Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have been watching as Senators have come to the floor over the past couple days to pay tribute to John McCain, to share their stories, and to reflect on a full life of service to his country.

I have known John McCain for 25 years, not as long as some of my colleagues, but long enough to take the measure of the man and to appreciate his dedication to his family, to the U.S. military, to the Senate, to Arizona, and to the Nation.

He was a statesman and a global citizen, and our loss is all the deeper because we are living in a time where people like John are in short supply.

Like many others, I had my disagreements with John and found myself on the wrong end of his temper, but more often, I saw him as a man of ideals and a man who stood up for what he believed in.

For me, nowhere was this as strong and clear as on the issue of torture, and I wanted to talk a little bit about that today and really to share my appreciation for him.

It was June 2013, and John McCain and I were visiting Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to see the detention facilities that had been hastily put together after the invasion of Afghanistan in September 2001. It was a hot, sunny, sultry day. We had toured the base, received briefings and boxed lunches from the commander, and looked at three separate detention facilities.

It was clear that the officers and enlisted personnel were working under difficult conditions, dealing with enemy combatants with little contact with the outside world and no sense of what would happen to them.

John McCain, as always, praised the troops for their service and took whatever time was required to take pictures with them, but he, like me and like Presidents Bush and Obama, had called for Guantanamo to shut down.

I remember we were flying home on the last flight of the day--after two boat rides, after seeing the facility where forced intubations were done to feed hunger-striking detainees, and after hearing about the daily infractions committed by the detainees against the guards.

The conversation turned to the conditions of detention we had just seen and the detainees being held at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.

John opened up about his years in the Navy and his time as a prisoner of war.

I learned for the first time the depth and breadth of his suffering, but also his perseverance and his intensity.

John told us about his years as a captive in Hanoi and how one of the things he and his fellow prisoners did was work out a tap code, similar to Morse code.

They tapped on walls, day after day, year after year. They tapped out messages. I read earlier this week of an account of tapping out poems that other POWs had learned in school.

So there we were on that airplane, flying to Washington from Guantanamo Bay, and John starts tapping, speaking using his code. After all those years, he could still use the tap code like second nature.

John was unusual, but in a very good way.

As the son and grandson of admirals, John was born and bred in military tradition and the ideals of public service. He worried that he wouldn't live up to his family's traditions or expectations. John often joked about how bad of a student he was at Annapolis, but even though his father was an admiral and he could have used the help, John never sought nor accepted special treatment.

John was brutalized. Although both arms and a leg were broken in a plane crash in Vietnam, he received no medical treatment. His torturers regularly beat him, rebreaking one arm and cracking his ribs. He was held in solitary confinement for years, in unimaginable conditions.

When the North Vietnamese offered to release John early, he refused. Other servicemen had been in custody longer, and he wasn't going to allow his father and his grandfather's position to bring him special favor.

But John was able to emerge from that hell with a sense of humor and such an amazing strength of purpose. How he did so is simply remarkable.

I knew John for decades, but it was just in the last 5 years that I worked particularly close with him on the issue of torture.

He was already recognized in the Senate as the leader on torture issues, having recently authored the Detainee Treatment Act and important amendments to the Military Commissions Act to ban cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment during the Bush administration.

Starting in 2009, the Intelligence Committee began work on what ended up being a 7,000-page report on the CIA detention and interrogation program after 9/11.

By the time we were finishing the report, John was chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

As an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee, he was aware of what our investigation had found, and he knew how controversial our findings would be. Nonetheless, he approached me and said he wanted to help. To say I was grateful would be an understatement.

John had an innate and immutable sense of what was right. More to the point, he knew from personal experience what torture can do, and he knew that torture doesn't work to elicit accurate information. It is wrong, and we shouldn't practice it.

I remember the day we released the report. I spoke on the floor about the report and everything we found, but no one could match the eloquence of John, who spoke immediately after me. I was so grateful to have a friend and a partner, literally standing across the aisle on that day.

Here is what he said about the use of torture: ``I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.

``I know victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.

``I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.

``Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies--our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights which are protected by international conventions the United States not only joined but for the most part authored.''

There was no better spokesman against torture or for the report. When John McCain spoke on this floor in support of this report, people took notice and paid attention.

It wasn't just John's experience that made him so powerful on this subject. You could tell that he wholeheartedly believed what he was saying.

Here is how John wrapped up his remarks that day: ``We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values and influencing other nations to embrace them.

``When we fight to defend our security, we fight also for an idea-- not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a King--but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights.

``How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves, even momentarily.''

I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's remarks from December 9, 2014, be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Of course, John also didn't just talk about those issues that he cared deeply about; he also acted.

We knew the report would shine a light on what the CIA had done, but it didn't do anything concrete to make sure this would never happen again.

John knew how the prior White House and Department of Justice had concocted twisted legal analyses that said techniques like stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding did not violate existing law. He had already passed legislation to prevent abuses by the Department of Defense, going back to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

The Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 had given the legal approval to the CIA, even though laws were already on the books that clearly prohibited these acts.

