Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the ``Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act.''

For over two decades, cleaning up the Tijuana River Valley has been one of my top priorities for Southern California. The wastewater, trash and sediment that continues to flow into San Diego and Imperial Counties is an alarming danger to public health and our economy. Although we have made recent strides in cleaning up this pollution, there is much work remaining.

That's why I am proud to introduce this important legislation, once again, to help address this decades-long issue. I am very pleased Senator Padilla has joined me as an original cosponsor and I look forward to working with him on this important issue.

Polluted water from the Tijuana and New Rivers flows north across the border into the United States causing unsanitary water conditions, pollution and beach closures across Southern California. It also jeopardizes military training exercises for Navy Seals in Camp Pendleton.

Three-quarters of the 1,700-square-mile Tijuana River watershed lies in Mexico. However, the watershed, along with all its pollutants, drains into San Diego County and the Tijuana River Valley.

In addition to jeopardizing human health and safety, two of the most drastic effects from this cross-border water pollution are harm to wildlife and damage to the tourism industry, integral to Southern Californian communities. As the coronavirus pandemic continues to threaten our nation's health and economy, it is critical we work to address the pollution in the region so California can welcome visitors back to their beaches when it is safe to do so.

The beaches in the region are central to San Diego's tourism economy. In recent years, beaches in the communities of Coronado and Imperial Beach were closed for more than 200 days in a single year due to pollution.

Health and safety of residents and workers are also at risk. In recent years, local Border Patrol union officials reported that 80 officers suffered from contamination, rashes, infections, chemical burns and lung irritation due to toxic cross-border flows.

In addition, pollution from Mexico harms sensitive areas that provide critical habitat for more than 300 species of birds as well as marine animals like leopard sharks and bottlenose dolphins. The region is home to multiple parks and public lands, including the Tijuana River's National Estuarine Research Reserve, the River Mouth State Marine Conservation Area and River Valley Regional Park Preserve.

The harmful effects of pollution in the Tijuana River Valley on our residents, businesses, economy and environment are simply unacceptable.

In February 2020, the Government Accountability Office issued a comprehensive report, ``International Boundary Water Commission: Opportunities Exist to Address Water Quality Problems.'' My office worked closely with the GAO to utilize their findings to craft meaningful change through this legislation.

Simultaneously, we were able to secure $300 million in the U.S.- Mexico-Canada trade agreement to address pollution in the Tijuana River Valley Watershed.

With significant funding and detailed findings by the GAO investigation, we developed this legislation in concert with federal, state and local agency input. As beaches in both the United States and Mexico continue to close due to high levels of pollution, it is as imperative as ever to advance a solution that engages all stakeholders.

The Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act includes key reforms to advance concrete solutions.

One of the problems is that no one agency is in charge of this problem. A whole range of agencies--EPA, International Boundary and Water Commission, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Defense Department--all have jurisdiction or interest in this international issue.

What we need is one agency in charge, taking input from the others so decisions can be made. This approach is similar to other large, regional environmental challenges like the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Here in California, we have also seen great success with this model of interagency coordination at Lake Tahoe.

Here's how the bill would work:

The EPA would be officially named the agency with overall control of this effort.

The EPA, along with its federal, state and local partners, would be directed to identify a list of priority projects. It also would be authorized to accept and distribute funds to build, operate and maintain those projects.

The bill would permanently authorize the Border Water Infrastructure Program to manage storm water runoff and water reuse projects.

State and local authorities would also be authorized to contribute funding to federal projects, which is currently not allowed.

The International Boundary and Water Commission would be authorized to mitigate storm water from Mexico and the pollution that comes with it and is required to construct, operate and maintain projects on the priority list developed by the agencies within the U.S. that improve water quality.

We need a new and comprehensive approach to this issue that has plagued border communities for too long. This bill creates a formal process to consider effective, long-term solutions and additional wastewater infrastructure to mitigate cross-border pollution and I hope the Senate can move on this bill quickly.

I want to thank California Environmental Protection Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, San Diego and Imperial counties, cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado, Mayor of Chula Vista, Mary Casillas Salas, the City of San Diego and the Port of San Diego for supporting this legislation. These communities, and others, have been negatively impacted by this issue for far too long.

It's past time that we finally solve this problem to safeguard local health and economic growth.

Once again, I thank Senator Padilla for his cosponsorship. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Affordable Housing Redevelopment Act,'' which I introduced today.

I want to thank Senator Padilla for joining me on this important bill, and Representatives Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson for leading a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

Established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created by Congress to help provide assistance to communities hit hard by the recession by funding the acquisition and rehabilitation of troubled residential properties.

The program helped States, local governments, and nonprofit organizations acquire properties and rehabilitate or repurpose them as long-term affordable housing.

Between 2008 and 2019, Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds have facilitated the construction or rehabilitation of more than 50,000 homes, and the program has generated $1.8 billion in return income, allowing communities to stretch Federal investments even further.

