Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise in support of Janet Yellen's nomination to be Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. I've known Janet since she became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in 2004. I believe she is an excellent nominee for this position.

Janet has an impressive record. She served twice on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and was the first woman to chair the Fed from 2014 to 2018. She became a professor of economics at the University of California--Berkeley in 1980, she is now professor emeritus. Dr. Yellen served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton and has been very active as a distinguished fellow at the Brookings Institution.

As some have joked, Janet's husband of 42 years, George, won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, yet he is only the second-most accomplished economist in his own home.

All of these accomplishments did not come easily for a woman in the male-dominated field of economics.

Out of the 24 students who received doctorates in economics from Yale in 1971, Janet was the only woman. She has been a trailblazer her entire career.

Now, Janet brings the experience and leadership needed at the Treasury Department at this critical juncture.

I believe that Janet understands that the economy is not an abstract series of charts and figures, but a collection of real individuals, families, communities and businesses who need help now.

At the same time, she is pragmatic and recognizes the need for fiscal discipline. I believe she made that clear in her confirmation before the Finance Committee, where I had the honor of introducing her.

In short, she is the ideal candidate to head the Treasury Department at a time when we can afford nothing less. I urge the Senate to confirm her nomination. Thank you.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Tony Blinken's nomination to be Secretary of State.

I support Tony for Secretary of State for three key reasons. First, he has the diplomatic skills that our country needs at this pivotal moment to regain our leadership on the world stage. From 2015 to 2017, he served as Deputy Secretary of State, the Nation's second highest ranking diplomat. In that position, he helped lead U.S. efforts to combat terrorism, address rising concerns in Asia, and respond to Russian regional aggression. He is a crisis-tested leader who will hit the ground running at the State Department with critical knowledge and relationships with leaders worldwide.

Second, Tony has a longstanding and trusted personal relationship with President Biden that will enable him to advise the President on key foreign policy issues. During President Obama's first term in office, he was National Security Advisor to then-Vice President Biden. Previously, Tony served as the Democratic staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 6 years when then-Senator Biden was committee chairman. It is because of his relationship with President Biden and his career as a public servant that Tony understands that the job of Secretary of State is not just to serve the American people, but to help improve the lives of people struggling all over the world.

Last but certainly not least, Tony has the experience of serving at the State Department that will help him rebuild the Department, recruiting needed Foreign Service Officers and civilians, ensuring State personnel have the training they need to be effective in their mission, restoring morale throughout the Department, and empowering our diplomats to speak on behalf of him and President Biden.

Tony will help our country repair the damage of the last 4 years and restore the United States as a leader and trusted ally. I look forward to working with him to advance our mutual objectives of promoting peace and security, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of General Lloyd Austin's confirmation to be Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination in the vote we are about to take.

General Austin has proven through his 41-year military career that he is extremely capable of leading our military as they confront multiple challenges.

First, General Austin is a proven leader that will provide stability within our military ranks. After 4 years of tumultuous leadership under the Trump administration, our troops deserve a steady hand to lead them in the defense of our Nation.

Moreover, our allies need a Secretary of Defense who speaks reliably on behalf of the President.

Second, General Austin brings a wealth of experience to counter global defense challenges. He oversaw U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, served as a Vice Chief of Staff of the Army where he worked to increase diversity in the highest ranks of our military, and commanded U.S. Central Command in its fight against ISIS and other regional threats.

Third, General Austin's previous appointments to the Joint Staff and as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army prepared him to tackle strategic issues in the Department of Defense. He has committed to filling key positions with personnel that bring civilian expertise,

a sign he fully respects civilian control of the military.

Finally, our country faces several threats that President Biden's administration must address immediately. General Austin's intimate knowledge of our military will allow him to hit the ground running at the Department and make wise investments that deter global aggressors.

I especially welcome General Austin's pledge to support our country's pandemic response efforts, such as helping with the distribution of vaccines nationwide. Through his leadership, the military can provide much needed medical and logistical support to counter the COVID pandemic.

We are facing an unprecedented set of national security challenges, both at home and overseas. I have full confidence in General Austin's ability to help us overcome these challenges, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation.

Madam President, I today rise in support of the nomination of Ms. Avril Haines as the Director of National Intelligence.

Last night, the Senate overwhelming voted to confirm Ms. Avril Haines as the Director of National Intelligence with a vote of 84-10.

I voted in support of Director Haines as I believe her to be a highly-qualified professional with the trust and mandate by President Biden to be a strong leader and reinstall stability and objectivity to the intelligence community.

She has pledged to defend and uphold our democracy, our freedoms and our values by ensuring there is simply no place for politics ever when it comes to intelligence.

It is clear from her background that Ms. Haines has the experience necessary to be an effective DNI.

She has served as both the Deputy Director of CIA and as Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, along with other positions in the White House and Congress.

Her nearly 20 years of experience in national security, intelligence, and foreign policy matters gives her valuable insight into the many challenges facing the intelligence community and makes her a great choice for Director of National Intelligence.

Based on my conversations with Director Haines and her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am fully confident she has what it takes to put the IC on the right path.

During her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Director Haines outlined her top three priorities: No. 1, strengthening the institution including increasing trust and credibility with analytic objectivity; No. 2, better aligning IC efforts and resources to the major threats we are facing such as China and transnational threats; and No. 3, building better partnerships Congress, academia, the private sector, U.S. State and local officials, and with other countries.

I strongly agree on these significant priorities and look forward to periodically receiving updates from her on these.

Furthermore, I thank her for her clearly stated position that waterboarding is, in fact, torture and that the CIA's former interrogation program's enhanced interrogation techniques included torture.

In short, she is the ideal candidate to head the intelligence community at a time when we face numerous crisis threatening our national security.

She inherits an intelligence community beset by challenges, and I look forward to working with her to protect the American people.

Mr. President. Today has been a dark day that will take a long time and a lot of work to overcome. It has been a day truly unworthy of our Nation.

I thank the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Secret Service, the law enforcement officers from Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia, the National Guard, and others who have protected this institution and the U.S. Congress today.

There will be time to say more about today's events, but I rise now to speak about the unprecedented actions today to attempt to undermine a fairly and properly conducted democratic election.

Under our system of government, States bear the primary responsibility for runninq elections and certifying election results, and that is exactly what we have seen--all 50 States and the District of Columbia have certified the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

The results of the election are clear: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won.

Challenging these electoral votes now is the height of hypocrisy for a party that prides itself on States' rights.

Even worse, today's actions are based on the faulty premise that this election was somehow tainted by widespread fraud, which is flat out wrong.

