Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the consideration of the nomination of Nani Coloretti to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.

Ms. Coloretti has a distinguished history of public service; she currently is the Assistant Secretary for Management at the U.S. Department of Treasury, a position she has served in since 2012. Prior to joining the U.S. Treasury, Ms. Coloretti assisted setting up operations at the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, serving as the Acting Chief Operating Officer. Additionally, from 1999 to 2005, Ms. Coloretti served as director of policy, planning and budget for the San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, as well as budget director to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, where she managed the implementation of San Francisco's $6.2 billion annual budget.

Ms. Coloretti received a B.A. in economics and communications from the

University of Pennsylvania and a master's in public policy from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. In 2012, Ms. Coloretti was awarded the National Public Service Award by the American Society for Public Administration and the National Academy of Public Administration.

I believe that Ms. Coloretti brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to the position of Deputy Secretary, and I look forward to voting for her confirmation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Portman, the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2014.

Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the world, behind the drug trade. Many steps need to be taken to combat this problem. But we cannot escape this simple truth: without demand for the services performed by trafficking victims, the problem would not exist.

The bill we are introducing today would reduce the demand for human trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in sex trafficking.

Sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. In the United States, the average age that a person is first trafficked is between 12 and 14. Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. The overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department of Justice.

I am encouraged that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies are taking steps to combat human trafficking. Between January and June of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered 168 trafficking victims and arrested 281 sex traffickers in ``Operation Cross Country.''

I commend these efforts, but more needs to be done to target the perpetrators who are fueling demand for trafficking crimes--the buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims. Many buyers of sex are ``hobbyists'' who purchase sex repeatedly. Because buyers are rarely arrested, much less prosecuted, the demand for commercial sex continues unabated.

Without buyers, sex trafficking would cease to exist. As Luis CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, noted, ``[n]o girl or woman would be a victim of sex trafficking if there were no profits to be made from their exploitation.''

The Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2014 would address this problem, by incentivizing federal and state law enforcement officers to target buyers and providing new authorities to prosecute all who engage in the crime of sex trafficking.

First, the bill would clarify that buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims can be prosecuted under the federal commercial sex trafficking statute. This provision would codify the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Jungers, which held that this statute encompasses buyers, in addition to sellers. Despite this favorable ruling, there is no guarantee that other courts will follow this precedent.

Second, the bill would hold buyers and sellers of child sex acts accountable for their actions, even if they claim they were unaware of the age of a minor victim. At times, it can be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that a buyer was aware of the victim's age. Successful cases can require the child victim to testify to this fact, subjecting the victim to re-traumatization. The bill would draw a clear line: if you purchase sex from an underage child, you can be prosecuted. Period.

Third, the bill would grant judges greater flexibility to impose an appropriate term of supervised release on sex traffickers. Current law contains an anomaly: a person convicted of violating the commercial sex trafficking statute or attempting to violate the statute may be subject to a longer term of supervised release than a person who is convicted of conspiring to violate the statute. Conspiring to traffic underage children is as serious as attempting to commit this crime and should be punished the same.

Fourth, the bill would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to prepare annual reports on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of sex traffickers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims in the state court system. Very little data is available on the prosecutions made under anti-trafficking laws. This provision would provide additional data and encourage state and local governments to increase enforcement against sellers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims.

Fifth, the Combat Human Trafficking Act would ensure that training programs for federal and state law enforcement officers include components on effective methods to target and prosecute the buyers of sex acts from trafficked victims. This would equip prosecutors with the tools they need to target buyers, encouraging prosecution of these perpetrators.

Sixth, the bill would authorize federal and state officials to seek a wiretap to investigate and prosecute any human trafficking-related offense. Under current law, a federal law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap in an investigation under the commercial sex trafficking statute, but not under a number of other statutes that address human trafficking-related offenses, such as forced labor and involuntary servitude. Similarly, a state law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap to investigate a kidnapping offense, but not an offense for human trafficking, child sexual exploitation,

or child pornography production. Our bill would fix those omissions.

Finally, this legislation would strengthen the rights of crime victims. The bill would amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to provide victims with the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement. The exclusion of victims in these early stages of a criminal case profoundly impairs victims' rights because, by the nature of these events, there often is no later proceeding in which victims can exercise their rights.

The bill would also ensure that crime victims have access to appellate review when their rights are denied in the lower court. Regrettably, five appellate courts have mis-applied the Crime Victims' Rights Act by imposing an especially high standard for reviewing appeals by victims, requiring them to show ``clear and indisputable error''. Four other circuits have applied the correct standard: the ordinary appellate standard of legal error or abuse of discretion. This bill resolves the issue, setting a uniform standard for victims in all circuits by codifying the more victim-protecting rule, that the appellate court ``shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.''

I am pleased that this bill has the support of numerous law enforcement and anti-trafficking organizations: the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, CATW, Human Rights Project for Girls, Survivors for Solutions, Sanctuary For Families, World Hope International, Prostitution Research & Education, MISSSEY, and Breaking Free. These groups are on the forefront in the fight against sex trafficking, and I am proud to have their support.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Portman, the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2014.

Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the world, behind the drug trade. Many steps need to be taken to combat this problem. But we cannot escape this simple truth: without demand for the services performed by trafficking victims, the problem would not exist.

The bill we are introducing today would reduce the demand for human trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in sex trafficking.

Sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. In the United States, the average age that a person is first trafficked is between 12 and 14. Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. The overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department of Justice.