U.S. domestic law already banned the use of torture, which it defined as ``an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.''

The United States was and remains a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, which similarly banned torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment.

Nonetheless, the CIA had developed--through the use of two contractors, so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, and the Department of Justice had said they were acceptable.

John believed, as did I, that if lawyers could find legal loopholes to allow the CIA to waterboard people in its custody, then the laws needed to be tightened.

We came up with a simple fix to make the law explicit and crystal clear. In an amendment that John sponsored to the defense authorization bill, we applied the restrictions of the Army Field Manual across the government, including to the CIA.

This manual not only bans specific interrogation techniques; it lays out those techniques that are authorized for use. Never again could a DOJ lawyer or a CIA interrogator mistake what was lawful from what was not.

The amendment also mandated that the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed access to all detainees in U.S. custody, thereby ending the possibility of secret, undisclosed detention.

With his leadership, the amendment passed by a strong 78-21 vote, so that torture and cruel and degrading treatment will never be allowed.

Of course, John was prolific during his years in the Senate, and many Senators have spoken about other aspects of his work.

He traveled the world as a champion for democracy, visiting countries like Syria and Ukraine and doing all he could to improve the lives of millions.

He was a critical player in the process to restart diplomatic relations with Vietnam.

John was never afraid to reach across the aisle, most notably when he joined with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform legislation.

John had a firm sense of right and wrong, and you saw that every day in the issues he worked on.

John McCain's life was one of strength and of commitment. He was a great patriot and a fine, fine U.S. Senator. He worked for this country to better it for 60 years. That is a pretty good record, and I am thankful for the opportunity to have known him and worked with him.

To Cindy and the rest of John's family, my heart goes out to you, but rest well knowing that you had a great man in your lives.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 3D Gun Safety Act and the Untraceable Firearms Act. I applaud my colleagues, Senators Nelson, Blumenthal, and Markey, for their work on these bills.

Days ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a 31-percent increase in homicides involving guns between 2014 and 2016.

In 2016 alone, there were 14,415 gun homicides in America.

I have asked over and over, what is it going to take? When are we, as a nation, going to act and do something to save lives that are needlessly lost year after year?

Yet, instead of working to enact commonsense, gun safety measures to keep families, schools, and children safe, the Trump administration took a reckless and dangerous step that puts all of us in danger.

The Trump administration has now allowed a private company to publish step-by-step instructions on how to manufacture assault weapons and other guns using a 3D printer.

These instructions are going to be available on the internet, for anyone to use and follow, starting tomorrow. Think about that.

The Trump administration is giving away free instructions on how to manufacture weapons of war to anyone with a 3D printer, which can be bought online for less than $1,000.

These people could be dangerous criminals, terrorists, children, or those who suffer from mental illness.

I think this is absolutely unconscionable.

We should be working on ways to stop gun violence and keep our communities safe, not expand the proliferation of these dangerous weapons.

Several of us have written to the Justice Department and the State Department asking them to reverse this decision.

We have also introduced legislation today. The 3D Gun Safety Act, introduced by Senator Nelson, would prevent anyone from intentionally publishing 3D gun designs.

In addition, multiple state attorneys general have now sued the Trump administration and the purveyor of the 3D gun designs to prevent the dissemination of the 3D gun design instructions.

I am also pleased to support Senator Blumenthal's bill, the Untraceable Firearms Act, which closes legal loopholes that allow individuals to build their own untraceable firearms using ``gun-making kits.''

Guns made from these kits are known as ghost guns because the guns do not have serial numbers or any other traceable features.

In other words, ghost guns--like 3D guns--are dangerous because any person, even those prohibited under Federal law from possessing guns, can just make a gun at home.

This is already happening.

For example, last November, a 44-year-old man named Kevin Janson Neal killed five people and injured eight others with a ghost gun in Tehama County, CA.

Neal made the ghost gun at home because he himself could not legally purchase a gun after being ordered to relinquish all guns under court order months before.

Tragically, with his ghost gun in hand, Neal shot his wife, his neighbors, and then went to a nearby elementary school.

He crashed through the elementary school gates with a truck, got out, and started firing in the center of the school's quad and at nearby windows and walls.

Neal fired approximately 100 rounds at the school, injuring seven children.

He did all of this with his homemade AR-15 military-style rifle.

We must act in the face of the real threat of untraceable ghost guns and 3D-printed firearms.

Our communities are at risk, and as lawmakers it is our solemn duty to act and protect our communities. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these bills.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I rise today to express concern with S. 118, the Reinforcing American- Made Products Act, because it would preempt California's strong ``Made in America'' labeling standards.

California requires that at least 90 percent of a final product be composed of American-made parts to use the label--the strongest standard in the Nation.

