Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation that would guarantee legal rights for millions of marriages in the United States. Americans should be free to marry the person they love, regardless of their sexual orientation or race, without fear of discrimination or fear that their marriages will be invalidated.

Very simply, this bill makes clear that the Federal Government and the States must recognize a legal marriage--as has been the law of the land for same-sex couples since 2015 and for interracial couples since 1967.

I have long been an ally and advocate for the LGBT community. I spent two decades as a supervisor and mayor of San Francisco, when the city was at the forefront of elevating their voices and advancing their rights, and I watched firsthand as the LGBT community fought for legal recognition of their lives, relationships, and personal dignity.

That is why I first introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in 2011. The initial version of the bill would have repealed the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act--commonly referred to as DOMA--and ensured that legally married couples, including same-sex couples, were treated equally under Federal law.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same- sex couples have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. The Court recognized that committed couples should be able to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation--a belief that the American people have held for quite some time. In fact, a recent poll placed support for same-sex marriage at 71 percent.

Fifty-five years ago, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that ``the freedom to marry . . . a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state.'' Support for interracial marriage has grown exponentially since then, and a 2021 Gallup poll found it has reached an approval rating of 94 percent.

Unfortunately, we may now be taking a step backward. Following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the longstanding constitutional protections provided by Roe v. Wade, it became clear that this conservative Supreme Court is open to revisiting many other established constitutional rights, including the right to same-sex marriage and the right to interracial marriage.

Overturning Obergefell and Loving would be a disastrous return to a patchwork of State laws where couples could be subject to State- sanctioned discrimination. The legal ramifications would be far- reaching, from disrupting tax filings and benefits to calling parental rights into question--and beyond.

That is why I, along with my colleagues in the House and the Senate, am reintroducing the Respect for Marriage Act: to ensure that Federal law protects marriage equality and to ensure that States cannot discriminate against valid same-sex or interracial marriages.

Inequitable treatment of LGBT Americans and discriminatory marriage laws belong in our history books, not in our Federal code.

I thank Senators Baldwin and Collins for their leadership on this important issue and urge the rest of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation that would guarantee legal rights for millions of marriages in the United States. Americans should be free to marry the person they love, regardless of their sexual orientation or race, without fear of discrimination or fear that their marriages will be invalidated.

Very simply, this bill makes clear that the Federal Government and the States must recognize a legal marriage--as has been the law of the land for same-sex couples since 2015 and for interracial couples since 1967.

I have long been an ally and advocate for the LGBT community. I spent two decades as a supervisor and mayor of San Francisco, when the city was at the forefront of elevating their voices and advancing their rights, and I watched firsthand as the LGBT community fought for legal recognition of their lives, relationships, and personal dignity.

That is why I first introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in 2011. The initial version of the bill would have repealed the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act--commonly referred to as DOMA--and ensured that legally married couples, including same-sex couples, were treated equally under Federal law.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same- sex couples have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. The Court recognized that committed couples should be able to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation--a belief that the American people have held for quite some time. In fact, a recent poll placed support for same-sex marriage at 71 percent.

Fifty-five years ago, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that ``the freedom to marry . . . a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state.'' Support for interracial marriage has grown exponentially since then, and a 2021 Gallup poll found it has reached an approval rating of 94 percent.

Unfortunately, we may now be taking a step backward. Following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the longstanding constitutional protections provided by Roe v. Wade, it became clear that this conservative Supreme Court is open to revisiting many other established constitutional rights, including the right to same-sex marriage and the right to interracial marriage.

Overturning Obergefell and Loving would be a disastrous return to a patchwork of State laws where couples could be subject to State- sanctioned discrimination. The legal ramifications would be far- reaching, from disrupting tax filings and benefits to calling parental rights into question--and beyond.

That is why I, along with my colleagues in the House and the Senate, am reintroducing the Respect for Marriage Act: to ensure that Federal law protects marriage equality and to ensure that States cannot discriminate against valid same-sex or interracial marriages.

Inequitable treatment of LGBT Americans and discriminatory marriage laws belong in our history books, not in our Federal code.

I thank Senators Baldwin and Collins for their leadership on this important issue and urge the rest of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, our country is still mourning the tragic shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde in which a total of 31 innocent people were gunned down by teenagers using weapons of war.

While these terrible events get our attention and have in this case galvanized the Senate to act, they are only 2 of the 279 shootings that have taken place this year. So it is good that the Senate is now considering legislation to address the epidemic of gun violence.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which we are now considering, is a good, albeit modest, bill. I am particularly pleased to see that two issues I have prioritized are addressed in this bill. The first is grants to State red flag laws, like the law in my home State of California, which has proven effective at removing guns by people who have been found by a court to possess a threat, and a provision closing the boyfriend loophole, which has let too many domestic abusers continue to possess firearms.

However, while this bill is a step in the right direction, it is far from the bold action that we need to address mass shootings that occur on a daily basis. It remains too easy for private citizens to obtain weapons of war in this country. Sadly, this bill does very little to address that tragic reality.

Almost 30 years ago, in 1993, I stood on this floor and offered the amendment to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons. That goal was simple: Limit access to weapons of war that have no place on our streets. And guess what? It worked. In the 10 years the assault weapons ban was law, gun massacres dropped 37 percent. After the ban lapsed in 2004, gun massacres rose by 183 percent. That is a big difference.

Back then, a different shooting was on the minds of Americans: the 101 California Street shooting in my hometown of San Francisco, where a disturbed man entered a law firm and killed eight people. For many, this tragedy was a wake-up call that required action. And we did act.

Now, 30 years later, teenagers are able to purchase AR-15s, multiple high-capacity magazines, and shoot up a grocery store or elementary school, and we are left mourning the deaths of innocent people and asking, what is the solution?

I applaud the sponsors of the legislation now before the Senate, but I have to ask, what will it take for us to hear

the wake-up call and pass stronger gun legislation? Our Nation, our children, are under constant attack. Nowhere is safe. There are mass shootings at schools, at churches, in synagogues, newspaper offices, stores, movie theaters, on and on. It is simply too easy to get a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible. Today's legislation will help, but there is so much more we could and should be doing.

Our gun laws are lax, and they make it too simple for anyone--even those we know are prone to violence--to obtain a weapon. This is especially true of teenagers. Even though they can't buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes, they can buy an AR-15 assault rifle and thousands of rounds of ammunition once they turn 18 years old. The results are heartbreaking. In Uvalde, 19 children and 2 teachers were massacred last month because an 18-year-old was able to buy an assault weapon. Just 10 days earlier in Buffalo, 10 people were shot to death in a grocery store because an 18-year-old was able to buy an assault weapon. The common denominator in so many mass shootings today is assault weapons.

I understand the Senators who negotiated the bill couldn't reach agreement on this issue. Consequently, the bill fails to prevent teenagers--teenagers--from buying assault weapons.

