Alex Padilla

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, as the American people can clearly see, President Trump's new tariffs have become a massive tax hike on consumers--a tax on the food we eat, a tax on the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, every cup of coffee we have in the morning. These rising costs are not just hurting consumers, actually; they are hurting American businesses and our workforce too. We are already seeing the impact. It is not a hypothetical. I call your attention to my home State, the great State of California, home to two of the largest ports in the Nation in southern California alone, the neighboring Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, that truly power our Nation's economy. It is not an exaggeration. The Port of Los Angeles, which is the largest port in the United States, expects imports to drop by 35 percent in just 2 weeks' time, as Trump's tariffs and his manufactured chaos bring global trade to a halt. The Port of Long Beach is expecting similar declines. Take a minute to think about the magnitude of that drop in cargo volume. That decline, at the end of the day, will mean empty shelves and higher prices. The over $300 billion in cargo coming through what we know as the San Pedro Bay port complex is tied to nearly 1 million jobs in the region alone and 2.7 million jobs across the country. That is nearly one job for every four containers. When the richest President in history decides on his own, unlawfully, to haphazardly apply an across-the-board tax on goods--because that is what these tariffs are--the goods-moving industry is going to take a hit. It will mean fewer jobs for port workers, for truckers, and for communities across the country. It will mean more Americans out of work. While the western port communities may be the first to feel the pain, it won't be long before the effects of these tariffs reach the east coast and the gulf coast. As I mentioned, this isn't just bad news for American consumers who rely on imports. It is also bad news for U.S. farmers and businesses that rely on the export of goods to other countries. Trump's tariffs are already damaging important supply chains in ways that will be difficult and very expensive to reverse. And, in the meantime, China and others are all too happy to fill in the void. I just had a group of growers from California in my office, just yesterday, and they were sharing with me their very specific experiences--fears--that are playing out. You see, U.S. companies, not just agricultural companies, depend on markets in China and elsewhere in Asia, India, and Europe for sales, for profits that they can, in turn, invest in their own companies and hire more employees. Now, when those markets are shut off to them and those countries respond to these unnecessary tariff wars provoked by President Trump, they don't stop consuming. Whether it is fruit, vegetables, electronics, or otherwise, they just find somewhere else to get it. When those other countries, those other markets, find a replacement for their supply, they are not going to give it up in 2 months, maybe, if Donald Trump wakes up in a better mood and sees the error of his ways when it comes to these tariffs--because there is that deadline, right? We are in a 90-day postponement of a lot of these tariffs, but we don't know what is coming on day 91. Tariffs are imposed. Tariffs are not imposed. More significant tariffs are imposed. I hope it has nothing to do with his poll numbers because the American public will continue to feel more pain. My point is this. Other markets and consumers abroad who have purchased from the United States are going to purchase elsewhere, and they are not going to revert immediately back, even if we get the President to make the right decision in the next couple of months. Now, like I said, Americans are already feeling the pain. It is going to get worse. Just this morning, the Commerce Department reported our Nation's gross domestic product for the first quarter. The results: Our quarterly GDP declined by 0.3 percent. It wasn't a reduction in growth. It was a decline of 0.3 percent in his first 100 days alone. Donald Trump's reckless policies actually shrank the American economy. Is that what he bragged about? Is that what he campaigned on? Is that what people voted for? This shrinking of the economy, by the way, follows 3 years of robust growth of our economy under President Biden. I don't think our Republican colleagues will recognize that, but it is true. The numbers do not lie. So 100 days of chaos, increased costs, and corruption are shrinking our economy. To my Republican colleagues: Are you hearing this? Are you listening? Are you prepared to act? American businesses are going to be forced to take on some of these higher costs for materials, to cut back on production, to try to make ends meet, to delay investment. That is the opposite of what we need. We need more investment, not to delay or postpone investment because of tariff uncertainty. And, certainly, they are going to raise prices, because, again, when American companies have to import, it is American companies that pay the tariffs. It is not other countries, as the President would like you to believe, and those costs get passed on to the consumer. Meanwhile, the world is moving on without us, as I explained a minute ago. So let's be clear about the stakes of what we are debating today: A vote against this resolution is a vote to maintain Trump's tariffs that are so clearly devastating our economy already. It will move us closer to a recession solely of Trump's doing. You can't blame it on anybody else. And it is a vote against the American worker, a vote against the American economy, a vote against American competitiveness. Is that what you want to go back and tell your constituents? Colleagues, I urge you to listen to your constituents, to small businesses in our respective States, the State and local governments. It is not too late to turn back. Support this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today with a number of my colleagues. I will speak for the next, probably, hour-plus on the topic of election integrity and the seemingly constant attacks on our election integrity by Donald Trump and our Republican colleagues. I am joined by a number of my friends and colleagues in our remarks here for the next block. Senator Welch will be speaking next, our colleague from Vermont, and then Senator Blumenthal, Senator Merkley, Leader Schumer, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Bennet. And it will be wrapped up with my partner in organizing this group of Senators, Senator Reed, who is not only the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee but is the ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing funding for this space. I rise today, with my colleagues, out of grave concern for the future of our democracy. I currently serve as the ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. I also, as many of you know, am the former secretary of state for the State of California. So I have seen firsthand, not just through the last 4 years but for the last 8, 9 years, the growing threats to our democracy and the threats to the public confidence in our elections. Sadly, the truth in the year 2025 is that it is not just foreign actors who are trying to undermine our elections and the people's confidence in the elections. It is also so many Republican officials here at home, not just in the Capitol but in statehouses across America--but, yes, even here in the Capitol. I think of the old horror movie where the person on the phone would say that the call is coming from inside the house. In State legislatures, in the Capitol, and in the Oval Office, radical Republicans are working hard--actively working hard--to make it harder for eligible Americans to exercise their constitutional right to vote. We see it in the endless lies and conspiracy theories about massive voter fraud. We see it in the new barriers being erected that would make it harder for eligible Americans to simply register to vote. And we see it in the Trump administration's firing of the hard-working and dedicated security officials who are tasked with protecting our elections. So, yes, over the next hour, with my Democratic colleagues, we will peel back the curtain on the tactics being used to undermine our Federal elections, because our fundamental democracy is at stake. In Rochester Hills, MI, Republican clerk Tina Barton worked hard to help administer and uphold a free and fair election in 2020. But for her dedication and hard work and professionalism, 1 week after the 2020 election, Tina received an anonymous phone call--not a phone call thanking her for her service but a phone call threatening her life. The voice on the other end threatened to come after her family, to hold a knife to her throat, and to kill her. As shocking as threats like that may be, Tina represents just one-- one in every three election workers who has reported receiving threats, harassment, and abuse. So, for Tina and so many others, that harassment grew worse with every lie spread by the Trump campaign about a so- called stolen election, with threats against election officials continuing in subsequent elections. There was no stolen election. That is a farce. But for those selfless election workers, Donald Trump hasn't even tried to lower the temperature of political rhetoric or combat the disinformation that leads to the threats and harassment. Instead, he has, actually, actively made it worse for those who are administering elections. Think of the election workers and all of the volunteers who work polling places to help our elections in our democracy thrive. He has made it worse for voters. He has fired Federal workers who combat election misinformation and disinformation. Why would he and his administration and Republicans in Congress who support him want to make it easier for people to interfere with our elections? I am at a loss. I am at a loss for an answer. What I do know is that, by failing to counter, by