Alex Padilla

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Water Reuse and Resiliency Act.'' This legislation would authorize $1 billion for innovative water infrastructure projects that respond to our Country's growing water needs and the historic drought facing the Western United States. In the face of unprecedented heat and drought conditions across the Western United States, and growing water resource challenges across the entire Nation, it is critically important that we invest now to modernize and adapt our water systems for the 21st century. The Environmental Protection Agency's Alternative Water Source Projects pilot program provides competitive grants to engineer, design, construct, and test alternative water source systems, including water recycling systems and projects that conserve, manage, reclaim, or reuse water resources. The Water Reuse and Resiliency Act would reauthorize the EPA's Alternative Water Source Projects pilot program for five years, increase the authorization to $1 billion, and make stormwater reuse and groundwater recharge projects eligible for grant funding. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as of July 13, an estimated 89% of the Western U.S. is experiencing drought. Unfortunately, historic droughts are becoming the new normal. The impacts of drought on water availability are compounded by triple-digit temperatures, record low snowpack levels, and a growing population. By expanding the use of alternative, non-traditional water sources, such as capturing stormwater runoff and recycling wastewater for groundwater recharge, the Water Reuse and Resiliency Act supports innovations in water treatment that can deliver a new, safe, and reliable source of water for potable use or irrigation. I thank my co-lead, Senator Feinstein, for her tireless leadership fighting for clean water for Californians and all Americans. I also thank the cosponsors of this bill for championing this vital effort with us in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the ``Water Reuse and Resiliency Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Water Reuse and Resiliency Act.'' This legislation would authorize $1 billion for innovative water infrastructure projects that respond to our Country's growing water needs and the historic drought facing the Western United States. In the face of unprecedented heat and drought conditions across the Western United States, and growing water resource challenges across the entire Nation, it is critically important that we invest now to modernize and adapt our water systems for the 21st century. The Environmental Protection Agency's Alternative Water Source Projects pilot program provides competitive grants to engineer, design, construct, and test alternative water source systems, including water recycling systems and projects that conserve, manage, reclaim, or reuse water resources. The Water Reuse and Resiliency Act would reauthorize the EPA's Alternative Water Source Projects pilot program for five years, increase the authorization to $1 billion, and make stormwater reuse and groundwater recharge projects eligible for grant funding. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as of July 13, an estimated 89% of the Western U.S. is experiencing drought. Unfortunately, historic droughts are becoming the new normal. The impacts of drought on water availability are compounded by triple-digit temperatures, record low snowpack levels, and a growing population. By expanding the use of alternative, non-traditional water sources, such as capturing stormwater runoff and recycling wastewater for groundwater recharge, the Water Reuse and Resiliency Act supports innovations in water treatment that can deliver a new, safe, and reliable source of water for potable use or irrigation. I thank my co-lead, Senator Feinstein, for her tireless leadership fighting for clean water for Californians and all Americans. I also thank the cosponsors of this bill for championing this vital effort with us in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the ``Water Reuse and Resiliency Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, 1 year ago this week, our Nation lost a giant, a man with a righteous purpose and a remarkable legacy, John Robert Lewis, who dedicated his life to the cause of justice. From Troy, AL, to a bridge in Selma, to the Halls of this very Congress, he put his body on the line for every American's sacred right to vote. John Lewis never stopped fighting because he understood that democracy is a commitment we have to make again and again and again. As he wrote in the last days of his life: The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society. You must use it because it is not guaranteed. You can lose it. John Lewis understood the power and the fragility of our multiracial democracy, because he did so much to build it in his lifetime. At the age of 25, he led peaceful protesters on a march through Alabama to demand their right to vote. As the world witnessed, they were attacked, gassed, and beaten by police officers. They were attacked because the right to vote is power, and White supremacists feared the power of people of color exercising that right. But out of the pain and outrage over this Bloody Sunday came one of our country's greatest monuments to freedom, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act stood as a guardian of our multiracial democracy. It outlawed literacy tests. It prohibited voting procedures that would deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color. It gave the U.S. Department of Justice the power to review any new voting rules in places with a history of voter suppression and to block rules with discriminatory effects. Critically, the Voting Rights Act recognized the important role of the Federal Government in protecting the right to vote. It helped guarantee communities of color their rightful voice in our democracy. Over time, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized four times, including most recently in 2006, when Representative Lewis and a nearly unanimous Congress voted to affirm the continued need for its protections. That's right. Passage of the Voting Rights Act and every