Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act,'' which Senator Burr and I introduced today. Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Encouraging homeowners to take steps to reduce the risk of natural catastrophe damage to their homes has long been a goal of policy makers. In California, it has been a special challenge to incentivize individuals to purchase earthquake insurance and to harden their homes against potential earthquake damage.

The threat of natural disasters and extreme weather events has become a much greater problem in recent years due to climate change, which is driving an increasing frequency and severity of wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and other catastrophic events. This, in turn, is reducing the availability and increasing the costs of insurance for individuals and businesses.

A growing number of states, including California, have begun offering rebates to homeowners to improve their homes to mitigate against damage from such events. Unfortunately, many homeowners are unaware that they are required to pay Federal income taxes on these rebates and are surprised to be stuck with that bill. Other homeowners who are aware of the tax implications are disincentivized from making these improvements to their homes.

The ``Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act'' would exempt such State rebates for disaster mitigation improvements from taxable income. This would eliminate the unexpected bill homeowners face, increasing the incentive to make these improvements, which benefit all of us.

I also note that such State rebates for energy conservation improvements are already excluded from taxable income. Thus, our bill would simply put disaster mitigation rebates on par with energy conservation measures.

I am pleased that Congress is exploring many ways to address climate change-related matters. Encouraging homeowners to make their properties more resistant to natural catastrophe damage is one way to help.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan ``Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screenings Act,'' which would protect access to annual mammograms by ensuring breast cancer screenings are covered through insurance for women starting at age 40.

With the exception of skin cancers, breast cancer continues to be the most common cancer in American women and second leading cause of cancer death in women behind lung cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, in 2021, about 281,550 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women and about 43,600 women will die from breast cancer.

Fortunately, we're seeing the death rate for breast cancer go down with a decrease of 1 percent per year from 2013 to 2018. According to the American Cancer Society, this has been largely credited to earlier diagnosis of breast cancer through screening and patient awareness, in addition to improvements that have been achieved in breast cancer treatments.

Mammography has been the best test we have at finding breast cancer early, providing a better chance of survival after diagnosis. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, women with insurance coverage are more likely to report having had a mammogram in the past two years compared to uninsured women. But while regular breast cancer screenings have helped tremendously in the early detection of breast cancer, health insurance coverage of these screenings for women in their forties is at risk.

While leading medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology support women having no-cost access to breast cancer screenings starting at age 40, the actual decision of coverage is typically determined using recommendations by an independent volunteer panel known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Unfortunately, when USPSTF updated its breast screening guidelines in 2015 to recommend that women should start mammography screenings at age 50, health coverage without cost sharing was put in jeopardy for women in their 40s.

The ``Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screenings Act'' was first introduced shortly thereafter to postpone these recommendations that would have limited coverage for breast cancer screening. Congress has subsequently acted to extend this moratorium several times since then, most recently passing an extension in December 2020 that is set to expire January 1, 2023.

The benefits of screenings are clear, and we need to ensure that women in their forties continue to have coverage for, and access to, these screenings. To that end, we are reintroducing the ``Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screening Act'' to further protect access to mammography screenings that are covered at no cost to patients ages 40- 49. If passed, the current moratorium on USPSTF breast cancer screening guidelines would be extended through 2028.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total number of breast cancer screening tests received by women through CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program declined by 87% during April 2020 as compared with the previous 5-year averages for that month. This decline is attributed to reduced routine medical visits due to COVID-19. Consequences of these prolonged delays in screening include delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities. Further removing barriers to screening by ensuring patients are covered at no cost will be crucial as the public begins to resume routine preventive health services.

I am honored to be joined by Senators Blackburn and Shaheen in introducing this legislation. I am also very grateful for supporters of this bill, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, American Women Unite for Breast Cancer Screening, Black Women's Health Imperative, Breast Care of Washington, Check for a Lump, DenseBreast-Info, FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Living Beyond Breast Cancer, Men Supporting Women With Cancer, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, National Black Nurses Association, National Consortium of Breast Centers, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Medical Association, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Servicewomen's Action Network, Sharsheret, Society of Breast Imaging, Society of Breast Imaging, Susan G. Komen and the Tigerlily Foundation.

I urge my colleagues to join us in protecting access to lifesaving screenings by supporting the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan ``Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screenings Act,'' which would protect access to annual mammograms by ensuring breast cancer screenings are covered through insurance for women starting at age 40.

With the exception of skin cancers, breast cancer continues to be the most common cancer in American women and second leading cause of cancer death in women behind lung cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, in 2021, about 281,550 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women and about 43,600 women will die from breast cancer.

Fortunately, we're seeing the death rate for breast cancer go down with a decrease of 1 percent per year from 2013 to 2018. According to the American Cancer Society, this has been largely credited to earlier diagnosis of breast cancer through screening and patient awareness, in addition to improvements that have been achieved in breast cancer treatments.

Mammography has been the best test we have at finding breast cancer early, providing a better chance of survival after diagnosis. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, women with insurance coverage are more likely to report having had a mammogram in the past two years compared to uninsured women. But while regular breast cancer screenings have helped tremendously in the early detection of breast cancer, health insurance coverage of these screenings for women in their forties is at risk.

While leading medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology support women having no-cost access to breast cancer screenings starting at age 40, the actual decision of coverage is typically determined using recommendations by an independent volunteer panel known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Unfortunately, when USPSTF updated its breast screening guidelines in 2015 to recommend that women should start mammography screenings at age 50, health coverage without cost sharing was put in jeopardy for women in their 40s.

The ``Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screenings Act'' was first introduced shortly thereafter to postpone these recommendations that would have limited coverage for breast cancer screening. Congress has subsequently acted to extend this moratorium several times since then, most recently passing an extension in December 2020 that is set to expire January 1, 2023.