Today, more than 7.4 million units of affordable housing are needed across the U.S. to meet the needs of low-income renters. In my home State of California, more than 1.4 million units are needed to address the State's affordable housing shortage.

Due to financial burdens and loss of income resulting from the COVID- 19 pandemic, millions of people in the United States are at risk of eviction or foreclosure, and the need for more affordable housing is expected to increase dramatically.

In addition to making long-term investments in building new affordable housing in the United States, it is also critically important to focus resources on more immediate solutions, such as acquiring and rehabilitating existing buildings.

Acquisition and rehabilitation provides two distinct advantages: it lowers per-unit construction costs and makes affordable housing units available to low-income households much faster.

The ``Affordable Housing Redevelopment Act'' would reauthorize and expand the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to help State and local governments purchase blighted, vacant, abandoned, foreclosed, or surplus properties, and convert them into affordable housing. Eligible projects would include mixed-use development and conversions of non- residential office and retail properties.

All new units would have to serve households whose income does not exceed area median income, and at least 25 percent of units would serve households whose income does not exceed 50 percent of area median income. Long-term affordability requirements would apply in all cases.

The bill would authorize $1.5 billion in discretionary appropriations to be allocated as a competitive grant program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This bill provides a targeted and cost effective way for the Federal government to help communities build more affordable housing, while also stimulating local economies and creating jobs.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Governor Jennifer Granholm's nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Energy.

I can think of no one better than Governor Granholm to lead the Department of Energy during this critical and transformative period for our country.

Governor Granholm has the experience to lead and oversee the 13,500 employees at the Energy Department. She served as the Governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 and as Michigan's attorney general from 1998 to 2002.

During her tenure as Governor, she led Michigan through the tumultuous years of the 2008 financial crisis and the resulting bailout of the auto industry. She shepherded over a billion dollars in Federal funding to her State to manufacture electric vehicles and batteries. She diversified Michigan's energy portfolio and signed into law the State's first renewable energy standard.

I won't hold against the Governor the fact that she is a graduate of UC Berkeley--I am sure a Stanford Cardinal and a Golden Bear can still find some common ground and I am sure it will help that she will bring the innovative spirit of California along with her to her new role as Secretary.

Following her tenure as Governor, Jennifer became a faculty member at the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy. She has spent her career, both inside and outside of public office, as a steadfast advocate for clean energy. I have no doubt she will bring the same passion if confirmed as Secretary.

With this appointment, Governor Granholm has gained the opportunity to understand our unique national lab system, which is a critical aspect of the Department of Energy. She was a project scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and I look forward to her getting to know our 16 other National Labs. From basic science to nuclear safety, these are gems of the Energy Department.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the trailblazing nature of the Governor's career. She was Michigan's first female attorney general; Michigan's first female Governor; and, if confirmed, will be only the second woman to lead the Energy Department since its formation in 1977. She has been and will continue to be a role model for young women across this country.

The Governor does not have an easy task ahead of her, but I have full confidence that she is up to the challenge. As chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I look forward to working with her closely over the coming years to fund clean energy programs, confront climate change, and fulfill the energy and water infrastructure needs of California and our country.

Madam President, the Constitution reserves impeachment for cases of ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Congress must never take this action lightly and only in the most extreme circumstances.

On January 13, the House of Representatives voted 232-197 to impeach Donald Trump on a count of inciting the insurrection that took place on January 6.

I have taken care over the past week to fulfill my charge as an impartial juror in this trial. I have listened carefully to the presentations made by both sides. And I believe the House impeachment managers proved the case that Donald Trump bears responsibility for inciting the violence and the insurrection on January 6.

I therefore cast my vote to convict him of the impeachment charge. The argument has been made that Donald Trump is no longer President, thus he cannot be removed from office, as he has already left. I understand the argument, but it fails on several counts.

First, failure to act would set the precedent that a President can get away with anything at the end of his term. Relying on criminal proceedings in place of impeachment is insufficient; Congress must have the power to impeach, regardless of when actions occur. Indeed, the House approved the Article of Impeachment when Donald Trump was still president.

Second, there is legitimate fear that, if allowed to run for office again, we could see an emboldened Trump wouldn't hesitate to repeat the actions of January 6. If convicted, a simple majority vote would bar him from running for office.

And third, a conviction would send a clear message to Trump's followers, particularly the ones who accept violence as a legitimate means of protest, that perpetrators of insurrection and those who enabled them will be held responsible for their action.

As impeachment manager Diana DeGette said of the mob at the Capitol: ``All of these people who have been arrested and charged, they're being accountable, held accountable for their actions. Their leader, the man who incited them, must be held accountable as well.''

It is important to understand that Donald Trump's actions on January 6 weren't without precedent. The House impeachment managers made a compelling case that Donald Trump has a long history of urging and supporting violence among his supporters, knowing full well that they would take action.

This is a key matter for this impeachment trial: Did Donald Trump's words inspire violence? Were those carrying out the insurrection following his direction? The House managers gave several examples of Trump's past practice.

