Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Restore Aging Infrastructure Now RAIN Act, which I introduced today. Senator Alex Padilla is cosponsoring the legislation.

This bill has three purposes: No. 1, upgrade aging canals and other facilities owned by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide environmental and other benefits; No. 2, for the first time provide grant funding rather than loans for Reclamation facility upgrades that provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and No. 3, incentivize agricultural and municipal irrigation districts to participate in these projects by giving them a 15 percent discount on what they owe for repairing the aging facilities that serve them.

Let me explain these three bill purposes in more detail. First, Congress has appropriated $3.2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to repair its aging canals, dams and other facilities. If the Federal taxpayers are spending this much money to retool Reclamation infrastructure for the needs of the 21st century, the Department of the Interior should have the authority to modify the Reclamation facilities to achieve increased environmental benefits, drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and other project benefits.

This bill applies to Reclamation ``transferred works'' facilities, which are operated and maintained by agricultural or municipal water districts. The bill authorizes Reclamation to modify these transferred works facilities when the Agency is repairing them, as long as the modifications add no more than 25 percent of the cost of the repair projects, or $25 million for repair projects costing less than $100 million.

In California, this could be particularly helpful for projects to restore major Central Valley Project canals that have lost up to 60 percent of their conveyance capacity due to subsidence. These projects are important to allow farmers to capture runoff from our increasingly concentrated winter storms and move the water to overdrafted areas where it is needed to recharge the local aquifers.

As I mentioned, the bill applies to those Reclamation facilities known as ``transferred works,'' which are operated and maintained by agricultural or irrigation water districts. In order to modify these projects when they are being repaired, the Secretary must obtain the consent of the transferred works operating entity and any individual water district that would receive less water under the modified project.

Many Bureau of Reclamation facilities were built for the sole purpose of assisting agricultural water supply. This irrigation focus is critically important in the arid West. However, as climate change stretches western water supplies, Reclamation facilities will need to serve multiple purposes as efficiently as possible.

There are many rural communities in the areas served by Reclamation facilities that have dwindling water supplies. In California, many of these communities are home to migrant farmworkers who plant and harvest the crops that Reclamation water deliveries support.

All too often, these communities' water supplies have become unreliable as groundwater tables drop, or drought reduces surface water supplies for lengthy periods. Many of these communities lack the ratepayer base and income levels to provide clean drinking water to meet their residents' basic daily needs.

In order to meet this challenge, the bill authorizes Reclamation to offer grants rather than loans when it modifies existing Reclamation facilities to provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities. Eligible communities are defined using existing precedent that their median family income must not exceed 80 percent of the statewide median family income.

In California, this could be particular helpful for the major canal repair projects which are restoring the original capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the California Aqueduct, and the Delta-Mendota Canal, all of which have been damaged by subsidence. Under the bill, Reclamation can now modify these upgraded canals to provide turnouts to recharge the aquifers of disadvantaged communities along the canals.

As a result, when we have wet years like this past winter, Reclamation could send some of the flood flows to help these communities boost their local water supplies.

These project modifications can be an efficient way to assist these disadvantaged communities; the canals already exist, works crews will already be mobilized to repair them, and in many cases, the canals run very near the communities that would benefit.

To make the bill work, agricultural and municipal water districts must participate in these modifications to Reclamation facility repair projects.

In many cases, the water providers will face disincentives to participate in these projects. Some providers may see their benefits reduced. All providers will have to accept significant delay in obtaining the benefits of the restoration of these projects. It will take significant time to modify the projects in a manner that the providers can accept and then to conduct environmental compliance on the proposed modification. The providers will also have to accept modified project operations that give increased priority to public benefits.

To offset these disincentives for water providers to participate in modifications to projects which increase just public benefits, the bill reduces the amount the providers have to pay for the underlying repair projects by 15 percent. The result is that each project beneficiary will pay 85 percent of the costs for the modified project that the beneficiary would otherwise have been allocated.

This provision sets up a financial incentive for water providers to support modified projects that solely increase environmental and other public benefits without increasing water diversions or other water supply benefits. Without this financial incentive, water providers might be expected to frequently oppose such modification of the projects that they rely on for water deliveries. In the case of canal restoration projects, the agricultural water districts will receive less water than they would have under the original canals at full capacity if an increased amount of the water is diverted for dedicated to disadvantaged communities or wildlife refuges. The financial incentive is important in this context to avoid generating agricultural water district opposition to project modifications to benefit disadvantaged communities and wildlife refuges.

