Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 20- year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety.

Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. She applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States.

Ms. Tan never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Her attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody.

Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney.

On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Jay, a U.S. Citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order or removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan is now again facing the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court.

In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, her deportation would cause serious hardship to her two United States citizen children, Jashley and Joriene.

Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is pre-Med, majoring in Human Biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino-American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in Business Administration. Ms. Tan no longer runs her in-home daycare and is a homemaker.

If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States.

I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two United States citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships.

Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.

Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their 5 children, Nayely and Cindy also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other 3 Arreola children, Robert, age 27, Daniel, age 22, and Saray, age 22, are United States citizens. The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write to the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in his clients' immigration cases.

Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, had he known about it.

Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth because she wanted to avoid any immigration issues.

Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United States legally. However, the poor legal representation they received foreclosed this opportunity.

One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and Maria Elena would have on their children-3 of whom are American citizens--and the other 2 who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. America is the only country the Arreola children have ever known.

Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She recently received her Masters in Business Administration from Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, and now works in the admissions office. Nayely is married and has a young son named Elijah Ace Carlos.

At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her full potential both through her academic endeavors and community service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific University States in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''

In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through attaining a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to Nayely's U.S. citizen husband and child, if she were forced to return to Mexico, would be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and contribute further to her community and to this country.

Nayely's sister, Cindy, is also married and has a 7-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. Neither Nayely nor Cindy is eligible to automatically adjust their status based on their marriages because of their initial unlawful entry.

The Arreolas also have other family who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has 3 brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is an American citizen. They have no immediate family in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves.

As I mentioned, Esidronio was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their church community and in their children's education.

It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Neomi Rao to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

The DC Circuit is considered by many to be the most powerful appellate court in the country. This is true in large part because the DC Circuit hears challenges to many actions taken by the Federal Government, including challenges to the adoption or repeal of Federal regulations.

I believe it is particularly relevant that Ms. Rao has a record of working to dismantle key regulations that ensure the air we breathe is safe, that address climate change, and that protect American workers and consumers.

Ms. Rao has a troubling and aggressive record as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. She has led efforts to weaken fuel economy, or CAFE standards, which I authored with Senator Olympia Snowe and which has been the law since 2007. Before the administration proposed freezing these standards, we were set to achieve a fuel economy standard of 54 miles per gallon--MPG--by 2025.

Ms. Rao has also led efforts to repeal the Clean Power Plan. This repeal has been estimated to result in up to 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030, due to an increase in particulate matter from emissions that are linked to heart and lung disease. Further, the repeal of the Clean Power Plan is expected to cause up to 48,000 new cases of serious asthma and 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems every year.

Ms. Rao was also instrumental in reversing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's actions to address pay discrimination. Specifically, Ms. Rao eliminated reporting requirements proposed by the EEOC that were designed to identify wage discrimination on the basis of gender or race. Just last week, a Federal judge ruled that Ms. Rao's action was ``arbitrary and capricious,'' which is significant because the arbitrary and capricious standard is high and hard to prove. The judge concluded that Ms. Rao's rationale for her decision was ``unsupported by any analysis.''

Ms. Rao also approved the recently finalized title X ``gag rule'' on family planning. Under this rule, any organization that merely refers patients to an abortion provider is ineligible for title X funding. This will result in many women going without lifesaving cancer screenings, and it will reduce access to contraception.

I asked Ms. Rao about her work dismantling these key regulations. In response to me, she downplayed her responsibility, saying that her role was simply to ``coordinate regulatory policy.''

But when answering the questions of Republican Senators, Ms. Rao expressed pride in her work. Asked specifically about her ``primary contribution to pushing forward with deregulation,'' Ms. Rao responded: ``There are a lot of regulations on the books that don't have the effects that were intended . . . . And, you know, we're looking to pull back the things that are no longer working.''

However, to take just one example, the CAFE standards have been working; they have already saved $65 billion in fuel costs for American families and prevented the emission of 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, her words don't match the actual actions under her leadership.

Moreover, I asked Ms. Rao if she would commit to recusing herself from any case involving regulations that she worked on while serving in her current position. She refused to make such a commitment.

This is of great concern as other nominees have understood the appearance of bias and unequivocally made such commitments.

For example, President Trump's first nominee to the DC Circuit, Greg Katsas, said, ``Under the governing statute, I would have to recuse myself from any case in which, while in the Executive Branch, I had participated as a counsel or advisor or expressed an opinion on the merits.''

In addition to her record of dismantling key regulations that protect the environment, consumers, and worker health and safety, Ms. Rao has taken a number of extremely controversial positions in articles she has written. At Ms. Rao's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I noted that, while the writings that received the most attention are from when she was in college, several are relevant to the work she has led in the Trump administration and to cases she could hear if confirmed.

For instance, in addressing the issue of date rape, Ms. Rao wrote that if a woman ``drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.''

While she has since written a letter expressing that she ``lacked the perspective of how [her articles] might be perceived by others,'' her record demonstrates that these views seem to persist to today. Specifically, Ms. Rao has been personally involved in repealing protections for survivors of campus sexual violence. Ms. Rao has acknowledged that her office approved controversial new rules on campus sexual assault under title IX. Those rules would discourage survivors from reporting their assaults, in part because survivors would be subjected to cross-examination by their attacker's chosen representative. It is safe to assume this change in the guidance will be challenged in the DC Circuit.

In her writings, Ms. Rao also questioned the validity of climate change, criticizing certain student groups for promoting ``a dangerous orthodoxy that includes the unquestioning acceptance of controversial theories like the greenhouse effect,'' which she argued ``have come under serious scientific attack.''

Again, at the hearing, she tried to mitigate these writings saying, it was her ``understanding . . . that human activity does contribute to climate change.''

However, during her tenure in the Trump administration, she has led the effort to overturn the very regulations that combat human contributions to climate change. For example, and as I noted previously, she has overseen the administration's efforts to rescind the Clean Power Plan and weaken fuel economy standards.

I am also concerned about Ms. Rao's professional experience. She is not admitted to practice before the DC Circuit, the court to which she has been nominated. She has never served as a judge, and she has never even tried a case.

In response to a question on the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire about the 10 most significant litigated matters that she personally handled, Ms. Rao listed only three, and two of these were arbitration cases that she worked on while serving as an attorney in the United Kingdom.

Ms. Rao's lack of litigation experience therefore raises an important question as to her qualifications for this seat and suggests that she was nominated not because of her appellate credentials, but because of her anti-regulatory record.

