Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution recognizing and heartily commending the Golden State Warriors for their dazzling season and 2017 World Championship victory.

After going 16 and 1 in the postseason, earning the highest win percentage in NBA playoff history, and defeating the Cleveland Cavaliers 129 to 120 in game five of the NBA Finals, the Warriors have become champions for the second time in just 3 years. The best part: they did something for their fans that had never been done before--they won the title at home, in Oracle Arena. As a bay area native myself, I know how much this means to all of Dub Nation.

Everyone who is a part of the Warriors Organization--the video staff, the trainers, the owners, coaches, players and fans--deserves praise for a hard-fought and historic 2016 to 2017 season. The year was primarily marked by highs. Among my favorites was Klay Thompson's astonishing 29-minute, 60-point performance against the Indiana Pacers. And who could forget Steph Curry's mind-boggling, half-court buzzer- beater against the Clippers?

The Warriors undoubtedly played remarkable basketball this year, but they also overcame their share of obstacles. When Coach Kerr was forced to take a leave of absence, the team rallied behind him and, under Mike Brown's leadership, continued to earn wins in his honor. When starters were sidelined due to injury, bench players stepped in and stepped up, demonstrating the team's depth and heart. When the Warriors were knocked down by the Cavaliers in game four of the finals, they woke up the next morning, flew home, and got straight to work--running hours of drills so they could come back stronger in game five.

The Warriors are a team with resolve and great character. They are highly focused but still manage to have fun together. They take care of each other, and equally as important, they take care of their community. The Warriors recognize that they are in a unique position to give back and effect positive change.

Over the past several years, the Warriors Foundation has awarded $5 million in grants to support educational initiatives in Alameda and San Francisco Counties. The foundation, along with individual players, has also refurbished over 60 basketball courts throughout the bay area, creating safe and beautiful places for our young people to play.

So, to MVP Kevin Durant, Coach 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.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act with my colleague Senator Chuck Grassley. This legislation addresses the significant challenges associated with prosecuting those who manufacture and traffic deadly synthetic drugs, including synthetic opioids, like clandestinely produced fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones.

Synthetic drugs pose an increasing threat to our Nation. They hit our communities in cycles and cause devastation. For example, in Corpus Christi, TX, there were 31 EMS calls in 1 day related to synthetic drugs. In Syracuse, NY, 18 individuals were taken to the emergency room in a 24-hour period after taking synthetic marijuana, and in Cincinnati, OH, a shocking 174 overdoses occurred over 6 days. These overdoses were largely attributed to heroin laced with carfentanil, a synthetic opioid that is 100,000 times stronger than morphine.

In 2012, Congress outlawed many synthetic drugs, but manufacturers did not stop producing them. Instead, they began producing controlled substance analogues which mimic the effects of controlled substances, such as opioids, marijuana, PCP, and LSD.

The new drug, even though it has an effect on the body that is similar to a controlled substance, may no longer be illegal under Federal law because it is not listed in one of the five schedules of the Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, these drugs are shipped to our country and marketed as legal alternatives to illegal drugs.

This makes enforcement efforts difficult.

Synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, are deadly. Since 2015, 130 deaths have been linked to the drug in the Bay area of California. Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 15,000 deaths in 2015 involved synthetic opioids other than methadone, which includes fentanyl. That is equivalent to 42 deaths per day.

Like other synthetic drugs, illicit fentanyl and its analogues are clandestinely produced, and primarily enter the United States in one of three ways:

(1) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to the United States via international mail;

(2) Mexican drug traffickers produce it with precursor chemicals from China and smuggle it across the Southwest Border; or

(3) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to Canada, where it is smuggled across the northern border.

The point is, regardless of the type, synthetic drugs pose a deadly and quickly evolving public health threat.

It is clear that the current system for scheduling controlled substances and prosecuting controlled substance analogues is not able to keep up with the speed with which new synthetic drugs are produced or to prevent the deaths they cause.

That is why the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Drugs Act to provide the Department of Justice with new tools, using a multifaceted approach.

First, the bill immediately controls 13 fentanyl analogues that law enforcement has come into contact with. These substances have already caused 162 overdose deaths in the United States.

Second, while the existing Federal Analogue Enforcement Act allows prosecutors to charge those who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substance analogues, the law contains definition of a controlled substance analogue that is vague and often misinterpreted. As a result, court cases using this law result in a drawn out and expensive battle of the experts.

Moreover, because because controlled substance analogues are not listed as federally controlled substances, even if a prosecutor in one case successfully proves that a substance is a controlled substance analogue, this ruling is not applied across the board. A different person charged with manufacturing the exact same substance in another case is not automatically guilty of a crime. Instead, the prosecutor in the new case has to reprove that the substance in question is an analogue all over again.

Therefore, to ensure that prosecutors do not have to reprove that a substance is an analogue each and every time it appears, the bill establishes a new schedule A.

The legislation authorizes the Attorney General to add new synthetic drugs, including fentanyl and other analogues, to this new schedule, and make them illegal through an expedited, temporary scheduling process.

It also authorizes the Attorney General to permanently schedule these substances, either in schedule A or in another schedule, like schedule I. This provides the Attorney General with the maximum flexibility needed to better combat these dangerous drugs.

Those found guilty of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing schedule A substances would be subject to existing schedule III penalties, or a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for a first offense.

The Department of Justice has told my staff that this approach will allow them to act quickly when new and dangerous substances threaten our communities.

Recognizing that the vast majority of synthetic drugs originate from outside of the United States, the legislation imposes criminal penalties for the illegal import and export of substances designated as schedule A. It also authorizes penalties for those who manufacture or distribute these substances while intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe they will ultimately be imported into the United States.

Third, the bill maintains the ability of prosecutors to charge defendants using the Federal Analogue Enforcement Act, but clarifies the definition of a controlled substance analogue within the Act.

Specifically, the language clarifies that the chemical structure of the substance must be similar to that of schedule I or II controlled substance to be considered a controlled substance analogue. On top of this, the substance must also have a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect on the body that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance or the person manufacturing, distributing or dispensing

the drug must represent or intend for the drug to have an effect that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance.

If prosecutors successfully prove a substance is a controlled substance analogue under the new definition, those who traffic the drug could face higher penalties than those assigned to schedule A, because the penalty would be associated with the drug it mimics.

Finally, those trafficking these substances do not market them as synthetic drugs. Instead, they mislabel the products, which are often sold at gas stations and convenience stores. To prevent this from happening, the bill requires all schedule A substances to be properly labeled and establishes civil penalties for failure to do so.

This provision will allow civil enforcement action to be taken to remove mislabeled products from the shelves of gas stations and convenience stores.