This approach is consistent with Reclamation programs like the Title XVI and large-scale water recycling programs. These programs provide 25 percent Federal grant funding for projects that increase municipal water supplies, even where the benefiting communities are not disadvantaged. These grants are justified because the recycled water programs provide both water supply and broader public benefits by reducing pressure to divert water from often overallocated streams and rivers. With this bill, too, the modified projects merit some Federal grant funding because they provide a range of public benefits beyond just regular water supply, including potentially environmental benefits or drinking water for disadvantaged communities.

Given the inevitability of increasingly severe and lengthy droughts as the West's climate changes, it will be essential to provide incentives to collaborate on multibenefit projects that bring agricultural, environmental, and urban interests together to address the very serious challenge of maintaining sufficiently reliable water supply for all, including disadvantaged communities. This proposed legislation seeks to increase incentives for such needed collaboration.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Community Wood Facilities Assistance Act of 2023 and thank my colleagues, Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly, for joining me as original cosponsors of the bill.

This bill will assist with the construction of facilities that make sustainable use of small-diameter timber from forest-thinning projects and other needed treatments in eastern and western forests.

In doing so, the bill would also create jobs in rural and forest- dependent communities while decreasing wildfire risk in our vulnerable forests.

The Forest Service reports that 80 million acres of Forest Service lands are at risk of catastrophic wildfire or abnormal levels of insect and disease infestations.

These impacts are only made worse by historic levels of drought. In California alone, 129 million trees have died across 8.9 million acres due to drought and bark beetles. Thirty-six million of those tree deaths were in 2022, triple the number from the previous year. This is clearly a crisis.

Removing select small trees and other hazardous fuels in our forests are critical for preserving our forests over the long term. Not only does this ease the competition large trees face for water, it also reduces the spread of bark beetles and makes the forest less susceptible to catastrophic wildfire.

Between the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress has provided billions of dollars for hazardous fuels reduction and forest thinning work. What is needed now is the economic infrastructure to support this work.

Unfortunately, the number of sawmills, bioenergy facilities, and other forest-product companies have been shrinking for decades. This is due in part to increased production efficiency, but in other instances, market instability forced the closure of many large mills.

One result of the decrease in sawmills is the inability for the market to react nimbly to supply and demand. In 2020, even though massive wildfires should have meant a boom in salvageable trees, the COVID-19 pandemic constrained mill capacity and throughput. This constraint, along with a surge in consumer demand, led to a near 400 percent increase in lumber prices, which are only now resolving.

An analysis by The Nature Conservancy and Bain and Company management consultants recommended incentives to ``bridge the gap between the cost of ecological thinning and the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure.''

As the report explains, ``If more aggressive restoration targets can be met, there will be significant need for additional processing capacity to defray restoration costs and provide valuable end uses for thinned material.''

Our bill would make targeted changes to existing Forest Service grant programs to help the forest product industry grow and provide outlets for the billions of acres of wood that will result from the investments made in the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act.

The two grant programs we target in this bill are the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program and the Wood Innovations Program.

These programs would benefit from changes, particularly from higher Federal cost-shares and an increased ability to provide more funding for each project, in addition to a higher authorized funding.

The first of these, the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program, provides grants for the capital cost of small wood products facilities. Our bill would first change the name to avoid confusion with the Wood Innovations Program.

Our bill would also double the authorization level to $50 million per year, allow the program to fund new facility construction in addition to improvements. The maximum grant amount would also increase from $1 to $5 million, and the Federal cost share would increase from 35 percent to 50 percent, making it easier for small companies to use.

Our bill will also revise the Forest Service's Wood Innovations Grant Program, which provides grants for innovative uses and applications of wood products and the expansion of related markets. It would similarly allow this program to be used for new facilities in addition to retrofits and improvements and lower the minimum non-Federal cost-share from 50 percent to 33.3 percent.

Congress has an opportunity this year to make these important changes to these grant programs and help stimulate a self-sustaining forest product economy and promote healthier forests. I thank Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly for their partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to promptly take up this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Community Wood Facilities Assistance Act of 2023 and thank my colleagues, Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly, for joining me as original cosponsors of the bill.

This bill will assist with the construction of facilities that make sustainable use of small-diameter timber from forest-thinning projects and other needed treatments in eastern and western forests.

In doing so, the bill would also create jobs in rural and forest- dependent communities while decreasing wildfire risk in our vulnerable forests.

The Forest Service reports that 80 million acres of Forest Service lands are at risk of catastrophic wildfire or abnormal levels of insect and disease infestations.

These impacts are only made worse by historic levels of drought. In California alone, 129 million trees have died across 8.9 million acres due to drought and bark beetles. Thirty-six million of those tree deaths were in 2022, triple the number from the previous year. This is clearly a crisis.