I am encouraged that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies are taking steps to combat human trafficking. Between January and June of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered 168 trafficking victims and arrested 281 sex traffickers in ``Operation Cross Country.''

I commend these efforts, but more needs to be done to target the perpetrators who are fueling demand for trafficking crimes--the buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims. Many buyers of sex are ``hobbyists'' who purchase sex repeatedly. Because buyers are rarely arrested, much less prosecuted, the demand for commercial sex continues unabated.

Without buyers, sex trafficking would cease to exist. As Luis CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, noted, ``[n]o girl or woman would be a victim of sex trafficking if there were no profits to be made from their exploitation.''

The Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2014 would address this problem, by incentivizing federal and state law enforcement officers to target buyers and providing new authorities to prosecute all who engage in the crime of sex trafficking.

First, the bill would clarify that buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims can be prosecuted under the federal commercial sex trafficking statute. This provision would codify the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Jungers, which held that this statute encompasses buyers, in addition to sellers. Despite this favorable ruling, there is no guarantee that other courts will follow this precedent.

Second, the bill would hold buyers and sellers of child sex acts accountable for their actions, even if they claim they were unaware of the age of a minor victim. At times, it can be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that a buyer was aware of the victim's age. Successful cases can require the child victim to testify to this fact, subjecting the victim to re-traumatization. The bill would draw a clear line: if you purchase sex from an underage child, you can be prosecuted. Period.

Third, the bill would grant judges greater flexibility to impose an appropriate term of supervised release on sex traffickers. Current law contains an anomaly: a person convicted of violating the commercial sex trafficking statute or attempting to violate the statute may be subject to a longer term of supervised release than a person who is convicted of conspiring to violate the statute. Conspiring to traffic underage children is as serious as attempting to commit this crime and should be punished the same.

Fourth, the bill would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to prepare annual reports on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of sex traffickers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims in the state court system. Very little data is available on the prosecutions made under anti-trafficking laws. This provision would provide additional data and encourage state and local governments to increase enforcement against sellers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims.

Fifth, the Combat Human Trafficking Act would ensure that training programs for federal and state law enforcement officers include components on effective methods to target and prosecute the buyers of sex acts from trafficked victims. This would equip prosecutors with the tools they need to target buyers, encouraging prosecution of these perpetrators.

Sixth, the bill would authorize federal and state officials to seek a wiretap to investigate and prosecute any human trafficking-related offense. Under current law, a federal law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap in an investigation under the commercial sex trafficking statute, but not under a number of other statutes that address human trafficking-related offenses, such as forced labor and involuntary servitude. Similarly, a state law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap to investigate a kidnapping offense, but not an offense for human trafficking, child sexual exploitation,

or child pornography production. Our bill would fix those omissions.

Finally, this legislation would strengthen the rights of crime victims. The bill would amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to provide victims with the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement. The exclusion of victims in these early stages of a criminal case profoundly impairs victims' rights because, by the nature of these events, there often is no later proceeding in which victims can exercise their rights.

The bill would also ensure that crime victims have access to appellate review when their rights are denied in the lower court. Regrettably, five appellate courts have mis-applied the Crime Victims' Rights Act by imposing an especially high standard for reviewing appeals by victims, requiring them to show ``clear and indisputable error''. Four other circuits have applied the correct standard: the ordinary appellate standard of legal error or abuse of discretion. This bill resolves the issue, setting a uniform standard for victims in all circuits by codifying the more victim-protecting rule, that the appellate court ``shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.''

I am pleased that this bill has the support of numerous law enforcement and anti-trafficking organizations: the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, CATW, Human Rights Project for Girls, Survivors for Solutions, Sanctuary For Families, World Hope International, Prostitution Research & Education, MISSSEY, and Breaking Free. These groups are on the forefront in the fight against sex trafficking, and I am proud to have their support.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I wish to congratulate her on her leadership on this issue. We clearly have had a very extensive debate in our caucus on this. There are varying views, and I have thought a lot about it. I have had 120,000 California constituents write and call, of which about 93 percent are strongly opposed. I would say to the chairman of the committee that one of the things that interested me from reading these constituent letters was really how informed individuals were about this pipeline.

Let me lay out some of the environmental concerns. You have heard this, but perhaps you haven't heard it in entirely this way. The Keystone Pipeline was proposed to accommodate increased extraction of oil from the tar sands of Alberta. These tar sands cover an area of 54,000 square miles. That is roughly the size of New York, so it is huge.

I first came upon this by reading a March 2009 issue of National Geographic, and in that they showed part of the desecration to the land--forests down, tar sands. It looked like a Moon face. A huge portion of these deposits can only be accessed through open-pit surface mining, which destroys natural forests and bogs. Then the oil sands are mixed with heated water, chemicals are added, and it is driven up with steam in order to separate it from the sand. These methods are costly, they are energy-intensive, they are carbon-intensive, and they leave behind a significant amount of toxic waste. And that is just the extraction process.

Transportation of the oil poses additional risks to the environment-- namely, the risk of pipeline spills. The first Keystone Pipeline, which is already operating in our country, had to be shut down several times for safety concerns. It leaked 14 times during its first year of operation. Across the border in Canada, the same pipeline spilled 21 times in its first year of operation. These pipeline spills are dangerous and difficult to clean up. The danger from spills is even greater since the new leg of the pipeline would run over Nebraska's Ogallala Aquifer, which is a critical source of drinking water for millions and an irrigation source for farmers.