failing to elevate the truth, Republicans in Congress have become complicit as they just sit back instead of pushing back. Believe it or not, there was a time, not that long ago, when even Republicans had the moral courage to speak out against Trump's attacks on our democracy. I do think back a few years to my days as the California secretary of state when, during the first Trump administration, he created a commission to investigate these unfounded claims of ``voter fraud''-- without evidence, baseless claims--but for him, it was important enough to set up a commission to investigate and uncover the truth. The commission set out to collect sensitive, private voter information from every State, demanding that States hand over not just the names of every voter on the voter rolls but their dates of birth, their voting history, their Social Security information, and more. It was a blatant power grab, long before Elon Musk started tapping into Federal servers, by the way. It was a blatant power grab which was responded to: 44 States, both Republican and Democratic, said no. Republican and Democratic elections officials throughout the country joined together to reject Donald Trump's demands under his first term. Even in Mississippi--hardly a woke, Democratic bastion, folks--even in Mississippi, then-Secretary of State and now-Lieutenant Governor Delbert Hosemann, a Republican, was outraged. He was so offended by the power grab that he responded to the White House's request with ``Go jump in the Gulf of Mexico,'' saying, ``Mississippi is a great state to launch from.'' Good for him. So you can imagine my disappointment when, fast-forward to this past March, Trump announced yet another anti-voter Executive order that would empower DOGE to access sensitive voter data--very reminiscent of the request from that first term but now on steroids. And what did so many of our Republican colleagues here in the Senate and the House of Representatives say? Nothing. But it is not just that the Republicans have gone silent, they have actually become Trump's enablers here in Congress by forgoing their responsibility to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch. Any day now here in the Senate, we could see Republicans take up the SAVE Act--the measure that recently passed the House of Representatives, a bill that, I should say, scapegoats immigrants simply to justify new barriers to voter registration. Not only is that wrong, it is un-American. And, again, it is based on a lie. I bring to this body my 6 years of experience administering elections not just in any State but the most populous State in the Nation, with the largest number and the most diverse number of voters in the Nation. I understand the complexities of both keeping our elections free and fair but also secure. And I am happy to take time to meet with any of you to walk you through the security measures that are in place to ensure the integrity of our elections. I can tell you this, in case you didn't know already: It is already a crime for noncitizens to vote in our elections. To propose it as a new law is misleading. It is already against the law. And, by the way, it is also extremely, extremely rare. But if our Republican colleagues were to have their way, American citizens--American citizens--would feel the impacts of the SAVE Act, from the Active-Duty servicemember who has to move for a new deployment and has to work so much harder than they should have to, to update their registration with the new address at the local elections office, which could be hours and hours from the base where they are assigned, to think of a married woman who chose to change her last name when she got married, and now the name listed on the birth certificate and the name on their ID no longer match. They will have some explaining to do and hurdles to jump over simply to register to vote. These are just two small examples that impact millions and millions of Americans, should the SAVE Act pass. And if you make it harder to register, guess what, you have made it harder for eligible citizens to vote. That would be the result of the SAVE Act. Here in the Senate, I want people to know that together with my Senate Democratic colleagues, I will do whatever it takes to kill this bill, to stop it from passing, to keep it even from coming up, if we can, because we owe it to our constituents to fight every Executive order that undermines our democracy and to keep demanding answers on the firing of Federal workers entrusted with safeguarding our elections. So over the course of the next hour, Senate Democrats will lay down a marker. We will stand strong against the rising tide of attacks on our democracy. And I will keep leading the fight to stop this cynical and dangerous bill and to stop Trump and Republicans' attempts to undermine our voting rights. I yield the floor to my next colleague.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. This crucial piece of legislation would simply increase the authorization of funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, SJRRP, which supports one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States while also creating a healthy, living river for Chinook salmon. Increasing the cap for the program will enable the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of California, and key partners to advance projects necessary to the continued success of the program. Our bill retains a provision in the original legislation from 2009 that authorized the SJRRP and set forth a one-for-one match from non-Federal sources for any Federal appropriated dollars. The bill would also increase the authorization of appropriations to help restore canal capacity for the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals to address subsidence. A fully implemented SJRRP is crucial for managing the San Joaquin River system, restoring fish populations, and ensuring reliable water supplies for farmers. Without an increased funding cap, Federal support will likely fall short, threatening both water reliability and ecosystem restoration and undermining decades of collaboration and progress. That is why our bill is supported by a broad range of agricultural water users, the State of California, and key local partner, because the SJRRP's success benefits both farmers and the environment. This type of collaboration demonstrates how we can manage our limited water resources to provide water supply reliability while also benefiting our ecosystems. While we were able to pass this bill through the Senate by unanimous consent at the end of 2024, it did not pass the House of Representatives in time to be signed into law. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both Chambers to advance this commonsense, straightforward legislation on the floor as soon as possible. And I thank Senator Hoeven for his support for my legislation.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act, which I introduced today. Let me begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for veterans and members of our Armed Forces who have answered the call of duty and sacrificed for our Nation. I firmly believe that those who serve our country with honor, courage, and distinction deserve our Nation's enduring gratitude. That is why I have always been committed to supporting all those who have fought for our Nation's freedom. Currently, many disabled veterans are unable to access housing programs for veterans because of how income is defined. The more severe a disability is, the more disability benefits a veteran receives. Yet, because of the way total income has historically been determined, this means that veterans receiving the highest amount of disability benefits often cannot access the housing assistance they need. Congress must ensure that every veteran has access to stable housing. While progress has been made in reducing veteran homelessness, there is still more that we must do. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort between Federal, State, and local agencies and strong partnerships with nonprofit veteran service organizations and community leaders. We must do our part to remove redtape and make it easier for veterans to be housed. I remain committed to supporting policies that expand and increase access to VA homelessness programs for veterans in need. I want to thank Senators Gallego, McCormick, and Britt for introducing this bipartisan bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting solutions that ensure no veteran is left without a safe place to call home.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. This crucial piece of legislation would simply increase the authorization of funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, SJRRP, which supports one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States while also creating a healthy, living river for Chinook salmon. Increasing the cap for the program will enable the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of California, and key partners to advance projects necessary to the continued success of the program. Our bill retains a provision in the original legislation from 2009 that authorized the SJRRP and set forth a one-for-one match from non-Federal sources for any Federal appropriated dollars. The bill would also increase the authorization of appropriations to help restore canal capacity for the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals to address subsidence. A fully implemented SJRRP is crucial for managing the San Joaquin River system, restoring fish populations, and ensuring reliable water supplies for farmers. Without an increased funding cap, Federal support will likely fall short, threatening both water reliability and ecosystem restoration and undermining decades of collaboration and progress. That is why our bill is supported by a broad range of agricultural water users, the State of California, and key local partner, because the SJRRP's success benefits both farmers and the environment. This type of collaboration demonstrates how we can manage our limited water resources to provide water supply reliability while also benefiting our ecosystems. While we were able to pass this bill through the Senate by unanimous consent at the end of 2024, it did not pass the House of Representatives in time to be signed into law. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both Chambers to advance this commonsense, straightforward legislation on the floor as soon as possible. And I thank Senator Hoeven for his support for my legislation.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act, which I introduced today. Let me begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for veterans and members of our Armed Forces who have answered the call of duty and sacrificed for our Nation. I firmly believe that those who serve our country with honor, courage, and distinction deserve our Nation's enduring gratitude. That is why I have always been committed to supporting all those who have fought for our Nation's freedom. Currently, many disabled veterans are unable to access housing programs for veterans because of how income is defined. The more severe a disability is, the more disability benefits a veteran receives. Yet, because of the way total income has historically been determined, this means that veterans receiving the highest amount of disability benefits often cannot access the housing assistance they need. Congress must ensure that every veteran has access to stable housing. While progress has been made in reducing veteran homelessness, there is still more that we must do. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort between Federal, State, and local agencies and strong partnerships with nonprofit veteran service organizations and community leaders. We must do our part to remove redtape and make it easier for veterans to be housed. I remain committed to supporting policies that expand and increase access to VA homelessness programs for veterans in need. I want to thank Senators Gallego, McCormick, and Britt for introducing this bipartisan bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting solutions that ensure no veteran is left without a safe place to call home.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2025. This crucial piece of legislation would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1978 to permanently prohibit offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. It has been over 50 years since a major oilspill occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, which inspired the first Earth Day and the modern environmental movement that we see today. Despite this catastrophic incident, California has still a experienced subsequent oilspills, which is unacceptable since these environmental incidents are preventable. I hope my colleagues can join me in understanding that the tradeoff between oil production and environmental harm is simply not one we should be making any longer. The oil spills in California have had drastic impacts, including oil seeping into environmentally sensitive wetlands, endangering birds and other wildlife, and forcing the closure of beaches that are the economic engines of entire communities. We must end our reliance on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels and work towards a clean energy future, because even when oil isn't leaking from pipelines, it is fueling the crisis of global warming, poisoning local communities, and causing billions of dollars of harm each year. Fossil fuels are endangering Californian families and fueling raging wildfires and extreme drought--as well as toxic oilspills. I want to recognize the late Senator Feinstein for spearheading this bill year after year during her time in Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to improve our coastal safety and protect our communities.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Housing for All Act of 2025, which I introduced today. Our Nation's homelessness and affordable housing crises have reached a breaking point. As of January, 2024, over 771,480 individuals in the U.S.--disproportionately people of color--experienced homelessness. The rate of homelessness has increased by 18 percent since 2023. The lack of adequate Federal investments in affordable housing and housing assistance programs are exacerbating these crises. There is currently a shortage of 7.1 million affordable and available rental homes in the U.S. According to a recent National Low Income Housing Coalition report, no State or county exists where a person working 40 hours a week and earning the State or local minimum wage can afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment. Furthermore, over 21 million renters nationwide spend more than 30 percent of their income on just housing costs alone. The affordable housing and homelessness crises are not just a blue State issue or an urban problem; every State is impacted. From our metropolitan areas to our rural heartlands, our constituents everywhere feel the real impact of housing unaffordability. It is time for the Federal Government to step up, partner with our State and local governments alongside service providers on the ground and other stakeholders, and invest in solving these problems at a rate commensurate with the need. I am proud to re-introduce this bill, which represents a comprehensive approach to tackling housing and homelessness. If enacted, it would invest in and align Federal resources to support people experiencing housing instability. To address the affordable housing and homelessness crises, we must invest in proven policies that support strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and ensure quality, affordable homes for all. Specifically, this bill would address the affordable housing shortage by investing in the housing trust fund, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program, Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, and the HOME Program. It establishes a commission to focus on racial equity in housing and homelessness. The bill would address homelessness by investing in Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Rental Assistance, emergency solutions grants, and continuums of care. It also builds on locally developed and driven approaches by creating new grant programs to strengthen mobile crisis intervention teams; to support hotel and motel conversions to permanent supportive housing with services; to aid libraries in supporting persons experiencing homelessness; to provide people living in vehicles with a safe place to park overnight and facilitate a transition to stable housing; and to coordinate behavioral health care with homelessness services. And it commissions a report on the connection between evictions and emergency rental assistance during the pandemic, so we can make smarter policies moving forward. When I have traveled around California--from Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire--to the Central Valley, San Diego, and San Francisco--to better understand the needs for housing in different communities, some key elements stood out. On the production side, there is a need for more dedicated funding for affordable housing from the Federal Government. There is also missing middle-income housing for families, especially people of color. And there is not enough housing near transit. That is why my bill focuses on supporting inclusive, transit-oriented development. When I talked to researchers about keeping families housed, one main point they made was that we don't have enough data on renters and evictions, and that is why the bill includes a section on data, so we can make evidence-based policies. Right now, the cost to build low-income housing in California is very high in part because of land and material costs and the fragmented way funding is distributed in California. This is a common problem across the Nation--not just in California. That is why the bill includes a section to provide technical assistance for localities navigating Federal and State housing funding sources. Affordable housing is essential infrastructure. Every person deserves dignity, security, and a space of their own. At a time when the current aministration is gutting and dismantling key Housing and Urban Development Department programs and reducing protections for the most vulnerable among us, this bill has never been more important. Congress must step up so that our Nation's housing and homelessness crises are dealt with in a comprehensive and holistic way to ensure that every person and family in America has a place to call home. I want to thank Representatives Ted Lieu and Salud Carbajal for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this comprehensive solution to our nationwide affordable housing and homelessness crises.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2025. This crucial piece of legislation would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1978 to permanently prohibit offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. It has been over 50 years since a major oilspill occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, which inspired the first Earth Day and the modern environmental movement that we see today. Despite this catastrophic incident, California has still a experienced subsequent oilspills, which is unacceptable since these environmental incidents are preventable. I hope my colleagues can join me in understanding that the tradeoff between oil production and environmental harm is simply not one we should be making any longer. The oil spills in California have had drastic impacts, including oil seeping into environmentally sensitive wetlands, endangering birds and other wildlife, and forcing the closure of beaches that are the economic engines of entire communities. We must end our reliance on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels and work towards a clean energy future, because even when oil isn't leaking from pipelines, it is fueling the crisis of global warming, poisoning local communities, and causing billions of dollars of harm each year. Fossil fuels are endangering Californian families and fueling raging wildfires and extreme drought--as well as toxic oilspills. I want to recognize the late Senator Feinstein for spearheading this bill year after year during her time in Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to improve our coastal safety and protect our communities.