I want to close by sharing the story of one of my constituents, a young man named Connor Eckhardt. Unfortunately, a synthetic drug known as Spice claimed his life. Connor took one hit of the drug, which, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, is a mixture of herbs and spices that is typically sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. His brain swelled, causing him to go into a coma, and he never woke up.

Sadly, Connor's story has become all too common. And this is unacceptable. That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act. Law enforcement must have the ability to swiftly bring those who manufacture, distribute, and dispense these deadly drugs to justice.

I look forward to working with and obtaining feedback from my colleagues and other stakeholders on this bill, which provides new and necessary authorities to combat synthetic drugs.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act with my colleague Senator Chuck Grassley. This legislation addresses the significant challenges associated with prosecuting those who manufacture and traffic deadly synthetic drugs, including synthetic opioids, like clandestinely produced fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones.

Synthetic drugs pose an increasing threat to our Nation. They hit our communities in cycles and cause devastation. For example, in Corpus Christi, TX, there were 31 EMS calls in 1 day related to synthetic drugs. In Syracuse, NY, 18 individuals were taken to the emergency room in a 24-hour period after taking synthetic marijuana, and in Cincinnati, OH, a shocking 174 overdoses occurred over 6 days. These overdoses were largely attributed to heroin laced with carfentanil, a synthetic opioid that is 100,000 times stronger than morphine.

In 2012, Congress outlawed many synthetic drugs, but manufacturers did not stop producing them. Instead, they began producing controlled substance analogues which mimic the effects of controlled substances, such as opioids, marijuana, PCP, and LSD.

The new drug, even though it has an effect on the body that is similar to a controlled substance, may no longer be illegal under Federal law because it is not listed in one of the five schedules of the Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, these drugs are shipped to our country and marketed as legal alternatives to illegal drugs.

This makes enforcement efforts difficult.

Synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, are deadly. Since 2015, 130 deaths have been linked to the drug in the Bay area of California. Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 15,000 deaths in 2015 involved synthetic opioids other than methadone, which includes fentanyl. That is equivalent to 42 deaths per day.

Like other synthetic drugs, illicit fentanyl and its analogues are clandestinely produced, and primarily enter the United States in one of three ways:

(1) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to the United States via international mail;

(2) Mexican drug traffickers produce it with precursor chemicals from China and smuggle it across the Southwest Border; or

(3) Chinese chemists produce and ship it to Canada, where it is smuggled across the northern border.

The point is, regardless of the type, synthetic drugs pose a deadly and quickly evolving public health threat.

It is clear that the current system for scheduling controlled substances and prosecuting controlled substance analogues is not able to keep up with the speed with which new synthetic drugs are produced or to prevent the deaths they cause.

That is why the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Drugs Act to provide the Department of Justice with new tools, using a multifaceted approach.

First, the bill immediately controls 13 fentanyl analogues that law enforcement has come into contact with. These substances have already caused 162 overdose deaths in the United States.

Second, while the existing Federal Analogue Enforcement Act allows prosecutors to charge those who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substance analogues, the law contains definition of a controlled substance analogue that is vague and often misinterpreted. As a result, court cases using this law result in a drawn out and expensive battle of the experts.

Moreover, because because controlled substance analogues are not listed as federally controlled substances, even if a prosecutor in one case successfully proves that a substance is a controlled substance analogue, this ruling is not applied across the board. A different person charged with manufacturing the exact same substance in another case is not automatically guilty of a crime. Instead, the prosecutor in the new case has to reprove that the substance in question is an analogue all over again.

Therefore, to ensure that prosecutors do not have to reprove that a substance is an analogue each and every time it appears, the bill establishes a new schedule A.

The legislation authorizes the Attorney General to add new synthetic drugs, including fentanyl and other analogues, to this new schedule, and make them illegal through an expedited, temporary scheduling process.

It also authorizes the Attorney General to permanently schedule these substances, either in schedule A or in another schedule, like schedule I. This provides the Attorney General with the maximum flexibility needed to better combat these dangerous drugs.

Those found guilty of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing schedule A substances would be subject to existing schedule III penalties, or a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for a first offense.

The Department of Justice has told my staff that this approach will allow them to act quickly when new and dangerous substances threaten our communities.

Recognizing that the vast majority of synthetic drugs originate from outside of the United States, the legislation imposes criminal penalties for the illegal import and export of substances designated as schedule A. It also authorizes penalties for those who manufacture or distribute these substances while intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe they will ultimately be imported into the United States.

Third, the bill maintains the ability of prosecutors to charge defendants using the Federal Analogue Enforcement Act, but clarifies the definition of a controlled substance analogue within the Act.

Specifically, the language clarifies that the chemical structure of the substance must be similar to that of schedule I or II controlled substance to be considered a controlled substance analogue. On top of this, the substance must also have a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect on the body that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance or the person manufacturing, distributing or dispensing

the drug must represent or intend for the drug to have an effect that is similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance.

If prosecutors successfully prove a substance is a controlled substance analogue under the new definition, those who traffic the drug could face higher penalties than those assigned to schedule A, because the penalty would be associated with the drug it mimics.

Finally, those trafficking these substances do not market them as synthetic drugs. Instead, they mislabel the products, which are often sold at gas stations and convenience stores. To prevent this from happening, the bill requires all schedule A substances to be properly labeled and establishes civil penalties for failure to do so.

This provision will allow civil enforcement action to be taken to remove mislabeled products from the shelves of gas stations and convenience stores.

I want to close by sharing the story of one of my constituents, a young man named Connor Eckhardt. Unfortunately, a synthetic drug known as Spice claimed his life. Connor took one hit of the drug, which, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, is a mixture of herbs and spices that is typically sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. His brain swelled, causing him to go into a coma, and he never woke up.

Sadly, Connor's story has become all too common. And this is unacceptable. That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act. Law enforcement must have the ability to swiftly bring those who manufacture, distribute, and dispense these deadly drugs to justice.

I look forward to working with and obtaining feedback from my colleagues and other stakeholders on this bill, which provides new and necessary authorities to combat synthetic drugs.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 140, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act, a common sense fix to improve affordability of health insurance on the individual market. I am pleased that Senators Hassan, Warren, Harris, Baldwin, and Leahy have joined this bill as original cosponsors, and I appreciate their support.

Since its implementation, the Affordable Care Act has helped to expand health care and control out-of-pocket costs for millions of Americans. Over 20 million people who were previously uninsured now have coverage, there are no yearly or lifetime limits on coverage, and no one can be denied coverage or charged more based on their gender or because of a pre-existing health condition. The Affordable Care Act also expanded the individual marketplace, through which 18 million people currently get their coverage. Individuals who make between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and who do not have affordable employer coverage available to them, can receive a tax credit subsidy to help pay for insurance on the individual market. This credit limits the cost of insurance at 9.69 percent of an individual's income.

