Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California, PUBLIC, Lands Act. This comprehensive bill would permanently protect over 900,000 acres of public lands and promote restoration on another 871,000 acres throughout northwest California, the central coast, and Los Angeles County. This bill includes protections for nearly 600,000 acres of new and proposed wilderness and nearly 700 miles of new wild and scenic rivers.

This legislation would preserve our public lands for the benefit of current and future generations and help protect California communities from impacts of the climate crisis. The PUBLIC Lands Act is grounded in the best conservation principles: it expands access to the outdoors for all, addresses disparities in access to nature, supports locally led efforts, and is based in science.

In northwest California, this bill would designate new wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, special management areas, and forest and watershed restoration areas. Importantly, it would increase wildfire resiliency in northwest California, where the impacts of the climate crisis have resulted in more frequent and severe wildfires.

Along the central coast, the bill would designate nearly 250,000 acres of public land in the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo Plain National Monument as wilderness and study the feasibility of creating a 400-mile long condor national recreation trail, stretching from Los Angeles to Monterey County. The designations in the bill would protect the abundant biodiversity that make the central coast so special.

In Los Angeles County, this bill would designate nearly 30,000 acres of new wilderness, helping provide permanent protections so that future generations can enjoy the limited wild and untouched spaces in Southern California.

The bill would also provide outdoor recreation opportunities for park-poor communities. This bill enjoys the support of hundreds of local municipalities and elected officials, community groups, businesses, and local outfitters. It is the product of significant public engagement in the legislative process spanning decades.

I want to highlight that this legislation protects existing water rights, property rights, and land-use authorities. The bill also does not create any new public lands, rather, it protects existing public lands through wilderness designations in order to keep these lands as pristine as possible.

The science is increasingly clear that we must conserve 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030 as part of ongoing efforts to solve the climate crisis, protect nature, and save America's wildlife. I am proud that the State of California has made significant strides to achieve this goal, and I am determined to do my part to protect our public lands and waters at the Federal level.

I would like to thank my colleagues and conservation champions, Representatives Jared Huffman, Salud Carbajal, and Judy Chu, for championing these bills in the House. I also want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill and working toward our shared goal of promoting restoration, recreation, and conservation throughout California. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the PUBLIC Lands Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Utah, and others know, I have been down here many times as we tried to work through a better way of ensuring that we have a fair and bipartisan and bicameral approach to passing these public lands bills.

The Senator from Maine just articulated one of the concerns about the Senate passing House bills or the House passing the Senate bills. Let me be a little bit more blunt and direct, because I don't think we are quite there yet, but I do think we are seeing the beginning of a more equitable process developing.

I was encouraged to see that, just earlier today, a Senate Republican bill and a Senate Democratic bill were packaged together as a single bill and sent over to the House. I think this approach is critical to ensuring that neither the House of Representatives nor the White House can discriminate against our Democratic priorities.

So I hope that we are now going to see action on the House side on that bill and other Senate Democratic bills, like that of my colleague from Maine, that we have sent over.

Therefore, as a gesture of good faith, I will not object to the passage of these four bills today, but I want to be very clear--I want to be clear with my colleagues in this body and our colleagues in the House of Representatives--that I will not consent to any additional House Republican public lands bills passing the Senate until the House passes and the White House signs into law these Senate Democratic bills.

Good faith must go both ways. I think it is critical that all interested Senators have an opportunity to sit down, when we return in January, with the leadership of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee to finally hammer out what that fair, bipartisan, and bicameral approach to passing public lands bills will be.

Now, I also acknowledge--and this may be a little insight for folks watching from home--that this year we have welcomed a new chair, in the Senate, of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, along with a new ranking member. On the House side, in the House Natural Resources Committee--which, Mr. President, you are very familiar with--the chairman there is not new, but as I understand it, given the rules of the Republican conference in the House, he is in his last session as chair, and there will soon be a new chair in the years ahead. There is a new ranking member of that committee in the House as well.

So as there has been this transition of leadership in both Chambers in these two very important committees, I think it is even more timely to bring the leadership together with interested Senators to hammer out what the understanding will be to establish a fair, bipartisan, and bicameral approach to the consideration and approval of public lands bills.