Beyond degrading our environment, this project also runs against our efforts--as has been said many times on this floor--to combat climate change. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, by the time oil from Keystone makes it to a car in the form of gasoline, it has already produced 80 percent--80 percent--more greenhouse gas emissions than typical crude oil.

Here is how the math works out. Producing, refining, and combusting oil from Keystone will release up to 27 million metric tons more carbon dioxide every year than would be produced from burning the same volume of crude oil. Those additional emissions are equivalent to the emissions of 5.7 million cars on the road or 8 coal-fired powerplants. I think that is pretty impressive as to the totally negative impact of this. So this would be a poor way to begin meeting the President's pledge in Beijing to dramatically reduce our emissions, if the first time we do something it creates 27 million metric tons more carbon dioxide every year and is equivalent to the emissions of 5.7 million cars.

On the economics of the pipeline, there is simply not enough benefit to outweigh the environmental damage. The project is not going to lower gasoline prices for American drivers. The oil is intended to be sold on the global market, not for the benefit of American motorists. The State Department has concluded that the pipeline would have little impact on the prices U.S. consumers pay.

So I believe this project has terrible environmental hazards and risks, it is not necessary, and it certainly is not helpful to our environment.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I wish to speak to this bill, and I have to say that this is one of the few times that the vice chairman, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I have a disagreement.

I very much support this 215 metadata program. I think the Intelligence Committee had approximately 12 hearings on the subject last year.

Many people believe that the NSA is using this program all the time. In fact, in the year 2012 there were 288 approved queries, and 12 of them eventually led the FBI to obtain a probable cause warrant for the content of the communications. In fact, you cannot obtain content in a query; a query just searches the phone metadata.

Then the next criticism we have heard has been, well, the government should not hold the metadata. And that is essentially the big change this bill makes.

In October 2013, we voted out of our committee--by a vote of 11 to 4--a FISA reform act; however, in my judgment, that bill is not going to pass in this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended, please.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I recently talked with Members of the House, and here is what they told me: If we didn't pass the House bill, there were Members who wanted to end the whole metadata program. I do not want to end the program. I am prepared to make this compromise, which is that the metadata will be kept by the telecom companies.

Senator Chambliss and I wrote a letter to the four big telecoms, and we asked them if they would hold the data. The answer came back from two ``yes,'' and the answer that came back from the other two was inconclusive. Since that time the situation has changed--not in writing but by personal testament from officials with the two other companies that they will hold the data for at least 2 years.

Here is the problem: Although there is no mandate to hold the phone metadata, the fact is that the telecoms have agreed to hold the data for a sufficient period of time.

The President himself has assured me that he is comfortable with this bill. And I believe that if we do not pass this bill, the metadata program is at risk because the 215 program sunsets next year.

Senator Rubio sits on the intelligence committee. I listened to him with interest. I agree with what he said about ISIL and other terrorist groups. They will come after us if they can, and the only protection we have is essentially to disrupt a plot before it becomes a reality in this country.

The metadata program is not as widely used as the 288 approved queries in a given year would indicate.

Additionally, in this bill--and I think this should be of satisfaction to a number of people--the FISA Court would have to approve a query before that query takes place.

I am prepared to support this bill, and I do so for very practical reasons because without it, I believe we will not have a metadata program.

This is hard for me because I have tried to be supportive of the legislation that comes out of our committee. I have talked to Senator Leahy. I have said that the one big problem I have with his bill is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is upset with the language on the special advocate. Senator Leahy said he would change the language on this part of the bill.

Senator Blumenthal has an amendment--which I assume will pass--which does change the language on this part of the bill to accommodate the objections of the FISA court. If that is the case and the telecoms agree to hold the data, I believe that solves what is a very practical problem.

In any event, I have agreed to support this legislation.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express support for the continuing resolution which funds the government through December 11.

One provision in the bill I would like to focus on relates to our fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.

I believe there is an urgent need to confront this terrorist group, and Congress can help this effort by supporting President Obama's plan and voting for the continuing resolution.

The CR includes a provision to provide the Defense Department with the authority for the U.S. Armed Forces to train and equip an opposition force capable of confronting ISIL.

I believe we must come together in large numbers--Democrats and Republicans--to pass this provision as quickly as possible. A strong bipartisan majority would give the Obama administration and the American people a strong sense of unity and purpose as we all grapple with the threat of ISIL. We must give the President the tools he needs to succeed. Providing the Defense Department with this authority is just one part of the comprehensive strategy, but it is an important one.

The President has said he has the legal authority to conduct airstrikes in Iraq and Syria and has laid out his strategy. After the election there will be ample time to debate the strategy further and potentially vote on a new authorization of military force, but in the short-term we must pass this authorization--at this time the only authority the administration has asked Congress to approve. If ever there were a time to unite behind President Obama, that time is now.

ISIL is like no other terrorist organization we have seen. It has become a ruthless terrorist army that occupies territory and controls civilian populations through fear, intimidation, and brutality.

It controls large swaths of land in two nations. In Syria it controls nearly one-third of the country, and in Iraq it effectively controls as many as 14 cities.

According to a recent CIA estimate, ISIL may have as many as 30,000 fighters--and separately there may be up to 25,000 Sunni tribesmen who have associated themselves with ISIL forces.

ISIL has looted heavy weaponry--including artillery, tanks and armored vehicles--from the battlefield. Much of that equipment is now being used against innocent civilians and our partners on the ground. ISIL has killed tens of thousands of people. They kill with abandon, including the brutal massacre of hundreds of Iraqi and Syrian soldiers, stripped, bound and buried in shallow graves. ISIL is also well-funded through criminality, ransom payments, extortion and the sale of oil. Its control of territory and resources is topped only by its level of brutality.