After Republican Congressman Greg Gianforte in 2018 pleaded guilty to assaulting a reporter who asked him a question, former President Trump praised him. ``Any guy that can do a body slam--he's my guy.''

After a 2017 rally of White supremacists and neo-Nazis turned violent in Charlottesville and killed a woman, former President Trump said there were ``very fine people on both sides.''

Last year, Trump sent a message for his followers to ``liberate Michigan.'' Weeks later, messages threatening violence were directed against Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And later in the fall, a plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer emerged, led by Trump followers. President Trump made a call to action, and his followers responded.

And during the 2020 Presidential debates, when Donald Trump was asked if he would condemn White supremacists and other groups like the Proud Boys, a far-right group that endorses violence, he wouldn't answer, instead saying, ``Proud Boys--stand back and stand by.''

It is clear that Donald Trump's supporters, including those who participated in the insurrection on January 6, heeded his words and support of violence. The Proud Boys took Trump's words--``stand back and stand by''--and made it their official motto. Rioters at the Capitol told U.S. Capitol Police officers as they were threatening violence that they had been ``invited'' by President Trump. While the insurrection was going on, Trump supporters were reading Trump's tweets over a megaphone. The pattern is clear: Donald Trump has no qualms about asking his followers to commit violence. In fact, he celebrates them when they do.

After the November 2020 elections, Donald Trump immediately set out to undermine the results. His lawyers and his supporters filed 60 lawsuits to object to the results, as was his right under the law. But when those cases were tossed out, then-President Trump sought to cheat. He urged the secretary of state for Georgia to ``find'' enough votes to declare him the victor. When officials rebuffed his efforts to reverse his electoral loss, he led efforts to bring thousands of people to Washington to, in his words, ``Stop the Steal.''

The day he chose was January 6, the day Congress was meeting to certify the election results. Trump directed his followers to go to the Capitol and to ``fight like hell.'' As was documented extensively in this trial, Trump knew that this group was preparing for violence when he directed them to walk to the Capitol.

What we learned this week is that Donald Trump was also aware of the violence at the Capitol as a frenzied insurrection mob ransacked the Capitol and sought to physically harm Members of Congress and even kill the Vice President. After being told that Vice President had been removed from the Senate Chamber for his safety, Trump tweeted to his supporters that Pence lacked ``courage'' to reject the electoral college results. This happened precisely as Trump's supporters were building a gallows and chanting ``Hang Mike Pence.''

Indeed, new information revealed during the course of this trial indicates that President Trump knew the state of violence in the Capitol. One Senator has stated publicly that he told President Trump on the phone that Vice President Pence had been removed from the Senate Chamber by his Secret Service detail.

We have also heard on-the-record reports that in a phone call between President Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy while the Leader's office was under attack, then-President Trump apparently continued to support those carrying out the violent insurrection. So despite direct pleas from Members of Congress and the former President's closest Republican confidants, Trump refused for hours to call off the mob or urge calm.

As House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin said during the presentation, ``Donald Trump surrendered his role as commander-in-chief and became the inciter-in-chief of a dangerous insurrection.''

Five people, including a U.S. Capitol Police Officer, lost their lives as a result of this insurrection guided by Donald Trump. And nearly 140 officers from the Capitol Police and Washington Metropolitan Police Department were injured, some severely.

The evidence presented this week shows that Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors and that he should be convicted.

I thank the House managers for their hard work in making a thoroughly compelling, convincing, and fair case, and I hope we can move past this terrible moment in our Nation's history.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of critical importance to California: doctor shortages.

First, I want to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the entire medical community, particularly the doctors, nurses, and support staff who have been on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic. Amidst a severe shortage of protective equipment, they nevertheless continue to work around the clock to save countless lives. I--and my colleagues--are eternally grateful.

I have heard from countless Californians who have said the same thing: we need more doctors.

That is why Congress established the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program in 2007 to encourage doctors to pursue careers at public and nonprofit facilities, especially in areas experiencing physician shortages. As a result, physicians who provide care in a nonprofit or public hospital can have their student debt forgiven by the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program after making 120 qualifying monthly payments under a qualifying repayment plan.

However, when the Department of Education issued implementing guidance for the program, it unintentionally excluded California and Texas physicians from being eligible to receive loan forgiveness by requiring that borrowers be classified as employees in order to be eligible for loan forgiveness.

The problem is that under state law in California and Texas, doctors are prevented from being directly employed by corporations, including nonprofit organizations. As a result, physicians in California and Texas who provide medical services at nonprofit hospitals do not currently qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

To make matters worse, the United States is facing a shortage of physicians, especially in California.

The Council on Graduate Medical Education recommends 60 to 80 primary care physicians per 100,000 people. However, statewide in California, the number is already down to just 50 per 100,000 people. And in some places, it is even lower: down to 35 primary care physicians per 100,000 people and 39 per 100,000 people in the Inland Empire and San Joaquin Valley, respectively.