The benefits of screenings are clear, and we need to ensure that women in their forties continue to have coverage for, and access to, these screenings. To that end, we are reintroducing the ``Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screening Act'' to further protect access to mammography screenings that are covered at no cost to patients ages 40- 49. If passed, the current moratorium on USPSTF breast cancer screening guidelines would be extended through 2028.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total number of breast cancer screening tests received by women through CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program declined by 87% during April 2020 as compared with the previous 5-year averages for that month. This decline is attributed to reduced routine medical visits due to COVID-19. Consequences of these prolonged delays in screening include delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities. Further removing barriers to screening by ensuring patients are covered at no cost will be crucial as the public begins to resume routine preventive health services.

I am honored to be joined by Senators Blackburn and Shaheen in introducing this legislation. I am also very grateful for supporters of this bill, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, American Women Unite for Breast Cancer Screening, Black Women's Health Imperative, Breast Care of Washington, Check for a Lump, DenseBreast-Info, FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Living Beyond Breast Cancer, Men Supporting Women With Cancer, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, National Black Nurses Association, National Consortium of Breast Centers, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Medical Association, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Servicewomen's Action Network, Sharsheret, Society of Breast Imaging, Society of Breast Imaging, Susan G. Komen and the Tigerlily Foundation.

I urge my colleagues to join us in protecting access to lifesaving screenings by supporting the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President: I rise today to reintroduce bipartisan legislation. The ``Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2021'' is cosponsored by Senators Pat Toomey, Bob Menendez, and Susan Collins and would end the corn ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard.

The mandate requires annual increases in the amount of renewable fuel that must be blended into the total volume of gasoline refined and consumed in the United States.

Our bill would amend the Renewable Fuel Standard to remove the volume requirements for corn ethanol while leaving in place the requirement that oil companies use low-carbon advanced bio fuels, including cellulosic biofuel and biodiesel.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was initially included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and subsequently amended in 2007. The RFS sought to reduce our dependence on oil and increase production of biofuels for transportation. It requires gasoline and diesel producers to blend increasing volumes of renewable biofuels in their supply.

The law includes separate volume requirements for four categories of biofuels: 1) unspecified (completely filled by corn ethanol, also called the ``corn ethanol mandate''); 2) advanced biofuels; 3) cellulosic biofuel; and 4) biodiesel.

The EPA is authorized to reduce the required volumes if supply does not match the statutory volume. Every year since 2014, the total production of all ethanol exceeded the ``blend wall''--the amount of ethanol that can safely be blended into the fuel supply, which is about 10% of gasoline. A blend beyond 10% ethanol can damage car engines.

Unfortunately, rather than encourage the development of more advanced biofuels with lower carbon emissions, the RFS has resulted in a market flooded with ethanol, which has higher carbon emissions than other advanced biofuels.

This year oil companies will be required to use 33 billion gallons of renewable fuel, and next year the requirement will increase to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel.

The original law requires that an increasing portion of this mandate be met using low-carbon advanced biofuels that are not derived from corn starch and reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent.

However, last year, 15 billion gallons of the statutory requirement was met using corn ethanol.

The corn ethanol mandate is unwise and unworkable for several reasons.

First, the corn ethanol mandate results in 40% of the U.S. corn crop being used for fuel and not food, nearly double the rate compared to before the RFS was passed. Ethanol production requires 38 million acres of land--an area larger than the state of Illinois--which could be used to feed 150 million people.

We should prioritize our agriculture and land use toward feeding people and combating the climate crisis, not perpetuating it, particularly when severe drought threatens crops throughout the West.

Second, the corn ethanol mandate has increased the price of corn and products made from corn, such as livestock feed. This has made it more expensive for families to put food on their table.

Third, corn ethanol production achieves little to no reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over regular oil and poses other environmental risks, including deforestation, habitat destruction and diminished water quality or availability due to cropland expansion.

Finally, as fuel economy standards and increased vehicle electrification drive down gasoline consumption, the RFS mandate exceeds the limit at which ethanol can be blended safely into the fuel supply--roughly 10% of total gasoline consumption.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's final 2013 rule establishing renewable fuel standards, the ``EPA does not foresee a scenario in which the market could consume enough ethanol . . . to meet the volumes . . . stated in the statute.''

The Congressional Budget Office confirmed this judgment in a June 2014 report, saying that the statutory goal of escalating corn ethanol volumes would be ``very hard to meet in future years.''

The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act would make necessary fixes to the Renewable Fuel Standard, reducing our reliance on corn ethanol.

Our bill would address the blend wall directly, thereby allowing EPA to continue increasing volumes of lowcarbon advanced biofuels.

It would also maintain important provisions that encourage the development of low-carbon advanced biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol, algae-based fuel and biodiesel.

This would increase the market for the innovative, nascent, domestic industry that this statute was designed to support.

The Federal corn ethanol mandate no longer makes sense when better, lower-carbon alternatives exist. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation to eliminate the corn ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Twenty-First Century Dams Act,'' which I introduced today. I would like to thank Senators Padilla, Wyden, Stabenow, Peters, Gillibrand, and Bennet, who have joined me in introducing the bill.

This bill represents a remarkable and historic coalition of groups that are often at odds: environmentalists, the hydropower industry, and dam safety advocates have come together to advance this proposal to modernize our nation's more than 90,000 dams. This breakthrough agreement is the result of a process launched three years ago and led by Stanford University's Woods Institute and Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, with additional direction from the Energy Futures Initiative.

Our Nation's dams serve many important public purposes, including water supply, flood control, recreation, and, where appropriately mitigated, clean energy generation that will help slow climate change. But the dams also block off key habitat for fish, and can reduce flows needed for the health of rivers.

As a result, conservationists have often fought proposals to upgrade older hydropower facilities or construct new water-powered energy- storage projects, undertaking lengthy regulatory disputes over environmental safeguards.