Removing select small trees and other hazardous fuels in our forests are critical for preserving our forests over the long term. Not only does this ease the competition large trees face for water, it also reduces the spread of bark beetles and makes the forest less susceptible to catastrophic wildfire.

Between the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress has provided billions of dollars for hazardous fuels reduction and forest thinning work. What is needed now is the economic infrastructure to support this work.

Unfortunately, the number of sawmills, bioenergy facilities, and other forest-product companies have been shrinking for decades. This is due in part to increased production efficiency, but in other instances, market instability forced the closure of many large mills.

One result of the decrease in sawmills is the inability for the market to react nimbly to supply and demand. In 2020, even though massive wildfires should have meant a boom in salvageable trees, the COVID-19 pandemic constrained mill capacity and throughput. This constraint, along with a surge in consumer demand, led to a near 400 percent increase in lumber prices, which are only now resolving.

An analysis by The Nature Conservancy and Bain and Company management consultants recommended incentives to ``bridge the gap between the cost of ecological thinning and the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure.''

As the report explains, ``If more aggressive restoration targets can be met, there will be significant need for additional processing capacity to defray restoration costs and provide valuable end uses for thinned material.''

Our bill would make targeted changes to existing Forest Service grant programs to help the forest product industry grow and provide outlets for the billions of acres of wood that will result from the investments made in the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act.

The two grant programs we target in this bill are the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program and the Wood Innovations Program.

These programs would benefit from changes, particularly from higher Federal cost-shares and an increased ability to provide more funding for each project, in addition to a higher authorized funding.

The first of these, the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program, provides grants for the capital cost of small wood products facilities. Our bill would first change the name to avoid confusion with the Wood Innovations Program.

Our bill would also double the authorization level to $50 million per year, allow the program to fund new facility construction in addition to improvements. The maximum grant amount would also increase from $1 to $5 million, and the Federal cost share would increase from 35 percent to 50 percent, making it easier for small companies to use.

Our bill will also revise the Forest Service's Wood Innovations Grant Program, which provides grants for innovative uses and applications of wood products and the expansion of related markets. It would similarly allow this program to be used for new facilities in addition to retrofits and improvements and lower the minimum non-Federal cost-share from 50 percent to 33.3 percent.

Congress has an opportunity this year to make these important changes to these grant programs and help stimulate a self-sustaining forest product economy and promote healthier forests. I thank Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly for their partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to promptly take up this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Help Independent Tracks Succeed (HITS)

Act, which Senator Blackburn and I introduced today. Representatives Linda Sanchez and Ron Estes have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Tax Code allows film, television, and theater productions to fully deduct production expenses in the year they are incurred.

However, recording artists are not given the same treatment and instead must amortize their production expenses over a number of years.

Moreover, many live performance stages and venues across the country closed for months as a result of the pandemic. Independent musicians and music makers, including both technicians and creators, suffered more than most other professions during this period, and many continue to recover.

Our bill would provide a measure of relief to music creators by allowing independent musicians, technicians, and music producers to deduct the costs of producing new musical and other sound recordings in the year they are incurred, thereby putting them on a level playing field with film, television, and theater productions.

Specifically, the bill would allow qualified sound recording producers to deduct 100% of recording production expenses--up to $150,000--in the year they are incurred, rather than in later years.

Because this change would simply accelerate a tax deduction that already exists, the bill's cost would be modest.

In addition, because the deduction would be capped at $150,000 per production, our legislation would benefit smaller, independent musicians and music producers rather than large companies.

Music has inspired, comforted, and entertained each of us. Our bill would help create parity between musical creators and other creative producers and stimulate a sector of the economy that is a fundamental part of each of our lives.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Help Independent Tracks Succeed (HITS)

Act, which Senator Blackburn and I introduced today. Representatives Linda Sanchez and Ron Estes have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Tax Code allows film, television, and theater productions to fully deduct production expenses in the year they are incurred.

However, recording artists are not given the same treatment and instead must amortize their production expenses over a number of years.

Moreover, many live performance stages and venues across the country closed for months as a result of the pandemic. Independent musicians and music makers, including both technicians and creators, suffered more than most other professions during this period, and many continue to recover.

Our bill would provide a measure of relief to music creators by allowing independent musicians, technicians, and music producers to deduct the costs of producing new musical and other sound recordings in the year they are incurred, thereby putting them on a level playing field with film, television, and theater productions.

Specifically, the bill would allow qualified sound recording producers to deduct 100% of recording production expenses--up to $150,000--in the year they are incurred, rather than in later years.

Because this change would simply accelerate a tax deduction that already exists, the bill's cost would be modest.

In addition, because the deduction would be capped at $150,000 per production, our legislation would benefit smaller, independent musicians and music producers rather than large companies.