Protesting these votes today is a disservice to our constitutional order and the more than 81 million Americans who voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

We must also recognize that today's actions could echo far beyond this election. Our democratic Republic has survived as a result of certain bedrock principles, including the peaceful transfer of power and the right of the people to elect their leaders.

For Congress to challenge the legitimacy of electoral votes because President Trump is upset that he lost far exceeds our role as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

These challenges threaten the very core of a functioning democracy-- that voters and votes matter.

If a State's electoral votes can be set aside by Congress based on conspiracy theories dreamed up by the President and his followers, the value of free and fair elections is damaged.

Mr. President, those who feel they needed to protest today's results say they do so because of allegations of fraud. The problem is, those allegations all originate from President Trump himself.

The Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud. Attorney General Barr himself said there were no irregularities that could have affected the outcome of the election.

Likewise, our courts--including the Supreme Court--have tossed out lawsuit after lawsuit filed by President Trump and his allies, more than 60 in total.

I appreciate those Republicans Senators who have stood up for democracy and against these baseless objections to the election results.

Senator Romney called it an ``egregious ploy.''

Senator Toomey said, ``Allegations of fraud by a losing campaign cannot justify overturning an election.''

Senator Portman said, ``I cannot support allowing Congress to thwart the will of the voters.''

And Senator Thune added, ``It's time for everybody to move on.''

He is right; the election is over. President-Elect Biden won.

Especially now, after all of the events of the day. It is truly time to get to work repairing our country.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a Senate Resolution calling for the international

community to come together and determine the ethical limits of gene- editing technology to avoid future misuse like what was recently discovered in China.

Gene editing is a powerful new technology that has the potential to lead to new therapies for devastating and previously untreatable diseases. Today, there are already promising clinical trials using gene-editing technology that hope to treat cancer, sickle cell disease and other terrible diseases.

However, like any new technology, there is potential for misuse and that is what happened with recent experiments in China. These experiments involving gene-edited human embryos failed in every measure to meet the ethical and scientific standards for research with human subjects.

First and foremost, the scientist put the health of the mother and her children at risk by using an unproven technology without adequate safeguards.

Furthermore, human clinical research must be conducted for a legitimate medical purpose. In this case, gene-editing was used to prevent the children from being able to acquire HIV. There are already safe and effective ways to prevent HIV infection that do not involve the use of gene-editing technology.

In addition, clinical research participants should never be misled when obtaining informed consent. According to reports, the scientist in charge of the experiments told the participants that the study would be testing a new vaccine for HIV, which is a gross mischaracterization of the gene-editing technology.

Finally, the scientist reportedly proceeded with the experiments knowing the genetic changes he created were different from what he originally intended. As a result, the children likely possess genetic mutations that did not undergo any pre-clinical testing and have never before existed in humans, leaving their long-term health in question.

Moreover, these unethical experiments have the potential to create new genetic diseases that could be passed down to future generations.

The international community must come together to condemn unethical human experimentation and prevent this from happening again. No one country can make this decision alone. International standards must be established to prevent unethical researchers from moving to whichever country has the loosest regulations.

Already, the World Health Organization and the United States' National Academies of Sciences, along with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, have begun this important work.

Our resolution makes clear that unethical human experimentation has no place in a modern society and encourages collaborative international efforts to continue.

I am proud to introduce this resolution today. I hope my Senate colleagues will join us to ensure that gene-editing research is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner moving forward. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Athletics Fair Pay Act of 2019 with my colleague Senator Murray.

Women and girls have made great strides in sports. Before Title IX of the Civil Rights Act was passed 47 years ago, athletic programs for girls and young women were virtually nonexistent. Now, women are world class athletes and compete in a wide range of sports including soccer, basketball, hockey, and tennis.

In the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, a record 45 percent of the athletes competing at the games were women, and this year, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team won a historic fourth FIFA Women's World Cup title. Despite the incredible advancements made by women in sports, female athletes are paid significantly less than their male counterparts and are given fewer opportunities to succeed.

Sports organizations in the United States still do not invest equally in girls' and women's athletics. This lack of investment means that many female athletes never reach their full potential. In addition, studies show that sports participation has a positive influence on girls' academic performance, employment opportunities, and their physical and mental health.

The inequities faced by female athletes were highlighted in a wage discrimination lawsuit recently filed by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team against their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation.

In addition to winning four FIFA Women's World Cup titles, the Women's Soccer Team has won four Olympic gold medals and has been ranked number one by FIFA for 10 of the last 11 years. By contrast, the U.S. Men's Soccer Team failed to qualify for last year's World Cup and has not won an Olympic medal since 1904. Yet, according to the lawsuit filed by the Women's Team, the U.S. Soccer Federation pays the women an average of 38 cents on the dollar compared to the male players.

Unfortunately, the Women's Soccer Team is not alone. In 2017, the U.S. Women's Hockey Team received a pay raise from its national governing body, USA Hockey, only after the team threatened to boycott a major competition.

Prior to the boycott, USA Hockey did not pay female athletes at all in non-Olympic years and paid each just $6,000 in the year leading up to an Olympic games.

It is clear that we must do more to ensure that female athletes are paid equally and treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. This legislation gets us closer to that goal.

This legislation updates the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to mandate that the national governing bodies chartered under the Ted

Stevens Act pay female amateur athletes fairly and equally.

This bill also requires national governing bodies to provide annual reports to Congress on amateur athlete pay. This new reporting requirement increases accountability and allows Congress to monitor whether the national governing bodies are complying with their equal pay obligations.

I am deeply disappointed that we still need this kind of legislation in 2019. I am hopeful that the Senate will take up, and pass, this important legislation and show its support for women around the country. As a United States Senator, I will continue fighting for fair pay and equality of treatment for all women, including our nation's athletes.

I thank the president, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Athletics Fair Pay Act of 2019 with my colleague Senator Murray.

Women and girls have made great strides in sports. Before Title IX of the Civil Rights Act was passed 47 years ago, athletic programs for girls and young women were virtually nonexistent. Now, women are world class athletes and compete in a wide range of sports including soccer, basketball, hockey, and tennis.

In the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, a record 45 percent of the athletes competing at the games were women, and this year, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team won a historic fourth FIFA Women's World Cup title. Despite the incredible advancements made by women in sports, female athletes are paid significantly less than their male counterparts and are given fewer opportunities to succeed.

Sports organizations in the United States still do not invest equally in girls' and women's athletics. This lack of investment means that many female athletes never reach their full potential. In addition, studies show that sports participation has a positive influence on girls' academic performance, employment opportunities, and their physical and mental health.

The inequities faced by female athletes were highlighted in a wage discrimination lawsuit recently filed by the U.S. Women's Soccer Team against their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation.

