Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address one of the most pressing immigration problems facing our nation.

For the past decade, thousands of families have fled violence and poverty to seek asylum in the United States. These families include vulnerable children who must be kept safe once they arrive in the United States. However, since the beginning of the Trump Administration, several new policies have been implemented.

Most disconcerting is the Trump policy to separate young children, even babies, from their mothers and fathers. Dozens of these children spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum blankets.

We have also learned that the Trump Administration then deported many of these parents, leaving the children to be orphaned in this country. In fact, hundreds of children who were separated under this policy have now been apart from their parents for many months, without any immediate prospects for reunification. These children continue to experience extreme stress that leaves them vulnerable to serious, lifelong mental and physical health problems.

Even when families are reunified after months apart, some children no longer recognize the mothers and fathers. This is unconscionable. Today I am introducing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act, a bill that will not only end the practice of separating families at the border, but also put in place other safeguards to protect these at-risk groups.

The first component of the bill I am introducing today is the full text of the Keep Families Together Act, a bill I introduced earlier this year to halt the separation of families and which currently has more than 40 cosponsors. The President claimed to end his policy of separation in June 2018. However, we have since learned that the practice of separating families continues today.

In fact, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found that thousands more children were separated than the administration initially revealed in June. Parents who try to protect their children from violence and poverty abroad should not be punished by having those children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration.

Instead, families should be kept together and given an opportunity to present their cases for asylum as has been done for the past seven decades.

The second part of the bill I'm introducing today ensures that families with children are not forced into prolonged, indefinite family detention in order to remain together. Child welfare experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations, have found that detention of this sort has tremendous negative effects on children's health and welfare. This bill guarantees that the Trump Administration cannot reverse the crucial protections that are currently in place under the Flores settlement agreement.

The third piece of this bill would help address the backlog in our immigration courts while protecting the basic rights of children. This part of the bill contains provisions to provide adequate resources to our immigration court system. By adding additional judges and staff, courts will be able to reduce the crushing backlog of over a million pending deportation cases.

The fourth component of this legislation is Senator Hirono's bill, the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, that provides counsel for unaccompanied children. This is meant to ensure that these children receive a meaningful opportunity to present their cases in immigration court. This is important because young children, including toddlers, have been forced to represent themselves in immigration court in recent years. It is simply impossible for children to understand their legal immigration status or rights, let alone explain it to a judge.

This bill protects the most vulnerable children in by providing counsel when there is no parent or legal guardian available. The final part of the bill will ensure that immigration judges can manage their caseloads and prioritize the cases as needed. Currently, individuals in deportation proceedings who have been victims of human trafficking or have assisted with criminal prosecutions are often eligible for visas that would protect them from deportation. This bill would allow immigration judges to close these deportation cases quickly to protect these vulnerable individuals and conserve scarce courtroom time. This will be a crucial step in clearing the backlog of pending immigration cases.

By taking these steps, we will help put our immigration system on a pathway to respect the basic rights of children, particularly those who are fleeing violence and poverty abroad. These children are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, and it is absolutely essential that our legal system should treat them with fairness and respect.

These are goals that should be appealing to Democrats and Republicans alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address one of the most pressing immigration problems facing our nation.

For the past decade, thousands of families have fled violence and poverty to seek asylum in the United States. These families include vulnerable children who must be kept safe once they arrive in the United States. However, since the beginning of the Trump Administration, several new policies have been implemented.

Most disconcerting is the Trump policy to separate young children, even babies, from their mothers and fathers. Dozens of these children spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum blankets.

We have also learned that the Trump Administration then deported many of these parents, leaving the children to be orphaned in this country. In fact, hundreds of children who were separated under this policy have now been apart from their parents for many months, without any immediate prospects for reunification. These children continue to experience extreme stress that leaves them vulnerable to serious, lifelong mental and physical health problems.

Even when families are reunified after months apart, some children no longer recognize the mothers and fathers. This is unconscionable. Today I am introducing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act, a bill that will not only end the practice of separating families at the border, but also put in place other safeguards to protect these at-risk groups.

The first component of the bill I am introducing today is the full text of the Keep Families Together Act, a bill I introduced earlier this year to halt the separation of families and which currently has more than 40 cosponsors. The President claimed to end his policy of separation in June 2018. However, we have since learned that the practice of separating families continues today.

In fact, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found that thousands more children were separated than the administration initially revealed in June. Parents who try to protect their children from violence and poverty abroad should not be punished by having those children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration.

Instead, families should be kept together and given an opportunity to present their cases for asylum as has been done for the past seven decades.

The second part of the bill I'm introducing today ensures that families with children are not forced into prolonged, indefinite family detention in order to remain together. Child welfare experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations, have found that detention of this sort has tremendous negative effects on children's health and welfare. This bill guarantees that the Trump Administration cannot reverse the crucial protections that are currently in place under the Flores settlement agreement.

The third piece of this bill would help address the backlog in our immigration courts while protecting the basic rights of children. This part of the bill contains provisions to provide adequate resources to our immigration court system. By adding additional judges and staff, courts will be able to reduce the crushing backlog of over a million pending deportation cases.

The fourth component of this legislation is Senator Hirono's bill, the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, that provides counsel for unaccompanied children. This is meant to ensure that these children receive a meaningful opportunity to present their cases in immigration court. This is important because young children, including toddlers, have been forced to represent themselves in immigration court in recent years. It is simply impossible for children to understand their legal immigration status or rights, let alone explain it to a judge.

This bill protects the most vulnerable children in by providing counsel when there is no parent or legal guardian available. The final part of the bill will ensure that immigration judges can manage their caseloads and prioritize the cases as needed. Currently, individuals in deportation proceedings who have been victims of human trafficking or have assisted with criminal prosecutions are often eligible for visas that would protect them from deportation. This bill would allow immigration judges to close these deportation cases quickly to protect these vulnerable individuals and conserve scarce courtroom time. This will be a crucial step in clearing the backlog of pending immigration cases.