In that effort, I would appeal to our colleague from Alaska to help facilitate such a convening and the development of such an understanding and plan for going forward.

So with my concerns being articulated and my request and suggested path forward being on the record now, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act, legislation that would ensure that individuals whose constitutional or civil rights are violated by Federal law enforcement officers have access to justice.

This legislation would amend 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 to include Federal law enforcement Agencies--defined as ``public employers''--alongside State and local actors. It would create a statutory right of action allowing individuals, regardless of citizenship, to seek damages for civil rights violations committed by Federal law enforcement officers.

The bill would also allow suits against Federal Agencies when their employees violate constitutional rights, regardless of whether an Agency policy caused the harm, and would waive sovereign immunity for these claims to ensure that victims have access to redress in Federal court.

Importantly, the bill preserves existing defenses for individual officers, leaving the qualified immunity doctrine unchanged.

In recent months, Federal law enforcement Agencies have carried out high-profile raids and operations in communities across the country, including in California, where officers have been documented using violent and excessive tactics against immigrants, citizens, journalists, and bystanders. These incidents are not isolated; they reflect a broader pattern of

unaccountable conduct that erodes public trust and undermines the legitimacy of Federal authority.

When officers violate constitutional rights without consequence, the damage extends far beyond any single case. It deepens fear in already vulnerable communities and weakens faith in equal justice under law.

Under current law, individuals may sue State and local officers for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, but there is no statutory right to sue Federal officers for comparable violations. The only available remedy--the Bivens doctrine--has been sharply limited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 1971, the Court recognized a damages remedy for certain Fourth Amendment violations by Federal officers. Subsequent decisions extended Bivens to a Fifth Amendment gender discrimination claim and an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care. However, the Court has since restricted Bivens to just those three limited contexts, foreclosing other types of violations and leaving victims of Federal misconduct without a remedy.

The absence of accountability for Federal law enforcement misconduct cannot stand. Every person, citizen or not, should be able to seek redress when their constitutional rights are violated by those sworn to uphold them.

The Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act would close this gap and reaffirm a fundamental principle: that the rule of law applies equally to all, including those who enforce it.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act, legislation that would ensure that individuals whose constitutional or civil rights are violated by Federal law enforcement officers have access to justice.

This legislation would amend 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 to include Federal law enforcement Agencies--defined as ``public employers''--alongside State and local actors. It would create a statutory right of action allowing individuals, regardless of citizenship, to seek damages for civil rights violations committed by Federal law enforcement officers.

The bill would also allow suits against Federal Agencies when their employees violate constitutional rights, regardless of whether an Agency policy caused the harm, and would waive sovereign immunity for these claims to ensure that victims have access to redress in Federal court.

Importantly, the bill preserves existing defenses for individual officers, leaving the qualified immunity doctrine unchanged.

In recent months, Federal law enforcement Agencies have carried out high-profile raids and operations in communities across the country, including in California, where officers have been documented using violent and excessive tactics against immigrants, citizens, journalists, and bystanders. These incidents are not isolated; they reflect a broader pattern of

unaccountable conduct that erodes public trust and undermines the legitimacy of Federal authority.

When officers violate constitutional rights without consequence, the damage extends far beyond any single case. It deepens fear in already vulnerable communities and weakens faith in equal justice under law.

Under current law, individuals may sue State and local officers for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, but there is no statutory right to sue Federal officers for comparable violations. The only available remedy--the Bivens doctrine--has been sharply limited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 1971, the Court recognized a damages remedy for certain Fourth Amendment violations by Federal officers. Subsequent decisions extended Bivens to a Fifth Amendment gender discrimination claim and an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care. However, the Court has since restricted Bivens to just those three limited contexts, foreclosing other types of violations and leaving victims of Federal misconduct without a remedy.

The absence of accountability for Federal law enforcement misconduct cannot stand. Every person, citizen or not, should be able to seek redress when their constitutional rights are violated by those sworn to uphold them.

The Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act would close this gap and reaffirm a fundamental principle: that the rule of law applies equally to all, including those who enforce it.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life of Bob Foster, an enterprising business leader, clean energy visionary, and former mayor of the city of Long Beach, CA.

