By Sen. Dianne Feinstein It's no exaggeration to say that COVID-19 is the most challenging public health crisis of the last 100 years. No outbreak has spread so quickly and affected such a wide range of people -- not SARS, not H1N1, not even HIV/AIDS. Yet after seven months of rising cases and at least 147,000 dead Americans, we still have no comprehensive national strategy. This must be immediately rectified. A national strategy must be based on recommendations from public health officials, infectious disease experts and economists. The bottom line is that it needs to be guided by science and data, not politics. So where does that leave us? The following six-point plan reflects broad consensus among a wide range of experts on what a national strategy should entail. If the White House can't develop and implement such a plan -- based on science and data -- Congress should step into that void. ? First, we need a national mask mandate. Masks work, period. Public health experts told us this months ago and numerous studies back that up. The United States this week topped 4 million positive cases and the rate continues to increase. My home state of California, even with early and strong action, topped 400,000 coronavirus cases and last week overtook New York as the state with the most infections. We can get those numbers under control with masks. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield said we could stop the current surge in cases in just a couple months if everyone wore a mask. Even President Trump, after months of refusal, said mask use is "patriotic." And while 28 governors have implemented mask mandates, widespread reluctance remains. A national mask mandate would ensure a blanket rule that face coverings are required. Leaving this up to governors hasn't worked well enough. We need a national mandate. ? Second, we need a national testing plan. We know individuals who aren't showing symptoms are still unknowingly spreading the virus. Testing can help stop that. If we had the capacity to test millions of Americans each day, we could quickly get asymptomatic transfer under control and stop the rapid spread. So far the White House has handed the responsibility for testing off to state and local officials. To make matters worse, President Trump has said we should test fewer people so our case numbers artificially drop. It's time for the federal government to stop passing the buck and accept responsibility for ensuring that testing is available to everyone. ? Third, we must add a national component to contact tracing to track those who have been infected. Whether this is a federal program or vastly more support and guidance for states, it needs to get done. So-called contact tracing begins when an individual is diagnosed. That person is contacted by an official and their steps are traced back to each person with whom they recently had close contact. Those individuals are then notified and asked to self-isolate and take other precautions. This has the added benefit of assisting with early detection, which can save more lives. Unfortunately, contact tracing isn't cheap. It's manpower intensive. The federal government needs to step up and provide funding, as well as consider deploying AmeriCorps and Peace Corps volunteers. ? Fourth, we're once again facing shortages of lifesaving personal protective equipment and testing supplies. The president needs to finally overcome his reluctance to implement his authority under the Defense Production Act and support a national PPE effort. It's appalling that hospitals and clinics are again facing shortages of masks, gowns and other safety items. And many states and local governments don't have enough testing equipment, forcing them to compete against each other for supplies. The president has the ability to ease these shortages. He should have fully implemented the Defense Production Act months ago to fill these gaps, but better late than never. Doctors and nurses shouldn't have to risk their lives because safety equipment isn't available, and no one should go without a test. ? Fifth, we need to ensure that the patchwork of economic assistance programs that have been lifelines for small businesses and millions of laid off workers are continued. One example is the additional $600 in unemployment benefits that was part of the CARES Act. This assistance allows millions of families to pay rent, cover their bills, buy food and contribute to the economic recovery we so desperately need. Congress must extend this benefit and others, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, which has helped many small businesses. These programs aren't cheap, but the alternative is an even bigger hit to our already wounded economy. That's not an option. ? And sixth, we must immediately develop a national plan for vaccine distribution. Vaccines are still months away from final approval, but once one or more is available, it will take weeks if not months to produce and distribute. We need a plan in place on how to accomplish that. Who gets the first doses? Health care workers? Front line service employees? High-risk individuals? How will the vaccine be distributed and stored? Who will pay for it? These and many other questions need answers now, not once we have a vaccine in hand. The fact that we don't have a national strategy yet is beyond irresponsible. But that doesn't mean we can't play catch-up. And if the White House won't take on this responsibility, Congress should step in to move ahead with a plan based on science and data. Our lives depend on it.