I also have questions about commitments Ms. Rao appears to have made on reproductive rights. I don't believe we should have litmus tests for judicial nominees, and I know many on the other side agree with me on that. Just in 2017, Senator McConnell said, ``I don't think there should be a litmus test on judges no matter who the president is.''

Yet, on a recent radio program, Senator Hawley said that, before he could vote for Ms. Rao, he wanted to ``make sure that Neomi Rao is pro- life. It's as simple as that.''

Subsequently, Ms. Rao met with Senator Hawley in private and presumably assured him that she would be anti-choice. According to Senator Hawley, Ms. Rao went further and ``emphasized that substantive due process finds no textual support in the Constitution.''

Rejecting the entire concept of substantive due process means that Ms. Rao not only believes Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided, but also other landmark cases, like Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that States cannot restrict the use of contraception.

I am also concerned about her written responses to our questions for the record. She gave several responses that were misleading at best.

Ms. Rao wrote that the center she founded at George Mason University ``did not receive any money from the Koch Foundation.'' She added that the center ``did not receive money from an anonymous donor.''

However, according to public records, in 2016, George Mason University received $10 million from the Koch Foundation and $20 million from an anonymous donor. The grant agreements executing these donations clearly state that support for Ms. Rao's center was one of the conditions of these multimillion dollar gifts and ``Ms. Rao's center benefited from those contributions.''

Additionally, Senator Whitehouse asked Ms. Rao if she had any contact with the Federalist Society when considering potential faculty. Ms. Rao responded ``no,'' but clarified the Federalist Society occasionally made recommendations through its faculty division.

What Ms. Rao failed to mention is that she, herself, was a member of the faculty division of the Federalist Society for her entire time in academia. Given this role, I don't understand why she would claim that she had no contact with the Federalist Society when considering faculty candidates.

In closing, my concerns about Ms. Rao, from her writings to her work dismantling regulations to her lack of candor with the committee, are simply too great for me to support her nomination to the DC Circuit. I will vote

against her confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act.'' This legislation would expand the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area by 191,000 acres.

This legislation would provide surrounding communities with much- needed access to nature and open space, while maintaining private property rights and existing local land-use authorities.

The proposed expansion is based upon findings of the National Park Service after a six-year special resource study of the area.

This study was directed by Congress in the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act, passed in 2008.

The National Park Service's recommendation takes into account over 2,000 comments received from the public, elected officials, local organizations, and other stakeholders.

This bill would add an additional 191,000 acres, known as the Rim of the Valley Unit, to the existing Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation area to provide members of the local community with improved recreational and educational opportunities.

The proposed expansion would also better protect natural resources and habitats, including valuable habitat for endangered wildlife, such as the California red-legged frog, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, badgers, coyotes, and deer.

Notably, the ``Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act'' would only allow the Department of the Interior to acquire non-Federal land within the new boundaries through exchange, donation, or purchase from willing sellers.

I want to highlight that this legislation will not create any additional liability or restrictions for private property owners.

This legislation will significantly expand outdoor recreational opportunities for residents of Los Angeles County, one of the most densely populated and park-poor areas in California.

In fact, 47% of Californians--that's six percent of the total U.S. population--live within two hours of the proposed expansion area. Enlarging the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, at no cost to U.S. taxpayers, will provide these communities with increased access to public lands and boost the local economy.

This bill enjoys the support of more than 50 local municipalities, community groups, and elected officials. It is the product of significant public engagement in the legislative process.

I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Adam Schiff, for re-introducing this legislation in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act'' as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act.'' This legislation would expand the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area by 191,000 acres.

This legislation would provide surrounding communities with much- needed access to nature and open space, while maintaining private property rights and existing local land-use authorities.

The proposed expansion is based upon findings of the National Park Service after a six-year special resource study of the area.

This study was directed by Congress in the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act, passed in 2008.

The National Park Service's recommendation takes into account over 2,000 comments received from the public, elected officials, local organizations, and other stakeholders.

This bill would add an additional 191,000 acres, known as the Rim of the Valley Unit, to the existing Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation area to provide members of the local community with improved recreational and educational opportunities.

The proposed expansion would also better protect natural resources and habitats, including valuable habitat for endangered wildlife, such as the California red-legged frog, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, badgers, coyotes, and deer.

Notably, the ``Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act'' would only allow the Department of the Interior to acquire non-Federal land within the new boundaries through exchange, donation, or purchase from willing sellers.

I want to highlight that this legislation will not create any additional liability or restrictions for private property owners.

This legislation will significantly expand outdoor recreational opportunities for residents of Los Angeles County, one of the most densely populated and park-poor areas in California.

In fact, 47% of Californians--that's six percent of the total U.S. population--live within two hours of the proposed expansion area. Enlarging the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, at no cost to U.S. taxpayers, will provide these communities with increased access to public lands and boost the local economy.

This bill enjoys the support of more than 50 local municipalities, community groups, and elected officials. It is the product of significant public engagement in the legislative process.

I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Adam Schiff, for re-introducing this legislation in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act'' as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Collins today to improve safety standards on products that affect every single American household. Most people assume that the personal care products they use every day, whether it is shampoo or shaving cream, lotion or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, have up-to-date Federal oversight.

In reality, however, the Food and Drug Administration's authority to do so is sorely outdated. In fact, even though research continues to better inform us on the safety of ingredients used in products that we absorb through our bodies, skin and even our nails, regulation of these ingredients have not kept up and little has changed over the past eight decades on how we conduct oversight of these products. It is time to modernize our safety oversight and correct this problem.

Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer groups. Together, we have drafted the Personal Care Products Safety Act with the support of many companies, health experts, and consumer organizations to put commonsense measures in place.

One of the most critical components of this legislation is a process for the FDA to review the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The FDA may limit the quantity of an ingredient, require specific screening protocol to ensure dangerous contaminants aren't present, or require warning labels when needed to alert consumers. If an ingredient is simply unsafe for use under any conditions, the FDA can require that it be banned from use in all personal care products.

Just this week, the FDA announced finding asbestos in several different types of make-up marketed to children and teens at the popular store, Claire's. This is a serious concern that highlights the need for Congress to move quickly to give FDA the tools they need.

Under our bill, the FDA could implement new screening protocols for contaminants like asbestos. Companies would be required to register, so it would be easier to know where products were coming from. FDA would have mandatory recall authority for personal care products like they do for food, and companies would finally be required to report adverse health events.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the Federal oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the market. These stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and Drug Administration.