This bill would undo California's tough standard, setting instead a watered-down national standard. Companies could then confuse consumers by flooding the market with products sold under the ``Made in America'' label that were built using more foreign-made components. That is why the California attorney general and the Consumer Federation of California support keeping California's strong standards in place.

The ``Made in America'' label should promote U.S. manufacturing and give consumers confidence that they are supporting American jobs. Consumers want to know that products bearing the ``Made in America'' label are truly made in America. Because this would undermine that confidence and preempt California's strong standards, I believe this bill should not move by unanimous consent. Regretfully, for those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protect Our Food From Phthalate Contamination Act. This bill would ban chemicals called ortho-phthalates from materials that come in contact with our food, because these phthalates have been found to actually leach into what we eat.

Phthalates have been known to interfere with the body's hormones, leading to a range of health concerns including reproductive harm. These chemicals have also been linked to learning and behavior problems in children and insulin resistance in adolescents and adults.

According to a recent study, individuals who regularly eat out had 30 percent higher phthalate levels. The findings for teenagers are particularly troubling, where testing showed phthalate levels 55 percent higher than people who ate at home. Enjoying a meal out or using packaged food to prepare meals on a busy schedule shouldn't come with the cost of chemical exposure that can cause harm.

We've already banned certain phthalates from children's toys due to serious health concerns, and now we need to remove the exposure through the food we eat. Phthalates can be found throughout the food supply chain, from the plastic gloves worn to handle food to the containers and wrappings used for packaging.

This legislation would specifically ban the type of phthalates, ortho-phthalates, currently being used in some food production and packaging, and require that any substance used as a replacement is also safe. The bill would implement the ban over the course of two years, so that companies have time to phase out these harmful chemicals.

This bill is supported by several health and consumer organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Health Strategy Center, Environmental Working Group, and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

I appreciate the support of my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, who is an original cosponsor of the bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protect Our Food From Phthalate Contamination Act. This bill would ban chemicals called ortho-phthalates from materials that come in contact with our food, because these phthalates have been found to actually leach into what we eat.

Phthalates have been known to interfere with the body's hormones, leading to a range of health concerns including reproductive harm. These chemicals have also been linked to learning and behavior problems in children and insulin resistance in adolescents and adults.

According to a recent study, individuals who regularly eat out had 30 percent higher phthalate levels. The findings for teenagers are particularly troubling, where testing showed phthalate levels 55 percent higher than people who ate at home. Enjoying a meal out or using packaged food to prepare meals on a busy schedule shouldn't come with the cost of chemical exposure that can cause harm.

We've already banned certain phthalates from children's toys due to serious health concerns, and now we need to remove the exposure through the food we eat. Phthalates can be found throughout the food supply chain, from the plastic gloves worn to handle food to the containers and wrappings used for packaging.

This legislation would specifically ban the type of phthalates, ortho-phthalates, currently being used in some food production and packaging, and require that any substance used as a replacement is also safe. The bill would implement the ban over the course of two years, so that companies have time to phase out these harmful chemicals.

This bill is supported by several health and consumer organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Health Strategy Center, Environmental Working Group, and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

I appreciate the support of my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, who is an original cosponsor of the bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the appropriations package currently under consideration, particularly the section dealing with Energy and Water Development appropriations.

I know my good friend Senator Alexander, the chairman of our Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee, spoke last evening. I have served as chairman or ranking member of that committee for the past 5 years--we have alternated--and it has been a real pleasure and a great privilege for me to work with him.

I also want to thank Senator Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy. Perhaps people don't know this, but they have taken truly meaningful steps to return us to regular order. It has been a long time coming, and I truly hope it can be maintained. I have been on the Appropriations Committee for more than two decades, and I have been saddened to watch as we have descended into partisanship year after year and lessened our influence as a committee.

Believe it or not, it has been 21 years since Congress passed all 12 appropriations bills by October 1. Since then, we have just staggered through a series of continuing resolutions and omnibuses. So I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for supporting this bill during markup, where we saw a vote of 30 to 1. I hope we will be able to maintain that spirit of bipartisanship on the floor, and I urge my colleagues to refrain from offering poison pill amendments, which would derail our progress.

I believe this is a fair bill. It contains tradeoffs and hard choices. I certainly don't agree with everything in it--particularly the nuclear weapons portion--but I support passage of the bill by the Senate.

Overall, the bill provides $43.8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy, and other agencies. This is an increase of $566 million over fiscal year 2018 levels.

I want to highlight the fact that we received an increase in our nondefense allocation of $474 million above 2018. This is a very generous allocation, and it has allowed us to do the following: to increase funding for reclamation programs that prevent and mitigate the effect of drought throughout 19 western States; to increase funding for critical Army Corps infrastructure; and to increase funding for the Office of Science, the largest single supporter of basic scientific research in the United States.

We were also able to continue strong support for applied energy programs, particularly those that fund the development of carbon-free renewable technologies.

Even with a more modest defense allocation, we fund efforts to address the environmental legacy of the Cold War in Tennessee, South Carolina, New Mexico, Washington, and other States.