In addition to winning four FIFA Women's World Cup titles, the Women's Soccer Team has won four Olympic gold medals and has been ranked number one by FIFA for 10 of the last 11 years. By contrast, the U.S. Men's Soccer Team failed to qualify for last year's World Cup and has not won an Olympic medal since 1904. Yet, according to the lawsuit filed by the Women's Team, the U.S. Soccer Federation pays the women an average of 38 cents on the dollar compared to the male players.

Unfortunately, the Women's Soccer Team is not alone. In 2017, the U.S. Women's Hockey Team received a pay raise from its national governing body, USA Hockey, only after the team threatened to boycott a major competition.

Prior to the boycott, USA Hockey did not pay female athletes at all in non-Olympic years and paid each just $6,000 in the year leading up to an Olympic games.

It is clear that we must do more to ensure that female athletes are paid equally and treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. This legislation gets us closer to that goal.

This legislation updates the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to mandate that the national governing bodies chartered under the Ted

Stevens Act pay female amateur athletes fairly and equally.

This bill also requires national governing bodies to provide annual reports to Congress on amateur athlete pay. This new reporting requirement increases accountability and allows Congress to monitor whether the national governing bodies are complying with their equal pay obligations.

I am deeply disappointed that we still need this kind of legislation in 2019. I am hopeful that the Senate will take up, and pass, this important legislation and show its support for women around the country. As a United States Senator, I will continue fighting for fair pay and equality of treatment for all women, including our nation's athletes.

I thank the president, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I understand the procedure, are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Daniel Bress to the Ninth Circuit in California.

First, by history and tradition, this is a California seat on the Ninth Circuit. The fact is that Mr. Bress is neither a California attorney nor a California resident. In fact, he has not been a resident of the State for over a decade. He has lived and practiced in the Washington, DC, area for almost his entire adult life.

As California Senators, Senator Harris and I know that experience and connection to California are really necessary for a Ninth Circuit judge to be effective on the bench. We know our State, we know our constituents, and we know the challenges they face.

That is why the blue slip is so important. Honoring the blue slip ensures that Senators who understand and are accountable to their constituents have a say in judicial nominations for their home States.

Senator Harris's and my blue slips were not returned. That ultimately symbolizes our objections. I was also very disappointed that the White House ignored that and moved forward with Mr. Bress's nomination.

Senator Harris and I worked in good faith with the White House to find nominees acceptable to the President and to us. During our negotiations that took place, we informed the White House that we could support several other nominees who were, in fact, selected by the White House. Yet the White House and the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have claimed we were at an impasse. That is simply not true. For reasons still unknown to us, the White House abandoned our negotiations and nominated Mr. Bress for this seat instead.

I am very disappointed that Republican leadership decided to schedule a vote on Mr. Bress's nomination, given both of our objections to his nomination and our concerns about a lack of connection to our State.

Next, I want to discuss what I mean by a lack of connection to our State.

The White House has greatly exaggerated Mr. Bress's connections to California to justify their decision to move forward with a non- California nominee.

I have studied Mr. Bress's record extensively, and I would like to run through some of what I have found.

Mr. Bress claims to spend a substantial amount of time working in his law firm's San Francisco office. However, as recently as November 2018, Mr. Bress's profile on the Kirkland & Ellis LLP website listed him as an attorney working exclusively in the firm's Washington, DC, office. His profile page likewise provided contact information--phone and fax-- only for the Washington, DC, office.

Just before he was nominated, Mr. Bress's Kirkland & Ellis profile was revised to list him as an attorney in both the Washington, DC, and San Francisco, CA, offices of the firm.

In addition, according to a review conducted by my staff, every public legal filing signed by Mr. Bress lists his office as Washington, DC. This includes legal filings submitted in California courts. Mr. Bress has never had an oral argument before the Ninth Circuit--never had an oral argument before the Ninth Circuit.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee entered a letter into the record at Mr. Bress's hearing identifying 26 cases in California courts that Mr. Bress has been involved in. However, according to Mr. Bress's Senate Judiciary questionnaire, 11 of these 26 cases were asbestos lawsuits for a single client, the chemical company BASF Catalyst. Another four cases were products liability lawsuits involving another single client, the air conditioning manufacturer United Technologies Corporation. So those are two clients. This is hardly the wide breadth of California court experience that one would expect of a Ninth Circuit court appointee.

Mr. Bress does not belong to any legal organizations in California. His children do not attend school in our State. He has voted only once since high school in a California election. And he does not have a California driver's license. Finally, Mr. Bress does not own any property in California outside of one share in a family business venture.

These facts, along with Mr. Bress's residency in the Washington, DC, area--he lives here; his family lives here--make clear to us that he is not a Californian, nor is he suited for the Ninth Circuit.

This is something we have never experienced before; that is, bringing a judge from one coast to put him on the Ninth Circuit on the other coast.

Some of my Republican colleagues have cited past instances when an attorney living and practicing in one State has been nominated and confirmed to a seat in another State. This is highly unusual.

Republicans have been able to provide examples of this occurring only 4 times in the past 20 years, and in each case, it was with the support of the home State Senators. This support is simply not here in this case; this is not the case with this nominee.

California is a diverse and complex State. We have over 40 million people. It is the fifth largest economy in the world. It makes up 14 percent of the U.S. economy. There are 53 Fortune 500 companies that are based in our State. We have the largest ag industry in the country. We produce more manufacturing revenue than any other State. And California technology companies produce 53 percent of all tech revenues in the United States.

This vast and diverse nature of California's people and economy means the Ninth Circuit regularly considers challenging and complex issues of fact and law. These cases require not only the sharpest legal minds but lawyers and judges who know and understand the complexities facing the State of California.

We have an imported judge now coming to the Ninth Circuit. One of our most critical tasks as Senators is to ensure that lifetime appointments to the Federal courts are well qualified and well suited to the seats to which they have been nominated.

Home State Senators are a crucial part of this evaluation process. The Presiding Officer knows this very well. I am so disappointed that the majority has disregarded this.

This disregard of blue slips represents another breakdown of Senate traditions. It is really very disturbing. One thing I have learned over 20 years here is that what goes around comes around. By doing this, it is a major violation of a precedent that this Senate has followed, I believe, to its absolute.

I will vote against Mr. Bress's confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act with my colleagues.

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

Unfortunately, marijuana research is subject to burdensome regulations which may unintentionally inhibit research and medication development.

The Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act will reduce these barriers without sacrificing security or enabling diversion. It will ensure that marijuana-derived medications are developed using strong scientific evidence, and provide a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research.