Over the past few weeks, I have personally reviewed photos, videos and personal stories of ISIL's countless victims. I have seen the beheading of American and British hostages and pictures of the crucifixion of many innocent civilians, including a girl as young as 6 years of age. I have seen photos of heads staked on fence posts and films of the mass-execution of Iraqi and Syrian army units. In one gory report, after ISIL took control of two oilfields in eastern Syria from the al-Sheitaat tribe, they summarily executed 700 tribesmen. I have read stories of women bound to trees and forced to be sexual prizes for ISIL fighters who performed well in battle. There are reports that thousands of Yazidi women have been taken as slaves and I have read the testimonials of the few who were lucky enough to escape. They describe being confined, eating only once a day, being given away as wives, raped and abused at the hands of ISIL fighters. I have seen devastating footage of Yazidis and Christians literally running for their lives from approaching ISIL forces, faced with the choice of converting to Islam or death. When one Yazidi girl was surrounded by ISIL fighters, she said, ``I've never felt so helpless in my 14 years. They had blocked our path to safety, and there was nothing we could do.''

The lack of humanity is shocking and despicable. It is pure evil and it should haunt the world. And while ISIL is now limited to Syria and Iraq, it has made clear its intentions are to bring the fight to the United States and our allies.

In Iraq, a major concern of mine is that their next attack will be our Embassy in Baghdad. I have no doubt that ISIL leaders also intend to hit us here in our homeland.

In July 2012, ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said: ``The mujahidin have also sworn they will make you suffer more pain than that caused by Usama [bin Laden]. You will see them in your own country, God willing.''

In January of this year, during his radio address, Baghdadi added: ``Our last message is to the Americans. Soon we'll be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So watch out for us, for we are with you, watching.''

Finally, in a video posted on August 19, 2014, the executioner of James Foley stated: ``So any attempt by you, Obama, to deny the Muslims their rights of living in safety under the Islamic Caliphate will result in the bloodshed of your people.''

We have no specific information that ISIL is planning an attack against the United States, but we also had no clear understanding of al-Qaeda's specific plotting in the days before 9/11 an attack that would claim nearly 3,000 American lives.

ISIL's territorial control, resources, brutality and intention to broaden their attacks make it clear that we must act. I support the President's actions to confront and ultimately destroy ISIL.

As he has said, we will expand airstrikes against ISIL targets, including in Syria; maintain a united international coalition--with Arab countries--that will contribute to the fight in meaningful ways; encourage continued political reconciliation in Baghdad to diminish ISIL's support from Sunni tribes; halt the flow of foreign fighters and resources to ISIL; and provide weapons to the Kurdish peshmerga, Iraqi security forces and moderate forces inside Syria.

Action is currently underway in many of those areas. Air strikes have helped defend key infrastructure such as the Mosul Dam and protected civilians in Amirli and Mt. Sinjar. More recently, the President has expanded the air campaign by going on the offensive and attacking ISIL on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Secretaries Kerry and Hagel have been building a coalition with international partners, including much of Europe and at least 10 Arab nations. New Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in the process of finalizing the Cabinet and has made sincere efforts to bridge the sectarian divide. These are all steps in the right direction. Today, the necessary action before us is to pass this CR, which provides limited authority to train and equip a military force to fight ISIL on the ground. The President has ruled out putting U.S. ground forces in combat roles for now, so we must have partners that can take the fight to ISIL. Without such a force, ISIL will continue to enjoy a safe haven in eastern Syria and once ISIL is pushed out of territory, the Assad regime or other extremists could fill the vacuum.

Bolstering this fighting force is critical to our goal of degrading and destroying ISIL. While it is just one part of the President's plan, it will work in conjunction with our ongoing diplomatic, intelligence, military and economic efforts.

The continuing resolution includes the authority the Defense Department needs to begin training such a force. The provision also requires the administration to produce a plan to explain how arming the moderate opposition fits within the President's larger regional strategy to defeat ISIL. It also requires regular reports to Congress to keep us informed of the training activities.

We already know Saudi Arabia is prepared to host a training program, and I suspect other Arab states will help fund it. But without this authority in this CR, U.S. troops and trainers will not be able to participate in this essential program.

Regardless of whether we waited too long to confront ISIL, we now have a strategy that we need to support to turn the tide. U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have protected our people and prevented a humanitarian catastrophe. As we now take the fight directly to ISIL, Congress needs to give the President the tools he needs to ramp up the battle.

This is a matter of national security and I hope members of both parties will come together to support the President's request.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, whose nomination to be Deputy Secretary at the Department of Energy was confirmed today.

Throughout her career, Dr. Sherwood-Randall has been an exemplary public servant and academic. She has mastered the domain of nuclear issues, arms control, European affairs and has served her country at the highest of levels. I am confident she will continue her impressive record of service and will be an excellent Deputy Secretary of Energy.

At the outset of her career she was a foreign policy advisor to then- Senator Joe Biden.

In the Clinton administration she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.

In the Obama administration she was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council and later White House Coordinator for Defense Policy, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction and Arms Control.

When not serving in government, she held a variety of academic roles affiliated with Harvard and Stanford Universities and the Council on Foreign Relations.

The mission of the Energy Department is ``to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.''