The bill also funds key priorities in nuclear nonproliferation, including securing radiological materials in hospitals and industrial facilities in this country and helping our international partners do the same.

Before I turn to nuclear weapons, I wish to speak briefly about nuclear waste. There are over 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel stored at 77 reactor sites in 33 States. The vast majority of that is still stored in wet pools. This is important because every one of us has communities struggling to deal with their legacy nuclear waste. For the sixth year in a row, this bill includes a provision that would create a nuclear waste pilot program to allow for interim, consent-based storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel. But I want to say to all my colleagues in the Senate, we need your support to get this

done. We have a bipartisan path here in the Senate, but the House won't budge. They won't support any nuclear waste proposal that isn't Yucca Mountain. After all these years that have gone by, we can't let another year go by with no movement on nuclear waste. We need the Senate to be united, and we need your help to push the House to stop holding our bipartisan pilot program hostage to their impossible demands on Yucca Mountain.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this bill includes the $65 million requested by the Trump administration to begin to modify the existing W76 warhead for the new low-yield weapon. If fully funded, this new nuclear capability will be completed in just 2 years.

I strongly oppose funding for this new nuclear weapon. I firmly believe we already have enough nuclear weapons, and the military actually agrees. When testifying before Congress on March 20, 2018, Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said:

I have everything I need today to deter Russia from doing

anything against the United States of America. We're fully

ready against any threat that exists today, without a doubt.

That is the head of our nuclear forces saying he has everything he needs. So why waste money on new nuclear weapons the military doesn't need?

Not only do I share General Hyten's belief that we already have enough nuclear weapons in general, but I also believe we definitely don't need any low-yield nuclear weapons in particular.

The Trump administration has argued that it needs this new nuclear weapon in order to have a proportionate response to a Russian first-use of a low-yield weapon. That line of argument makes clear that the administration is actually contemplating using nuclear weapons to fight limited nuclear wars. Just think about it. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. We are kidding ourselves if we think there is, and the military agrees.

In February, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said:

I don't think there is any such thing as a ``tactical

nuclear weapon.'' Any nuclear weapon used any time is a

strategic game-changer.

I share Secretary Mattis's view. I don't believe there is any such thing as a limited nuclear war. Once a nuclear weapon is used by any country against any target, that is the end of us. Therefore, I do not see any reason to develop low-yield weapons.

We have steadfastly funded the modernization of our nuclear stockpile and its supporting infrastructure over the past 8 years. Altogether, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next 30 years, we will spend $1.7 trillion to upgrade and maintain nearly all of our nuclear forces. But the low-yield submarine launched ballistic missile warhead is separate and apart from the scope of that effort. Funding it simply does not make sense from either a budgetary or a strategic perspective.

Despite my opposition to funding for this nuclear warhead, I do recognize that, in other ways, this is a balanced bill. It builds on the investments we were able to make in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. It provides another $200 million for water projects in the West, and it continues investments in clean technologies that will help combat the effects of climate change. It is not perfect. It is not the bill I would have written if I were chairman, but on balance, I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Once again, it is a great pleasure for me to work with my chairman. We have worked together now for over 5 years on this committee and produced a bill every year. Both of us have made compromises, and I am very proud of the relationship. I thank the chairman.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my vote in opposition to the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

First, I would like to thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for including the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act in this defense authorization bill.

I worked with Senator Cornyn to develop this important piece of legislation to update the role of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS.

Our bill would expand CFIUS's authority to review foreign investments in the United States and potentially block those that pose a risk to our national security. I hope our bill is retained by the conferees and included in the final defense authorization bill so that it can become law.

The defense bill we are considering today also authorizes funding for a number of programs critical to California's defense industry. That includes funding for three ships: two oilers and an additional expeditionary support base ship. All three are vital to the shipbuilding industry in southern California.

The bill also continues production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-18 Super Hornet aircraft, which, when coupled with the B-21 Raider, will help maintain California's edge in aerospace.

However, I am deeply disappointed that the defense authorization bill also includes two nuclear weapons-related provisions that I strongly oppose.

The first is the inclusion of $65 million to develop a new low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile. I vehemently oppose the development of any new nuclear weapons, and I oppose the funding included in this bill for that purpose.

I remember when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is seared into my memory.

My greatest hope is that humanity will never see the use of nuclear weapons again. My deepest fear, however, is that so-called low-yield nuclear weapons make such a repetition more--not less--likely.

The Trump administration has argued that it needs new nuclear weapons to respond in kind to a potential Russian first-use of a low-yield weapon. That line of argument makes clear that the Trump administration is contemplating actually using nuclear weapons to fight ``limited'' nuclear wars. We are kidding ourselves if we think there is such a thing as a ``limited'' nuclear war.

We should listen to the wise words of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who said in February: ``I don't think there is any such thing as a `tactical nuclear weapon.' Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer.'' That is particularly true with the low-yield weapon included in this bill. We already have 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons. We have hundreds more low-yield weapons.