During this difficult and challenging time, it is clear that more medical professionals are needed. And long after this pandemic ends, we will still need more doctors to provide high-quality care, in both rural and urban areas.

That is why I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan ``Stopping Doctor Shortages Act.'' This legislation would help attract more doctors to public service and address the looming physician shortage by fixing a loophole that prevents thousands of doctors from participating in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

According to the California Medical Association, this bill alone could bring as many as 10,000 physicians to California over the next ten years.

Similar legislation, soon to be introduced in the House by Representatives Josh Harder, Jay Obernolte, Joaquin Castro, and Van Taylor, also enjoys bipartisan support.

I would like to thank Senator John Cornyn for his support on this critical issue and for cosponsoring the bill.

I ask my colleagues to join us to pass the ``Stopping Doctor Shortages Act'' in a timely manner as we continue to find ways to combat the coronavirus pandemic and save lives.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' I thank Senator Capito for her cosponsorship as well as continued partnership on this important legislation.

This bipartisan bill passed the Senate last Congress by unanimous consent and then passed the House of Representatives in December 2020. Unfortunately, then President Trump chose to veto the bill based on misguided policy and inaccurate data.

I urge my colleagues to once again support this bill, which solely affects California fishery management, but has far-reaching beneficial impacts for a wide range of marine animals, including endangered species. This legislation modernizes a commercial fishery to promote sustainable fishery management and creates a win-win for conservation goals and commercial fishing profitability.

The Issue

Large mesh drift gillnets, as defined in this legislation, have a mesh hole size of 14 inches or greater and are used to target swordfish and thresher shark off the California coast. However, alarmingly, these nets utilized by this one fishery in Federal waters, according to NOAA, are responsible for 90% of porpoise and dolphin deaths in all west coast fisheries combined.

These substantially sized nets are between 1 and 1.5 miles long and extend more than 100 feet below the ocean's surface. This creates a ``net wall'' that ensnares approximately 60 non-target species, known as bycatch, leading to severe harm or drowning of endangered marine turtles, whales, dolphin, and numerous fish species.

In addition to being banned everywhere else in the United States and in

some international waters, these specific nets were also banned in California's state waters in 2018. This bill would bring much needed parity to state and federal laws on the west coast.

After the State ban, a large majority of the remaining commercial fishery using drift gillnet gear voluntarily turned in their permits to the State and received compensation to transition to alternative, sustainable gear, such as deep set buoy gear.

This bill is critically needed to complete the transition of the fishery and provide Federal partnership to the successful State program. The Federal waters off the California coast are the last place in the United States where these dangerous nets are still used.

How our bill would help

This bill is identical to the legislation that passed in the 116th Congress. It provides a common-sense solution by phasing out drift gillnets over a five-year period from enactment in favor of more sustainable alternatives, such as deep-set buoy gear. This sustainable gear has already been proven to yield higher market prices for fishermen and considerably reduces the amount of bycatch.

In fact, 2020 landings data from the PacFIN database for swordfish shows that drift gillnet gear caught only 19.8 metric tons of swordfish at an average of $3.62 per pound yielding a total of $157,728. In the same fishing season, deep set buoy gear caught 79.4 metric tons of swordfish at an average of $5.88 per pound for a total value of $1,028,932. Important to note, deep set buoy gear also had an extremely low bycatch rate--less than 2 percent--illustrating how this fishery can be both more sustainable and profitable.

The transition program includes a grant authorization for Federal funding to match State funds for local fishermen to exchange their current permits and purchase new, sustainable gear.

This bill has broad support at the State and Federal level, as well as national groups such as American Sportfishing Association and Oceana.

In addition, this bill includes a provision important to the Pacific halibut fishery in Alaska that I have worked with Senator Sullivan and the Commerce Committee to include.

The provision would enable the Secretary of Commerce to approve certain charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers and harvest Pacific halibut in certain federal waters to collect fees that would fund the Recreational Quota Entity Program for the purposes of halibut conservation and research.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to once again pass the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'', and I urge them to support the swift passage of this bipartisan bill.

Thank you once again to Senator Capito and to Commerce Committee leadership, Senator Cantwell and Senator Wicker for their assistance on this important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act with my colleagues. This bill is identical to our bill which was unanimously passed by the Senate during the last session of Congress.

While anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana and its derivatives, like cannabidiol, commonly known as CBD, may be helpful in treating serious medical conditions, anecdotes alone cannot be the basis for developing new medications. Rather, medication development must be based on science.

That is why our bill seeks to streamline the process associated with researching marijuana that may have unintentionally stymied important research. It does so by requiring the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly approve or deny applications to research CBD or marijuana and by establishing a process through which applicants may submit supplemental information, if necessary. It also improves regulations related to changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols.

In addition, the CBD and Marijuana Research Expansion Act seeks to increase medical research and reduce reliance on a single source of marijuana or CBD for research purposes. It authorizes medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for approved medical research that can then be used to develop proven, effective medicines. Upon FDA approval of these medications, pharmaceutical companies are permitted to manufacture and distribute them.