This legislation recognizes the needs of businesses of all sizes to support their growth while not sacrificing high safety standards that will keep consumers safe and raise the bar for industry standards. Many companies are taking voluntary steps to do the right thing, but it is time for this to be a uniform requirement.

Another shocking example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also called methylene glycol when in liquid form. It is used in the popular hair straightening treatment called a Brazilian blowout. During this beauty treatment, formaldehyde is released into the air and can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Exposure to formaldehyde long-term has even been linked to cancer.

I am also greatly concerned about safety of salon professionals, who are exposed daily to a variety of chemicals. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be exposed to, this legislation ensures that the salon products they use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings.

This bill will require the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the likelihood to exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public comments.

Public input will be critical to the review process. There will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on not only the safety of particular ingredients but also which ingredients should be a priority for review.

After review, the Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act will also require companies to provide the Food and Drug Administration with a list of their products' ingredients and attest to their safety.

The bill recognizes the unique nature of the American handmade cosmetic industry and meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation. This legislation provides flexibility for small businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. And this bill would not increase taxpayer obligations because it is paid for by user fees from the cosmetic industry.

I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including Environmental Working Group, Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, National Women's Health Network, American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, March of Dimes, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, and the following companies that together represent over 90 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, L'Oreal, Johnson and Johnson, Beautycounter, Makes 3 Organics, SkinOwl, Silk Therapeutics, and S.W. Basics.

I want to thank Senator Collins for her support and hard work on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Mr. President, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Collins today to improve safety standards on products that affect every single American household. Most people assume that the personal care products they use every day, whether it is shampoo or shaving cream, lotion or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, have up-to-date Federal oversight.

In reality, however, the Food and Drug Administration's authority to do so is sorely outdated. In fact, even though research continues to better inform us on the safety of ingredients used in products that we absorb through our bodies, skin and even our nails, regulation of these ingredients have not kept up and little has changed over the past eight decades on how we conduct oversight of these products. It is time to modernize our safety oversight and correct this problem.

Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer groups. Together, we have drafted the Personal Care Products Safety Act with the support of many companies, health experts, and consumer organizations to put commonsense measures in place.

One of the most critical components of this legislation is a process for the FDA to review the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The FDA may limit the quantity of an ingredient, require specific screening protocol to ensure dangerous contaminants aren't present, or require warning labels when needed to alert consumers. If an ingredient is simply unsafe for use under any conditions, the FDA can require that it be banned from use in all personal care products.

Just this week, the FDA announced finding asbestos in several different types of make-up marketed to children and teens at the popular store, Claire's. This is a serious concern that highlights the need for Congress to move quickly to give FDA the tools they need.

Under our bill, the FDA could implement new screening protocols for contaminants like asbestos. Companies would be required to register, so it would be easier to know where products were coming from. FDA would have mandatory recall authority for personal care products like they do for food, and companies would finally be required to report adverse health events.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the Federal oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the market. These stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and Drug Administration.

This legislation recognizes the needs of businesses of all sizes to support their growth while not sacrificing high safety standards that will keep consumers safe and raise the bar for industry standards. Many companies are taking voluntary steps to do the right thing, but it is time for this to be a uniform requirement.

Another shocking example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also called methylene glycol when in liquid form. It is used in the popular hair straightening treatment called a Brazilian blowout. During this beauty treatment, formaldehyde is released into the air and can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Exposure to formaldehyde long-term has even been linked to cancer.

I am also greatly concerned about safety of salon professionals, who are exposed daily to a variety of chemicals. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be exposed to, this legislation ensures that the salon products they use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings.

This bill will require the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the likelihood to exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public comments.

Public input will be critical to the review process. There will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on not only the safety of particular ingredients but also which ingredients should be a priority for review.

After review, the Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act will also require companies to provide the Food and Drug Administration with a list of their products' ingredients and attest to their safety.

The bill recognizes the unique nature of the American handmade cosmetic industry and meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation. This legislation provides flexibility for small businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. And this bill would not increase taxpayer obligations because it is paid for by user fees from the cosmetic industry.

I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including Environmental Working Group, Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, National Women's Health Network, American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, March of Dimes, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, and the following companies that together represent over 90 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, L'Oreal, Johnson and Johnson, Beautycounter, Makes 3 Organics, SkinOwl, Silk Therapeutics, and S.W. Basics.

I want to thank Senator Collins for her support and hard work on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to three circuit court nominees who will receive votes on the floor this week: Allison Jones Rushing, nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; Chad Readler, nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; and Eric Murphy, also nominated to the Sixth Circuit.

I want to begin by addressing how these nominations were handled and the ongoing disregard for Senate norms and traditions by Republican leadership. Most notable is the change in how blue slips are treated. Blue slips work. The blue slip ensures that the interests of home State Senators are respected when it comes to judicial nominees from their States.

Honoring blue slips helps guarantee that the White House nominates well-qualified, mainstream individuals to key seats on the circuit and district courts, and it prevents the selection of nominees who do not reside in the circuit in which they are slated to serve.

In the past century, before President Trump took office, only five judges had ever been confirmed with only one blue slip; two were by a Democratic chair over the objection of a Democratic Senator, not over the objection of a Republican, then in the minority. The other three instances occurred when a Republican chairman overruled a Democratic Senator.

In fact, Democratic chairs have never moved a judicial nominee to confirmation over the objection of a Republican Senator. Let me say that again: Democratic chairs have never confirmed a judicial nominee without a blue slip from a Republican Senator.

However, since President Trump took office, 10 circuit court nominees have received hearings, and four have been confirmed over the objection of Democratic home State Senators. In just over 2 years, Republicans are on their way to doubling the number of judges confirmed over the objection of home State Senators than have been confirmed in the last 100 years.

This week we are considering both Mr. Readler and Mr. Murphy who lack blue slips from Ohio's Senior Senator, my friend and colleague Senator Brown.

Senator Brown's opposition was not unreasonable; in fact, Senator Brown worked with the White House for weeks in an effort to find consensus picks for the Sixth Circuit.

But the White House refused to cooperate, and he was left with no choice but to withhold his blue slip. In doing so, Senator Brown said: ``I cannot support nominees who have actively worked to strip Ohioans of their rights. Special interests already have armies of lobbyists and lawyers on their side, they don't need judges in their pockets.''