However, someone who makes just one dollar above the income threshold immediately loses all federal assistance. This `cliff' unfairly impacts middle-income Americans who are by no means wealthy, but who make just barely too much to qualify for the tax credit. I am particularly concerned about my constituents between the ages of 50 to 64, who are facing higher premiums as they age and who need access to health services but are not yet eligible for Medicare.

To address this issue, the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would eliminate the current cliff, and instead gradually phase out federal assistance based on income. Nobody would pay more than 9.69 percent of their income for insurance, and once someone's premium fell below this threshold, they would no longer receive federal assistance.

For example, in my hometown of San Francisco, a 60-year-old making $50,000 currently pays $946 per month for the second-lowest cost Silver plan and does not receive federal assistance. Under this bill, their premium would be capped at $404, or 9.69 percent of their income, and the tax credit subsidy would cover the rest. This bill would create a fairer and more predictable system, ensuring that consumers on the individual market know just how much their insurance will cost and will have affordable options available. The Affordable Care Act has reduced costs and expanded benefits for many Americans, and it is critical that we build on this progress to further improve the law--not destroy it.

The bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, AANS, Child Welfare League of America, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, CNS, Families USA, Lung Cancer Alliance, and National Farmers Union.

This legislation is a simple fix that provides relief for middle- income

Americans and strengthens affordability protections for coverage through the individual market. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017.

Last week, I met with a remarkable group of anti-trafficking stakeholders in Fresno, California, who reinforced what I have long held to be true: stamping out the horrific crime of human trafficking must be among our top priorities as lawmakers. At our meeting, Central Valley law enforcement, service providers and, most importantly, survivors of human trafficking educated me about the nature and prevalence of sex and labor trafficking in the Central Valley. I learned that counties like Fresno and Tulare serve as key stops along major California trafficking circuits, with victims as young as 10- years-old being shipped to Los Angeles, Las Vegas and beyond. I also learned that in 2016 alone, Fresno Police arrested more than 140 sex buyers and traffickers. This tells me that the demand for trafficking is far too high. Central Valley law enforcement and service providers are working together to reduce this demand, crack down on traffickers, and better serve victims, through a unique, highly-coordinated and victim-centered approach that I believe ought to be emulated nationwide.

Over the past seven years they have teamed up to identify and critically to provide comprehensive services to nearly 500 trafficking victims. When Central Valley law enforcement took down a trafficking ring last year, the ring leader and two of his associates were arrested and prosecuted, and approximately 50 victims were rescued, including 23 children. These victims were all provided with wraparound services, and the ring leader was sentenced to 40 years in prison. This is the kind of coordinated, victim centered work we need to support and replicate nationwide. The Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017 aims to do that.

I have now met with law enforcement, service providers and survivors representing Southern, Central and Northern California. All have made one thing abundantly clear: lawmakers at all levels of government must commit whatever time and resources are needed to thwart this horrendous crime.

Over the past two decades, Congress has taken action to combat human trafficking. We passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and, 8 years later, passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. And two years ago, Congress passed the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act--a landmark piece of legislation. The law focuses on reducing demand, rescuing victims, educating law enforcement and judges, and making sure that trafficking enterprises are put out of business. But it is clear that our work is far from done. The human trafficking industry continues to be one of the biggest criminal enterprises in the world and it is constantly evolving. The use of the internet to sell children for sex has escalated dramatically over the past several years.

In my home State, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and her pioneering anti-trafficking team identified 47,719 internet users looking to purchase sex in Alameda County alone during a single month. Many of the victims posted on these sites are underage. In one survivor study, a staggering 75% of minor sex trafficking victims reported being bought or sold online. And last year, the Washington Post reported devastating accounts about human trafficking is also committed by Islamic State fighters, who sell young girls over platforms such as Facebook.

The bill that Senator Grassley and I have introduced includes a provision that would give to law enforcement an additional tool to prevent human traffickers from accessing the internet and other tech platforms to sell minors for commercial sex. Under current current law, it is a criminal offense to advertise commercial sex acts with a minor. This legislation would add civil injunction authority to the criminal provision, providing the Department of Justice with a more readily accessible tool to deny human traffickers access to tech platforms to commit trafficking crimes. The bill also supports and strengthens efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to human trafficking crimes.

It allows school resource officers at schools to train school personnel to recognize and respond to signs of child sex trafficking. This is important because kids are often recruited at schools. In one heartbreaking case in Oakland, California, a 12-year-old student with top grades suddenly changed her normal behavior. She stopped completing her assignments, became withdrawn, and began wearing provocative clothing. Eventually, she stopped going to school altogether. Her parents contacted the school looking for her, but no one was able to locate her. She was discovered 24 hours later on an online sex advertisement based out of Los Angeles. This 12-year-old girl had been groomed by a trafficker--but no one was able to recognize the signs of exploitation. Teachers and school personnel interact with these kids every day. They are critical in recognizing which kids are at risk or are about to become exploited. We need to be sure that they are familiar with the patterns and practices of human traffickers, and know how to identify and respond to suspected victims.

In addition to working with Chairman Grassley on the reauthorization

bill, I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar's Abolish Human Trafficking Act of 2017. One of the most important provisions of this bill is the mandatory designation of at least one Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator in each United States Attorney's Office. This is critical to ensure that our judicial system treats human trafficking offenses with the seriousness they deserve. Among other responsibilities, this Coordinator will be responsible for assisting in the prosecution of human trafficking cases. This includes the prosecution of those who solicit minors for commercial sex, a change in the law that was enacted in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.

In 2015, former United States Attorney Eileen Decker conducted one of the first federal prosecutions of a buyer under this new statute. The buyer, a 59-year-old man from Torrance, admitted to lying to federal prosecutors about his conduct with a 16-year-old girl he met online and hired for commercial sex acts. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Former United States Attorney Decker remarked that this case should serve as a warning to adults who engage in this type of criminal conduct.

It is critical that such prosecutions continue. Stemming the abuse and exploitation of trafficking requires confronting not only the predatory suppliers, but also those who solicit young girls for commercial sex. The designation of a Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator would ensure that those who violate human trafficking offenses, both buyers and sellers, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Human Justice Trafficking Coordinator would also be responsible for ensuring the collection of restitution for victims.