The historic coalition advocating for this bill has agreed to try a different approach by working together. They jointly support three principles for modernizing dams known as the ``3 Rs'': rehabilitate, retrofit, and remove.

1) First, rehabilitate. Our bill increases investments in rehabilitating dams to improve their safety. Many of our nation's dams were built more than 50 years ago to safety standards that are insufficient today, all the more so because climate change is increasing the extreme weather events, like super storms, that dams will have to withstand to avoid catastrophic failures.

2) Second, retrofit. Hydropower provides the United States with more than seven percent of its electricity and over 90% of its current electricity storage capacity. Both the private and Federal hydropower fleet generate electricity, and hydropower facilities can complement variable solar and wind power sources and provide long-duration energy storage, critical to decarbonizing the grid. DOE estimates that by maintaining and retrofitting existing powered dams, U.S. hydropower electricity output could reduce carbon emissions by 5.1 billion metric tons by 2050 while supporting nearly 200,000 clean energy jobs. Retrofitting dams also includes measures to make them less ecologically damaging.

3) Third, removal. There are ample opportunities to remove unnecessary dams that no longer provide benefits to the population, have safety issues that cannot be mitigated in a cost-effective way, and/or have significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed. Dam removals can improve public safety, restore the natural functions of rivers, help endangered fish species, create jobs, protect important environmental and cultural resources, and increase the climate resilience of U.S. rivers.

I would like to now talk about how the bill would advance each of the ``3 Rs:'' rehabilitations, retrofits, and removals.

Rehabilitations of dams to improve their safety has long been a goal of mine. As Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, last year I funded for the first time the Army Corps of Engineers' loan program under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or WIFIA. This program focuses on dam safety, and will use $14 million in federal appropriations to back loans supporting approximately $1 billion in dam safety projects.

Dam safety has been underfunded at Federal, State, and local levels for many years. There are nearly 6,000 non-federal high hazard potential dams, which are at high risk of failure with probable loss of human life if they were to fail. The Association of State Dam Safety officials has estimated that the total cost of rehabilitating these dams exceeds $20 billion.

The bill proposes a series of investments to meet this critical need:

FEMA's grant program for non-Federal high hazard potential dams would be funded at $1 billion over 5 years, up from $10-12 million per year in recent years.

2) USDA's Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act would provide another $500 million for rehabilitating non-Federal dams over 5 years, up from just $10 million in the most recent appropriations bill.

3) The Army Corps' WIFIA program, which I mentioned earlier, would be funded at $250 million over 5 years, a 250% increase over the most recent appropriations bill. This could support as much as $15 billion in loans for non-Federal dam safety projects.

4) The bill would also authorize funds to building existing state regulatory oversight capacity, mapping the potential consequences of dam failure, and modernizing the National Dam Safety Program.

Dam safety funding in the bill totals $2.405 billion over five years, plus $15 billion in lending capacity to rehabilitate dangerous non- Federal dams.

While public safety is paramount, it is also critical that we manage our dams as part of a comprehensive strategy to address climate change. As I mentioned before, hydropower facilities can ``firm up'' variable solar and wind power sources, critical to decarbonizing the grid, by both producing 24/7 electricity and providing substantial electricity storage capacity for variable resources.

The coalition proposal has a two-part strategy to advance the second ``R'' of retrofitting dams. First is investing in existing Federal dams, which make up roughly 50% of all U.S. hydropower generation. Federal dam investments are essential to maintain this energy resource.

The bill authorizes $11 billion over five years to improve the safety and renewable energy generating capacity, and reduce environmental impacts of federally owned dams across the United States. These investments are focused on the largest Federal dam-owning agencies, including:

1) $8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers;

2) $2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation;

3) $650 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and

4) $350 million for the Forest Service.

The bill also authorizes $200 million for the Department of Energy for research, development, and deployment to support innovative waterpower technologies, technologies to improve retrofitting and rehabilitating hydropower dams, and furthering the contribution of hydropower to grid resilience.

The coalition has also proposed establishing a 30% tax credit for investment at qualifying facilities in dam safety, environmental improvements, grid flexibility, and dam removals, with a direct pay alternative. Due to Senate rules regarding committee jurisdiction, it makes sense to move this tax credit provision separately. Senators Cantwell and Murkowski have introduced separate bipartisan legislation regarding this tax credit proposal, which they are actively discussing with the Senate Finance Committee.

Let me now turn to the third ``R''--removal of unnecessary dams. Around the nation there are thousands of dams, in many cases built a century or more ago, which no longer provide significant societal benefits, but block fish passage to critical habitats and otherwise harm river ecosystems.

A twenty-first century dam strategy would be wholly incomplete without provisions to remove these unnecessary dams. The bill creates an interagency council and a stakeholder advisory committee to help administer funding to remove dams where appropriate. Identifying candidates for dam removal will follow these guiding principles:

1) The dam owner must give consent;

2) The priority is to remove dams that pose a significant public safety hazard, or non-powered dams whose removal would provide significant ecological value; and

3) Consideration of the extent to which the dam provides critical beneficial uses, the magnitude of public benefits from dam removal, and the cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility of dam removal.

Because dam removal can be a difficult issue, I believe it is critical to establish the framework in this bill for identifying which dams are appropriate for removal, and which are not. Within this framework, the bill authorizes $7.5 billion in funding over 5 years for multiple Federal agencies with dam removal authorities, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Forest Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The broad goal of these provisions is to reconnect 10,000 river miles through the removal of 1,000 dams. In addition to ecological benefits that could transform the prospects for many endangered fish populations, these projects would also create over 100,000 jobs.