Music has inspired, comforted, and entertained each of us. Our bill would help create parity between musical creators and other creative producers and stimulate a sector of the economy that is a fundamental part of each of our lives.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act.

The premise of this bill is simple: Individuals who pose a serious threat to themselves or others should not have guns.

Too often we see the deadly consequences when those at risk of committing violence are given easy access to guns. Nearly 40,000 people die each year from gun violence. Last year, 3,597 children died by gunfire--making guns the No. 1 cause of death for children in the United States.

Before many incidents of gun violence, shooters display warning signs of impending violence. However, family and friends--those in the best position to recognize troubling signs--are too often powerless to stop the violence.

That is why Congress must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act.

Extreme risk protection orders, which are often referred to as red flag laws, allow law enforcement and family members to petition courts to temporarily remove guns from individuals who are determined to be dangerous. These laws help save lives.

Nineteen States, including California, already have these laws on the books. Red flag laws work, but they need more funding.

The Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act, which I am reintroducing today, would allow States to use Federal funds to develop red flag laws.

Passing the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act would help States respond to situations where a dangerous person should not have access to a gun. It will also help us better understand the causes of gun violence and how to better protect our communities.

When Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act last year, it expanded the Justice Department's existing Byrne-JAG Program to allow States to apply for Federal grant assistance if they want to create these laws.

While this was an important first step, I believe we must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act to build on the important work done last Congress and make sure that specific dedicated funding exists for the development and implementation of red-flag laws.

Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act.

The premise of this bill is simple: Individuals who pose a serious threat to themselves or others should not have guns.

Too often we see the deadly consequences when those at risk of committing violence are given easy access to guns. Nearly 40,000 people die each year from gun violence. Last year, 3,597 children died by gunfire--making guns the No. 1 cause of death for children in the United States.

Before many incidents of gun violence, shooters display warning signs of impending violence. However, family and friends--those in the best position to recognize troubling signs--are too often powerless to stop the violence.

That is why Congress must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act.

Extreme risk protection orders, which are often referred to as red flag laws, allow law enforcement and family members to petition courts to temporarily remove guns from individuals who are determined to be dangerous. These laws help save lives.

Nineteen States, including California, already have these laws on the books. Red flag laws work, but they need more funding.

The Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act, which I am reintroducing today, would allow States to use Federal funds to develop red flag laws.

Passing the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act would help States respond to situations where a dangerous person should not have access to a gun. It will also help us better understand the causes of gun violence and how to better protect our communities.

When Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act last year, it expanded the Justice Department's existing Byrne-JAG Program to allow States to apply for Federal grant assistance if they want to create these laws.

While this was an important first step, I believe we must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act to build on the important work done last Congress and make sure that specific dedicated funding exists for the development and implementation of red-flag laws.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution designating January as ``National Trafficking and Modern Slavery Prevention Month.''

I am proud to introduce this resolution every year to raise awareness about the ongoing atrocities of human trafficking. We must continue to support the ongoing partnerships between governments, nonprofits, service providers, and survivors, who are all working to end human trafficking.

The human trafficking industry generates an estimated $150 billion in illegal profits a year. And human trafficking impacts 50 million victims around the world. Many of the victims of human trafficking are often difficult to identify and are subjected to manipulation, force, fraud, and abuse. We cannot turn a blind eye to ongoing exploitation and forced labor in our country and throughout the world. We have a responsibility to raise awareness of these horrendous acts, ensure victims understand that they are not alone, and provide legislative solutions to support and protect survivors.

Last Congress, I was able to work with my Senate colleagues to reauthorize the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. By designating January as ``National Trafficking and Modern Slavery Prevention Month,'' we will shine a light on the issue and continue the bipartisan charge to end trafficking and exploitation.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act.

This bill would bring ATF into the 21st century by allowing the Agency to electronically search for the records of guns used in crimes across the country. It is hard to believe that ATF still must store paper records and search them by hand in order to identify the guns used for criminal activity. These archaic rules prevent the people responsible for enforcing our laws from doing their jobs effectively.

The National Tracing Center at ATF is responsible for quickly placing crime gun ownership information into the hands of law enforcement officials so they can solve crimes and save lives. In 2021, National Tracing Center receive over 540,000 trace requests.

Unfortunately, the timely completion of these trace requests has been made nearly impossible because ATF cannot search these records electronically.

To make matters worse, these millions of records are stored in thousands of boxes that are overflowing the hallways of the National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, WV. The records that agents must search through are so massive, ATF has been told that if it places more boxes inside the facility, the floor may collapse.

Every moment after a crime is committed matters dearly to our law enforcement agencies. Prohibiting the efficient search of these records puts our communities at risk.