Under current law, a Federal firearms licensee may not sell or deliver a handgun to a buyer younger than 21; however, this commonsense protection does not apply to purchases of assault weapons. This disparity actually costs lives.

It is simple logic: If you can't buy a beer, you shouldn't be able to buy an assault weapon. If you can't buy a handgun, you shouldn't be able to buy an AR-15. That is why I introduced, along with 13 of my colleagues, the Age 21 Act. I have also filed it as an amendment on the bill before us.

The bill would raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition from 18 to 21. So before you have a powerful weapon, before you buy big bullets, you have to at least be 21 years old. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This commonsense reform has public support among both Democrats and Republicans. A recent POLITICO poll showed that 88 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans support requiring people to be 21 or older to purchase a firearm.

I believe that failing now to act and address the ease with which teenagers can buy assault weapons is really a grave mistake. And make no mistake about it, it will cost lives. So now is the time to act.

I urge my colleagues to support the Age 21 Act and pass it before the next massacre. I hope these words are heard. I hope people understand. I hope there is no more killing of young people this way.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am proud to support and cosponsor S. 4255, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, which the Senate is considering as H.R. 350. This bill is critically important in supporting law enforcement's response to domestic terrorism.

Domestic terrorism has become increasingly common. According to a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, more than two-thirds of domestic terrorist plots and attacks in 2020 were fueled by White supremacists and ideologically aligned violent extremists.

Unfortunately, just last week in Buffalo, NY, we saw the savage destruction that hate can cause. A gunman killed 10 people and injured 3 others in a local grocery store. Eleven of the 13 people who were shot were Black. Make no mistake, this act of violence was a domestic terrorism incident.

We must do more to stop these heinous acts of violence. To do this, we must provide our law enforcement with the resources they need. This bill will would help establish offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that would monitor, investigate, and prosecute domestic terrorism crimes. This bill would also help ensure that all law enforcement agencies have access to anti-terrorism resources.

I believe this bill is an important step to help address the rising threat of domestic terrorism throughout the country.

I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan bill, and I am happy to see my Democratic colleagues support it on the floor today.

Madam President, I rise today to support legislation that would rename local post offices in California to honor the life and legacy of two Californians.

The first bill, led by Congresswoman Katie Porter, would designate the Northwood Post Office in Irvine, CA, as the ``Tuskegee Airman Lieutenant Colonel Robert J. Friend Memorial Post Office Building.''

Lieutenant Colonel Friend was among the 355 pilots who served in the all African-American unit known as the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II. During his military career, Lieutenant Colonel Friend fought in 142 combat missions and served as an operations officer for both the 301st Squadron and the 332nd Fighter Group. He received various military awards, such as the Distinguished Flying Cross, Presidential Unit Citation, and Air Medal. In 2007, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, along with the rest of the Tuskegee Airmen.

After retiring from military service, Lieutenant Colonel Friend worked on the development of missile systems and space station components in Irvine, CA. He continued to participate in speaking and educational engagements about his experience with the Tuskegee Airmen into his 90s.

Lieutenant Colonel Friend died in 2019 in Long Beach, CA, at the age of 99. He exemplified all that it is to be a public servant by devoting his life to his country as a member of the Tuskegee Airmen and further serving his country after his military career ended.

The second bill, led by Congressman Mike Thompson, would designate the Cotati Post Office in Cotati, CA, as the ``Arturo L. Ibleto Post Office Building.''

Arturo L. Ibleto was an Italian-born immigrant and resistance fighter in World War II before moving to Sonoma County. It was there that he met his wife, and they built a successful Italian restaurant and catering business. For nearly 50 years, Art was an institution in the Sonoma County food and wine community, where he became known as the ``Pasta King.''

Additionally, Art lent considerable time and resources to local charitable, educational, and civic causes that left a lasting mark on the community. He continued working full time until his passing in 2020 at the age of 94.

It is an honor for me to be able to speak on behalf of these two bills to honor notable Californians and celebrate our rich history.

Both of these bills passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, including the support of all 53 Members of the California House Delegation as cosponsors. Both Senator Padilla and I urge our colleagues to support quick passage of these bills.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the STREAM Act (Support to Rehydrate the Environment, Agriculture and Municipalities Act), which I am introducing today alongside my cosponsors Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema. This is a bill intended to address the massive drought affecting much of the Western United States.

As the past 2 years demonstrate all too painfully, drought exacerbated by climate change--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark reality for California and the West.

This has resulted in shortages of water for agriculture, for irrigation, and increasingly threatens residential and business uses. The drought has threatened endangered species and results in a drying of the ground and plantlife that makes wildfire an even greater threat.

If we don't take action now, it is only going to get worse. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54-percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79-percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California, because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30 percent of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir.

For these reasons and others we need an ``all of the above'' water strategy, including No. 1, increased water supply; No. 2, incentivizing projects that build in environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and No. 3, investing in separate environmental restoration efforts.

The bill I am introducing today helps meet this challenge in four fundamental ways:

No. 1, it authorizes significant water supply funding that, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with 1.04 million additional acre-feet of water per year on average, enough water for over 6 million people;

No. 2, it provides additional financial incentives for water supply projects that include environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities;

No. 3, it reforms the Congressional review process to more quickly approve water supply projects, and a new loan program combined with grants to more cost-effectively fund new non-Federal water supply projects; and

No. 4, it significantly invests not only in water supply projects but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change as well.

To demonstrate why this bill is so desperately needed, let me illustrate the extent and damage caused by the current drought in the West.

A precursor of the even more prolonged dry spells coming with climate change, California's 2020 to 2022 drought has had severe impacts on farms, cities, and the environment.

In 2021, the drought caused the California agriculture industry to shrink by an estimated 8,745 jobs and incur $1.2 billion in direct costs, according to a report prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California at Merced. In addition, reduced water deliveries resulted in 395,000 acres of cropland left dry and unplanted.

Counting ``spillover effects'' in the broader economy, the U.C. Merced analysis found the total impacts were more than 14,600 lost jobs, both full time and part time, and $1.7 billion in gross revenue losses.

In both 2021 and 2022, homes in significant parts of the State have been at risk of running dry. Last year, large parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties and the Mendocino coast came very close to losing all water supply. This year, much of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties have been placed under emergency orders limiting them to once a week landscape irrigation, with the possibility of a complete irrigation shutoff by fall.

In California, one in eight acres statewide has burned from wildfires in the last decade, with the past 2 years being the worst on record. With 95 percent of the State experiencing drought as we enter into the traditional wildfire season, we are poised for an even worse year this year.

The drought has been devastating to the aquatic ecosystem as well as our forests. As just one example, the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon depend on sufficient cold water released by Shasta Dam to rear juveniles in the Sacramento River.