Our bill also facilitates better communication between doctors and patients.

It is my understanding that some doctors and patients are hesitant to have frank conversations regarding the use or marijuana, CBD, or other marijuana derivatives because of marijuana's status as a schedule I drug. This can adversely impact patient care, especially if patients are using marijuana or its derivatives without their doctor's knowledge. That is why our bill specifically authorizes doctors to

discuss the potential harms and benefits of using such products with their patients.

Finally, to broaden our understanding of marijuana and CBD even further, our bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand and coordinate research to determine the potential medical benefits of CBD or other marijuana-derived medications on serious medical conditions.

I have heard from many parents and adults who have turned to CBD and marijuana as a last resort to treat medical conditions. In many cases, these individuals have seen positive results.

Despite this, however, many are also concerned about the lack of science-based information related to proper delivery mechanisms, dosing, or potential interactions that CBD or marijuana may have with other medications. Some also worry because these products aren't well regulated or factory sealed, and often are labeled incorrectly.

Additional research will increase our ability to adequately address these concerns. Not only are patients asking for additional research, but so too is the medical community. In fact, the need for additional research, along with the need to increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research purposes was underscored in the National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.''

If the science shows that marijuana and its derivatives, including CBD can effectively treat serious medical illnesses, we should enable products containing these substances to be brought to the market with FDA approval. But in order to make this determination, we must reduce the barriers that currently impede important research. I hope my fellow Senators will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation again, and I look forward to working with my House colleagues to ensure it is enacted.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill to facilitate improved access to the Indian Health Service's Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center in Hemet, California. My colleague Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) is joining me as an original cosponsor of the bill.

The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center is the only currently operating center in the State of California that provides culturally-sensitive substance use disorder treatment to indigenous youth.

The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center, located in Hemet, is run by the Indian Health Service. The facility not only provides healthcare, but also academic support, family therapy, and treatment plans to support the healing and long-term recovery of youth enrolled at the Center.

Currently, the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center is only accessible by a dirt road. This limits access to the Center during California's extreme wet and dry seasons. The dirt road frequently cracks or floods during these times and creates significant challenges to those depending on the Center's important work.

The Indian Health Service does not currently have the authority to buy land from willing private landowners who are supportive of selling their land to provide for a paved access road. It is necessary that we provide for safe and dignified access to the center, and I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation to do so.

This commonsense bill would authorize the Director of the Indian Health Service to purchase land from willing sellers and construct a paved road to improve access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center. After the road's construction, Riverside County would maintain it.

This bill has the support of local stakeholders, including Riverside County. An identical, bipartisan bill is being introduced by Representatives Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Nanette Barragan (D-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), and Pete Aguilar (D-CA) in the House of Representatives.

This bill passed the Senate unanimously last year, and I look forward to working with my colleagues this Congress to enact this bill into law.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill to facilitate improved access to the Indian Health Service's Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center in Hemet, California. My colleague Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) is joining me as an original cosponsor of the bill.

The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center is the only currently operating center in the State of California that provides culturally-sensitive substance use disorder treatment to indigenous youth.

The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center, located in Hemet, is run by the Indian Health Service. The facility not only provides healthcare, but also academic support, family therapy, and treatment plans to support the healing and long-term recovery of youth enrolled at the Center.

Currently, the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center is only accessible by a dirt road. This limits access to the Center during California's extreme wet and dry seasons. The dirt road frequently cracks or floods during these times and creates significant challenges to those depending on the Center's important work.

The Indian Health Service does not currently have the authority to buy land from willing private landowners who are supportive of selling their land to provide for a paved access road. It is necessary that we provide for safe and dignified access to the center, and I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation to do so.

This commonsense bill would authorize the Director of the Indian Health Service to purchase land from willing sellers and construct a paved road to improve access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center. After the road's construction, Riverside County would maintain it.

This bill has the support of local stakeholders, including Riverside County. An identical, bipartisan bill is being introduced by Representatives Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Nanette Barragan (D-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), and Pete Aguilar (D-CA) in the House of Representatives.

This bill passed the Senate unanimously last year, and I look forward to working with my colleagues this Congress to enact this bill into law.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``West Los Angeles VA Campus Improvement Act,'' which I introduced today. Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) is introducing companion legislation in the House.

Background on the West Los Angeles VA Campus

In 1888, the 388-acre campus that is now home to the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center was deeded to the federal government by Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker and Senator John P. Jones in order to establish a home for disabled Civil War Veterans.

Until the 1970s, the land served primarily to house Veterans, and the campus long represented the largest Veteran housing development in the nation.

Unfortunately, in 1972, 2,800 Veterans living on the West LA VA campus were displaced after the Sylmar Earthquake caused major damage on campus. Rather than repair the housing units, the VA eventually leased portions of the property to non-VA tenants.

Forty years later, homeless Veterans and advocates sued the VA for illegally leasing facilities on campus and for failing to use the property to support Veterans, as required by the original deed.