We are building new nuclear ballistic missile submarines, new long- range bombers, new intercontinental ballistic missiles, new nuclear cruise missiles, and new fighter aircraft capable of delivering advanced gravity bombs. We are also making investments to extend the life of our existing warheads.

We have a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. We do not need to build new nuclear weapons, particularly for President Trump.

While I oppose this new low-yield weapon, I appreciate that it has been the subject of considerable congressional debate and requires an explicit congressional authorization to develop. However, that explicit congressional authorization to develop new nuclear weapons will no longer be required if this defense bill becomes law.

That is because, during the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup of the bill, Senator Cotton offered an amendment to eliminate all existing restrictions on the development of new, low-yield weapons.

His amendment, which passed on a party line vote, would allow the Secretary of Energy to develop new weapons simply by requesting funding to do so. Removing these restrictions is an abdication of our constitutional and moral responsibility to oversee spending on the world's most dangerous weapons. I cannot support this change to Congress's authority, and therefore I am compelled to vote against the defense authorization bill because of it.

As this bill moves forward, I urge the conference committee to reject the Cotton amendment and retain longstanding restrictions on the development of new low-yield nuclear weapons.

Congress should not cede its authority over weapons that have the capacity to destroy us all to President Trump.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution recognizing--and commending--the Golden State Warriors for overcoming a battle-tested season to prevail as the 2017-2018 NBA World Champions.

After going 16 and 5 in the postseason and sweeping the Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA Finals, the Warriors have become back-to-back champions for the first time in franchise history, and have won three championships in the past four years.

They are now appropriately considered an NBA dynasty, and can easily lay claim to being the team of this decade. They are also now recognized as one of the greatest teams ever assembled. And what is frightening for the rest of the league, is that it appears this team is far from finished.

These playoffs helped bring out the best in these Warriors. After a tough seven game series in the NBA Western Conference Finals against the Houston Rockets, the team strung together a dominant performance in the Finals against the Cavaliers. Their brilliant performance in the finals was marked by just how beautiful this team plays. From the superstars on the team to the last person on the bench, the team exhibited dynamic teamwork, selflessness, and infectious joy.

Their on-court style, which I have come to enjoy so much, is a reflection of the entire organization. I want to commend everyone who is a part of the organization--the video interns, the training staff, the owners, the coaches, the players and fans. They all deserve a tremendous amount of credit for winning again this year with consistency and class.

Although at times it has appeared too easy for the Warriors, this season has been anything but easy. It was a season marked by constant struggle and obstacles. When starters were sidelined due to injury throughout the season and playoffs, bench players stepped in and stepped up, revealing, yet again, the team's depth and heart.

And when the Warriors were pushed to the brink of elimination, they pulled together as a team and strung together two gutsy wins to make it back to the NBA Finals for the fourth straight year.

It was indeed a grueling season. For four years now, they have been the ``hunted'' rather than the ``hunter,'' and absorbed the best shots from teams around the league. When things got tough throughout the season and the players and coaches could have pointed fingers at each other, this team never gave in. They kept fighting and fighting until they made it back to the mountain top, together.

What I am equally proud of about this team is that it has been a positive force within the Bay Area community since 2012. Over the past several years, the Warriors Foundation has awarded $6.2 million in grants to support educational initiatives in Alameda and San Francisco Counties. The Foundation, along with individual players, have also refurbished over 70 basketball courts throughout the Bay, creating safe and beautiful places for our young people to play. They are a team that not only plays the right way on the court, but they are also a team that makes the right impact off of the court.

So, to reigning two-time NBA Finals MVP Kevin Durant, Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Coach Steve Kerr, Coach Brown, Joe Lacob, Peter Guber, Rick Welts, Bob Myers and all of the players, coaches, staff, family, friends and fans, I say, thank you.

Thank you for making California proud both on and off the court, and congratulations on a job well-done for a second year in a row.

The only question now is, ``can you make it three?''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Reed's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Reed amendment would restore congressional oversight of the development of new, low-yield nuclear weapons.

Since 1994, Congress has limited the Department of Energy's work on low-yield weapons. We have done so for two reasons.

First, many of us believe the true purpose of low-yield nuclear weapons is not to deter nuclear attack, but rather to fight unwinnable nuclear wars. We are only fooling ourselves if we believe nuclear wars can be won.

Second, we already have sufficient low-yield capabilities. They include nuclear cruise missiles and the B-61 gravity bomb. In fact, today, we are modernizing both.

We are developing the LRSO, a nuclear cruise missile, at a cost of nearly $20 billion, and we are modernizing the B-61 gravity bomb at a cost of $8 billion. That is nearly $30 billion toward new, low-yield capabilities; yet some in this body would go further.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup of the NDAA, Senator Cotton offered an amendment to eliminate all existing restrictions on the development of new, low-yield weapons. His amendment, which passed on a party line vote, would allow the Secretary of Energy to develop new weapons simply by requesting funding to do so.