With limited water available in 2021, NOAA Fisheries models predict that approximately 75 percent of the winter run chinook salmon's eggs died from elevated water temperatures. This is a species with three 1- year age classes, and a prolonged drought could threaten the survival of the species.

In order to increase drought resiliency in California and other Western States, the bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years: $750 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and supporting conveyance, including $50 million for natural water retention and release projects; $300 million for water recycling projects; $150 million for desalination projects; $250 million for environmental restoration projects; $100 million for drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and $150 million for low-interest loans for water supply projects.

This funding builds on the bipartisan infrastructure law's funding of $1.15 billion for storage projects, $550 million for water recycling projects, and $250 million for desalination projects.

The STREAM Act, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with the Federal cost-share for approximately 1,042,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply, or enough water for over 6 million people. This comes from the following:

Enough funding for California to finally build three major off-stream storage projects providing 370,000 acre-feet of water on average each year: Sites Reservoir, the Los Vaqueros Expansion, and the BF Sisk raise. In addition, the storage funding could provide an additional 55,000 acre-feet per year from some combination of other smaller surface and groundwater storage projects like the Sacramento Regional Groundwater Bank or Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir. All of the projects are non-Federal projects with a 25 percent Federal cost share, with the exception of the Federal BF Sisk Raise with a 50 percent Federal cost- share.

Enough funding for 532,000 additional acre-feet from water recycling projects, from the $300 million authorized in the bill plus $550 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 percent Federal cost-share for projects.

Enough funding for approximately 85,000 additional acre-feet from the $150 million authorized in the bill for desalination projects, plus $250 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 percent Federal cost-share for projects.

While virtually everyone supports water recycling projects, surface and groundwater storage projects are sometimes more controversial. I want to point out a report just released today by the widely respected Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, which relates to the benefits of additional surface and groundwater storage as California's climate is changing.

Many climate forecasters emphasize that as climate change intensifies, California will get more of its precipitation in a few large to extraordinarily large storms fueled by atmospheric rivers, and more of the precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. In between the bursts of atmospheric rivers, there will be longer and more intense droughts. We have definitely seen a preview of this pattern this year.

PPIC has studied these projections and estimated that there is substantial water in wet years that is not needed to maintain healthy Delta outflows but currently cannot be captured because California lacks the infrastructure to store for future dry periods. PPIC suggests that given this reality, cost-effective storage projects in appropriate locations could help improve California's drought resiliency.

PPIC also argues that these storage projects should be managed for environmental flow benefits as well as water supply benefits. This bill would help with that because Federal funding for Sites Reservoir would help provide cold water for salmon, and Federal funding for the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir would provide needed water for wildlife refuges. Regarding cold water reserves for salmon in particular, these reserves will be critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during the potential fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years of devastating droughts.

The bill's funding authorizations apply not just to California but throughout the 17 Western States where the Bureau of Reclamation has a presence. Many of these States have recently benefited from the Bureau of Reclamation's storage, water recycling, and desalination programs and/or have projects currently seeking funding from these programs, including Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. I believe the Federal funding assistance authorized by this bill will be particularly important for all seven Colorado River basin States as the States negotiate the next painful round of water supply cuts from the Colorado River between now and 2026 in order to meet the challenge of an increasingly dry Colorado River basin.

In Arizona, the STREAM Act would significantly advance the Salt River Project's proposal to raise Bartlett Dam on the Verde River to counteract the loss of approximately one-third of the nearby Horseshoe Dam's capacity from accumulating sediment. The Bartlett Dam raise would provide an additional 60,000 to 115,000 acre-feet per year or enough water for 360,000 to 690,000 people.

The bill uses financial incentives to encourage storage and conveyance projects to include environmental benefits and other public benefits such as drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This is important to ensure that the environment and disadvantaged communities are included in our drought resilience strategies.

The bill authorizes low-interest loans for sponsors of storage and conveyance projects if those projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits.

In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project.

This access to grants gives project sponsors a strong financial incentive to design environmental and disadvantaged community benefits into their projects. This approach builds on the experience of the Proposition 1 water bond California's voters passed by a 2-to-1 margin in 2014, which also incentivizes projects with environmental and other public benefits.

If storage and conveyance projects take these steps, they can get Federal grants both directly for the public benefits and for an equal value investment in the water supply component of the project. Thus, the Federal Government will provide $50 million for the general water supply benefits of a project if the project also has $50 million in fish and wildlife or water quality benefits either directly from the project or from an associated watershed restoration plan.

The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further.

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

No. 1, reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects;

No. 2, once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3-5 years or longer in many cases; and

No. 3, the design and construction can take a decade or longer.

One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major protein recent years. Given the tremendous challenge

posed by climate change to western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model.

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

The traditional Reclamation business model, in which

feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and

Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are

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

construction is authorized and funded, does not always

address the needs of project sponsors at the state and local

levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the

availability of other available financing mechanisms, the

historic federal role in financing water storage projects

through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a

greater emphasis on non-federal financing.

In response to the concerns articulated by then-Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, makes five significant changes to the traditional reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding.

No. 1, Congressional authorization no longer required for non-Federal projects.

First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual water recycling and desalination projects and non-Federal storage projects with a Federal investment of less than $250 million. It can take 3 to 5 years or longer for projects to get legislatively approved. In fact, zero new water recycling projects were authorized from 2009 to 2017 despite dozens of meritorious projects with approved feasibility studies.

Federal storage projects, which are often more controversial, continue to require congressional authorization, as do non-Federal storage projects with a greater than $250 million Federal investment. The bill shortens the timeline for congressional approval of these projects through directing Reclamation to follow a process that the Army Corps of Engineers uses to notify Congress of completed feasibility studies each year to set up an orderly timeline to authorize projects.

No. 2, non-Federal funding is required up front.

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

Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded nearly 50 percent by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 20 to 25 percent by the Federal Government and the remaining 25 to 30 percent by water users.

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

No. 3, the new loan program is cost-effective.

Third, the low-interest loan program created by the bill for water supply projects is an exceptionally cost-effective program. This program, known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, RIFIA, would use existing criteria for loans under the successful WIFIA Program, the Water Infrastructure. Finance and Innovation Act.

The Office of Management and the Budget, OMB, has approved loans of $2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of just over 1 percent of that amount, or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was able to approve loans backed by just l percent of the loan amount because there is a virtually non existent default rate for water projects. Only 4 in 1,000 water infrastructure projects default, based on a study conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency.

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

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

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

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

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

The sponsors pay a substantially lower interest rate on their loans than they would under the alternative of municipal bond financing.

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

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

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

No. 4, Federal grants and loans work together.

Fourth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up to 25 percent of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users to make up the difference where the Federal Government is no longer funding l00 percent of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100 percent of the cost of new water supply projects.