I thank my former colleague Senator Leahy for championing this bill last Congress. I am committed to continuing the fight for this important fix.

Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act.

This bill would bring ATF into the 21st century by allowing the Agency to electronically search for the records of guns used in crimes across the country. It is hard to believe that ATF still must store paper records and search them by hand in order to identify the guns used for criminal activity. These archaic rules prevent the people responsible for enforcing our laws from doing their jobs effectively.

The National Tracing Center at ATF is responsible for quickly placing crime gun ownership information into the hands of law enforcement officials so they can solve crimes and save lives. In 2021, National Tracing Center receive over 540,000 trace requests.

Unfortunately, the timely completion of these trace requests has been made nearly impossible because ATF cannot search these records electronically.

To make matters worse, these millions of records are stored in thousands of boxes that are overflowing the hallways of the National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, WV. The records that agents must search through are so massive, ATF has been told that if it places more boxes inside the facility, the floor may collapse.

Every moment after a crime is committed matters dearly to our law enforcement agencies. Prohibiting the efficient search of these records puts our communities at risk.

I thank my former colleague Senator Leahy for championing this bill last Congress. I am committed to continuing the fight for this important fix.

Madam President, today I rise to introduce a resolution recognizing February 1, 2023, as National Girls and Women in Sports Day.

Nearly 4 million girls and women across this country participate in high school and college athletics. Participation in sports has been shown to provide lifelong benefits to their physical and mental health. Athletic participation helps develop self-discipline, initiative, and confidence. When female athletes are supported on the field, they are empowered to become leaders off of it.

For far too long, the many achievements of women in sports have not received fair recognition. Female athletes, coaches, and trainers are consistently paid less than their male counterparts, subjected to subpar working conditions, and receive substantially less investment and promotional support for their athletic programs. This country must do all it can to break down the barriers of discrimination, inequality, and injustice in sports.

Today's resolution celebrates the tremendous accomplishments of female athletes across the United States, supports the growth of female sports, and encourages the next generation of athletes to follow their dreams.

I thank Senator Capito for leading this important bipartisan resolution with me, and for all of our supporters in the Senate.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Wildfire Emergency Act, bipartisan legislation that Senators Padilla, Daines, Wyden, and I are introducing today, to help address the threat of catastrophic wildfire throughout the West.

Wildfires have always been a part of life in California and other Western States, but climate change and drier forests have increased the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The new fire season is nearly year- round, and the wildfires themselves are more destructive as they spread faster and burn hotter.

The new reality of the wildfire threat requires transformative action to protect our forests and neighboring communities. Our bill would do just that, empowering Federal, State, and local land managers to make both our forests and infrastructure more resilient.

The most recent National Climate Assessment, conducted by leading scientists from the research community and across the Federal Government, found that the number of acres burned in the Western United States is double what would have burned without climate change.

My home State of California knows this all too well as it is the epicenter of this destructive phenomenon. The top three worst wildfire seasons in California were all in the last 5 years, including the largest single wildfire in California history in 2021. Since 2017, wildfires have burned more than 11 million acres, killed nearly 200 people, and destroyed more than 32,000 homes.

Worryingly, these wildfires are predicted to only grow worse as climate conditions continue to change, and the Federal Government has not yet adequately responded. Important investments in wildfire resilience were included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which were enacted in the last Congress, but stakeholders are nearly unanimous in supporting additional policy changes to improve the pace and scale of wildfire resiliency treatments.

At the same time, the urgency of this crisis should not prompt Congress to vitiate important environmental safeguards. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have consistently championed the preservation and careful stewardship of our treasured forests, and this bill will be no different.

Our Wildfire Emergency Act is the result of a considered approach to the wildfire crisis and includes feedback from conservationists, public and private stakeholders, and the U.S. Forest Service.

First, it would provide the U.S. Forest Service with a pilot authority to leverage private financing options to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration projects. These projects would involve a collaborative approach to forest management to ensure that the forests are protected.

This conservation finance model would be a new way of implementing forest restoration work, but the principle at its core is that forests are vital to a healthy environment and populace. Forests provide shade and wind breaks, stabilize steep mountain slopes, and help purify our water. These benefits have tangible value, and the financing model we develop here would make those benefits plain for all to see.

In addition, the bill makes energy resilience a priority across the Federal Government. It would help develop and fund backup power for critical infrastructure like drinking water or hospitals, and put a renewed focus on wildfire detection and monitoring. As vulnerable as our forests are, it takes just one spark to ignite an entire mountain. The sooner our firefighters can detect and respond to these fires, the better our chances of preventing more communities from devastation.