I want to again congratulate the hydropower industry, environmental community, and dam safety advocates that have come together in the coalition proposing this bill. This is an historic coalition, and the coalition's proposal gives the Senate a remarkable opportunity to advance three critical goals:

1) Rehabilitating aging dams that pose public safety risks and need major investments to withstand the extreme flooding events that are coming with climate change;

2) Retrofitting our Federal and non-Federal dam fleets to increase clean energy generation and slow climate change, while reducing the dams' environmental impacts; and

3) Removing unnecessary dams to open up critical habitat for endangered fish populations and restore the health of our precious rivers.

Our colleague, Representative Annie Kuster (NH-02), has introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives together with Representatives Don Young (AK-AL), Kim Schrier M.D. (WA-08), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Debbie Dingell (Ml-12), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Nanette Diaz Barragan (CA-44), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), and Scott Peters (CA-52). I look forward to working with these House members to advance this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act,'' which would establish a new Federal grant program to increase support for comprehensive services paired with housing to address our Nation's current homelessness crisis.

As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--families with children, veterans, individuals with mental health conditions and struggling with addiction, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going to simply resolve itself on its own.

According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 580,000 homeless individuals and families in the United States. More than 25 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 161,548 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night.

In a Nation as prosperous as ours, we can and we must do better, especially as we address this crisis in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. Our city, County, State, and Federal governments must work hand-in-hand with the non-profit and private sectors to establish collaborative efforts to significantly address the issue of homelessness.

The good news is that we have seen a model that works: supportive housing, which helps meet homeless individuals and families where they are. This approach can help stabilize an individual or family and change their life. Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse

treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.

One success story is the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles. This shelter allows homeless and formerly homeless women to transform their lives through a combination of permanent, supportive housing and workforce development. This would not be possible without the Center's partnerships with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Health, and other critical stakeholders. I've visited the Center and encourage my colleagues to do the same to see why this model works.

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

Without a doubt, it will take a significant investment to solve the current homelessness crisis. That is why I am introducing the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act,'' which would authorize a new Federal funding stream of $1 billion per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services and must provide a 25 percent match for any Federal funds received.

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

This bill supports the great work already being done across the Country, allowing local governmental entities and non-profit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will make the most effective impact.

This legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local governments, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the Mayors and CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, National Alliance to End Homelessness, Corporation for Supportive Housing, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Twenty-First Century Dams Act,'' which I introduced today. I would like to thank Senators Padilla, Wyden, Stabenow, Peters, Gillibrand, and Bennet, who have joined me in introducing the bill.

This bill represents a remarkable and historic coalition of groups that are often at odds: environmentalists, the hydropower industry, and dam safety advocates have come together to advance this proposal to modernize our nation's more than 90,000 dams. This breakthrough agreement is the result of a process launched three years ago and led by Stanford University's Woods Institute and Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, with additional direction from the Energy Futures Initiative.

Our Nation's dams serve many important public purposes, including water supply, flood control, recreation, and, where appropriately mitigated, clean energy generation that will help slow climate change. But the dams also block off key habitat for fish, and can reduce flows needed for the health of rivers.

As a result, conservationists have often fought proposals to upgrade older hydropower facilities or construct new water-powered energy- storage projects, undertaking lengthy regulatory disputes over environmental safeguards.

The historic coalition advocating for this bill has agreed to try a different approach by working together. They jointly support three principles for modernizing dams known as the ``3 Rs'': rehabilitate, retrofit, and remove.

1) First, rehabilitate. Our bill increases investments in rehabilitating dams to improve their safety. Many of our nation's dams were built more than 50 years ago to safety standards that are insufficient today, all the more so because climate change is increasing the extreme weather events, like super storms, that dams will have to withstand to avoid catastrophic failures.

2) Second, retrofit. Hydropower provides the United States with more than seven percent of its electricity and over 90% of its current electricity storage capacity. Both the private and Federal hydropower fleet generate electricity, and hydropower facilities can complement variable solar and wind power sources and provide long-duration energy storage, critical to decarbonizing the grid. DOE estimates that by maintaining and retrofitting existing powered dams, U.S. hydropower electricity output could reduce carbon emissions by 5.1 billion metric tons by 2050 while supporting nearly 200,000 clean energy jobs. Retrofitting dams also includes measures to make them less ecologically damaging.

3) Third, removal. There are ample opportunities to remove unnecessary dams that no longer provide benefits to the population, have safety issues that cannot be mitigated in a cost-effective way, and/or have significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed. Dam removals can improve public safety, restore the natural functions of rivers, help endangered fish species, create jobs, protect important environmental and cultural resources, and increase the climate resilience of U.S. rivers.

I would like to now talk about how the bill would advance each of the ``3 Rs:'' rehabilitations, retrofits, and removals.

Rehabilitations of dams to improve their safety has long been a goal of mine. As Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, last year I funded for the first time the Army Corps of Engineers' loan program under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or WIFIA. This program focuses on dam safety, and will use $14 million in federal appropriations to back loans supporting approximately $1 billion in dam safety projects.

Dam safety has been underfunded at Federal, State, and local levels for many years. There are nearly 6,000 non-federal high hazard potential dams, which are at high risk of failure with probable loss of human life if they were to fail. The Association of State Dam Safety officials has estimated that the total cost of rehabilitating these dams exceeds $20 billion.

The bill proposes a series of investments to meet this critical need:

FEMA's grant program for non-Federal high hazard potential dams would be funded at $1 billion over 5 years, up from $10-12 million per year in recent years.

2) USDA's Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act would provide another $500 million for rehabilitating non-Federal dams over 5 years, up from just $10 million in the most recent appropriations bill.

3) The Army Corps' WIFIA program, which I mentioned earlier, would be funded at $250 million over 5 years, a 250% increase over the most recent appropriations bill. This could support as much as $15 billion in loans for non-Federal dam safety projects.

4) The bill would also authorize funds to building existing state regulatory oversight capacity, mapping the potential consequences of dam failure, and modernizing the National Dam Safety Program.