Born on January 1, 1947, in Brooklyn, NY, Robert ``Bob'' Foster learned the value of hard work early by laying

flooring with his father, a trade that eventually helped him pay his way through college at San Jose State University, where he graduated in 1969.

In 1971, Bob was hired by the California State Senate Energy Committee, where his hard work and intellect earned him the position of chief of staff just a year later. Early on, Bob worked on legislation that would help lead to the creation of the California Energy Commission and establish statewide energy efficiency standards.

In 1984, Bob was hired by Southern California Edison to serve as principal liaison to the California Legislature. After working his way up and helping SCE build up a pioneering renewable energy portfolio, in 2002, Bob became president of the company.

But many Californians remember Bob best for his leadership in public office. In 2006, Bob was elected mayor of the city of Long Beach, a position he would hold for two terms. Not long into his first term, California and the Nation were plunged into the depths of the Great Recession. But even at a time of great economic uncertainty, as mayor, Bob's disciplined leadership and steady hand helped Long Beach weather the storm, stabilizing the city's finances and creating the first budget surplus in 14 years, making significant environmental investments in the Port of Long Beach, and bringing violent crime numbers down to the lowest point in over four decades.

As longtime Long Beach City prosecutor Doug Haubert said: ``He was the kind of leader who knew it was up to him to make tough decisions. He had to lead us during the recession, and he did just that.''

Today, Bob's legacy lives on through the students of the ACE Academy at Jordan High School, learning construction and engineering; through the student-athletes at Long Beach State who are fortunate to receive the James Foster Endowed Scholarship, named after Bob's late son; and with all those who pass through the ``Bob Foster Civic Chambers.''

Angela and I send our love to Bob's wife Nancy and his entire family.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Office of Fusion Act. This bipartisan piece of legislation would establish an Office of Fusion at the Department of Energy to advance fusion energy, in partnership with the private sector, to accelerate research, development, demonstration, deployment, and market adoption of fusion technologies.

Fusion has the potential to harness the power of the Sun--to manufacture near limitless energy for our homes, our economy, and our future. It is also a carbon-free source of power that can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and save the planet. My home State of California is home to more fusion companies than any other country in the world, and it is the energy of the future.

The Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California has achieved ignition over five times, which highlights the exciting progress and potential of these technologies. We need to capitalize on this momentum to ensure that the United States remains the leader in fusion energy. This office will ensure that there are concentrated efforts to continue advancing this energy source.

As we have heard this administration talk about repeatedly, energy dominance is one of their top priorities. To achieve this goal, we need to continue investing in fusion technologies to ensure that we can scale up these technologies to reach commercialization.

I want to thank my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn for leading this effort with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Office of Fusion Act. This bipartisan piece of legislation would establish an Office of Fusion at the Department of Energy to advance fusion energy, in partnership with the private sector, to accelerate research, development, demonstration, deployment, and market adoption of fusion technologies.

Fusion has the potential to harness the power of the Sun--to manufacture near limitless energy for our homes, our economy, and our future. It is also a carbon-free source of power that can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and save the planet. My home State of California is home to more fusion companies than any other country in the world, and it is the energy of the future.

The Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California has achieved ignition over five times, which highlights the exciting progress and potential of these technologies. We need to capitalize on this momentum to ensure that the United States remains the leader in fusion energy. This office will ensure that there are concentrated efforts to continue advancing this energy source.

As we have heard this administration talk about repeatedly, energy dominance is one of their top priorities. To achieve this goal, we need to continue investing in fusion technologies to ensure that we can scale up these technologies to reach commercialization.

I want to thank my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn for leading this effort with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am so proud to have Senator Schiff as a partner in representing our home State of California.

As you have heard me say many, many times before, California is not just home to nearly 40 million people; we are not just the most populous State in the Nation; we are also proud to be the most diverse State in the Nation and are proud to represent the largest economy of any State in the Nation. California has become the fourth largest economy in the world.

It is a true honor and responsibility for each of us to represent our respective States, and I think it is especially so for the great State of California. While it can be complex at times and does require a lot of work all of the time, I have no doubt that Senator Schiff is doing and will continue to do a tremendous job.