By taking these steps, we will help put our immigration system on a pathway to respect the basic rights of children, particularly those who are fleeing violence and poverty abroad. These children are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, and it is absolutely essential that our legal system should treat them with fairness and respect.

These are goals that should be appealing to Democrats and Republicans alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act.

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

I want to thank my distinguished colleague from the great State of Maine. Thank you so much, Susan. Thank you for your work here, for your care, for your concern, and for your vigilance on all issues that affect women. Thank you so much.

Madam President, I am very proud to join Susan Collins and all of my colleagues on the floor today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Congress's passing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Before the 19th Amendment, women were actually denied the same basic civil rights as men. We were not allowed to attend a college. We could not become doctors, lawyers, or politicians. Married women had no right to property, and even though women were required to follow the law, they had no say in electing their lawmakers.

Simply put, women were second-class citizens. So it is against this backdrop that the women's suffrage movement took shape decades ago to fight to achieve equality for us, and the fight began at the polls.

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson faced a tough reelection campaign. At the time, 12 States allowed women to vote. The newly formed Women's Party campaigned forcefully in most States against Wilson because of his strong opposition to women's suffrage. As a result, women voted against Wilson by notable margins, causing the first known gender gap in a Presidential election.

Although Woodrow Wilson ultimately won a second term, the Women's Party made clear that they were a force to be reckoned with. I could not be more proud of the suffragists who fought for decades to secure our right to vote and laid the groundwork for a woman's right to hold office. It is because of fearless, hardworking women like Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, and Dorothy Day that I stand here today on the floor of the Senate representing the largest State in the Union, California.

In the first elections held after the 19th Amendment was ratified, women won public office in 23 States. Today, women are represented in all levels of government--Federal, State, and local.

In 1992, the first year I was elected to the Senate, a historic number of women won elected office. Twenty-four new women were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives that year, and four women-- Senators Murray, Boxer, Mosley-Braun, and I--were elected to the Senate. Last year, nearly a century after Congress passed the 19th Amendment, women set another record with 102 women serving in Congress and 3 more holding seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. So women are still shattering the glass ceilings.

In 2014, Janet Yellen became the first woman to lead the Federal Reserve. In 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated by a major political party for President of the United States. And just this year, after being elected the first female Speaker of the House in 2007, Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to be reelected Speaker of the House.

Last Congress, I became the first woman to serve as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is especially significant for me because I was inspired by Anita Hill's testimony before the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee to run for this office.

Even though there are more women in leadership positions across industries, there is still work to be done. According to the American Association of University Women, in 2017 women earned between 77 cents and 53 cents for every dollar earned by men.

Susan Collins, we still have a long way to go, it seems to me.

In addition, women continue to face discrimination and harassment at school and in the office, as well as high rates of sexual violence.

Before I close, I would like to address an issue that has unfortunately been in the news quite a bit lately; that is, the latest attacks on women's health and reproductive rights. We should not forget what Justice Ginsburg told the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings in 1992. I was there, and here is what she said:

The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a

woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision

she must make for herself. When Government controls that

decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully

adult human responsible for her own choices.

In the past month, six States have passed blatantly unconstitutional laws that effectively ban abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. These new restrictions are especially concerning in light of the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which has long signaled its opposition to women's reproductive rights. Just last month, in a case challenging abortion restrictions in Indiana, Justice Thomas authored an opinion comparing contraceptives to eugenics and demonstrated a clear hostility to Griswold and Roe. Between the Indiana case, the various unconstitutional State laws, and other reproductive rights cases on the Court's docket, many legal observers believe Roe today remains in jeopardy.

As a U.S. Senator, I will continue fighting for equal rights for women, and I will honor the legacy of women who blazed the trail. I am honored to recognize those women and the progress we have made as we commemorate the 100th anniversary of Congress passing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the wonderful spirit and dedication of Ellen Tauscher, who was taken from us far too early on April 29, 2019. She was a one of a kind of person and very special to me.

Ellen is survived by her daughter Katherine, who is an amazing young woman. I have seen her through some of the most difficult days and she has an equanimity and an ability second to none. Ellen's sisters Sally and Kathy and brother Jack provided very strong family support to her, especially at the end. She is truly loved.

Ellen touched so many lives, and anybody who has worked with her, had dinner with her, drank a little California wine with her knows the special person she is.

Ellen was one of the first women and the youngest woman ever at the age of 25 to become a member of the New York Stock Exchange in 1977.

I was president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at that time, and I can tell you, being a woman on the Stock Exchange at that time was a very big deal.

Ellen was to go on to work in finance for 14 years as a successful investment banker and bond trader.

A few years after she moved west, Ellen gave birth to her pride and joy, the wonderful Katherine Tauscher. As a new mother herself, Ellen struggled to find good childcare, and she used that experience to create the ChildCare Registry, a service to help parents check backgrounds of childcare centers.

You see, that was how she was. When she saw a problem, she worked out a solution. When Ellen Tauscher put her mind to something, there was no stopping her. Achievement was a given.

Ellen ran for a seat in Congress in 1996. The newly created district was conservative, and few people thought it would go to a Democrat, but Ellen appealed to moderates on both sides of the aisle, and success, I always thought, was a given. She went on to win that seat and hold it for 12 years.

As a Member of Congress, Ellen made a name for herself as a centrist, someone who could work both sides of the aisle. Her colleagues, many of whom attended the memorial service earlier this week at the National Cathedral, knew she would always do what was best for her district and for the country.

Ellen sat on the House Armed Services Committee and became chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Not necessarily what you would expect from an elementary education major from New Jersey, but Ellen was a real force.

She developed an expertise and substantial knowledge in arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear weapons. It was a good fit since her district was home to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

That expertise and the ability to be effective in a critically important post was a big reason why then-Secretary of State Clinton selected her and President Obama nominated her to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

One of Ellen's biggest accomplishments in that role was shepherding the negotiations over the New START Treaty and helping with its ratification through the Senate in 2010.