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

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

The significant funding authorization of $250 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish and migratory birds. Some authorized uses of this funding include: improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects; additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; improved stream gauges, monitoring, and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts; ensuring that when Sacramento Valley rice growers sell their water and idle their crops, some water is left behind and applied to bare fields in late summer and early fall to create shallow flooded habitat during a critical

shorebird migration period; and assistance in implementing water- related settlements with State agencies and State water quality laws.

The bill would also authorize $50 million of the broader storage funding for natural water retention and release projects.

These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species. I look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multibenefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill.

The bill also authorizes pay-for-performance environmental restoration approaches that award grants contingent on the success of the restoration effort. These approaches can expedite environmental restoration and build public/private partnerships to increase the number of acres restored.

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

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

We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert State. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face as a result of climate change.

I hope my western colleagues will join my cosponsors and me on this bill because drought is a serious threat for all of our States.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the STREAM Act (Support to Rehydrate the Environment, Agriculture and Municipalities Act), which I am introducing today alongside my cosponsors Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema. This is a bill intended to address the massive drought affecting much of the Western United States.

As the past 2 years demonstrate all too painfully, drought exacerbated by climate change--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark reality for California and the West.

This has resulted in shortages of water for agriculture, for irrigation, and increasingly threatens residential and business uses. The drought has threatened endangered species and results in a drying of the ground and plantlife that makes wildfire an even greater threat.

If we don't take action now, it is only going to get worse. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54-percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79-percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California, because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30 percent of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir.

For these reasons and others we need an ``all of the above'' water strategy, including No. 1, increased water supply; No. 2, incentivizing projects that build in environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and No. 3, investing in separate environmental restoration efforts.

The bill I am introducing today helps meet this challenge in four fundamental ways:

No. 1, it authorizes significant water supply funding that, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with 1.04 million additional acre-feet of water per year on average, enough water for over 6 million people;

No. 2, it provides additional financial incentives for water supply projects that include environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities;

No. 3, it reforms the Congressional review process to more quickly approve water supply projects, and a new loan program combined with grants to more cost-effectively fund new non-Federal water supply projects; and

No. 4, it significantly invests not only in water supply projects but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change as well.

To demonstrate why this bill is so desperately needed, let me illustrate the extent and damage caused by the current drought in the West.

A precursor of the even more prolonged dry spells coming with climate change, California's 2020 to 2022 drought has had severe impacts on farms, cities, and the environment.

In 2021, the drought caused the California agriculture industry to shrink by an estimated 8,745 jobs and incur $1.2 billion in direct costs, according to a report prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California at Merced. In addition, reduced water deliveries resulted in 395,000 acres of cropland left dry and unplanted.

Counting ``spillover effects'' in the broader economy, the U.C. Merced analysis found the total impacts were more than 14,600 lost jobs, both full time and part time, and $1.7 billion in gross revenue losses.

In both 2021 and 2022, homes in significant parts of the State have been at risk of running dry. Last year, large parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties and the Mendocino coast came very close to losing all water supply. This year, much of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties have been placed under emergency orders limiting them to once a week landscape irrigation, with the possibility of a complete irrigation shutoff by fall.

In California, one in eight acres statewide has burned from wildfires in the last decade, with the past 2 years being the worst on record. With 95 percent of the State experiencing drought as we enter into the traditional wildfire season, we are poised for an even worse year this year.

The drought has been devastating to the aquatic ecosystem as well as our forests. As just one example, the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon depend on sufficient cold water released by Shasta Dam to rear juveniles in the Sacramento River.

With limited water available in 2021, NOAA Fisheries models predict that approximately 75 percent of the winter run chinook salmon's eggs died from elevated water temperatures. This is a species with three 1- year age classes, and a prolonged drought could threaten the survival of the species.

In order to increase drought resiliency in California and other Western States, the bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years: $750 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and supporting conveyance, including $50 million for natural water retention and release projects; $300 million for water recycling projects; $150 million for desalination projects; $250 million for environmental restoration projects; $100 million for drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and $150 million for low-interest loans for water supply projects.

This funding builds on the bipartisan infrastructure law's funding of $1.15 billion for storage projects, $550 million for water recycling projects, and $250 million for desalination projects.

The STREAM Act, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with the Federal cost-share for approximately 1,042,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply, or enough water for over 6 million people. This comes from the following:

Enough funding for California to finally build three major off-stream storage projects providing 370,000 acre-feet of water on average each year: Sites Reservoir, the Los Vaqueros Expansion, and the BF Sisk raise. In addition, the storage funding could provide an additional 55,000 acre-feet per year from some combination of other smaller surface and groundwater storage projects like the Sacramento Regional Groundwater Bank or Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir. All of the projects are non-Federal projects with a 25 percent Federal cost share, with the exception of the Federal BF Sisk Raise with a 50 percent Federal cost- share.

Enough funding for 532,000 additional acre-feet from water recycling projects, from the $300 million authorized in the bill plus $550 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 percent Federal cost-share for projects.

Enough funding for approximately 85,000 additional acre-feet from the $150 million authorized in the bill for desalination projects, plus $250 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 percent Federal cost-share for projects.

While virtually everyone supports water recycling projects, surface and groundwater storage projects are sometimes more controversial. I want to point out a report just released today by the widely respected Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, which relates to the benefits of additional surface and groundwater storage as California's climate is changing.

Many climate forecasters emphasize that as climate change intensifies, California will get more of its precipitation in a few large to extraordinarily large storms fueled by atmospheric rivers, and more of the precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. In between the bursts of atmospheric rivers, there will be longer and more intense droughts. We have definitely seen a preview of this pattern this year.

PPIC has studied these projections and estimated that there is substantial water in wet years that is not needed to maintain healthy Delta outflows but currently cannot be captured because California lacks the infrastructure to store for future dry periods. PPIC suggests that given this reality, cost-effective storage projects in appropriate locations could help improve California's drought resiliency.

PPIC also argues that these storage projects should be managed for environmental flow benefits as well as water supply benefits. This bill would help with that because Federal funding for Sites Reservoir would help provide cold water for salmon, and Federal funding for the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir would provide needed water for wildlife refuges. Regarding cold water reserves for salmon in particular, these reserves will be critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during the potential fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years of devastating droughts.

The bill's funding authorizations apply not just to California but throughout the 17 Western States where the Bureau of Reclamation has a presence. Many of these States have recently benefited from the Bureau of Reclamation's storage, water recycling, and desalination programs and/or have projects currently seeking funding from these programs, including Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. I believe the Federal funding assistance authorized by this bill will be particularly important for all seven Colorado River basin States as the States negotiate the next painful round of water supply cuts from the Colorado River between now and 2026 in order to meet the challenge of an increasingly dry Colorado River basin.

In Arizona, the STREAM Act would significantly advance the Salt River Project's proposal to raise Bartlett Dam on the Verde River to counteract the loss of approximately one-third of the nearby Horseshoe Dam's capacity from accumulating sediment. The Bartlett Dam raise would provide an additional 60,000 to 115,000 acre-feet per year or enough water for 360,000 to 690,000 people.