Now, a lot of us, as Members of the Senate, have already begun to know Senator Schiff through his remarks here today, through his participation in our caucus meetings and lunches, and through his participation in committee hearings or even in just one-on-one sessions.

But as the country learned just a little bit more today, it is no surprise that, given his life journey and that of his family, and his professional experience, which included as assistant U.S. attorney, prior to elected office; his State of California service in the legislature, prior to his coming to Congress, a couple of decades ago-- combined with the commitment and clear passion, along with his professionalism and his work ethic and his integrity, it is no surprise that he is a true champion for so many things, including for a grower and farm worker alike, for reproductive rights, for labor rights, for so many issues and values that we hold dear. And they include speaking truth to power--not just, but especially, to the President of the United States--when it is called for, and it is being called for so often in these times that we are living in.

One of the things that so many of us admire about Senator Schiff is his willingness to do so without hesitation, despite being a constant target of threats and attacks by the President of United States.

So, folks, it has been about a year. A lot more time, a lot more work, a lot more impact to come from Senator Schiff, not just for the benefit of the State of California but for the United States of America and the longevity of our Constitution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are here today just about a month after the longest shutdown in American history. You all remember the 43 days that we went without a fully functioning Federal Government.

Let's remember why that happened. Plain and simple, it was because our Republican colleagues refused to take steps to save healthcare for millions of Americans. In large part--I don't know if it was an individual choice or simply because there was no direction from the White House to come in and do so. All I know is that our Republican colleagues in Congress refused to come to the table, refused to negotiate with Democrats, refused to acknowledge that we were literally weeks away from a crisis that will kick millions of people--millions of Americans--off their health insurance unless Congress acts.

That is the point Democrats are trying to make, and that is the issue we were trying to address during the shutdown because the appropriations process is the opportunity to address a crisis that is right around the corner.

Now, eventually, yes, a handful of my Democratic colleagues took the Republican majority at their word that after voting to reopen government, addressing this spike in healthcare costs was the next order of business.

At the time, I expressed my skepticism to go along with a promise to fix something later from a party that earlier this year enacted the biggest cuts in history to Medicaid. I find it hard to take the word of the Republican majority that they are committed to addressing healthcare costs and to expanding coverage to more Americans when they just kicked 15 million Americans off their insurance.

So, yes, just about a month after this longest shutdown in American history, we now find ourselves 3 weeks away from the expiration of the Affordable Care Act tax credits that so many of us are talking about.

Now, have hope because Democrats are here with a plan. We will ask this body to vote on a straightforward, 3-year extension of these lifesaving subsidies that we all support. The question will be, Are there enough Republicans that will join us in doing so? Keep people on their healthcare, and we can do the policy work and negotiation to address some of the genuine concerns that we have heard about over these last couple of months.

But don't let health coverage lapse for millions of Americans. This isn't a game. We are 3 weeks away from the catastrophic spike of costs in health insurance for so many. Over 20 million Americans are on the verge of seeing their monthly premiums not just increase but skyrocket. Four million Americans could be forced to give up their insurance altogether, including 400,000 in California, my home State.

The increase in premiums mean hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more monthly--not annually but monthly--for working families, working families who are already having a tough time making ends meet as costs are rising all around them: cost of groceries, cost of energy bills, cost of housing, and now cost of healthcare too?

It is to the point that Americans are having to make these tough-- tough--choices: Do I pay the rent? Do I pay the water bill? Do I pay the light bill? Can I even afford health insurance next year for my family? That is a truly heartbreaking decision that is happening all across the country.

I know you are hearing from your constituents, and I am hearing from mine. I hear from people like Lisa, a single mom from Meadow Valley, CA, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in 1996. Thank God today Lisa is cancer-free, in no small part thanks to her regular checkups and the affordable healthcare plan that she can participate in because of these tax credits.

But in 2026, Lisa isn't just looking after herself and her own health, she is looking after her son. She is a single parent. She is looking after her parents as they are aging. They are now in their eighties, and she is wondering whether this lapse in tax credits might put her necessary treatments out of reach. So I am here not just speaking up, I am here fighting for her.