First, the bill streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. Specifically, it requires the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly approve or deny applications to research CBD or marijuana and establishes a process by which applicants may submit supplemental information, if necessary.

It also improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. These improvements will eliminate lengthy delays that researchers encounter under current regulations.

Second, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD.

It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for approved medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Once the FDA approves these medications, pharmaceutical companies are permitted to manufacture and distribute them.

Third, the bill fosters increased communication between doctors and patients.

Because it is a Schedule I drug, some doctors are hesitant to talk to their patients about the potential harms and benefits of using marijuana, CBD, or other marijuana derivatives as a treatment, for fear that they will lose their DEA registrations. Yet, if patients are using marijuana or its derivatives without their doctors' knowledge, it could impact the effectiveness of the care they receive. That is why our bill authorizes these discussions to occur.

Finally, because existing Federal research is lacking, the 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 who have turned to CBD as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results. I have heard similar stories from people who use marijuana to treat various other medical conditions.

But a common concern echoed in many of these conversations is that there is a lack of understanding about the proper delivery mechanism, 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.

Without additional research, our ability to adequately address these concerns is limited and uninformed.

The need for additional research, along with the need to increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research purposes, was highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.''

I firmly believe that we should reduce the regulatory barriers associated with researching marijuana and CBD. If and when science shows that these substances are effective in treating serious medical illnesses, we should enable products to be brought to the market with FDA approval. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of 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.

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

Unfortunately, marijuana research is subject to burdensome regulations which may unintentionally inhibit research and medication development.

The Cannabidiol and Marijuana Research Expansion Act will reduce these barriers without sacrificing security or enabling diversion. It will ensure that marijuana-derived medications are developed using strong scientific evidence, and provide a pathway for the manufacture and distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research.

First, the bill streamlines the regulatory process for marijuana research. Specifically, it requires the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to quickly approve or deny applications to research CBD or marijuana and establishes a process by which applicants may submit supplemental information, if necessary.

It also improves regulations dealing with changes to approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved research protocols. These improvements will eliminate lengthy delays that researchers encounter under current regulations.

Second, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD.

It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools, research universities, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for approved medical research. This will ensure that researchers have access to the material they need to develop proven, effective medicines. Once the FDA approves these medications, pharmaceutical companies are permitted to manufacture and distribute them.

Third, the bill fosters increased communication between doctors and patients.

Because it is a Schedule I drug, some doctors are hesitant to talk to their patients about the potential harms and benefits of using marijuana, CBD, or other marijuana derivatives as a treatment, for fear that they will lose their DEA registrations. Yet, if patients are using marijuana or its derivatives without their doctors' knowledge, it could impact the effectiveness of the care they receive. That is why our bill authorizes these discussions to occur.

Finally, because existing Federal research is lacking, the 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 who have turned to CBD as a last resort to treat their children who have intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results. I have heard similar stories from people who use marijuana to treat various other medical conditions.

But a common concern echoed in many of these conversations is that there is a lack of understanding about the proper delivery mechanism, 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.

Without additional research, our ability to adequately address these concerns is limited and uninformed.

The need for additional research, along with the need to increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research purposes, was highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.''

I firmly believe that we should reduce the regulatory barriers associated with researching marijuana and CBD. If and when science shows that these substances are effective in treating serious medical illnesses, we should enable products to be brought to the market with FDA approval. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Drought Resiliency and Water Supply Improvement Act, which Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced today. I am the lead Democratic sponsor on the bill, and Senators Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are also original cosponsors.

Drought--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark reality for California and the West. Climate change presents a triple threat to our water supply:

Higher temperatures causing a dwindling snowpack, increased evaporation and other effects that will reduce our natural storage and runoff. This could decrease flow in the Colorado River by 20% or more by mid-century and as much as 40% by the end of the century.

Longer and more severe droughts, including perhaps as much as an 80% chance of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration in the Colorado Basin during this century.

Although this is more uncertain, the possibility of reduced overall precipitation, perhaps 10-15% less in California's Sierra Nevada mountains within the next 20-30 years.

We must respond to this challenge. The bill we are introducing today does so in three fundamental ways:

It significantly increases funding for an ``all-of-the above'' solution to improve our water supply, including surface and groundwater storage, conveyance, water recycling and desalination;

It reforms the Bureau of Reclamation's outdated project delivery system to more quickly approve and more cost-effectively fund new projects; and

It significantly invests not only in water supply projects, but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change as well.

Climate Change and Drought: I would like to say more about the effects of climate change on two critical areas for California: the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Colorado River Basin.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54 percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79 percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California, because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30% of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. We need to start now to provide substitute ways for storing precipitation in the Sierras, whether through surface storage, groundwater storage, or improved infrastructure to transport floodwaters to the best recharge areas.

This enhanced storage in its many forms will be helpful not only for water users but also to maintain enough cold water for salmon. Cold water reserves are critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during years of devastating droughts.

The outlook for the Colorado Basin is perhaps even more challenging. The Colorado River provides a critical part of the water supply for 19 million people in southern California, but that water supply is diminishing. Already in 2019 the water demands on the Colorado River exceed average inflows to the river by 1.2 million to 1.5 million acre feet each year.

That is a huge gap, and the Drought Contingency Plan that was just negotiated among the 7 Colorado River Basin states represents just the beginning of efforts needed to close even the existing gap. With climate change, far more needs to be done, especially with warmer temperatures and greatly increased evaporation in the Basin and with the considerable odds of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration.

The bill we are introducing today provides the Colorado River Basin States with the tools to begin investing in a wide range of water supply projects to meet this challenge. I believe this bill will be critical for helping reach agreement in the next round of negotiations for Colorado River drought contingency plans due to be completed by 2026.

Funding Authorizations in the Bill: In response to the water supply challenges presented by climate change, the bill we are introducing today significantly increases funding authorizations for a wide variety of water supply and environmental restoration projects.

The proposed legislation builds on and doubles the 5-year funding authorizations in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. The bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years:

$670 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and supporting conveyance;

$100 million for water recycling projects; and

$60 million for desalination projects.

In addition, the bill authorizes $140 million for environmental restoration and compliance projects. These projects include forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits and projects to help restore threatened and endangered species affected by Bureau of Reclamation water projects.

Low-Interest Loans for Water Supply Projects: The bill creates a new loan program at 30-year Treasury rates (currently about 2.6%) for water supply projects known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA). The loans would use existing criteria under the successful WIFIA program (the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act).

The Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has approved loans of $2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of just over 1% of that amount or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was able to approve loans backed by just 1% of the loan amount because there is a virtually non-existent default rate for water projects. Only 4 in a thousand water infrastructure projects default, based on a study conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency.