reauthorization of the Act was always on a bipartisan basis. But in 2013, five conservative Justices of the Supreme Court overrode the bipartisan consensus of Congress. In spite of the voluminous record assembled by the Congress and the reality of the country around them, these five Justices effectively ended preclearance and gutted a key protection of the Voting Rights Act. As the late Justice Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, it was ``like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Well, the storm of voter suppression is most certainly pouring over us now. In 2020, in the midst of an ongoing global health pandemic, our Nation held one of the most successful and secure elections in our history. Voters of color made their voices heard in record numbers and confirmed again that our democracy is strongest when all eligible Americans are able to participate. But instead of celebrating this remarkable achievement, Republican legislative leaders in statehouses around the country this year have proposed and passed bill after bill after bill restricting the right to vote and restricting access to the ballot. They are doing this on the basis of lies about voter fraud and rooted firmly in the legacy of White supremacy. They continue to do so as we speak. The Supreme Court's most recent anti-democracy decision in the Brnovich case, which eviscerated a key remaining protection of the Voting Rights Act, will only embolden these attacks. But, so far, in this Senate, our Republican colleagues have turned a blind eye, choosing to be complicit in the outright assault on our democracy. Senate Republicans have refused to even open a debate on voting rights legislation. Instead, they prefer to abuse the filibuster to enable Republican legislative leaders across the country to continue their assault. Our democracy is on the line. The unfinished work of John Lewis remains. We must summon the courage to act. That is why I am committed to passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which will protect the right to vote for all people. I can think of no more fitting way to honor the memory of a man who chose our democracy as the struggle of his lifetime. When I was first elected California Secretary of State to serve as the Chief Elections Officer for the State of California, I sought out the counsel of John Lewis. For more than 45 minutes during our first meeting, and time and again after that, John guided me with his wisdom, taught me by his example, and inspired me through his courage. He was always gracious with his time, warm with his spirit, and true in his conviction. And he reminded me, as he reminded so many of us, that our struggle is a struggle of a lifetime. As he said, we cannot be afraid to make some noise and get into good trouble, necessary trouble, along the way. In fact, given the circumstances, it is exactly what we need to do today. As a bipartisan Senate, if we can, or as the elected Democratic majority, if we must, it is imperative that we pass legislation to preserve our democracy. We must carry the torch that John Lewis carried for us for so long and build for all Americans a democracy that is as free, as fair, as accessible, and as inclusive as we can possibly make it. And we must remain hopeful in this pursuit. You see, despite the scars that he bore and the hatred that he faced down, John Lewis was fundamentally a hopeful man, a man who never abandoned the youthful spirit that carried him across that bridge in Selma, and he always looked to the next generation for leadership, for energy, and for inspiration to carry the cause forward. It is now on us to take up his work. There is no better way for us to honor the legacy of John Lewis. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PADILLA

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

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water for All Act.'' This legislation would authorize $45 billion to replace every lead pipe and service line in America over the next 10 years, ensuring clean water for all. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most common sources of lead in drinking water are lead pipes, faucets, and plumbing fixtures. Nationwide, there are 6 to 10 million lead service lines serving up to 22 million Americans, affecting Americans living in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The only way to guarantee lead-free drinking water is to remove and replace every lead pipe and service line in America--and that's precisely what this legislation calls for. The Lead-Free Drinking Water for All Act would reauthorize EPA's lead reduction projects grant program and increase the authorization to $4.5 billion per year for 10 years. It would prioritize disadvantaged communities and set a ten-year deadline for projects to complete the lead service line removal. It would also guarantee that funded projects pay a prevailing wage. Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated that there is no safe level of exposure to lead. According to the EPA, lead is particularly harmful for young children: low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, learning disabilities, impaired hearing, impaired physical development, and impaired formation and function of blood cells. EPA has set the maximum contaminant level goal for lead in drinking water at zero because lead can be harmful to human health, even at low exposure levels. This problem is particularly prevalent in California's Central Valley, where, for example, in 2017 approximately 25 percent of schools in Fresno County reported lead in their drinking water while statewide, almost 1 in 5 kids attended a school that served drinking water with lead contamination. The Lead-Free Drinking Water for All Act would protect public health by guaranteeing that all Americans have access to lead-free drinking water. By providing funding for grants and prioritizing disadvantaged communities, this legislation would also reduce disparities in access to clean water and ensure that the burden of paying for lead service line replacement does not fall on disadvantaged communities. I thank my co-lead, Senator Stabenow, for her tireless leadership fighting for clean water for her constituents in Michigan and all Americans. I also thank the cosponsors of this bill for championing this vital effort with us in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water for All Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act.'' This legislation recognizes the need to hold bad actors accountable-- period. In order to build trust in our system of justice, we must allow individuals the right to sue Federal law enforcement agencies when the actions of their officers lead to a violation of rights. This legislation would provide a right of action for an individual to sue a Federal law enforcement officer and agency for harm resulting from a violation of their civil and constitutional rights. 