As the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water Development, I know the complexities of the issues facing the new Deputy Secretary. I also know that it will be invaluable to the Energy Department to have a well-rounded leadership team.

The current Secretary of Energy is well-steeped in energy issues. Dr. Sherwood-Randall brings expertise in the national security realm, which is becoming more and more important and related to energy issues. This leadership model has been proven to work and I trust this combination of skills will result in smart energy policy and strong management.

For example, a key part of the Department's mission--and one which is a high priority for me--is the responsibility to secure and dispose of nuclear and radiological material. For this, I am encouraged by Dr. Sherwood-Randall's long history of experience working on non- proliferation issues.

It remains a priority of mine to enact a national policy to store our nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is piling up all around the country and we are losing millions of dollars every year in the absence of a coherent policy. This is why I have introduced, and will continue to push, legislation which establishes an interim national policy to safely store our nuclear waste.

It should be obvious that this is precisely the type of issue that Dr. Sherwood-Randall will be adept at navigating, and I look forward to working with her on this and many other issues.

In sum, the nominee before us today is a skilled policy advisor, an accomplished academic and a dedicated American public servant.

It is with great pleasure that I support her nomination today and I thank my colleagues for their vote to confirm her.

Mr. President, the Affordable Care Act made great strides in improving access to health insurance for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, especially in high-cost geographic areas, some in the middle class are facing high insurance premiums.

If you make a penny over $45,960 you lose all Federal assistance for purchasing health insurance through the new exchanges. This is especially hard for individuals between the ages of 50 and 64, who are facing higher premiums but do not yet qualify for Medicare.

I have received thousands of calls and emails about access to health insurance. The high costs are a real problem. For example, Dave, one of my constituents from Livermore, CA, wrote to me to share how this policy has affected him. Dave is 60 and self-employed, making $65,000 per year. He signed up for a plan through the new health insurance exchange to cover both himself and his wife. If they made just $3,000 less per year they would have qualified for a subsidy and paid $491 for the second lowest cost silver plan. Since they are just over the threshold, the full cost of this plan is $1552. They decided to go with less robust coverage and still pay $1147 for a bronze plan. Under this legislation, Dave and his wife could get a better plan for less than half of what they pay now.

Another constituent, Dan, lives in Riverside, CA, and is 62 years old. He wrote to me and explained that his pension is just barely too high to receive help with his health insurance premiums and that he just can't afford it. Currently, the second lowest cost silver plan for Dan and his wife would be $1141 per month. Under this legislation, they would be able to afford health insurance.

The way the law is currently designed, there is a steep subsidy cliff.

This should gradually reduce, in a way that provides some help for more middle-income Americans so they pay no more than 9.5 percent their income in health insurance premiums.

The Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would do just that. This legislation extends the current subsidy up to 600 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is $68,940 for an individual. As an individual makes more, their subsidy goes down.

I am particularly concerned about older individuals who need medical care but face premiums they simply cannot afford. In California, it is estimated that approximately 360,600 individuals between the ages of 50-64 who do not qualify for Medicaid or have employer-based coverage would see premiums greater than 9.5 percent of their income. Nearly 98,000 of these are expected to remain uninsured due to the cost. This is a simple fix to improve the law that will further increase access to coverage.

The bill is paid for by a nominal increase in the federal cigarette tax, which amounts to five cents per pack.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. It is commonsense to have a gradual decline in the federal assistance for health insurance and help those who are just out of reach of affording it on their own.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, the Affordable Care Act made great strides in improving access to health insurance for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, especially in high-cost geographic areas, some in the middle class are facing high insurance premiums.

If you make a penny over $45,960 you lose all Federal assistance for purchasing health insurance through the new exchanges. This is especially hard for individuals between the ages of 50 and 64, who are facing higher premiums but do not yet qualify for Medicare.

I have received thousands of calls and emails about access to health insurance. The high costs are a real problem. For example, Dave, one of my constituents from Livermore, CA, wrote to me to share how this policy has affected him. Dave is 60 and self-employed, making $65,000 per year. He signed up for a plan through the new health insurance exchange to cover both himself and his wife. If they made just $3,000 less per year they would have qualified for a subsidy and paid $491 for the second lowest cost silver plan. Since they are just over the threshold, the full cost of this plan is $1552. They decided to go with less robust coverage and still pay $1147 for a bronze plan. Under this legislation, Dave and his wife could get a better plan for less than half of what they pay now.

Another constituent, Dan, lives in Riverside, CA, and is 62 years old. He wrote to me and explained that his pension is just barely too high to receive help with his health insurance premiums and that he just can't afford it. Currently, the second lowest cost silver plan for Dan and his wife would be $1141 per month. Under this legislation, they would be able to afford health insurance.

The way the law is currently designed, there is a steep subsidy cliff.

This should gradually reduce, in a way that provides some help for more middle-income Americans so they pay no more than 9.5 percent their income in health insurance premiums.

The Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would do just that. This legislation extends the current subsidy up to 600 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is $68,940 for an individual. As an individual makes more, their subsidy goes down.

I am particularly concerned about older individuals who need medical care but face premiums they simply cannot afford. In California, it is estimated that approximately 360,600 individuals between the ages of 50-64 who do not qualify for Medicaid or have employer-based coverage would see premiums greater than 9.5 percent of their income. Nearly 98,000 of these are expected to remain uninsured due to the cost. This is a simple fix to improve the law that will further increase access to coverage.