Dam safety funding in the bill totals $2.405 billion over five years, plus $15 billion in lending capacity to rehabilitate dangerous non- Federal dams.

While public safety is paramount, it is also critical that we manage our dams as part of a comprehensive strategy to address climate change. As I mentioned before, hydropower facilities can ``firm up'' variable solar and wind power sources, critical to decarbonizing the grid, by both producing 24/7 electricity and providing substantial electricity storage capacity for variable resources.

The coalition proposal has a two-part strategy to advance the second ``R'' of retrofitting dams. First is investing in existing Federal dams, which make up roughly 50% of all U.S. hydropower generation. Federal dam investments are essential to maintain this energy resource.

The bill authorizes $11 billion over five years to improve the safety and renewable energy generating capacity, and reduce environmental impacts of federally owned dams across the United States. These investments are focused on the largest Federal dam-owning agencies, including:

1) $8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers;

2) $2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation;

3) $650 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and

4) $350 million for the Forest Service.

The bill also authorizes $200 million for the Department of Energy for research, development, and deployment to support innovative waterpower technologies, technologies to improve retrofitting and rehabilitating hydropower dams, and furthering the contribution of hydropower to grid resilience.

The coalition has also proposed establishing a 30% tax credit for investment at qualifying facilities in dam safety, environmental improvements, grid flexibility, and dam removals, with a direct pay alternative. Due to Senate rules regarding committee jurisdiction, it makes sense to move this tax credit provision separately. Senators Cantwell and Murkowski have introduced separate bipartisan legislation regarding this tax credit proposal, which they are actively discussing with the Senate Finance Committee.

Let me now turn to the third ``R''--removal of unnecessary dams. Around the nation there are thousands of dams, in many cases built a century or more ago, which no longer provide significant societal benefits, but block fish passage to critical habitats and otherwise harm river ecosystems.

A twenty-first century dam strategy would be wholly incomplete without provisions to remove these unnecessary dams. The bill creates an interagency council and a stakeholder advisory committee to help administer funding to remove dams where appropriate. Identifying candidates for dam removal will follow these guiding principles:

1) The dam owner must give consent;

2) The priority is to remove dams that pose a significant public safety hazard, or non-powered dams whose removal would provide significant ecological value; and

3) Consideration of the extent to which the dam provides critical beneficial uses, the magnitude of public benefits from dam removal, and the cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility of dam removal.

Because dam removal can be a difficult issue, I believe it is critical to establish the framework in this bill for identifying which dams are appropriate for removal, and which are not. Within this framework, the bill authorizes $7.5 billion in funding over 5 years for multiple Federal agencies with dam removal authorities, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Forest Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The broad goal of these provisions is to reconnect 10,000 river miles through the removal of 1,000 dams. In addition to ecological benefits that could transform the prospects for many endangered fish populations, these projects would also create over 100,000 jobs.

I want to again congratulate the hydropower industry, environmental community, and dam safety advocates that have come together in the coalition proposing this bill. This is an historic coalition, and the coalition's proposal gives the Senate a remarkable opportunity to advance three critical goals:

1) Rehabilitating aging dams that pose public safety risks and need major investments to withstand the extreme flooding events that are coming with climate change;

2) Retrofitting our Federal and non-Federal dam fleets to increase clean energy generation and slow climate change, while reducing the dams' environmental impacts; and

3) Removing unnecessary dams to open up critical habitat for endangered fish populations and restore the health of our precious rivers.

Our colleague, Representative Annie Kuster (NH-02), has introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives together with Representatives Don Young (AK-AL), Kim Schrier M.D. (WA-08), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Debbie Dingell (Ml-12), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Nanette Diaz Barragan (CA-44), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), and Scott Peters (CA-52). I look forward to working with these House members to advance this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act,'' which would establish a new Federal grant program to increase support for comprehensive services paired with housing to address our Nation's current homelessness crisis.

As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--families with children, veterans, individuals with mental health conditions and struggling with addiction, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going to simply resolve itself on its own.

According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 580,000 homeless individuals and families in the United States. More than 25 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 161,548 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night.

In a Nation as prosperous as ours, we can and we must do better, especially as we address this crisis in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. Our city, County, State, and Federal governments must work hand-in-hand with the non-profit and private sectors to establish collaborative efforts to significantly address the issue of homelessness.

The good news is that we have seen a model that works: supportive housing, which helps meet homeless individuals and families where they are. This approach can help stabilize an individual or family and change their life. Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse

treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.

One success story is the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles. This shelter allows homeless and formerly homeless women to transform their lives through a combination of permanent, supportive housing and workforce development. This would not be possible without the Center's partnerships with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Health, and other critical stakeholders. I've visited the Center and encourage my colleagues to do the same to see why this model works.

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

Without a doubt, it will take a significant investment to solve the current homelessness crisis. That is why I am introducing the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act,'' which would authorize a new Federal funding stream of $1 billion per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services and must provide a 25 percent match for any Federal funds received.

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

This bill supports the great work already being done across the Country, allowing local governmental entities and non-profit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will make the most effective impact.

This legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local governments, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the Mayors and CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, National Alliance to End Homelessness, Corporation for Supportive Housing, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

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

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Maria Isabel Bueso Barrera and her parents. Ms. Bueso is a Guatemalan national living in Concord, California. She has a rare medical condition, and her removal from the United States would deprive her of lifesaving medical care.

Ms. Bueso suffers from a rare, life-threatening disorder called Mucopolysaccharidosis Type VI (MPS-VI), a rare genetic condition caused by the absence of an enzyme that is needed for the growth of healthy bones and connective tissues. Ms. Bueso uses a wheelchair for mobility, has a shunt in her brain, and requires a tracheotomy to help her breathe.