In addition, the bill would provide grants to low-income households to make fire-resilient upgrades to their homes. Thanks to home insurance regulatory changes taking place in California, wildfire retrofits could also help lower insurance premiums and reduce the financial burden on rural homeowners. The bill would also make grants available to low-income communities to help involve them in planning and implementing forest restoration projects on the lands surrounding their homes.

Lastly, our bill recognizes that the forest management workforce is also in crisis. The U.S. Forest Service and Department of Interior have experience chronic staffing shortages in wildland firefighters for years. And even though the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act provided historic levels of funding for forest conservation work, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts an overall decline in the forest conservation workforce in the next 10 years.

To address these issues, our bill would create new funding sources for forest management education and firefighter training. It would also establish a prescribed fire training center in the Western United States, to train the next generation of firefighters and forestry technicians in the landscapes where their skills are most needed.

The simple reality is that wildfires will continue to happen in the West. They are an integral part of the West's ecology, even if climate change has exacerbated their scale and intensity. Our job must be to prepare for these wildfires to the extent we are able, to use the best available science to make our forests more resilient, and ensure that our communities remain safe.

That is why Senators Padilla, Daines, Wyden, and I have introduced this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support and pass it as soon as possible.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Wildfire Emergency Act, bipartisan legislation that Senators Padilla, Daines, Wyden, and I are introducing today, to help address the threat of catastrophic wildfire throughout the West.

Wildfires have always been a part of life in California and other Western States, but climate change and drier forests have increased the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The new fire season is nearly year- round, and the wildfires themselves are more destructive as they spread faster and burn hotter.

The new reality of the wildfire threat requires transformative action to protect our forests and neighboring communities. Our bill would do just that, empowering Federal, State, and local land managers to make both our forests and infrastructure more resilient.

The most recent National Climate Assessment, conducted by leading scientists from the research community and across the Federal Government, found that the number of acres burned in the Western United States is double what would have burned without climate change.

My home State of California knows this all too well as it is the epicenter of this destructive phenomenon. The top three worst wildfire seasons in California were all in the last 5 years, including the largest single wildfire in California history in 2021. Since 2017, wildfires have burned more than 11 million acres, killed nearly 200 people, and destroyed more than 32,000 homes.

Worryingly, these wildfires are predicted to only grow worse as climate conditions continue to change, and the Federal Government has not yet adequately responded. Important investments in wildfire resilience were included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which were enacted in the last Congress, but stakeholders are nearly unanimous in supporting additional policy changes to improve the pace and scale of wildfire resiliency treatments.

At the same time, the urgency of this crisis should not prompt Congress to vitiate important environmental safeguards. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have consistently championed the preservation and careful stewardship of our treasured forests, and this bill will be no different.

Our Wildfire Emergency Act is the result of a considered approach to the wildfire crisis and includes feedback from conservationists, public and private stakeholders, and the U.S. Forest Service.

First, it would provide the U.S. Forest Service with a pilot authority to leverage private financing options to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration projects. These projects would involve a collaborative approach to forest management to ensure that the forests are protected.

This conservation finance model would be a new way of implementing forest restoration work, but the principle at its core is that forests are vital to a healthy environment and populace. Forests provide shade and wind breaks, stabilize steep mountain slopes, and help purify our water. These benefits have tangible value, and the financing model we develop here would make those benefits plain for all to see.

In addition, the bill makes energy resilience a priority across the Federal Government. It would help develop and fund backup power for critical infrastructure like drinking water or hospitals, and put a renewed focus on wildfire detection and monitoring. As vulnerable as our forests are, it takes just one spark to ignite an entire mountain. The sooner our firefighters can detect and respond to these fires, the better our chances of preventing more communities from devastation.

In addition, the bill would provide grants to low-income households to make fire-resilient upgrades to their homes. Thanks to home insurance regulatory changes taking place in California, wildfire retrofits could also help lower insurance premiums and reduce the financial burden on rural homeowners. The bill would also make grants available to low-income communities to help involve them in planning and implementing forest restoration projects on the lands surrounding their homes.

Lastly, our bill recognizes that the forest management workforce is also in crisis. The U.S. Forest Service and Department of Interior have experience chronic staffing shortages in wildland firefighters for years. And even though the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act provided historic levels of funding for forest conservation work, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts an overall decline in the forest conservation workforce in the next 10 years.

To address these issues, our bill would create new funding sources for forest management education and firefighter training. It would also establish a prescribed fire training center in the Western United States, to train the next generation of firefighters and forestry technicians in the landscapes where their skills are most needed.