As a matter of fact, it was at her suggestion that former Senator Jon Kyl and I went to Geneva under the auspices of the Senate National Security Working Group to observe the negotiations and meet with the Russian and U.S. delegations. Ellen was so proud of the treaty, and so are we.

She proved just how strong she was during this most difficult period. She did much of her work on the treaty while suffering from esophageal cancer, but she never let it slow her down. When she retired from the Federal Government, a new world would open.

She was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the University Of California Board Of Regents, she chaired California's Military Advisory Council, and she served as vice chair of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Just last year, she showed she was still a player in California politics, working with Katie Merrill to create a Political Action Committee called Fight Back, and that was just what Ellen did.

Ellen was brilliant. She was warm and loyal to her country, her family, and her friends, and she had a wonderful sense of humor. I saw this constantly over a glass of wine and dinner in Washington. She was always ready with something that made friends smile and even laugh.

She was, for me, a best friend, and that will never change. Thank you.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Daniel Collins to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Collins had been nominated to a California seat on the Ninth Circuit over the objections of Senator Harris and myself. Neither Senator Harris nor I returned blue slips for Mr. Collins, yet the majority moved forward with his nomination, disregarding our concerns.

This vote on Mr. Collins follows on the heels of last week's vote on Kenneth Lee, another Ninth Circuit nominee who lacked blue slips from me and Senator Harris.

So, once again, we see the majority violating Senate norms and traditions by ignoring home-State Senators, including the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, and stacking the courts with ideologues.

This breakdown in Senate traditions is harmful to all of us, Democrats and Republicans. It is also unnecessary.

As I have highlighted before, Democratic Senators have been willing to work with the White House to find consensus picks for the circuit courts, but that willingness has been rebuffed by the Trump administration and disregarded by the majority.

The majority's decision to once again ignore blue slips is short- sighted. After all, what goes around comes around.

Senator Harris and I refused to return blue slips on Mr. Collins for several reasons.

I have used a bipartisan instate screening commission to vet potential nominees to California district and Ninth Circuit seats for my entire career. These are highly respected lawyers from throughout the State, and they have reviewed and recommended nominees from Democratic and Republican administrations.

My instate bipartisan commission raised concerns about Mr. Collins's rigidity, temperament, and history of taking positions in litigation for the purposes of overturning precedent and challenging legal boundaries.

The role of a judge is to be an impartial arbiter, not an advocate and not someone with an agenda, particularly an agenda of overturning precedent.

Based on this, I am concerned that Mr. Collins has not demonstrated and does not embody the characteristics that we expect of all Federal judges.

I also believe that Mr. Collins's record on women's reproductive rights, executive power, civil liberties, and criminal justice matters puts him far outside the judicial mainstream.

For example, Mr. Collins was a strong advocate for the Bush administration's use of military commissions to try enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. He even went so far as to argue that the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief allowed him to bypass Congress and create these commissions without congressional approval.

Mr. Collins also wrote a law review piece in which he argued that Miranda v. Arizona, a longstanding Supreme Court precedent that protects the rights of individuals, should be overturned.

For the last decade, Mr. Collins has also defended numerous chemical and energy companies in lawsuits brought by homeowners, Tribes, and local governments. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits have argued that these companies contributed to climate change and its effects, such as increasing the severity of storms and causing sea levels to rise.

In several of these lawsuits, Mr. Collins argued that climate change is not even real. For example, in a case representing Shell Oil Company, Mr. Collins wrote that ``climate change allegedly results from the aggregate effects of greenhouse gas emissions from billions of sources around the world accumulating in the global atmosphere over the course of centuries, and thus it cannot be attributed to . . . energy companies.''

In addition, in questions for the record, he refused to acknowledge that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it.

I understand that Mr. Collins was representing clients in these lawsuits, but he was the one who chose which arguments to make, including arguments that climate change is not real. We cannot have a judge on the Ninth Circuit who denies climate change and its impacts.

At his hearing, Mr. Collins was willing to answer questions from Republicans on his personal views, but not answer similar questions from Democrats.

For instance, when asked how he ``feel[s] about the First Step Act,'' Mr. Collins said: ``I think that the First Step Act . . . appeared to me to be a balanced approach to reform some of the sentencing provisions which seemed unduly harsh.''

But when asked by Senator Blumenthal whether he believed Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided, Mr. Collins refused to answer.

Nominees should not answer Republican questions and evade Democratic ones, especially when it comes to answering questions about Brown v. Board of Education, a monumental case whose correctness cannot and should not be questioned and has been answered by previous Republican nominees, including Chief Justice Roberts.

Taken as a whole, I believe Mr. Collins is far outside the legal mainstream.

Given concerns about his temperament and commitment to upholding precedent and given the positions he has taken on executive power, criminal justice, and other matters that could come before the Ninth Circuit, I cannot support Mr. Collins.

I voted against Mr. Collins, and I urged my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Kenneth Lee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Lee has been nominated to a California seat on the Ninth Circuit over the objections of Senator Harris and myself. Neither Senator Harris nor I returned blue slips for Mr. Lee; yet the majority moved forward with his nomination, disregarding our concerns.

In doing so, the majority is violating Senate norms and traditions by--for the first time ever--ignoring the lack of a blue slip from the Judiciary Committee's ranking member. Let me repeat: This has never been done before.

There was no need to proceed with Mr. Lee's nomination over our objections.

As has been true of many of my Democratic colleagues, Senator Harris and I made it clear to the Trump administration that we were ready to work with the White House to find a consensus pick for this and two other Ninth Circuit California seats.

Sadly, our willingness to work with the administration has not been reciprocated. Once again, the majority is insisting on moving ahead with a nomination, despite the strong objections of both home-State Senators.

Senator Harris and I refused to return blue slips for Mr. Lee for two key reasons.

First, Mr. Lee has a long record of controversial writings and statements on race and diversity, immigration, affirmative action, women's rights, and other issues.

Second, Mr. Lee failed to disclose dozens of problematic writings to our in-state judicial commissions and to the Judiciary Committee itself.