In 2003, Ms. Bueso and her family came to the United States at the invitation of doctors who were conducting a clinical trial to treat her condition. That trial led to Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for MPS-VI. Ms. Bueso now receives this life-saving treatment every week at UCSF Children's Hospital in Oakland, CA, where she unoes a 6-hour infusion of a prescription drug that replaces the enzyme that people with MPS-VI lack. Ms. Bueso has participated in six other medical trials.

For the past 10 years, Isabel and her family received deferred action from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services so that she could continue receiving the treatments that keep her alive. This treatment is not available in Guatemala.

On August 13, 2019, USCIS notified Ms. Bueso and her family that their extensions of deferred action were denied, and that they would be deported if they did not leave the United States within 33 days.

This decision was effectively a death sentence for Ms. Bueso. USCIS ultimately reconsidered its decision and granted Ms. Bueso and her parents an additional extension of deferred action.

Ms. Bueso has beaten the odds because of the life-saving treatment that she has received in the United States. She is now 26 years old and a 2018 graduate of California State University, East Bay. She has become an outspoken advocate on behalf of people with rare diseases. Her family pays taxes, owns a home, and is active in their community.

The Bueso family should be allowed to remain in California, where they will continue to enrich their community, and where Isabel will be able to receive the care that allows her to survive and thrive.

The legislation that I am introducing today would provide a permanent solution for Isabel and her parents. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill, which makes the Bueso family eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the long career of public service provided to the people of Southern California by Jeffery Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, who is retiring after a 15-year tenure.

I would like to take a few moments to reflect on what an extraordinary leader Jeff has been not just for Southern California but for the whole State, Like Jeff, I care deeply about our water future. For years I have turned to him for his always wise counsel on how to solve the next challenge. Over these many years, I have come to view Jeff as a friend and to value our friendship. I have also learned to value equally his leadership abilities.

The treacherous politics of California water and the immense obstacles to getting anything done are legendary, but Jeff has always been up to the task. Jeff is not only one of the smartest people I know, but he has unparalleled ability to strategize how to approach a complex water negotiation. He has built deep and trusting relationships with many of the key players, not only in California but throughout the Colorado River Basin. Knowing the other parties as well as he does, Jeff is able to map out where there is the possibility of an agreement. He then is able to work steadily and patiently over months and years, gradually removing the obstacles until the parties can finally come together.

Many of Jeff's greatest accomplishments have come in guiding major changes within the Colorado River Basin, helping to collaboratively negotiate landmark pacts among a truce among 7 States, two countries, and 10 Native American tribes. These include the Quantification Settlement Agreement, the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, significant revisions to the U.S.-Mexico water treaty, innovative storage programs in Lake Mead, and the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan. This has laid a solid foundation for longer term solutions to be negotiated over the next several years. Jeff has helped forge Metropolitan's partnerships with agricultural districts that have replaced litigation with cooperation.

If you evaluate a leader by the results they accomplish, what Jeff has achieved in preparing Southern California for drought is extraordinary. In a time when much of the California and the West is desperate for water, Southern California stands out for how well it is prepared. Millions of acre feet of water in storage ensures that the region can weather this drought even if it lasts for several more years.

It took a whole suite of actions for Jeff and Metropolitan to get to this place. Knowing that the climate is changing and droughts will worsen, Metropolitan has invested, planned, and prepared, resulting in record water storage, reduced water usage in the region, and unprecedented drought resiliency. This didn't happen by itself. Metropolitan's conservation programs, including $350 million in turf removal incentives, transformed the Southern California landscape as Southern Californians embraced conservation as a way of life and permanently lowered water demands. Metropolitan has also launched the Regional Recycled Water Program Advanced Purification Center, a 500,000-gallon-per-day demonstration facility that could ultimately serve as one of the largest recycled water projects in the Nation.

Under Jeff's leadership, Metropolitan weathered the great recession and stabilized its finances while investing billions in restoring its aging conveyance system and improving its water treatment methods, setting a national example for how an agency can meet its infrastructure challenges. His record of environmental stewardship includes installing solar power at Metropolitan's water treatment plants and leading the organization's first efforts to address climate change. Through apprenticeships, recruitment, and promotions, Metropolitan was able to transfer the specialized knowledge of graying workforce to a new, diverse generation of water leaders.

No history of 21st century water in California and the West would be complete without acknowledging his contributions. Jeff has been an invaluable resource to myself, my staff, and those of numerous other Members with his expert analysis and advice that has informed our legislative work. His knowledge and counsel will be greatly missed. I ask our colleagues to join me in congratulating Jeff Kightlinger on his retirement and thanking him for his long career of public service to the people of Southern California.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Wood Facilities Assistance Act of 2021. My colleagues Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly are joining me as original cosponsors of the bill.

This bill will assist with the construction of facilities for mass timber, tall wood, and other innovative wood products, in order to make sustainable use of small-diameter timber from forest thinnings and other needed treatments in Eastern and Western forests.

The bill will also help to create jobs in disadvantaged rural and forest-dependent communities, and will help to reduce wildfire risk by removing dangerous fuels that can build up.

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

While Federal land management agencies are working to increase the pace and scale of restoration activities, clearly we need to do more. In California we are facing a severe drought, and even before the onset of this most recent drought there were 150 million dead or dying trees due to insect damage. We are truly facing a monumental challenge.

A recent comprehensive analysis by The Nature Conservancy and Bain and Company management consultants found that creating a restoration economy can play an important role in expanding the pace and scale of ecologically based forest restoration. The report recommended funding and incentives to ``bridge the gap between the cost of ecological thinning and the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure.''

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

Our bill responds to the challenge of developing funding measures to improve the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure to reduce the cost of forest restoration and provide valuable uses for the small diameter material.

Fortunately, we do not need to create a whole new program to improve the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure. The Forest Service has two existing grant programs that can help: the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program and the Wood Innovations Program.