The simple reality is that wildfires will continue to happen in the West. They are an integral part of the West's ecology, even if climate change has exacerbated their scale and intensity. Our job must be to prepare for these wildfires to the extent we are able, to use the best available science to make our forests more resilient, and ensure that our communities remain safe.

That is why Senators Padilla, Daines, Wyden, and I have introduced this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support and pass it as soon as possible.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Community Wildfire Protection Act, bipartisan legislation that Senator Daines and I are reintroducing today.

This bill would ensure that those communities that are deemed to be under the greatest threat from wildfire are eligible to receive existing Federal wildfire grants. This sounds obvious but unfortunately is not the case under current law.

The current definition of an ``at-risk community'' was codified in the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act. That law requires that, in addition to experiencing significant wildfire risk, an eligible community must either be adjacent to Federal land or included on a list generated in 2001 consisting of voluntary input from States and Tribes.

Unfortunately, this 2001 list is far from objective or comprehensive. Communities on the list were not added based on an objective evaluation of their wildfire risk or threat to life and property, only whether an individual Governor or Tribal leader decided to add them. To make matters worse, there are obvious omissions from the list that show its inadequacy, and in fact, 19 States and territories never submitted a single community.

For example, large California cities such as Fresno, Fairfield, and Napa are not encompassed by this definition, all of which have experienced recent major wildfires. The list also omits Grizzly Flats, CA, which was devastated by the 2021 Caldor Fire, despite its proximity to Federal lands, as well as countless other small towns at great risk of wildfire.

These small, rural towns are frequently at the highest risk of wildfire and lack the resources to undertake wildfire resiliency projects on their own. Obviously, these are some of the towns that would most benefit from addition Federal help but because of the outdated definition, may not be eligible.

Aligning the definition in law for at-risk communities to today's environmental realities is more important than ever given the increased spread, frequency, and destructiveness of wildfires, especially in the West.

Our bill would simply end the practice of making Federal grants contingent on this outdated, incomplete list or proximity to Federal lands. Instead, our legislation would allow communities to be eligible based on the most up-to-date quantitative wildfire risk data for the entire United States--data already maintained by the U.S. Forest Service.

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $1 billion for community wildfire resilience grants, and last year's Inflation Reduction Act included an historic $1.8 billion for wildfire resilience on federal forestlands. Congress has done the work of providing funding for wildfire resilience. Now it must ensure that these projects can be targeted where they are most necessary and completed with the swiftness that the wildfire crisis demands.

I am pleased to work with Senator Daines on this commonsense bill that will save lives, save communities, and ensure that Federal dollars are spent as effectively as possible. This change would help more communities in our home States of California and Montana and others throughout the West access Federal grants to reduce hazardous fuels around their communities and utilize authorities to complete them in a timely fashion, thereby reducing the threat posed by wildfire.

I am proud that our bill has received the support of the National Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, the National Association of State Foresters, the Pacific Forest Trust, and the California Fire Safe Council.

Our bill is simple, but it would correct a glaring oversight in current law and ensure that billions of dollars in wildfire resiliency funding are applied where they are most needed. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, legislation that would prohibit new oil or natural gas leases in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Padilla, Wyden, Merkley, Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, Booker, Markey, and Sanders in introducing this bill, which is critically important to protecting the west coast from additional oil spills.

Californians know all too well the devastating effects of oil spills. In 1969, a well blowout on an offshore rig spilled an estimated 3 million gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Santa Barbara. At the time, it was the worst oil spill in U.S. history and was catastrophic to the local environment and marine life, closing beaches, harming the economy, and killing thousands of birds, fish, and marine mammals.

After the Santa Barbara disaster, California had enough. The State blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters and in 1994 enacted a permanent offshore drilling ban. Through local ordinances, congressional opposition, and Presidential moratoria, no new drilling in Federal waters off California has been allowed since 1984.

Unfortunately, Californians are still confronting the impacts from ongoing offshore drilling operations. In October 2021, a ruptured pipeline spilled more than 25,000 gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean and onto the beaches of Orange County. Despite numerous alarms, operators allowed oil to flow from the leak for over 14 hours. It was absolutely devastating.

The spill covered more than 8,000 acres of the ocean's surface and required more than a week of cleanup. In that time, local businesses suffered, fisheries shuttered, and crews worked to remove harmful oil and tar balls from sensitive wildlife habitat.

Despite the harm caused to individuals and businesses in the community, the operator has been given permission to repair the pipeline and begin drilling again, exposing the California coastline to the risk of yet another accident.

California's coastal and ocean economies are engines of growth that support millions of jobs and generate significant economic activity for the State and Nation. Because of the unique nature of the west coast ocean shelf, any new potential drilling would occur near the coastline and directly threaten the environment and robust economy.