That failure raises significant doubts about Mr. Lee's candor and judgment, and it should be concerning to all Members of this body. In fact, when another nominee for the Ninth Circuit, Ryan Bounds, also failed to turn over his writings, his nomination was rejected by the Senate.

Mr. Bounds had failed to identify to Oregon's in-state judicial screening commission at least five articles that took controversial positions on issues including campus sexual assault and diversity at institutions of higher education, whereas Mr. Lee failed to disclose either to my and Senator Harris's screening commissions or to the Judiciary Committee itself more than 75 articles.

Importantly, several of Mr. Lee's articles demonstrate a continuity between what he wrote and the positions he has continued to advocate well into his legal career.

For example, Mr. Lee was a vocal critic of affirmative action, writing: ``Our stance on affirmative action has always been that it ultimately hurts the recipients instead of helping them. . . . Black students will unfortunately be treated as inferiors because people will always assume that they were accepted solely because of their race.''

In a 2003 piece, written while he was a practicing attorney, Mr. Lee criticized the Supreme Court's opinion in the Bakke case, which upheld the use of race as one of several criteria to be considered in college admissions.

Mr. Lee wrote that ``[t]he Supreme Court can no longer hide behind the wishful thinking of Bakke,'' which he said ``was based on the naive assumption that universities would consider race merely as a tie- breaker.''

Mr. Lee has not backed away from his opposition to affirmative action and so the Congressional Black Caucus wrote a letter stating: ``While many of [Mr. Lee's] most disturbing writings have come from when he was in college and law school, there is every indication that these views were well-settled and carried through his career.''

In a 2005 article, written years after he graduated from law school, Mr. Lee criticized President George W. Bush's plan to allow undocumented immigrants to work legally within the United States.

Mr. Lee wrote: ``By describing illegal immigrants as `hard-working men and women' who are pursuing `better lives,' [President Bush] blurs the distinction between illegals and those who came to America following the rules.''

Mr. Lee's portrayal of undocumented immigrants is both inaccurate and troubling.

Mr. Lee has also taken extreme positions on women's rights. He argued that feminism ``is not about extending equal rights and opportunities to women . . . [but] is about adhering to a stifling orthodoxy.'' He attacked feminists for ``support[ing] unfettered abortion-on-demand.''

As NARAL put it in a letter submitted to the committee, Lee's writings ``suggest a disdain for women that is concerning in any context, but especially so for someone up for a lifetime seat on the federal bench.''

In conclusion, I believe Mr. Lee's record shows that he is far outside the legal mainstream.

Given the positions he has taken in dozens of articles and given his failure to disclose writings to my commission and to the Judiciary Committee I cannot support Mr. Lee's nomination to the Ninth Circuit.

I will vote against Mr. Lee and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend Senator Enzi, the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act.''

Breast cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in women. One in eight women will receive a diagnosis during her lifetime--and more than 40,000 women will die from the disease this year.

The Breast Cancer Research Stamp was first issued in 1998 and has since raised almost $90 million for research into new, innovative treatments for breast cancer.

A 2018 study that was partially funded by revenue from stamp sales found that most women diagnosed with a common early-stage breast cancer do not actually need chemotherapy as a part of their cancer treatment. Results from this study are expected to spare up to 70,000 U.S. patients a year from the cost and side effects associated with chemotherapy without it hurting their chances of beating the disease.

Think about it. Simply purchasing a stamp could help spare thousands of women the pain they may experience when undergoing chemotherapy and side effects that range from hair loss to long-term organ damage. Not to mention the expense, with one basic round of chemo costing anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000. The stamp's ability to fund critical research like this study helps us take big steps forward in treating breast cancer for only a few more cents over the standard price of sending a letter.

As we come back to work after Mother's Day, I invite the Senate to pause and remember all the women who have faced a diagnosis of breast cancer, not knowing what the outcome would be. I applaud as well the family and friends who have tirelessly supported them.

The Breast Cancer Stamp currently costs 65 cents, 10 cents more than a traditional Forever stamp. The additional 10 cents helps support breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense's Medical Research Program. Our bill would reauthorize the stamp for 8 more years through 2027.

For these women and their families, this stamp is as meaningful to them as it is impactful to how we combat the disease now and in the future.

I am honored to be joined by Senators Baldwin, Barrasso, Capito, Casey, Cramer, Collins, Daines, Duckworth, Durbin, Grassley, Hassan, Hirono, Hyde-Smith, Klobuchar, Rosen, Schatz, Shaheen, Stabenow, and Tester.

I am very grateful for supporters of this bill, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American College of Surgeons, Susan G. Komen, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Are You Dense, Inc.

As we celebrate the mothers in our lives this week, I urge my colleagues to join us in taking meaningful action to improve women's health.

Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prevent Foreign Interference with Elections Act of 2019. This bill provides enhanced criminal penalties and additional safeguards to prevent foreign interference in our elections.

To be clear, there are already laws on the books to prosecute those who interfere in U.S. elections. Indeed, Special Counsel Mueller charged Russian intelligence officers who hacked into U.S. computers and stole documents, for the purpose of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections.

Special Counsel Mueller also charged the Russian Internet Research Agency and several of its employees for their role in the social media campaign that was designed to manipulate American voters.

This bill, however, makes election interference a separate criminal offense. It makes clear that those who conspire with foreign actors to interfere in U.S. elections will be punished appropriately for striking at the bedrock of our democracy,

This bill does five main things.

First, it explicitly makes it a crime to conspire with foreign nationals to interfere in U.S. elections.

Interference can be accomplished through breaking a federal criminal law, such as committing fraud, or by hacking into someone's computer, or by violating federal, state, or local election laws.

As I mentioned, this bill simply leaves no doubt that working with a foreign actor to commit these offenses with the goal of interfering in a U.S. election is a crime.

And it requires that those who break this law will be sentenced separately, and in addition to any other laws that were broken.

Second, it makes it so that people convicted of interfering in our elections would be inadmissible into the United States.