I hear from people like Lana, a small business owner in Oakland, CA, who has two kids in college--and college isn't cheap--and she says:

It is tough to be in the middle class right now.

Lana is so determined to give her kids a good education, but with less financial aid available--right, don't get me started on what else has been cut by this Republican majority in Congress--for her, it fundamentally means redirecting money that would otherwise go to her retirement plan.

So imagine that, having to choose between investing in your future retirement or your kids' education or your access to healthcare. While the subsidies for the ACA premiums still exist, she is able to make it work. Without those subsidies, she doesn't know what is going to have to go. Do you give up your healthcare? Do you have to start dipping into your retirement, putting your future financial security at risk, or do you give up your kid's dreams of higher education?

Again, that painful choice is the reality for so many families right now, and so I am fighting for them too. But I can go on and on with story after story, example after example. It doesn't have to be this way. That is why Democrats have put forward this serious, tangible plan to avoid this fiscal crisis, this healthcare cost crisis for families across the country.

And the fact of the matter is, our Republican colleagues don't have a serious plan. Look no further than to the fact that it is the eleventh hour now, and they have put forward a proposal that wouldn't lower premiums for a single American. In fact, it would make the problem worse. It would allow the tax credits to expire. It would increase premiums and deductibles for tens of millions of Americans. It will push many people into what may be referred to as the ``bronze plan'' or, in reality, a catastrophic plan, the least comprehensive coverage on the market with sky-high deductibles.

And some of these plans you get a thousand-dollar coupon. That doesn't do a hell of a lot when these drug plans are forcing families to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket before the insurance even kicks in, and it certainly won't protect people from financial ruin when they get truly, truly sick.

But, sadly, it is not surprising. It is not shocking. This is an eleventh-hour proposal idea coming from a party that for 15 years has been talking about repeal and replace--not just attacking the ACA. They vow to repeal and replace. Repeal and replace. No shortage of efforts to repeal the ACA, but in 15 years, they haven't come up with a plan to replace it, certainly not a better plan to replace the ACA.

So let's get real. We know that this will cause hardship, and the hardship and the pain that is so tragic is made worse because we know it is preventable.

So let's vote tomorrow and pass this clean 3-year extension of the ACA tax credits if we are to improve upon the policy and the plans that are in place.

It is not controversial, folks. The overwhelming majority of American people support extending the ACA tax credits and not just supportive of what we are doing, Americans are demanding that we do something about the cost of healthcare and the cost of living overall.

You have seen Trump's approval ratings on the economy, haven't you? I know you are well aware of the election results from last month when an overwhelming majority of Americans cast their ballots rejecting Trump and Republican policies that are putting billionaires over the needs of working families. They are fed up. They are demanding that their government do something to help them get by; to help them survive, in many cases; to address the affordability crunch, a true crisis that Donald Trump dismisses as a ``con job'' and as a ``hoax.''

So here we are on the eve of a truly consequential vote to prevent costs from rising for the American people, to prevent healthcare from becoming out of reach for too many families. Here is our chance as a body to truly do something about that.

So I urge everybody to vote yes, and let's help millions of Americans keep their healthcare come the new year because we know that a ``no'' vote will only rip that care away from millions of families.

The choice, the conscience, couldn't be any more clear.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life and legacy of Daniel ``Danny'' James Tucker, former longtime Chairman of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation in Southern California and a tireless champion for Tribal sovereignty, economic self-reliance, and cultural preservation of tribal communities.

Danny Tucker was born on February 5, 1952, in San Diego County to Francis Prietto and William Tucker. He grew up in El Cajon and graduated from Santana High School in 1970. At just 18 years old, he began what would become a lifelong career in public service when he was elected vice chair of the Sycuan Tribal Council. There, he became a strong voice in support of Tribal sovereignty during the fight to bring high-stakes bingo to the reservation.

His service on the council would eventually lead to four terms as Chairman, first from 1993-1996 and then from 2003-2014. It was through that role that Chairman Tucker continued to advocate for economic opportunities through gaming, leading the Tribe through a critical transition to Class III gaming, and eventually serving the entire State as chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association.