Given OMB's experience that Federal outlays need only cover 1% of the loan cost for water projects, the $125 million in authorized Federal spending in the draft bill likely could support $12.5 billion in water project lending authority.

Needless to say, $12.5 billion is a meaningful amount of Federal low- interest lending assistance for new water supply projects. And, because RIFIA is limited to no more than 49 percent of total project costs, that same $125 million in RIFIA budget authority will support no less than $25.5 billion in new water infrastructure investments throughout the west.

Need to Improve Reclamation's Project Delivery System: The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further.

The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding new water supply projects has involved the following:

Reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects:

Once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3-5 years or more in many cases; and

Congress then funds 100% of the project construction cost over many years of incremental appropriations, with project sponsors paying back the federal government over 50 years at little to no interest.

One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed by climate change to Western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model.

Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama Administration, testified in support of a new model during an October 8, 2015 hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated:

The traditional Reclamation business model, in which

feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and

Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are

first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then

construction is authorized and funded, does not always

address the needs of project sponsors at the State and local

levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the

availability of other available financing mechanisms, the

historic federal role in financing water storage projects

through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a

greater emphasis on non-federal financing.

Changes to Traditional Model: In response to the concerns articulated by Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the WIIN Act, makes five significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding.

1) Congressional authorization no longer required:

First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual projects. It can take 3-5 years for projects to get legislatively approved or longer. In fact, zero new water recycling projects have been authorized since 2009 due to the Federal earmark ban.

While Congressional authorizations are no longer required, Congress retains full veto authority over which projects get built through the appropriations process. Unless Congress approves funding for the study and construction of individual projects, Reclamation cannot proceed with them.

The advantage of the appropriations process as an alternative mechanism for Congressional approval is that it occurs every year. So rather than waiting 3-5 years or longer for Congressional approval under the traditional model, Congress decides each year whether or not to fund proposed projects.

2) Non-Federal funding is required upfront:

Second, the bill no longer requires 100% federal funding upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50% Federal funding for Federally-owned projects, and a maximum of 25% federal funding for non-federal projects that are built by States, water districts, or Indian tribes.

Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded 50% by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 10-25% by the federal government and the remaining 25-40% by water users.

Multi-partner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion will frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts.

3) Feasibility studies are expedited:

Third, for the non-Federal projects authorized by the bill, the federal study process would be significantly expedited, and it does so without waiving any environmental protection requirements. The bill makes clear that federal environmental laws must be fully and strictly followed.

Existing law, however, already addresses study procedures in parallel circumstances when the nonfederal entities are building a project and the federal government is only responsible for a minority of the project cost, no more than 25%. In these circumstances, the Federal government can and should expeditiously approve feasibility and other preliminary studies. There is existing precedent for such projects in the guidelines adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for feasibility studies for water recycling projects under the Title XVI program. Like all the non-federal projects in this bill, these water recycling projects are built by non-federal entities with a maximum 25% federal cost-share.

The bill we are introducing today would direct Reclamation to model its feasibility study standards for all non-federal projects based on the Title XVI example. This will reduce delays in project approval and get these projects built faster.

4) The new loan program is cost-effective:

Fourth, the low-interest loan program created by the bill is an exceptionally cost-effective program. As I mentioned above, OMB has validated that low-interest water project loans need to be backed by Federal appropriations totaling only 1% of the project loan amount.

Federal funding of 1% of the loan amount will typically return 10-25% savings in the repayment cost of the loans for the water districts funding the projects. The total savings can be about 10% for AAA rated districts, and 20-25% for AA-rated districts.

For example, the water users who are supporting the proposed Sites Reservoir in northern California have estimated that the loans authorized by this bill would allow them to pay only $512/acre-foot for water delivered by the project instead of $682/acre-foot. This is a 25% reduction in their costs.

Thus, the Federal government can provide a loan at 1% of the loan amount and save the project sponsors 10-25% of the project cost. That is an exceptionally cost-effective federal investment.

There are at least three significant reasons that the loans are so beneficial for the project sponsors:

The sponsors pay about a 2.6% interest rate on their loans based on today's rates, versus 4% or greater rates for the alternative of municipal bond financing.

The districts would not need to start loan repayments until 5 years after substantial completion of the project, a substantial cost saver.

Loans are for 35 rather than 30 years, lowering annual debt service costs.

Significantly, the loans include all the taxpayer protections from the successful WIFIA and TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) programs. In particular, the RIFIA loans would be limited to 49% of the project cost, and the federal loans would have senior status in the event of any default. These provisions ensure the taxpayer won't be harmed in any default where the project retains at least 50% of its value, which is extremely likely for ratepayer backed water supply projects.

5) Federal grants and loans work together:

Fifth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up to 25% of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users to make up the difference where the Federal government is no longer funding 100% of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100% of the cost of new water supply projects.

Under the bill we are introducing today, these communities will still have to provide a significant cost-share for improving their water supplies, and new water projects will have to be cost-effective enough to justify that investment. However, the Federal government can help build the best and most effective projects in increasing drought resiliency by providing assistance through both grants and loans.

Environmental Benefits: The longer and more severe droughts coming with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities, but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to improve species' drought resiliency as well.

The significant funding authorization of $140 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish, migratory birds, and forest species. Some of the authorized uses of this funding include:

Improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects;

Additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway;

Improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts;

Assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State agencies and state water quality laws; and

Forest, meadow and watershed restoration efforts that improve the quality, timing, or other attributes of runoff to reservoirs or groundwater storage facilities.

I want to say a little more about the new authorization for forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits. Wildfire and drought are two of our biggest challenges in California, and we need new tools to respond to them.

There are national forest lands and meadows upstream of many reservoirs

in California that are at serious risk of catastrophic fire.

If treatments of these lands restore healthier ecological conditions, it will improve water runoff into the downstream reservoirs and reduce the risk of large sedimentation dumps into the reservoirs from catastrophic fires.

Restoration of these lands may not be a top priority for the Forest Service because that agency's mission does not emphasize water benefits.

The bill being introduced today would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to contribute a portion of the cost of these projects. The new funding source will in turn make these multi-benefit projects more likely to be implemented.

I believe it is critical that we develop new tools like this one for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and improving our drought resiliency.

I and the other cosponsors of today's bill are also looking for additional ways to increase the natural environment's resiliency to droughts in our states. We have circulated language for discussion and potential inclusion in the bill that would provide additional funding for ``natural water storage projects.''

These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species.

We look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multi- benefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill.