There is, however, an important exception. Those who cooperate with law enforcement to help catch those responsible for interference would be eligible for an S visa.

Third, it creates a civil action, allowing the Attorney General to immediately address foreign interference once U.S. law enforcement learns of it.

This is important because foreign interference can then be stopped as soon as it is discovered.

Fourth, it prohibits foreign-financed elections ads, including foreign-financed issue ads and foreign-financed digital ads.

These expansions will help protect the integrity of our electoral process.

Fifth and finally, it prohibits providing ``substantial assistance'' to foreign nationals trying to interfere in our elections.

It is important that we also hold ourselves accountable by not providing aid to those wishing to do us harm.

To be clear, there was foreign interference in the 2016 Presidential election.

The Intelligence Community unanimously concluded that the Russian government interfered by ``blend[ing] covert intelligence operations-- such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or `trolls.' '' After a nearly two-year investigation, Special Counsel Mueller confirmed these core conclusions.

Along the way, his office indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in connection with Russian hacking operations and three companies, including the Internet Research Agency and 13 of its employees for their role in the social media campaign to influence American voters.

Unless we do something, this interference will happen again. And to stop it, we need to not only make clear that interference will result in criminal punishment, we must also update our election laws so that they can combat these new cyber-attacks. This bill does both.

I am introducing this bill today with strong Democratic support, and I would particularly like to thank Senator Blumenthal for his leadership on this issue.

It is my sincere hope, however, that my Republican colleagues will join us in this important effort as well.

The issue I speak about today is one that goes to the core of our democracy. It is a bi-partisan issue that I hope both Democrats and Republicans can join in addressing.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend Senator Enzi, the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act.''

Breast cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in women. One in eight women will receive a diagnosis during her lifetime--and more than 40,000 women will die from the disease this year.

The Breast Cancer Research Stamp was first issued in 1998 and has since raised almost $90 million for research into new, innovative treatments for breast cancer.

A 2018 study that was partially funded by revenue from stamp sales found that most women diagnosed with a common early-stage breast cancer do not actually need chemotherapy as a part of their cancer treatment. Results from this study are expected to spare up to 70,000 U.S. patients a year from the cost and side effects associated with chemotherapy without it hurting their chances of beating the disease.

Think about it. Simply purchasing a stamp could help spare thousands of women the pain they may experience when undergoing chemotherapy and side effects that range from hair loss to long-term organ damage. Not to mention the expense, with one basic round of chemo costing anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000. The stamp's ability to fund critical research like this study helps us take big steps forward in treating breast cancer for only a few more cents over the standard price of sending a letter.

As we come back to work after Mother's Day, I invite the Senate to pause and remember all the women who have faced a diagnosis of breast cancer, not knowing what the outcome would be. I applaud as well the family and friends who have tirelessly supported them.

The Breast Cancer Stamp currently costs 65 cents, 10 cents more than a traditional Forever stamp. The additional 10 cents helps support breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense's Medical Research Program. Our bill would reauthorize the stamp for 8 more years through 2027.

For these women and their families, this stamp is as meaningful to them as it is impactful to how we combat the disease now and in the future.

I am honored to be joined by Senators Baldwin, Barrasso, Capito, Casey, Cramer, Collins, Daines, Duckworth, Durbin, Grassley, Hassan, Hirono, Hyde-Smith, Klobuchar, Rosen, Schatz, Shaheen, Stabenow, and Tester.

I am very grateful for supporters of this bill, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American College of Surgeons, Susan G. Komen, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Are You Dense, Inc.

As we celebrate the mothers in our lives this week, I urge my colleagues to join us in taking meaningful action to improve women's health.

Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prevent Foreign Interference with Elections Act of 2019. This bill provides enhanced criminal penalties and additional safeguards to prevent foreign interference in our elections.

To be clear, there are already laws on the books to prosecute those who interfere in U.S. elections. Indeed, Special Counsel Mueller charged Russian intelligence officers who hacked into U.S. computers and stole documents, for the purpose of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections.

Special Counsel Mueller also charged the Russian Internet Research Agency and several of its employees for their role in the social media campaign that was designed to manipulate American voters.

This bill, however, makes election interference a separate criminal offense. It makes clear that those who conspire with foreign actors to interfere in U.S. elections will be punished appropriately for striking at the bedrock of our democracy,

This bill does five main things.

First, it explicitly makes it a crime to conspire with foreign nationals to interfere in U.S. elections.

Interference can be accomplished through breaking a federal criminal law, such as committing fraud, or by hacking into someone's computer, or by violating federal, state, or local election laws.

As I mentioned, this bill simply leaves no doubt that working with a foreign actor to commit these offenses with the goal of interfering in a U.S. election is a crime.

And it requires that those who break this law will be sentenced separately, and in addition to any other laws that were broken.

Second, it makes it so that people convicted of interfering in our elections would be inadmissible into the United States.

There is, however, an important exception. Those who cooperate with law enforcement to help catch those responsible for interference would be eligible for an S visa.

Third, it creates a civil action, allowing the Attorney General to immediately address foreign interference once U.S. law enforcement learns of it.

This is important because foreign interference can then be stopped as soon as it is discovered.

Fourth, it prohibits foreign-financed elections ads, including foreign-financed issue ads and foreign-financed digital ads.

These expansions will help protect the integrity of our electoral process.

Fifth and finally, it prohibits providing ``substantial assistance'' to foreign nationals trying to interfere in our elections.

It is important that we also hold ourselves accountable by not providing aid to those wishing to do us harm.

To be clear, there was foreign interference in the 2016 Presidential election.

The Intelligence Community unanimously concluded that the Russian government interfered by ``blend[ing] covert intelligence operations-- such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or `trolls.' '' After a nearly two-year investigation, Special Counsel Mueller confirmed these core conclusions.

Along the way, his office indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in connection with Russian hacking operations and three companies, including the Internet Research Agency and 13 of its employees for their role in the social media campaign to influence American voters.