The bill is paid for by a nominal increase in the federal cigarette tax, which amounts to five cents per pack.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. It is commonsense to have a gradual decline in the federal assistance for health insurance and help those who are just out of reach of affording it on their own.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Letitia--Tish--A. Long, who will retire on October 3, 2014, as Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or NGA.

It gives me great pleasure to speak publicly about Director Long, who has not only had an exemplary and distinguished career spanning 36 years in the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense, but who is someone I have gotten to know on a personal level.

As the Director of the NGA, Ms. Long was the first woman to head a major U.S. intelligence agency, and she will therefore always have a place in history as one of the Nation's most important figures in military and national intelligence. She is also a leading figure among women engineers.

I am grateful that in retirement, Tish will continue to advocate and find ways to encourage young women to go into the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

After studying electrical engineering as an undergraduate at Virginia Tech, and then earning a master's degree in mechanical engineering at Catholic University, Tish began her government service as a civilian electrical engineer at the Office of Naval Intelligence, where she was often the only woman in a room full of male engineers.

In 1994, she was promoted to the ranks of the Senior Executive Service, where she eventually served in a dual role at the Naval Intelligence Staff as director for Requirements, Plans, Policy and Programs; and director of Resource Management.

Looking back at her career, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Long reached great heights within the Intelligence Community. In 1995, she participated in the planning for the creation of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the predecessor agency of NGA, which she would later lead as Director. From 1998 to 2000, Tish served on the staff of the Director of Central Intelligence as the executive director for Intelligence Community Affairs on the community management staff, the predecessor organization to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Director Long's previous positions included service as Director of the Military Intelligence Staff at DIA and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence. Tish was instrumental in the creation of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, where she served as the first Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for Policy, Requirements and Resources. In 2006, she returned to the DIA as its Deputy Director.

Then, in August of 2010, Ms. Long became the fifth Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. As its director, Tish expertly managed the multibillion-dollar NGA budget and a workforce of nearly 10,000 government employees during a challenging period that included two wars, budget sequestration, and a government shutdown.

Under Director Long's skillful leadership, NGA provided extensive support to our Nation's highest priority security concerns, from counterterrorism missions across the globe--including critical support to the raid that killed Usama bin Laden--to monitoring and providing advanced warning on crises in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

I have appreciated Director Long's candor with the Senate Intelligence Committee and her willingness to address the committee's concerns. Ms. Long's leadership on intelligence integration, advanced analytic tradecraft, and technology initiatives significantly improved intelligence production for the Defense Department, the Intelligence Community, and our allied partners. These efforts also provided greater insight into national security issues for policymakers in both the executive branch and Congress.

Let me close by saying that those of us who are fortunate enough to know Tish personally can attest to her dedication to the mission, personal integrity, and unwavering loyalty to our Nation.

As she leaves government service, Tish will have more time to spend with her husband John Skibinski, stepdaughters Jordan, Lindsay, and Katherine, and granddaughter Hanna.

It is with great pride and honor that I personally recognize Director Tish Long as an innovator, leader, and friend.

We wish Tish all the best in the future. I yield the floor.

I believe so.

I thank the Senator. I wish to begin by saying the Appropriations Committee is in very good hands. Chairman Mikulski has done an excellent job, and I strongly support this supplemental that she has put together.

I wish to give my colleagues just some brief background of my involvement in the unaccompanied alien children issue. It began around 1999. On Thanksgiving Day, a 5-year-old in an inner tube off the coast of Florida, 3 miles out, was picked up by a fisherman. His name was Elian Gonzalez. The fisherman rescued him and he was taken to a hospital, but his mother and 11 others on the raft had drowned in their attempt to come to the United States from Cuba. That launched in this country a major debate about an unaccompanied alien child, whether he goes back to his father or whether he remains with his uncle in Miami.

Then, secondly, I am home one day and I turn on the television set, and I see a 15-year-old Chinese girl who had been placed on a container ship from China by her parents to flee China's rigid family planning laws. She came to this country. She was alone. She was desperate. She was picked up.

I saw her asylum hearing. She was unrepresented. She was shackled, her wrists were bound, and big tears were rolling down her face. She couldn't understand a single word that was spoken. She was held in a jail cell for eight months and in another detention facility for another four months after that. She eventually received asylum in our country, but she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should undergo.

At the time, she was only one of 5,000 other foreign-born children who were apprehended in the United States in need of protection. I remember thinking that that such treatment was terrible, and I had to do something.

In 2000, I introduced the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act. I also pushed for the change in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which successfully transferred the responsibility for the care of unaccompanied alien children from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Department of Health and Human Services.

However, that change by itself was not enough to ensure that unaccompanied children were properly treated. Therefore, over the next 6 years, I continued to consult with relevant Federal agencies, children's advocates, immigration attorneys, House Members such as Zoe Lofgren on the House Judiciary Committee, and fellow Senators.

Finally, in 2008 the legislation was included, amazingly enough, by voice vote in both Houses, as part of a larger trafficking bill, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. It was signed into law by President Bush on December 23, 2008. It took effect 6 months later. That year, the number of children was in the vicinity of 8,000. It provided the framework for how unaccompanied children would be treated while in the United States and for their safe and orderly return to their home countries without undue delay if they did not qualify to stay.

We now have a dramatically escalated situation that was not foreseeable at that time. Last fiscal year 2013, 24,000 unaccompanied children arrived in our country. This year more than 62,000 unaccompanied children have arrived in our country, and the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for as many as 90,000 such children to arrive in the country by the end of this year.