42 USC Sec. 1983 currently provides this right of action for state and local law enforcement officers who violate a person's rights. However, there is currently no statutory equivalent that extends this right to incidents involving federal law enforcement officers and agencies. Because Americans lack this right, there is a gap in accountability that urgently needs to be filled. This legislation fills that gap by allowing individuals to sue federal officers, just as they can sue state and local officers. It would also allow individuals to sue federal law enforcement agencies. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the federal government will not be liable in suit unless it waives its immunity and consents. This legislation recognizes the need for such a waiver. While extending this right will not automatically end all cases of abuse by certain law enforcement officers, it will give the American people an important tool to fight against injustice while also demonstrating that the time is now to address police brutality. While the United States Supreme Court has addressed the absence of a right of action against Federal officers before, the scope of the provided ``remedy'' has been kept extremely narrow. Without a statute in place, this right will continue to be under-utilized and could disappear whenever the Court sees fit. Americans deserve better. We all deserve to have our constitutional rights respected, and we deserve a system that will hold bad actors accountable. This is too urgent a need to go unaddressed. Public safety is a two-way street. We, as citizens, honor our officers and trust law enforcement to keep our streets safe and peaceful. In return, we expect officers to be held to account for bad behavior. Anything less undermines public safety. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Clean Water For Military Families Act.'' This legislation would provide $10 billion for the Department of Defense to conduct investigations and remediate PFAS contamination at and surrounding DOD installations in the U.S. and state-owned National Guard facilities. Dating back to the 1960s, the U.S. Navy began using a firefighting foam called aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) that contains toxic PFAS chemicals. The military used AFFF firefighting foam for emergencies, fire training exercises, and equipment testing, resulting in large discharges of PFAS contamination in groundwater and other environments. For decades, DOD continued using AFFF firefighting foam despite mounting evidence of detrimental health concerns, and even after leading manufacturers voluntarily phased out production of PFOS and PFOA, the two most widespread and studied PFAS compounds. In recent years, Congress has passed legislation requiring DOD to phase out the use of AFFF firefighting foams. While this is a vital step toward ensuring DOD adopts PFAS-free alternatives going forward, it does not address DOD's legacy pollution. To clean up the legacy pollution at contaminated military sites across the country, this legislation authorizes a one-time, $10 billion investment for PFAS investigations and cleanup. We owe it to military communities to ensure that they can drink clean water and live pollution-free. There are hundreds of contaminated military sites across the country that jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of military communities who have suffered from exposure to PFAS pollution and toxic drinking water. In California alone, there are 62 military facilities with a known or suspected PFAS release. Since the discovery of PFAS at these installations, there has been little to no progress on the bases with the highest PFAS detections. A $10 billion investment would accelerate DOD's existing cleanup efforts and cover all types of PFAS chemicals. Absent this legislation, it could take decades for DOD to clean up toxic PFAS. We must act now to move beyond studying the problem and toward a comprehensive cleanup effort to protect service-members, veterans, and military communities. I thank my co-lead, Senator Gillibrand for her tireless leadership fighting PFAS contamination at DOD sites. I also thank the bill's cosponsors for championing this effort with me in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the ``Clean Water for Military Families Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Clean Water For Military Families Act.'' This legislation would provide $10 billion for the Department of Defense to conduct investigations and remediate PFAS contamination at and surrounding DOD installations in the U.S. and state-owned National Guard facilities. Dating back to the 1960s, the U.S. Navy began using a firefighting foam called aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) that contains toxic PFAS chemicals. The military used AFFF firefighting foam for emergencies, fire training exercises, and equipment testing, resulting in large discharges of PFAS contamination in groundwater and other environments. For decades, DOD continued using AFFF firefighting foam despite mounting evidence of detrimental health concerns, and even after leading manufacturers voluntarily phased out production of PFOS and PFOA, the two most widespread and studied PFAS compounds. In recent years, Congress has passed legislation requiring DOD to phase out the use of AFFF firefighting foams. While this is a vital step toward ensuring DOD adopts PFAS-free alternatives going forward, it does not address DOD's legacy