Further, when the majority did move forward on the nominations of Mr. Readler and Mr. Murphy, the two appeared on the same panel at the same hearing. With 5-minute rounds of questioning, these stacked circuit court hearings make it all but impossible for Senators on the committee to thoroughly vet judicial nominees, and that, in turn, makes it impossible for this body to fulfill its obligation of providing advice and consent.

Ms. Rushing's nomination is also the product of a departure from Senate norms. Then-Chairman Grassley held Ms. Rushing's hearing on October 17, 2018, during an extended Senate recess. Only two Senators questioned Ms. Rushing, and no Democrats were present to question the nominee.

These process violations matter. They matter because they impact the quality of the nominees we are considering and the ability of the nominee to reflect the State and community to which they are being nominated.

We have already seen several nominees who have had no judicial experience, and others with no trial experience whatsoever. We have seen nominees who have been rated unqualified for lack of experience and also for lack of judgement, ethical problems, and issues with impartiality and temperament.

This isn't a partisan issue. This is an issue that should concern Senators from both sides of the aisle. At a time when Americans increasingly distrust the institutions of our government, we should not be degrading the Federal judiciary with unqualified and ideological nominees.

Turning to the nominees themselves, I first want to discuss Allison Rushing. Ms. Rushing is only 36 years old. In fact, she has practiced law for only 9 years. She has never tried a case in the Fourth Circuit, the court to which she has been nominated, and she was not even admitted to practice in the Fourth Circuit until 2017; yet she is being nominated to serve on a Federal circuit court.

Even in her limited experience, Ms. Rushing has demonstrated strong ideological views. For instance, in 2013, Ms. Rushing spoke about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. She claimed that Justice Kennedy had written ``the opinion in a unique way that calls it bigotry to believe that homosexuality does not comport with Judeo-Christian morality.''

Ms. Rushing also demonstrated her hostility to the rights of employees in a brief she submitted in a 2018 Supreme Court case. Ms. Rushing argued that employment agreements requiring employees to waive their rights to go to court as a condition of employment should be allowed, even though most people don't have a choice to turn down a job.

Ms. Rushing's view prevents employees who have entered arbitration agreements from bringing lawsuits against their employers, even if the employers have violated their rights or fired them against the law.

As the dissent pointed out, Ms. Rushing's position risked leading to ``the under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.''

I next would like to address the nomination of Chad Readler. Mr. Readler previously headed the Justice Department's Civil Division. In that position, he defended some of the most troubling policies this administration has implemented. He defended the President's decision to end the DACA program, the policy to separate immigrant children from their parents, and the President's Muslim travel ban.

Most concerning, however, is that Mr. Readler led the administration's efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Readler argued that the healthcare law's protections for preexisting conditions should be struck down. Even Senator Lamar Alexander called the arguments made in Mr. Readler's brief ``as far-fetched as any I've ever heard.''

Finally, the Senate is voting on Eric Murphy to the Sixth Circuit. As the chief appellate lawyer for the State of Ohio, Mr. Murphy led the State's defense of its law banning same-sex marriage, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Jim Obergefell wrote an op-ed recently saying: ``Barely four years ago, Mr. Murphy made a forceful argument that my marriage was unconstitutional. As the attorney tasked with defending Ohio's discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage, he used dog-whistles . . . [I]f Murphy had been successful, [my husband] and I, and tens of thousands of couples like us, would have been denied the right to marry and forced to live as second-class citizens.''

Mr. Murphy also led Ohio's defense of restrictive voting laws, including the Ohio law allowing the State to purge eligible voters if they missed voting in just one Federal election, and he has amassed a troubling record on women's reproductive rights, arguing for instance in support of a 20-week abortion ban, which he claimed would create ``at most, an incidental burden'' on a woman's right to make her own reproductive health care decisions.

The three nominees before the Senate exemplify the Trump administration's efforts to stack our courts with nominees who are far outside the judicial mainstream. I believe they will

not protect the rights of all Americans and should not be confirmed. I will vote no on each of these nominees, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to confirming Andrew Wheeler to serve as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

His lobbying activities and tenure, first as Deputy, then as Acting Administrator, show that he should not be leading the EPA in a permanent capacity.

We are at a crossroads for action on climate change. The United Nations issued a special report in October, warning of the catastrophic consequences of allowing global warming to surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The report warned that human activity has already caused about 1 degree of warming and that we need to drastically cut emissions--45 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050--to stay below 1.5 degrees.

The EPA is the strongest institution we have in the United States to combat climate change in terms of technical expertise and legal authority. Unfortunately, I fear that, if the EPA remains under the leadership of Andrew Wheeler, it will continue dismantling critical regulations and rolling back previous efforts to address climate change.

Andrew Wheeler is a former coal and fossil fuel lobbyist. Despite a duty to serve the public's interest, he has instead worked to push a counterproductive agenda of deregulation at the EPA.

During Mr. Wheeler's EPA tenure, the Trump administration has aggressively moved to undermine numerous greenhouse gas emission regulations. This includes President Obama's landmark Clean Power Plan, performance standards for new power plants, and methane emission standards for the oil and gas industry.

I am most concerned that Andrew Wheeler is overseeing the Trump administration's efforts to roll back our national program for motor vehicle emission standards, an issue that I have worked on for decades.

Under the current program, fuel economy standards for new cars and SUVs are set to exceed 50 miles per gallon by 2025. To date, these standards have saved 550 million barrels of oil, $65 billion in fuel costs for American families, and 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

The success of these standards comes, in part, from the fact that they have been implemented as a single, coordinated national program under the authority of the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the State of California.

The Department of Transportation implements the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was signed into law in 2007 following a bipartisan legislative effort over the course of many years. I was proud to work together with our former colleague Olympia Snowe of Maine and many others from both parties to strengthen the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for the first time in three decades.

This law requires fuel economy standards to increase by at least 10 miles per gallon by 2020. Beyond 2020, the law requires standards to be set at the maximum feasible level based on available technology, which the administration is trying to avoid doing for 2022-2026.

For its part, the EPA implements complementary vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act. That law also recognizes California's longstanding authority to regulate its own air pollution and allows other States to choose to follow California's standards in lieu of Federal requirements, as 13 States have now done.