In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented consistently with all federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state laws must also be followed.

Offsets: Finally, the bill includes two provisions offsetting the new spending authorizations within it:

It extends the existing WIIN Act provisions allowing water districts to prepay their outstanding capital debts and convert to indefinite length water supply contracts. These provisions are expected to bring in additional revenue within the 10-year scoring window.

It sets up a process to deauthorize inactive water recycling project authorizations.

Conclusion: California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major state-wide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people.

We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state.

I believe that this bill will place California on a long-term path to drought resiliency. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face due to climate change.

I hope my Western colleagues will join me and the others who have introduced this bill, because drought is a serious threat for all of our states. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Drought Resiliency and Water Supply Improvement Act, which Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced today. I am the lead Democratic sponsor on the bill, and Senators Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are also original cosponsors.

Drought--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark reality for California and the West. Climate change presents a triple threat to our water supply:

Higher temperatures causing a dwindling snowpack, increased evaporation and other effects that will reduce our natural storage and runoff. This could decrease flow in the Colorado River by 20% or more by mid-century and as much as 40% by the end of the century.

Longer and more severe droughts, including perhaps as much as an 80% chance of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration in the Colorado Basin during this century.

Although this is more uncertain, the possibility of reduced overall precipitation, perhaps 10-15% less in California's Sierra Nevada mountains within the next 20-30 years.

We must respond to this challenge. The bill we are introducing today does so in three fundamental ways:

It significantly increases funding for an ``all-of-the above'' solution to improve our water supply, including surface and groundwater storage, conveyance, water recycling and desalination;

It reforms the Bureau of Reclamation's outdated project delivery system to more quickly approve and more cost-effectively fund new projects; and

It significantly invests not only in water supply projects, but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change as well.

Climate Change and Drought: I would like to say more about the effects of climate change on two critical areas for California: the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Colorado River Basin.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54 percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79 percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California, because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30% of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. We need to start now to provide substitute ways for storing precipitation in the Sierras, whether through surface storage, groundwater storage, or improved infrastructure to transport floodwaters to the best recharge areas.

This enhanced storage in its many forms will be helpful not only for water users but also to maintain enough cold water for salmon. Cold water reserves are critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during years of devastating droughts.

The outlook for the Colorado Basin is perhaps even more challenging. The Colorado River provides a critical part of the water supply for 19 million people in southern California, but that water supply is diminishing. Already in 2019 the water demands on the Colorado River exceed average inflows to the river by 1.2 million to 1.5 million acre feet each year.

That is a huge gap, and the Drought Contingency Plan that was just negotiated among the 7 Colorado River Basin states represents just the beginning of efforts needed to close even the existing gap. With climate change, far more needs to be done, especially with warmer temperatures and greatly increased evaporation in the Basin and with the considerable odds of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration.

The bill we are introducing today provides the Colorado River Basin States with the tools to begin investing in a wide range of water supply projects to meet this challenge. I believe this bill will be critical for helping reach agreement in the next round of negotiations for Colorado River drought contingency plans due to be completed by 2026.

Funding Authorizations in the Bill: In response to the water supply challenges presented by climate change, the bill we are introducing today significantly increases funding authorizations for a wide variety of water supply and environmental restoration projects.

The proposed legislation builds on and doubles the 5-year funding authorizations in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. The bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years:

$670 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and supporting conveyance;

$100 million for water recycling projects; and

$60 million for desalination projects.

In addition, the bill authorizes $140 million for environmental restoration and compliance projects. These projects include forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits and projects to help restore threatened and endangered species affected by Bureau of Reclamation water projects.

Low-Interest Loans for Water Supply Projects: The bill creates a new loan program at 30-year Treasury rates (currently about 2.6%) for water supply projects known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA). The loans would use existing criteria under the successful WIFIA program (the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act).

The Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has approved loans of $2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of just over 1% of that amount or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was able to approve loans backed by just 1% of the loan amount because there is a virtually non-existent default rate for water projects. Only 4 in a thousand water infrastructure projects default, based on a study conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency.

Given OMB's experience that Federal outlays need only cover 1% of the loan cost for water projects, the $125 million in authorized Federal spending in the draft bill likely could support $12.5 billion in water project lending authority.

Needless to say, $12.5 billion is a meaningful amount of Federal low- interest lending assistance for new water supply projects. And, because RIFIA is limited to no more than 49 percent of total project costs, that same $125 million in RIFIA budget authority will support no less than $25.5 billion in new water infrastructure investments throughout the west.

Need to Improve Reclamation's Project Delivery System: The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further.

The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding new water supply projects has involved the following:

Reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects:

Once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3-5 years or more in many cases; and

Congress then funds 100% of the project construction cost over many years of incremental appropriations, with project sponsors paying back the federal government over 50 years at little to no interest.

One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed by climate change to Western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model.

Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama Administration, testified in support of a new model during an October 8, 2015 hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated:

The traditional Reclamation business model, in which

feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and

Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are

first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then

construction is authorized and funded, does not always

address the needs of project sponsors at the State and local

levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the

availability of other available financing mechanisms, the

historic federal role in financing water storage projects

through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a

greater emphasis on non-federal financing.

Changes to Traditional Model: In response to the concerns articulated by Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the WIIN Act, makes five significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding.

1) Congressional authorization no longer required:

First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual projects. It can take 3-5 years for projects to get legislatively approved or longer. In fact, zero new water recycling projects have been authorized since 2009 due to the Federal earmark ban.

While Congressional authorizations are no longer required, Congress retains full veto authority over which projects get built through the appropriations process. Unless Congress approves funding for the study and construction of individual projects, Reclamation cannot proceed with them.

The advantage of the appropriations process as an alternative mechanism for Congressional approval is that it occurs every year. So rather than waiting 3-5 years or longer for Congressional approval under the traditional model, Congress decides each year whether or not to fund proposed projects.

2) Non-Federal funding is required upfront:

Second, the bill no longer requires 100% federal funding upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50% Federal funding for Federally-owned projects, and a maximum of 25% federal funding for non-federal projects that are built by States, water districts, or Indian tribes.

Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded 50% by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 10-25% by the federal government and the remaining 25-40% by water users.

Multi-partner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion will frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts.

3) Feasibility studies are expedited:

Third, for the non-Federal projects authorized by the bill, the federal study process would be significantly expedited, and it does so without waiving any environmental protection requirements. The bill makes clear that federal environmental laws must be fully and strictly followed.