These programs would benefit from amendments to increase their utility for improving the viability of wood-processing infrastructure. In particular, the program could benefit from higher Federal cost- shares and an increased ability to provide more funding for each project, in addition to a higher authorization of funding overall.

More specifically, our bill will revise the Forest Service's Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program, which provides assistance to the capital cost of small wood products facilities. Specifically, our bill would:

Increase the authorization from $25 million to $50 million per year;

Increase the maximum grant per facility from $1 to $5 million;

Increase the Federal cost-share from 35% to 50%; and

Increase the maximum size for community wood energy systems eligible for grant funding from 5 to 15 megawatts, among other provisions.

Our bill will also revise the Forest Service's Wood Innovations Grant Program, which provides grants for proposed innovative uses and applications and the expansion of markets for wood products. Our bill would reduce the minimum non-Federal cost-share from 50% to 33.3% and makes other technical changes identified by the Forest Service.

I thank the Senators who have joined me in cosponsoring this bill, and I urge the full Senate to promptly take up this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

Madam President, today the Senate is voting on whether to consider the For the People Act, also known as S. 1. I encourage all my colleagues to support Senate consideration of this crucial election reform bill.

This legislation would put a stop to new State laws across the country that are making it harder for Americans to register to vote and to cast their ballots. So far this year, at least 389 bills to suppress the ability to vote have been introduced in 48 States. At least 22 of these new bills have become law in 14 States.

These newly enacted laws undermine the right to vote from every direction: They create new and unnecessarily strict voter ID laws, which make it harder to vote for the 11 percent of U.S. citizens who do not have a government-issued photo ID, many of whom are elderly or low- income. They reduce the timeframes for early voting, a critical method of voting for many working Americans. And they impose severe limitations on voting by mail, a strategy that many States have used to significantly increase voter turnout over recent years.

These attacks have shown no signs of letting up. In Texas, a restrictive voting bill is pending before the State legislature that continues to get worse the longer it is considered. In its current form, the Texas bill would cut early voting hours, ban drive-through voting, limit vote-by-mail, and add new voter ID requirements for mail- in ballots, along with a host of other restrictions on the right to vote.

These restrictions are harmful to our democracy. We should be working to make it easier for more people to vote, not making it harder. The right to vote is a bedrock principle of our democracy. Unfortunately, many States are using unfounded conspiracy theories of voter fraud as an excuse to pass laws to weaken that fundamental right.

That is why we must pass the For the People Act. This bill will help to ensure that all Americans are able to vote, free of unnecessary hurdles and burdens. It includes a number of commonsense reforms that anyone who believes in the health of our democracy cannot possibly oppose in good conscience.

For example, one provision of S. 1 requires that States allow voters to register to vote online. In an age when you can cash a check, buy a car, and conduct a doctor's appointment entirely online, there is no reason a voter should not be able to register to vote online.

The bill also invests in the health of our election infrastructure by securing our voting systems against foreign attacks. The security of our voting systems should not be a partisan issue.

In addition, S. 1 would ban partisan gerrymandering and require States to draw their congressional districts using independent redistricting commissions, like we do in California. Voters should be able to choose their representatives; representatives should not be able to choose their voters.

We need to empower the voice of every American in our democracy. We need to make these commonsense reforms to our elections.

I understand that some of my colleagues have disagreements with specific parts of the bill. I would urge them to let the legislation come before the Senate and seek to amend it. But to deny this body the ability to even debate and consider such an important bill as this is unacceptable.

The time for these reforms is now. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this important legislation.

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

In reality, however, these products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for safety before being sold, and the FDA's authority to regulate these products are sorely outdated. In fact, it's been more than eighty years since the law has changed on how oversight is conducted for these products. It is time to finally bring the FDA into the 21st century.

For the better part of a decade, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide variety of stakeholders that represent industry, consumers, and health groups. Together, we introduce this Personal Care Products Safety bill with the support and input of these groups to implement commonsense and feasible measures.

One of the most critical components of this legislation is providing FDA with mandatory recall authority over these products. Without this authority, the agency has few options to ensure consumer safety.

For example, in 2019, the FDA discovered asbestos in make-up marketed to children and teens at a popular chain store. After the FDA requested that these products stop being sold, the company refused to comply with the request. Lacking the authority to mandate a recall, FDA was left with the only option of warning consumers not to use these products. This is simply unacceptable.

Under our bill, the FDA could remove these harmful products from the marketplace--whether at your local pharmacy or mall, or online. Perhaps even more importantly, our bill would set forth regulations to outline good manufacturing practices for personal care products and prevent harmful products from ever being sold.

Our bill would also require companies to register with the FDA so that the agency knows who is manufacturing personal care products and where they are being made before arriving in stores. Companies would also be required to disclose their list of ingredients, attest that they have safety records for their products, and report serious adverse events, such as infections that required medical treatment, to FDA within 15 days after being notified that one occurred.

This bill would also require the FDA to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and whether they should be used in personal care products. There would be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and other members of the public to weigh in not only on the safety of particular ingredients but also which ingredients should be a priority for review.

As I've said before, the ``Personal Care Products Safety Act'' is the result of many diverse groups working together to ensure businesses are able to provide the safest products possible to consumers. As such, this legislation also recognizes the needs of small businesses and provides flexibility to ensure they are able to comply with these new regulations while also upholding strong safety standards that protect consumers.

I am pleased that this legislation has the support of a broad coalition, including the Environmental Working Group, Beautycounter, Estee Lauder, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Revlon, L'Oreal USA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, the Endocrine Society, March of Dimes, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, the National Women's Health Network, Au Naturale Cosmetics, Burt's Bees Company, The Clorox Company, the Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild, and Procter & Gamble.

I want to thank Senator Collins for her support as well as her staff for their hard work on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in modernizing our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will finally pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Thank you Madam President. I yield the Floor.

Mrs. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``BASIC Act,'' which I introduced today.