Restitution for trafficking victims is mandatory under federal law. Moreover, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act requires the Justice Department to train prosecutors to seek restitution for trafficking victims, regardless of whether the victim requests restitution. Yet, we continue to see our judicial system failing to do right by victims. In a 2015 law review article, the Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center reported on the appallingly low rates of restitution orders in human trafficking prosecutions. In a study of federal human trafficking cases brought over a four period, federal courts failed to order restitution in nearly two-thirds of cases involving sex trafficking offenses. And shockingly, they found that the victims least likely to obtain restitution orders were children trafficked in the sex industry. Less than one in three defendants who commit sex trafficking offenses against children were ordered to pay restitution to their victims. This is unacceptable.

Furthermore, even if restitution is ordered against a trafficker, restitution itself is not being effectively collected. In response the requests from the Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General included restitution order and collection data in the Department of Justice's report on trafficking for fiscal year 2015. Of the $4,268,358 ordered in restitution in 2015, only $987 was collected.

While we may not expect to see full restitution collected in the year it is ordered, it is shocking that the total restitution collected is less than 1% of what was ordered.

That is why we have tried to include additional restitution provisions in the bill to better support victims. For example, there is an additional provision in the bill to update the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015, a bill that I authored with Senator Portman. That bill mandated extensive training on restitution for prosecutors and judges. It is our hope that with these updates--and with the recent enactment of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 to make sure that prosecutors are held accountable in seeking restitution-- victims will be better supported going forward. I am hopeful that we will be able to pass these bipartisan bills this Congress. I urge my colleagues in this body to support the passage of this important, comprehensive legislation to protect trafficking victims.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act, a common sense fix to improve affordability of health insurance on the individual market. I am pleased that Senators Hassan, Warren, Harris, Baldwin, and Leahy have joined this bill as original cosponsors, and I appreciate their support.

Since its implementation, the Affordable Care Act has helped to expand health care and control out-of-pocket costs for millions of Americans. Over 20 million people who were previously uninsured now have coverage, there are no yearly or lifetime limits on coverage, and no one can be denied coverage or charged more based on their gender or because of a pre-existing health condition. The Affordable Care Act also expanded the individual marketplace, through which 18 million people currently get their coverage. Individuals who make between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and who do not have affordable employer coverage available to them, can receive a tax credit subsidy to help pay for insurance on the individual market. This credit limits the cost of insurance at 9.69 percent of an individual's income.

However, someone who makes just one dollar above the income threshold immediately loses all federal assistance. This `cliff' unfairly impacts middle-income Americans who are by no means wealthy, but who make just barely too much to qualify for the tax credit. I am particularly concerned about my constituents between the ages of 50 to 64, who are facing higher premiums as they age and who need access to health services but are not yet eligible for Medicare.

To address this issue, the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would eliminate the current cliff, and instead gradually phase out federal assistance based on income. Nobody would pay more than 9.69 percent of their income for insurance, and once someone's premium fell below this threshold, they would no longer receive federal assistance.

For example, in my hometown of San Francisco, a 60-year-old making $50,000 currently pays $946 per month for the second-lowest cost Silver plan and does not receive federal assistance. Under this bill, their premium would be capped at $404, or 9.69 percent of their income, and the tax credit subsidy would cover the rest. This bill would create a fairer and more predictable system, ensuring that consumers on the individual market know just how much their insurance will cost and will have affordable options available. The Affordable Care Act has reduced costs and expanded benefits for many Americans, and it is critical that we build on this progress to further improve the law--not destroy it.

The bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, AANS, Child Welfare League of America, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, CNS, Families USA, Lung Cancer Alliance, and National Farmers Union.

This legislation is a simple fix that provides relief for middle- income

Americans and strengthens affordability protections for coverage through the individual market. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017.

Last week, I met with a remarkable group of anti-trafficking stakeholders in Fresno, California, who reinforced what I have long held to be true: stamping out the horrific crime of human trafficking must be among our top priorities as lawmakers. At our meeting, Central Valley law enforcement, service providers and, most importantly, survivors of human trafficking educated me about the nature and prevalence of sex and labor trafficking in the Central Valley. I learned that counties like Fresno and Tulare serve as key stops along major California trafficking circuits, with victims as young as 10- years-old being shipped to Los Angeles, Las Vegas and beyond. I also learned that in 2016 alone, Fresno Police arrested more than 140 sex buyers and traffickers. This tells me that the demand for trafficking is far too high. Central Valley law enforcement and service providers are working together to reduce this demand, crack down on traffickers, and better serve victims, through a unique, highly-coordinated and victim-centered approach that I believe ought to be emulated nationwide.

Over the past seven years they have teamed up to identify and critically to provide comprehensive services to nearly 500 trafficking victims. When Central Valley law enforcement took down a trafficking ring last year, the ring leader and two of his associates were arrested and prosecuted, and approximately 50 victims were rescued, including 23 children. These victims were all provided with wraparound services, and the ring leader was sentenced to 40 years in prison. This is the kind of coordinated, victim centered work we need to support and replicate nationwide. The Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2017 aims to do that.

I have now met with law enforcement, service providers and survivors representing Southern, Central and Northern California. All have made one thing abundantly clear: lawmakers at all levels of government must commit whatever time and resources are needed to thwart this horrendous crime.

Over the past two decades, Congress has taken action to combat human trafficking. We passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and, 8 years later, passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. And two years ago, Congress passed the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act--a landmark piece of legislation. The law focuses on reducing demand, rescuing victims, educating law enforcement and judges, and making sure that trafficking enterprises are put out of business. But it is clear that our work is far from done. The human trafficking industry continues to be one of the biggest criminal enterprises in the world and it is constantly evolving. The use of the internet to sell children for sex has escalated dramatically over the past several years.

In my home State, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and her pioneering anti-trafficking team identified 47,719 internet users looking to purchase sex in Alameda County alone during a single month. Many of the victims posted on these sites are underage. In one survivor study, a staggering 75% of minor sex trafficking victims reported being bought or sold online. And last year, the Washington Post reported devastating accounts about human trafficking is also committed by Islamic State fighters, who sell young girls over platforms such as Facebook.

The bill that Senator Grassley and I have introduced includes a provision that would give to law enforcement an additional tool to prevent human traffickers from accessing the internet and other tech platforms to sell minors for commercial sex. Under current current law, it is a criminal offense to advertise commercial sex acts with a minor. This legislation would add civil injunction authority to the criminal provision, providing the Department of Justice with a more readily accessible tool to deny human traffickers access to tech platforms to commit trafficking crimes. The bill also supports and strengthens efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to human trafficking crimes.