Existing law, however, already addresses study procedures in parallel circumstances when the nonfederal entities are building a project and the federal government is only responsible for a minority of the project cost, no more than 25%. In these circumstances, the Federal government can and should expeditiously approve feasibility and other preliminary studies. There is existing precedent for such projects in the guidelines adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for feasibility studies for water recycling projects under the Title XVI program. Like all the non-federal projects in this bill, these water recycling projects are built by non-federal entities with a maximum 25% federal cost-share.

The bill we are introducing today would direct Reclamation to model its feasibility study standards for all non-federal projects based on the Title XVI example. This will reduce delays in project approval and get these projects built faster.

4) The new loan program is cost-effective:

Fourth, the low-interest loan program created by the bill is an exceptionally cost-effective program. As I mentioned above, OMB has validated that low-interest water project loans need to be backed by Federal appropriations totaling only 1% of the project loan amount.

Federal funding of 1% of the loan amount will typically return 10-25% savings in the repayment cost of the loans for the water districts funding the projects. The total savings can be about 10% for AAA rated districts, and 20-25% for AA-rated districts.

For example, the water users who are supporting the proposed Sites Reservoir in northern California have estimated that the loans authorized by this bill would allow them to pay only $512/acre-foot for water delivered by the project instead of $682/acre-foot. This is a 25% reduction in their costs.

Thus, the Federal government can provide a loan at 1% of the loan amount and save the project sponsors 10-25% of the project cost. That is an exceptionally cost-effective federal investment.

There are at least three significant reasons that the loans are so beneficial for the project sponsors:

The sponsors pay about a 2.6% interest rate on their loans based on today's rates, versus 4% or greater rates for the alternative of municipal bond financing.

The districts would not need to start loan repayments until 5 years after substantial completion of the project, a substantial cost saver.

Loans are for 35 rather than 30 years, lowering annual debt service costs.

Significantly, the loans include all the taxpayer protections from the successful WIFIA and TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) programs. In particular, the RIFIA loans would be limited to 49% of the project cost, and the federal loans would have senior status in the event of any default. These provisions ensure the taxpayer won't be harmed in any default where the project retains at least 50% of its value, which is extremely likely for ratepayer backed water supply projects.

5) Federal grants and loans work together:

Fifth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up to 25% of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users to make up the difference where the Federal government is no longer funding 100% of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100% of the cost of new water supply projects.

Under the bill we are introducing today, these communities will still have to provide a significant cost-share for improving their water supplies, and new water projects will have to be cost-effective enough to justify that investment. However, the Federal government can help build the best and most effective projects in increasing drought resiliency by providing assistance through both grants and loans.

Environmental Benefits: The longer and more severe droughts coming with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities, but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to improve species' drought resiliency as well.

The significant funding authorization of $140 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish, migratory birds, and forest species. Some of the authorized uses of this funding include:

Improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects;

Additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway;

Improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts;

Assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State agencies and state water quality laws; and

Forest, meadow and watershed restoration efforts that improve the quality, timing, or other attributes of runoff to reservoirs or groundwater storage facilities.

I want to say a little more about the new authorization for forest, meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits. Wildfire and drought are two of our biggest challenges in California, and we need new tools to respond to them.

There are national forest lands and meadows upstream of many reservoirs

in California that are at serious risk of catastrophic fire.

If treatments of these lands restore healthier ecological conditions, it will improve water runoff into the downstream reservoirs and reduce the risk of large sedimentation dumps into the reservoirs from catastrophic fires.

Restoration of these lands may not be a top priority for the Forest Service because that agency's mission does not emphasize water benefits.

The bill being introduced today would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to contribute a portion of the cost of these projects. The new funding source will in turn make these multi-benefit projects more likely to be implemented.

I believe it is critical that we develop new tools like this one for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and improving our drought resiliency.

I and the other cosponsors of today's bill are also looking for additional ways to increase the natural environment's resiliency to droughts in our states. We have circulated language for discussion and potential inclusion in the bill that would provide additional funding for ``natural water storage projects.''

These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species.

We look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multi- benefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill.

In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented consistently with all federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state laws must also be followed.

Offsets: Finally, the bill includes two provisions offsetting the new spending authorizations within it:

It extends the existing WIIN Act provisions allowing water districts to prepay their outstanding capital debts and convert to indefinite length water supply contracts. These provisions are expected to bring in additional revenue within the 10-year scoring window.

It sets up a process to deauthorize inactive water recycling project authorizations.

Conclusion: California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major state-wide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people.

We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state.

I believe that this bill will place California on a long-term path to drought resiliency. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face due to climate change.

I hope my Western colleagues will join me and the others who have introduced this bill, because drought is a serious threat for all of our states. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak in support of legislation to address the ever increasing instances of gun violence and to urge our Republican colleagues to finally join us in our effort to save lives.

I became mayor of San Francisco as a result of gun violence, and from my first day in the Senate, trying to reduce the number of lives needlessly lost to gun violence has been my mission. I authored the Federal assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. Since that ban expired 15 years ago, the number of mass shootings has risen dramatically.

According to data from Mother Jones, which defines a mass shooting as four or more people killed, we have suffered through 77 such massacres, leaving 643 dead and 1,055 injured. That is why I have introduced an updated assault weapons ban, which will keep weapons of war off of our streets. Compared with the 10-year period before the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban, the number of gun massacres between 1994 and 2004 fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. The fact is that the assault weapons ban worked.

Firearms like the AR-15 have become the mass shooter's weapon of choice, and they become even more dangerous with the use of modifications like bump stocks. We will never forget that, in 2017 in Las Vegas, 58 people were killed and 422 wounded in our Nation's worst mass shooting.

Simply put, there is no reason why civilians need weapons like these. They are not for protection, and they are not for hunting. They are weapons of war designed to take lives, and that is why we need to reinstate the assault weapons ban.

Since 1966, there have been 163 mass shootings with at least four people killed; 1,165 people have lost their lives, 189 of whom were children or teenagers.

The statistics on school shootings are even more sobering. Since the shooting at Columbine in 1999, there have been 239 school shootings nationwide; 302 people have been injured, 144 people killed, and 228,000 children exposed to gun violence.

I have said before that I thought things were going to change after what happened in Newtown. I still have a framed copy of the Daily News cover with the pictures of the beautiful children whose lives were taken that day and the headline ``Shame on U.S.,'' for failing to pass the assault weapons ban. But things didn't change because my Republican colleagues lacked the courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association. I hope that can change now and that Senator McConnell will finally call up legislation to prevent more lives from being needlessly lost, including the lives of our children.

In addition to reinstating the assault weapons ban, we should be doing more. In particular, the Senate should immediately consider the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and universal background checks. Each of these bills should be part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent further shootings, and we must act quickly.