A U.S. District Court subsequently ruled that many leases on campus were illegal under the terms of the original deed, and in 2015, the VA agreed to facilitate the development of 1,200 housing units for homeless Veterans on campus.

In 2016, Congress enacted legislation that I introduced with Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Ted Lieu, entitled the ``West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016,'' to set up an oversight framework for the housing development and to ensure that lease revenues from ongoing leases stayed on campus.

Need for Legislation

In 2018, the VA selected a ``Principal Developer'' to complete housing renovation and construction projects on campus, allowing for a more streamlined and efficient building process.

However, the VA has determined that current law restricts it from using on-campus lease revenues for housing construction, maintenance, or services. The VA has determined that clarifying language is needed to ensure that funds generated on campus can be used for these purposes.

Giving VA the flexibility to use locally-generated revenue in this way could significantly reduce the time it takes to get homeless Veterans into housing.

Bill Summary

The ``West LA VA Campus Improvement Act'' would explicitly authorize the VA to use any funds collected pursuant to leases, easements or other use agreements at the West LA VA for the development of supportive housing and services on campus.

The bill would also increase the time period for enhanced use leases on the campus from 75 to 99 years. Increasing the length of the leases would align with other leasing terms the VA has, and help reduce the financing costs for new housing.

Conclusion

Last year, the regional homelessness count reported that more than 3,900 Veterans are experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles. It is long past time for this land to be returned to its intended purpose: to serve as a home where Veterans can receive the care and treatment they deserve.

This bill will help move us closer to that reality.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Wildland Firefighter Fair Pay Act,'' which I introduced today.

Background

Fueled by climate change, the annual Western wildfire season has grown longer and more intense. Where the threat used to peak between August and November, we are now seeing massive wildfire events earlier in the Summer and continuing through the end of the year.

Last year alone, California experienced more than 9,600 fires which burned more than 4.1 million acres, consumed more than 10,000 structures, and claimed 33 lives.

It is imperative that we commit enough manpower and resources to combat the threat that such devastating wildfire seasons pose to life and property.

Unfortunately, some of our most experienced Federal firefighters work so many overtime hours each year that they reach an overtime pay cap and become ineligible for additional overtime compensation. Others are forced to pay back money they have rightfully earned fighting wildfires.

Need for Legislation

Federal firefighters from the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior are paid on the General Schedule (GS) pay scale based on their seniority and performance. They make a base salary and are paid overtime when they exceed eight hours a day.

However, there is an annual premium pay cap that limits how many overtime hours for which these firefighters can be compensated.

This arbitrary pay cap places an unfair expectation on federal fire personnel to work long hours for less or even no pay, and serves as a dangerous disincentive to respond to more fire incidents, especially later in the fire season. California's worst wildfires often occur late in the fire season, further illustrating the problem we face.

The Forest Service estimates that up to 500 senior-level firefighters either stop participating or do not request pay for hours worked once they reach the pay cap. This has a significant negative impact on federal wildfire response capabilities.

What the Legislation Would Do

Our bill would create a statutory waiver for Federal firefighters responding to wildfire emergencies to ensure they receive fair compensation for all overtime hours they work.

This waiver would apply to Forest Service and Department of the Interior personnel engaged in emergency wildland fire suppression activities.

Conclusion

For wildland firefighters, working long hours in dangerous conditions is often considered a necessary part of the job. It is crucial that this demanding work be recognized, and that these heroes be appropriately compensated for the critical service that they perform.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``West Los Angeles VA Campus Improvement Act,'' which I introduced today. Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) is introducing companion legislation in the House.

Background on the West Los Angeles VA Campus

In 1888, the 388-acre campus that is now home to the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center was deeded to the federal government by Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker and Senator John P. Jones in order to establish a home for disabled Civil War Veterans.

Until the 1970s, the land served primarily to house Veterans, and the campus long represented the largest Veteran housing development in the nation.

Unfortunately, in 1972, 2,800 Veterans living on the West LA VA campus were displaced after the Sylmar Earthquake caused major damage on campus. Rather than repair the housing units, the VA eventually leased portions of the property to non-VA tenants.

Forty years later, homeless Veterans and advocates sued the VA for illegally leasing facilities on campus and for failing to use the property to support Veterans, as required by the original deed.

A U.S. District Court subsequently ruled that many leases on campus were illegal under the terms of the original deed, and in 2015, the VA agreed to facilitate the development of 1,200 housing units for homeless Veterans on campus.

In 2016, Congress enacted legislation that I introduced with Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Ted Lieu, entitled the ``West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016,'' to set up an oversight framework for the housing development and to ensure that lease revenues from ongoing leases stayed on campus.

Need for Legislation

In 2018, the VA selected a ``Principal Developer'' to complete housing renovation and construction projects on campus, allowing for a more streamlined and efficient building process.

However, the VA has determined that current law restricts it from using on-campus lease revenues for housing construction, maintenance, or services. The VA has determined that clarifying language is needed to ensure that funds generated on campus can be used for these purposes.

