, he flew dangerous, unescorted missions in China and India, earning two Distinguished Flying Crosses for flights behind enemy lines. After the war, he returned to his studies and graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law School. Not long after that, he moved to Alaska to practice law, and there he began a life of service to the State he called home for the rest of his life. Ted served as a district attorney and became known for accompanying U.S. Marshals on raids, and that was really an early hint of his temperament and intensity on the job. Of course, all Senators devote their careers to their States, but few have the distinction of working to achieve statehood. Senator Stevens was one of them. Working in the Department of Interior in the 1950s, he became known as ``Mr. Alaska'' for his focus on achieving statehood. He worked tirelessly to assuage the concerns of then-President Eisenhower to get statehood passed through both the House and the Senate. When the Alaska Statehood Act finally passed, Ted returned to Alaska and served as a representative in the State House, becoming majority leader after just one term. Then, in 1968, he came to the Senate, where he would go on to serve for 40 years. Once here, he distinguished himself as a fierce advocate for Alaska. He fought relentlessly for funding to build rural hospitals, highways, courts, and military bases across the State he helped create. His efforts only increased when he ascended to the powerful chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee. He often quipped that being such a young State, Alaska needed extra help to catch up to its elder siblings; and help is exactly what he secured. One estimate says he steered more than $3.4 billion in Federal funding to Alaskan projects in just the last 14 years of his tenure. Those of us who served with him on the Appropriations Committee got to know Ted's Incredible Hulk tie, which he would wear on days with especially difficult debates. He was a fighter and a fierce advocate for his State and his party. When a reporter once asked about his reputation for losing his temper, Senator Stevens replied: I didn't lose my temper. I know right where it is. But he would also cross party lines and work side by side with his appropriations colleagues, especially Bob Byrd and Daniel Inouye. They would trade the gavel between them, serving as chair and ranking member of subcommittees and the full committee. Beyond Federal funding, Stevens settled many longstanding issues that faced his young State. Chief among them was the settling of Tribal land claims. The Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act would become the largest land settlement claim in U.S. history. It was hailed as groundbreaking for its involvement of Alaskan Native communities from the outset. Always with an eye to the future, Ted Stevens not only supported Native leaders in asserting land claims, but he also supported economic development measures in the final bill. Personally, I remain thankful for Ted's support with the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, a bill I authored in 2007 with Senators Olympia Snowe, Maria Cantwell, Tom Carper, and others. The bill was drafted to increase fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon within 10 years, but it was responsible for much more. The Obama administration went on to use the Ten-in-Ten Act to set rules that will increase fuel efficiency to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025 and save consumers more than $460 billion at the pump. Here is how it got done. I couldn't get it done. It was controversial at the time and, believe it or not, Ted Stevens played a big role in getting this bill passed. As ranking member of the Commerce Committee, he and Senator Inouye included the language as part of a broader energy bill that President Bush signed into law in 2007. So this was a big deal, and it was controversial. Senator Stevens knew that, but he understood the importance of the issue, and he included the language in one of his bills, and it could not have passed any other way. It was a very big event for me, and it really sealed my respect for this Senator from a different party, a different State; but he cared, you could go to him, and he helped. I remember back then. Now our mileage is going up, and I think of Ted, when I talked to him, saying: OK. We will get it done--and he and Dan Inouye did do that. He said: ``My motto has always been `To hell with politics, just do what's right for Alaska.''' I don't think anyone who had the pleasure of knowing Ted Stevens would know him as anything other than a great legislator for the State of Alaska and a great legislator for the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham for the private relief of Maria Isabel Bueso Barrera and her parents. Ms. Bueso is a Guatemalan national living in Concord, California. She has a rare medical condition and her removal from the United States would deprive her of lifesaving medical care. Ms. Bueso suffers from a rare, life-threatening disorder called Mucopolysaccharidosis Type VI (MPS-VI)--a rare genetic condition caused by the absence of an enzyme that is needed for the growth of healthy bones and connective tissues. Ms. Bueso uses a wheelchair for mobility, has a shunt in her brain, and requires a tracheotomy to help her breathe. In 2003, Ms. Bueso and her family came to the United States at the invitation of doctors who were conducting a clinical trial to treat her condition. That trial led to Food and Drug Administration approved treatment for MPS-VI. Ms. Bueso now receives this life-saving treatment every week at UCSF Children's Hospital in Oakland, CA, where she undergoes a 6-hour infusion of a prescription drug that replaces the enzyme that people with MPS-VI lack. Ms. Bueso has participated in six other medical trials. For the past 10 years, Isabel and her family received deferred action from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services so that she could continue receiving the treatments that keep her alive. This treatment is not available in Guatemala. On August 13, 2019, USCIS notified Ms. Bueso and her family