Today these standards are collectively implemented as a single national program under a 2012 agreement between the Department of Transportation, the EPA, and the State of California that applies through model year 2025.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration is working to tear up that agreement and weaken Federal standards starting in 2022. Last week, the administration announced it would refuse to negotiate with California to salvage this program. Instead of seeking consensus, the EPA, overseen by Mr. Wheeler, is proposing to challenge California's longstanding authority. These actions are unjustified and will only create chaos and uncertainty for the automobile market.

Under Mr. Wheeler's watch, the Trump administration has also continued to roll back or undermine many other important EPA environmental health and safety regulations.

From attempts to undermine effective Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, to evading the EPA's commitments to set safe drinking water standards, to failing to fully implement the Toxic Substances Control Act, it is clear that Mr. Wheeler will only continue his efforts to dismantle the EPA from within.

I was a proud supporter of the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which passed in 2016. This bill amends and updates the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is the Nation's primary

chemicals management law. Thousands of Californians rely on it to safeguard against exposure to toxic chemicals we encounter every day.

EPA is charged with protecting all Americans from undue and harmful exposure to existing and newly introduced chemicals. However, under the Trump administration, the EPA's safety reviews of toxic substances has fallen far short of the intent of this sweeping, bipartisan toxic chemical reform legislation.

One example of a chemical that I am very concerned about is asbestos. As a result of the administration's lack of action, my colleagues in the Senate and I introduced legislation in 2017 that would have amended the Toxic Substances Control Act to require the EPA to identify and assess all forms of asbestos and ultimately ban this known carcinogen.

This bill was named after Alan Reinstein, who passed away in 2006 at the age of 66 from mesothelioma, a disease caused by exposure to asbestos. Delays in banning asbestos have meant that as many as 15,000 Americans die each year from exposure.

During Wheeler's tenure, the EPA has resisted calls to eliminate exemptions for asbestos in the current Chemical Data Reporting rule, a reporting requirement under the Toxic Substances Control Act, to comply with its mandate to prevent unreasonable risks to health and the environment presented by asbestos.

Despite knowing the health risks for decades, asbestos is still used in a wide variety of construction materials that the public unwittingly comes into contact with every day.

Andrew Wheeler's tenure at the EPA, both as Deputy Administrator for the EPA and as Acting Administrator, has shown a clear disregard for the EPA's mission to protect the public and the environment. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose his confirmation.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I thank the leader for his comments. I want to just say that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee agree with him, and on their behalf, I would like to make the following comments.

Last week, the Judiciary Committee voted on the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General of the United States. All Democrats voted against the nomination. There are reasons.

There is no question that Mr. Barr is qualified. He previously served as Attorney General from 1991 to 1993, and he has had a long legal career, but the question before us is whether Mr. Barr is the right choice to lead the Justice Department, at this time, with this President, when there are currently several active investigations that implicate this President, his campaign, his advisers, and/or his inner circle.

The answer for me and the Judiciary Committee Democrats is no. Let me explain why. Five months before being named for the Attorney General position, Mr. Barr wrote an extensive 19-page, single-spaced memo in which he provided great detail and legal arguments for his view of the President's absolute authority. Mr. Barr then shared and discussed that memo with the White House Counsel and the President's defense lawyers.

In this memo, Mr. Barr outlined his views on Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into possible obstruction of justice, the unitary executive, and whether a President can, in fact, be indicted.

One example, Mr. Barr argued that Special Counsel Mueller should not be allowed to question the President about obstruction of justice-- point 1.

He concluded that the law does not apply to the President if it conflicts with a broad view of Executive authority, and that view is often referred to as the unitary executive.

Under this belief, conflict of interest laws cannot and do not apply to the President of the United States because, as Mr. Barr writes in his memo, ``to apply them would impermissibly `disempower' the President from supervising a class of cases that the Constitution grants him the authority to supervise. Under the Constitution, the President's authority over law enforcement matters is necessarily all- encompassing.''

Read the memo. This is on page 11.

Further, Mr. Barr asserted that ``the Constitution, itself, places no limit on the President's authority to act on matters which concern him or his own conduct.''

Mr. Barr went on to explain that, in his view, President Trump would have virtually unlimited authority over the Executive branch. As he said in his memo, the President ``alone is the Executive branch. As such, he is the sole repository of all Executive powers conferred by the Constitution. Thus, the full measure of law enforcement authority is placed in the President's hands, and no limit is placed on the kinds of cases subject to his control and supervision.''

That is page 11 of the memo.

Importantly, based on these conclusions, Mr. Barr asserts that certain Presidential actions--including firing FBI Director James Comey or telling the FBI to go easy on Michael Flynn--is never obstruction of justice.

In fact, Mr. Barr even said that ``the President's discretion in these areas has long been considered `absolute,' and his decisions exercising this discretion are presumed to be regular and are generally deemed nonreviewable.''

That is page 10 in the memo.

This is a stunning legal argument. Taken to its natural conclusion, Mr. Barr's analysis squarely places this President above the law. To argue that the President has no check on his authority flies in the face of our constitutional principles of checks and balances and should be concerning to Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. Barr's views about the power of the President are especially troubling in light of his refusal to commit to making the special counsel's findings and the report publicly available, and his refusal to agree to protect the other investigations into President Trump.

When I asked Mr. Barr about this at the hearing, he said, in his own words, that he would ``make as much information available as I can consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations.''

When others pressed him, he changed his answer to suggest that he may instead release a summary of the special counsel's findings. This is not acceptable. There is nothing in existing law or regulations that prevents the Attorney General from sharing the special counsel's report and underlying factual findings with the American public. Many of us believe this report is seminal to the Presidency, and the public must be able to read it.

In addition, as part of our oversight responsibilities, Congress routinely requests and receives confidential information related to closed investigations. In fact, recently Congress asked for and received investigative information, including transcripts of FBI interviews of witnesses involved in the examination of Secretary Clinton's emails. This matter should be treated no differently.

After Mr. Barr's hearing, I sent him two letters. First, I asked him to provide Congress and the American public with the full accounting of the Mueller investigation, including any report prepared by the special counsel himself.

Secondly, I asked him in writing to commit to protecting all investigations into matters surrounding President Trump and the 2016 election.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the Record.

I did not receive the courtesy of a response to either letter.

Here is a man seeking approval of his appointment. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee sends him a letter asking two very valid questions, and there is no response. That told me something very loud and clear.

Over the past year, we have seen several other investigations arising out of the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the District of Columbia, where prosecutors are looking into crimes involving foreign donations into the Trump inauguration committee, money laundering, campaign finance violations, as well as possible efforts by Russian agents to assist the Trump campaign during the election. When asked about these investigations at his hearing, Mr. Barr refused to pledge they would be protected from interference. He refused to pledge that these valid investigations would be protected from interference.