To that end, I have introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019. This bill would give grants to States to enact extreme-risk laws. These are laws that allow family members and law enforcement officers to get court orders to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Fifteen States and the District of Columbia already have extreme-risk laws on the books, and they work. San Diego has had particular success with California's law. In a little more than a year, that office has obtained 126 orders and confiscated 318 guns, including 33 assault weapons.

Earlier this year, I received a letter from the San Diego city attorney. Here is an excerpt from that letter: ``Our office has found California's red flag law to be a powerful tool for protecting residents and police officers from senseless gun violence. Gun-rights advocates closely monitor our work; they have yet to bring to our attention a case where they believe the GVRO was improperly granted.'' Simply put, extreme-risk laws protect due process, and they save lives.

Similarly, the Violence Against Women Act, which has already passed the House, addresses gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. It does this in three ways. First, the bill makes it a Federal crime for someone under an ex parte domestic violence order to possess a firearm. An ex parte hearing means that the abuser is not there, but there are still due process protections. The judge must still consider evidence, and the order itself is only temporary. These sorts of orders are only issued in the most dangerous situations, which is why it is so important that we ensure these sorts of abusers cannot purchase or possess firearms while the order is in place.

Second, it closes the so-called boyfriend loophole. This is an important update to the law so that, if someone is convicted of committing domestic violence against the person he or she is dating, they cannot possess firearms. These are situations where someone has already been convicted of committing an act of domestic violence. The presence of firearms in domestic violence situations raises the chance that someone will die by 500 percent. Preventing this is common sense.

Third and finally, the House bill prohibits people convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm. Once again, this means someone has already been convicted in a court of repeatedly following and harassing someone else.

For me, there is no question that domestic abusers should be barred from purchasing or possessing firearms.

There was a recent article in the Washington Post titled, ``The latest shooting attacks show how the U.S. stands apart from the world. It ends with the line: ``It may not be possible to completely replicate Australia's success, but why there has been no effort even to try is a question that puts national lawmakers to shame.''

I agree. It is far past time for my Republican colleagues to join me in passing commonsense gun reform. It is far past time to act, and we are needlessly losing more lives every day to gun violence.

Thank you.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Matthew Kacsmaryk to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

June is the month that we recognize as Pride Month to celebrate the lesbian and gay community and to acknowledge that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation; yet, today we are voting on a nominee, Mr. Kacsmaryk, whose career has been defined by opposition to the rights of LGBT Americans. He has argued against marriage equality and defended a company that refused to provide service to a same-sex couple, simply based on their sexual orientation.

It is disappointing that the Senate is moving forward on his nomination, and even more disappointing that the majority has scheduled this vote during Pride Month.

Mr. Kacsmaryk 's long record of opposing civil rights protections for LGBT Americans should disqualify him from service on the bench. They demonstrate that he puts his personal opinion above Supreme Court precedent.

Specifically, I want to highlight some key positions in his record.

In 2015, Mr. Kashmir made comments deeply critical of United States v. Windsor, the case that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Mr. Kacsmaryk claimed that the Obama administration, which refused to defend DOMA, had ``effectively collaborated with the adversary.'' Mr. Kacsmaryk's comments make clear that he believes those fighting for the right of LGBT American, including the right to marry, are adversaries. Someone making a statement like this should quite simply not be a Federal judge.

He likewise claimed in a radio interview that efforts to achieve marriage equality were marked by ``lawlessness,'' adding that the Justice Department's refusal to defend DOMA was an ``abuse of rule of law principles.''

Also in 2015, Mr. Kacsmaryk submitted a brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case that guaranteed marriage equality.

Mr. Kacsmaryk urged the Court to deny that the 14th Amendment extended to the right of same-sex couples to marry. He argued that finding a nationwide right to marriage equality would violate the free speech rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and he claimed that allowing gay couples to marry would ``silence religious dissenters who continue to hold to their millennia- old definition of marriage.'' The Supreme Court disagreed.

In 2016, Mr. Kacsmaryk continued his efforts opposing the civil rights of LGBT individuals by defending a company that refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, simply because they were gay.

Mr. Kacsmaryk denied that the business had refused to sell the cake because of the customers' sexual orientation. Instead, he claimed that the law prohibiting discrimination against LGBT individuals ``forc[ed] business owners to publicly facilitate ceremonies, rituals, and other expressive events with which they have fundamental'' disagreements.

Businesses should not be permitted to discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation, but in Matthew Kacsmaryk's opinion, it is completely acceptable to do just that.

Throughout his career, Mr. Kacsmaryk has taken particularly offensive positions on the rights of transgender Americans, including transgender youth.

He has argued that being transgender is a ``delusion.''

He also signed onto a letter claiming that transgender people are suffering from a ``psychological condition in need of care,'' and are ``not a category of persons in need of special legal protection.''

Taken together, these positions show that Mr. Kacsmaryk has strong personal beliefs and is opposed to defending civil rights of gay and lesbian individuals.

Further, when asked during his hearing whether he would recuse himself from cases involving LGBT individuals, Mr. Kacsmaryk refused. When asked in written questions how his record did not create an appearance of impropriety when it comes to deciding cases on gay rights, Mr. Kacsmaryk simply cited the Federal recusal statute, refusing to answer the question directly.

In addition, Mr. Kacsmaryk has also worked to undermine women's access to reproductive healthcare.

For example, he argued that the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement was unconstitutional, and then later claimed that the Obama administration's religious accommodation to that requirement was likewise unconstitutional.

Without any evidence, Mr. Kacsmaryk accused the Obama administration of treating religious protections ``as a secondary consideration.'' With respect to the accommodation, which required nonprofit organizations to submit a one-page form to their insurer noting their objections, Mr. Kacsmaryk claimed the government was ``forc[ing] religious objectors to provide material aid to those who would commit the ultimately wrongful act'' of providing contraceptives.

He also argued that a Washington State statute requiring all pharmacies to stock emergency contraceptives violated the rights of religious pharmacists. The statute permitted individual pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions that ran contrary to their religious beliefs.

But this was not enough for Mr. Kacsmaryk, who argued that the pharmacies themselves should be exempt from the statute. He also claimed that in seeking to provide contraception to women, Washington had ``radically depart[ed] from the nationwide consensus protecting conscience rights'' for health care professionals.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Given the positions he has taken in litigation and the inflammatory comments he has made in his personal capacity, I am concerned Mr. Kacsmaryk will not bring the temperament needed to demonstrate respect for all litigants that we expect from all Federal judges.

I am voting against Mr. Kacsmaryk because I believe his record shows he is far outside the legal mainstream, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.