That is an abdication of our constitutional responsibility to oversee spending on the world's most dangerous weapons. I cannot support this action and will oppose this NDAA if Senator Cotton's amendment is retained.

It was not long ago that we debated this very issue. We would be wise to recall what happened. In 2002, the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review urged Congress to loosen congressional restrictions on low-yield weapons. I worked with Senator Kennedy to stop those efforts. With the help of Senator John Warner, we decided that we would allow basic research, but advanced development of new low-yield nuclear weapons would require congressional authorization. That position carried the day by a vote of 96-0 here in the Senate.

Senator Reed's amendment before us today would preserve Congress's existing role to oversee the development of new nuclear weapons.

I believe it is absolutely critical that we retain our authority, and I urge my colleagues to support the Reed amendment.

Amendment No. 2366

Mr. President, I rise to solemnly remember the 49 individuals who died and the 53 who were wounded at Pulse Orlando, an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, FL, 2 years ago.

I will never forget waking up in the early hours that Sunday, to hear that a 29-year-old gunman, armed with a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle, walked into a nightclub and massacred 49 individuals in one of the deadliest mass shootings ever witnessed in our country.

To this day, so many lives impacted from the attack are still on the long road to recovery and healing. To all of the families and loved ones of those who were lost and injured during the attack, please continue to accept my deepest condolences.

Please also know I will not rest until our country is safe from gun violence. We cannot simply sit back and do nothing while mass shootings continue to devastate our communities, our places of worship, our music venues, our schools, and our workplaces.

In the days that followed the Pulse nightclub attack, I, along with Senator Nelson and a number of my colleagues, resurrected calls for legislation to allow the FBI to deny gun transfers to known or suspected terrorists who pose a public safety risk.

The legislation was a direct response to Pulse. In fact, the gunman in Orlando was ISIL-inspired and fueled by hateful extremism and had previously been placed on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist after earlier investigative warnings to the FBI were made about him.

And, yet, the man was allowed to walk into a gun store, pass a background check without any notification to the FBI, and walk out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a modern assault rifle with devastating killing capability.

Alarming statistics over a 10-year period demonstrate that, from February 2004 through December 2014, there were 2,233 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist identified in Federal terrorist watchlist records attempted to buy or receive a gun or explosives.

In 91 percent of these cases--a total of 2,043 different times--the known or suspected terrorist was cleared to buy or receive the firearm or explosives. In 2013 and 2014 alone, FBI data specifically showed that individuals on terrorist watchlists were involved in firearm- related background checks 485 times, and 455 of those--about 94 percent--were allowed to proceed.

It appeared there was widespread agreement to finally take action and ensure that no one who is a known or suspected terrorist, with ISIL affiliations, would be allowed to walk into a gun store and pass a Federal background check to obtain a gun. However, because of the gun lobby's strident opposition, and Republican submission to that opposition, the legislation withered and failed.

Unfortunately, the problem of mass shootings has continued to devastate this Nation. In October 2017 in Las Vegas, a single gunman with multiple assault rifles outfitted with bump stocks killed 58 people gathered to listen to a concert from his hotel room window. Numerous eyewitness accounts described the scene as a ``warzone.''

In Sutherland Springs, TX, in November 2017, a gunman walked into a church sanctuary on a Sunday, and killed 26 people, ranging from the elderly to young children.

Earlier this year, a 19-year-old gunman who legally purchased an AR- 15 style rifle just after his 18th birthday used it to kill 14 of his former high school classmates and three educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL.

These shootings are heartbreaking. Time and again, I have stood here to ask my colleagues to show courage, to stand up to the gun lobby, and do something. These calls are only growing louder. Young people are now also taking to the streets like never before and demanding action.

They are calling for weapons of war to be taken off of our streets, and they are calling for universal background checks. They are fighting for changes to our laws because they don't want to live in a country where although we are 4.4 percent of the world's population, we possess over 44 percent of the world's firearms.

They don't want to live in a country where it is more politically expedient to bar doorways at schools, rather than ban assault weapons. They are calling for lawmakers to stand up and do what is right: to close loopholes in our gun laws and decisively take steps so they feel safe in their schools, their churches, and their communities.

Their sentiment is captured powerfully in an article I would like to share, that was written by Glennon Doyle Melton, an author and mother of three children.

``Two weeks ago, my second and fourth grade daughters came home from school and told me that they'd had a code red drill... In case someone tries to kill us. We had to all hide in the bathroom together and be really quiet. It was really scary but the teacher said if there was a real man with a gun trying to find us, she'd cover us up and protect us from him. Tommy started crying. I tried to be brave.''

She continued: ``My three-year-old nephew had the same drill at his preschool in Virginia. Three-year-old American babies and teachers-- hiding in bathrooms, holding hands, preparing for death. We are saying to teachers: arm yourselves and fight men with assault weapons because we are too cowardly to fight the gun lobby.