pollution. To clean up the legacy pollution at contaminated military sites across the country, this legislation authorizes a one-time, $10 billion investment for PFAS investigations and cleanup. We owe it to military communities to ensure that they can drink clean water and live pollution-free. There are hundreds of contaminated military sites across the country that jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of military communities who have suffered from exposure to PFAS pollution and toxic drinking water. In California alone, there are 62 military facilities with a known or suspected PFAS release. Since the discovery of PFAS at these installations, there has been little to no progress on the bases with the highest PFAS detections. A $10 billion investment would accelerate DOD's existing cleanup efforts and cover all types of PFAS chemicals. Absent this legislation, it could take decades for DOD to clean up toxic PFAS. We must act now to move beyond studying the problem and toward a comprehensive cleanup effort to protect service-members, veterans, and military communities. I thank my co-lead, Senator Gillibrand for her tireless leadership fighting PFAS contamination at DOD sites. I also thank the bill's cosponsors for championing this effort with me in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the ``Clean Water for Military Families Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, colleagues, this coming Monday is Memorial Day. Many of us are making our plans to commemorate the holiday, the weekend, where we honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation and in defense of our democracy-- those brave Americans and so many others who have worked, fought, and died for more than 200 years to protect our system of government--of the people, by the people, for the people. Upholding that legacy is our highest duty, and it is in that spirit that I rise today. On November 3, 2020, I was serving as California's secretary of state. It was my privilege for 6 years to serve as the chief elections officer in our Nation's most populous and most diverse State, and I can tell you that even in the best of times, election administration is complex. Elections are consequential operations. Last year, our elections workers at all levels of government faced the additional, unprecedented challenge of administering an election during a global health pandemic. And I am proud to say that they rose to the occasion to protect the democratic legacy that we hold and trust. And, as a result, California's election officials administered an accessible, secure, and safe election, which drew historic voter turnout. Indeed, by every objective measure, the 2020 elections were a national success. But none of this mattered to President Trump, who had spent years attacking the integrity of our elections by repeatedly lying about voter fraud and ``rigged elections,'' even the election that he won in 2016. President Trump was furious at his 2020 loss, and he chose to take a sledgehammer to the core of our democratic system. He didn't just refuse to concede the election--breaking a tradition that dates back to Thomas Jefferson--President Trump attacked the very notion of a peaceful transition of power. Along the way, he filed and lost more than 60 cynical lawsuits challenging the election. He personally called State elections officials and pressured them to alter vote tallies--tallies that had been counted, recounted, and audited. And he lied to the American people, tweeting out a steady stream of conspiracy theories and disinformation denying his electoral loss. Online and around the country, President Trump's Big Lie caught fire. Sadly, many Republican officials participated in fanning the flames, spreading fears of voter fraud for political gain. Others stood by silently as President Trump radicalized his supporters with falsehoods. They chose loyalty to Trump over the truth, delusion over democracy. Let me be clear. These allegations of fraud had no basis in fact. They were rooted in Trump's ego and cemented in White supremacy. And they led directly to the deadly insurrection of January 6, an unprecedented attack on our Nation's Capitol by violent extremists against the U.S. House of Representatives and this Senate, invited and incited by the President of the United States. Armed rioters brutally beat Capitol Police officers and stormed this building. The Confederate flag, the symbol of violent White supremacy, flew inside this Capitol for the first time in our Nation's history. Members of militarized hate groups searched these hallways with the intent to kill elected leaders of both parties. They made their way to this very floor to try to stop the certification of the Presidential election, and in so doing, they terrorized our staff, Capitol Police, the free press, our citizens across the country, and our democracy itself. Through their violence, the January 6 rioters disrupted our democracy at the behest of President Trump, and our Nation lost the right to call the transition of power peaceful. Now we gather in the wake of this armed insurrection, the deadly insurrection. The scars of January 6 can still be seen throughout the building. Yet many of my Republican colleagues say: We just need to move on. Let's just move forward. They say that this deadly attack was simply a group of ``peaceful protesters'' on a ``normal tourist visit''? They claim that the proposed Commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection is unnecessary because we have already increased Capitol security and our congressional committees are already investigating this attack. These arguments are outrageous. Of course we need an independent Commission to fully investigate the causes of the attack. We need to know the whole truth about January 6. We need and the American people deserve an independent, bipartisan investigation that will give us the facts and allow us to begin the hard work of restoring public trust in our democracy. It is the only way to ensure that an attack like this does not happen again. The bipartisan bill we are considering is modeled after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Imagine arguing in the wake of 9/11 that