It allows school resource officers at schools to train school personnel to recognize and respond to signs of child sex trafficking. This is important because kids are often recruited at schools. In one heartbreaking case in Oakland, California, a 12-year-old student with top grades suddenly changed her normal behavior. She stopped completing her assignments, became withdrawn, and began wearing provocative clothing. Eventually, she stopped going to school altogether. Her parents contacted the school looking for her, but no one was able to locate her. She was discovered 24 hours later on an online sex advertisement based out of Los Angeles. This 12-year-old girl had been groomed by a trafficker--but no one was able to recognize the signs of exploitation. Teachers and school personnel interact with these kids every day. They are critical in recognizing which kids are at risk or are about to become exploited. We need to be sure that they are familiar with the patterns and practices of human traffickers, and know how to identify and respond to suspected victims.

In addition to working with Chairman Grassley on the reauthorization

bill, I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar's Abolish Human Trafficking Act of 2017. One of the most important provisions of this bill is the mandatory designation of at least one Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator in each United States Attorney's Office. This is critical to ensure that our judicial system treats human trafficking offenses with the seriousness they deserve. Among other responsibilities, this Coordinator will be responsible for assisting in the prosecution of human trafficking cases. This includes the prosecution of those who solicit minors for commercial sex, a change in the law that was enacted in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.

In 2015, former United States Attorney Eileen Decker conducted one of the first federal prosecutions of a buyer under this new statute. The buyer, a 59-year-old man from Torrance, admitted to lying to federal prosecutors about his conduct with a 16-year-old girl he met online and hired for commercial sex acts. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Former United States Attorney Decker remarked that this case should serve as a warning to adults who engage in this type of criminal conduct.

It is critical that such prosecutions continue. Stemming the abuse and exploitation of trafficking requires confronting not only the predatory suppliers, but also those who solicit young girls for commercial sex. The designation of a Human Trafficking Justice Coordinator would ensure that those who violate human trafficking offenses, both buyers and sellers, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Human Justice Trafficking Coordinator would also be responsible for ensuring the collection of restitution for victims.

Restitution for trafficking victims is mandatory under federal law. Moreover, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act requires the Justice Department to train prosecutors to seek restitution for trafficking victims, regardless of whether the victim requests restitution. Yet, we continue to see our judicial system failing to do right by victims. In a 2015 law review article, the Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center reported on the appallingly low rates of restitution orders in human trafficking prosecutions. In a study of federal human trafficking cases brought over a four period, federal courts failed to order restitution in nearly two-thirds of cases involving sex trafficking offenses. And shockingly, they found that the victims least likely to obtain restitution orders were children trafficked in the sex industry. Less than one in three defendants who commit sex trafficking offenses against children were ordered to pay restitution to their victims. This is unacceptable.

Furthermore, even if restitution is ordered against a trafficker, restitution itself is not being effectively collected. In response the requests from the Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General included restitution order and collection data in the Department of Justice's report on trafficking for fiscal year 2015. Of the $4,268,358 ordered in restitution in 2015, only $987 was collected.

While we may not expect to see full restitution collected in the year it is ordered, it is shocking that the total restitution collected is less than 1% of what was ordered.

That is why we have tried to include additional restitution provisions in the bill to better support victims. For example, there is an additional provision in the bill to update the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015, a bill that I authored with Senator Portman. That bill mandated extensive training on restitution for prosecutors and judges. It is our hope that with these updates--and with the recent enactment of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 to make sure that prosecutors are held accountable in seeking restitution-- victims will be better supported going forward. I am hopeful that we will be able to pass these bipartisan bills this Congress. I urge my colleagues in this body to support the passage of this important, comprehensive legislation to protect trafficking victims.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone Federalism Act of 2017. This good government bill provides a clear legal framework to the modern day challenges of drone regulation and empowers every level of government to issue reasonable restrictions on drone operations. I thank Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton for joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Tillis, and Ernst.

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana. In many instances parents, after exhausting other treatment options, have turned to CBD to as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results.

However, due to existing barriers and the fact that marijuana is a schedule I drug, rigorous research that is needed to better understand the long-term

safety and efficacy of CBD as a medicine, as well as the correct dosing and potential interaction with other medications, is lacking.

The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to both reduce these barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date scientific evidence. It also provides a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research.

It does this while maintaining safeguards to protect against illegal diversion.

First, the bill directs the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to complete a scientific and medical evaluation of CBD within 1 year. Based on this evaluation, the legislation directs the Department of Justice to make a scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana. This may include transferring the schedule of CBD to another schedule, or removing it from the list of controlled substances altogether. A scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana has never been done before.

Second, without sacrificing appropriate oversight, it streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. In particular, it improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. It also expedites the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process for researching CBD and marijuana.

Third, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD, while simultaneously reducing the stigma associated with conducting research on a schedule I drug. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to use a schedule II Drug Enforcement Administration registration to conduct authorized medical research on

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone Federalism Act of 2017. This good government bill provides a clear legal framework to the modern day challenges of drone regulation and empowers every level of government to issue reasonable restrictions on drone operations. I thank Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton for joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Tillis, and Ernst.

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana. In many instances parents, after exhausting other treatment options, have turned to CBD to as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results.

However, due to existing barriers and the fact that marijuana is a schedule I drug, rigorous research that is needed to better understand the long-term

safety and efficacy of CBD as a medicine, as well as the correct dosing and potential interaction with other medications, is lacking.

The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to both reduce these barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date scientific evidence. It also provides a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research.

It does this while maintaining safeguards to protect against illegal diversion.

First, the bill directs the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to complete a scientific and medical evaluation of CBD within 1 year. Based on this evaluation, the legislation directs the Department of Justice to make a scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana. This may include transferring the schedule of CBD to another schedule, or removing it from the list of controlled substances altogether. A scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent of marijuana has never been done before.

Second, without sacrificing appropriate oversight, it streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. In particular, it improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. It also expedites the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process for researching CBD and marijuana.

Third, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD, while simultaneously reducing the stigma associated with conducting research on a schedule I drug. It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to use a schedule II Drug Enforcement Administration registration to conduct authorized medical research on

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017: At this time, I would also like to thank Senators Blumenthal, Gillibrand, and Markey for cosponsoring this legislation. Their support is sincerely appreciated.

Yesterday marked the 3rd anniversary of the horrific shooting that outraged the community of Isla Vista, California and the Nation. During this attack, the City of Isla Vista was struck by tragedy when 22-year- old Elliot Rodger went on a shooting rampage after fatally stabbing his two roommates and a friend. Armed with a Glock 34 handgun and two SIG Sauer P226 handguns, the assailant drove through the streets of Isla Vista, shooting and killing 3 young students and injuring 14 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus before taking his own life. The Isla Vista community was in shock, and we as a nation struggled to comprehend how this tragedy could have been prevented.