The bill uses financial incentives to encourage storage and conveyance projects to include environmental benefits and other public benefits such as drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This is important to ensure that the environment and disadvantaged communities are included in our drought resilience strategies.

The bill authorizes low-interest loans for sponsors of storage and conveyance projects if those projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits.

In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project.

This access to grants gives project sponsors a strong financial incentive to design environmental and disadvantaged community benefits into their projects. This approach builds on the experience of the Proposition 1 water bond California's voters passed by a 2-to-1 margin in 2014, which also incentivizes projects with environmental and other public benefits.

If storage and conveyance projects take these steps, they can get Federal grants both directly for the public benefits and for an equal value investment in the water supply component of the project. Thus, the Federal Government will provide $50 million for the general water supply benefits of a project if the project also has $50 million in fish and wildlife or water quality benefits either directly from the project or from an associated watershed restoration plan.

The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further.

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

No. 1, reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects;

No. 2, once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3-5 years or longer in many cases; and

No. 3, the design and construction can take a decade or longer.

One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major protein recent years. Given the tremendous challenge

posed by climate change to western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model.

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

The traditional Reclamation business model, in which

feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and

Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are

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

construction is authorized and funded, does not always

address the needs of project sponsors at the state and local

levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the

availability of other available financing mechanisms, the

historic federal role in financing water storage projects

through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a

greater emphasis on non-federal financing.

In response to the concerns articulated by then-Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, makes five significant changes to the traditional reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding.

No. 1, Congressional authorization no longer required for non-Federal projects.

First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual water recycling and desalination projects and non-Federal storage projects with a Federal investment of less than $250 million. It can take 3 to 5 years or longer for projects to get legislatively approved. In fact, zero new water recycling projects were authorized from 2009 to 2017 despite dozens of meritorious projects with approved feasibility studies.

Federal storage projects, which are often more controversial, continue to require congressional authorization, as do non-Federal storage projects with a greater than $250 million Federal investment. The bill shortens the timeline for congressional approval of these projects through directing Reclamation to follow a process that the Army Corps of Engineers uses to notify Congress of completed feasibility studies each year to set up an orderly timeline to authorize projects.

No. 2, non-Federal funding is required up front.

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

Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded nearly 50 percent by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 20 to 25 percent by the Federal Government and the remaining 25 to 30 percent by water users.

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

No. 3, the new loan program is cost-effective.

Third, the low-interest loan program created by the bill for water supply projects is an exceptionally cost-effective program. This program, known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, RIFIA, would use existing criteria for loans under the successful WIFIA Program, the Water Infrastructure. Finance and Innovation Act.

The Office of Management and the Budget, OMB, has approved loans of $2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of just over 1 percent of that amount, or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was able to approve loans backed by just l percent of the loan amount because there is a virtually non existent default rate for water projects. Only 4 in 1,000 water infrastructure projects default, based on a study conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency.

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

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

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

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

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

The sponsors pay a substantially lower interest rate on their loans than they would under the alternative of municipal bond financing.

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

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

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

No. 4, Federal grants and loans work together.

Fourth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up to 25 percent of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users to make up the difference where the Federal Government is no longer funding l00 percent of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100 percent of the cost of new water supply projects.

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

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

The significant funding authorization of $250 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish and migratory birds. Some authorized uses of this funding include: improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects; additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; improved stream gauges, monitoring, and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts; ensuring that when Sacramento Valley rice growers sell their water and idle their crops, some water is left behind and applied to bare fields in late summer and early fall to create shallow flooded habitat during a critical

shorebird migration period; and assistance in implementing water- related settlements with State agencies and State water quality laws.

The bill would also authorize $50 million of the broader storage funding for natural water retention and release projects.

These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species. I look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multibenefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill.

The bill also authorizes pay-for-performance environmental restoration approaches that award grants contingent on the success of the restoration effort. These approaches can expedite environmental restoration and build public/private partnerships to increase the number of acres restored.

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

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

We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert State. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face as a result of climate change.

I hope my western colleagues will join my cosponsors and me on this bill because drought is a serious threat for all of our States.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Space National Guard Establishment Act of 2021, which Senator Rubio and I introduced today. I thank Senator Rubio along with our 10 bipartisan cosponsors for joining me on this important bill.

When the Space Force was established in 2019, Active-Duty space units were moved out of the Air Force and into the new Space Force, but National Guard space units were left behind in the Air National Guard under the Air Force.

Active-Duty and Guard units performing space missions are supposed to work together seamlessly, but they cannot do so if we leave them in separate services. Today, we have 16 Air National Guard units with 1,000 members performing space missions in a different service than their Active-Duty counterparts.

This misalignment creates a number of problems. It inhibits the efficient and consistent provision of funding, equipment, talent, education, and training to our space units.

This disconnect makes mobilization more complicated and separates them with different service processes and cultures. This is not how to construct a cohesive force, and if Congress is going to create a Space Force, then Congress should complete the job.

The current misalignment is unsustainable. If it is not repaired, then National Guard units performing the space mission will wither on the vine. Those Air National Guard units will eventually be forced to give up the space mission and undertake a costly transition to another mission, or those units will be dissolved.

This bill would shift our National Guard units performing space missions from the Air National Guard, which is part of the Air Force, to a Space National Guard, which would fall under the Space Force. This bill does not authorize new construction, bases, or personnel. It is a realignment, not an expansion. Future growth will be determined by mission needs as determined by the Pentagon, the administration, and Congress.

This bill, which already has a companion in the House, is the best way to preserve the talent and resources found in the National Guard's space enterprise. We have invested a great deal in the training and experience held by the Guard's space professionals. Many of them hold civilian jobs with leading-edge companies in relevant industries, and they put their experience to work for the Nation and their States every time they put on their uniform. We must not leave a bureaucratic wall between the Space Force and the National Guard that will degrade our space capabilities.

Just as important, the loss of these units would rob our Governors of critical National Guard personnel and resources they need to respond to disasters at home.

In sum, this bill will fix a major disconnect in our Nation's space enterprise by putting our National Guard space units in the same service as their Active-Duty counterparts. This is important for our Nation and for those that rely on the National Guard in our States.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Space National Guard Establishment Act of 2021, which Senator Rubio and I introduced today. I thank Senator Rubio along with our 10 bipartisan cosponsors for joining me on this important bill.

When the Space Force was established in 2019, Active-Duty space units were moved out of the Air Force and into the new Space Force, but National Guard space units were left behind in the Air National Guard under the Air Force.

Active-Duty and Guard units performing space missions are supposed to work together seamlessly, but they cannot do so if we leave them in separate services. Today, we have 16 Air National Guard units with 1,000 members performing space missions in a different service than their Active-Duty counterparts.