Beyond that, we are currently in the midst of a historic offshore energy transition. This past December, a successful auction was held for five offshore wind energy areas off the California coast, paving the way for a new floating wind industry. At the same time, the Federal Government has begun a programmatic review of decommissioning oil and gas platforms in the Pacific to prepare for their eventual removal. The era of offshore oil and gas production in the Pacific is coming to a close, and it is long overdue.

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

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would establish a new Federal grant program to increase capacity for comprehensive supportive services paired with housing as a way to address our country's homelessness crisis.

As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--individuals with mental health conditions or those struggling with addiction, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent, families with children, and veterans--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going away on its own without coordinated efforts at every level of government.

According to the data released in December from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are approximately 582,500 homeless individuals, including families with small children, in the United States. Nearly 30 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 172,000 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night.

In a nation as prosperous and wealthy as ours, we can and we must do better to address the issue of homelessness.

That is why I am introducing the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would authorize a new Federal funding stream of $1 billion per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services and must

provide a 25-percent match for any Federal funds received.

Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant program would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any homeless population.

This bill is based on a model that has proven to be effective and supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing local governmental entities and nonprofit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will be most effective.

I am proud that this legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local governments, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the mayors and CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, National League of Cities, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Counties, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the National Housing Conference.

Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.

We have seen the success of such partnerships in San Francisco, where the GLIDE Foundation provides critical services that meet an individual's basic needs, including meals, crisis intervention and prevention, childcare and educational programming, legal advice, and housing.

This would not be possible without the organization's partnerships with the city of San Francisco, particularly the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and other critical stakeholders. I highly encourage my colleagues to examine this exemplary homeless services model to see firsthand how effective partnerships can help to combat homelessness.

It is imperative that we support these types of partnerships, as well as nonprofit service providers, as they work to get people into housing to both mitigate the spread of the coronavirus and address their long- term needs.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill and moving it through the Senate, especially as we continue to contend with the increase in homelessness.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Community Wildfire Protection Act, bipartisan legislation that Senator Daines and I are reintroducing today.

This bill would ensure that those communities that are deemed to be under the greatest threat from wildfire are eligible to receive existing Federal wildfire grants. This sounds obvious but unfortunately is not the case under current law.

The current definition of an ``at-risk community'' was codified in the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act. That law requires that, in addition to experiencing significant wildfire risk, an eligible community must either be adjacent to Federal land or included on a list generated in 2001 consisting of voluntary input from States and Tribes.

Unfortunately, this 2001 list is far from objective or comprehensive. Communities on the list were not added based on an objective evaluation of their wildfire risk or threat to life and property, only whether an individual Governor or Tribal leader decided to add them. To make matters worse, there are obvious omissions from the list that show its inadequacy, and in fact, 19 States and territories never submitted a single community.

For example, large California cities such as Fresno, Fairfield, and Napa are not encompassed by this definition, all of which have experienced recent major wildfires. The list also omits Grizzly Flats, CA, which was devastated by the 2021 Caldor Fire, despite its proximity to Federal lands, as well as countless other small towns at great risk of wildfire.

These small, rural towns are frequently at the highest risk of wildfire and lack the resources to undertake wildfire resiliency projects on their own. Obviously, these are some of the towns that would most benefit from addition Federal help but because of the outdated definition, may not be eligible.

Aligning the definition in law for at-risk communities to today's environmental realities is more important than ever given the increased spread, frequency, and destructiveness of wildfires, especially in the West.

Our bill would simply end the practice of making Federal grants contingent on this outdated, incomplete list or proximity to Federal lands. Instead, our legislation would allow communities to be eligible based on the most up-to-date quantitative wildfire risk data for the entire United States--data already maintained by the U.S. Forest Service.

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $1 billion for community wildfire resilience grants, and last year's Inflation Reduction Act included an historic $1.8 billion for wildfire resilience on federal forestlands. Congress has done the work of providing funding for wildfire resilience. Now it must ensure that these projects can be targeted where they are most necessary and completed with the swiftness that the wildfire crisis demands.

I am pleased to work with Senator Daines on this commonsense bill that will save lives, save communities, and ensure that Federal dollars are spent as effectively as possible. This change would help more communities in our home States of California and Montana and others throughout the West access Federal grants to reduce hazardous fuels around their communities and utilize authorities to complete them in a timely fashion, thereby reducing the threat posed by wildfire.

I am proud that our bill has received the support of the National Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, the National Association of State Foresters, the Pacific Forest Trust, and the California Fire Safe Council.

Our bill is simple, but it would correct a glaring oversight in current law and ensure that billions of dollars in wildfire resiliency funding are applied where they are most needed. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.