As more facts emerged about the assailant, we learned that he had a history of mental health concerns and violent behavior. He had been prescribed medications used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and at age 18 Rodgers had begun to refuse the mental health treatment he had been receiving. Local deputies had also encountered him several times through conflicts and fights he had with friends and roommates. And less than a month before his deadly rampage, a concerned friend had called a county mental health staff member, and, after speaking with the assailant's mother, law enforcement conducted a welfare check at Rodger's apartment. At that point, Rodger's murderous plot was well underway, and had the police searched his room, they would have found a stockpile of guns and ammunition along with papers detailing his plans to kill. This individual should have never been able to obtain a firearm--and the bill I am introducing today would enable law enforcement and family members to intervene and prevent attackers like this assailant from carrying out atrocious acts of gun violence in the future.

Over 30,000 people die each year from gun violence, and on average, 7 children and teens are killed by guns every day. We know that families and friends are in the best position to recognize early signs of trouble before tragedy occurs. However, family members and law enforcement officials commonly have no legal means of taking preventive steps to stop a troubled individual from committing an act of gun violence before it occurs. To solve this problem, the State of California enacted a law in the aftermath of the Isla Vista attack that enables family members or law enforcement officers to ask a court for a gun violence prevention order.

Modeled on California's existing laws on domestic violence, when a judge believes there is sufficient evidence that an individual is a danger to themselves or others, the gun violence prevention order temporarily prohibits an individual from purchasing firearms or ammunition. And under a higher burden of proof, a court can also issue a warrant to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession. Based on this California law and other State laws, the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 would create a new law enforcement grant under the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program at the Department of Justice and incentivize States to take intervening measures to prevent gun violence. Specifically, this legislation would ensure that families and others can seek a gun violence prevention order from a court to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a threat to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. This legislation also ensures that a court can issue a gun violence prevention warrant requiring law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if the court determines that the individual poses a threat. Because criminal background checks are critical to preventing gun crimes, this legislation also requires the Department of Justice and comparable state law enforcement agencies to keep their background check databases up to date and requires courts to notify these agencies when a gun violence prevention order is issued.

Importantly, this legislation also protects due process rights by providing written notice and multiple opportunities for the court to make independent determinations on the matter.

Additionally, the Department of Justice and State law enforcement agencies would be required to protect the affected individual's confidentiality. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the victims and survivors of the Isla Vista attack and what this legislation means to their community. Many of the victims and survivors of this attack were students and young adults. They had their whole lives ahead of them. As communities across California and our Nation mark the third anniversary of this terrible tragedy, let us remember the lives of Weihan Wang, Cheng Yuan Hong, George Chen, Veronika Weiss, Katherine Cooper, and Christopher Michaels-Martinez. The

families of these victims will never be the same again, and I will never forget hearing their stories in the aftermath of this attack. As a mother and grandmother, I cannot imagine the pain they have gone through. As the elected leaders of this body, we must never forget what happened in Isla Vista and take steps to keep our communities safe from the gun violence that continues to endanger them. We have seen the costs of inaction, and the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 is a step we can take to protect communities across America and ensure that other communities do not experience the pain that Isla Vista went through. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering the victims of this attack and supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017: At this time, I would also like to thank Senators Blumenthal, Gillibrand, and Markey for cosponsoring this legislation. Their support is sincerely appreciated.

Yesterday marked the 3rd anniversary of the horrific shooting that outraged the community of Isla Vista, California and the Nation. During this attack, the City of Isla Vista was struck by tragedy when 22-year- old Elliot Rodger went on a shooting rampage after fatally stabbing his two roommates and a friend. Armed with a Glock 34 handgun and two SIG Sauer P226 handguns, the assailant drove through the streets of Isla Vista, shooting and killing 3 young students and injuring 14 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus before taking his own life. The Isla Vista community was in shock, and we as a nation struggled to comprehend how this tragedy could have been prevented.

As more facts emerged about the assailant, we learned that he had a history of mental health concerns and violent behavior. He had been prescribed medications used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and at age 18 Rodgers had begun to refuse the mental health treatment he had been receiving. Local deputies had also encountered him several times through conflicts and fights he had with friends and roommates. And less than a month before his deadly rampage, a concerned friend had called a county mental health staff member, and, after speaking with the assailant's mother, law enforcement conducted a welfare check at Rodger's apartment. At that point, Rodger's murderous plot was well underway, and had the police searched his room, they would have found a stockpile of guns and ammunition along with papers detailing his plans to kill. This individual should have never been able to obtain a firearm--and the bill I am introducing today would enable law enforcement and family members to intervene and prevent attackers like this assailant from carrying out atrocious acts of gun violence in the future.

Over 30,000 people die each year from gun violence, and on average, 7 children and teens are killed by guns every day. We know that families and friends are in the best position to recognize early signs of trouble before tragedy occurs. However, family members and law enforcement officials commonly have no legal means of taking preventive steps to stop a troubled individual from committing an act of gun violence before it occurs. To solve this problem, the State of California enacted a law in the aftermath of the Isla Vista attack that enables family members or law enforcement officers to ask a court for a gun violence prevention order.

Modeled on California's existing laws on domestic violence, when a judge believes there is sufficient evidence that an individual is a danger to themselves or others, the gun violence prevention order temporarily prohibits an individual from purchasing firearms or ammunition. And under a higher burden of proof, a court can also issue a warrant to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession. Based on this California law and other State laws, the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 would create a new law enforcement grant under the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program at the Department of Justice and incentivize States to take intervening measures to prevent gun violence. Specifically, this legislation would ensure that families and others can seek a gun violence prevention order from a court to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a threat to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. This legislation also ensures that a court can issue a gun violence prevention warrant requiring law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if the court determines that the individual poses a threat. Because criminal background checks are critical to preventing gun crimes, this legislation also requires the Department of Justice and comparable state law enforcement agencies to keep their background check databases up to date and requires courts to notify these agencies when a gun violence prevention order is issued.

Importantly, this legislation also protects due process rights by providing written notice and multiple opportunities for the court to make independent determinations on the matter.