I know how important it is to help students cover the full cost of attending college, including tuition and fees, housing, food, transportation, books, medical, childcare and supplies.

In California, even though State and institutional aid programs cover full tuition and fees for about half of students attending a California State University, University of California and California Community College, students struggle to pay for the remaining cost of attendance.

Each year, over 300,000 eligible applicants do not receive a state Cal Grant because of limited availability. Non-tuition college costs can exceed $20K annually. Low-income students may spend about half their family income on out-of-pocket costs after grant aid. This bill will help accelerate California's work to make college affordable and provide funding to reach more schools across California and across our Nation. This is especially important at a time when community college enrollment has slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among students of color, lower-income students, and students who have left to work or take care of family members.

As we work to build back better and increase affordability and accessibility

of higher education, we must help our students stay in school.

That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to authorize $1 billion for a new grant program to help institutions of higher education meet students' basic needs.

This funding represents an essential aspect of building more equitable paths to higher education, and it represents an investment in our students, our institutions, and our future.

This legislation recognizes the disproportionate impact this pandemic has on vulnerable populations and it helps coordinate assistance across federal agency lines.

I want to thank Senator Warren and Representative Torres for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this bill that ensures no student is forced to choose between their education and food or housing.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation to create an independent, bipartisan Commission to examine the January 6 attack on the Capitol that killed five people.

A full and honest review is critical not only to understand the events of that day but also to ensure the continued strength and well- being of our democracy.

On the afternoon of January 6, Americans watched in horror as thousands of insurrectionists stormed the Capitol to prevent the certification of a free and fair Presidential election.

Many of us carry vivid memories from that nightmarish day. We recall the panic and confusion, the shouting and chants of an angry mob, and the crashing of windows and doors being smashed inside these hallowed halls.

While many of us were on the Senate floor until being evacuated to a secure location by the Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms, we have learned since that violent members of the mob were minutes away from reaching the Senate Chamber with us inside.

Capitol Police officers, upholding their sworn duty to protect and defend the Capitol and Members of Congress, were beaten with sticks, bats, and even the American flag as the mob charged the building.

Rioters broke into this very Chamber, dropping down from the Gallery, some carrying zip ties presumably to restrain any Senators or police officers they caught. Others were chanting ``hang Mike Pence'' while a makeshift gallows was built outside the Capitol Building.

While these memories remain clear, I fear the record for January 6 is being blurred by misinformation and political posturing.

An independent, bipartisan commission is our best chance to set the record straight and establish the truth about the events on January 6.

Congressional committees, the Department of Justice, and President Trump's impeachment trial have conducted their own reviews of the violence on that day and some of the events leading up to it. However, those reviews weren't comprehensive and didn't have the stature of a congressionally mandated, independent, and bipartisan Commission, along the lines of the 9/11 Commission.

In addition to providing an independent and authoritative account of the January 6 attack, the Commission would evaluate the motivation for and planning of the attack, identify gaps in law enforcement preparation and response, and enable Congress and the administration to take action to prevent future attacks.

I would remind Senators that the same arguments being used against this Commission were used against forming the 9/11 Commission. ``Reviews are already underway. It will become political. We need to look forward, not backward.'' But the 9/11 Commission revealed critical new information about the planning and implementation of that attack and made recommendations that led to landmark legislation. It is now the model of an independent Commission, and the legislation before us today is based on that model.

I call upon every one of my colleagues to support this serious, comprehensive, and bipartisan review of the violent attack on the Capitol.

We owe it to the American people to pass this legislation and establish an independent Commission.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``San Francisco Bay Restoration Act.'' Thank you to Senator Padilla for cosponsoring and I am happy to be once again be working with Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who is leading the bill in the House.

This legislation would create a San Francisco Bay Program within the Environmental Protection Agency dedicated to conserving and protecting the San Francisco Bay estuary ecosystem--the largest estuary in the western United States.

The San Francisco Bay estuary is truly a national treasure, and it is vital to the nation's environmental and economic health. It is home to more than 1,000 plant and wildlife species, roughly 77% of California's remaining perennial estuarine wetlands, and an important stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. The Bay region produces more than $370 billion in goods and supports more than 4 million jobs.

Unfortunately, during the last 150 years, the water quality and health of the San Francisco Bay has been diminished. According to the United States Geological Survey, the Bay has lost 95% of its wetlands, which serve as both habitat for vulnerable species and as an important barrier to protect against climate change impacts such as rising sea levels and extreme weather events made only more common by global warming.

The program created within EPA to focus on the San Francisco Bay Estuary would increase federal investment into the San Francisco Bay Estuary to ensure that it can continue to support the environment, agriculture, and economy for generations to come.

A 2018 General Accounting Office report on the San Francisco Bay Delta Watershed found that the lack of sufficient Federal funding is one of the biggest risks to long-term restoration efforts, and a major factor limiting habitat restoration and water quality improvement.

The GAO noted that while Bay Area voters established a local funding source through a bond measure for some Bay restoration, local funding ``needs to be leveraged by significant state and Federal dollars to meet the estimated $1.5 billion needed for restoration in the Bay Area.''

This bill recognizes the important restoration work that must be done to protect and restore the iconic San Francisco Bay Estuary. It authorizes $50 million per year for five years for the creation of the San Francisco Program office.

This program office would work with local stakeholders to compile an annual list of project and study priorities that advance the goals of the National Estuary Program for the San Francisco Bay estuary.

Funds would be distributed by the agency in a competitive grant program, prioritizing projects that improve water quality, provide wetland restoration, promote endangered species recovery, and support adaptation to climate change.

This legislation would bring the Federal funding investment in line with other major estuaries in the country, like the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Puget Sound.

This is another example of the type of front-end investment in green infrastructure and natural resources that will only pay dividends in the future and, most importantly, for future generations.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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