The numbers are so great and so unprecedented that our Federal agencies understandably are having difficulty carrying out the procedures and timelines in place. I have sent members of my staff in California to every Office and Refugee Services shelter in the State, and they have sent me photos and their impressions. I wish to take a moment to thank all our people, whether it is Border Patrol or ICE of Homeland Security or anybody else--such as Health and Human Services-- for the excellent job they are doing. I saw 8 to 10 facilities through pictures and reports, where children were in bright rooms, had beds with covers, and a day program. So, every effort has been made.

But the numbers are so great and unprecedented that the difficulties continue. When we run out of money, there is going to be a different story.

But we must remember that the children at issue, who are unaccompanied, are primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, three Central American countries which are deeply troubled. Many have entered as victims, I am sorry to say, of rape, abuse, poverty, and above all, violence.

They are alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. Many are young and unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify about their needs as accurately as adults can. Considering this, there is no other option but for us to help and continue to treat them humanely, with compassion and due process. That is what this supplemental does.

I have met with Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, and the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell, and both tell us their agencies run out of funds by September. We must responsibly fund these agencies, for not only are they managing the current humanitarian crisis at our border, but they are also charged with protecting human life and our homeland security.

With this funding, not only can we preserve our commitment to treat children as the children that they are, we can improve the way that the current law is being administered and more efficiently put our resources to work.

Earlier today, I met with immigration judges from the U.S. Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review. They informed me they are desperate for increased resources with which to handle not only the influx of children's cases but also a current backlog of 375,000 cases. Due to there being only 243 immigration judges across the country, immigrants today wait 587 average days for a hearing. That is one year and 7 months before they have the opportunity to come before an immigration judge.

With adequate funding from this supplemental, which provides for immigration judge teams, legal representation and services, government immigration litigation attorneys and courtroom equipment, among other things, this crisis can be managed and make the processing of children more efficient.

One of the judges who sits in Miami told me that through her court where a child has representation, a voluntary return to the country of origin was able to be achieved in a majority of her cases. So the majority of children actually took voluntary departure and returned to their countries. A judge can't make a phone call, but a counsel can-- the attorneys could make the calls to do the necessary preparation and see that a safe home could be arranged. Because of this representation, cases are processed more quickly and children could safely return.

I understand there has been concern that unaccompanied children will not appear for their immigration court proceedings. That is simply not true. The fact is, whether represented or not, 60.9 percent do appear, and the number increases to 92.5 percent when represented by counsel. So these children do get before a judge--60.9 percent of them, and if they have a lawyer, 92 percent.

With this supplemental funding, the immigration courts, with help from legal representatives, would be able to hear more quickly immigration cases and determine with justice who may stay and who must go.

I was contacted recently by Winston Lord, a former U.S. Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State, who is all too familiar with managing situations of international crises while preserving our national interest. In reflecting on the current crisis, he acknowledged the need for effective border control and immigration enforcement to ensure national security and a comprehensive solution. However, he also identified the heart of the matter here: ``These challenges . . . need not be met by using ineffective and indiscriminate approaches that harm innocent children.''

He is right.

We are a great Nation, capable of safeguarding our national security while simultaneously proceeding with humanity in addressing this crisis, and any future challenges that this country faces. This problem demands action now to provide these agencies with the funds they need to meet this crisis.

Now, if we don't pass this, and if these departments run out of money, and if facilities have to be closed, and if there is nowhere for these children to go, let us think for a moment what happens to them. Should they experience the same thing in this country they have back home? What will they do? And what does that do to our conscience?

I think this supplemental is well put together. The chairman of our committee has gone through it with a fine tooth comb. She has reduced it in size. I think it is well representative of the situation that dramatically needs funding. So I really hope there is a heart in this body and that this supplemental appropriation is approved.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Well, that is exactly right. The chairwoman's supplemental does that. That is really what makes the difference for the child. If a child can't speak the language and if a child is held in a jail cell and if a child is shackled and handcuffed before a judge, and a child has nobody to help them and no one they know in this country, what can they do except cry? That is what I saw directly myself, and that is what sort of awakened me then to a problem, which was just 5,000 a year in the start of this. Now we are at 54,000, and probably 90,000 before the end of the year.

So I thank the Senator for her support and her energy and effort that she has put forward.

I hope this body does the right thing.

Remembering Admiral Chuck Larson

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senator Portman and Senator Begich that would expand the definition of ``homeless'' used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure all homeless children and families are eligible for existing Federal homeless assistance programs.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.1 million children were homeless during the 2011-2012 school year; this is a 24 percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students enrolled in the 2009-2010 school year.

In California, nearly 250,000 children experienced homelessness last year, up from 220,000 in 2010 and nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children in the State in 2003.

Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD ``Point-in-Time Count'' fail to reflect these increasing numbers.

According to the 2012 HUD ``Point-in-Time Count,'' there were only 247,178 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the true number.

This is important because only those children counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck.

The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2014 would expand the homeless definition to allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels or in doubled up situations because they have nowhere else to go.

These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking because they are often not served by a case manager, and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers.

As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive federal funding through the competitive application process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families.

This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use federal funds to meet local priorities.

I would note that the bill comes at no cost to taxpayers and does not impose any new mandates on service providers.

Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report data on homeless individuals and families currently recorded under the existing Homeless Management Information System survey.

I am pleased that Senators Rob Portman and Mark Begich have joined me as original cosponsors on this bill.-

Homelessness continues to plague our nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.