that their extensions of deferred action were denied, and that they would be deported if they did not leave the United States within 33 days. This decision was effectively a death sentence for Ms. Bueso. On September 3, 2019, USCIS announced that they would reconsider her case, but a final decision has not been made. Ms. Bueso has beaten the odds because of the life-saving treatment that she has received in the United States. She is now 24 years old, and a 2018 graduate of California State University, East Bay. She has become an outspoken advocate on behalf of people with rare diseases. Her family pays taxes, owns a home, and is active in their community. The Bueso family should be allowed to remain in California, where they will continue to enrich their community, and where Isabel will be able to receive the care that allows her to survive and thrive. The legislation that Chairman Graham and I are introducing today would provide a permanent solution for Isabel and her parents. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill, which makes the Bueso family eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham for the private relief of Maria Isabel Bueso Barrera and her parents. Ms. Bueso is a Guatemalan national living in Concord, California. She has a rare medical condition and her removal from the United States would deprive her of lifesaving medical care. Ms. Bueso suffers from a rare, life-threatening disorder called Mucopolysaccharidosis Type VI (MPS-VI)--a rare genetic condition caused by the absence of an enzyme that is needed for the growth of healthy bones and connective tissues. Ms. Bueso uses a wheelchair for mobility, has a shunt in her brain, and requires a tracheotomy to help her breathe. In 2003, Ms. Bueso and her family came to the United States at the invitation of doctors who were conducting a clinical trial to treat her condition. That trial led to Food and Drug Administration approved treatment for MPS-VI. Ms. Bueso now receives this life-saving treatment every week at UCSF Children's Hospital in Oakland, CA, where she undergoes a 6-hour infusion of a prescription drug that replaces the enzyme that people with MPS-VI lack. Ms. Bueso has participated in six other medical trials. For the past 10 years, Isabel and her family received deferred action from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services so that she could continue receiving the treatments that keep her alive. This treatment is not available in Guatemala. On August 13, 2019, USCIS notified Ms. Bueso and her family that their extensions of deferred action were denied, and that they would be deported if they did not leave the United States within 33 days. This decision was effectively a death sentence for Ms. Bueso. On September 3, 2019, USCIS announced that they would reconsider her case, but a final decision has not been made. Ms. Bueso has beaten the odds because of the life-saving treatment that she has received in the United States. She is now 24 years old, and a 2018 graduate of California State University, East Bay. She has become an outspoken advocate on behalf of people with rare diseases. Her family pays taxes, owns a home, and is active in their community. The Bueso family should be allowed to remain in California, where they will continue to enrich their community, and where Isabel will be able to receive the care that allows her to survive and thrive. The legislation that Chairman Graham and I are introducing today would provide a permanent solution for Isabel and her parents. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill, which makes the Bueso family eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to bid a fond farewell and recognize the excellent service of my longtime foreign affairs and defense policy adviser, Christopher Gaspar. Over the past 6 years, Chris has brought expertise, insight, and sage advice across a wide range of defense policy, defense appropriations, and foreign affairs matters that have benefited me directly and, through his service, the Nation. I have valued Chris's counsel on contentious issues to include Iran's nuclear program and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to address it; the Israel-Palestinian conflict; U.S.-China relations; human rights issues in Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Tibet; national security space launch; deteriorating conditions in Central American countries; oversight of the U.S. nuclear arsenal; and U.S. counterterrorism efforts across the globe. The people of California largely don't know his name, but have benefited from his dedicated work on numerous National Defense Authorization Acts and Defense Appropriations Acts. He has helped enact numerous provisions into law for the betterment of the State, including securing seven C-130 tankers for California to fight wildfires, making California's the largest wildfire aerial fleet in the country. He has worked with our counties and cities to allow underutilized National Guard facilities to be used to combat California's homelessness crisis. This year, he led a comprehensive effort to investigate and draft reforms to address shameful, substandard contract military housing to meet the needs of our servicemembers and their families a provision that I hope will soon be enacted in this year's defense bill. Chris has been by my side for numerous sensitive meetings with foreign leaders, ambassadors, military commanders, corporate chiefs, and local officials, and he has always exhibited a level of professionalism, dedication, and empathy that I deeply admire and appreciate. He has also helped California constituents facing issues abroad, served as a valued mentor to junior staff, dedicated himself to liaison relationships with the House of Representatives on coffee meetings, proven himself to be an integral member of my appropriations team, and was always ready with a quip--sometimes humorous--to help lighten the mood. Chris is moving on to the private sector----hopefully temporarily-- and will spend some much deserved down-time with his new wife. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors, and my staff and I will deeply miss him. Thank you