But Chairman Tucker's leadership extended beyond his local community to the national level, too--regularly engaging with Congress on Tribal issues while serving as vice chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association and leading the organization through its fight to offer casino gaming on Tribal land.

Under his leadership, Chairman Tucker implemented transformative policies to protect Tribal languages and cultural programs; expanded medical, public safety, and utility services; and strengthened Sycuan's enterprise investments.

But perhaps his most important roles in life were that of husband, father, grand- and great-grandfather, and friend to so many who knew him best on the golf course or behind a microphone singing R&B. Angela and I send our love to Chairman Tucker's wife Lori; his daughters Deedra and Dawnda; his siblings Charlotte, Lela Mae, Delores, and Willie; and all the family members and friends who loved him.

His legacy will surely be felt throughout the region, State, and country for generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act. This legislation would extend and make permanent the tax relief that Congress has provided for individuals and families that have received compensation for losses and damages suffered during a wildfire.

The Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act would make permanent the exclusion of certain qualified wildfire relief payments from gross income, including compensation for losses, expenses, or damages, such as compensation for additional living expenses, lost wages, personal injury, death, or emotional distress.

It would also allow taxpayers to claim the exemption in the year they receive payments rather than have to file, for a refund. This will provide more immediate and much needed certainty to wildfire survivors. It would also ensure that future recipients of wildfire-related settlements are able to use the entire sum of compensation towards the intended purpose of rebuilding.

Unfortunately, utility-caused fires are becoming increasingly common, meaning more States now have qualifying settlements or active litigation related to such disasters.

Congress acknowledged the fact that wildfire survivors should not be subject to the financial uncertainty of not knowing how much of their claims will be made available for recovery when it passed the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act, P.L. 118-148, which included my bill to create this exclusion. This is a policy that passed the Senate with unanimous consent.

Unfortunately, this exclusion will expire at the end of the 2025 calendar year, which means any settlement payments beginning in 2026 will again be subject to Federal income tax obligations. The Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act will make this exclusion permanent so that we might provide at least some sense of certainty to all who have suffered devastating losses.

I would like to thank Senators Lummis, Wyden, and Sheehy for introducing this bill with me in the Senate, and I would like to thank Representatives LaMalfa and Thompson for leading this bipartisan legislation in the House. I hope my colleagues will join us again in supporting this bill to ensure wildfire victims receive full and proper compensation to help rebuild their lives and communities.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act. This legislation would extend and make permanent the tax relief that Congress has provided for individuals and families that have received compensation for losses and damages suffered during a wildfire.

The Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act would make permanent the exclusion of certain qualified wildfire relief payments from gross income, including compensation for losses, expenses, or damages, such as compensation for additional living expenses, lost wages, personal injury, death, or emotional distress.

It would also allow taxpayers to claim the exemption in the year they receive payments rather than have to file, for a refund. This will provide more immediate and much needed certainty to wildfire survivors. It would also ensure that future recipients of wildfire-related settlements are able to use the entire sum of compensation towards the intended purpose of rebuilding.

Unfortunately, utility-caused fires are becoming increasingly common, meaning more States now have qualifying settlements or active litigation related to such disasters.

Congress acknowledged the fact that wildfire survivors should not be subject to the financial uncertainty of not knowing how much of their claims will be made available for recovery when it passed the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act, P.L. 118-148, which included my bill to create this exclusion. This is a policy that passed the Senate with unanimous consent.

Unfortunately, this exclusion will expire at the end of the 2025 calendar year, which means any settlement payments beginning in 2026 will again be subject to Federal income tax obligations. The Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act will make this exclusion permanent so that we might provide at least some sense of certainty to all who have suffered devastating losses.

I would like to thank Senators Lummis, Wyden, and Sheehy for introducing this bill with me in the Senate, and I would like to thank Representatives LaMalfa and Thompson for leading this bipartisan legislation in the House. I hope my colleagues will join us again in supporting this bill to ensure wildfire victims receive full and proper compensation to help rebuild their lives and communities.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize five pioneering Californians who this year were awarded Nobel Prizes for their groundbreaking advancements in medicine, physics, and chemistry.