By Senator Dianne Feinstein Over the last three years, the United States has withdrawn from two longstanding arms control agreements with Russia and may withdraw from a third. These treaties were pivotal to reducing the chances of nuclear confrontation and ending them now is dangerous. In withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, the president suggested he could craft better agreements from scratch. So far there is no evidence he has done so. And now our last-remaining bilateral nuclear arms control treaty with Russia -- New START -- is at risk. This start-from-scratch approach fails to take into consideration just how difficult it is to reach agreement on these treaties. Regarding New START, the far wiser course is to extend its provisions for five years and use that time to make any updates that may be needed. Extending New START would cap Russia's current strategic forces until at least 2026, offering greater predictability and transparency as we begin to replace our own aging nuclear weapons systems. It would also allow us to continue the extensive and effective verification regime that allows us to monitor Russia's adherence to the treaty's terms and provides unique and valuable intelligence on the size, capabilities, location, and operation of Russia's strategic forces. An extension of New START would also provide us the time and space to negotiate a follow-on arms control accord with Russia, China, and other nuclear powers. Specifically, with limits on strategic forces remaining in effect through 2026, the United States and Russia would have the opportunity to pursue measures for the limitation and reduction of nuclear capabilities not covered under New START, such as hypersonic weapons and non-deployed nuclear warheads. On the other hand, allowing New START to expire in February would likely represent the end of strategic arms control as we know it. It would lead to an expensive investment by the United States and Russia to expand and modernize our nuclear forces, which in turn could easily lead to additional nuclear spending by other nations -- something clearly not in our interest. Losing New START would also present greater uncertainties about Russia's present and future nuclear plans and capabilities, leading to concerns about the adequacy of our deterrent posture and recurrent nuclear fears and crises similar to those we experienced during the Cold War, like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Historically, the United States has built on the success of arms control agreements to craft new, stronger treaties. Open Skies was first mentioned as a concept by President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. It took decades to gain acceptance as an idea and to negotiate the terms before finally taking effect in 2002. New START itself built on the successes of START I, a concept born during the Reagan administration but not signed until nearly 10 years later. Even then, New START took eight rounds of bilateral talks with Russia before an agreement was reached and the treaty implemented in 2011. The point is that international arms agreements rarely move swiftly. They involve years of detailed discussions by career negotiators and most often are the result of building on a foundation of an expiring agreement. I know because, as a co-chair of the Senate's National Security Working Group, I observed New START negotiations between the U.S. and Russian teams. It is enormously complex and difficult. Jettisoning New START to go back to the drawing board is, at best, an enormous risk. What's more, our credibility is damaged every time we cancel an agreement. What assurances do other countries such as Russia, North Korea or China have that we will commit to a treaty if we repeatedly cancel agreements before their terms expire? The core concepts that serve as the foundation of New START -- reinforcing mutual deterrence, inhibiting costly and dangerous arms races, and allowing for extensive verification measures that reduce the opacity of competition -- still hold true. And the threat environment that we currently face would become even more complex and challenging without New START. Fortunately, New START contains a provision that allows for a five-year extension by simple executive agreement. President Vladimir Putin has already made clear that Russia would agree to this, and I call on President Donald Trump to do the same. There's no question that our existing arms control treaties with Russia need to be updated and improved upon. But that's best accomplished by building on what we already have. The perfect cannot become the enemy of the good when so much is at stake. President Trump should extend New START immediately.

By Rep. Dianne Feinstein Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell late last month said the outlook for the U.S. economy is "extraordinarily uncertain and will depend in large part on our success in containing the virus." Employment data illustrates this uncertainty: While the economy added 4.8 million jobs in June, a record number, that progress is threatened by a renewed surge of coronavirus cases. And to make matters worse, many Americans laid off since March are finding their old jobs are no longer there for them to return to. The success we have experienced can be attributed to the CARES Act. This law has helped nearly 5 million small businesses remain afloat and prevented millions of layoffs from becoming permanent. In addition to helping businesses maintain their payroll, the CARES Act provided $1,200 to most Americans to help pay bills and stimulate spending. Expanded unemployment benefits -- an additional $600 per week -- helped tens of millions more. All told, approximately 12 million Americans remained above the poverty line because of this intervention. But as promising as the economic recovery was, it has faltered since mid-June with the resurgence of coronavirus infections. As we wait for the July job numbers to be released, new unemployment claims stubbornly continue to rise by more than 1 million per week, now for 18 straight weeks On top of that, many states and localities face massive budget deficits due to declining revenues from the economic shutdown and the costs of addressing the pandemic. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that state governments alone will face a $555 billion shortfall through 2022. That doesn't include hundreds of billions more in expected deficits for local and tribal governments. What we can do: As the Senate considers another stimulus package, there are a number of steps we should take to provide additional relief and bolster the nascent recovery. * First, the Senate bill should provide federal aid to state and local governments to help them continue providing essential services. With experts predicting the pandemic will result in more than $1 trillion in state and local budget shortfalls, the federal government must step in to prevent massive cuts to critical services, including health and education. * Second, it should extend income support for unemployed and vulnerable individuals, including continuing the expanded unemployment benefits beyond the end of this month. Republicans, many of whom previously refused to consider extending this support, are now suggesting they're open to compromise. * Third, it must continue to invest in programs that keep workers on the job. The CARES Act provided forgivable loans to small businesses so long as employers retained their employees on payroll. This will make it easier for those businesses to reopen once conditions warrant. But we know that some sectors -- restaurants, travel and tourism and entertainment, to name three -- will face a longer and more difficult return to normal. They will need additional aid. * And fourth, it should provide additional stimulus to make up for lost demand due to the economic crisis. Economic experts say there are a number of ways to achieve this, including continued support to the unemployed. But however it's accomplished, stimulus will be needed to ensure a speedy recovery. This is a common sense approach to help American workers and businesses as we continue to battle the coronavirus. However, all of these steps are contingent on a national strategy to get the coronavirus under control. We need to rapidly expand testing and contact tracing. We must expand vital research into the development of treatments and a vaccine. And all of us should be doing our part by maintaining physical distancing, avoiding large gatherings and wearing masks in public. The House already passed a $3 trillion package that would implement many of the strategies outlined above. The Senate should either immediately vote on the House bill or pass its own legislation that fully addresses those needs. Any further delay will only hurt American families. If we do nothing, the economic gains we've seen could easily wither on the vine. We can't let that happen.