For example, Senator Coons asked, ``If the President ordered you to stop the [Southern District of New York] investigation in which someone identified as individual one is implicated, would you do that?''

Mr. Barr responded that ``every decision within the department has to be made based on the attorney general's independent conclusion and assessment that it's in accordance with the law, so I would not stop a bona fide lawful investigation.''

However, this qualification of ``a bona fide, lawful investigation'' is all important. In his 19-page memo, Mr. Barr clearly wrote this: ``The full measure of law enforcement authority is placed in the President's hands, and no limit is placed on the kinds of cases subject to his control and supervision,'' including ``matters in which he has an interest.'' I really see why he was nominated. This is the offering of complete protection from the law by the Attorney General--future Attorney General, if he should become one.

Mr. Barr went on to argue that if the President determined ``an investigation was bogus, the President ultimately had legitimate grounds for exercising his supervisory powers to stop the matter.'' This would mean that the President could stop the Mueller investigation, which the President has repeatedly described as a ``witch hunt'' and ``hoax.''

It also means that if Donald Trump decided the Southern District of New York's investigation was, in Mr. Barr's words, ``bogus,'' the President would have the right to stop the investigation. Think about that. Think about the ramifications of that.

When Senator Blumenthal asked Mr. Barr during his hearing, ``If the President fired a United States attorney, would you support continuing that investigation, even under the civil servants, the career prosecutors, who would remain?''

Mr. Barr replied, ``Yeah . . . I believe, regardless of who or what outside the department is trying to influence what is going on, every decision within the department relating to enforcement, the attorney general has to determine independently that--that it is a lawful action.''

Think about that. The Attorney General becomes the arbiter, independently, of what a lawful action comprises. But, again, according to this memo, firing a U.S. attorney, even if it implicates the President's own personal interests, is a lawful action by the President.

During this hearing, Mr. Barr stated that ``the President can fire a U.S. attorney. They are a presidential appointment.''

The meaning of this is clear: Prosecutors in these cases can be fired arbitrarily by the President of the United States under his plenary authority.

As I said at the outset, the question is whether Mr. Barr is the right person for the job at this time. The memo that I am quoting from I spent a full day reading and thinking about, and it was the most extreme case for Presidential power that I have ever read. In and of itself, it gives me cause to believe this is why--I could be wrong, but this is why he received that nomination.

Given the broad implications of Presidential power and unlimited control Mr. Barr believes this President has over law enforcement matters, I cannot support this nominee to serve as Attorney General. At this critical time in our Nation's history, we must have an Attorney General who is objective and who is clearly committed to protecting the interests of the people, the country, and the Constitution.--not the President.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the ``Natural Resources Management Act,'' otherwise known as the Public Lands Package.

I am a proud cosponsor of this package because it contains many important priorities for California's public lands, particularly the ``California Desert Protection and Recreation Act.'' That bill represents the culmination of decades of collaborative efforts to protect our desert that began in my very first year in the Senate.

The lands package also includes a bill I first introduced 10 years ago to create California's first National Heritage Area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as well as two bills to facilitate smarter management of public lands and water infrastructure in our local communities.

I am particularly grateful for Senator Murkowski's leadership in moving this bipartisan effort forward, as well as Senators Cantwell and Manchin's efforts as the ranking members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress and this one, respectively.

I would also like to thank Congressmen Paul Cook, John Garamendi, and Mark DeSaulnier for introducing the House companions to the four bills I mentioned.

Now, I would like to take a moment to describe the four California bills included in this package.

Unlike many deserts in the world, the California desert is abundant with life, full of plants and animals, many of which are only found in California.

From desert tortoises to bighorn sheep, breathtaking wildflower blooms to iconic Joshua trees, the beauty of the California desert is unrivaled.

When I first came to Washington 26 years ago, California Senator Alan Cranston asked me to carry on his efforts to protect the desert by introducing a desert protection bill.

Despite significant opposition and even filibuster attempts, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 passed and was signed into law by President Clinton.

It was a crowning achievement for desert conservation, protecting more the 7.5 million acres of pristine desert land, establishing 69 new Wilderness Areas, creating the Mojave National Preserve, and establishing Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks.

In 2016, I worked with President Obama to designate three new national monuments--Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow, and Castle Mountains-- to protect an additional 1.8 million acres of the desert.

But additional legislation is required to keep the promises I made at that time to off-roaders, environmentalists, and other stakeholders to expand conservation and recreation efforts in the desert.

The ``California Desert Protection and Recreation Act'' balances the many uses of the California desert.

The bill protects more than 375,000 acres of wilderness, including expanding Joshua Tree National Park and Death Valley National Park by 4,518 and 35,292 acres, respectively.

It also permanently designates six existing Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas totaling 200,580 acres to provide certainty they will remain accessible for trail riders.

Lastly, this bill designates 77 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

I am extremely proud that, after decades of hard work, our efforts to permanently protect California's iconic desert are finally coming to fruition.

I would like to now briefly touch on three other bills included in this package.

First is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area Act, which establishes the first National Heritage Area in California.

It also authorizes $10 million in Federal funding to promote environmental stewardship, conservation, and economic development in communities across five Delta-area counties.

I first introduced this bill with then-Senator Barbara Boxer in 2009, and I am pleased we are finally on the cusp of enacting it into law.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary in the western United States.

It is one of the most productive and ecologically important watersheds in North America.

The delta offers recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of visitors who come each year for boating, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing.

It also provides critical habitat for more than 750 wildlife species, including Sandhill cranes and other migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway, and iconic native fish like the Chinook salmon that return each year to spawn in tributaries upstream.

Before it was converted into farmland starting in the 19th century, the delta flooded regularly following the springtime snowmelt and once supported the continent's largest Native American communities.

Later, the delta served as the gateway for the California Gold Rush, after which Chinese immigrants built hundreds of miles of levees to make the delta's rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Immigrants from all over the world moved to the area and established the proud farming legacy that continues today.

Over the years, the vibrant ``river culture'' unique to delta communities has attracted the attention of celebrated authors including Mark Twain, Jack London, and Joan Didion.

The delta is now facing a crisis due to invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, channelization, dredging, water exports, and other stressors.

I look forward to enacting this bill and continue working to restore the delta and help preserve the rich heritage of its surrounding communities.