Giving VA the flexibility to use locally-generated revenue in this way could significantly reduce the time it takes to get homeless Veterans into housing.

Bill Summary

The ``West LA VA Campus Improvement Act'' would explicitly authorize the VA to use any funds collected pursuant to leases, easements or other use agreements at the West LA VA for the development of supportive housing and services on campus.

The bill would also increase the time period for enhanced use leases on the campus from 75 to 99 years. Increasing the length of the leases would align with other leasing terms the VA has, and help reduce the financing costs for new housing.

Conclusion

Last year, the regional homelessness count reported that more than 3,900 Veterans are experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles. It is long past time for this land to be returned to its intended purpose: to serve as a home where Veterans can receive the care and treatment they deserve.

This bill will help move us closer to that reality.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Wildland Firefighter Fair Pay Act,'' which I introduced today.

Background

Fueled by climate change, the annual Western wildfire season has grown longer and more intense. Where the threat used to peak between August and November, we are now seeing massive wildfire events earlier in the Summer and continuing through the end of the year.

Last year alone, California experienced more than 9,600 fires which burned more than 4.1 million acres, consumed more than 10,000 structures, and claimed 33 lives.

It is imperative that we commit enough manpower and resources to combat the threat that such devastating wildfire seasons pose to life and property.

Unfortunately, some of our most experienced Federal firefighters work so many overtime hours each year that they reach an overtime pay cap and become ineligible for additional overtime compensation. Others are forced to pay back money they have rightfully earned fighting wildfires.

Need for Legislation

Federal firefighters from the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior are paid on the General Schedule (GS) pay scale based on their seniority and performance. They make a base salary and are paid overtime when they exceed eight hours a day.

However, there is an annual premium pay cap that limits how many overtime hours for which these firefighters can be compensated.

This arbitrary pay cap places an unfair expectation on federal fire personnel to work long hours for less or even no pay, and serves as a dangerous disincentive to respond to more fire incidents, especially later in the fire season. California's worst wildfires often occur late in the fire season, further illustrating the problem we face.

The Forest Service estimates that up to 500 senior-level firefighters either stop participating or do not request pay for hours worked once they reach the pay cap. This has a significant negative impact on federal wildfire response capabilities.

What the Legislation Would Do

Our bill would create a statutory waiver for Federal firefighters responding to wildfire emergencies to ensure they receive fair compensation for all overtime hours they work.

This waiver would apply to Forest Service and Department of the Interior personnel engaged in emergency wildland fire suppression activities.

Conclusion

For wildland firefighters, working long hours in dangerous conditions is often considered a necessary part of the job. It is crucial that this demanding work be recognized, and that these heroes be appropriately compensated for the critical service that they perform.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act.''

This important legislation would prohibit oil or gas drilling in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

After four years of an Administration intent on allowing drilling off the West Coast and in waters across the United States, I am hopeful we will finally pass this bill to ensure no drilling ever occurs in Pacific waters.

I'm pleased to be joined today by Senators Padilla, Wyden, Merkley, Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, Booker, Markey, and Sanders in introducing this bill, which has been introduced in every Congress since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010.

11 people were killed and 17 others injured when the Deepwater Horizon well blew out. Oil and gas spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.

Oil slicks covered the Gulf. Tar balls and toxic sludge covered beaches and wetlands. More than one-third of federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing.

While the Deepwater Horizon disaster reminded the world of the dangers of offshore drilling, Californians never had to be convinced; before Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez, there was the tragic 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara.

A well blowout on an offshore rig spilled more than 3 million gallons of crude oil according to some estimates--the worst spill in U.S. history at the time.

The spill closed local beaches--which were covered by a thick layer of oil--and thousands of marine mammals and birds were killed.

Tourists were turned away and commercial fishing operations were halted, hurting the local economy.

After the Santa Barbara spill, California had enough. The State blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters--which extend three miles from the shore--and in 1994 enacted a permanent offshore drilling ban.

Through local ordinances, congressional opposition, and presidential moratoria, all new drilling in federal waters off California has been blocked since 1984.

Today, opposition to offshore drilling is higher than ever. A 2018 poll found that nearly 70% of Californians oppose new drilling off our coast. The evidence is quite clear: Californians do not want any more drilling.

The California coast is an economic engine of growth for the state and the nation. A 2015 report produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that California's 19 coastal counties created $662 billion in wages and $1.7 trillion in GDP in 2012.

Overall, California's ocean economy supports over 1 million jobs and generates significant growth for the U.S. Because of the unique nature of the West Coast ocean shelf, potential drilling would occur near the coastline and directly threaten the environment and robust economy.

It is long past time to respect the view of California and our fellow West Coast states by passing the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act'' to permanently ban offshore drilling and protect the Pacific coast for generations to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Ali Mayorkas's nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security.

I believe Ali is uniquely qualified to face the challenges our Nation is facing on day one. He brings to this office a diverse background and set of experiences in both the private and public sectors that will serve him well.