Just last month, the Nobel Foundation announced the annual recipients of their world-renowned awards, recognizing those who ``conferred the greatest benefit to humankind.'' In 2025, a record-breaking number of them came from one public university system: the University of California. Today, it is my honor to recognize each of California's five Nobel laureates for their achievements.

Frederick J. Ramsdell, an alumnus of the University of California, San Diego, and the University of California, Los Angeles, was one of three scientists awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their research to better understand and protect the human immune system. Dr. Ramsdell's research will help develop effective therapeutic strategies for those fighting cancer, autoimmune diseases, and in need of organ transplants, ultimately working to improve their quality of life and save lives.

Professor Emeritus John Clarke of the University of California, Berkeley, along with Professor Emeritus John M. Martinis and Professor Michel H. Devoret--both of the University of California, Santa Barbara--were all awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their groundbreaking research in quantum computing. Their work will advance evolving technologies in everything from drug discovery to agriculture to cybersecurity and beyond. As UC President James Miliken has said, their work has truly ``opened the door to the next generation of quantum technologies.''

Finally, Professor Omar M. Yaghi of the University of California, Berkeley, was one of three researchers awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for ``the development of metal-organic frameworks'' that could be used to help scientists do everything from ``harvest water from desert air'' to ``capture carbon dioxide'' to ``store toxic gases or catalyse chemical reactions.''

Together, each of these Nobel Prize awards represents not only a body of work from some of the greatest scientific minds in the world, but the product of intentional, meaningful Federal investments in our Nation's academic and research centers. Federal research grants, combined with the intellect and innovation of our Nation's top researchers, once again has produced long-lasting and life-changing contributions not only for California and our country, but for all of humanity.

For their outstanding achievements and in recognition of the University of California's new world record for Nobel Prizes awarded in a single year, it is my honor to recognize each of this year's Nobel laureates.

Congratulations, once again--you have made California and our country proud.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act. This legislation would direct the completion of a study to assess the feasibility of designating certain land along California's central coast as the Monterey Bay National Heritage Area.

This bill would require the National Park Service to conduct a study to determine if coastal communities adjacent to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary meet the requirements to be designated as a national heritage area. If passed, the Park Service would hold robust consultation and listening sessions with local stakeholders and community members to assess whether this designation is appropriate.

A national heritage area designation recognizes a place's cultural, historical, and ecological value. These designations create public- private partnerships that leverage Federal support to empower local conservation efforts, provide technical assistance, and spur economic development without imposing Federal land use restrictions or affecting private property.

In California, where we already have two such designations, residents continue to retain their private property rights despite the designation. Nothing in this bill would allow the Federal Government to infringe upon private propertyb acquire land within a potential national heritage area boundary.

My bill would also not immediately authorize the designation but, rather, assess the feasibility of moving toward a designation. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill, and I want to thank Representative Jimmy Panetta for leading this effort in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this straightforward legislation to recognize the unique cultural, historical, and environmental treasures in the Monterey Bay region.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act. This legislation would direct the completion of a study to assess the feasibility of designating certain land along California's central coast as the Monterey Bay National Heritage Area.

This bill would require the National Park Service to conduct a study to determine if coastal communities adjacent to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary meet the requirements to be designated as a national heritage area. If passed, the Park Service would hold robust consultation and listening sessions with local stakeholders and community members to assess whether this designation is appropriate.

A national heritage area designation recognizes a place's cultural, historical, and ecological value. These designations create public- private partnerships that leverage Federal support to empower local conservation efforts, provide technical assistance, and spur economic development without imposing Federal land use restrictions or affecting private property.

In California, where we already have two such designations, residents continue to retain their private property rights despite the designation. Nothing in this bill would allow the Federal Government to infringe upon private propertyb acquire land within a potential national heritage area boundary.

My bill would also not immediately authorize the designation but, rather, assess the feasibility of moving toward a designation. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill, and I want to thank Representative Jimmy Panetta for leading this effort in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this straightforward legislation to recognize the unique cultural, historical, and environmental treasures in the Monterey Bay region.