Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Kobe Bryant and Gianna Bryant Helicopter Safety Act''. I'm pleased to be joined today by Senators Schumer, Blumenthal, and Markey in reintroducing this bill. Nearly one year ago today, on January 26, 2020, a helicopter carrying nine Californians flew into foggy weather and crashed minutes later. Los Angeles and the world soon learned that among the crash victims were basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna. After the crash, we soon learned the names and stories of John, Alyssa, and Keri Altobelli; Sarah and Payton Chester; Christina Mauser; and Ara Zobayan. These were spirited friends and family members connected by their love of sport, traveling to a weekend basketball tournament. The sudden and shocking nature of the accident touched many, and the public remembrances in Los Angeles and around the world to honor the victims are proof that their memories will not soon be forgotten. But this tragedy is one that could have been averted. A preliminary report and investigatory documents released by the National Transportation Safety Board indicate the helicopter was flying through thick clouds and fog, yet was not equipped with a terrain awareness and warning system. This technology provides pilots with real-time, inflight warning signals and an image of surrounding terrain. Since 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that all new and existing helicopters capable of carrying six or more passengers be equipped with terrain awareness and warning system technology. However, FAA has only required these warning systems for air ambulances. Nevertheless, this technology has become standard on new helicopters from Airbus, Bell, Leonardo, and Sikorsky since December 2018. But older helicopters remain vulnerable. Our bill also requires crash-resistant flight data and voice recorders. Otherwise known as black boxes, this technology is important for when accidents do happen and mistakes are made. It would allow agencies like the NTSB to have a better understanding of the incident and provide more information to the FAA to prevent future accidents. It is clear that additional steps are needed to ensure that helicopters can fly safely, both for the sake of passengers and those on the ground. Our bill offers a common-sense approach to preventing further accidents like this one. It would simply direct the FAA to implement the NTSB's recommendations to require terrain awareness and warning systems and flight data and voice recorders on all helicopters carrying six or more passengers. I appreciate the hard work of the National Transportation Safety Board in developing these important recommendations, and it is long past time that the FAA heeds its call. My thoughts continue to be with the victims and their loved ones impacted by this heartbreaking accident. It is critical that Congress pass our bill swiftly to ensure that such loss of life was not in vain. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Ali Mayorkas's nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I believe Ali is uniquely qualified to face the challenges our Nation is facing on day one. He brings to this office a diverse background and set of experiences in both the private and public sectors that will serve him well. I have known Ali for many years and am proud to have recommended him to President Clinton for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. I also worked very closely with Ali while he served as President Obama's Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later Deputy Secretary of DHS. We all know that the role of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is challenging. Recent history has shown the threats facing the United States are diverse and ever-changing. Over my many years working with Ali, I have witnessed his intelligence, kindness, and thoughtfulness, as well as the compassion and morality he brings with him to work every day. In many ways, Ali's life story reflects the spirit of the American dream, and I would like to briefly pass along some of that story today. Born in Havana, Cuba, Ali and his family fled to the United States in 1960. He attended the University of California-Berkeley, where he earned a bachelor's degree with distinction in 1981. He went on to earn his law degree from Loyola Law School in 1985. From 1989 to 1998, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California where he prosecuted a wide array of Federal crimes. Ali became the first U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California to be appointed from within the office when he was appointed in 1998. He created the Civil Rights Section in the office to prosecute hate crimes; he developed an innovative program to address violent crime by targeting criminals' possession of firearms; he led the prosecution of street gangs; and he still had time to develop an afterschool program to help at-risk youth. Ali's approach to enforcing our Nation's laws demonstrates a much- needed holistic view that understands the complexity of the challenge. He further developed his sharp legal skills as a partner at O'Melveny and Myers from 2001 to 2009 where he represented companies in high- profile and sensitive government enforcement cases. He was recognized by his worldwide firm for his leadership and was named by the National Law Journal in 2008 as one of the ``50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America.'' When Ali took over as Director of USCIS in 2009, he worked to administer our immigration laws while preserving our legacy as a nation of immigrants. He helped ensure integrity of our immigration laws by decreasing fraud and bringing accountability to our immigration system. Significantly, under President Obama's directive to grant deferred action to immigrants who arrived in this country as children, Ali successfully implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. This program played a critical role for hundreds of thousands of young people who were able to get jobs, acquire driver's licenses, purchase homes and go to college. I am proud that Ali will continue to play a role in allowing these young people to pursue the American dream. When Ali became the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama in 2013, he took on even more responsibility. He led the DHS response to the Ebola and Zika virus epidemics, as well as cybersecurity negotiations with China. He oversaw the agency's complex efforts to combat terrorism and enhance the security and management of our borders. He worked to facilitate trade and travel, and he oversaw the enforcement of our immigration laws. And he was responsible for coordinating efforts to safeguard cyberspace and oversee disaster coordination with Federal, State, local, international, and private sector partners. The United States faces new threats to our security every day. We need experienced, intelligent, and moral leadership at DHS to combat those threats. I have full confidence that Ali Mayorkas will bring all of those qualities to the role of Homeland Security Secretary. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Alejandro Mayorkas for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise in support of Janet Yellen's nomination to be Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. I've known Janet since she became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in 2004. I believe she is an excellent nominee for this position. Janet has an impressive record. She served twice on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and was the first woman to chair the Fed from 2014 to 2018. She became a professor of economics at the University of California--Berkeley in 1980, she is now professor emeritus. Dr. Yellen served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton and has been very active as a distinguished fellow at the Brookings Institution. As some have joked, Janet's husband of 42 years, George, won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, yet he is only the second-most accomplished economist in his own home. All of these accomplishments did not come easily for a woman in the male-dominated field of economics. Out of the 24 students who received doctorates in economics from Yale in 1971, Janet was the only woman. She has been a trailblazer her entire career. Now, Janet brings the experience and leadership needed at the Treasury Department at this critical juncture. I believe that Janet understands that the economy is not an abstract series of charts and figures, but a collection of real individuals, families, communities and businesses who need help now. At the same time, she is pragmatic and recognizes the need for fiscal discipline. I believe she made that clear in her confirmation before the Finance Committee, where I had the honor of introducing her. In short, she is the ideal candidate to head the Treasury Department at a time when we can afford nothing less. I urge the Senate to confirm her nomination. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Tony Blinken's nomination to be Secretary of State. I support Tony for Secretary of State for three key reasons. First, he has the diplomatic skills that our country needs at this pivotal moment to regain our leadership on the world stage. From 2015 to 2017, he served as Deputy Secretary of State, the Nation's second highest ranking diplomat. In that position, he helped lead U.S. efforts to combat terrorism, address rising concerns in Asia, and respond to Russian regional aggression. He is a crisis-tested leader who will hit the ground running at the State Department with critical knowledge and relationships with leaders worldwide. Second, Tony has a longstanding and trusted personal relationship with President Biden that will enable him to advise the President on key foreign policy issues. During President Obama's first term in office, he was National Security Advisor to then-Vice President Biden. Previously, Tony served as the Democratic staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 6 years when then-Senator Biden was committee chairman. It is because of his relationship with President Biden and his career as a public servant that Tony understands that the job of Secretary of State is not just to serve the American people, but to help improve the lives of people struggling all over the world. Last but certainly not least, Tony has the experience of serving at the State Department that will help him rebuild the Department, recruiting needed Foreign Service Officers and civilians, ensuring State personnel have the training they need to be effective in their mission, restoring morale throughout the Department, and empowering our diplomats to speak on behalf of him and President Biden. Tony will help our country repair the damage of the last 4 years and restore the United States as a leader and trusted ally. I look forward to working with him to advance our mutual objectives of promoting peace and security, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of General Lloyd Austin's confirmation to be Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination in the vote we are about to take. General Austin has proven through his 41-year military career that he is extremely capable of leading our military as they confront multiple challenges. First, General Austin is a proven leader that will provide stability within our military ranks. After 4 years of tumultuous leadership under the Trump administration, our troops deserve a steady hand to lead them in the defense of our Nation. Moreover, our allies need a Secretary of Defense who speaks reliably on behalf of the President. Second, General Austin brings a wealth of experience to counter global defense challenges. He oversaw U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, served as a Vice Chief of Staff of the Army where he worked to increase diversity in the highest ranks of our military, and commanded U.S. Central Command in its fight against ISIS and other regional threats. Third, General Austin's previous appointments to the Joint Staff and as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army prepared him to tackle strategic issues in the Department of Defense. He has committed to filling key positions with personnel that bring civilian expertise, a sign he fully respects civilian control of the military. Finally, our country faces several threats that President Biden's administration must address immediately. General Austin's intimate knowledge of our military will allow him to hit the ground running at the Department and make wise investments that deter global aggressors. I especially welcome General Austin's pledge to support our country's pandemic response efforts, such as helping with the distribution of vaccines nationwide. Through his leadership, the military can provide much needed medical and logistical support to counter the COVID pandemic. We are facing an unprecedented set of national security challenges, both at home and overseas. I have full confidence in General Austin's ability to help us overcome these challenges, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I today rise in support of the nomination of Ms. Avril Haines as the Director of National Intelligence. Last night, the Senate overwhelming voted to confirm Ms. Avril Haines as the Director of National Intelligence with a vote of 84-10. I voted in support of Director Haines as I believe her to be a highly-qualified professional with the trust and mandate by President Biden to be a strong leader and reinstall stability and objectivity to the intelligence community. She has pledged to defend and uphold our democracy, our freedoms and our values by ensuring there is simply no place for politics ever when it comes to intelligence. It is clear from her background that Ms. Haines has the experience necessary to be an effective DNI. She has served as both the Deputy Director of CIA and as Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, along with other positions in the White House and Congress. Her nearly 20 years of experience in national security, intelligence, and foreign policy matters gives her valuable insight into the many challenges facing the intelligence community and makes her a great choice for Director of National Intelligence. Based on my conversations with Director Haines and her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am fully confident she has what it takes to put the IC on the right path. During her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Director Haines outlined her top three priorities: No. 1, strengthening the institution including increasing trust and credibility with analytic objectivity; No. 2, better aligning IC efforts and resources to the major threats we are facing such as China and transnational threats; and No. 3, building better partnerships Congress, academia, the private sector, U.S. State and local officials, and with other countries. I strongly agree on these significant priorities and look forward to periodically receiving updates from her on these. Furthermore, I thank her for her clearly stated position that waterboarding is, in fact, torture and that the CIA's former interrogation program's enhanced interrogation techniques included torture. In short, she is the ideal candidate to head the intelligence community at a time when we face numerous crisis threatening our national security. She inherits an intelligence community beset by challenges, and I look forward to working with her to protect the American people.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. Today has been a dark day that will take a long time and a lot of work to overcome. It has been a day truly unworthy of our Nation. I thank the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Secret Service, the law enforcement officers from Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia, the National Guard, and others who have protected this institution and the U.S. Congress today. There will be time to say more about today's events, but I rise now to speak about the unprecedented actions today to attempt to undermine a fairly and properly conducted democratic election. Under our system of government, States bear the primary responsibility for runninq elections and certifying election results, and that is exactly what we have seen--all 50 States and the District of Columbia have certified the results of the 2020 Presidential election. The results of the election are clear: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won. Challenging these electoral votes now is the height of hypocrisy for a party that prides itself on States' rights. Even worse, today's actions are based on the faulty premise that this election was somehow tainted by widespread fraud, which is flat out wrong. Protesting these votes today is a disservice to our constitutional order and the more than 81 million Americans who voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. We must also recognize that today's actions could echo far beyond this election. Our democratic Republic has survived as a result of certain bedrock principles, including the peaceful transfer of power and the right of the people to elect their leaders. For Congress to challenge the legitimacy of electoral votes because President Trump is upset that he lost far exceeds our role as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. These challenges threaten the very core of a functioning democracy-- that voters and votes matter. If a State's electoral votes can be set aside by Congress based on conspiracy theories dreamed up by the President and his followers, the value of free and fair elections is damaged. Mr. President, those who feel they needed to protest today's results say they do so because of allegations of fraud. The problem is, those allegations all originate from President Trump himself. The Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud. Attorney General Barr himself said there were no irregularities that could have affected the outcome of the election. Likewise, our courts--including the Supreme Court--have tossed out lawsuit after lawsuit filed by President Trump and his allies, more than 60 in total. I appreciate those Republicans Senators who have stood up for democracy and against these baseless objections to the election results. Senator Romney called it an ``egregious ploy.'' Senator Toomey said, ``Allegations of fraud by a losing campaign cannot justify overturning an election.'' Senator Portman said, ``I cannot support allowing Congress to thwart the will of the voters.'' And Senator Thune added, ``It's time for everybody to move on.'' He is right; the election is over. President-Elect Biden won. Especially now, after all of the events of the day. It is truly time to get to work repairing our country. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Addressing Climate Financial Risk Act,'' which I introduced today. Background The average global temperature has increased by over 3 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of my home State of California over the last century, and 2020 is on track to be the hottest year on record. Climate change is driving the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires, floods, droughts, and other natural disasters and extreme weather events. In California, wildfires in particular have become a major annual concern. This year alone, wildfires have burned 4.1 million acres of California forests and destroyed more than 10,000 structures, including more than 5,000 homes. The damage and risk generated by these events--in addition to the changes needed to transition to a lower-carbon economy--threaten to severely disrupt real estate values in high-risk areas, make insuring against risk increasingly unaffordable, and dramatically change whole sectors of the economy. Need for Legislation Unfortunately, U.S. Federal financial regulators have not done enough to ensure that they fully understand and are appropriately acting on the risk that climate change poses to the stability of the U.S. financial system. Therefore, I believe there are a series of simple steps we should take to ensure that U.S. financial regulators are well-equipped to mitigate climate financial risk. This bill would make five main improvements to the U.S. financial regulatory system. First, it would establish a permanent committee on the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)--which Congress has charged with identifying risks to the U.S. financial system--made up of experts in climate science, climate economics, and climate financial risk. This committee would assist FSOC in publishing a report that assesses the ability of the U.S. financial regulatory system to mitigate climate financial risk and makes recommendations for improving its ability to do so. Second, the bill would require each Federal bank and credit union regulatory agency to update its supervisory guidance to include climate financial risk, and to develop a strategy to identify and mitigate climate financial risk. Third, the bill would require FSOC to specify how it will take climate financial risk into account when making decisions on whether to subject nonbank financial firms to additional oversight by the Federal Reserve Board. Fourth, the bill would mandate a report from the Federal Insurance Office on how to modernize and improve the regulation of climate financial risk insurance regulation in the United States. Finally, the bill would express the sense of Congress that climate change is a global problem, and that U.S. financial regulators should join international organizations focused on addressing climate financial risk and work with financial regulators in other countries to the extent possible and consistent with U.S. law. Conclusion Climate change is real. It's happening now and it will have a profound effect on our financial system if we continue to do nothing. We must act to ensure that federal financial regulators have expertise in climate financial risk and develop approaches to mitigate that risk. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Senator Lamar Alexander, a friend and a colleague who has served in this body for some 18 years now. I have had the pleasure of serving with this Senator on both the Rules Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and we sat next to each other as chairman or ranking member on two Appropriations subcommittees--first Interior and then Energy and Water. We have done that since 2009. It has been through these experiences that I truly have come to appreciate Senator Alexander's fairness, his interest in solving problems, and his bipartisanship. Most of all, I so appreciate your friendship and the time we have had to talk together. I do believe that the Senate is going to be diminished by the absence of this Senator. Working closely as chair and ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, we have always been able to find agreement on the annual appropriations bill. That is because we shared a willingness to find common ground. And that is no small thing. We have consistently held comprehensive subcommittee hearings on a wide range of issues, from nuclear power and nuclear waste to dam safety, to devastating droughts in the West and the future of renewable energy. We were also often among the first, if not the first subcommittee to negotiate our bill, draft it, and get it marked up by the full committee, and that includes 4 years of record-level funding for clean energy, the National Laboratories, supercomputing, and water projects. The focus has always been on a fair, open process that seeks compromise. And that track record speaks to the value we place on the process. But more than anything, Senator Alexander will be remembered as someone who dedicated his life to serving the people of Tennessee. Between his 8 years as Governor and 16 years as a Senator, he served longer than any Tennessean who has held both jobs. That doesn't include the 2 years he served as President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Education. His priorities have always been of great importance to Tennessee, whether Army Corps of Engineers funding for inland waters, particularly his favorite, Chickamauga--this is the first time I ever heard the word pronounced--Chickamauga Lock, which he often talks about in our hearings, or updating the way musicians are paid for their work. He also led efforts to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, which President Obama called a ``Christmas miracle.'' As we hear promising news about coronavirus vaccines, we are reminded of the 21st Century Cures Act. That is Senator Alexander's landmark 2016 bill that streamlined the drug and device approval process to bring treatments to market faster. He has a long record of work he can be proud of. Lamar, you have been a great colleague and a dear friend all these years in the Senate. I am proud of what we have achieved together. I will miss our dinners together and sitting next to you on the dais. I hope you enjoy a well-earned retirement with Honey and your beautiful family. Thank you so much for your service

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the honorable service of Dr. Timothy P. White, who will be retiring as chancellor of the California State University, CSU. Chancellor Timothy P. White has served as the California State University's seventh chancellor since December 2012. His leadership of the Nation's largest and most diverse university system--23 campuses, 482,000 students, 53,000 faculty and staff, and 3.8 million alumni--has been characterized by his heartfelt and unwavering dedication to the students. In fact, it was that commitment to student success that led Chancellor White in 2015 to launch the ``Graduation Initiative 2025,'' an ambitious systemwide effort to increase graduation rates and to eliminate equity and opportunity gaps between underserved students and their peers. The initiative has already resulted in record numbers of baccalaureate degrees earned. Further, Chancellor White has been a strong advocate for diversity and gender equity, ensuring campus leaders, faculty, and staff reflect the communities they serve. In July 2018, CSU achieved national recognition for having 12 female campus presidents--representing more than half of the CSU's campuses--quadrupling the number of female presidents from the time Chancellor White assumed office and far surpassing the national average of 30 percent female leadership at higher education institutions. A caring and forward-thinking leader, he has been committed to compassionate action on behalf of Dreamers and has spearheaded efforts to support title IX rights and to prevent sexual assault on campus. Chancellor White commissioned the first-ever study of homelessness and hunger among university students and has instituted innovative programs to help students meet their basic needs. He has also worked to ensure that the CSU shines as a leader on environmental sustainability and climate change education and policy. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven to be a difficult challenge for higher education, but Chancellor White has displayed bold leadership, delaying his planned retirement to ensure steady decision making that has not only allowed the CSU to sustain its high-quality instruction and operations but also helped the university to thrive, with record-setting numbers of degrees awarded in spring 2020 and the university's largest ever student body enrolled in the fall. A clarity of vision, a heartfelt and relentless focus on student success, and an emphasis on collaborative leadership, combined with a ready sense of humor and a warmth and generosity of spirit, have defined Chancellor White's tenure. I applaud Dr. White's lifetime of service to the betterment of our State and its students, and I wish him the best as he begins this next chapter of his life.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. Just over a month ago, our country lost Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a leading voice for equality and fundamental rights. Judge Ginsburg's nomination was the first that I participated in when I came to the Senate 28 years ago. At her hearing, I had the opportunity to thank her for all she had done and for all she had yet to do. Before she was confirmed to the Bench, Justice Ginsburg played a critical role in breaking down barriers for women. During her confirmation hearing, she staunchly and forthrightly defended her positions as an advocate for equality, including her own support for a woman's fundamental right to control her own body, the core holding of Roe v. Wade. Once confirmed to the Court, Justice Ginsburg worked tirelessly to ensure that the opening words of our Constitution, ``We the People of the United States,'' included all people, not just the elite few. The stakes are extraordinarily high in confirming a replacement for Justice Ginsburg in the best of circumstances, but for Republicans to proceed now, just 8 days before an election, undermines, I think, the integrity and independence of the vote. Senate Republicans are breaking their own statements and promises by proceeding. In February of 2016, Republicans refused to consider a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia because it was an election year. They blocked all consideration of President Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, claiming that the American people should have the opportunity to weigh in on a Supreme Court vacancy. Leader McConnell, at the time, clearly stated the Republicans' position: ``My view, and I can now confidently say, the view shared by virtually everyone in my conference, is that the nomination should be made by the President that the people elect in the election that is now underway.' Well, that is clearly not going to happen. Chairman Graham, in 2018, reiterated this standard, promising that ``if an opening comes up in the last year of President Trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election.'' But when Justice Ginsburg passed away just 46 days before election day, Senate Republicans did not hesitate to go back on their word. On the night of Justice Ginsburg's death, Leader McConnell announced that President Trump's nominee for the vacancy would receive a vote on the Senate floor. Chairman Graham immediately set committee hearings for October 12, giving the committee just 2 weeks to review Judge Amy Coney Barrett's record. This proved to be insufficient, as evidenced by Judge Barrett's failure to identify and disclose significant amounts of material. Then, before Judge Barrett's hearing had even concluded, Chairman Graham held a markup on her nomination, and more rules were broken by setting a committee vote on her nomination for 1 p.m. the following week. I, along with the Democratic side, refused to take part in that committee vote. This was not a decision that we made lightly. We were not willing to participate any further in a process that was used to rush this nominee forward in the middle of this election. Despite our objections to proceeding, Democrats demonstrated through the course of Judge Barrett's nomination hearings what is at stake with her nomination, starting with Republican statements to use the Supreme Court to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and strip away healthcare coverage for millions of Americans. On November 10, the Supreme Court will actually hear oral arguments in a case titled ``California v. Texas.'' That is a case challenging the validity of the Affordable Care Act. President Trump promised to appoint Justices who will vote to dismantle this landmark law. In 2015, he stated: ``If I win the Presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.'' When he nominated Judge Barrett to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat, President Trump stated that eliminating the ACA would be a ``big win in the USA.'' Even more recently, in an interview with 60 minutes, President Trump said he ``hopes'' the Supreme Court will strike down the ACA, and he believes ``it'll be so good if they end it.'' Let us not forget, after all, that Justice Ginsburg joined a 5-to-4 majority when the Supreme Court upheld the ACA against Republican-led challenges in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. Like President Trump, Judge Barrett has criticized the upholding of the Affordable Care Act. In NFIB v. Sebelius, she stated that Chief Justice Roberts ``pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.'' She also cast doubt on the Chief Justice's opinion in King v. Burwell and said that he departed from the ``clear text'' of the statute to avoid gutting it. She likewise claimed that the dissent had the ``better of the legal argument.'' At her confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett did not answer questions about her view on the ACA and did not meaningfully walk back her criticism of these two 5-to-4 Supreme Court decisions upholding the law. She also implied that coverage of preexisting conditions is not at issue in California v. Texas. However, the Trump administration is directly asking the Court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act, including its protections for patients with preexisting conditions. Let me be perfectly clear. I believe, if Judge Barrett is confirmed, Americans could well lose the significant benefits that the Affordable Care Act provides. More than 130 million Americans have preexisting conditions, like cancer, asthma, or even COVID-19, and they could then be denied coverage. At Judge Barrett's hearing, we heard the stories of real Americans who will be harmed and who illustrate what is at stake. This included a constituent of mine, Krystyna Munro Garcia, who, because of the Affordable Care Act, received cataract surgery that saved her eyesight. It included North Carolina mom Stacy Staggs, who testified that the Affordable Care Act had ensured her twin girls received the lifesaving treatments they needed. It also included Dr. Farhan Bhatti, a family physician, working with low-income patients in Lansing, MI, who told the committee that opposition to the ACA ``endangers a lifeline that [his] patients count on to stay healthy, and in many cases, to stay alive.'' I deeply believe that Senate Republicans should not be moving forward on a Justice who will likely help strip healthcare from millions of Americans, particularly in the middle of a global pandemic that has already taken more than 225,000 American lives. Judge Barrett also represents a threat to women's reproductive rights. President Trump told us so when he promised to appoint Justices who will ``automatically'' overturn Roe v. Wade. Judge Barrett has made clear that she would likely be the Court's most extreme member on reproductive rights. At her hearing, she refused to state whether she agreed with the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to use contraceptives. In addition, she would not affirm whether Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe, was settled law. She stated outright that Roe is not a superprecedent, indicating time and again that continued efforts by anti-abortion activists would provide the Supreme Court ample future opportunity to further limit or overturn Roe entirely. Now, this was a surprising departure from the last four Republican nominees, who acknowledged at their hearings that Griswold was, in fact, settled law and that Roe and Casey were, in fact, important precedents of the Court. Beyond these specific examples, Judge Barrett's view of precedent itself poses a continued threat to countless rights that Americans rely on and cherish. As an academic, she wrote that it is ``more legitimate'' for a Justice to ``enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.'' Essentially, what that states is that she will feel free to overrule precedent that she believes conflicts with her interpretation of the Constitution. Judge Barrett's record also raises grave concern about how she would rule on cases involving voting rights and core democratic norms. In her dissent in the Seventh Circuit case Kanter v. Barr, Judge Barrett suggested that voting rights were entitled to less protection under the Constitution than the right to own a gun. She distinguished between the ``individual right'' to own a gun and the ``civic right'' to vote. She argued that a felony conviction should not necessarily result in the loss of the right to own a gun but emphasized that it may result in the loss of the right to vote. She even refused to say whether voting discrimination exists even after being informed that Chief Justice Roberts wrote, ``Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.'' Despite President Trump's statement that he plans to challenge the results of the election in the courts if he loses--and that he wants his Justice seated in time to hear those challenges--Judge Barrett would not commit to recuse from cases related to the upcoming election. In addition, Judge Barrett's evasiveness at her hearing was deeply concerning. She refused to answer over 100 questions--not 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 but 100 questions--including basic legal and factual questions. Let me give you an example. Judge Barrett refused to confirm that the Constitution prevents a President from delaying an election. That is a hint. She declined to answer whether Federal law prohibits voter intimidation. She would not affirm that Medicare is constitutional. She even hedged on whether Presidents should commit to peaceful transfers of power, and she would not acknowledge the existence of climate change. Judge Barrett's silence on these major questions really speaks volumes. It demonstrates that a Justice Barrett will not be willing to stand up for core American values and rights, and it raises additional concerns about her willingness to act independently of President Trump. In closing, it is my belief that Judge Barrett represents a threat to the very rights--including reproductive rights, the rights of LGBT individuals, and voting rights--that Justice Ginsburg worked so hard to protect, and for those reasons, I oppose her nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to stop the fraudulent sales of guns online. While some technology companies have banned selling of firearms and ammunition on their websites, the problem persists. For example, Facebook banned selling firearms. Nonetheless, between last April and June, it reportedly still had to remove 1.3 million pieces of content from its website that violated Facebook's terms of service related to gun sales. In order to circumvent the terms of service, sellers are using new tactics, like misrepresenting guns as ``stickers,'' to get around these restrictions. An August 24, Wall Street Journal article explored how gun sellers are specifically using this new tactic on Facebook's Marketplace. According to the article, sellers are using ``a new tactic [that] involves posts purporting to sell stickers, alongside images of gun makers' logos.'' However, when contacted, these sellers admitted that they're actually selling guns. Even more troubling, the article said the recent ``boom'' in Americans buying guns ``has been attributed to the new coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest related to the killing of George Floyd and efforts in some cities to defund the police.'' As a result, there has been a recent spike in failed background checks. Politico reported in July that: ``The number of people trying to buy guns who can't legally own them has skyrocketed.'' For example, in February, the background check system blocked 9,700 sales. In March, the system blocked 23,692 gun sales--more than double the previous month and the previous March. The bill I'm introducing today addresses this problem by making it illegal for gun sellers to circumvent websites' terms of service as yet another way to avoid a background check. It would make it a Federal crime to sell guns on websites like Facebook ``by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations of promises.'' Doing so would be a felony with a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. I also want to thank Senator Menendez for joining with me to introduce this legislation. His efforts to keep technology companies accountable for the proliferation of firearms on their platforms has been vital in addressing the problem. Our bill today is part of a larger effort that needs to be taken to stop the plague of gun violence hurting this country. But I hope others will join us in this commonsense effort. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg was a role model for many and a champion for all, and I was one of those. I would like to speak about what is at stake for the American public with this vacancy on the Court and why whoever is elected President in November should be the one who decides to fill this seat. Justice Ginsburg was, simply put, a phenomenal lawyer and jurist. She was small, and she was mighty. As a civil rights lawyer, she won key cases that established a woman's constitutional right to equal treatment and confirmed the principle of equal rights for all. As a jurist, she further cemented these key principles into law. She brought them up, and she made them exist forever. As a person, she brought smiles to our faces, and now she really does bring tears. Although small in stature, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a formidable advocate, strategist, and champion. I believe she will continue to serve as a major role model for generations of women, both young and old, for whom she paved the way, and I am one of those. We are in her debt today, and generations to come will be in her debt as well. Justice Ginsburg is also important to me personally. Her confirmation hearing was the first I participated in as a newly elected Senator and as the first woman to sit on the Judiciary Committee in 1993. It was a long time ago. As I said before the committee in 1993, it was not until I began preparing for Justice Ginsburg's confirmation that I learned how she built the foundation for women's rights. Simply put, it was this: Before becoming a judge on the DC Circuit, Justice Ginsburg was the director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, where she won five cases before the Supreme Court. Amazing--five cases before people believed women had these rights. In one of these cases, Craig v. Boren, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applied to women. Can you believe it--actually applied to women. This is a very big addition because this really canceled out inequality. In other words, it is because of Justice Ginsburg's advocacy as a lawyer that the government cannot discriminate against women on the basis of sex. For the female side of this room, this was really a major person whose works enabled us to run for this esteemed body and be part of it. It is no surprise, then, that Justice Ginsburg remained a fierce defender of women from the bench. She consistently reaffirmed a woman's right to choose and upheld Roe v. Wade against dozens of attacks. She invalidated the men's-only policy at the Virginia Military Institute. Explaining that decision at a visit to VMI, Justice Ginsburg told cadets that she knew it ``would make V.M.I. a better place.'' In 2007, she vehemently dissented in a case where the Court's majority held that a woman--namely, one Lilly Ledbetter, with whom we have become familiar--was time-barred from suing her employer for discrimination when she finally learned that her male colleagues had been paid more than her for several years. Justice Ginsburg's dissent in this case became the basis for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which we passed in 2009, making it possible to bring lawsuits when gender-based pay discrimination is actually uncovered. As a testament to the legal giant she was, Justice Ginsburg's accomplishments on behalf of women are just one part of her legacy, and that legacy I strongly believe is going to be honored more and more in the years to come. She died last Friday, just 46 days before the 2020 Presidential election. Importantly, under a Republican standard adopted in 2016, the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nomination until after the inauguration of the next President, whoever that may be. Until recently, Republicans have been intent on their own standard, which they used to block consideration of Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee, to fill Justice Scalia's seat on the Court. Now, can we have one set of rules for Democratic Presidents and another for Republican ones? I think not. To allow otherwise undermines not only our faith in Congress but also the faith of people that we are going to stick by what we do and be impartial in the judicial system. Now, just 41 days before the election, Senate Republicans must abide by their own standard. What is at stake? There is a great deal of attention this week as to whom the President might select. The simple truth, however, is this: No matter whom President Trump nominates, fundamental rights and protections must be considered because they become at risk if the nominee doesn't respond positively and effectively to these. For example, in November, the Court will hear a renewed legal challenge--brought by the Trump administration--to the Affordable Care Act. Given President Trump's promise to appoint a Justice who would strike down the Affordable Care Act, healthcare access and protections for the nearly 130 million nonelderly Americans with preexisting conditions are really in certain peril, and we have every reason for serious consideration and opposition if this protection is not continued. It is unbelievable that during a pandemic that has already killed more than 200,000 Americans, this President and his allies are rushing a nomination that could leave up to 30 million Americans without healthcare. I hope that doesn't happen. The next Justice will also decide cases concerning women's reproductive rights, voting rights, access to justice, environmental protections, the rights of LGBT Americans, and the rights of American workers. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a champion for all these rights and protections. She is very hard to replace, and it is important to think of those rights that need continued protection when the replacement is made by the President. We cannot allow the Senate and the President to jam through a nominee who will undo this legacy, which is so important to every American because every American has that legacy today, firm, and uses it virtually every day of their life. We are ready to fight, and we will do everything in our power to safeguard these hard-won rights and protections. It is really important. Of all the nominations I have sat as a fairly long-term member--since 1993--of the Judiciary Committee, these protections and rights are really all important and must be protected. They will be what we are looking at when the nominee comes to the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of four highly-qualified California nominees to the U.S. District Court: John Holcomb, Mark Scarsi, and Judge Stanley Blumenfeld to the Central District of California, and Todd Robinson to the Southern District of California. (These four nominees know the districts where they will serve if confirmed, and I believe they have demonstrated in their legal careers the skills needed to serve as fair and impartial judges. All four of these nominees received Well Qualified ratings from the American Bar Association, and all have significant legal experience in California. John Holcomb, who has been nominated to the Central District of California, is currently a partner at the law firm Greenberg Gross. Mr. Holcomb has spent more than 25 years in private practice, focusing on intellectual property issues. He also served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy. I understand that if confirmed, Mr. Holcomb will be sitting in the Riverside Courthouse, which is badly in need of judges. Mark Scarsi, nominated to the Central District of California, is currently managing partner of the Los Angeles office of the law firm Milbank, Tweed. Mr. Scarsi joined that firm in 2007 after spending more than a decade with other California-based law firms, including O'Melveny & Myers and Christie, Parker, & Hale. Mr. Scarsi specializes in patent cases, with a focus on intellectual property. He has tried some 28 cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision, including 20 cases in which he served as lead counsel. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, nominated to the Central District of California, currently serves on the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, where he has presided over some 200 trials since his appointment to the bench in 2006. Prior to that, Judge Blumenfeld spent nearly two decades as a practicing attorney, including 7 years as an Assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. Todd Robinson, nominated to the Southern District of California, is currently a Federal prosecutor in that district, where he has served since 1997. Mr. Robinson has significant experience litigating in Federal courts, including in the Southern District of California. He has tried more than 40 felony cases to verdict, including 35 as sole or lead counsel. In closing, Mr. President, these four nominees are highly qualified, they have extensive practical experience, and they are ready to hit the ground running. It is my hope and expectation that these nominees will receive broad bipartisan support. I will be voting in favor of these nominees, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill to facilitate better access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center. The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center, located in Hemet, CA, is a health center run by the Indian Health Service. It is the only currently operating center in the State of California that provides culturally-sensitive substance use disorder treatment to indigenous youth. The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center serves an important role to the regional Native American community. The facility not only provides healthcare but also academic support, family therapy, and an individualized treatment plan to support the healing and long-term recovery of youth enrolled at the center. Despite the center's important work, the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center is only accessible by a dirt road. Lack of a paved road limits access to the center during California's extreme wet and dry seasons. The dirt road frequently cracks or floods during these times and creates significant challenges to those receiving healthcare. Private landowners are supportive of selling their land to allow the Indian Health Service to pave an access road, but the agency does not currently have the authority to do so. It is appropriate we provide for safe and dignified access to the center, and I am pleased to introduce legislation that will solve this problem. The bill would authorize the Director of the Indian Health Service to purchase land from willing sellers and construct a paved road to improve access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center. After construction, Riverside County would own and maintain the road. This effort includes widespread, bipartisan support. An identical, bipartisan bill introduced by Representative Raul Ruiz passed the House of Representatives as part of a larger package just last month. Representative Ruiz's bill is cosponsored by Representatives Ken Calvert, Pete Aguilar, Paul Cook, Doug LaMalfa, Nannette Diaz Barragan, Tony Cardenas, and Josh Harder. This legislation also has the support of local stakeholders, including Riverside County, and organizations like the California Rural Indian Health Board. The bill will provide safe access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center, ensuring indigenous youth can receive healthcare in a supportive and culturally-sensitive environment. American Indian and Alaskan Native youth report 14.9 percent rate of substance dependence or abuse, furthering underscoring the need to guarantee the accessibility to facilities like the Desert Sage Wellness Center. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill to facilitate better access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center. The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center, located in Hemet, CA, is a health center run by the Indian Health Service. It is the only currently operating center in the State of California that provides culturally-sensitive substance use disorder treatment to indigenous youth. The Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center serves an important role to the regional Native American community. The facility not only provides healthcare but also academic support, family therapy, and an individualized treatment plan to support the healing and long-term recovery of youth enrolled at the center. Despite the center's important work, the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center is only accessible by a dirt road. Lack of a paved road limits access to the center during California's extreme wet and dry seasons. The dirt road frequently cracks or floods during these times and creates significant challenges to those receiving healthcare. Private landowners are supportive of selling their land to allow the Indian Health Service to pave an access road, but the agency does not currently have the authority to do so. It is appropriate we provide for safe and dignified access to the center, and I am pleased to introduce legislation that will solve this problem. The bill would authorize the Director of the Indian Health Service to purchase land from willing sellers and construct a paved road to improve access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center. After construction, Riverside County would own and maintain the road. This effort includes widespread, bipartisan support. An identical, bipartisan bill introduced by Representative Raul Ruiz passed the House of Representatives as part of a larger package just last month. Representative Ruiz's bill is cosponsored by Representatives Ken Calvert, Pete Aguilar, Paul Cook, Doug LaMalfa, Nannette Diaz Barragan, Tony Cardenas, and Josh Harder. This legislation also has the support of local stakeholders, including Riverside County, and organizations like the California Rural Indian Health Board. The bill will provide safe access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center, ensuring indigenous youth can receive healthcare in a supportive and culturally-sensitive environment. American Indian and Alaskan Native youth report 14.9 percent rate of substance dependence or abuse, furthering underscoring the need to guarantee the accessibility to facilities like the Desert Sage Wellness Center. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Authorization Act, which I introduced today with Senator Harris. Representatives Josh Harder, John Garamendi, Jerry McNerney, Grace Napolitano, T.J. Cox, and Ami Bera--all Democrats from California--and Diana DeGette and Joe Neguse--both Democrats from Colorado--have introduced identical companion legislation in the House. Airborne snow observatory, ASO, technology is a snow monitoring tool that provides precise measurement of depth and water content for every square meter of snow in a watershed. The technology measures snow depth and water content using an airplane-mounted light detection, LiDAR, instrument coupled with an imaging spectrometer. When combined with conventional snow surveys, ASO provides a near- perfect picture of snow water content. By near perfect, I mean that ASO estimates snowpack and runoff forecast with 96 to 99 percent accuracy. This is much better than current practices, which only measure snowpack and runoff with 50 to 90 percent accuracy. These forecast accuracies are achieved by comparing LiDAR measurements of bare ground topography in the summer with multiple measurements of snow depth during the winter. The greatest accuracies are based on once-a-month flights in watersheds earlier in the winter, and twice monthly flights during the spring runoff period. The much more precise measurements of snowpack that ASO provides will be critical in better managing competing missions of western water storage reservoirs for flood control and water supply amidst a changing climate and growing population. For example, in a single year, 2018, Turlock Irrigation District used this technology in the Tuolumne River watershed to save 150,000 acre- feet of water supply. Because they knew precisely how much snow was in the upper watershed of the Tuolumne, Turlock was able to avoid a release of 150,000 acre- feet of water from Don Pedro Reservoir that otherwise would have been required for flood control. Without ASO technology, Turlock would have had to assume for safety purposes that the melting snow in the upper Tuolumne watershed was at the high end of a wide range of guesstimates using conventional snowpack technology. With the possibility of a big snowmelt, Turlock would have had to release the extra 150,000 acre feet of water. With water in California often costing $1000 per acre foot or more, errors in water-storage management can cost hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary releases from reservoirs and extra groundwater pumping. Additional ASO flights to better measure snowpack often have a high return on investment, by one estimate as much as 40:1 for water supply benefits, and 80:1 for all benefits, including hydro, recharge, flood control, and ecosystem benefits. After several years developing and refining the deployment of snowpack measurement technology, in December 2019, NASA concluded management of the-ASO program and transferred it to the private sector. While consistent with NASA's traditional approach to developing new technologies, this transfer reduces the certainty for Federal support of a program with significant public benefits, including improved water conservation, supply and delivery forecasts across the West. The bill establishes a snow pack forecasting program at the Bureau of Reclamation within the Department of the Interior. The Bureau shall implement the program in two phases: No. 1, the first step is to coordinate with other Federal agencies on how they will work together to improve analyses of snowpack depth. This interagency process will result in a report due to Congress by October 21, 2021. No. 2, following the completion of the report, the Bureau will cost- share with States, water districts, other Federal agencies and other partners on increased LiDAR flights and other activities in particular watersheds. This program is expected to benefit many Western States, including but not limited to Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains; the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; and the Colorado River tributaries in Utah and Arizona, and the Pacific Northwest. Fifteen million dollars would be authorized for the program from fiscal years 2022 to 2026. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Authorization Act, which I introduced today with Senator Harris. Representatives Josh Harder, John Garamendi, Jerry McNerney, Grace Napolitano, T.J. Cox, and Ami Bera--all Democrats from California--and Diana DeGette and Joe Neguse--both Democrats from Colorado--have introduced identical companion legislation in the House. Airborne snow observatory, ASO, technology is a snow monitoring tool that provides precise measurement of depth and water content for every square meter of snow in a watershed. The technology measures snow depth and water content using an airplane-mounted light detection, LiDAR, instrument coupled with an imaging spectrometer. When combined with conventional snow surveys, ASO provides a near- perfect picture of snow water content. By near perfect, I mean that ASO estimates snowpack and runoff forecast with 96 to 99 percent accuracy. This is much better than current practices, which only measure snowpack and runoff with 50 to 90 percent accuracy. These forecast accuracies are achieved by comparing LiDAR measurements of bare ground topography in the summer with multiple measurements of snow depth during the winter. The greatest accuracies are based on once-a-month flights in watersheds earlier in the winter, and twice monthly flights during the spring runoff period. The much more precise measurements of snowpack that ASO provides will be critical in better managing competing missions of western water storage reservoirs for flood control and water supply amidst a changing climate and growing population. For example, in a single year, 2018, Turlock Irrigation District used this technology in the Tuolumne River watershed to save 150,000 acre- feet of water supply. Because they knew precisely how much snow was in the upper watershed of the Tuolumne, Turlock was able to avoid a release of 150,000 acre- feet of water from Don Pedro Reservoir that otherwise would have been required for flood control. Without ASO technology, Turlock would have had to assume for safety purposes that the melting snow in the upper Tuolumne watershed was at the high end of a wide range of guesstimates using conventional snowpack technology. With the possibility of a big snowmelt, Turlock would have had to release the extra 150,000 acre feet of water. With water in California often costing $1000 per acre foot or more, errors in water-storage management can cost hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary releases from reservoirs and extra groundwater pumping. Additional ASO flights to better measure snowpack often have a high return on investment, by one estimate as much as 40:1 for water supply benefits, and 80:1 for all benefits, including hydro, recharge, flood control, and ecosystem benefits. After several years developing and refining the deployment of snowpack measurement technology, in December 2019, NASA concluded management of the-ASO program and transferred it to the private sector. While consistent with NASA's traditional approach to developing new technologies, this transfer reduces the certainty for Federal support of a program with significant public benefits, including improved water conservation, supply and delivery forecasts across the West. The bill establishes a snow pack forecasting program at the Bureau of Reclamation within the Department of the Interior. The Bureau shall implement the program in two phases: No. 1, the first step is to coordinate with other Federal agencies on how they will work together to improve analyses of snowpack depth. This interagency process will result in a report due to Congress by October 21, 2021. No. 2, following the completion of the report, the Bureau will cost- share with States, water districts, other Federal agencies and other partners on increased LiDAR flights and other activities in particular watersheds. This program is expected to benefit many Western States, including but not limited to Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains; the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; and the Colorado River tributaries in Utah and Arizona, and the Pacific Northwest. Fifteen million dollars would be authorized for the program from fiscal years 2022 to 2026. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, psychostimulant overdose deaths, including methamphetamine-related deaths, increased by 27 percent in 1 year. That is a higher rate of increase than any other illicit substance in our country, including fentanyl. It is time to sound the alarm. We must take immediate action to prevent methamphetamine from becoming the next drug overdose crisis facing our country. That is why I am introducing the Methamphetamine Response Act with my colleague, Senator Grassley. This bill does two things. First, it declares methamphetamine an emerging drug threat. Second, it requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, to develop and implement a national plan that is specific to methamphetamine, in accordance the ONDCP Reauthorization, which I was proud to coauthor, and which was enacted in 2018 as part of the SUPPORT Act. This plan must include an assessment of the methamphetamine threat, including the current availability of, and demand for, the drug, and the effectiveness of evidence-based prevention and treatment programs, as well as law enforcement programs; short- and long-term goals focused on supply and demand reduction and the expansion of prevention and treatment programs; performance measures related to the plan's goals; and the level of funding needed to implement the plan, including an assessment of whether available funding can be reprogrammed or transferred or whether additional funds are needed. There is no question that methamphetamine is emerging yet again as a major drug threat to our Nation. Between 2008 and 2017, methamphetamine-related treatment admissions increased from 15 percent to nearly 24 percent. Heroin use among those admitted for methamphetamine treatment increased from 5.3 percent to 23.6 percent, indicating a significant and troubling increase in poly substance use. Between 2018 and 2019, psychostimulant overdose deaths, including methamphetamine deaths, increased in 27 of the 38 states that provide drug-specific data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This amounts to a 27-percent increase nationally. By the end of 2019, methamphetamine availability, use, purity, and potency had increased, as street level prices declined. Data shows that methamphetamine use is no longer limited to Midwest and Western States but is increasingly prevalent in Northeastern States. Emergency room admissions for suspected stimulant overdoses, including methamphetamine, increased by 23 percent between January 2019 and 2020. These increases occurred in 36 States and the District of Colombia. In the first 9 months of fiscal year 2020, methamphetamine seizures increased by 52 percent. COVID-19 is likely to exacerbate these trends. In fact, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has warned clinicians to be prepared to monitor adverse effects associated with increased methamphetamine use, including respiratory and pulmonary effects, among COVID-19 patients. Additionally, the necessary social distancing requirements associated with COVID-19 have made in-person treatment more difficult, increasing the probability that those seeking treatment may not be able to access it. These facts alone are enough to declare methamphetamine an emerging threat, but public reports indicating that Mexican cartels are stockpiling methamphetamine at the border and are poised to flood the United States with methamphetamine make the situation that much more urgent. In 1 year methamphetamine killed more than 16,000 Americans. Absent immediate action and a whole-of-government plan, these fatalities will continue to increase. Please join me in supporting Methamphetamine Response Act to stop methamphetamine from becoming the next wave in a series of preventable crises that have impacted the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, psychostimulant overdose deaths, including methamphetamine-related deaths, increased by 27 percent in 1 year. That is a higher rate of increase than any other illicit substance in our country, including fentanyl. It is time to sound the alarm. We must take immediate action to prevent methamphetamine from becoming the next drug overdose crisis facing our country. That is why I am introducing the Methamphetamine Response Act with my colleague, Senator Grassley. This bill does two things. First, it declares methamphetamine an emerging drug threat. Second, it requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, to develop and implement a national plan that is specific to methamphetamine, in accordance the ONDCP Reauthorization, which I was proud to coauthor, and which was enacted in 2018 as part of the SUPPORT Act. This plan must include an assessment of the methamphetamine threat, including the current availability of, and demand for, the drug, and the effectiveness of evidence-based prevention and treatment programs, as well as law enforcement programs; short- and long-term goals focused on supply and demand reduction and the expansion of prevention and treatment programs; performance measures related to the plan's goals; and the level of funding needed to implement the plan, including an assessment of whether available funding can be reprogrammed or transferred or whether additional funds are needed. There is no question that methamphetamine is emerging yet again as a major drug threat to our Nation. Between 2008 and 2017, methamphetamine-related treatment admissions increased from 15 percent to nearly 24 percent. Heroin use among those admitted for methamphetamine treatment increased from 5.3 percent to 23.6 percent, indicating a significant and troubling increase in poly substance use. Between 2018 and 2019, psychostimulant overdose deaths, including methamphetamine deaths, increased in 27 of the 38 states that provide drug-specific data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This amounts to a 27-percent increase nationally. By the end of 2019, methamphetamine availability, use, purity, and potency had increased, as street level prices declined. Data shows that methamphetamine use is no longer limited to Midwest and Western States but is increasingly prevalent in Northeastern States. Emergency room admissions for suspected stimulant overdoses, including methamphetamine, increased by 23 percent between January 2019 and 2020. These increases occurred in 36 States and the District of Colombia. In the first 9 months of fiscal year 2020, methamphetamine seizures increased by 52 percent. COVID-19 is likely to exacerbate these trends. In fact, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has warned clinicians to be prepared to monitor adverse effects associated with increased methamphetamine use, including respiratory and pulmonary effects, among COVID-19 patients. Additionally, the necessary social distancing requirements associated with COVID-19 have made in-person treatment more difficult, increasing the probability that those seeking treatment may not be able to access it. These facts alone are enough to declare methamphetamine an emerging threat, but public reports indicating that Mexican cartels are stockpiling methamphetamine at the border and are poised to flood the United States with methamphetamine make the situation that much more urgent. In 1 year methamphetamine killed more than 16,000 Americans. Absent immediate action and a whole-of-government plan, these fatalities will continue to increase. Please join me in supporting Methamphetamine Response Act to stop methamphetamine from becoming the next wave in a series of preventable crises that have impacted the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020, a bill that Senator Daines and I are introducing today to protect our constituents from the increasing threat of catastrophic wildfires. As a result of climate change, California and other Western States are experiencing a growing crisis. Over my 27 years in the Senate, I have witnessed dozens of massive wildfires. But the level of destruction we have seen in recent years and the transformation of wildfire from a seasonal phenomenon into a year-round threat require bold, new action. Our bill would do just that by giving Federal, State, and local governments new tools to better manage wildfires and protect communities. While California has always had dangerous wildfires, the particularly devastating fires in 2017 and 2018 were a wake-up call and a harsh example of the consequences of inaction on climate change. The latest National Climate Assessment found that, over the past three decades, the number of acres burned in the Western United States is double what would have burned if the climate weren't changing. Nowhere is this being felt more than in California. The 2018 Camp Fire killed 86 people in town of Paradise and destroyed 15,000 homes. That fire spread as fast as 80 acres a minute according to some estimates. After the 2017 Tubbs Fire, I visited the Coffey Park subdivision of Santa Rosa, which was destroyed when wildfire swept through Napa and Sonoma. The devastation was unlike anything I have ever seen. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection statistics, 10 of the 20 most destructive wildfires in California state history have occurred in just the last 5 years and 2018 was the most destructive wildfire season in recorded California history: nearly 2 million acres burned in our State, displacing hundreds of thousands and leading to billions of dollars of damage. These problems will only grow worse as temperatures continue to rise as a result of climate change. But we can't simply wait for the world to roll back emissions to address our wildfire problem. Preparing for these challenges will require an all-of-the-above approach utilizing the latest science, even if some solutions aren't politically popular. There are more than 150 million dead trees in California's forests, the result of both the historic drought and bark beetle populations that are thriving as temperatures warm. A single spark in the middle of those dead trees can lead to an inferno. And while 60 percent of the forestland in California is owned by the Federal Government, fires don't stop at the borders between federal, state, and private land, so any action must be coordinated. I have joined California leaders and environmentalists in opposing the wholesale clearing of forests. There is a growing consensus around what appropriate forest management actions consist of, and I am encouraged by cooperative efforts such as the Tahoe-Central Sierra Initiative. We can and should increase the use of firebreaks to stop massive wildfires from spreading into communities, and we can identify landscapes that are overgrown and restore resilience to our forests. But we must do it in a smart and sustainable way. We should also continue to expand commercial markets for timber and wood products. Biomass energy generation would not only help remove overgrowth from the forests but would also provide energy for California homes and businesses. We should increase our use of advanced detection systems to identify outbreaks sooner, and invest in safer power transmission lines and other methods to harden infrastructure. While California has requirements for defensible space around at-risk homes, incentives should be provided for homeowners to use fire-safe building materials. The Federal Government should also increase support for outreach efforts, so that risks and mitigation strategies are communicated to vulnerable individuals and communities. This is why I am introducing The Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020. Our bill would protect communities by reducing wildfire risk in Federal forests, getting the private sector more involved in addressing wildfire risk, improving best practices for addressing wildfire, and creating more resilient communities and energy grids. The bill would authorize the Forest Service to undertake three priority wildfire mitigation projects that would be limited to 75,000 acres in size, would allow for expedited environmental reviews regarding the installation of fuel breaks near existing roads, trails, transmission lines and pipelines, and would include a technical fix to ensure that the Forest Service consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service when new public peer-reviewed research demonstrates potential harm to threatened or endangered species. The bill would also codify an existing administrative practice that allows the Forest Service to expedite hazardous fuel removal projects in emergency situations where it is immediately necessary to protect life, property, or natural and cultural resources. The bill also makes important changes to stimulate the private market for low-value timber that poses a wildfire danger. The bill would establish a new $100 million biomass infrastructure program to provide grant funding to build biomass facilities near forests that are at risk of wildfire and to offset the cost of transporting dead and dying trees out of high-hazard fire zones. The bill would also lift the current export ban on unprocessed timber from federal lands in the west for trees that are dead, dying, or if there is no demand in the United States. These measures are necessary to ensure that we can mitigate wildfire in a commercially viable way, and not just through continued government funding. In terms of utilizing the latest science and techniques, the bill would also expedite permitting for the installation of wildfire detection equipment such as sensors, cameras, and other relevant equipment and expand the use of satellite data to assist wildfire response. The bill would also establish a new prescribed fire center to coordinate research and training of foresters and forest managers in the latest methods and innovations in prescribed fire practices to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fires and improve the health of forests. Given the generational shortage of workers in the forest management field, the bill would authorize a new workforce development program to assist in developing a career training pipeline for forestry workers. Lastly, the bill would creating more resilient communities and energy grids by expanding the Energy Department's weatherization program to allow for the retrofit of homes to make them more resilient to wildfire through the use of fire-resistant building materials and other methods, and by establishing a new $100 million grant program to help critical facilities like hospitals and police stations become more energy efficient and better adapted to function during power shutoffs. The new program would also provide funding for the expanded use of distributed energy systems, including microgrids. Finally, the bill would allow FEMA hazard mitigation funding to be used for the installation of fire- resistant wires and infrastructure as well as for the undergrounding of wires. It is important to be realistic about the threat we face. There have always been wildfires in the West, and there always will be. But we must face the reality that climate change and rising temperatures will mean more risk of wildfires. We can and should prepare for this future beginning today. That is why we have introduced this new bill, and I urge my colleagues to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about coronavirus, now clearly the worst pandemic in a century. I will also speak briefly about the need for a national response plan that is guided by science and public health, not politics. The first case of COVID-19 was reported in the United States on January 20. In the intervening 6 months, we have seen cases climb, then fall, and now surge once again. More than 4 million Americans have been infected with coronavirus. So far, more than 155,000 have died. Every day for the last 4 months, I have received an update from my staff on coronavirus numbers. I have watched, day by day, the number of positive cases climb. In California right now, 30 of our 58 counties have had more than 1,000 positive cases. The numbers just go up and up and up. It becomes impossible to look at the charts and graphs and not come to the conclusion that we have to do more--and maybe significantly more. Simply put, this is the worst pandemic in my lifetime. You have to go back more than 100 years to the Spanish flu epidemic to find something comparable. But the unprecedented scale of this crisis is no excuse for our failure to respond more forcefully and in a nationally coordinated manner. Once we realized the scale of the outbreak in the spring, both by the increased cases at home, as well as monitoring stricken countries like Italy, it became clear that we needed strong leadership from the top. We didn't get that. Instead, the White House and President Trump blamed states for the lack of testing equipment, the hoarding of sanitizing supplies and the absence of protective gear. In March, President Trump said, ``I don't take responsibility at all.'' That is a direct quote from the President of the United States, in the midst of a global pandemic with body counts rising around the country. We must do better. More recently, during the renewed surge in cases, we have seen a repeat of those problems. We know we need more testing supplies and protective equipment, but rather than implement the Defense Production Act and stock up on supplies, we saw little action from the White House. I have been thinking back to the early days of the pandemic. In March, San Francisco's Bay Area imposed the first significant stay-at- home order in the country. California soon followed. It was criticized at the time as an overreaction, but it succeeded in slowing the rate of spread, and the death toll remained lower than many other large States. Soon, much of the country had similar orders in place. In April and early May, there was a sense of shared sacrifice. People stayed at home, schools closed, many lost their jobs. Our way of life shifted in the most abrupt way since at least 9/11, if not World War 11. But the understanding was that we made these sacrifices because they would help control the virus. We would ``bend the curve,'' we would produce sufficient protective gear, and we would make it safe for people to return to their lives. The idea was that, by the end of summer, life would return--if not back to normal, at least back to some version of it. It is now almost August. The number of new cases climbs each day. K- 12 schools have announced they will be closed in the fall. Many colleges are following suit. Job losses continue, with more than 30 million still receiving unemployment benefits. Simply put, America failed the test of reopening. If we had responded like other countries, with comprehensive national policies for mask use, avoiding crowds and increasing testing capacity, we could have been returning to normal life right now. Instead, many cities and States are rolling back their reopening plans and may have to reinstitute stay-at-home orders to get the Nation back to where we were before Memorial Day. President Trump last week said the administration is ``in the process of developing a strategy'' to fight coronavirus. At some point, we will want to know why it took 7 months for him to acknowledge a national plan was necessary. Right now, however, we need to focus on what that plan will entail. Just as importantly, we need to focus on who should have input into the tenets of such a plan--in a word, ``experts.'' This is a challenge that requires the combined minds of our best and brightest, particularly public health and infectious disease experts. This is not an arena for politics, period. So what do those public health experts propose? After reading material and listening to a range of opinions, there are five areas that appear to have broad consensus: First, we need to ensure that masks are used everywhere. Early on, we knew simple acts like talking and even breathing caused airborne transmission of the virus, especially in confined areas like office buildings. We also knew individuals who weren't showing symptoms could spread the virus to others because symptoms don't appear for 5 to 7 days. And research continues to show masks are one of the best tools to slow the spread of the virus. Scientific modeling is clear: Masks prevent the spread of the virus. Yet even with this knowledge, we still continue to see a patchwork of policies around the country. A national mask mandate would dramatically reduce the spread of the virus, especially by those who don't yet show symptoms. On July 14, the CDC called on all Americans to wear masks. CDC Director Robert Redfield said if all Americans wore masks, the current surge in cases could be brought under control within 2 months. Masks work. We need a national mask mandate. The second step is a national program for testing. Months into this pandemic, we continue to hear stories of people not able to receive a test. In some cases, my office has heard from people with fevers and coughing but are still told to stay home and not get tested. Simply put, anyone who wants to be tested should be, and the results should be returned within 24 hours, not a week later. Studies have found that if we only test individuals who show symptoms, it is too late to stop further transmission. That means States and cities need sufficient supplies to dramatically increase testing. At this time, that is not happening. A national testing strategy would help coordinate action and prevent States from having to compete against each other. The third step, related to increased testing, is ensuring we have enough testing supplies and safety equipment for frontline workers. The President could quickly implement the Defense Production Act. This law would allow the Federal Government to address supply chain issues and increase production and distribution of testing supplies, medical equipment and personal protective equipment. This should have been done months ago, but so far, the President has only selectively used this tool. He should broaden its use immediately. It is unconscionable that 6 months after this virus appeared on our shores, essential workers around the country still lack personal protective equipment, not only doctors and nurses but grocery clerks, agricultural workers, public transportation operators, educator; and many others. These individuals are putting themselves at risk to provide necessary services to the public, and they should have access to masks and other equipment to keep themselves safe. The fourth step is expanding contact tracing, another area where we see a patchwork of policies across the country rather than a cohesive national effort. To work, contact tracing must occur immediately after an individual is found to be infected. A team determines everyone with whom an infected individual had recent close contact and encourages them to get tested, self-isolate, and monitor their health. Right now, on average, everyone who gets COVID passes it to more than one other person. In other words, the spread is increasing, often by those who don't know they have been exposed. Contact tracing will help solve that. The logistics, however, often aren't feasible for local governments. That is why a Federal contact tracing program, possibly using Peace Corps and AmeriCorps volunteers as has been suggested, is so important. Finally, the fifth area is the need for a plan to manufacture and distribute a vaccine once it is developed. A key component is determining priorities for vaccine distribution. Should it go first to essential workers on the frontlines? Or should it go to people most likely to get the virus, the vulnerable populations, and those in hard-hit areas? These aren't easy questions, and we should work on answers now. We also need to handle the logistics involved to ensure rapid distribution of the vaccine nationwide. These are obvious challenges, but they are also complex, and we need a plan in place now, ahead of vaccine development, rather than waiting until a vaccine is developed. In addition to those five health-related planks, I also believe we need a coordinated plan to help the small businesses and workers suffering during this time. One example is the Paycheck Protection Program that helped many small businesses. The program provides forgivable loans if businesses use funds on employee salaries and other necessities to remain afloat, which will allow them to quickly reopen when it is safe. Another example is the additional $600 in unemployment benefits in the CARES Act. This assistance allows millions of families to pay rent, cover bills, buy food, and contribute to the economic recovery. Unfortunately, that vital aid has lapsed. Since mid-March, more than 60 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits. Today, more than 30 million people continue to depend on these benefits. We can't cut these lifelines until jobs are available for those out of work. If the economy remains shuttered and we do nothing to help families and businesses, we are telling millions of Americans that we don't care they are hurting. Moreover, we are hurting our own economic recovery by taking aid from those who most need it, the very people who are most likely to spend it to support the economy. The Federal Government exists for a reason, and that is to help Americans do things they can't do for themselves. The same goes for States, which are responsible and powerful but can't do it on their own. A global pandemic calls for a robust Federal response, which must entail a national response plan. And that plan has to be based on science and on data, not politics. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020, a bill that Senator Daines and I are introducing today to protect our constituents from the increasing threat of catastrophic wildfires. As a result of climate change, California and other Western States are experiencing a growing crisis. Over my 27 years in the Senate, I have witnessed dozens of massive wildfires. But the level of destruction we have seen in recent years and the transformation of wildfire from a seasonal phenomenon into a year-round threat require bold, new action. Our bill would do just that by giving Federal, State, and local governments new tools to better manage wildfires and protect communities. While California has always had dangerous wildfires, the particularly devastating fires in 2017 and 2018 were a wake-up call and a harsh example of the consequences of inaction on climate change. The latest National Climate Assessment found that, over the past three decades, the number of acres burned in the Western United States is double what would have burned if the climate weren't changing. Nowhere is this being felt more than in California. The 2018 Camp Fire killed 86 people in town of Paradise and destroyed 15,000 homes. That fire spread as fast as 80 acres a minute according to some estimates. After the 2017 Tubbs Fire, I visited the Coffey Park subdivision of Santa Rosa, which was destroyed when wildfire swept through Napa and Sonoma. The devastation was unlike anything I have ever seen. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection statistics, 10 of the 20 most destructive wildfires in California state history have occurred in just the last 5 years and 2018 was the most destructive wildfire season in recorded California history: nearly 2 million acres burned in our State, displacing hundreds of thousands and leading to billions of dollars of damage. These problems will only grow worse as temperatures continue to rise as a result of climate change. But we can't simply wait for the world to roll back emissions to address our wildfire problem. Preparing for these challenges will require an all-of-the-above approach utilizing the latest science, even if some solutions aren't politically popular. There are more than 150 million dead trees in California's forests, the result of both the historic drought and bark beetle populations that are thriving as temperatures warm. A single spark in the middle of those dead trees can lead to an inferno. And while 60 percent of the forestland in California is owned by the Federal Government, fires don't stop at the borders between federal, state, and private land, so any action must be coordinated. I have joined California leaders and environmentalists in opposing the wholesale clearing of forests. There is a growing consensus around what appropriate forest management actions consist of, and I am encouraged by cooperative efforts such as the Tahoe-Central Sierra Initiative. We can and should increase the use of firebreaks to stop massive wildfires from spreading into communities, and we can identify landscapes that are overgrown and restore resilience to our forests. But we must do it in a smart and sustainable way. We should also continue to expand commercial markets for timber and wood products. Biomass energy generation would not only help remove overgrowth from the forests but would also provide energy for California homes and businesses. We should increase our use of advanced detection systems to identify outbreaks sooner, and invest in safer power transmission lines and other methods to harden infrastructure. While California has requirements for defensible space around at-risk homes, incentives should be provided for homeowners to use fire-safe building materials. The Federal Government should also increase support for outreach efforts, so that risks and mitigation strategies are communicated to vulnerable individuals and communities. This is why I am introducing The Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020. Our bill would protect communities by reducing wildfire risk in Federal forests, getting the private sector more involved in addressing wildfire risk, improving best practices for addressing wildfire, and creating more resilient communities and energy grids. The bill would authorize the Forest Service to undertake three priority wildfire mitigation projects that would be limited to 75,000 acres in size, would allow for expedited environmental reviews regarding the installation of fuel breaks near existing roads, trails, transmission lines and pipelines, and would include a technical fix to ensure that the Forest Service consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service when new public peer-reviewed research demonstrates potential harm to threatened or endangered species. The bill would also codify an existing administrative practice that allows the Forest Service to expedite hazardous fuel removal projects in emergency situations where it is immediately necessary to protect life, property, or natural and cultural resources. The bill also makes important changes to stimulate the private market for low-value timber that poses a wildfire danger. The bill would establish a new $100 million biomass infrastructure program to provide grant funding to build biomass facilities near forests that are at risk of wildfire and to offset the cost of transporting dead and dying trees out of high-hazard fire zones. The bill would also lift the current export ban on unprocessed timber from federal lands in the west for trees that are dead, dying, or if there is no demand in the United States. These measures are necessary to ensure that we can mitigate wildfire in a commercially viable way, and not just through continued government funding. In terms of utilizing the latest science and techniques, the bill would also expedite permitting for the installation of wildfire detection equipment such as sensors, cameras, and other relevant equipment and expand the use of satellite data to assist wildfire response. The bill would also establish a new prescribed fire center to coordinate research and training of foresters and forest managers in the latest methods and innovations in prescribed fire practices to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fires and improve the health of forests. Given the generational shortage of workers in the forest management field, the bill would authorize a new workforce development program to assist in developing a career training pipeline for forestry workers. Lastly, the bill would creating more resilient communities and energy grids by expanding the Energy Department's weatherization program to allow for the retrofit of homes to make them more resilient to wildfire through the use of fire-resistant building materials and other methods, and by establishing a new $100 million grant program to help critical facilities like hospitals and police stations become more energy efficient and better adapted to function during power shutoffs. The new program would also provide funding for the expanded use of distributed energy systems, including microgrids. Finally, the bill would allow FEMA hazard mitigation funding to be used for the installation of fire- resistant wires and infrastructure as well as for the undergrounding of wires. It is important to be realistic about the threat we face. There have always been wildfires in the West, and there always will be. But we must face the reality that climate change and rising temperatures will mean more risk of wildfires. We can and should prepare for this future beginning today. That is why we have introduced this new bill, and I urge my colleagues to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act of 2020.'' For over two decades, cleaning up the Tijuana River Valley has been one of my top priorities for Southern California. The wastewater, trash and sediment that continues to flow into San Diego and Imperial Counties is a danger to public health and our economy and it must be addressed. This legislation is a key piece of addressing this decades-long issue. What the Problem Is Polluted water from the Tijuana and New Rivers flows north across the border into the United States causing unsanitary water conditions, pollution and beach closures across Southern California. It also jeopardizes military training exercises for Navy Seals in Camp Pendleton. Three-quarters of the 1,700-square-mile Tijuana River watershed lies in Mexico. However, the watershed, along with all its pollutants, drains into San Diego County and the Tijuana River Valley. Impacts of the Water Pollution In addition to jeopardizing human health and safety, two of the most drastic effects from this cross-border water pollution are harm to wildlife and damage to the tourism industry, integral to Southern Californian communities. Pollution from Mexico harms sensitive areas that provide critical habitat for more than 300 species of birds as well as marine animals like leopard sharks and bottlenose dolphins, including: Tijuana River's National Estuarine Research Reserve, the River Mouth State Marine Conservation Area and River Valley Regional Park Preserve. The beaches in the region are vital to San Diego's tourism economy. Beaches in the communities of Coronado and Imperial Beach have been closed for more than 200 days this year alone due to pollution. Health and safety of residents and workers are also at risk. In recent years, local Border Patrol union officials reported that 80 officers suffered from contamination, rashes, infections, chemical burns and lung irritation due to toxic cross-border flows. The harmful effects of pollution in the Tijuana River Valley on our residents, businesses, economy and environment are simply unacceptable. Current Status In February 2020, the Government Accountability Office issued a comprehensive report, ``International Boundary Water Commission: Opportunities Exist to Address Water Quality Problems.'' My office worked closely with the GAO to utilize their findings to craft meaningful change through this legislation. Simultaneously, we were able to secure $300 million in the U.S.- Mexico-Canada trade agreement to address pollution in the Tijuana River Valley Watershed. With significant funding and detailed findings by the GAO investigation, we developed this legislation in concert with federal, state and local agency input. What the bill does The Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act includes some key reforms to advance concrete solutions. One of the problems is that no one agency is in charge of this problem. A whole range of agencies--EPA, International Boundary and Water Commission, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Defense Department--all have jurisdiction or interest in this international issue. What we need is one agency in charge, taking input from the others so decisions can be made. This approach is similar to other large, regional environmental challenges like the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Here in California, we have also seen great success with this model of interagency coordination at Lake Tahoe. Here's how the bill would work: The EPA would be officially named the agency with overall control of this effort. The EPA, along with its federal, state and local partners, would be directed to identify a list of priority projects. It also would be authorized to accept and distribute funds to build, operate and maintain those projects. Would permanently authorize the Border Water Infrastructure Program to manage storm water runoff and water reuse projects. State and local authorities would also be authorized to contribute funding to federal projects, which is currently not allowed. The International Boundary and Water Commission would be authorized to mitigate storm water from Mexico and the pollution that comes with it and is required to construct, operate and maintain projects on the priority list developed by the agencies within the U.S. that improve water quality. Conclusion We need a new and comprehensive approach to this issue that has plagued border communities for too long. This bill creates a formal process to consider effective, long-term solutions and additional wastewater infrastructure to mitigate cross-border pollution and I hope the Senate can move on this bill quickly. I want to thank California Environmental Protection Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, San Diego and Imperial counties, cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado, Mayor of Chula Vista, Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor of San Diego, Kevin Faulconer, and the Port of San Diego for supporting this legislation. These communities, and others, have been negatively impacted by this issue for far too long. It's past time that we finally solve this problem to safeguard local health and economic growth. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.