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Housing for All Act of 2025, which I introduced today. Our Nation's homelessness and affordable housing crises have reached a breaking point. As of January, 2024, over 771,480 individuals in the U.S.--disproportionately people of color--experienced homelessness. The rate of homelessness has increased by 18 percent since 2023. The lack of adequate Federal investments in affordable housing and housing assistance programs are exacerbating these crises. There is currently a shortage of 7.1 million affordable and available rental homes in the U.S. According to a recent National Low Income Housing Coalition report, no State or county exists where a person working 40 hours a week and earning the State or local minimum wage can afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment. Furthermore, over 21 million renters nationwide spend more than 30 percent of their income on just housing costs alone. The affordable housing and homelessness crises are not just a blue State issue or an urban problem; every State is impacted. From our metropolitan areas to our rural heartlands, our constituents everywhere feel the real impact of housing unaffordability. It is time for the Federal Government to step up, partner with our State and local governments alongside service providers on the ground and other stakeholders, and invest in solving these problems at a rate commensurate with the need. I am proud to re-introduce this bill, which represents a comprehensive approach to tackling housing and homelessness. If enacted, it would invest in and align Federal resources to support people experiencing housing instability. To address the affordable housing and homelessness crises, we must invest in proven policies that support strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and ensure quality, affordable homes for all. Specifically, this bill would address the affordable housing shortage by investing in the housing trust fund, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program, Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, and the HOME Program. It establishes a commission to focus on racial equity in housing and homelessness. The bill would address homelessness by investing in Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Rental Assistance, emergency solutions grants, and continuums of care. It also builds on locally developed and driven approaches by creating new grant programs to strengthen mobile crisis intervention teams; to support hotel and motel conversions to permanent supportive housing with services; to aid libraries in supporting persons experiencing homelessness; to provide people living in vehicles with a safe place to park overnight and facilitate a transition to stable housing; and to coordinate behavioral health care with homelessness services. And it commissions a report on the connection between evictions and emergency rental assistance during the pandemic, so we can make smarter policies moving forward. When I have traveled around California--from Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire--to the Central Valley, San Diego, and San Francisco--to better understand the needs for housing in different communities, some key elements stood out. On the production side, there is a need for more dedicated funding for affordable housing from the Federal Government. There is also missing middle-income housing for families, especially people of color. And there is not enough housing near transit. That is why my bill focuses on supporting inclusive, transit-oriented development. When I talked to researchers about keeping families housed, one main point they made was that we don't have enough data on renters and evictions, and that is why the bill includes a section on data, so we can make evidence-based policies. Right now, the cost to build low-income housing in California is very high in part because of land and material costs and the fragmented way funding is distributed in California. This is a common problem across the Nation--not just in California. That is why the bill includes a section to provide technical assistance for localities navigating Federal and State housing funding sources. Affordable housing is essential infrastructure. Every person deserves dignity, security, and a space of their own. At a time when the current aministration is gutting and dismantling key Housing and Urban Development Department programs and reducing protections for the most vulnerable among us, this bill has never been more important. Congress must step up so that our Nation's housing and homelessness crises are dealt with in a comprehensive and holistic way to ensure that every person and family in America has a place to call home. I want to thank Representatives Ted Lieu and Salud Carbajal for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this comprehensive solution to our nationwide affordable housing and homelessness crises.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of Colorado for yielding and staying for a few minutes because I know that he shares one of my key observations--I woke up this morning preparing for today's discussion, today's debate, and for today's series of votes--and that is the American people can be forgiven if they are tuning in today to this discussion and wondering, Haven't I seen this before? This sounds awfully familiar. It was a little over 7 years ago, in December of 2017, that Republicans passed the single biggest priority of the first Trump administration. No, it wasn't record investment in our Nation's infrastructure that was promised almost on a weekly basis and never happened during the first Trump administration. Despite their best efforts, it was not repealing the Affordable Care Act as they pledged to do time and time again. What it was, what Republicans were successful in doing was passing a historic tax break for the wealthiest Americans. It added nearly $2 trillion to our Nation's debt--deficit hawks, are you listening?--two trillion dollars that could have gone to improve public schools; could have gone to address the housing supply challenges in our Nation; could have gone to helping lift children and families out of poverty, but, no, a tax break for the wealthiest Americans and some of the largest corporations on the planet. Yes, in their actions in 2017, it included a permanent cut to the corporate tax rate by 14 percent. So it begs the question, What was the impact of these tax breaks? It has been a pretty good few years for some people. Again, ask these large corporations and the wealthiest Americans, it has been a great economic ride for them but not for working families. Most Americans have since increasingly struggled with the cost of groceries, the cost of putting gas in the car, struggling to pay the mortgage or the rent. And we can flash forward from 7 years ago to just this last November. We know the election results. I am not an election denier. I know who won. And I know one of the big takeaways that people on both sides of the aisle learned from the results was that Americans were voting for lower prices--or so they thought. And so I want to ask a question and follow it up with an explanation to my Republican colleagues. When is enough enough? Because since the day Donald Trump took office for a second term, we continue to see prices going up, not down. Yes, the President that promised to lower prices on day one through his statements, through his rhetoric, through his policies and actions, has led to price increases across the board. The richest President in American history has appointed a Cabinet, but who does he have by his side day in and day out? It is the richest man in the world to help guide these decisions. Decisions like imposing universal tariffs, which actually raises the cost of goods that Americans buy, from clothes to groceries, to electronics and everything in-between. It is a tax, folks. It may not be called a tax, but we know how it works, American companies have to pay more to import goods. They pass those increased costs on to the consumer, so consumers are paying more. It is like a tax increase. Some argue that, well, by paying more it is more money into the U.S. Treasury. Well, where is that money going to go? Is it going to public education? Donald Trump and Republicans are trying to eliminate the Department of Education. Is it going into infrastructure projects? No. The administration has been moving to freeze funding, lay off workers, clawback critical funding that Congress has previously approved, a lot of it in a bipartisan basis. So where is the money going? This is the deja vu part; their efforts to once again cut taxes for large corporations and the wealthiest in America, the billionaire class, if you will. I mean, kind of connect those dots together and what it is, is this administration, with Republicans in Congress, robbing working families to give to the rich. So I ask the question again: When is enough enough? Over 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid, for example, one of the larger items in our Federal budget. That includes 15 million Californians; Californians like the families I met at Rady's Children Hospital in San Diego a couple weeks ago who were sharing their stories, and I will get to that in a minute here. But one of the big takeaways I had from that discussion was both the experience of the families, their fear about not being able to afford the necessary healthcare that their children need but also important business and policy lessons from the hospital administrators. Their CEO explaining to the public and to the press that the programs that they offer, not just his hospital, but all hospitals, programs that they offer isn't just for Medicaid