It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senator Portman and Senator Begich that would expand the definition of ``homeless'' used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure all homeless children and families are eligible for existing Federal homeless assistance programs.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.1 million children were homeless during the 2011-2012 school year; this is a 24 percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students enrolled in the 2009-2010 school year.

In California, nearly 250,000 children experienced homelessness last year, up from 220,000 in 2010 and nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children in the State in 2003.

Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD ``Point-in-Time Count'' fail to reflect these increasing numbers.

According to the 2012 HUD ``Point-in-Time Count,'' there were only 247,178 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the true number.

This is important because only those children counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck.

The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2014 would expand the homeless definition to allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels or in doubled up situations because they have nowhere else to go.

These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking because they are often not served by a case manager, and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers.

As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive federal funding through the competitive application process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families.

This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use federal funds to meet local priorities.

I would note that the bill comes at no cost to taxpayers and does not impose any new mandates on service providers.

Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report data on homeless individuals and families currently recorded under the existing Homeless Management Information System survey.

I am pleased that Senators Rob Portman and Mark Begich have joined me as original cosponsors on this bill.-

Homelessness continues to plague our nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.

It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

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

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Andre Birotte to be a U.S. district judge for the Central District of California.

I recommended Mr. Birotte to serve as U.S. attorney for this district in 2009. I have been very impressed by his performance in that role since his unanimous confirmation by the Senate in 2010. I believe he will be an outstanding district judge.

Mr. Birotte received his law degree from Pepperdine in 1991 and his bachelor's from Tufts in 1987. He then served as a deputy public defender for the Los Angeles County Public Defender's office. He later spent 4 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Central District of California, where he prosecuted violent crime, fraud, and narcotics cases.

In 1999, he spent a year in private practice before moving to the Los Angeles Police Commission, where he served as assistant inspector general and later as inspector general until he became U.S. attorney. As inspector general, Birotte built a strong reputation for fairness and earned the respect of all sides, including in the law enforcement community. In 2009, then-LAPD Chief Bill Bratton--who is deeply respected on both sides of the aisle in this body--wrote to me to express his ``strongest endorsement and support'' for Birotte. As Chief Bratton said: ``In the approximately six years that I have known Andre, our working relationship has been one of transparency, cooperation, trust, and respect.''

In 2009, as I said, I recommended him to the President for appointment as U.S. attorney. He earned high marks from my bipartisan advisory committee and an outpouring of support from a broad spectrum of respected individuals in the Los Angeles community. The Senate soon confirmed him unanimously and he has served in his current position with distinction ever since.

When I introduced Mr. Birotte to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, I went through the impressive work the U.S. attorney's office has done under his leadership in a number of areas. I will not go into each of those cases today, except to note that they cover very important areas of Federal law enforcement, including: national security, gangs and organized crime, sex crimes and human trafficking, public corruption, and civil rights.

Since his nomination was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote, the U.S. attorney's office has continued its impressive track record of enforcing the law. In one case, a Los Angeles doctor who ran medical clinics pleaded guilty to illegally prescribing addictive painkillers and laundering the cash payments, which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Last month, the owner and employees of a Los Angeles-area immigration consulting firm were arrested after being indicted for filing fraudulent green card applications. The office's press release states that the defendants quoted fees for their services, but then more than tripled those fees and ``allegedly threatened to contact authorities and have the aliens deported'' after ``several of the foreign nationals sought refunds.''

Just 2 weeks ago, Mr. Birotte's office announced that two men from Long Beach, CA pleaded guilty to ``conspiracy charges arising from a sex trafficking scheme that exploited adult women for prostitution.'' Bill Lewis, assistant director in charge of the FBI Los Angeles field office, stated: ``In this case, the defendants defrauded victims and forced them to work as sex slaves under threat to themselves and their families.'' The office's press release states that both men now face up to life imprisonment.

Let me conclude by saying that throughout his career Andre Birotte has built a reputation for fairness and for a profound commitment to the rule of law. He has earned the deep respect of people on all sides of difficult issues. In fact, Birotte is supported not only by State and Federal law enforcement, but also by the Central District's Federal Public Defender, Sean Kennedy. Kennedy told my selection committee that Birotte has ``incredible judgment'' and would make a ``wonderful federal judge.'' It says something very special about the chief Federal prosecutor for the second-largest district in the Nation when the chief Federal Public Defender for the district has such high praise.

This is a nominee I am proud to have recommended, and that the Senate should be proud to confirm.

Mr. President, despite significant progress in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, this continues to be the second leading cause of cancer death for women, affecting one of every 8 women in the United States.

Women with dense breast tissue may receive a normal mammogram report even if cancer is present. Dense breast tissue makes it harder to catch cancer early because it can obscure cancer in the mammogram image. This is why, for some women, additional screening is so important in catching breast cancer early.

Despite this risk for cancer being missed, when women receive their mammogram report there is no Federal standard for them to be told if they have dense tissue--even though this is already noted by the radiologist reading their mammogram.

This bill simply requires that women be informed if they have dense tissue, and that they may want to talk with their doctor if they have questions and to find out if they might benefit from additional screening. Early detection is the key to survival. Withholding this kind of information from women just doesn't make sense.

This bill sets a minimum Federal standard, so any state that wants to have additional reporting requirements may do so. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research regarding dense breast tissue, and better screening tools. Early detection is the key to beating cancer and patients deserve access to information that might just save their life.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Ayotte and me in supporting the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. This commonsense bill increases transparency in medicine by

improving patients' access to their own health information and is supported by organizations including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Breast Cancer Fund, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.