Additionally, the Department of Justice and State law enforcement agencies would be required to protect the affected individual's confidentiality. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the victims and survivors of the Isla Vista attack and what this legislation means to their community. Many of the victims and survivors of this attack were students and young adults. They had their whole lives ahead of them. As communities across California and our Nation mark the third anniversary of this terrible tragedy, let us remember the lives of Weihan Wang, Cheng Yuan Hong, George Chen, Veronika Weiss, Katherine Cooper, and Christopher Michaels-Martinez. The

families of these victims will never be the same again, and I will never forget hearing their stories in the aftermath of this attack. As a mother and grandmother, I cannot imagine the pain they have gone through. As the elected leaders of this body, we must never forget what happened in Isla Vista and take steps to keep our communities safe from the gun violence that continues to endanger them. We have seen the costs of inaction, and the Gun Violence Prevention Order Act of 2017 is a step we can take to protect communities across America and ensure that other communities do not experience the pain that Isla Vista went through. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering the victims of this attack and supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the safety oversight of products that affect every single family on a daily basis. Whether it's shampoo or shaving cream, lotion or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, personal care products are a part of our everyday lives. I thank Senator Collins for her support and hard work on this important legislation.

However, even though our bodies absorb many chemicals in these products through our skin and even our nails, their ingredients are largely unregulated. It's time to modernize our safety oversight and correct this problem. Most people assume these products have up-to-date federal oversight, but in reality the Food and Drug Administration's authority to do so is sorely outdated--in fact, it's based on a law from the 1930s that has changed little over the past eight decades. There are questions about the safety of some ingredients in these products, which not only leads to health concerns but also causes uncertainty for companies working to innovate and expand domestically.

Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer groups. Those stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and Drug Administration. Together, we have drafted bipartisan legislation that puts commonsense measures in place and has the support of both industry and consumer and health organizations.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act sets up a process for reviewing the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The bill requires manufacturers to register so consumers know who produces personal care products sold in the United States.

The legislation also modernizes authority for the Food and Drug Administration so the agency is better equipped to deal with public health concerns, such as being able to recall contaminated products if companies choose not to do so voluntarily. The updated system is completely paid for by industry fees. Companies will provide information about the ingredients in their products to the Food and Drug Administration, and attest to their safety. Many companies manufacturing in the United States currently follow strict voluntary standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the lack of federal standards leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, the agency sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies meet minimum requirements. Companies will also need to report adverse health events related to their products to the Food and Drug Administration.

Last year, we heard about WEN shampoo, a product that was causing significant hair loss. Among those affected were children, including a little girl named Eliana who lost all of her hair after using WEN. She shared her story with my office and several of my colleagues. What's shocking is that the company received more than 20,000 reports of this happening, but under current law WEN had no legal obligation to tell the Food and Drug Administration. Under this legislation, companies would be required to do so.

Another example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also called methylene glycol when mixed with water, in the popular hair treatment called a Brazilian blowout. Formaldehyde is released into the air during

this beauty treatment. It can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Over the long-term, formaldehyde has been linked to cancer.

I am also greatly concerned about the effect on the health of salon professionals who are constantly exposed to a variety of chemicals daily. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be exposed to, this legislation also ensures that the salon products they use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings.

The Food and Drug Administration will be required to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the likely exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public comments. Public input will be critical to the review process. There will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on, not only the safety of particular ingredients but also, which ingredients should be a priority for review. After review, the Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the federal oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the market. We have worked closely with small businesses to ensure that the legislation recognizes their needs and supports their growth. This legislation incorporates changes to increase flexibility for small businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. The bill recognizes the unique nature of the handmade cosmetic industry and meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation.

I am pleased that the major organizations representing these small businesses (Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild), have said that the provisions within this legislation ``afford producers in the handmade cosmetic industry the opportunity to continue to innovate, grow, create jobs and produce safe, quality handmade products in communities across the nation.''

I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Au Naturale, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Herban Lifestyle, The Honest Company, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Babo Botanicals, Goddess Garden Organics, Caregiver Action Network, March of Dimes, EO Products, Eclair Naturals, Juice Beauty, National Psoriasis Foundation, and the following major companies that together represent over 99 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson and Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, and L'Oreal.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Mr. President. I rise today to join with my colleagues in introducing a rescission bill to nullify President Trump's Executive Order 13798, titled ``Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.'' Unfortunately, this Executive Order does not live up to its title. Instead, it furthers the aim of this administration to diminish critical protections for women, minorities, and LGBT Americans.

I am deeply troubled by Section 3 of the Order, which paves the way for the Trump administration to roll back protections to preventive health services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), especially for women and LGBT individuals. Through new regulations issued pursuant to this Order, companies could use ``conscience-based'' objections to deny their employees coverage for preventive services that they have a right to under the ACA. This means that because of their employers' moral objection, women could lose access to contraception, and those in the LGBT community could lose access to essential services, including cancer screenings or counseling for domestic violence.

I respect that we all have religious and moral convictions, but it is wrong to put employers' religious views above individuals' rights to access basic health care. I also note that this section of the Order invites members of the President's Cabinet to eliminate an accommodation President Obama administration made allowing religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, including large universities and hospital systems, to opt out of providing their employees with contraception coverage based on religious objections.

Importantly, women working for objecting employers can receive contraception coverage directly through their insurance companies. Seven federal courts of appeals have upheld this accommodation in the face of religiously based challenges. But with this Order, the President signals that his administration is likely to do away with the accommodation, which would deny contraception access to women whose bosses want to make this important and intimate decision for them.

The Order also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to all agencies on ``religious liberty protections in Federal law.'' This language is concerning as it opens the door for the Attorney General to eliminate protections in federal rules and regulations for LGBT individuals and minorities. The Attorney General's duty is to enforce and protect the civil rights and constitutional freedoms of all Americans. This Order's direction for guidance that could change the implementation of critical rules affording equal treatment for all in America is a disturbing step backward. For example, there are rules protecting same-sex spouses' ability to visit their partners in the hospital and ensuring that LGBT individuals have equal access to federally funded emergency housing. Under this provision, however, new religious exemptions may be implemented to weaken these protections. Shelters could turn LGBT families away because of who they love. As the Human Rights Campaign has described, this provision opens the door to a ``license to discriminate'' even where basic services funded with government dollars are at stake.

This Executive Order opens the door to weakening the enforcement of longstanding tax laws against individuals, houses of worship, and other religious organizations engaging in political campaign speech. Notably, the Johnson Amendment was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and is part of our tax code. It prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity on behalf of candidates. The Johnson Amendment does not bar nonpartisan voter education and registration activities, which are important to a strong democracy, nor does it prohibit speech on moral issues.

The President has promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Doing so could have a significant impact on political campaign fundraising and would change the current tax consideration for certain political contributions. While repeal of the Johnson Amendment is something only Congress has the power to do, this Executive Order clearly indicates the administration's intention to undermine the separation

between tax-exempt charities and religious organizations and political campaign activity in the tax code.