patients. A lot of their patients use Medicaid to help afford the cost of services, but the programs are there for everybody. So if they are forced to cut the programs because of cuts to Medicaid, then those programs are gone for everybody, not just Medicaid patients, even patients and families that aren't on Medicaid. The program is gone. The service is gone. It is impacting people's health, these proposed cuts. But Republicans say that, you know, we have got to balance the budget; we have got to reduce costs. When we bring up specific examples like Medicaid, Republicans will say: Oh, no, that is not on the chopping block. We heard it from the President himself; it is not on the chopping block. But they continue to pursue their agenda of relief, tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans because they need some extra spending money at the expense of the health of children and families? When is enough enough? Medicaid isn't the only area of the budget that we know is on the chopping block. Republicans are looking to take aim at nutrition assistance programs for seniors--Meals on Wheels, you have heard of it--and programs for low-income children. So let me get this straight. In 2017, Republicans, through their actions, through their votes, through their words, said: Oh, we can afford hundreds of billions of dollars in permanent tax cuts for corporations. But, today, we can't afford programs that keep kids and seniors from going hungry? When is enough enough? I just pray that when Americans look back on this moment in history, the distinction of who stood where is crystal clear in their minds. The facts will be clear. Well, let's pray that the misinformation, disinformation machine on the other side doesn't cloud the truth, because, again, we know this administration is demanding cuts--cuts to public education. To make their tax-break goals, there will be cuts to Social Security benefits, to veterans' benefits, to small business assistance, to healthcare, and to research that saves lives. And on the proposals that keep coming from the White House, just like all the nominees that have been coming from the White House, Republicans in Congress--Republicans in this Senate--continue to rubberstamp them all. That is why, at least on the House side, when Members went back to their districts, those with the courage to face their constituents' questions at a townhall were sensing the anger that is out there. Americans are angry. They have a right to be angry. In some cases, they are asking the question, which we should ask ourselves on a daily basis here in this Chamber: Why does each one of us run for office and come and serve in the Capitol? Is it to rig the system for the top 1 percent? That is not what I ran for. Is it to make life harder for working families? Is that what you ran for? Now, as I am speaking, I reflect a lot on my upbringing. I have shared with a lot of you personally, privately, and I have shared publicly what life was like for me growing up in the working-class community of Pacoima, CA--a proud community. My dad, for 40 years, worked as a short-order cook. For the same 40 years, my mom used to work cleaning houses. You can imagine we grew up in a very modest home, on modest incomes. On those modest incomes, my parents raised my sister, my brother, and me, and insisted that we get a good education. Our home was filled with a lot of love, a lot of discipline, a lot of sacrifice. There were times when it was tough. There were times when money was more than just tight. So when I hear people talk about, ``Oh, families that live paycheck to paycheck,'' I know what that means. I know what it means for so many families across the country, for whom just a couple hundred dollars' difference makes a huge difference. I know the stress, the anxiety of when the car unexpectedly breaks down, and you look at your saving account and, on the one hand, you may not have enough to pay for repairs, but you also know you can't afford to not get to work. So what do you do? But it is the same spirit of families like mine and the communities like the one I grew up in that says: I am not interested in a handout. I just want a fair shot. I am willing to work hard to get ahead. I am willing to work hard to provide for my family. I am willing to work hard to make sure my kids have a better shot at the American dream than I do. But that is not the spirit of the bill that we are going to be entertaining today. In fact, it is the opposite. This Republican tax/ budget bill makes life harder for working families, makes working families pay more to subsidize tax breaks for the rich. And you know what? To add insult to injury, where they are seeking to cut to afford these tax breaks for the wealthy are the very benefits that hard-working families have paid into through their taxes. These are benefits that they have earned. And so I ask again, colleagues: When is enough enough? If you won't answer to me, let me ask on behalf of some constituents that have reached out to my office expressing their fear because of what these proposals would mean for them--people like Tina Ewing-Wilson from the Inland Empire, who experienced what it was like the last time Medi-Cal recipients saw their benefits cut. See, Tina struggles with seizures and developmental disabilities and requires 24/7 care. But when the great recession hit a few years ago and Medicaid cuts followed, Tina knew she could only pay for her care by offering room and board to caregivers--caregivers who went on to abuse drugs and alcohol and take advantage of her financially. She survived it. She is traumatized by it. And she is wondering what will happen if Republicans cut Medicaid again. There is the story of Sasha Bittner, who was born with cerebral palsy and who lives as a quadriplegic with speech and vision challenges. But with the help of services through Medicaid, Sasha went on to graduate from the University of California, Berkeley--that is very impressive-- and she serves on the California State Council on Developmental Disabilities. She says Medicaid literally saved her life and that a Medicaid cap would be ``an actual death sentence.'' Now, think about a nursing aide from Orange County, CA, whom I met just a few weeks ago when she came to Washington to protest the proposed cuts to Medicaid, Josephine Rios. She is a proud healthcare worker, and she is a proud grandmother to a 7-year-old boy, Elijah. The medication alone to treat Elijah's cerebral palsy is normally about $5,000 a month. We will save the debate for the cost of these treatments for another day, but that is what they are. And that is before you add the cost of physical therapy, the equipment, and other costs that he needs to live a meaningful life. But thanks to Medicaid, Elijah and his family can afford treatment. But they fear what would happen if these cuts go through. I share this, colleagues, because we are all hearing from our constituents, all of us--blue States, red States, purple States. All of us are hearing these fears--real fears--these real-world impacts of these proposed cuts. A vote for this budget--there is no way to add it up differently. A vote for this budget resolution is a vote to cut Medicaid--no ifs, ands, or buts. Republicans in the House have been clear, and it is the only way to read the bill before us today. So to my colleagues, again, when is enough enough? To folks watching at home, don't let anybody tell you otherwise. And I guess, as I begin to close, I will suggest that how we vote on this budget resolution will also determine where each one of us chooses to stand. Is it with the billionaires and the big corporations or is it with working families? And from here on out, for every round of tax breaks for billionaires that Republicans would ask us to consider and act on, we are all going to be on the record. Let the history show: Do you stand with the wealthy or do you stand with the working class? I choose to stand with the hard-working families across the country that work hard to make communities in our country thrive. It is a big question for all of us-- a big, big question for our country and our future. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1774, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, colleagues, this amendment would simply reaffirm the importance of FEMA and express support for its continued role in providing nonpartisan, long-term disaster relief to all impacted communities. We have seen in recent years, whether it is wildfires in the West, ice storms in Texas, tornadoes in the Midwest, or hurricanes in the Southeast, Mother Nature does not distinguish between red States or blue States, neither should our disaster response and recovery efforts. I know that many, many of our Republican colleagues represent States that simply don't have the resources necessary to properly prepare for and respond to major disasters without the assistance of FEMA. So we must work together to protect it. This amendment should unite all of us, and I urge all of us to support it.