the only problem that we needed to address was airport security. That is how ridiculous this counterargument is. To brush aside the January 6 attack on the American people would be the ultimate dereliction of our duty. Colleagues, we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So I call on my Republican colleagues to live up to that oath, live up to that sacred duty. And if you cannot, if your hand is frozen by fear of those who were misled to believe that the election was stolen, if your hand is frozen out of fear of the President who sold that lie, then the insurrectionists have succeeded. I urge the Senate to authorize the January 6 Commission on a bipartisan vote, but if our Republican colleagues refuse to join us, then we will face another choice: Do we continue to defend our system of self-government or defend the filibuster? The stakes could not be higher. The choice could not be clearer. The peaceful transition of power must be defended. Colleagues, this is a moment where we must put country over politics, put the institutions of our democracy over the abuse of the filibuster. On January 6, our government was attacked, and now the future of our democracy is on the line. Let's act like it. I yield the floor I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Access to Counsel Act.'' This legislation would ensure that all individuals with a legal right to be in the United States and are detained by Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry or airports have access to legal counsel. This legislation would ensure that individuals who have legal status in the U.S. and are detained by Customs and Border Protection in secondary inspection at airports or other points of entry for more than an hour are granted an opportunity to access legal counsel and an interested party. An interested party is defined as a family member, sponsor, or organization with a connection to the individual. The bill provides no obligation for the Federal government to pay for counsel and allows counsel the ability to advocate on behalf of the individual by providing information or documentation in support of the individual. It also invalidates any effort by CBP to persuade someone to relinquish their legal status if that person has been denied access to counsel or voluntarily waives in writing their right to counsel. The Trump Administration's immigration policies often caused unnecessary chaos and confusion. One vivid example of this is when the first Muslim Ban was implemented, in early 2017, and thousands of U.S. citizens, green card holders, and others with valid visas were detained at airports for hours. They were held by Customs and Border Protection officers without any ability to call a lawyer, a relative or an advocate. Many members of Congress rushed to the airports in an attempt to help these individuals and were barred from speaking to them or connecting them with attorneys. In addition, in early 2020, 200 Iranian Americans were held at the northern border in Blaine, WA for 12 hours without access to counsel. While President Biden has rescinded the travel bans, it is imperative that Americans and those with a legal right to be here have access to representation if they are held at a port of entry. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan ``Urban Indian Health Providers Facilities Improvement Act.'' This legislation honors our Federal trust responsibility by providing parity to Urban Indian Organizations that provide culturally competent health care to Native Americans living in urban areas. This legislation would remove the unjust and arbitrary restriction that prevents Urban Indian Organizations from using appropriated funds for construction and facilities upgrades. This restriction is particularly untenable in the midst of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Current law only permits the Indian Health Service to make construction or facilities funds available to Urban Indian Organizations to assist them in meeting or maintaining a now-obsolete accreditation standard. This limitation prevents Urban Indian Organizations from using appropriated funding for facilities, maintenance and improvement, sanitation, equipment, and other necessary construction upgrades, which limits their ability to provide the quality health care that Native Americans deserve. Urban Indian Organizations are the only tribal health organization burdened by this restriction. This legislation would provide parity to Urban Indian Organizations and improve the safety and quality of care for urban Indians. California is home to one of the largest populations of Native Americans, and Los Angeles and San Francisco have two of the largest urban Native American populations in the country. Almost 90% of Native Americans in California live in urban areas and therefore don't access health care through their tribe. Further, there are no Indian Health Service hospitals in California, so the California Urban Indian Organizations are a lifeline to Native Americans in my state. Removing this unjust burden on Urban Indian Organizations would allow them to improve the quality of the culturally competent care that they provide. I thank Senator Lankford for co-leading this bill with me, and Congressmen Gallego and Bacon for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the bipartisan ``Urban Indian Health Providers Facilities Improvement Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

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