I have known Ali for many years and am proud to have recommended him to President Clinton for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. I also worked very closely with Ali while he served as President Obama's Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later Deputy Secretary of DHS.

We all know that the role of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is challenging. Recent history has shown the threats facing the United States are diverse and ever-changing.

Over my many years working with Ali, I have witnessed his intelligence, kindness, and thoughtfulness, as well as the compassion and morality he brings with him to work every day. In many ways, Ali's life story reflects the spirit of the American dream, and I would like to briefly pass along some of that story today.

Born in Havana, Cuba, Ali and his family fled to the United States in 1960. He attended the University of California-Berkeley, where he earned a bachelor's degree with distinction in 1981. He went on to earn his law degree from Loyola Law School in 1985. From 1989 to 1998, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California where he prosecuted a wide array of Federal crimes. Ali became the first U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California to be appointed from within the office when he was appointed in 1998.

He created the Civil Rights Section in the office to prosecute hate crimes; he developed an innovative program to address violent crime by targeting criminals' possession of firearms; he led the prosecution of street gangs; and he still had time to develop an afterschool program to help at-risk youth.

Ali's approach to enforcing our Nation's laws demonstrates a much- needed holistic view that understands the complexity of the challenge. He further developed his sharp legal skills as a partner at O'Melveny and Myers from 2001 to 2009 where he represented companies in high- profile and sensitive government enforcement cases. He was recognized by his worldwide firm for his leadership and was named by the National Law Journal in 2008 as one of the ``50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America.''

When Ali took over as Director of USCIS in 2009, he worked to administer our immigration laws while preserving our legacy as a nation of immigrants. He helped ensure integrity of our immigration laws by decreasing fraud and bringing accountability to our immigration system.

Significantly, under President Obama's directive to grant deferred action to immigrants who arrived in this country as children, Ali successfully implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA.

This program played a critical role for hundreds of thousands of young people who were able to get jobs, acquire driver's licenses, purchase homes and go to college. I am proud that Ali will continue to play a role in allowing these young people to pursue the American dream.

When Ali became the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama in 2013, he took on even more responsibility. He led the DHS response to the Ebola and Zika virus epidemics, as well as cybersecurity negotiations with China.

He oversaw the agency's complex efforts to combat terrorism and enhance the security and management of our borders. He worked to facilitate trade and travel, and he oversaw the enforcement of our immigration laws.

And he was responsible for coordinating efforts to safeguard cyberspace and oversee disaster coordination with Federal, State, local, international, and private sector partners.

The United States faces new threats to our security every day. We need experienced, intelligent, and moral leadership at DHS to combat those threats.

I have full confidence that Ali Mayorkas will bring all of those qualities to the role of Homeland Security Secretary. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Alejandro Mayorkas for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Kobe Bryant and Gianna Bryant Helicopter Safety Act''.

I'm pleased to be joined today by Senators Schumer, Blumenthal, and Markey in reintroducing this bill.

Nearly one year ago today, on January 26, 2020, a helicopter carrying nine Californians flew into foggy weather and crashed minutes later. Los Angeles and the world soon learned that among the crash victims were basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna.

After the crash, we soon learned the names and stories of John, Alyssa, and Keri Altobelli; Sarah and Payton Chester; Christina Mauser; and Ara Zobayan. These were spirited friends and family members connected by their love of sport, traveling to a weekend basketball tournament.

The sudden and shocking nature of the accident touched many, and the public remembrances in Los Angeles and around the world to honor the victims are proof that their memories will not soon be forgotten.

But this tragedy is one that could have been averted. A preliminary report and investigatory documents released by the National Transportation Safety Board indicate the helicopter was flying through thick clouds and fog, yet was not equipped with a terrain awareness and warning system. This technology provides pilots with real-time, inflight warning signals and an image of surrounding terrain.

Since 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that all new and existing helicopters capable of carrying six or more passengers be equipped with terrain awareness and warning system technology. However, FAA has only required these warning systems for air ambulances.

Nevertheless, this technology has become standard on new helicopters from Airbus, Bell, Leonardo, and Sikorsky since December 2018. But older helicopters remain vulnerable.

Our bill also requires crash-resistant flight data and voice recorders. Otherwise known as black boxes, this technology is important for when accidents do happen and mistakes are made. It would allow agencies like the NTSB to have a better understanding of the incident and provide more information to the FAA to prevent future accidents.

It is clear that additional steps are needed to ensure that helicopters can fly safely, both for the sake of passengers and those on the ground.

Our bill offers a common-sense approach to preventing further accidents like this one. It would simply direct the FAA to implement the NTSB's recommendations to require terrain awareness and warning systems and flight data and voice recorders on all helicopters carrying six or more passengers.

I appreciate the hard work of the National Transportation Safety Board in developing these important recommendations, and it is long past time that the FAA heeds its call.

My thoughts continue to be with the victims and their loved ones impacted by this heartbreaking accident. It is critical that Congress pass our bill swiftly to ensure that such loss of life was not in vain.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.