Unless we do something, this interference will happen again. And to stop it, we need to not only make clear that interference will result in criminal punishment, we must also update our election laws so that they can combat these new cyber-attacks. This bill does both.

I am introducing this bill today with strong Democratic support, and I would particularly like to thank Senator Blumenthal for his leadership on this issue.

It is my sincere hope, however, that my Republican colleagues will join us in this important effort as well.

The issue I speak about today is one that goes to the core of our democracy. It is a bi-partisan issue that I hope both Democrats and Republicans can join in addressing.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to speak in support of including provisions in any reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that would ensure Tribal governments can prosecute heinous crimes on their lands.

When Congress last reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA, in 2013, we made historic advancements to address domestic violence on Tribal lands. Those important steps must be preserved, but we must also fix gaps in the law that the last reauthorization left open. These gaps allow crimes against children, the elderly, and law enforcement to essentially go unpunished.

As I have mentioned before, I support H.R. 1585, the bill passed by the House to reauthorize VAWA. One of the reasons I support that bill is because it addresses those gaps. Tribes should be able to address violent crimes that happen on their lands and to their most vulnerable populations.

According to a 2016 Justice Department report, ``more than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime.'' That is disturbing. The report also found that 56 percent have experienced sexual violence; 56 percent have experienced physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner; and 49 percent have been stalked.

For me, these numbers are even more upsetting because California has the largest Native American population in the United States. There are almost 700,000 Native Americans living in California, which has 107 federally recognized and 50 unrecognized Tribes.

We must continue to respect Tribal sovereignty, to advance the very core of what sovereignty means: the right of Tribes to exercise dominion and jurisdiction over appalling crimes that occur on Tribal land. For many years, Tribal governments were unable to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians on Tribal lands. Thankfully, that changed when Congress reauthorized VAWA in 2013.

The 2013 reauthorization of VAWA allowed Tribes to exercise their sovereign powers to prosecute, convict, and sentence both Indians and non-Indians who assault Indian spouses or dating partners. In other words, Tribes were finally able to prosecute anyone who committed domestic violence against an Indian on Indian land. These measures were not only necessary; they worked.

In just 5 years, under these new laws, there were 142 arrests, 74 convictions, and 24 more cases pending. These charges were processed through Tribal courts that provided the requisite due process protections under our Constitution. In fact, not a single conviction was overturned because of a lack of due process. We must now build on that success.

The VAWA reauthorization the House passed is a strong bill. I would note that it passed on a significant bipartisan basis, with a vote of 263-158 and 33 Republicans supporting it. This was even in the face of an active opposition campaign conducted by the National Rifle Association.

But importantly, one of the reasons the House bill is a strong bill is because of its Tribal protections. For example, the House bill expands jurisdiction over non-Indians for crimes against children, elders, and law enforcement.

We have a duty to prevent child abuse and elder abuse wherever they occur. It is also only right that Tribes be able to prosecute attacks on law enforcement officers. The people who protect the public deserve protection as well.

These advancements ensure that Tribes are able to address acts of violence, while respecting Tribal sovereignty. We should welcome the opportunity to continue to build on our past successes. I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Ernst on these provisions and hope other Senators with significant stake in this area will join us.

There are several other provisions that I believe should be included in a VAWA reauthorization. Chief among those is keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. I plan to speak about those provisions at a later date, but I mention them now because I believe that we must have a comprehensive approach to addressing domestic violence in this country.

Simply put, all of the different parts of VAWA are linked. For instance, ensuring Tribal governments can prosecute domestic violence committed on Tribal lands is important, but keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers will help protect victims on Tribal lands as well.

The bill passed by the House takes this sort of comprehensive approach by, for example, improving the law in the areas of housing, Tribal protections, and gun safety.

I believe the Senate must do the same. There is no simple way to stop domestic violence, but we have a duty to do all that we can. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of overriding President Trump's veto of the Sanders-Murphy resolution.

The resolution would end U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen, which I believe is long overdue.

Saudi Arabia's conduct in the war in Yemen has been deplorable.

It has purposefully attacked civilian infrastructure, including electricity generation facilities, water sanitation plants and, medical facilities. They have employed cluster munitions in civilian areas and used disproportionate force to attack military targets. In one attack, the coalition killed more than 40 children on a school bus, claiming to this day that the bus was a legitimate military target.

While I am pleased that the United States is no longer refueling coalition aircraft, I support ending all U.S. assistance for the Saudi- led coalition before thousands more die. To date, more than 63,000 people have been killed as a direct result of the conflict. If the conflict continues, an estimated 22,000 more people will be killed this year. That is only direct combat deaths, which is highly misleading. The ongoing war, with U.S. support, has indirectly killed far more, with Yemen's children bearing the brunt of the suffering. Since 2014, more than 85,000 children have died of starvation. That is worth repeating: More than 85,000 children have starved to death in the last 4 years in Yemen.

By the end of 2019, the total number of people in Yemen who will die from a lack of food, health services, and infrastructure is expected to top 131,000. Sixty percent of those killed will be children under the age of 5. In fact, a child in Yemen will die every 12 minutes unless we end this war.

The Saudi coalition's purposeful destruction of Yemen's civilian infrastructure, targeting of medical facilities and withholding of aid has led to the world's worst humanitarian crisis: 14 million people require emergency food aid. A majority of Yemen's population does not have access to clean water, sanitation, or adequate public healthcare. Cholera and other diseases are rampant throughout Yemen as public services have collapsed. There have been 1.2 million suspected cases of cholera, resulting in 2,500 fatalities from this entirely preventable disease. Nearly three-quarters of the population--almost 22 million people--need some form of humanitarian assistance.

Sadly, the actions of the Trump administration have worsened the humanitarian harm. Through the President's ``Muslim ban,'' the administration has effectively trapped civilians in Yemen, sealing their fate.