Mr. PADILLA. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I have to agree. We have finally made it to Donald Trump's promise and self-proclaimed liberation day. But here is what I also observe: The stock market is down since the beginning of the year. The cost of everything from groceries to housing continues to rise. Americans' retirement funds have shrunk. The chances of a recession are up. That sure doesn't feel like a liberation to me. I bring these examples up simply to highlight the hypocrisy of this administration. Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to lower prices on day one of his administration, but he has done the exact opposite. His policies and his rhetoric are raising the cost of living for hundreds of millions of Americans. To make matters worse, he is simply lying about it. In fact, his top trade adviser has gone on record promising Americans that we all must just be confused and that the tariffs are really actually tax cuts. This administration thinks so little of the American people that they think that somehow we won't know the difference between whether our personal wealth is growing or shrinking. So let's be clear. A tariff is a tax on the American people--plain and simple. Trump's tariffs equate to the biggest tax hike on Americans in decades, because the way tariffs work is this: American companies will have to pay more to import goods, and in turn, the American people will have to pay more to buy those products. Donald Trump knows this. It is not that he doesn't know; it is that he doesn't care. And those aren't my words; they are his. Just this past weekend, he was asked about the effects that his tariffs will have on the price of cars, as one example. He said: ``I couldn't care less if they raise prices.'' He followed it up by saying: ``I hope they raise prices.'' Again, those aren't my words; those are words from President Trump. Well, colleagues, maybe the richest President in history doesn't care when the cost of a new car or the cost of a new home or the cost of groceries go up, but for the people that I represent in my home State of California and the working-class neighborhoods like the one I grew up in, this is not a game. Here is what is most concerning to me: It seems like Republicans in Congress simply want to double down on this agenda of making the working class pay more in order to pass even more tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The latest number, as the proposals continue to evolve, is $5.3 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthy. It is clearly the No. 1 priority for Republicans. Well, to do that, to pay for that, working families are just going to have to work harder? These same Republicans who want to give the tax breaks to the wealthy are also the ones supposedly concerned about our Nation's growing deficit. They are trying to tell us that, well, we have to make cuts to Medicaid or other important programs in the Federal Government. They say we have to make cuts to nutrition assistance programs. They say we have to make cuts to public education. They will go one further: They are trying to eliminate the Department of Education. I grant them this: If nothing else, the Republican Party's economic plan has been consistent. They want to bleed the working class to benefit the rich, and they are going to lie to our faces as they try to do it. It is unacceptable. Now, we know Republicans are already also considering any and every accounting trick they can think of to fudge the numbers and hide the real cost of the bill. So my resolution would simply require that they be transparent with the American people. It would require that any tariff used to offset the tax cuts for the wealthy must be explicitly written into the text of the Republican reconciliation bill. If Republicans want to increase prices on hard-working Americans to give handouts to billionaires, then own it. You should not be allowed to hide behind President Trump as you do it. Be transparent. Be honest. Put these price increases into the bill. Tell the American people what you really stand for, because when Americans wonder why their grocery bills and their energy bills and all their other bills go up, they deserve to know why, and they deserve to know who caused it. And then we will see who is really on the side of the working class. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of my concurrent resolution, which is at the desk; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PADILLA. So I thank my colleague for his response, but I take issue with some items that I do believe need to be addressed and clarified. He makes the claim that the tax reforms from about a decade ago, I believe it was 2017 to be more precise, was good for the economy. It begs the question: Good for whose economy? Good for whose pocketbook? The breaks were disproportionately for the most wealthy in America, and average working families didn't benefit nearly, nearly as much. That is where we should be focusing relief, No. 1. No. 2, he argues that the math has been settled because when tariffs are imposed, those are revenues going into the U.S. Treasury. I repeat: When the costs go up by American companies importing products, they are going to pass along that increased cost to American consumers. So it is a tax by another name. And the last point I will make is this because it was relevant in the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing earlier today when Transportation Secretary Duffy talked about the concern the administration has about the increased costs and budgets of a lot of transportation projects compared to the costs of projects 4 years ago, 8 years ago, et cetera. It begs the question: What will be the impact of these tariffs, whether it is on transportation projects, on water infrastructure projects, on energy infrastructure projects when the cost of materials goes up? It is going to increase costs. It is going to delay projects. And, once again, who pays the price? Working families across America. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Cesar E. Chavez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park Act. This bill would establish the Cesar E. Chavez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park in California and Arizona to preserve the nationally significant sites associated with Cesar Chavez and the farm worker movement. Today, March 31, we celebrate Cesar Chavez Day, a day to honor and celebrate the life and legacy of the civil rights and labor leader whose impact reverberated throughout California and across the world. For Cesar Chavez, it did not matter where you came from or what your job was; he believed in your fundamental right to dignity and respect. In 2008, with strong bipartisan support, Congress enacted legislation directing the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of sites that are significant to the life of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement in the Western United States. The National Park Service evaluated over 100 sites and found that 5 sites were ``nationally significant''. Importantly, the Park Service wrote that these nationally significant sites depict a distinct and important aspect of American history associated with civil rights and labor movements that are not adequately represented or protected elsewhere. While the Park Service provided five management alternatives to protect these special places, they ultimately recommended that Congress establish a national historic park that would include several nationally significant sites. In 2012, President Obama established the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument. While this action was a critical step forward, the national monument omits many nationally significant sites and leaves many important stories untold. The creation of a national historical park, as originally recommended by the Park Service, would allow the National Park Service to tell the full story of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement for the benefit of all Americans. This legislation would also require the National Park Service to complete a National Historic Trail Study to determine the feasibility of creating the Farmworker Peregrinacion National Historic Trail. If ultimately designated, this trail would commemorate the 1966 Delano to Sacramento March, a major milestone event in the farm labor movement. As the son of immigrants from Mexico and the first Latino to represent California in the U.S. Senate, I believe the movement Cesar Chavez created is as important today as it ever has been. The National Park System--which preserves our natural, historical, and cultural heritage while offering vital spaces for teaching, learning, and outdoor recreation--must paint the full mosaic of America. Through the sites preserved by this bill, we will ensure that the National Park System preserves the diverse history of our Nation that is too often overlooked, ignored, or not represented. I want to thank Congressman Ruiz for spearheading this effort with me to ensure that our national monuments and historical parks better reflect the diversity of America's heritage. I would also like to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation with me. Today and every day, let's recommit to the work Cesar Chavez began. As he would say: ``La Lucha Sigue.'' We must not waver as we keep up the fight for justice and equality for all. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Cesar E. Chavez National Historical Park Act.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Cesar E. Chavez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park Act. This bill would establish the Cesar E. Chavez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park in California and Arizona to preserve the nationally significant sites associated with Cesar Chavez and the farm worker movement. Today, March 31, we celebrate Cesar Chavez Day, a day to honor and celebrate the life and legacy of the civil rights and labor leader whose impact reverberated throughout California and across the world. For Cesar Chavez, it did not matter where you came from or what your job was; he believed in your fundamental right to dignity and respect. In 2008, with strong bipartisan support, Congress enacted legislation directing the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of sites that are significant to the life of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement in the Western United States. The National Park Service evaluated over 100 sites and found that 5 sites were ``nationally significant''. Importantly, the Park Service wrote that these nationally significant sites depict a distinct and important aspect of American history associated with civil rights and labor movements that are not adequately represented or protected elsewhere. While the Park Service provided five management alternatives to protect these special places, they ultimately recommended that Congress establish a national historic park that would include several nationally significant sites. In 2012, President Obama established