Next is the ``Santa Ana Wash Land Exchange Act,'' which would help implement a regional management plan for the Santa Ana Wash.

Federal, State, and local government, along with commercial and public interests, all came to the table to develop a management plan that accounts for all land uses in this area.

Our bill helps facilitate this plan by directing the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to exchange approximately 300 acres of land with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District at the junction of the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek.

Today, the 4,500-acre Santa Ana Wash is a patchwork of land parcels owned by the water conservation district or BLM.

The land exchange would help consolidate 1,347 acres of open space to preserve and protect habitat along the river's floodplain as part of the broader Santa Ana River Wash Plan.

Two mining companies that extract materials for cement and concrete production also occupy the area. The bill allows these commercial operations to continue in the Santa Ana Wash in an environmentally sensitive manner.

The final bill included in this package that I would like to discuss is the Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act.

This bill will transfer ownership of the Contra Costa Canal System from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Contra Costa Water District to allow the water district to complete necessary safety improvements.

The water district would like to convert the existing open earthen canal to a closed pipe, which is expected to cost $650 million.

The water district understandably wants to take title in order to use as collateral for issuing bonds to cover the cost of the conversion, and this bill would accomplish this.

Tragically, 82 people have drowned in the canal over the past 70 years despite protective fencing.

That is more than one death per year on average, which would be prevented if the canal were converted into a pipe.

I am sad to say that there was another drowning in the canal just last year.

Additionally, drought is always an issue in California, and water is becoming more and more expensive.

About 6 percent of the canal's water is lost through evaporation and seepage. A covered pipeline would eliminate these losses.

Before I conclude, I would also like to thank Senator Murkowski for including in the package a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

In California alone, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been responsible for the creation or improvement of more than 1,000 parks since 1965.

It has also helped to protect some of California's most iconic places, including the Lake Tahoe Basin, the California desert, Point Reyes National Seashore, Headwaters Forest, the San Diego and Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuges, and the national forests of the Sierra Nevada.

Once again, I am proud to cosponsor and support this vitally important and beneficial legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Thank you.

I thank my colleague from Alaska and appreciate her help with this measure. Yes, her characterization of this provision is exactly right. There is no intent that this designation will have any impact on water rights or water-related management decisions. The general protections and limitations, along with the inclusion of language specific to Delta water operations, makes certain that the designation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area will not affect or influence water operations of the Central Valley Project, State Water Project, or other water supply facilities within the Bay-Delta watershed, including a reduction in water exports from the Bay-Delta. I am pleased that we have included additional language to dispel any such concerns and make absolutely certain that no one reads anything into the legislation that is not there and was never intended.

I thank her for including this designation in S. 47 and for all of her work to move this historic public lands package forward. The public lands package includes a number of provisions that will benefit California, and I appreciate her leadership in building bipartisan agreement to steer it through the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce legislation to establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, California's first National Heritage Area.

I am very pleased to work with Senator Harris, Congressman John Garamendi, and local stakeholders in California on this important legislation.

This legislation will establish California's first National Heritage Area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, and economic development in communities across five Delta-area counties.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary in the western United States and one of the most productive and ecologically important watersheds in North America. This extensive inland delta is a national treasure that must be protected.

The Delta offers recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Californians and out-of-state visitors alike, who come each year for boating, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing.

It also provides critical habitat for more than 750 wildlife species, including Sandhill cranes and other migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway as well as iconic native fish like the Chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, which return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in tributaries upstream.

These same waterways also provide freshwater to millions of California households and irrigated farmland south of the Delta and elsewhere in the state.

Before being converted for farmland starting in the 19th century, the Delta flooded regularly following the springtime snowmelt and once supported the continent's largest Native Americans communities.

Later, the Delta served as the gateway for the California Gold Rush, after which Chinese immigrant workers built hundreds of miles of levees to make the Delta's rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greek, South Asian, and other immigrants began the area's farming legacy and established proud communities that continue today.

Over the years, the vibrant ``river culture'' unique to Delta communities has attracted the attention of celebrated authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.

A National Heritage Area designation would help to preserve this uniquely American story by providing the opportunity for modest federal funding to help local entities, principally the Delta Protection Commission, manage the Heritage Area in accordance with California law and in partnership with Delta communities.

The management planning process required by this legislation will be collaborative and open to the public. Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, private property owners, and all stakeholders will have a voice in the management planning for the Heritage Area.

I'd like to emphasize that this legislation does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it impose any additional responsibilities on local governments or private landowners.

Instead, this legislation authorizes Federal assistance to support local projects as part of an inclusive process required by State law.

Today, the Delta faces a crisis due to invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater overloads, channelization, dredging, water exports, and other stressors.

Many Delta islands are now 10 to 20 feet below sea level due to subsidence, and the present levee system is inadequate for providing reliable flood protection for historic communities, agricultural enterprises, and infrastructure.

Alarmingly, many existing levees were simply not engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail, a rush of saltwater into the interior Delta would damage this already fragile ecosystem, disrupt drinking water supplies, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, powerlines, and water infrastructure.

Our legislation recognizes the Delta as a working landscape central to California life and seeks to further local projects already underway that promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, community revitalization, and economic development throughout the Delta.

This legislation also seeks to fulfill the broadly supported 2009 California state law that called for a Heritage Area designation for the Delta.

Our legislation is a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the California Delta.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore the Delta and its native species, upgrade California's water supply, safeguard against flood risk, improve water quality, and preserve Delta communities' rich heritage and continued vibrancy.

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

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce legislation to establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, California's first National Heritage Area.

I am very pleased to work with Senator Harris, Congressman John Garamendi, and local stakeholders in California on this important legislation.

This legislation will establish California's first National Heritage Area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, and economic development in communities across five Delta-area counties.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary in the western United States and one of the most productive and ecologically important watersheds in North America. This extensive inland delta is a national treasure that must be protected.

The Delta offers recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Californians and out-of-state visitors alike, who come each year for boating, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing.

It also provides critical habitat for more than 750 wildlife species, including Sandhill cranes and other migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway as well as iconic native fish like the Chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, which return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in tributaries upstream.

These same waterways also provide freshwater to millions of California households and irrigated farmland south of the Delta and elsewhere in the state.

Before being converted for farmland starting in the 19th century, the Delta flooded regularly following the springtime snowmelt and once supported the continent's largest Native Americans communities.