The Trump administration has not accepted a single refugee from Yemen since October 2017. It has banned permanent immigration from Yemen, including immediate family members of U.S. citizens, and it has stopped issuing temporary visas. The Trump administration has even refused to redesignate Temporary Protected Status for Yemen, making more than a thousand protected Yemenis subject to deportation.

The United States can help end the suffering in Yemen by halting all assistance to the Saudi-led coalition. It could also accept Yemeni refugees, resume normal immigration and extend TPS to Yemenis currently in the United States. The Trump administration has callously decided to do nothing.

The Sanders-Murphy resolution would direct the President to end all U.S. support for the war in Yemen. Given the horrific consequences of the conflict, I strongly supported the resolution when it passed the Senate on March 13, 2019.

I am disappointed but not surprised by the President's veto of it. The President's apparent plan is to continue to support the Saudi coalition even though it is clear that there is no military solution to this conflict. That is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, the President's unconditional support for Saudi Arabia is not limited to its conduct in Yemen. Under the direction of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia murdered, dismembered, and disposed of the remains of a U.S. resident, Jamal Khashoggi. To this day, the Saudi Government continues to blame ``rogue agents'' for this heinous murder. They are holding a secret trial for the so-called accused, refusing to cooperate with international investigations, and continuing to rely on the Trump administration to shield it from accountability.

Any nation that would murder a journalist inside its own diplomatic facility is no friend of the United States. Any leader who would direct another human being to be dismembered with a bone saw is not fit to lead.

Let's be clear: Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for Khashoggi's murder. He is not fit to lead the kingdom and must be held accountable for this crime.

Saudi Arabia has also arrested, tortured and prosecuted peaceful political activists, including women. It has kidnapped and forcefully repatriated

Saudi nationals, executed religious minorities, and even illegally detained U.S. citizens.

The vote before us today would send a clear message to Saudi Arabia that we do not support its heinous policy and actions.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sending that message.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act.''

This bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently block new leases for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon or Washington.

I'm pleased to be joined today by Senators Harris, Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, Menendez, Booker, Sanders, Whitehouse, Markey, Gillibrand, Peters in sponsoring this bill, which has been introduced in every Congress since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010.

11 people were killed and 17 others injured when the Deepwater Horizon well blew out. Oil and gas spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.

Oil slicks covered the Gulf. Tar balls and toxic sludge covered beaches and wetlands. More than one-third of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing.

The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster continue to affect birds and marine life, and marine biologists are still learning about the long-term effects, demonstrating the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction. Californians know all too well the dangers posed by offshore drilling. Before Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez, there was the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara.

A well blowout on an offshore rig spilled more than 3 million gallons of crude oil according to some estimates--the worst spill in U.S. history at the time.

The spill closed local beaches--which were covered by a thick layer of oil--and thousands of marine mammals and birds were killed. Tourists were turned away and commercial fishing operations were halted, hurting the local economy.

After the Santa Barbara spill, California had enough. The State blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters--which extend three miles from the shore--and in 1994 enacted a permanent offshore drilling ban.

Through local ordinances, congressional opposition, and presidential moratoria, all new drilling in federal waters off California has been blocked since 1984. Today, opposition to offshore drilling is higher than ever. Recent polling has found that nearly 70 percent of Californians oppose new drilling off our coast.

Yet, on January 8, 2018, the Trump administration proposed to allow drilling in nearly all Federal waters, including in all three regions off the California coast. The leases are proposed to begin in 2020 and would lead to the first new drilling operations in these areas in more than 35 years. Sixty-eight cities and counties representing a majority of California's population have voiced their strong opposition to President Trump's misguided plan.

In an addition, California's Governor, Senate, Assembly, Attorney General, Coastal Commission, Fish and Game Commission, and State Lands Commission have shared their opposition to the administration's drilling plan. Fortunately, the Administration has already suggested that its plans for offshore drilling have been delayed as they determine how to respond to legal setbacks. The plans are flawed, and should be withdrawn altogether.

Those of us on the Pacific Coast do not want any further offshore oil and gas development.

It is long past time to respect the substantial local opposition by passing the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act'' to permanently ban offshore drilling and protect our coast for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act.''

This bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently block new leases for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon or Washington.

I'm pleased to be joined today by Senators Harris, Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, Menendez, Booker, Sanders, Whitehouse, Markey, Gillibrand, Peters in sponsoring this bill, which has been introduced in every Congress since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010.

11 people were killed and 17 others injured when the Deepwater Horizon well blew out. Oil and gas spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.

Oil slicks covered the Gulf. Tar balls and toxic sludge covered beaches and wetlands. More than one-third of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing.

The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster continue to affect birds and marine life, and marine biologists are still learning about the long-term effects, demonstrating the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction. Californians know all too well the dangers posed by offshore drilling. Before Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez, there was the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara.

A well blowout on an offshore rig spilled more than 3 million gallons of crude oil according to some estimates--the worst spill in U.S. history at the time.

The spill closed local beaches--which were covered by a thick layer of oil--and thousands of marine mammals and birds were killed. Tourists were turned away and commercial fishing operations were halted, hurting the local economy.

After the Santa Barbara spill, California had enough. The State blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters--which extend three miles from the shore--and in 1994 enacted a permanent offshore drilling ban.

Through local ordinances, congressional opposition, and presidential moratoria, all new drilling in federal waters off California has been blocked since 1984. Today, opposition to offshore drilling is higher than ever. Recent polling has found that nearly 70 percent of Californians oppose new drilling off our coast.

Yet, on January 8, 2018, the Trump administration proposed to allow drilling in nearly all Federal waters, including in all three regions off the California coast. The leases are proposed to begin in 2020 and would lead to the first new drilling operations in these areas in more than 35 years. Sixty-eight cities and counties representing a majority of California's population have voiced their strong opposition to President Trump's misguided plan.

In an addition, California's Governor, Senate, Assembly, Attorney General, Coastal Commission, Fish and Game Commission, and State Lands Commission have shared their opposition to the administration's drilling plan. Fortunately, the Administration has already suggested that its plans for offshore drilling have been delayed as they determine how to respond to legal setbacks. The plans are flawed, and should be withdrawn altogether.