the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument. While this action was a critical step forward, the national monument omits many nationally significant sites and leaves many important stories untold. The creation of a national historical park, as originally recommended by the Park Service, would allow the National Park Service to tell the full story of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement for the benefit of all Americans. This legislation would also require the National Park Service to complete a National Historic Trail Study to determine the feasibility of creating the Farmworker Peregrinacion National Historic Trail. If ultimately designated, this trail would commemorate the 1966 Delano to Sacramento March, a major milestone event in the farm labor movement. As the son of immigrants from Mexico and the first Latino to represent California in the U.S. Senate, I believe the movement Cesar Chavez created is as important today as it ever has been. The National Park System--which preserves our natural, historical, and cultural heritage while offering vital spaces for teaching, learning, and outdoor recreation--must paint the full mosaic of America. Through the sites preserved by this bill, we will ensure that the National Park System preserves the diverse history of our Nation that is too often overlooked, ignored, or not represented. I want to thank Congressman Ruiz for spearheading this effort with me to ensure that our national monuments and historical parks better reflect the diversity of America's heritage. I would also like to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation with me. Today and every day, let's recommit to the work Cesar Chavez began. As he would say: ``La Lucha Sigue.'' We must not waver as we keep up the fight for justice and equality for all. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Cesar E. Chavez National Historical Park Act.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. PADILLA. Let the Record reflect that he said the exact same things--probably better things about you, and he was absolutely correct. But I couldn't help but interject right at the moment where I did because, once again, your passion is coming through. First of all, I tremendously admire what you have been doing here on the floor of the Senate today, starting with last night. As I have been watching off and on, there have been moments where your empathy and your sympathy and your care and concern are coming through. You can't help it. It is who you are. There have been other moments, as you have been talking about some of the key issues and dynamics of this current political climate that we are in, where your passion is coming through and, at times, anger. I know it because I have seen it. I know it because we get calls in my office about this. I know it because if you monitor comments and commentary on social media about what my colleague is doing here on the Senate floor, some people have asked: Why is he so angry? Well, I would like to say here right now that Senator Booker has every right to be angry because of what is going on. I know I am angry with so much of what is going on. And the American people have every right to be angry with what is going on because none of what we are seeing come out of the Trump White House is normal. But every day, this approach of flooding the zone with more and more extreme actions runs the risk of making people grow numb to these attacks, and we certainly can't surrender to the feeling of just being overwhelmed by their tactics. So I want to thank the senior Senator from New Jersey for doing what he is doing to shake and awaken the conscience of our country. As I was listening to my colleague talk about the real dangers of the Trump administration, what it poses for our Nation, I also reflect on what it means for our environment because I know it hits home for many folks but especially in my home State of California. California--many of you have come to visit time and again--is home to some of the most beautiful parks and natural wonders in the Nation, but if you grow up in Southern California, like I did, you also know there is a flip side to this climate discussion. We are seeing--we live through the real cost of climate inaction. Growing up, I can tell you not just about the smell of diesel exhaust, which I will never forget, sitting in a schoolbus going to and from school, but the regular days where school would be shut down early and we would all be sent home because of the smog--toxic smog--in the air in the greater Southern California area. These were concrete reminders of the real threats emissions pose to our health. California also knows the dangers posed by extreme weather. We know the droughts, we know the floods, and, yes, all too often, we have come to know wildfires, devastating wildfires like the ones we experienced in Los Angeles County at the beginning of this year. Senator Booker was kind enough to come visit a few weeks ago to tour Altadena--the epicenter, if you will, of the Eaton fire that devastated so many. I think we both agreed and anybody who has visited the area to see for themselves would agree you cannot see what happened in and around Altadena and come away unmoved. I could go on and on with examples and reasons to say to you that this is exactly why California for decades has worked so hard against pollution and against the impacts of climate change, everything from being aggressive on tailpipe emission standards to our ambitious conservations goals. The 30x30 goal set up by the Biden administration was modeled after the 30x30 goal set up by the State of California. California is also home to the very first Earth Day, which is now celebrated nationally each and every year. But, today, much of our progress is now at risk because just in the first 2 months of the second Trump administration, we have seen nothing but attacks on this progress of environmental protection. The Trump administration has sought to reverse the endangerment finding, which is the most basic finding of climate science--that, yes, greenhouse gases harm public health. They have taken the steps of illegally freezing funding that this Congress--this Congress--had previously appropriated. I am talking about the types of investments that keep our kids and our communities healthy. Earlier this month, the EPA--Trump's EPA--announced that they would be rolling back more than 30 environmental rules. By doing so, they are not just going to make Americans less healthy; they are also going to hurt our economy, and it is going to clear the way for China to become the world leader in green technology. So much for ``America First'' if they continue down that road. Even while the Trump administration has refused to fight climate change--it is one thing to not be helpful, but they have actually taken a number of steps that are actually harmful and hurtful, that make it harder, for example, for States to respond to natural disasters. They have toyed with tying wildfire disaster assistance to political demands. They have proposed eliminating FEMA. They have implemented Federal freezes on things like hazardous fuel removal and the hiring of Federal firefighters--things that we need to do in the winter months to prepare for the hot and dry summer months when the risk is greatest. They have even brazenly opened up dams and flooded portions of the Central Valley to pretend President Trump was helping with the Los Angeles wildfires when the fact is, those fires were contained when they released this water--water that is no longer available in the hot, dry summer months. So they are not just refusing to act or to help; they are making matters worse for States like California and many others. That is what this fight is about. Our fight for the environments is about America's health and safety, it is about American jobs, and it is about America's future. With all of that being said, my question to Senator Booker is this: For the next generation of Americans, for the young people who are tuning in and wondering ``Well, what is it that I can do? Do I have a voice? Do I have any power?'' what would you say to them? How can they take action?

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act, a straightforward, uncontroversial bill to adjust the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This bill would modify the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA, to include the approximately 896-acre Scarper Ridge property. This land is currently owned by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, who would like to sell this land to the National Park Service to include within the GGNRA. The GGNRA is one of the world's largest urban national parks, spanning three counties and more than 82,000 acres of coastal and urban lands. According to the National Park Service, the GGNRA is an assemblage of military, private, and public lands which altogether offer vast skylines, natural beauty, and diverse histories to locals and visitors alike. The GGNRA welcomes over 15 million visitors each year and strives to be an accessible recreational area for all people. Thanks to continuing efforts by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, local partners, Congressman Liccardo, former Congresswoman Eshoo, and my predecessors in the Senate, Congress has previously awarded funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase additional land to be included within the GGNRA. However, the lands included in my bill--known as the Scarper Ridge property--require a minor legislative boundary adjustment in order for the National Park Service to use future Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars to purchase this property and include it within the park. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this commonsense, straightforward boundary adjustment bill as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act, a straightforward, uncontroversial bill to adjust the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This bill would modify the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA, to include the approximately 896-acre Scarper Ridge property. This land is currently owned by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, who would like to sell this land to the National Park Service to include within the GGNRA. The GGNRA is one of the world's largest urban national parks, spanning three counties and more than 82,000 acres of coastal and urban lands. According to the National Park Service, the GGNRA is an assemblage of military, private, and public lands which altogether offer vast skylines, natural beauty, and diverse histories to locals and visitors alike. The GGNRA welcomes over 15 million visitors each year and strives to be an accessible recreational area for all people. Thanks to continuing efforts by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, local partners, Congressman Liccardo, former Congresswoman Eshoo, and my predecessors in the Senate, Congress has previously awarded funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase additional land to be included within the GGNRA. However, the lands included in my bill--known as the Scarper Ridge property--require a minor legislative boundary adjustment in order for the National Park Service to use future Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars to purchase this property and include it within the park. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this commonsense, straightforward boundary adjustment bill as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Smoke Exposure Research Act of 2025. This legislation will bolster research at land- grant universities to better understand the impacts of wildfire smoke on wine grapes. Increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires are threatening the longterm sustainability of important winegrowing regions in California, Washington, and Oregon. Vineyards, winery operations, and the communities they support are routinely facing the threat of wildfires that can not only destroy vineyards, but even those vineyards that escape direct wildfire damage can still suffer from prolonged smoke exposure, which can be absorbed into grapes and create an ashy taste known as smoke taint. The impact has been particularly acute for California's 4,800 wineries and 5,900 winegrape growers, who have seen significant property loss, loss of tourism, and loss of production due to smoke- exposed grapes. The 2020 wildfires alone are estimated to have cost wineries and winegrape growers $3.7 billion both from immediate fire- caused losses as well as losses in future sales due to unharvested grapes exposed to wildfire smoke. Yet, there is a limited understanding of how to measure and identify compounds that cause smoke taint and even less understanding of the mitigation and risk management measures necessary to reduce these impacts. Recognizing the dearth of information and how much is at stake for the wine industry, Congress provided $5 million to the USDA to identify the compounds responsible for smoke taint and to develop mitigation methods to reduce or eliminate smoke taint. This was a great first step, but we need more. That is what my bill would do. The Smoke Exposure Research Act of 2025 would provide $32.5 million over years to ensure the sustainability of the wine industry in the face of climate crisis. Specifically, this bill would direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, in coordination with land- grant universities and researchers with viticulture and enology expertise, to identify the compounds responsible for smoke taint; establish standard sampling, testing, and screening tools for use in vineyards and wineries; and develop new risk assessment tools, mitigation measures, and management strategies for growers. As reserachers from the University of California Davis, Washington State University, and Oregon State University explain in recent research, the impact of smoke taint is not predictable. We cannot currently predict which grapes may have suffered damage based on anything intuitive, such as sight, smell, or even the flavor of fresh grapes. Freshness of wildfire smoke, length of exposure, variety of grape--the list goes on. There is so much we don't know. That is why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Research Act, to ensure we have strong science-based data for actual risk management and mitigation tools to protect the U.S. wine industry. I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Jeff Merkley and Representatives Mike Thompson and Doug LaMalfa for their leadership in bolstering west coast winegrowing communities and for their partnership on this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Smoke Exposure Research Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Smoke Exposure Research Act of 2025. This legislation will bolster research at land- grant universities to better understand the impacts of wildfire smoke on wine grapes. Increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires are threatening the longterm sustainability of important winegrowing regions in California, Washington, and Oregon. Vineyards, winery operations, and the communities they support are routinely facing the threat of wildfires that can not only destroy vineyards, but even those vineyards that escape direct wildfire damage can still suffer from prolonged smoke exposure, which can be absorbed into grapes and create an ashy taste known as smoke taint. The impact has been particularly acute for California's 4,800 wineries and 5,900 winegrape growers, who have seen significant property loss, loss of tourism, and loss of production due to smoke- exposed grapes. The 2020 wildfires alone are estimated to have cost wineries and winegrape growers $3.7 billion both from immediate fire- caused losses as well as losses in future sales due to unharvested grapes exposed to wildfire smoke. Yet, there is a limited understanding of how to measure and identify compounds that cause smoke taint and even less understanding of the mitigation and risk management measures necessary to reduce these impacts. Recognizing the dearth of information and how much is at stake for the wine industry, Congress provided $5 million to the USDA to identify the compounds responsible for smoke taint and to develop mitigation methods to reduce or eliminate smoke taint. This was a great first step, but we need more. That is what my bill would do. The Smoke Exposure Research Act of 2025 would provide $32.5 million over years to ensure the sustainability of the wine industry in the face of climate crisis. Specifically, this bill would direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, in coordination with land- grant universities and researchers with viticulture and enology expertise, to identify the compounds responsible for smoke taint; establish standard sampling, testing, and screening tools for use in vineyards and wineries; and develop new risk assessment tools, mitigation measures, and management strategies for growers. As reserachers from the University of California Davis, Washington State University, and Oregon State University explain in recent research, the impact of smoke taint is not predictable. We cannot currently predict which grapes may have suffered damage based on anything intuitive, such as sight, smell, or even the flavor of fresh grapes. Freshness of wildfire smoke, length of exposure, variety of grape--the list goes on. There is so much we don't know. That is why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Research Act, to ensure we have strong science-based data for actual risk management and mitigation tools to protect the U.S. wine industry. I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Jeff Merkley and Representatives Mike Thompson and Doug LaMalfa for their leadership in bolstering west coast winegrowing communities and for their partnership on this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Smoke Exposure Research Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act. This legislation would ensure all farmers can access critical U.S. Department of Agriculture disaster relief programs. Increasingly frequent and catastrophic floods, fires, freezes, and other disasters are threatening the long-term sustainability of agriculture across the country. The impact has been particularly acute for California's agricultural communities, who face year-round threats from drought, heat, floods, and fires--even in January. The farm bill authorizes safety net programs to help producers recover, but outdated adjusted gross income, AGI, limits exclude many specialty crop growers, despite facing the same extreme weather challenges as other farmers. As a result, producers from California to North Carolina are blocked from vital disaster assistance. The Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act adopts flexibility used in the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program to waive the AGI limitation for producers that derive 75 percent of their AGI from farming, ranching, or related farming practices. What are referred to as specialty crops are just that--special. Specialty crops, which include fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops that are cultivated for food and medicine, require overall higher input costs and specialized processes for planting, growing, and harvesting. Did you know that it costs more than $30,000 to produce an acre of strawberries? The cost of production for specialty crops is typically thousands of dollars per acre. As a result, both large and small producers of specialty crops end up exceeding the AGI limitations put in place to means-test critical disaster assistance. That is why we need to pass the Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act to ensure farmers and ranchers can access agricultural safety net programs in the wake of increasingly more frequent and catastrophic disasters. I would like to thank Senator Tillis for joining me to introduce this bill, and I forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act as quickly as possible.