Later, the Delta served as the gateway for the California Gold Rush, after which Chinese immigrant workers built hundreds of miles of levees to make the Delta's rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greek, South Asian, and other immigrants began the area's farming legacy and established proud communities that continue today.

Over the years, the vibrant ``river culture'' unique to Delta communities has attracted the attention of celebrated authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.

A National Heritage Area designation would help to preserve this uniquely American story by providing the opportunity for modest federal funding to help local entities, principally the Delta Protection Commission, manage the Heritage Area in accordance with California law and in partnership with Delta communities.

The management planning process required by this legislation will be collaborative and open to the public. Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, private property owners, and all stakeholders will have a voice in the management planning for the Heritage Area.

I'd like to emphasize that this legislation does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it impose any additional responsibilities on local governments or private landowners.

Instead, this legislation authorizes Federal assistance to support local projects as part of an inclusive process required by State law.

Today, the Delta faces a crisis due to invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater overloads, channelization, dredging, water exports, and other stressors.

Many Delta islands are now 10 to 20 feet below sea level due to subsidence, and the present levee system is inadequate for providing reliable flood protection for historic communities, agricultural enterprises, and infrastructure.

Alarmingly, many existing levees were simply not engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail, a rush of saltwater into the interior Delta would damage this already fragile ecosystem, disrupt drinking water supplies, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, powerlines, and water infrastructure.

Our legislation recognizes the Delta as a working landscape central to California life and seeks to further local projects already underway that promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, community revitalization, and economic development throughout the Delta.

This legislation also seeks to fulfill the broadly supported 2009 California state law that called for a Heritage Area designation for the Delta.

Our legislation is a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the California Delta.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore the Delta and its native species, upgrade California's water supply, safeguard against flood risk, improve water quality, and preserve Delta communities' rich heritage and continued vibrancy.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that will finally put an end to the separation of families at our southern border. I have believed from the outset that the administration was wrong to pursue a zero tolerance policy of family separation, which is cruel and detrimental to children and parents alike.

The President claimed to end this policy in June by executive order, but we have learned that the practice of separating families continues today. In fact, the separations may have been broader in scope than we previously knew.

Last year, the American people were rightly horrified when thousands of children, including babies and toddlers, were taken from their parents, to be separated for weeks and months. Dozens of these children spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum blankets.

In response, people from all walks of life--Republicans, Democrats, clergy, the medical community, business leaders, labor organizers-- stood up and

said, ``enough is enough.'' Average Americans spoke out, marched, and called their members of Congress pleading for us to stand up to the President and demand he reverse his policy.

But we still may not know the full scope of the harm that was caused. We still do not know just how many families were torn apart as a result of the zero tolerance policy.

Litigation has identified over 2,700 children who were separated from their parents by DHS, including nearly 100 children under the age of 5. However, in January the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found that ``this number does not represent the full scope of family separations.'' Indeed thousands--thousands--more children may have been separated from their parents in 2017, before the start of the accounting period required by the court.

We have also learned in recent weeks that this crisis is not over. Families are still being separated from one another.

In June, the Trump administration issued an executive order that ended the ``zero tolerance'' family separation policy. Despite that order, the practice of family separation did not end.

Instead, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services reported that separations are ongoing with little oversight or accountability. In fact, at least 118 children were separated from their parents between June 2018, when the executive order was issued, and early November.

These family separations could not have happened if Republicans had joined me and all Senate Democrats to pass the Keep Families Together Act last Congress. The Keep Families Together Act prohibits Border Patrol from separating children from their parents or legal guardians, without good cause.

Good cause is defined with a focus on the best interest of the child, and cannot be based on the parent's migration or crossing of the border. No separation can be made without consulting a child welfare specialist, and all presumptions are made in favor of family unity, including unity of siblings.

The Keep Families Together Act includes vital oversight mechanisms that will ensure that every child separated under the zero tolerance policy is accounted for. These include a requirement for DHS to publish transparent guidance on separations, as well as annual reporting requirements and a requirement for a GAO report on criminal prosecution of asylum seekers.

These are basic protections for children that should not be controversial. Parents who try to protect their children from violence and poverty abroad, should not be punished by having those children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration.

Instead, families should be kept together and given a fair chance to present their cases for asylum. The Keep Families Together Act will provide these fundamental necessities and protect children from further harm. We have a fresh start in a new Congress. It is time to make these vital protections a reality.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the ``Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act.'' This legislation would help implement a consensus-driven regional land management plan by directing the Bureau of Land Management to exchange land with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District in San Bernardino, California.

Before I continue, I would like to thank Senators Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell, as well as their staffs, for their hard work to move this bill forward last Congress. With their assistance, this legislation passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in August 2018 and was included in a bipartisan public lands package.

I thank Senator Murkowski for introducing a bipartisan lands package bill this Congress and including this legislation in it. I look forward to working once again with Senator Murkowski, as well as the newly designated Ranking Member, Senator Manchin, to maintain our momentum and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

I also would like to express my gratitude to Representative Paul Cook and his staff for their continuing work and collaboration on this legislation. Lastly, I welcome working with Representative Cook and Representative Aguilar who are cosponsoring companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Lastly, I thank Senator Harris for cosponsoring this legislation.

This bill is an excellent example of how smart, sustainable, land planning can be accomplished through interagency cooperation. Federal and State agencies, private industry, and municipalities representing mining, flood control, water supply, wildlife conservation, and other interests all came to the table to develop a land management plan that accounts for the array of land uses in this area.

The land exchange facilitated by this bill is broadly supported, including by: County of San Bernardino, City of Redlands, City of Highland, San Bernardino Water Conservation District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, East Valley Water District, Endangered Habitats League, CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, Robertson's Ready Mix, Inland Action.

This diverse group of entities formed the ``Wash Committee'' in 1993 to address mining and land management in the upper Santa Ana River wash area.

I applaud the Committee, along with federal, state and local stakeholders, for working together to develop a strategy for comprehensive land management planning for the area. This group has shown that through cooperation, it is possible to both protect the environment and support local business and community interests.

The land exchange between the San Bernardino Water Conservation District and the Bureau of Land Management will consolidate open space for conservation purposes and optimize the efficiency of mining operations and water conservation efforts.

The exchange will also set aside new land for conservation purposes near land already managed by BLM.

This bill will lead to increased habitat protection, groundwater recharge, and public access while allowing for the continued use of land and mineral resources.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act'' as soon as possible.

Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor.