Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to address a continuing concern: the online sale of firearms using deceptive and misleading means. It simply continues to be too easy for individuals to evade existing restrictions and buy firearms through online platforms. This behavior endangers us all. Companies like Facebook have taken important steps by banning the sale of firearms on their websites. However, despite these efforts, the online sale of firearms continues to persist as a significant problem. Disturbingly, between April and June 2020 alone, Facebook had to remove a staggering 1.3 million pieces of content related to firearms from its platform. One of the primary challenges we face is that sellers are employing new tactics to circumvent online sales restrictions for firearms. They resort to posting listings for firearms under deceptive names such as ``stickers'' to evade detection. I am proud to once again introduce legislation that addresses this issue head-on. My Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act aims to establish a Federal crime for the sale of firearms online through fraudulent representations. Specifically, it targets the deceptive marketing of firearms as seemingly innocuous items like ``stickers.'' These practices undermine the safety and security of our communities and must be met with swift and robust consequences. I thank my colleagues Senators Booker, Blumenthal, and Menendez for joining me in this effort. We must act decisively to address the persistent problem of uncontrolled online firearms sales and ensure that our laws keep pace with evolving practices. By passing this legislation, we can demonstrate our commitment to protecting the public and preventing firearms from falling into the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and join me in safeguarding our communities from the dangers posed by deceptive online firearm sales.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to address a continuing concern: the online sale of firearms using deceptive and misleading means. It simply continues to be too easy for individuals to evade existing restrictions and buy firearms through online platforms. This behavior endangers us all. Companies like Facebook have taken important steps by banning the sale of firearms on their websites. However, despite these efforts, the online sale of firearms continues to persist as a significant problem. Disturbingly, between April and June 2020 alone, Facebook had to remove a staggering 1.3 million pieces of content related to firearms from its platform. One of the primary challenges we face is that sellers are employing new tactics to circumvent online sales restrictions for firearms. They resort to posting listings for firearms under deceptive names such as ``stickers'' to evade detection. I am proud to once again introduce legislation that addresses this issue head-on. My Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act aims to establish a Federal crime for the sale of firearms online through fraudulent representations. Specifically, it targets the deceptive marketing of firearms as seemingly innocuous items like ``stickers.'' These practices undermine the safety and security of our communities and must be met with swift and robust consequences. I thank my colleagues Senators Booker, Blumenthal, and Menendez for joining me in this effort. We must act decisively to address the persistent problem of uncontrolled online firearms sales and ensure that our laws keep pace with evolving practices. By passing this legislation, we can demonstrate our commitment to protecting the public and preventing firearms from falling into the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and join me in safeguarding our communities from the dangers posed by deceptive online firearm sales.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Drinking Water for Rural Communities Act of 2023 and thank my colleague Senator Padilla for joining me as an original cosponsor. Our bill would change the eligibility limit for the water and wastewater programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development from 10,000 residents to 20,000 residents for investments to treat contaminated drinking water that does not meet Federal and State standards. Modifying the threshold would correct an oversight that is a barrier for many rural and agricultural communities to access clean drinking water. Many rural communities across the United States lack access to safe drinking water because their aging systems have not kept pace with worsening pollution. In many of these communities, agricultural runoff has caused nitrate concentrations to soar, which can cause cancer, thyroid disease, and developmental defects. The problem has become widespread in low-income, rural, and farmworker communities in California's Central Valley, where the majority of residents get their water from wells without any treatment system. Unfortunately, the cost of addressing this problem can be prohibitive for small water systems that serve mostly low-income residents. Many of these communities exceed the 10,000-resident limit for USDA programs but are too small to be competitive for other drinking water assistance programs. These communities are left to rely on bottled water or drinking water that does not comply with Federal or State standards. The small change proposed in this bill would enable more communities in the Central Valley and around the country to use USDA funds to remove contamination or connect to larger water systems. Congress has an opportunity this year to make this small change to USDA's Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program to improve access to safe, clean drinking water for individuals in small, agricultural communities. I thank Senator Padilla for his partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the EQIP Water Conservation Act of 2023 and thank Senators Marshall, Bennet, Lujan, Padilla, Kelly, and Sinema for joining me as original cosponsors. Our bill would clarify eligibility requirements for water conservation and irrigation efficiency practices funded under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to allow irrigation districts to undertake large-scale off-farm water conservation projects that benefit many farms rather than only single-farm projects. Drought poses a persistent and potentially lethal threat to agriculture in Western States. In 2021 alone, drought cost California's agricultural sector $1.1 billion in direct costs and nearly 9,000 jobs, while farmers were forced to leave 400,000 acres of land unplanted. This situation is causing irreparable harm to agricultural communities across the West, and farmers need tools to adapt. EQIP is a crucial tool in the effort to combat drought, and the programs' funds must be made fully available to water agencies, which often serve hundreds of farmers. In the 2018 farm bill, Congress authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to waive payment limitations and adjusted gross income, AGI, limitations to more effectively support water district projects that conserve water, provide fish and wildlife habitat, and combat drought. However, a subsequent USDA rule effectively nullified this provision by capping EQIP payments for water agencies at $900,000, which is only twice the cap for projects that benefit individual farmers. Since water agencies often serve dozens or even hundreds of farmers, this rule makes no sense and undermines the 2018 farm bill's goal of facilitating water conservation projects by water agencies. Our bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the EQIP payment cap of $900,000 for water agencies. To be clear, this bill does not attempt to bypass the payment cap for individual farms; rather, it would set the cap on projects based on the number of farmers it serves. For instance, if a water agency serves 10 farmers, the total payment limitation would be $4.5 million, or $450,000 per farmer. Our bill would also deduct for EQIP payments already made to farmers served by that agency's project. In maintaining a per-farmer payment limitation at the same level as the limit for individual farmers, our bill recognizes that water agencies serve many farmers and that providing adequate funds to these entities will allow USDA to more effectively meet conservation and irrigation efficiency goals. Congress has an opportunity this year to make significant strides in improving irrigation efficiency and water conservation while more faithfully adhering to the conservation goals of the 2018 farm bill. I thank my cosponsors for their partnership on this bill, and I urge the Senate to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Agricultural Emergency Relief Act of 2023 and thank my colleague Senator Padilla for joining me as an original cosponsor. Our bill would establish a consistent structure and end the delays in administering ad hoc agricultural disaster assistance by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Emergency Relief Program. In addition to improving the distribution of supplemental disaster funds appropriated by Congress, this program would encourage participation in crop insurance by requiring producers who receive relief payments to purchase 2 years of insurance. Every year, farmers across the country are contending with disasters of increasing severity and frequency, whether droughts and wildfires in the West, hurricanes in the Southeast, freezes in the Midwest, or flooding throughout the country. In some cases, crop insurance is able to cover the damages caused by these storms, but producers often require additional assistance due to the scale of the damage. This is especially true with specialty crops, where producers may lack affordable insurance options and, as a result, often operate with little coverage or no insurance at all. Federal disaster assistance has been a critical bridge back to production for these farmers, who are producing the Nation's food supply amid the worsening impacts of climate change. Since fiscal year 2018, Congress has appropriated more than $19 billion for agricultural disaster assistance. However, these funds, lacking proper authorizing language, have been distributed through four different USDA programs, with changing requirements, forms, and processes from year to year. Each time USDA has had to create a new program, administrative delays have slowed the dispersal of relief, leaving producers, their families, and their communities in limbo. Farmers deserve more reliability, which our bill would provide. Our bill would authorize USDA's Emergency Relief Program to provide consistent, authorized guidelines for program administration of ad hoc disaster funds. Payment calculations for farmers would rely on indemnities reported to USDA or on calculation of lost revenue. This flexibility will help support farmers producing both commodities and specialty crops. Our bill would also require producers to purchase crop insurance for 2 years after receiving a relief payment. Congress has an opportunity to provide clarity and consistency to our Nation's farmers who have weathered disasters and delays in assistance. I thank Senator Padilla for his partnership on this bill, and I urge the Senate to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the EQIP Water Conservation Act of 2023 and thank Senators Marshall, Bennet, Lujan, Padilla, Kelly, and Sinema for joining me as original cosponsors. Our bill would clarify eligibility requirements for water conservation and irrigation efficiency practices funded under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to allow irrigation districts to undertake large-scale off-farm water conservation projects that benefit many farms rather than only single-farm projects. Drought poses a persistent and potentially lethal threat to agriculture in Western States. In 2021 alone, drought cost California's agricultural sector $1.1 billion in direct costs and nearly 9,000 jobs, while farmers were forced to leave 400,000 acres of land unplanted. This situation is causing irreparable harm to agricultural communities across the West, and farmers need tools to adapt. EQIP is a crucial tool in the effort to combat drought, and the programs' funds must be made fully available to water agencies, which often serve hundreds of farmers. In the 2018 farm bill, Congress authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to waive payment limitations and adjusted gross income, AGI, limitations to more effectively support water district projects that conserve water, provide fish and wildlife habitat, and combat drought. However, a subsequent USDA rule effectively nullified this provision by capping EQIP payments for water agencies at $900,000, which is only twice the cap for projects that benefit individual farmers. Since water agencies often serve dozens or even hundreds of farmers, this rule makes no sense and undermines the 2018 farm bill's goal of facilitating water conservation projects by water agencies. Our bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the EQIP payment cap of $900,000 for water agencies. To be clear, this bill does not attempt to bypass the payment cap for individual farms; rather, it would set the cap on projects based on the number of farmers it serves. For instance, if a water agency serves 10 farmers, the total payment limitation would be $4.5 million, or $450,000 per farmer. Our bill would also deduct for EQIP payments already made to farmers served by that agency's project. In maintaining a per-farmer payment limitation at the same level as the limit for individual farmers, our bill recognizes that water agencies serve many farmers and that providing adequate funds to these entities will allow USDA to more effectively meet conservation and irrigation efficiency goals. Congress has an opportunity this year to make significant strides in improving irrigation efficiency and water conservation while more faithfully adhering to the conservation goals of the 2018 farm bill. I thank my cosponsors for their partnership on this bill, and I urge the Senate to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Drinking Water for Rural Communities Act of 2023 and thank my colleague Senator Padilla for joining me as an original cosponsor. Our bill would change the eligibility limit for the water and wastewater programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development from 10,000 residents to 20,000 residents for investments to treat contaminated drinking water that does not meet Federal and State standards. Modifying the threshold would correct an oversight that is a barrier for many rural and agricultural communities to access clean drinking water. Many rural communities across the United States lack access to safe drinking water because their aging systems have not kept pace with worsening pollution. In many of these communities, agricultural runoff has caused nitrate concentrations to soar, which can cause cancer, thyroid disease, and developmental defects. The problem has become widespread in low-income, rural, and farmworker communities in California's Central Valley, where the majority of residents get their water from wells without any treatment system. Unfortunately, the cost of addressing this problem can be prohibitive for small water systems that serve mostly low-income residents. Many of these communities exceed the 10,000-resident limit for USDA programs but are too small to be competitive for other drinking water assistance programs. These communities are left to rely on bottled water or drinking water that does not comply with Federal or State standards. The small change proposed in this bill would enable more communities in the Central Valley and around the country to use USDA funds to remove contamination or connect to larger water systems. Congress has an opportunity this year to make this small change to USDA's Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program to improve access to safe, clean drinking water for individuals in small, agricultural communities. I thank Senator Padilla for his partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to give a belated and fond farewell to a valued and long-standing member of my staff, Mr. David Grannis. Every Member of this Chamber understands the importance of having wise counsel in their corner. It is not only important, but essential, in order to produce meaningful results for your constituents. To that end, David Grannis was an essential part of my team for the past 5 years while serving as the chief of staff to my office. I previously offered a similar tribute to David in 2016, when he left his position as staff director for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to serve as the Principal Deputy Under Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. I will be forever grateful for his return to my personal office, where he ably guided my staff through multiple Supreme Court nominations, impeachments, all-night vote-a-ramas, a global pandemic, and an insurrection. I will also always remember his support during a particularly difficult period after my husband's passing in 2022. David has had a long and distinguished history of public service. In addition to his time with the Department of Homeland Security, he served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for over a decade, beginning as my designee in March of 2005, then serving as my staff director beginning in January of 2009 when I took over as chair of the committee. Prior to joining the Intelligence Committee in 2005, David worked on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and was the senior policy adviser to Representative Jane Harman on matters of national security. Before coming to Congress, David worked for 2 years at the National Research Council's Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology on projects studying the ability to make explosives more detectable and identifiable. He has a master's of public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, where he worked for former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. As my chief of staff, David led with wit and wisdom and demonstrated an uncanny ability to get the job done. He has been by my side for countless meetings with foreign leaders, ambassadors, military commanders, corporate chiefs, and local officials. David has served as a mentor for many members of my staff and his professionalism and dedication are second to none. He is someone that I am proud to call a friend. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank David's wife, Kerry Searle Grannis, and their three wonderful children: Owen, Amelia, and Nathaniel. The chief of staff job is certainly not always easy. I appreciate their support of David throughout his tenure with my office, and I hope his next venture will allow for more time with his family. While I am sad to see David leave, I am thrilled that he has taken on a new role as the executive director for the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. I have every confidence that his steady hand, insight on the issues, and decisive leadership will serve the commission well. I thank David for his years of dedicated service to the people of California. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors, and I will deeply miss him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a heartfelt tribute to my long-time director of communications, Tom Mentzer, who passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer. Tom was a larger than life personality and his loss is still felt deeply by myself and our entire office. Tom was born in Poulsbo, WA, but spent a large part of his youth in Germany in the cities of Kaiserslautern and Heidelberg. He was a graduate of Heidelberg American High School and went on to DePauw University, where he majored in political science and communications. Tom stayed in Indiana for his graduate work and completed his master's in journalism at Indiana University in 2001. He began his communications career in 1994 as a reporter for the Heidelberg Herald-Post. Upon completion of his masters, Tom began work with Scripps Howard News Service before joining the Urban Institute. In 2007, he was hired as a press secretary for Congressman Sam Farr. Tom joined my staff in 2010 as a press secretary, and 4 years later, he assumed the role of director of communications, which he maintained until his passing. Tom was among the best at his craft and he played a role in messaging nearly every piece of legislation from my office. I valued his wise counsel on many contentious issues, and he was by my side during the release of the torture report as well as multiple reelection campaigns, appropriations fights, and Supreme Court nominations. He was essential to our efforts on ending gun violence, climate change, water issues, and the Lake Tahoe Summit. Always ready with a humorous quip, Tom understood how to lighten the mood during the most difficult of days. His zeal for life was infectious, and it extended to many things outside of the office, including travel, sports, cooking, food, and drinks. Tom had a unique ability to connect with people from all walks of life and was a mentor to many in our office. He had an empathy that I admired, and I, like so many others, will greatly miss his wry take on issues of the day. Tom was private about his cancer diagnosis, and many did not know the extent of the disease. Although he did not beat cancer, he was determined not to let it define him. He was fond of a quote by the late comedian Norm MacDonald, who said, ``I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure if you die, the cancer dies at the same time. That's not a loss. That's a draw.'' I will forever be grateful for Tom's wisdom and dedication to my office and the people of California. I offer my sincere condolences to Tom's family and his wife Kristen, with whom he shared the better part of 22 years of his life. I wish all of them the best during this difficult chapter of their lives.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Agricultural Emergency Relief Act of 2023 and thank my colleague Senator Padilla for joining me as an original cosponsor. Our bill would establish a consistent structure and end the delays in administering ad hoc agricultural disaster assistance by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Emergency Relief Program. In addition to improving the distribution of supplemental disaster funds appropriated by Congress, this program would encourage participation in crop insurance by requiring producers who receive relief payments to purchase 2 years of insurance. Every year, farmers across the country are contending with disasters of increasing severity and frequency, whether droughts and wildfires in the West, hurricanes in the Southeast, freezes in the Midwest, or flooding throughout the country. In some cases, crop insurance is able to cover the damages caused by these storms, but producers often require additional assistance due to the scale of the damage. This is especially true with specialty crops, where producers may lack affordable insurance options and, as a result, often operate with little coverage or no insurance at all. Federal disaster assistance has been a critical bridge back to production for these farmers, who are producing the Nation's food supply amid the worsening impacts of climate change. Since fiscal year 2018, Congress has appropriated more than $19 billion for agricultural disaster assistance. However, these funds, lacking proper authorizing language, have been distributed through four different USDA programs, with changing requirements, forms, and processes from year to year. Each time USDA has had to create a new program, administrative delays have slowed the dispersal of relief, leaving producers, their families, and their communities in limbo. Farmers deserve more reliability, which our bill would provide. Our bill would authorize USDA's Emergency Relief Program to provide consistent, authorized guidelines for program administration of ad hoc disaster funds. Payment calculations for farmers would rely on indemnities reported to USDA or on calculation of lost revenue. This flexibility will help support farmers producing both commodities and specialty crops. Our bill would also require producers to purchase crop insurance for 2 years after receiving a relief payment. Congress has an opportunity to provide clarity and consistency to our Nation's farmers who have weathered disasters and delays in assistance. I thank Senator Padilla for his partnership on this bill, and I urge the Senate to take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I am reintroducing legislation that would help bolster the Nation's background check system for firearms. Under current law, incomplete background checks must be removed from the FBl's systems if they remain unresolved beyond the 88-day mark. As a result, countless firearms have been sold without completed background checks. This poses a grave danger because it allows individuals who we know are dangerous to purchase firearms. In recent years, gun sales across America have dramatically increased. In 2022, about 17.4 million guns were sold in the United States. Unfortunately, this surge in purchases has overwhelmed our already-strained background check system. While the vast majority of background checks are promptly completed within 3 days, the sheer volume of checks means that some checks will necessarily be delayed--and sometimes significantly delayed. According to data compiled by NBC News, between January 2020 and November 2021, the FBI was unable to resolve 734,604 background checks within the current 88-day window. As a result of these delays, the FBI was required to wipe the incomplete checks from their systems. Since these background checks were never completed, it is impossible to know how many of these firearms were transferred to purchasers who were prohibited by law from owning a gun. Congress must act to protect public safety by ensuring that all background checks are completed. This bill would do exactly that. It would grant the FBI the authority to retain gun purchase records until a background check is fully completed. Put simply, this bill will let the FBI do its job. I thank Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Menendez, Murphy, Padilla, and Whitehouse for their support, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support the bill as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I am reintroducing legislation that would help bolster the Nation's background check system for firearms. Under current law, incomplete background checks must be removed from the FBl's systems if they remain unresolved beyond the 88-day mark. As a result, countless firearms have been sold without completed background checks. This poses a grave danger because it allows individuals who we know are dangerous to purchase firearms. In recent years, gun sales across America have dramatically increased. In 2022, about 17.4 million guns were sold in the United States. Unfortunately, this surge in purchases has overwhelmed our already-strained background check system. While the vast majority of background checks are promptly completed within 3 days, the sheer volume of checks means that some checks will necessarily be delayed--and sometimes significantly delayed. According to data compiled by NBC News, between January 2020 and November 2021, the FBI was unable to resolve 734,604 background checks within the current 88-day window. As a result of these delays, the FBI was required to wipe the incomplete checks from their systems. Since these background checks were never completed, it is impossible to know how many of these firearms were transferred to purchasers who were prohibited by law from owning a gun. Congress must act to protect public safety by ensuring that all background checks are completed. This bill would do exactly that. It would grant the FBI the authority to retain gun purchase records until a background check is fully completed. Put simply, this bill will let the FBI do its job. I thank Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Menendez, Murphy, Padilla, and Whitehouse for their support, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support the bill as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2023 and thank my colleague Senator Padilla for joining as an original cosponsor. Our bill would allow the U.S. Forest Service to approve removal of hazardous trees near power lines on Federal forest lands without a timber sale, thereby reducing administrative burden and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Californians are all too familiar with the potential for electrical power lines to cause devastating wildfires. Three of the largest and most destructive wildfires in California history--the 2017 Thomas Fire, the 2018 Camp Fire, and the 2021 Dixie Fire--were started by electrical equipment. Together, these wildfires burned more than 1.2 million acres, destroyed more than 15,000 homes, and killed 87 people. When power lines cross Federal land, the Forest Service generally requires utility companies to keep the area around them free of trees that could touch or fall on the lines or otherwise ignite. Removing those cut trees, however, requires the Forest Service to hold a timber sale, which imposes administrative costs. Meanwhile, cut trees often linger on the landscape, posing a continued risk of igniting during a wildfire or damaging other infrastructure during a flood. Our bill would make targeted changes to existing Forest Service authorities to encourage quicker and less costly removal of the trees. Specifically, we would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to grant utilities permission to cut and remove trees or other vegetation near their power lines without a separate timber sale, provided that that removal is consistent with existing forest management plans. Included in this legislation is a requirement that any proceeds obtained from timber or forest products removed under this authority be returned to the Forest Service. This removes any financial incentive to remove trees other than those necessary for wildfire mitigation. After all, the goal is to streamline actions that protect against devastating wildfires--protecting, not removing, our Nation's forests. Congress has an opportunity this year to make this small change to Forest Service authorities to ensure better stewardship of our national forests and prevent catastrophic wildfires. I thank Senator Padilla for his partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to take it up and and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2023 and thank my colleague Senator Padilla for joining as an original cosponsor. Our bill would allow the U.S. Forest Service to approve removal of hazardous trees near power lines on Federal forest lands without a timber sale, thereby reducing administrative burden and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Californians are all too familiar with the potential for electrical power lines to cause devastating wildfires. Three of the largest and most destructive wildfires in California history--the 2017 Thomas Fire, the 2018 Camp Fire, and the 2021 Dixie Fire--were started by electrical equipment. Together, these wildfires burned more than 1.2 million acres, destroyed more than 15,000 homes, and killed 87 people. When power lines cross Federal land, the Forest Service generally requires utility companies to keep the area around them free of trees that could touch or fall on the lines or otherwise ignite. Removing those cut trees, however, requires the Forest Service to hold a timber sale, which imposes administrative costs. Meanwhile, cut trees often linger on the landscape, posing a continued risk of igniting during a wildfire or damaging other infrastructure during a flood. Our bill would make targeted changes to existing Forest Service authorities to encourage quicker and less costly removal of the trees. Specifically, we would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to grant utilities permission to cut and remove trees or other vegetation near their power lines without a separate timber sale, provided that that removal is consistent with existing forest management plans. Included in this legislation is a requirement that any proceeds obtained from timber or forest products removed under this authority be returned to the Forest Service. This removes any financial incentive to remove trees other than those necessary for wildfire mitigation. After all, the goal is to streamline actions that protect against devastating wildfires--protecting, not removing, our Nation's forests. Congress has an opportunity this year to make this small change to Forest Service authorities to ensure better stewardship of our national forests and prevent catastrophic wildfires. I thank Senator Padilla for his partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to take it up and and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the STREAM Act, Support to Rehydrate the Environment, Agriculture and Municipalities Act, which I am introducing today alongside my cosponsors, Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema. This bill is intended to help Western States upgrade their water infrastructure in preparation for the severe droughts and weather whiplash that we have seen the past few years and that will worsen significantly with climate change. If we don't take action now, it is only going to get worse. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54-percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79-percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30 percent of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. For these reasons and others, we need an ``all of the above'' water strategy, including increased water supply; incentivizing projects that build in environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and investing in separate environmental restoration efforts. The bill I am introducing today helps meet this challenge in four fundamental ways: No. 1, it authorizes significant water supply funding that, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with 1.04 million additional acre-feet of water per year on average, enough water for over 6 million people. No. 2, it provides additional financial incentives for water supply projects that include environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities. No. 3, it reforms the congressional review process to more quickly approve water supply projects; No. 4, it significantly invests not only in water supply projects but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change. The recent drought in the West from 2020 to 2022 illustrates why this bill is so desperately needed. In 2021, the drought caused the California agriculture industry to shrink by an estimated 8,745 jobs and incur $1.2 billion in direct costs, according to a report prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California at Merced. Reduced water deliveries resulted in 395,000 acres of cropland left dry and unplanted. Counting ``spillover effects'' in the broader economy, the U.C. Merced analysis found the total impacts were more than 14,600 lost jobs, both full time and part time, and $1.7 billion in gross revenue losses. In both 2021 and 2022, homes in significant parts of the State were at risk of running dry. In 2021, large parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties and the Mendocino coast came very close to losing all water supply. In 2022, much of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties were placed under emergency orders limiting them to once-a- week landscape irrigation, with the possibility of a complete irrigation shutoff that was only avoided by the timely arrival of multiple atmospheric rivers last fall. In California, one in eight acres statewide has burned from wildfires in the last decade, with the past 2 years being the worst on record. The drought has been devastating to the aquatic ecosystem as well as our forests. As just one example, the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon depend on sufficient cold water released by Shasta Dam to rear their offspring in the Sacramento River. With limited water available in 2021, NOAA Fisheries models predict that approximately 75 percent of the winter run Chinook salmon's eggs died from elevated water temperatures. This is a species with three 1- year age classes, and a prolonged drought could threaten the survival of the species. To increase drought resiliency in California and other Western States, the bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years: $750 million for surface and groundwater storage projects and supporting conveyance, including $50 million for natural water retention and release projects; $300 million for water recycling projects; $150 million for desalination projects; $250 million for environmental restoration projects; and $100 million for drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This funding builds on the bipartisan infrastructure law's funding of $1.15 billion for storage projects, $550 million for water recycling projects, and $250 million for desalination projects. The STREAM Act, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with the Federal cost-share for approximately 1,042,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply, or enough water for over 6 million people. This comes from the following: Enough funding for California to finally build three major off-stream storage projects providing 370,000 acre-feet of water on average each year: Sites Reservoir, the Los Vaqueros Expansion, and the BF Sisk raise. In addition, the storage funding could provide an additional 55,000 acre-feet per year from some combination of other smaller surface and groundwater storage projects like the Sacramento Regional Groundwater Bank or Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir. All of the projects are non-Federal projects with a 25-percent Federal cost share, with the exception of the Federal BF Sisk Raise with a 50-percent Federal cost- share. Enough funding for 532,000 additional acre-feet from water recycling projects, from the $300 million authorized in the bill plus $550 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25-percent Federal cost-share for projects. Enough funding for approximately 85,000 additional acre-feet from the $150 million authorized in the bill for desalination projects, plus $250 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 percent Federal cost-share for projects. While virtually everyone supports water recycling projects, surface and groundwater storage projects are sometimes more controversial. I want to point out a 2022 report from the widely respected Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, which relates to the benefits of additional surface and groundwater storage as California's climate is changing. Many climate forecasters emphasize that as climate change intensifies, California will get more of its precipitation in a few large to extraordinarily large storms fueled by atmospheric rivers, and more of the precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. In between the bursts of atmospheric rivers there will be longer and more intense droughts. We have definitely seen a preview of this pattern this year. PPIC has studied these projections and estimated that there is substantial water in wet years that is not needed to maintain healthy Delta outflows but currently cannot be captured because California lacks the infrastructure to store for future dry periods. PPIC suggests that given this reality, cost-effective storage projects in appropriate locations could help improve California's drought resiliency. PPIC also argues that these storage projects should be managed for environmental flow benefits as well as water supply benefits. This bill would help with that because Federal funding for Sites Reservoir would help provide cold water for salmon, and Federal funding for the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir would provide needed water for wildlife refuges. Regarding cold water reserves for salmon in particular, these reserves will be critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during the potential fourth, fifth, and maybe even sixth and seventh years of devastating droughts. The bill's funding authorizations apply not just to California but throughout the 17 Western States where the Bureau of Reclamation has a presence. Many of these States have recently benefited from the Bureau of Reclamation's storage, water recycling, and desalination programs and/or have projects currently seeking funding from these programs, including Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. I believe the Federal funding assistance authorized by this bill will be particularly important for all seven Colorado River basin States as the States negotiate the next painful round of water supply cuts from the Colorado River between now and 2026 in order to meet the challenge of an increasingly dry Colorado River basin. In Arizona, the STREAM Act would significantly advance the Salt River Project's proposal to raise Bartlett Dam on the Verde River to counteract the loss of approximately one-third of the nearby Horseshoe Dam's capacity from accumulating sediment. The bill uses financial incentives to encourage storage and conveyance projects to include environmental benefits and other public benefits such as drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This is important to ensure that the environment and disadvantaged communities are included in our drought resilience strategies. If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes only low-interest loans to support these projects. In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project. This access to grants gives project sponsors a strong financial incentive to design environmental and disadvantaged community benefits into their projects. This approach builds on the experience of the Proposition 1 water bond California's voters passed by a 2-to-1 margin in 2014, which also incentivizes projects with environmental and other public benefits. If storage and conveyance projects take these steps, they can get Federal grants both directly for the public benefits and for an equal value investment in the water supply component of the project. Thus, the Federal Government will provide $50 million for the general water supply benefits of a project if the project also has $50 million in fish and wildlife or water quality benefits either directly from the project or from an associated watershed restoration plan. The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further. The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding new water supply projects has involved the following: No. 1, reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects. No. 2, once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3 to 5 years or longer in many cases. No. 3, the design and construction can take a decade or longer. One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed by climate change to western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model. Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama Administration and currently Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, testified in support of a new model during an October 8, 2015, hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated: The traditional Reclamation business model, in which feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then construction is authorized and funded, does not always address the needs of project sponsors at the state and local levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the availability of other available financing mechanisms, the historic Federal role in financing water storage projects through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a greater emphasis on non-Federal financing. In response to the concerns articulated by then-Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, makes two significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available Federal funding. First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual water recycling and desalination projects and non-Federal storage projects a Federal investment of less than $250 million. It can take 3 to 5 years or longer for projects to get legislatively approved. In fact, zero new water recycling projects were authorized from 2009 to 2017 despite dozens of meritorious projects with approved feasibility studies. Federal storage projects, which are often more controversial, continue to require congressional authorization, as do non-Federal storage projects with a greater than $250 million Federal investment. The bill shortens the timeline for congressional approval of these projects through directing Reclamation to follow a process that the Army Corps of Engineers uses to notify Congress of completed feasibility studies each year to set up an orderly timeline to authorize projects. Second, the bill no longer requires 100 percent Federal funding upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50 percent Federal funding for federally owned projects and a maximum of 25 percent Federal funding for non-Federal projects that are built by States, water districts, or Indian Tribes. Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded nearly 50 percent by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 20 to 25 percent by the Federal Government and the remaining 25 to 30 percent by water users. Multipartner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts. If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes only low-interest loans to support these projects. In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project. Let me give an example of how this works. If a project sponsor is seeking $100 million in Federal funding for a $400 million non-Federal storage project, the sponsor can get that $100 million funding as a grant if there is $100 million in public benefits from either the project itself or other projects as part of a watershed restoration plan approved with the project. The public benefits could be either drinking water for disadvantaged communities or fish and wildlife benefits. Some examples of fish and wildlife or water quality benefits from a watershed plan could include water leasing during a dry year, water sharing agreements, water banking, ongoing water conservation, and related activities if they provide fish and wildlife or water quality benefits; environmental restoration projects; and natural water retention and release projects. The longer and more severe droughts coming with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to improve species' drought resiliency as well. The significant funding authorization of $250 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish and migratory birds. Some authorized uses of this funding include improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt, and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects; additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts; ensuring that when Sacramento Valley rice growers sell their water and idle their crops, some water is left behind and applied to bare fields in late summer and early fall to create shallow flooded habitat during a critical shorebird migration period; and assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State agencies and State water quality laws. The bill would also authorize $50 million of the broader storage funding for natural water retention and release projects. These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species. I look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multibenefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill. The bill also authorizes pay-for-performance environmental restoration approaches that award grants contingent on the success of the restoration effort. These approaches can expedite environmental restoration and build public/private partnerships to increase the number of acres restored. In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented consistently with all Federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state laws must also be followed. California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major statewide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people. We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face as a result of climate change. I hope my western colleagues will join my cosponsors and me on this bill because drought is a serious threat for all of our States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Canal Conveyance Capacity Restoration Act, which I introduced today. Representative Jim Costa has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill authorizes one-third cost-share totaling $653 million for restoring the capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct. Coordinated legislation in the State legislature introduced by State Senator Melissa Hurtado has led to a downpayment on a State cost-share for restoring the canals' capacity. Local water districts would be responsible for the remainder of the cost not covered by the State or Federal governments. In addition, the bill authorizes an additional $180 million to restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River. The funding is for fish passage structures, levees, and other improvements that will allow the threatened Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon to swim freely upstream from the ocean to the Friant Dam. My bill would help California water users and California's Nation- leading agriculture industry comply with a recent State requirement to end the overpumping of groundwater. The stakes are huge: If we don't bring groundwater into balance, then the San Joaquin Valley will lose access to about 2 million acre-feet of water per year. Unless local water agencies and the State and Federal governments act, a recent U.C. Berkeley study has projected severe impacts from these water supply losses: 798,000 acres of land would have to be retired from agricultural production, nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half the fruit and vegetables grown in the Nation; and $5.9 billion would be lost in annual farm income in a region that is almost entirely reliant on agriculture. One of the most economical and efficient ways to restore groundwater balance is to convey floodwater to farmland where it can recharge the aquifer. California has the most variable precipitation of any State. When massive storms from atmospheric rivers occur, there is runoff to recharge aquifers--but only if we can effectively convey the floodwaters throughout the San Joaquin Valley to recharge areas. However, the major canals are in desperate need of repair and have lost as much as 60 percent of their capacity. The bill I am introducing today would provide Federal assistance to help fix these Federal canals. Specifically, the bill would authorize $653.4 million in a Federal funding-cost share for three major projects to restore Federal canals damaged by subsidence to their former capacity: $180 million for the Friant-Kern Canal, which would move an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year on average; $183.9 million for the Delta Mendota Canal, which would move an additional 62,000 acre-feet per year on average; and $289.5 million for California Aqueduct repairs, which would move an additional 205,000 acre-feet per year on average. While parts of the California Aqueduct are State-owned, the majority of the repairs are on its federally owned portion. This will give local farmers a fighting chance to bring their groundwater basins into balance without being forced to retire vast amounts of land. Critically, the ability to deliver floodwaters through restored Federal canals will allow the water districts to invest in their own turnouts, pumps, detention basins, and other groundwater recharge projects. The South Valley Water Association, which covers just a small part of the valley, provided my office with a list of 36 such projects for its area alone. The Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC has determined that groundwater recharge projects are the best option to help the San Joaquin Valley comply with the new State groundwater pumping law. PPIC projects that the valley can make up 300,000 to 500,000 acre-feet of its groundwater deficit through recharge projects. A study commissioned by the coalition group Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley estimates that reductions in groundwater could cause a loss of up to 42,000 farm and agricultural jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. Another 40,000 jobs or more could be lost statewide each year due to reductions in valley agricultural production, putting the total at approximately 85,000 jobs statewide. Most of these impacts will fall disproportionately on economically disadvantaged communities. Let me now turn to the three critical canals that the bill would help restore. The Friant-Kern Canal is a key feature of the Friant Division of the Federal Central Valley Project on the Eastside of the San Joaquin Valley. For nearly 70 years, the Friant Division successfully kept groundwater tables stable on the Eastside. This provided a sustainable source of water for farms and for thousands of Californians and more than 50 small, rural, or disadvantaged communities who rely entirely on groundwater for their household water supplies. But unsustainable groundwater pumping in the valley has reduced the Friant-Kern Canal's ability to deliver water to all who need it. Land elevation subsidence caused by overpumping means that not all of the supplies stored at Friant Dam can be conveyed through the canal. In some areas, the canal can carry only 40 percent of what it is designed to deliver. In 2017, a very wet year in which we should have banked as much floodwater as possible, the Friant-Kern Canal delivered 300,000 acre- feet of water less than it would have conveyed before subsidence. This water would have helped recharge groundwater in the south San Joaquin Valley, where the impacts of reduced water deliveries, water quality issues, and groundwater regulation are expected to be most severe. The California Aqueduct serves more than 27 million people in Southern California and the Silicon Valley and more than 750,000 acres of the Nation's most productive farmland. But despite its name, much of the California Aqueduct is owned by the Federal Government and serves portions of Silicon Valley, small towns and communities in the northern San Joaquin Valley, and farms from Firebaugh to Kettleman City. The aqueduct represents a successful 70-year partnership between the Federal Government and the State of California. In recent years, particularly recent drought years, the California Aqueduct has subsided. It has lost as much as 20 percent of its capacity to move water to California's families, farms, and businesses. California is leading efforts to repair the aqueduct and is working to provide its share of funding, but the Federal Government will also need to pay its fair share. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $289.5 million toward restoring the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal stretches southward 117 miles from the C.W. Bill Jones Pumping Plant along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, parallel to the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal has lost 15 percent of its conveyance capacity due to subsidence. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $183.9 million toward restoring its full ability to convey floodwaters to farms needing to recharge groundwater and to wildlife refuges of critical importance for migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway. This bill responds to a potential crisis that very possibly could cause the forced retirement of nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half of America's fruits and vegetables. These are Federal canals, and the Federal Government must help give these farmers and agricultural communities a fighting chance to keep their lands in production. Lastly, this legislation helps to restore a historic salmon run on California's second longest river, the San Joaquin. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Restore Aging Infrastructure Now RAIN Act, which I introduced today. Senator Alex Padilla is cosponsoring the legislation. This bill has three purposes: No. 1, upgrade aging canals and other facilities owned by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide environmental and other benefits; No. 2, for the first time provide grant funding rather than loans for Reclamation facility upgrades that provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and No. 3, incentivize agricultural and municipal irrigation districts to participate in these projects by giving them a 15 percent discount on what they owe for repairing the aging facilities that serve them. Let me explain these three bill purposes in more detail. First, Congress has appropriated $3.2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to repair its aging canals, dams and other facilities. If the Federal taxpayers are spending this much money to retool Reclamation infrastructure for the needs of the 21st century, the Department of the Interior should have the authority to modify the Reclamation facilities to achieve increased environmental benefits, drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and other project benefits. This bill applies to Reclamation ``transferred works'' facilities, which are operated and maintained by agricultural or municipal water districts. The bill authorizes Reclamation to modify these transferred works facilities when the Agency is repairing them, as long as the modifications add no more than 25 percent of the cost of the repair projects, or $25 million for repair projects costing less than $100 million. In California, this could be particularly helpful for projects to restore major Central Valley Project canals that have lost up to 60 percent of their conveyance capacity due to subsidence. These projects are important to allow farmers to capture runoff from our increasingly concentrated winter storms and move the water to overdrafted areas where it is needed to recharge the local aquifers. As I mentioned, the bill applies to those Reclamation facilities known as ``transferred works,'' which are operated and maintained by agricultural or irrigation water districts. In order to modify these projects when they are being repaired, the Secretary must obtain the consent of the transferred works operating entity and any individual water district that would receive less water under the modified project. Many Bureau of Reclamation facilities were built for the sole purpose of assisting agricultural water supply. This irrigation focus is critically important in the arid West. However, as climate change stretches western water supplies, Reclamation facilities will need to serve multiple purposes as efficiently as possible. There are many rural communities in the areas served by Reclamation facilities that have dwindling water supplies. In California, many of these communities are home to migrant farmworkers who plant and harvest the crops that Reclamation water deliveries support. All too often, these communities' water supplies have become unreliable as groundwater tables drop, or drought reduces surface water supplies for lengthy periods. Many of these communities lack the ratepayer base and income levels to provide clean drinking water to meet their residents' basic daily needs. In order to meet this challenge, the bill authorizes Reclamation to offer grants rather than loans when it modifies existing Reclamation facilities to provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities. Eligible communities are defined using existing precedent that their median family income must not exceed 80 percent of the statewide median family income. In California, this could be particular helpful for the major canal repair projects which are restoring the original capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the California Aqueduct, and the Delta-Mendota Canal, all of which have been damaged by subsidence. Under the bill, Reclamation can now modify these upgraded canals to provide turnouts to recharge the aquifers of disadvantaged communities along the canals. As a result, when we have wet years like this past winter, Reclamation could send some of the flood flows to help these communities boost their local water supplies. These project modifications can be an efficient way to assist these disadvantaged communities; the canals already exist, works crews will already be mobilized to repair them, and in many cases, the canals run very near the communities that would benefit. To make the bill work, agricultural and municipal water districts must participate in these modifications to Reclamation facility repair projects. In many cases, the water providers will face disincentives to participate in these projects. Some providers may see their benefits reduced. All providers will have to accept significant delay in obtaining the benefits of the restoration of these projects. It will take significant time to modify the projects in a manner that the providers can accept and then to conduct environmental compliance on the proposed modification. The providers will also have to accept modified project operations that give increased priority to public benefits. To offset these disincentives for water providers to participate in modifications to projects which increase just public benefits, the bill reduces the amount the providers have to pay for the underlying repair projects by 15 percent. The result is that each project beneficiary will pay 85 percent of the costs for the modified project that the beneficiary would otherwise have been allocated. This provision sets up a financial incentive for water providers to support modified projects that solely increase environmental and other public benefits without increasing water diversions or other water supply benefits. Without this financial incentive, water providers might be expected to frequently oppose such modification of the projects that they rely on for water deliveries. In the case of canal restoration projects, the agricultural water districts will receive less water than they would have under the original canals at full capacity if an increased amount of the water is diverted for dedicated to disadvantaged communities or wildlife refuges. The financial incentive is important in this context to avoid generating agricultural water district opposition to project modifications to benefit disadvantaged communities and wildlife refuges. This approach is consistent with Reclamation programs like the Title XVI and large-scale water recycling programs. These programs provide 25 percent Federal grant funding for projects that increase municipal water supplies, even where the benefiting communities are not disadvantaged. These grants are justified because the recycled water programs provide both water supply and broader public benefits by reducing pressure to divert water from often overallocated streams and rivers. With this bill, too, the modified projects merit some Federal grant funding because they provide a range of public benefits beyond just regular water supply, including potentially environmental benefits or drinking water for disadvantaged communities. Given the inevitability of increasingly severe and lengthy droughts as the West's climate changes, it will be essential to provide incentives to collaborate on multibenefit projects that bring agricultural, environmental, and urban interests together to address the very serious challenge of maintaining sufficiently reliable water supply for all, including disadvantaged communities. This proposed legislation seeks to increase incentives for such needed collaboration. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Restore Aging Infrastructure Now RAIN Act, which I introduced today. Senator Alex Padilla is cosponsoring the legislation. This bill has three purposes: No. 1, upgrade aging canals and other facilities owned by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide environmental and other benefits; No. 2, for the first time provide grant funding rather than loans for Reclamation facility upgrades that provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and No. 3, incentivize agricultural and municipal irrigation districts to participate in these projects by giving them a 15 percent discount on what they owe for repairing the aging facilities that serve them. Let me explain these three bill purposes in more detail. First, Congress has appropriated $3.2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to repair its aging canals, dams and other facilities. If the Federal taxpayers are spending this much money to retool Reclamation infrastructure for the needs of the 21st century, the Department of the Interior should have the authority to modify the Reclamation facilities to achieve increased environmental benefits, drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and other project benefits. This bill applies to Reclamation ``transferred works'' facilities, which are operated and maintained by agricultural or municipal water districts. The bill authorizes Reclamation to modify these transferred works facilities when the Agency is repairing them, as long as the modifications add no more than 25 percent of the cost of the repair projects, or $25 million for repair projects costing less than $100 million. In California, this could be particularly helpful for projects to restore major Central Valley Project canals that have lost up to 60 percent of their conveyance capacity due to subsidence. These projects are important to allow farmers to capture runoff from our increasingly concentrated winter storms and move the water to overdrafted areas where it is needed to recharge the local aquifers. As I mentioned, the bill applies to those Reclamation facilities known as ``transferred works,'' which are operated and maintained by agricultural or irrigation water districts. In order to modify these projects when they are being repaired, the Secretary must obtain the consent of the transferred works operating entity and any individual water district that would receive less water under the modified project. Many Bureau of Reclamation facilities were built for the sole purpose of assisting agricultural water supply. This irrigation focus is critically important in the arid West. However, as climate change stretches western water supplies, Reclamation facilities will need to serve multiple purposes as efficiently as possible. There are many rural communities in the areas served by Reclamation facilities that have dwindling water supplies. In California, many of these communities are home to migrant farmworkers who plant and harvest the crops that Reclamation water deliveries support. All too often, these communities' water supplies have become unreliable as groundwater tables drop, or drought reduces surface water supplies for lengthy periods. Many of these communities lack the ratepayer base and income levels to provide clean drinking water to meet their residents' basic daily needs. In order to meet this challenge, the bill authorizes Reclamation to offer grants rather than loans when it modifies existing Reclamation facilities to provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities. Eligible communities are defined using existing precedent that their median family income must not exceed 80 percent of the statewide median family income. In California, this could be particular helpful for the major canal repair projects which are restoring the original capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the California Aqueduct, and the Delta-Mendota Canal, all of which have been damaged by subsidence. Under the bill, Reclamation can now modify these upgraded canals to provide turnouts to recharge the aquifers of disadvantaged communities along the canals. As a result, when we have wet years like this past winter, Reclamation could send some of the flood flows to help these communities boost their local water supplies. These project modifications can be an efficient way to assist these disadvantaged communities; the canals already exist, works crews will already be mobilized to repair them, and in many cases, the canals run very near the communities that would benefit. To make the bill work, agricultural and municipal water districts must participate in these modifications to Reclamation facility repair projects. In many cases, the water providers will face disincentives to participate in these projects. Some providers may see their benefits reduced. All providers will have to accept significant delay in obtaining the benefits of the restoration of these projects. It will take significant time to modify the projects in a manner that the providers can accept and then to conduct environmental compliance on the proposed modification. The providers will also have to accept modified project operations that give increased priority to public benefits. To offset these disincentives for water providers to participate in modifications to projects which increase just public benefits, the bill reduces the amount the providers have to pay for the underlying repair projects by 15 percent. The result is that each project beneficiary will pay 85 percent of the costs for the modified project that the beneficiary would otherwise have been allocated. This provision sets up a financial incentive for water providers to support modified projects that solely increase environmental and other public benefits without increasing water diversions or other water supply benefits. Without this financial incentive, water providers might be expected to frequently oppose such modification of the projects that they rely on for water deliveries. In the case of canal restoration projects, the agricultural water districts will receive less water than they would have under the original canals at full capacity if an increased amount of the water is diverted for dedicated to disadvantaged communities or wildlife refuges. The financial incentive is important in this context to avoid generating agricultural water district opposition to project modifications to benefit disadvantaged communities and wildlife refuges. This approach is consistent with Reclamation programs like the Title XVI and large-scale water recycling programs. These programs provide 25 percent Federal grant funding for projects that increase municipal water supplies, even where the benefiting communities are not disadvantaged. These grants are justified because the recycled water programs provide both water supply and broader public benefits by reducing pressure to divert water from often overallocated streams and rivers. With this bill, too, the modified projects merit some Federal grant funding because they provide a range of public benefits beyond just regular water supply, including potentially environmental benefits or drinking water for disadvantaged communities. Given the inevitability of increasingly severe and lengthy droughts as the West's climate changes, it will be essential to provide incentives to collaborate on multibenefit projects that bring agricultural, environmental, and urban interests together to address the very serious challenge of maintaining sufficiently reliable water supply for all, including disadvantaged communities. This proposed legislation seeks to increase incentives for such needed collaboration. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Canal Conveyance Capacity Restoration Act, which I introduced today. Representative Jim Costa has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill authorizes one-third cost-share totaling $653 million for restoring the capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct. Coordinated legislation in the State legislature introduced by State Senator Melissa Hurtado has led to a downpayment on a State cost-share for restoring the canals' capacity. Local water districts would be responsible for the remainder of the cost not covered by the State or Federal governments. In addition, the bill authorizes an additional $180 million to restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River. The funding is for fish passage structures, levees, and other improvements that will allow the threatened Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon to swim freely upstream from the ocean to the Friant Dam. My bill would help California water users and California's Nation- leading agriculture industry comply with a recent State requirement to end the overpumping of groundwater. The stakes are huge: If we don't bring groundwater into balance, then the San Joaquin Valley will lose access to about 2 million acre-feet of water per year. Unless local water agencies and the State and Federal governments act, a recent U.C. Berkeley study has projected severe impacts from these water supply losses: 798,000 acres of land would have to be retired from agricultural production, nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half the fruit and vegetables grown in the Nation; and $5.9 billion would be lost in annual farm income in a region that is almost entirely reliant on agriculture. One of the most economical and efficient ways to restore groundwater balance is to convey floodwater to farmland where it can recharge the aquifer. California has the most variable precipitation of any State. When massive storms from atmospheric rivers occur, there is runoff to recharge aquifers--but only if we can effectively convey the floodwaters throughout the San Joaquin Valley to recharge areas. However, the major canals are in desperate need of repair and have lost as much as 60 percent of their capacity. The bill I am introducing today would provide Federal assistance to help fix these Federal canals. Specifically, the bill would authorize $653.4 million in a Federal funding-cost share for three major projects to restore Federal canals damaged by subsidence to their former capacity: $180 million for the Friant-Kern Canal, which would move an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year on average; $183.9 million for the Delta Mendota Canal, which would move an additional 62,000 acre-feet per year on average; and $289.5 million for California Aqueduct repairs, which would move an additional 205,000 acre-feet per year on average. While parts of the California Aqueduct are State-owned, the majority of the repairs are on its federally owned portion. This will give local farmers a fighting chance to bring their groundwater basins into balance without being forced to retire vast amounts of land. Critically, the ability to deliver floodwaters through restored Federal canals will allow the water districts to invest in their own turnouts, pumps, detention basins, and other groundwater recharge projects. The South Valley Water Association, which covers just a small part of the valley, provided my office with a list of 36 such projects for its area alone. The Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC has determined that groundwater recharge projects are the best option to help the San Joaquin Valley comply with the new State groundwater pumping law. PPIC projects that the valley can make up 300,000 to 500,000 acre-feet of its groundwater deficit through recharge projects. A study commissioned by the coalition group Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley estimates that reductions in groundwater could cause a loss of up to 42,000 farm and agricultural jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. Another 40,000 jobs or more could be lost statewide each year due to reductions in valley agricultural production, putting the total at approximately 85,000 jobs statewide. Most of these impacts will fall disproportionately on economically disadvantaged communities. Let me now turn to the three critical canals that the bill would help restore. The Friant-Kern Canal is a key feature of the Friant Division of the Federal Central Valley Project on the Eastside of the San Joaquin Valley. For nearly 70 years, the Friant Division successfully kept groundwater tables stable on the Eastside. This provided a sustainable source of water for farms and for thousands of Californians and more than 50 small, rural, or disadvantaged communities who rely entirely on groundwater for their household water supplies. But unsustainable groundwater pumping in the valley has reduced the Friant-Kern Canal's ability to deliver water to all who need it. Land elevation subsidence caused by overpumping means that not all of the supplies stored at Friant Dam can be conveyed through the canal. In some areas, the canal can carry only 40 percent of what it is designed to deliver. In 2017, a very wet year in which we should have banked as much floodwater as possible, the Friant-Kern Canal delivered 300,000 acre- feet of water less than it would have conveyed before subsidence. This water would have helped recharge groundwater in the south San Joaquin Valley, where the impacts of reduced water deliveries, water quality issues, and groundwater regulation are expected to be most severe. The California Aqueduct serves more than 27 million people in Southern California and the Silicon Valley and more than 750,000 acres of the Nation's most productive farmland. But despite its name, much of the California Aqueduct is owned by the Federal Government and serves portions of Silicon Valley, small towns and communities in the northern San Joaquin Valley, and farms from Firebaugh to Kettleman City. The aqueduct represents a successful 70-year partnership between the Federal Government and the State of California. In recent years, particularly recent drought years, the California Aqueduct has subsided. It has lost as much as 20 percent of its capacity to move water to California's families, farms, and businesses. California is leading efforts to repair the aqueduct and is working to provide its share of funding, but the Federal Government will also need to pay its fair share. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $289.5 million toward restoring the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal stretches southward 117 miles from the C.W. Bill Jones Pumping Plant along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, parallel to the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal has lost 15 percent of its conveyance capacity due to subsidence. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $183.9 million toward restoring its full ability to convey floodwaters to farms needing to recharge groundwater and to wildlife refuges of critical importance for migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway. This bill responds to a potential crisis that very possibly could cause the forced retirement of nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half of America's fruits and vegetables. These are Federal canals, and the Federal Government must help give these farmers and agricultural communities a fighting chance to keep their lands in production. Lastly, this legislation helps to restore a historic salmon run on California's second longest river, the San Joaquin. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the STREAM Act, Support to Rehydrate the Environment, Agriculture and Municipalities Act, which I am introducing today alongside my cosponsors, Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema. This bill is intended to help Western States upgrade their water infrastructure in preparation for the severe droughts and weather whiplash that we have seen the past few years and that will worsen significantly with climate change. If we don't take action now, it is only going to get worse. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54-percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79-percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30 percent of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. For these reasons and others, we need an ``all of the above'' water strategy, including increased water supply; incentivizing projects that build in environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and investing in separate environmental restoration efforts. The bill I am introducing today helps meet this challenge in four fundamental ways: No. 1, it authorizes significant water supply funding that, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with 1.04 million additional acre-feet of water per year on average, enough water for over 6 million people. No. 2, it provides additional financial incentives for water supply projects that include environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities. No. 3, it reforms the congressional review process to more quickly approve water supply projects; No. 4, it significantly invests not only in water supply projects but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change. The recent drought in the West from 2020 to 2022 illustrates why this bill is so desperately needed. In 2021, the drought caused the California agriculture industry to shrink by an estimated 8,745 jobs and incur $1.2 billion in direct costs, according to a report prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California at Merced. Reduced water deliveries resulted in 395,000 acres of cropland left dry and unplanted. Counting ``spillover effects'' in the broader economy, the U.C. Merced analysis found the total impacts were more than 14,600 lost jobs, both full time and part time, and $1.7 billion in gross revenue losses. In both 2021 and 2022, homes in significant parts of the State were at risk of running dry. In 2021, large parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties and the Mendocino coast came very close to losing all water supply. In 2022, much of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties were placed under emergency orders limiting them to once-a- week landscape irrigation, with the possibility of a complete irrigation shutoff that was only avoided by the timely arrival of multiple atmospheric rivers last fall. In California, one in eight acres statewide has burned from wildfires in the last decade, with the past 2 years being the worst on record. The drought has been devastating to the aquatic ecosystem as well as our forests. As just one example, the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon depend on sufficient cold water released by Shasta Dam to rear their offspring in the Sacramento River. With limited water available in 2021, NOAA Fisheries models predict that approximately 75 percent of the winter run Chinook salmon's eggs died from elevated water temperatures. This is a species with three 1- year age classes, and a prolonged drought could threaten the survival of the species. To increase drought resiliency in California and other Western States, the bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years: $750 million for surface and groundwater storage projects and supporting conveyance, including $50 million for natural water retention and release projects; $300 million for water recycling projects; $150 million for desalination projects; $250 million for environmental restoration projects; and $100 million for drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This funding builds on the bipartisan infrastructure law's funding of $1.15 billion for storage projects, $550 million for water recycling projects, and $250 million for desalination projects. The STREAM Act, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with the Federal cost-share for approximately 1,042,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply, or enough water for over 6 million people. This comes from the following: Enough funding for California to finally build three major off-stream storage projects providing 370,000 acre-feet of water on average each year: Sites Reservoir, the Los Vaqueros Expansion, and the BF Sisk raise. In addition, the storage funding could provide an additional 55,000 acre-feet per year from some combination of other smaller surface and groundwater storage projects like the Sacramento Regional Groundwater Bank or Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir. All of the projects are non-Federal projects with a 25-percent Federal cost share, with the exception of the Federal BF Sisk Raise with a 50-percent Federal cost- share. Enough funding for 532,000 additional acre-feet from water recycling projects, from the $300 million authorized in the bill plus $550 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25-percent Federal cost-share for projects. Enough funding for approximately 85,000 additional acre-feet from the $150 million authorized in the bill for desalination projects, plus $250 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 percent Federal cost-share for projects. While virtually everyone supports water recycling projects, surface and groundwater storage projects are sometimes more controversial. I want to point out a 2022 report from the widely respected Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, which relates to the benefits of additional surface and groundwater storage as California's climate is changing. Many climate forecasters emphasize that as climate change intensifies, California will get more of its precipitation in a few large to extraordinarily large storms fueled by atmospheric rivers, and more of the precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. In between the bursts of atmospheric rivers there will be longer and more intense droughts. We have definitely seen a preview of this pattern this year. PPIC has studied these projections and estimated that there is substantial water in wet years that is not needed to maintain healthy Delta outflows but currently cannot be captured because California lacks the infrastructure to store for future dry periods. PPIC suggests that given this reality, cost-effective storage projects in appropriate locations could help improve California's drought resiliency. PPIC also argues that these storage projects should be managed for environmental flow benefits as well as water supply benefits. This bill would help with that because Federal funding for Sites Reservoir would help provide cold water for salmon, and Federal funding for the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir would provide needed water for wildlife refuges. Regarding cold water reserves for salmon in particular, these reserves will be critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during the potential fourth, fifth, and maybe even sixth and seventh years of devastating droughts. The bill's funding authorizations apply not just to California but throughout the 17 Western States where the Bureau of Reclamation has a presence. Many of these States have recently benefited from the Bureau of Reclamation's storage, water recycling, and desalination programs and/or have projects currently seeking funding from these programs, including Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. I believe the Federal funding assistance authorized by this bill will be particularly important for all seven Colorado River basin States as the States negotiate the next painful round of water supply cuts from the Colorado River between now and 2026 in order to meet the challenge of an increasingly dry Colorado River basin. In Arizona, the STREAM Act would significantly advance the Salt River Project's proposal to raise Bartlett Dam on the Verde River to counteract the loss of approximately one-third of the nearby Horseshoe Dam's capacity from accumulating sediment. The bill uses financial incentives to encourage storage and conveyance projects to include environmental benefits and other public benefits such as drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This is important to ensure that the environment and disadvantaged communities are included in our drought resilience strategies. If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes only low-interest loans to support these projects. In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project. This access to grants gives project sponsors a strong financial incentive to design environmental and disadvantaged community benefits into their projects. This approach builds on the experience of the Proposition 1 water bond California's voters passed by a 2-to-1 margin in 2014, which also incentivizes projects with environmental and other public benefits. If storage and conveyance projects take these steps, they can get Federal grants both directly for the public benefits and for an equal value investment in the water supply component of the project. Thus, the Federal Government will provide $50 million for the general water supply benefits of a project if the project also has $50 million in fish and wildlife or water quality benefits either directly from the project or from an associated watershed restoration plan. The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further. The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding new water supply projects has involved the following: No. 1, reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects. No. 2, once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3 to 5 years or longer in many cases. No. 3, the design and construction can take a decade or longer. One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed by climate change to western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model. Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama Administration and currently Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, testified in support of a new model during an October 8, 2015, hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated: The traditional Reclamation business model, in which feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then construction is authorized and funded, does not always address the needs of project sponsors at the state and local levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the availability of other available financing mechanisms, the historic Federal role in financing water storage projects through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a greater emphasis on non-Federal financing. In response to the concerns articulated by then-Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, makes two significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available Federal funding. First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual water recycling and desalination projects and non-Federal storage projects a Federal investment of less than $250 million. It can take 3 to 5 years or longer for projects to get legislatively approved. In fact, zero new water recycling projects were authorized from 2009 to 2017 despite dozens of meritorious projects with approved feasibility studies. Federal storage projects, which are often more controversial, continue to require congressional authorization, as do non-Federal storage projects with a greater than $250 million Federal investment. The bill shortens the timeline for congressional approval of these projects through directing Reclamation to follow a process that the Army Corps of Engineers uses to notify Congress of completed feasibility studies each year to set up an orderly timeline to authorize projects. Second, the bill no longer requires 100 percent Federal funding upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50 percent Federal funding for federally owned projects and a maximum of 25 percent Federal funding for non-Federal projects that are built by States, water districts, or Indian Tribes. Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded nearly 50 percent by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 20 to 25 percent by the Federal Government and the remaining 25 to 30 percent by water users. Multipartner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts. If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes only low-interest loans to support these projects. In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project. Let me give an example of how this works. If a project sponsor is seeking $100 million in Federal funding for a $400 million non-Federal storage project, the sponsor can get that $100 million funding as a grant if there is $100 million in public benefits from either the project itself or other projects as part of a watershed restoration plan approved with the project. The public benefits could be either drinking water for disadvantaged communities or fish and wildlife benefits. Some examples of fish and wildlife or water quality benefits from a watershed plan could include water leasing during a dry year, water sharing agreements, water banking, ongoing water conservation, and related activities if they provide fish and wildlife or water quality benefits; environmental restoration projects; and natural water retention and release projects. The longer and more severe droughts coming with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to improve species' drought resiliency as well. The significant funding authorization of $250 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish and migratory birds. Some authorized uses of this funding include improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt, and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects; additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts; ensuring that when Sacramento Valley rice growers sell their water and idle their crops, some water is left behind and applied to bare fields in late summer and early fall to create shallow flooded habitat during a critical shorebird migration period; and assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State agencies and State water quality laws. The bill would also authorize $50 million of the broader storage funding for natural water retention and release projects. These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species. I look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multibenefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill. The bill also authorizes pay-for-performance environmental restoration approaches that award grants contingent on the success of the restoration effort. These approaches can expedite environmental restoration and build public/private partnerships to increase the number of acres restored. In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented consistently with all Federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state laws must also be followed. California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major statewide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people. We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face as a result of climate change. I hope my western colleagues will join my cosponsors and me on this bill because drought is a serious threat for all of our States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Community Wood Facilities Assistance Act of 2023 and thank my colleagues, Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly, for joining me as original cosponsors of the bill. This bill will assist with the construction of facilities that make sustainable use of small-diameter timber from forest-thinning projects and other needed treatments in eastern and western forests. In doing so, the bill would also create jobs in rural and forest- dependent communities while decreasing wildfire risk in our vulnerable forests. The Forest Service reports that 80 million acres of Forest Service lands are at risk of catastrophic wildfire or abnormal levels of insect and disease infestations. These impacts are only made worse by historic levels of drought. In California alone, 129 million trees have died across 8.9 million acres due to drought and bark beetles. Thirty-six million of those tree deaths were in 2022, triple the number from the previous year. This is clearly a crisis. Removing select small trees and other hazardous fuels in our forests are critical for preserving our forests over the long term. Not only does this ease the competition large trees face for water, it also reduces the spread of bark beetles and makes the forest less susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. Between the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress has provided billions of dollars for hazardous fuels reduction and forest thinning work. What is needed now is the economic infrastructure to support this work. Unfortunately, the number of sawmills, bioenergy facilities, and other forest-product companies have been shrinking for decades. This is due in part to increased production efficiency, but in other instances, market instability forced the closure of many large mills. One result of the decrease in sawmills is the inability for the market to react nimbly to supply and demand. In 2020, even though massive wildfires should have meant a boom in salvageable trees, the COVID-19 pandemic constrained mill capacity and throughput. This constraint, along with a surge in consumer demand, led to a near 400 percent increase in lumber prices, which are only now resolving. An analysis by The Nature Conservancy and Bain and Company management consultants recommended incentives to ``bridge the gap between the cost of ecological thinning and the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure.'' As the report explains, ``If more aggressive restoration targets can be met, there will be significant need for additional processing capacity to defray restoration costs and provide valuable end uses for thinned material.'' Our bill would make targeted changes to existing Forest Service grant programs to help the forest product industry grow and provide outlets for the billions of acres of wood that will result from the investments made in the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act. The two grant programs we target in this bill are the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program and the Wood Innovations Program. These programs would benefit from changes, particularly from higher Federal cost-shares and an increased ability to provide more funding for each project, in addition to a higher authorized funding. The first of these, the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program, provides grants for the capital cost of small wood products facilities. Our bill would first change the name to avoid confusion with the Wood Innovations Program. Our bill would also double the authorization level to $50 million per year, allow the program to fund new facility construction in addition to improvements. The maximum grant amount would also increase from $1 to $5 million, and the Federal cost share would increase from 35 percent to 50 percent, making it easier for small companies to use. Our bill will also revise the Forest Service's Wood Innovations Grant Program, which provides grants for innovative uses and applications of wood products and the expansion of related markets. It would similarly allow this program to be used for new facilities in addition to retrofits and improvements and lower the minimum non-Federal cost-share from 50 percent to 33.3 percent. Congress has an opportunity this year to make these important changes to these grant programs and help stimulate a self-sustaining forest product economy and promote healthier forests. I thank Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly for their partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to promptly take up this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Community Wood Facilities Assistance Act of 2023 and thank my colleagues, Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly, for joining me as original cosponsors of the bill. This bill will assist with the construction of facilities that make sustainable use of small-diameter timber from forest-thinning projects and other needed treatments in eastern and western forests. In doing so, the bill would also create jobs in rural and forest- dependent communities while decreasing wildfire risk in our vulnerable forests. The Forest Service reports that 80 million acres of Forest Service lands are at risk of catastrophic wildfire or abnormal levels of insect and disease infestations. These impacts are only made worse by historic levels of drought. In California alone, 129 million trees have died across 8.9 million acres due to drought and bark beetles. Thirty-six million of those tree deaths were in 2022, triple the number from the previous year. This is clearly a crisis. Removing select small trees and other hazardous fuels in our forests are critical for preserving our forests over the long term. Not only does this ease the competition large trees face for water, it also reduces the spread of bark beetles and makes the forest less susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. Between the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress has provided billions of dollars for hazardous fuels reduction and forest thinning work. What is needed now is the economic infrastructure to support this work. Unfortunately, the number of sawmills, bioenergy facilities, and other forest-product companies have been shrinking for decades. This is due in part to increased production efficiency, but in other instances, market instability forced the closure of many large mills. One result of the decrease in sawmills is the inability for the market to react nimbly to supply and demand. In 2020, even though massive wildfires should have meant a boom in salvageable trees, the COVID-19 pandemic constrained mill capacity and throughput. This constraint, along with a surge in consumer demand, led to a near 400 percent increase in lumber prices, which are only now resolving. An analysis by The Nature Conservancy and Bain and Company management consultants recommended incentives to ``bridge the gap between the cost of ecological thinning and the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure.'' As the report explains, ``If more aggressive restoration targets can be met, there will be significant need for additional processing capacity to defray restoration costs and provide valuable end uses for thinned material.'' Our bill would make targeted changes to existing Forest Service grant programs to help the forest product industry grow and provide outlets for the billions of acres of wood that will result from the investments made in the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act. The two grant programs we target in this bill are the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program and the Wood Innovations Program. These programs would benefit from changes, particularly from higher Federal cost-shares and an increased ability to provide more funding for each project, in addition to a higher authorized funding. The first of these, the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program, provides grants for the capital cost of small wood products facilities. Our bill would first change the name to avoid confusion with the Wood Innovations Program. Our bill would also double the authorization level to $50 million per year, allow the program to fund new facility construction in addition to improvements. The maximum grant amount would also increase from $1 to $5 million, and the Federal cost share would increase from 35 percent to 50 percent, making it easier for small companies to use. Our bill will also revise the Forest Service's Wood Innovations Grant Program, which provides grants for innovative uses and applications of wood products and the expansion of related markets. It would similarly allow this program to be used for new facilities in addition to retrofits and improvements and lower the minimum non-Federal cost-share from 50 percent to 33.3 percent. Congress has an opportunity this year to make these important changes to these grant programs and help stimulate a self-sustaining forest product economy and promote healthier forests. I thank Senators Collins, Shaheen, and Kelly for their partnership on this bill, and I urge the full Senate to promptly take up this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Help Independent Tracks Succeed (HITS) Act, which Senator Blackburn and I introduced today. Representatives Linda Sanchez and Ron Estes have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The U.S. Tax Code allows film, television, and theater productions to fully deduct production expenses in the year they are incurred. However, recording artists are not given the same treatment and instead must amortize their production expenses over a number of years. Moreover, many live performance stages and venues across the country closed for months as a result of the pandemic. Independent musicians and music makers, including both technicians and creators, suffered more than most other professions during this period, and many continue to recover. Our bill would provide a measure of relief to music creators by allowing independent musicians, technicians, and music producers to deduct the costs of producing new musical and other sound recordings in the year they are incurred, thereby putting them on a level playing field with film, television, and theater productions. Specifically, the bill would allow qualified sound recording producers to deduct 100% of recording production expenses--up to $150,000--in the year they are incurred, rather than in later years. Because this change would simply accelerate a tax deduction that already exists, the bill's cost would be modest. In addition, because the deduction would be capped at $150,000 per production, our legislation would benefit smaller, independent musicians and music producers rather than large companies. Music has inspired, comforted, and entertained each of us. Our bill would help create parity between musical creators and other creative producers and stimulate a sector of the economy that is a fundamental part of each of our lives. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Help Independent Tracks Succeed (HITS) Act, which Senator Blackburn and I introduced today. Representatives Linda Sanchez and Ron Estes have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The U.S. Tax Code allows film, television, and theater productions to fully deduct production expenses in the year they are incurred. However, recording artists are not given the same treatment and instead must amortize their production expenses over a number of years. Moreover, many live performance stages and venues across the country closed for months as a result of the pandemic. Independent musicians and music makers, including both technicians and creators, suffered more than most other professions during this period, and many continue to recover. Our bill would provide a measure of relief to music creators by allowing independent musicians, technicians, and music producers to deduct the costs of producing new musical and other sound recordings in the year they are incurred, thereby putting them on a level playing field with film, television, and theater productions. Specifically, the bill would allow qualified sound recording producers to deduct 100% of recording production expenses--up to $150,000--in the year they are incurred, rather than in later years. Because this change would simply accelerate a tax deduction that already exists, the bill's cost would be modest. In addition, because the deduction would be capped at $150,000 per production, our legislation would benefit smaller, independent musicians and music producers rather than large companies. Music has inspired, comforted, and entertained each of us. Our bill would help create parity between musical creators and other creative producers and stimulate a sector of the economy that is a fundamental part of each of our lives. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act. The premise of this bill is simple: Individuals who pose a serious threat to themselves or others should not have guns. Too often we see the deadly consequences when those at risk of committing violence are given easy access to guns. Nearly 40,000 people die each year from gun violence. Last year, 3,597 children died by gunfire--making guns the No. 1 cause of death for children in the United States. Before many incidents of gun violence, shooters display warning signs of impending violence. However, family and friends--those in the best position to recognize troubling signs--are too often powerless to stop the violence. That is why Congress must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act. Extreme risk protection orders, which are often referred to as red flag laws, allow law enforcement and family members to petition courts to temporarily remove guns from individuals who are determined to be dangerous. These laws help save lives. Nineteen States, including California, already have these laws on the books. Red flag laws work, but they need more funding. The Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act, which I am reintroducing today, would allow States to use Federal funds to develop red flag laws. Passing the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act would help States respond to situations where a dangerous person should not have access to a gun. It will also help us better understand the causes of gun violence and how to better protect our communities. When Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act last year, it expanded the Justice Department's existing Byrne-JAG Program to allow States to apply for Federal grant assistance if they want to create these laws. While this was an important first step, I believe we must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act to build on the important work done last Congress and make sure that specific dedicated funding exists for the development and implementation of red-flag laws.