This misalignment creates a number of problems. It inhibits the efficient and consistent provision of funding, equipment, talent, education, and training to our space units.

This disconnect makes mobilization more complicated and separates them with different service processes and cultures. This is not how to construct a cohesive force, and if Congress is going to create a Space Force, then Congress should complete the job.

The current misalignment is unsustainable. If it is not repaired, then National Guard units performing the space mission will wither on the vine. Those Air National Guard units will eventually be forced to give up the space mission and undertake a costly transition to another mission, or those units will be dissolved.

This bill would shift our National Guard units performing space missions from the Air National Guard, which is part of the Air Force, to a Space National Guard, which would fall under the Space Force. This bill does not authorize new construction, bases, or personnel. It is a realignment, not an expansion. Future growth will be determined by mission needs as determined by the Pentagon, the administration, and Congress.

This bill, which already has a companion in the House, is the best way to preserve the talent and resources found in the National Guard's space enterprise. We have invested a great deal in the training and experience held by the Guard's space professionals. Many of them hold civilian jobs with leading-edge companies in relevant industries, and they put their experience to work for the Nation and their States every time they put on their uniform. We must not leave a bureaucratic wall between the Space Force and the National Guard that will degrade our space capabilities.

Just as important, the loss of these units would rob our Governors of critical National Guard personnel and resources they need to respond to disasters at home.

In sum, this bill will fix a major disconnect in our Nation's space enterprise by putting our National Guard space units in the same service as their Active-Duty counterparts. This is important for our Nation and for those that rely on the National Guard in our States.

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

Madam President, I rise today to explain my position on Senator Sanders' motion to instruct conferees to remove language from any final conference report of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act and the America COMPETES Act that would provide $10 billion for NASA to develop a second Human Landing System.

California has long been the epicenter of the global aerospace and commercial space industries, and I am proud of the many technical and scientific advancements made by California scientists and engineers. The bills that the conference committee will consider are intended to ensure that the innovation in aerospace in California and beyond has the support needed to maintain the United States' global competitive edge and lead scientific advancement.

When the Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act last summer, I was concerned that section 2614 of the bill would circumvent the competitive process at the heart of Federal procurement and undermined NASA's existing contract for the Artemis Human Landing System.

By that time, NASA had already completed a contract review and award for the Artemis program for the development of a landing system, selecting the proposal by SpaceX. The SpaceX bid not only received the highest rating for its technical aspects and management approach, it also had the lowest price.

Nevertheless, the unsuccessful contractors who did not receive the final contract, Blue Origin and Dynetics, filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office, alleging violations and unreasonable evaluation practices.

The GAO investigated for 3 months and ultimately denied the claims by the contractors, saying: ``The evaluation of all three proposals was reasonable and consistent with applicable procurement law, regulation, and the announcement's terms.''

Like Senator Sanders, I had initial concerns that section 2614 of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act would create an additional Human Landing System contract, thereby providing substantial public funding to contractors who lost a fair competitive contract award. Moreover, the terms of section 2614 threatened to force NASA into a rushed acquisition and could have diverted funds from other important projects to cover the expenses of this second Artemis award.

However, my staff and I have worked with Senator Cantwell and her staff at the Senate Commerce Committee to address those concerns. I understand that the Commerce Committee will work through the conference process to extend the timeline for the new contract in the bill-- previously just 90 days--to ensure that NASA can undertake another fair procurement process.

They have further committed to working with NASA to ensure that the language does not represent an unfunded mandate, forcing NASA to pull funds from other programs.

Lastly, NASA's budget request this year for the landing system was $1.5 billion, a significantly more reasonable amount than the enormous figure included in the original Senate bill. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, and Science, I will continue to observe this program closely to ensure that these Federal funds are spent responsibly and without favoritism.

I want to reiterate that I have long supported NASA's scientific endeavors, including the upcoming Artemis moon mission, and I look forward to seeing the improved language in the final version of the bill. I thank Senator Cantwell and her staff for working with me to address my concerns, and I respectfully note that I will vote no on the motion by Senator Sanders.

Vote on Motion

Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I have had the privilege of serving in this body for nearly three decades now.

In that time, I have participated in the confirmation hearings of 10 Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of nominees to our Federal circuit and district courts. I have carefully scrutinized Judge Jackson's record and listened very closely to her testimony. In my view, Judge Jackson is both well qualified and extremely prepared to take on the important role of serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson is a graduate of both Harvard University and Harvard Law School, a former Supreme Court clerk, a former Federal public defender, and a former U.S. Sentencing Commissioner. On top of that, Judge Jackson has served as a federal judge for nearly a decade.

Judge Jackson would be the first Federal public defender to sit on the Supreme Court and the first Justice since Thurgood Marshall with significant experience representing low-income defendants in criminal cases. As a former public defender, Judge Jackson truly understands the power of our constitutional rights, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment right to due process. Judge Jackson would also join Justice Sotomayor as the only former Federal district court judges serving on the Supreme Court.

What has impressed me most about Judge Jackson does not appear on her resume. That is Judge Jackson's steadfast commitment to the fair and impartial application of the law, her deep knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and her remarkable judicial temperament. These qualities were demonstrated in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. They were also shown in the letters and testimony of the many people--of all ideological viewpoints--who have supported Judge Jackson's nomination.

First, Judge Jackson's respect for the law and the Constitution are clear from the nearly 600 legal opinions she has drafted as a Federal judge. Her legal opinions are clear and detailed. As she explained during her confirmation hearings, Judge Jackson carefully and fairly applies the law to the specific facts of each case. And Judge Jackson takes the time to explain why she reached each decision. In my view, it is important that the decisions of the Supreme Court are accessible to the American people. Judge Jackson's approach to judicial decision- making will help to ensure transparency in her judging and help to restore the public's confidence in the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Second, Judge Jackson clearly has deep legal knowledge. During her more than 20 hours of testimony before the Judiciary Committee, she spoke with skill on a wide range of topics. She addressed legal issues of all kinds, including separation of powers, the First Amendment, administrative law, criminal sentencing, and much more. I believe Judge Jackson has the knowledge and expertise to decide the most difficult and pressing legal issues facing this Nation.

Finally, during her hearings, Judge Jackson also showed that she has a remarkable temperament. Lawyers and judges who have worked with her, or appeared before her, have confirmed that Judge Jackson brings this temperament with her in all aspects of her work. They have told the Senate that she is as collegial, calm, and steadfast as she appeared to be during her hearings.

For example, Judge Thomas Griffith testified in support of Judge Jackson's nomination and focused on her character and temperament, in addition to her exceptional qualifications. Judge Griffith is a retired judge of the D.C. Circuit and was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush. Judge Griffith said that Judge Jackson has modeled the ideal qualities of a judge, including diligence, carefulness, high character, deep legal knowledge, and broad experience.