It remains to be seen whether the President and the administration will implement this Order in ways that will realize our worst fears about the kind of discrimination it could enable. But we know for certain that this Order represents a disturbing statement of principles and values. Instead of seeking even greater protections from discrimination, this administration has set the stage to undermine protections, especially for women and LGBT individuals. That is not what our country stands for.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill I am introducing today to nullify this troubling Executive Order.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the safety oversight of products that affect every single family on a daily basis. Whether it's shampoo or shaving cream, lotion or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, personal care products are a part of our everyday lives. I thank Senator Collins for her support and hard work on this important legislation.

However, even though our bodies absorb many chemicals in these products through our skin and even our nails, their ingredients are largely unregulated. It's time to modernize our safety oversight and correct this problem. Most people assume these products have up-to-date federal oversight, but in reality the Food and Drug Administration's authority to do so is sorely outdated--in fact, it's based on a law from the 1930s that has changed little over the past eight decades. There are questions about the safety of some ingredients in these products, which not only leads to health concerns but also causes uncertainty for companies working to innovate and expand domestically.

Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer groups. Those stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and Drug Administration. Together, we have drafted bipartisan legislation that puts commonsense measures in place and has the support of both industry and consumer and health organizations.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act sets up a process for reviewing the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The bill requires manufacturers to register so consumers know who produces personal care products sold in the United States.

The legislation also modernizes authority for the Food and Drug Administration so the agency is better equipped to deal with public health concerns, such as being able to recall contaminated products if companies choose not to do so voluntarily. The updated system is completely paid for by industry fees. Companies will provide information about the ingredients in their products to the Food and Drug Administration, and attest to their safety. Many companies manufacturing in the United States currently follow strict voluntary standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the lack of federal standards leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, the agency sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies meet minimum requirements. Companies will also need to report adverse health events related to their products to the Food and Drug Administration.

Last year, we heard about WEN shampoo, a product that was causing significant hair loss. Among those affected were children, including a little girl named Eliana who lost all of her hair after using WEN. She shared her story with my office and several of my colleagues. What's shocking is that the company received more than 20,000 reports of this happening, but under current law WEN had no legal obligation to tell the Food and Drug Administration. Under this legislation, companies would be required to do so.

Another example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also called methylene glycol when mixed with water, in the popular hair treatment called a Brazilian blowout. Formaldehyde is released into the air during

this beauty treatment. It can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Over the long-term, formaldehyde has been linked to cancer.

I am also greatly concerned about the effect on the health of salon professionals who are constantly exposed to a variety of chemicals daily. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be exposed to, this legislation also ensures that the salon products they use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings.

The Food and Drug Administration will be required to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the likely exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public comments. Public input will be critical to the review process. There will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on, not only the safety of particular ingredients but also, which ingredients should be a priority for review. After review, the Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the federal oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the market. We have worked closely with small businesses to ensure that the legislation recognizes their needs and supports their growth. This legislation incorporates changes to increase flexibility for small businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. The bill recognizes the unique nature of the handmade cosmetic industry and meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation.

I am pleased that the major organizations representing these small businesses (Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild), have said that the provisions within this legislation ``afford producers in the handmade cosmetic industry the opportunity to continue to innovate, grow, create jobs and produce safe, quality handmade products in communities across the nation.''

I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Au Naturale, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Herban Lifestyle, The Honest Company, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Babo Botanicals, Goddess Garden Organics, Caregiver Action Network, March of Dimes, EO Products, Eclair Naturals, Juice Beauty, National Psoriasis Foundation, and the following major companies that together represent over 99 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson and Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, and L'Oreal.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Mr. President. I rise today to join with my colleagues in introducing a rescission bill to nullify President Trump's Executive Order 13798, titled ``Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.'' Unfortunately, this Executive Order does not live up to its title. Instead, it furthers the aim of this administration to diminish critical protections for women, minorities, and LGBT Americans.

I am deeply troubled by Section 3 of the Order, which paves the way for the Trump administration to roll back protections to preventive health services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), especially for women and LGBT individuals. Through new regulations issued pursuant to this Order, companies could use ``conscience-based'' objections to deny their employees coverage for preventive services that they have a right to under the ACA. This means that because of their employers' moral objection, women could lose access to contraception, and those in the LGBT community could lose access to essential services, including cancer screenings or counseling for domestic violence.

I respect that we all have religious and moral convictions, but it is wrong to put employers' religious views above individuals' rights to access basic health care. I also note that this section of the Order invites members of the President's Cabinet to eliminate an accommodation President Obama administration made allowing religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, including large universities and hospital systems, to opt out of providing their employees with contraception coverage based on religious objections.

Importantly, women working for objecting employers can receive contraception coverage directly through their insurance companies. Seven federal courts of appeals have upheld this accommodation in the face of religiously based challenges. But with this Order, the President signals that his administration is likely to do away with the accommodation, which would deny contraception access to women whose bosses want to make this important and intimate decision for them.

The Order also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to all agencies on ``religious liberty protections in Federal law.'' This language is concerning as it opens the door for the Attorney General to eliminate protections in federal rules and regulations for LGBT individuals and minorities. The Attorney General's duty is to enforce and protect the civil rights and constitutional freedoms of all Americans. This Order's direction for guidance that could change the implementation of critical rules affording equal treatment for all in America is a disturbing step backward. For example, there are rules protecting same-sex spouses' ability to visit their partners in the hospital and ensuring that LGBT individuals have equal access to federally funded emergency housing. Under this provision, however, new religious exemptions may be implemented to weaken these protections. Shelters could turn LGBT families away because of who they love. As the Human Rights Campaign has described, this provision opens the door to a ``license to discriminate'' even where basic services funded with government dollars are at stake.

This Executive Order opens the door to weakening the enforcement of longstanding tax laws against individuals, houses of worship, and other religious organizations engaging in political campaign speech. Notably, the Johnson Amendment was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and is part of our tax code. It prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity on behalf of candidates. The Johnson Amendment does not bar nonpartisan voter education and registration activities, which are important to a strong democracy, nor does it prohibit speech on moral issues.

The President has promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Doing so could have a significant impact on political campaign fundraising and would change the current tax consideration for certain political contributions. While repeal of the Johnson Amendment is something only Congress has the power to do, this Executive Order clearly indicates the administration's intention to undermine the separation

between tax-exempt charities and religious organizations and political campaign activity in the tax code.

It remains to be seen whether the President and the administration will implement this Order in ways that will realize our worst fears about the kind of discrimination it could enable. But we know for certain that this Order represents a disturbing statement of principles and values. Instead of seeking even greater protections from discrimination, this administration has set the stage to undermine protections, especially for women and LGBT individuals. That is not what our country stands for.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill I am introducing today to nullify this troubling Executive Order.

Thank you. I yield the floor.