Those of us on the Pacific Coast do not want any further offshore oil and gas development.

It is long past time to respect the substantial local opposition by passing the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act'' to permanently ban offshore drilling and protect our coast for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Choose Medicare Act, which would strengthen the Affordable Care Act and help reduce healthcare costs for all Americans.

This commonsense bill would create a public healthcare option based on Medicare that would increase choice and competition in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, including California's state exchange, Covered California.

I would also allow the Secretary of Health Human Services to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, increase healthcare subsidies for middle-income Americans, and allow the federal government to block unreasonable health insurance rate increases.

The majority of Americans support expanding healthcare choices to achieve universal coverage and lower costs for everyone. However, too many Americans are still unable to afford a private plan that covers the care they need. The Choose Medicare Act would fix this by creating a public health insurance plan that would compete alongside private insurers in the individual and group insurance marketplaces.

Known as Medicare Part E, the public option health plan would offer comprehensive coverage and all of the benefits covered under traditional Medicare. Every doctor that accepts traditional Medicare would also be enrolled as a provider for the public health plan,

giving patients access to a large network of doctors across the country. It would also benefit employers. Around half of Californians receive their health insurance through their work. The Choose Medicare Act would give them more options, allowing large employers to choose a plan modeled on traditional Medicare for their workers. Just as they do now, employers would cover a portion of the cost of their employees' coverage.

Having access to this new public option would increase competition and choice in the employer market, and the public plan's negotiating power would help reduce health costs for employers, not just individuals. Moreover, our bill would ensure that people who receive their health coverage through the public option would be able to keep their health insurance when they change employers. Americans would no longer feel stuck in low-paying jobs because they are worried about losing their health insurance.

The Choose Medicare Act would also provide funding for a new reinsurance program to partially offset the high healthcare costs paid by insurers for the sickest individuals. This reinsurance program would improve insurer participation in the Affordable Care Act exchanges and lower premiums for everyone. It would also give States the option to use this funding to address high out of-pocket costs, such as copayments, coinsurance, premiums, and deductibles.

I am proud to note that this bill includes rate review legislation I have previously introduced to help keep insurance premiums down. Rather than allowing American workers to suffer under excessive premium increases, our bill would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to review, modify, and reject unjustified premium increases in States where the insurance commissioner does not have that authority.

This review process has already been successful in States where it was implemented. Our bill would ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, is protected from unreasonable premiums increases.

The rising cost of drug pricing is also a huge problem in our healthcare system. Our bill would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate lower drug prices with manufacturers, reducing the amount patients pay at the pharmacy.

After 1 year of negotiations, if the Secretary and drug manufacturers are unable to agree on a fair price, the Secretary will then be able to use the price that the Department of Veterans Affairs or other Federal agencies that purchase prescription drugs already use.

Finally, our bill would protect America's seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare from unlimited out-of-pocket costs by adding an annual out-of-pocket maximum for what they can pay. Seniors would no longer be burdened with mounting medical costs because they are enrolled in Medicare instead of private insurance.

I want to thank Senator Merkley and Senator Murphy for leading our efforts on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much-needed, commonsense bill to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, give consumers more choices when picking their healthcare plan, and make healthcare more affordable for all.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act,'' which would help address the concerning rise of electronic cigarette use among America's youth.

This common-sense bill would protect children by requiring online retailers of e-cigarettes to meet the same standards as those that sell regular cigarettes and other tobacco products online.

E-cigarette use among teenagers has increased dramatically over the past few years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20 percent of high school students used electronic cigarettes in 2018. In comparison, only about 1.5 percent of high school students reportedly used e-cigarettes in 2011.

Even more disturbing, the rise of teenage use of e-cigarettes appears to be accelerating. Between 2017 and 2018, e-cigarettes use among high school-aged children jumped 78%. Today, e-cigarettes have become the most commonly used tobacco product among America's youth. These severe levels of e-cigarette use by middle and high school-aged children are staggering.

According to a U.S. Surgeon General report on e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, the developing adolescent brain is uniquely sensitive to nicotine. Studies have also shown that the development of the brain during adolescence can be permanently altered by nicotine. As a result, children exposed to nicotine may be at greater risk for acting out drug-seeking behaviors, experiencing deficits in attention and cognition, and suffering from mood disorders. These effects may continue into adulthood, long after e-cigarette use has stopped.

Given the effects of nicotine on children, it is critical that we close any legal loopholes that have allowed underage youth to gain access to tobacco, particularly through e-cigarettes.

Among underage e-cigarette users, 86 percent reported that they obtained the product from somewhere other than a retail store. And a recent survey of adolescent e-cigarette users showed that 32 percent of them reported purchasing their products online, making online sales the single largest source of underage purchases.

Our legislation would build off the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act,'' which has been a tremendous success in preventing underage use of cigarettes. Since it passed, the number of middle and high school students who use cigarettes has been nearly cut in half. We should expand on this success by requiring e-cigarette retailers to meet the same requirements as those that sell regular cigarettes online.

By applying the same safeguards that have worked with online sales of regular 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.

In addition, our bill requires deliveries of e-cigarettes to comply with relevant State tobacco taxes and reporting requirements, as is currently required of online sales of regular cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. E-cigarette retailers will also need to register and maintain a record of their online sales, which will be accessible to State and Federal law officials. Law enforcement will be able to identify and shut down online vendors that are systematically breaking the law by marketing their e-cigarette products to children.

This bill complements efforts by the Food and Drug Administration, which has recognized the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use and proposed a number of policies meant to prevent underage retail purchases, limit flavors that appeal to children, and enforce age verifications.

Over the last 50 years, the United States has made remarkable progress in reducing the number of Americans that use tobacco products. However, the dramatic recent rise of e-cigarette use among our youth threatens that progress and requires a strong response.

I want to thank Senator Cornyn for joining me in introducing legislation on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to address the epidemic of e-cigarette use among America's youth. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.