``We are saying to a terrified generation of American children--We will not do what it takes to protect you. We will not even try. So just be very quiet, hide and wait. Hold your breath. Shhh.''

By failing to act, year after year, these children all across our country are being forced to live in fear and have these kinds of ``trainings.''

We are asking our teachers to not focus on teaching math and English, but to wield weapons and fight off those armed to the teeth with military-style weapons. That can't be the solution.

We can no longer remain silent. We can no longer do nothing. We must stand up and fight. Our children and the generations to come demand it. I hope we will finally take action and pass these commonsense bills.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson will be introducing a House companion measure this week as well.

The CCWD is an urban water agency serving approximately 500,000 people in the eastern part of the San Francisco Bay Area region in Northern California. CCWD operates and maintains the Contra Costa Canal System, a unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP),

which is owned by the United States and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior.

The Contra Costa Canal System involves 48 miles of earthen canals with about 30 miles of laterals which deliver water to cities from the canal. Although the canal has been maintained, it poses a safety and flood risk. Notwithstanding significant security fencing, 81 people have tragically been drowned since the canal was placed into service and hundreds of others have been rescued.

The bill I am introducing today would transfer title to the canal system to CCWD so it can begin the process of replacing this old, earthen canal with a secure buried pipeline. The conversion of the canal to a pipeline will cost CCWD approximately $650 million.

CCWD has already repaid Reclamation for costs of constructing the project. After title transfer of the canal is completed, CCWD would remain a CVP M&I customer as set forth in the Long-term Renewal Contract between the United States and CCWD providing for Project Water Service and for Facilities Repayment (Contract No. I75r-3401 A-LTR1 May 10, 2005) (CVP Contract). This title transfer bill was anticipated in Article 28.3 of the CVP Contract which allows for transfer of title to the Contra Costa Canal System upon repayment of all outstanding capitalized costs of the facilities and upon authorization of Congress.

Before title transfer occurs, there will be further environmental review, including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA).

Title Transfer will result in lower costs and reduced administrative burden, provide greater flexibility in management of the asset, and will eliminate flood and other safety concerns. When the canal was originally built, there was no one around it. Now there are many homes and neighborhood along both sides of the structure. If the canal were to fail as has occurred with other earthen canals, homes would be flooded, and millions of dollars of property would be destroyed.

Title transfer would transfer this health and safety liability for the canal to CCWD. Reclamation also benefits through lower costs and reduced administrative burden. Currently, work on the Canal System requires varying levels of coordination and documentation with Reclamation for planning, design, project implementation, maintenance, and operation.

CCWD has been responsible for O&M of the Canal System for almost 50 years and its staff is intimately familiar with the system. CCWD ownership of the Canal System would eliminate much of this duplicative consultation. CCWD now finds it is doing much of the same work Reclamation conducts in its oversight and review responsibilities. Third parties including local cities, Contra Costa County, local and regional agencies, including recreation partners, and utilities working within the Canal System rights-of-way all of whom would also benefit from removing the additional layer of federal review and approval bureaucracy that increases costs and causes schedule delays. I understand that the other local partners have all expressed support for this legislation.

Title Transfer to CCWD would also relieve the United States of any risk of canal failure due to erosion or earthquake.

Ultimately, CCWD is seeking authorization to transfer title to all Project Works associated with the Contra Costa Canal Unit. Construction of the Rock Slough Fish Screen was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2011, and the bill I am introducing today would direct the transfer of title of Rock Slough Fish Screen following a mutual agreement on the transfer between CCWD and Reclamation.

Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) operates three screened intakes in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta--Rock Slough, Old River and Middle River. CCWD owns the latter two; the US Bureau of Reclamation owns Rock Slough. Operations at all three intakes are covered by the biological opinions on the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (USFWS 2008 and NMFS 2009) as well as separate opinions obtained for the original Los Vaqueros Project and the Middle River Intake under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (1992) and the Los Vaqueros Project Biological Opinions (BOs) required the Rock Slough intake to be screened. BOs from USFWS and NMFS were obtained for construction and operation of the fish screen. A transfer of ownership of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility.

The primary stakeholders involve recreation and include the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), City of Antioch, and City of Walnut Creek. EBRPD operates recreation facilities along the Contra Costa Canal (trails) and at the Contra Loma Reservoir.

CCWD and EBRPD executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in December 2017 that commits both agencies to work together to obtain authorization from Congress for title transfer of the Project Works to

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson will be introducing a House companion measure this week as well.

The CCWD is an urban water agency serving approximately 500,000 people in the eastern part of the San Francisco Bay Area region in Northern California. CCWD operates and maintains the Contra Costa Canal System, a unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP),

which is owned by the United States and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior.

The Contra Costa Canal System involves 48 miles of earthen canals with about 30 miles of laterals which deliver water to cities from the canal. Although the canal has been maintained, it poses a safety and flood risk. Notwithstanding significant security fencing, 81 people have tragically been drowned since the canal was placed into service and hundreds of others have been rescued.