Witnesses from the American Bar Association also testified about Judge Jackson's sterling reputation for integrity. Those witnesses interviewed lawyers and judges who have known and worked with Judge Jackson at various points over the course of her career. And, in those interviews, lawyers and judges who were familiar with Judge Jackson uniformly praised her character. They called her ``first rate,'' ``impeccable,'' and ``beyond reproach.'' One comment said: ``You write the word `integrity,' and then you put her initials next to it.''

The American Bar Association's interviews also revealed that prosecutors and defense attorneys alike regard Judge Jackson as fair, balanced, and unbiased. She is precisely the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court. Judge Jackson is plainly up to the task of faithfully interpreting our Constitution and our laws and fairly applying the law in each and every case.

Judge Jackson laid out in simple terms the three-part methodology she uses in each case to ensure that her decisions are informed by the arguments of the parties, the facts, and the law, and not by any personal views she may hold. Judge Jackson's thoughtful methodology shows that she appreciates how important it is for judges to approach each and every case with an open mind and to avoid both actual and perceived conflicts of interest.

I believe Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person. Her rich family history in law enforcement and her background as a Federal public defender, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a trial judge, and an appellate judge will benefit our Supreme Court.

It will be my great pleasure to vote to confirm Judge Jackson to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. And I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do the same.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing the Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022.

Human trafficking and modern slavery are abhorrent crimes that are a scourge on our country and the world. In 2022, there are an estimated 40 million victims of human trafficking and modern slavery worldwide. These crimes generate approximately $150,000,000,000 of revenue annually.

Perpetrators of human trafficking prey on vulnerable and marginalized communities, which disproportionally impacts women and girls, migrants, people of color, and LGBT individuals.

According to Polaris--the anti-human trafficking organization that runs the National Human Trafficking Hotline--in 2021, the hotline was contacted directly over 13,000 times by victims and survivors of human trafficking in the United States. In the last 2 years, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hotline has had a 60 percent increase in total contacts.

There is also evidence that labor trafficking in the agricultural industry may have increased during the pandemic. In June 2021, Polaris released a report finding that, ``[a]mong reported labor trafficking victims, there was more than a 70 percent increase in those who held H2-A visas.''

This is unconscionable, and more must be done to combat human trafficking. That is why Senator Grassley and I have introduced the Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022.

This bill builds on the pillars of anti-human trafficking policy-- prevention, protection, prosecution, and partnership--in order to protect victims and rid the world of this heinous crime.

This bill aims to prevent human trafficking by requiring enhanced anti-human trafficking education and training for all Federal departments and agencies.

It would also require all Federal contractors to certify that they do not engage in the trafficking of persons and that no human trafficking occurred in that contractor's supply chain. The bill also encourages large private corporations to make the same types of certifications.

I am particularly proud of how this bill advances the goal of protecting victims and survivors of human trafficking. This bill not only reauthorizes existing grant programs, but it also creates a new grant for education and employment training for survivors of human trafficking.

The bill establishes a pilot program that provides services--such as education and employment programs, housing, and substance use disorder treatment--for youth who face a heightened risk of trafficking.

And to continue learning how to best support victims and survivors of trafficking, the bill calls for a study on the accessibility of mental health and substance use disorder services for survivors.

This bill also enhances the Federal Government's ability to prosecute human traffickers.

Importantly, it bars government officials investigating human trafficking cases from engaging in sexual contact with victims during the course of the investigation. And it further provides protection from retaliation and intimidation and creates a new penalty for obstructing human trafficking investigations.

Finally, the bill will facilitate partnerships by creating a new grant program that encourages collaboration between State child welfare and juvenile justice agencies. This is important because youth involved in the juvenile justice and child welfare system face a heightened risk of human trafficking.

Additionally, the bill promotes coordination at the Federal level by encouraging enhanced communication and data sharing between State and Federal agencies and across the branches of government.

This bill will strengthen our government's response to human trafficking as well as the services that we provide to victims and survivors.

I am hopeful that we will be able to pass this bipartisan bill this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important, comprehensive legislation to protect trafficking victims.

Mr. President, I rise today also in recognition of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022.

I am delighted President Biden signed it into law yesterday as part of the omnibus spending bill.

It is important to know that this bill reauthorizes critical programs that help respond to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It is long overdue, but today, this bill will become law.

Last month, I introduced this reauthorization bill alongside Senators Ernst, Durbin--both of whom are on the floor today--Murkowski, who is also here today, and additional cosponsors.

A number of advocates joined us, including Angelina Jolie, to speak about the importance of the legislation.

The bill we introduced and the bill we are passing today has really strong bipartisan support, including that of 11 Republican cosponsors.

In addition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act through 2027, the law includes bringing it up to date, and that is important. It means that existing programs will be able to do an even better job protecting and supporting survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

It is the result of a truly bipartisan effort, and I want to thank Senators Ernst, Durbin--both are on the floor--particularly Senator Murkowski, for working with me to prepare this important piece of legislation. I am very appreciative of the partnership because the law will become a reality. We also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues on both side of the aisle who made important contributions to the effort.

This act plays a critical role supporting law enforcement in their efforts to stop these perpetrators before it is too late. It reauthorizes important programs and provides the necessary updates to strengthen them.

So what does it do?

First, it enhances and expands services for survivors, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life. Older people get a lot of violence.

It strengthens the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands.

It also establishes a pilot program that focuses on addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking through community-based, victim-initiated efforts to seek accountability.

And the law invests in prevention education efforts that will improve the healthcare system's response to sexual violence--we hope.

And these changes can have a real impact. Here is one example: The International Association of Forensic Nurses reports that only one in four U.S. hospitals has a sexual assault forensic nurse on duty--not a special place but even one nurse on duty. Our bipartisan law remedies this problem by providing additional funding and training to increase access to forensic nurses, particularly in rural areas, where, strangely enough, a lot of this violence takes place.

Through this bipartisan law, we will make significant improvements to our Nation's response to domestic violence, but I want to caution everybody, it isn't perfect.

I really regret that certain provisions were unable to be included in this bill. In particular, I had hoped we could include a provision to close the boyfriend loophole. Most people don't know that while individuals convicted of domestic violence against a spouse are prevented from purchasing a firearm, that is not the case for those convicted of domestic violence against a dating partner.

We tried to get that part passed, and it is very disappointing that there was not sufficient bipartisan support for this provision to close what will remain a dangerous loophole.

So, clearly, we still have work to do. There are those of us who follow these assaults carefully and make a determination where this bill works and where it might need improvement, and I have just suggested one. So we will watch those figures carefully.

I would like to thank the many advocates who provided valuable input and support. This bill was written in close consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping survivors of domestic violence every day.

For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As Katie Ray-Jones, the CEO of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, noted, the Violence Against Women Act provides services with ``a variety of options to meet their evolving and complex needs for services and support.'' For example, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a single day in 2020, there were 76,525 survivors, in 1 day 75,000 women were affected by domestic violence who received assistance thanks to programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act.

So despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too many Americans. We need to say this over and over again. We need to change minds and change actions.

More than one in three women and more than one in four men will experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in my home State of California, approximately 35 percent of California women and 31 percent of California men will experience violence from intimate partners in their lifetimes. That is an amazing figure, if you think about it.

In conclusion, let me end with this: All too often, these instances of domestic violence have fatal consequences. Every day, people are killed by a current or former intimate partner. This law is long overdue.

And I want to thank the Members who have spoken on the floor and all those who voted for this law. We are glad to get it signed into law and hope to put an end to some of this.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and senior member of my team, Jim Lazarus, upon his recent retirement from public service. Jim has been a key adviser to me, in official roles and otherwise, for the past 40 years, and I wish him all the very best in retirement.

Jim has spent nearly 50 years of dedicated service to San Francisco and the people of California. After graduating from American University and the University of Santa Clara Law School, he was admitted to the California Bar in 1974 and went to work for Governor Jerry Brown where he, among other things, made strides in protecting the

rights of farmworkers. He then served as the deputy city attorney for the city of San Francisco when I was serving on the board of supervisors.

After a few years in private practice, I was lucky enough to bring Jim back to city hall in 1983 as executive deputy mayor for finance and administration. Jim helped run San Francisco, managing our operations and keeping us in good financial shape. Jim has said, ``The best job I ever had was the years I was deputy mayor to Feinstein, a great job if you're a San Franciscan and love the city.'' And I will add to that: The City of San Francisco benefited greatly from Jim's legal acumen and management during that critical time.

Jim served in a variety of public and civic positions after that, including with the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee, chief of staff to Mayor Frank Jordan, and even chief operating officer of the San Francisco Zoological Society.

Wherever there was a need to solve a problem, Jim was ready and willing to go. It was my good fortune to have him come back to my office in 1999 as State director for my Senate operation. In that role, he oversaw the staff across our State offices and advocated for California's needs in the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, Jim was a rolling stone and returned to the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in 2006, where he remained for 13 years as senior VP for public policy.

Anyone who knows San Francisco can imagine how challenging and sensitive that role must be. It combines the business interests of cutting-edge leaders in high tech, the longstanding commercial goals of mainstream U.S. businesses, and one of the most challenging legal and regulatory frameworks in the United States.

To my eternal gratitude, I was able to convince Jim, at the end of 2018, to put off retirement and come back one last time to be my State director. He was in that position when COVID hit the Nation, and our office went into overdrive to help Californians get through the pandemic and the economic collapse. He has overseen the State staff through California's two worst fire seasons on record and the growing drought. For many months, he has been a trusted friend and partner, going over the issues of day, business before the Senate, and life in San Francisco.

Jim's last day with the Senate was February 28, a day fittingly named ``Jim Lazarus Day'' in San Francisco by Mayor London Breed. His efforts have made the city a better place and have made me a more effective Senator. In addition to his work at the Federal level, he has been pivotal in protecting and strengthening the rights of so many Californians, to include the LGBT community, the business community, renters, and those seeking clean air and water. He has made a huge mark over decades improving the services and culture of San Francisco.

Jim has now retired and plans to spend more time with his wife Ann and their children Kate, Nicole, Jack, and Michael. I have no doubt that he will keep his oar in civic life, and I will leave the door open for another chat over a glass of California Chardonnay.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. This bill would reauthorize our Nation's critical law to respond to domestic violence. It is long overdue.

Last month, I introduced the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act alongside Senators Ernst, Durbin, Murkowski, and others. A number of advocates joined us, including Angelina Jolie, to speak about the importance of this bill.

This bill has received strong bipartisan support, including from 11 Republican cosponsors. And it has now been included in the Federal Omnibus spending bill we are set to vote on this week.

This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act through 2027. And the bill includes important updates to modernize the Violence Against Women Act to do an even better job of protecting and supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994. And I have supported each reauthorization of the law since then.

This includes the most recent reauthorization in 2013, which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 78-22.

I was honored to be able to sponsor this new reauthorization, which expands protections for survivors.

This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort. I would like to thank Senators Ernst, Durbin, and Murkowski for working with me to prepare this important piece of legislation.

We have also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have made important contributions to this effort.

I would also like to thank the many advocates who provided valuable input and support for this effort. This bill was written in close consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping survivors of domestic violence every day.

Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and strengthens existing programs.

For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I hope that this bill will be an effective tool to build on those efforts.

The need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is clear. These programs are vital tools that provide thousands of domestic violence survivors with the resources they need.

For instance, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a single day in 2020 there were

76,525 survivors of domestic violence who received assistance thanks to programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act.

Despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too many Americans.

More than one in three women and more than one in four men will experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in my home State of California, approximately 35 percent of California women and 31 percent of California men will experience violence from intimate partners in their lifetimes.

All too often, these instances of domestic violence have fatal consequences. Nationwide, an average of three women each day are killed by a current or former intimate partner.

Based on a recent study of domestic violence occurring in Orange County, CA, just under half of domestic violence-related homicides involved an individual with a known history of violence.

The Violence Against Women Act plays a critical role supporting law enforcement in their efforts to stop these perpetrators before it is too late.

It is clear that the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act are necessary. And they need to be continually updated to meet the needs of survivors.

The bipartisan reauthorization bill that will soon be considered by the full Senate would reauthorize these important programs and provide the necessary updates to strengthen them.

This bill enhances and expands services for survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life.

This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands.

This bill establishes a pilot program on restorative practices that focuses on addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking through community-based, victim-initiated efforts to seek accountability.

This bill invests in prevention education efforts and improves the healthcare system's response to sexual violence across the country.

These updates can have a real impact. According to analysis by the International Association of Forensic Nurses, only one in four hospitals throughout the country currently has a sexual assault forensic nurse on staff. These gaps in our healthcare system have critical impacts on a survivor's ability to seek necessary medical attention after they experience sexual violence.

Our bipartisan bill seeks to remedy this problem by providing additional funding and training to increase access to forensic nurses, particularly in rural areas.

Though this bipartisan bill makes significant improvements to our Nation's response to domestic violence, it is not a perfect bill. I regret that certain provisions were unable to be included in this bill.

In particular, I wish that we had been able to include a provision in this bill closing the ``boyfriend loophole.'' This provision would have ensured that individuals convicted of domestic abuse against a dating partner could not purchase firearms.

Individuals who are convicted of domestic violence against a spouse are already prevented from purchasing a firearm. It is deeply disappointing that there is not sufficient bipartisan support for this commonsense provision to close this dangerous loophole.

Though we still have work to do, this bipartisan bill represents a strong step forward in protecting and supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

It is time for the Senate to pass this long-overdue reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation as it is considered on the floor. This bill is not for us; it is for the millions of brave survivors that deserve action from Congress.