The bill I am introducing today would transfer title to the canal system to CCWD so it can begin the process of replacing this old, earthen canal with a secure buried pipeline. The conversion of the canal to a pipeline will cost CCWD approximately $650 million.

CCWD has already repaid Reclamation for costs of constructing the project. After title transfer of the canal is completed, CCWD would remain a CVP M&I customer as set forth in the Long-term Renewal Contract between the United States and CCWD providing for Project Water Service and for Facilities Repayment (Contract No. I75r-3401 A-LTR1 May 10, 2005) (CVP Contract). This title transfer bill was anticipated in Article 28.3 of the CVP Contract which allows for transfer of title to the Contra Costa Canal System upon repayment of all outstanding capitalized costs of the facilities and upon authorization of Congress.

Before title transfer occurs, there will be further environmental review, including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA).

Title Transfer will result in lower costs and reduced administrative burden, provide greater flexibility in management of the asset, and will eliminate flood and other safety concerns. When the canal was originally built, there was no one around it. Now there are many homes and neighborhood along both sides of the structure. If the canal were to fail as has occurred with other earthen canals, homes would be flooded, and millions of dollars of property would be destroyed.

Title transfer would transfer this health and safety liability for the canal to CCWD. Reclamation also benefits through lower costs and reduced administrative burden. Currently, work on the Canal System requires varying levels of coordination and documentation with Reclamation for planning, design, project implementation, maintenance, and operation.

CCWD has been responsible for O&M of the Canal System for almost 50 years and its staff is intimately familiar with the system. CCWD ownership of the Canal System would eliminate much of this duplicative consultation. CCWD now finds it is doing much of the same work Reclamation conducts in its oversight and review responsibilities. Third parties including local cities, Contra Costa County, local and regional agencies, including recreation partners, and utilities working within the Canal System rights-of-way all of whom would also benefit from removing the additional layer of federal review and approval bureaucracy that increases costs and causes schedule delays. I understand that the other local partners have all expressed support for this legislation.

Title Transfer to CCWD would also relieve the United States of any risk of canal failure due to erosion or earthquake.

Ultimately, CCWD is seeking authorization to transfer title to all Project Works associated with the Contra Costa Canal Unit. Construction of the Rock Slough Fish Screen was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2011, and the bill I am introducing today would direct the transfer of title of Rock Slough Fish Screen following a mutual agreement on the transfer between CCWD and Reclamation.

Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) operates three screened intakes in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta--Rock Slough, Old River and Middle River. CCWD owns the latter two; the US Bureau of Reclamation owns Rock Slough. Operations at all three intakes are covered by the biological opinions on the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (USFWS 2008 and NMFS 2009) as well as separate opinions obtained for the original Los Vaqueros Project and the Middle River Intake under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (1992) and the Los Vaqueros Project Biological Opinions (BOs) required the Rock Slough intake to be screened. BOs from USFWS and NMFS were obtained for construction and operation of the fish screen. A transfer of ownership of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility.

The primary stakeholders involve recreation and include the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), City of Antioch, and City of Walnut Creek. EBRPD operates recreation facilities along the Contra Costa Canal (trails) and at the Contra Loma Reservoir.

CCWD and EBRPD executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in December 2017 that commits both agencies to work together to obtain authorization from Congress for title transfer of the Project Works to

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

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Kate Kennedy, a pioneering and inspiring San Franciscan.

Kate Kennedy was born in County Meath, Ireland, in 1827, the second of seven children. After her father's death in 1841, she cared for her five younger sisters, even overseeing their education at home. During Ireland's Great Famine, Kate immigrated to the United States. She worked as a seamstress in New York Before moving with the rest of her family to California in 1856.

Shortly after arriving in California, she began teaching in San Francisco's public schools. She rose to become the principal of the North Cosmopolitan Grammar School, but was only paid the salary of a primary school principal because she was a woman. In response to this injustice, she began a campaign for equal pay all school teachers. Her efforts were rewarded in 1874, when the California Legislature passed a law requiring female public school teachers paid the same as male counterparts.

Following her landmark victory, Kate continued to teach while advocating for other social issues like labor and tax reforms. She eventually ran for state superintendent of public instruction, becoming the first woman to run for Statewide office in California.

Although she didn't win, she continued to leave a mark on her adopted State. After being transferred for political reasons to a smaller school with a lower salary, Kate fought the demotion and was ultimately fired in retaliation by the schoolboard. She sued the board, taking her case all the way to the California Supreme Court. The court sided with Kate, delivering an opinion that still serves today as the foundation of teacher tenure in California.

Shortly after the court's ruling, Kate Kennedy passed away in Oakland, CA, and was buried in San Francisco's Laurel Hill Cemetery in 1890.

Kate Kennedy's commitment to justice and willingness to fight for her rights is truly inspirational. As the first woman to represent California in the U.S. Senate, I am proud to honor her legacy and the historic role she played in the ongoing struggle for equality.