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Rosie the Riveter National Historic Site Expansion Act.'' The Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park honors the history of Richmond, California as the home of World War II shipyards and the women and men who supported the war effort domestically. Richmond, California was chosen as the site for this National Historical Park because it has so many surviving sites and structures from the World War II era that help tell the diverse stories of the home front. According to the National Park Service, ``these stories include the mobilization of America's industry and the changes in production techniques; the struggle for women's and minority rights; the labor movement; the growth of pre-paid medical care; advances in early childhood education and day care; recycling and rationing; major shifts in population; and changes in arts and culture.'' This legislation would add the Nystrom Elementary School to the existing National Historical Park. During World War II, the Nystrom Elementary school was built to teach the children of shipyard workers. The school was part of a planned development including the Maritime Child Development center, which has already been preserved as part of the park, and the Nystrom housing area, which has been scheduled for future preservation and redevelopment by the city of Richmond. The bill would also give the National Park Service the authority to add additional sites to the park through cooperative agreements and to acquire additional sites for inclusion in the park. Having the Nystrom Elementary school identified as a site of the park will help the National Historical Park better preserve, interpret, and share that history with visitors. To understand the social changes that occurred during World War II, it is important to have sites that represent those changes as tangible evidence. The City of Richmond and the West Contra Costa Unified School District support adding the school to the site. I thank my colleague, Representative Mark DeSaulnier, for championing this effort in the House. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the ``Rosie the Riveter National Historic Site Expansion Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California (PUBLIC) Lands Act.'' This measure would increase protections for over 1 million acres of Federal public lands throughout northwest California, the Central Coast, and Los Angeles, including nearly 600,000 acres of new wilderness, more than 583 miles of new wild and scenic rivers, and the expansion of an existing national monument by more than 100,000 acres. This legislation would preserve our public lands for the benefit of current and future generations and help protect California's communities from the impacts of the climate crisis. The ``PUBLIC Lands Act'' is grounded in the best conservation principles: it expands access to the outdoors for all, addresses disparities in access to nature, supports locally led efforts, and is based on science. In Northwest California, this bill would designate new wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, recreation and conservation areas, and forest and watershed restoration areas. Importantly, it would increase wildfire resiliency in Northwest California, where the impacts of the climate crisis have resulted in more frequent and severe wildfires. Along the Central Coast, the bill would designate nearly 250,000 acres of public land in the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo Plain National Monument as wilderness, and establish a 400-mile long Condor National Recreation trail, stretching from Los Angeles to Monterey County. The designations in the bill would protect the Central Valley's abundant biodiversity, including threatened and endangered species. In Southern California, the bill would expand the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument and establish a new National Recreation Area along the foothills and San Gabriel River corridor. Los Angeles County is one of the most park-poor, densely populated, and polluted regions in the Nation--this legislation would begin to rectify that by providing increased outdoor opportunities for all Angelenos, ensuring that disadvantaged communities can more easily benefit from our public lands. I want to highlight that this legislation protects existing water rights, property rights, and land-use authorities. The bill does not create any new public lands--rather, it protects existing public lands through the high-value designation as wilderness in order to keep these lands as untouched and wild as possible. The science is becoming increasingly clear that we must conserve 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030 in our efforts to solve the climate crisis, protect nature, and save America's wildlife. This legislation would provide a down payment on that goal, helping California and the Biden Administration meet our 30x30 goals and reverse the worst effects of climate change. The bill would also provide outdoor recreation opportunities to park- poor communities. It is imperative that as we conserve our public lands, we do so in a way that also reverses racial and economic disparities in access to nature and parks. This bill enjoys the support of hundreds of local municipalities and elected officials, community groups, and businesses and local outfitters. It is the product of significant public engagement in the legislative process over decades. I would like to thank my colleagues and conservation champions, Representatives Jared Huffman, Salud Carbajal, and Judy Chu, for championing these bills in the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``PUBLIC Lands Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California (PUBLIC) Lands Act.'' This measure would increase protections for over 1 million acres of Federal public lands throughout northwest California, the Central Coast, and Los Angeles, including nearly 600,000 acres of new wilderness, more than 583 miles of new wild and scenic rivers, and the expansion of an existing national monument by more than 100,000 acres. This legislation would preserve our public lands for the benefit of current and future generations and help protect California's communities from the impacts of the climate crisis. The ``PUBLIC Lands Act'' is grounded in the best conservation principles: it expands access to the outdoors for all, addresses disparities in access to nature, supports locally led efforts, and is based on science. In Northwest California, this bill would designate new wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, recreation and conservation areas, and forest and watershed restoration areas. Importantly, it would increase wildfire resiliency in Northwest California, where the impacts of the climate crisis have resulted in more frequent and severe wildfires. Along the Central Coast, the bill would designate nearly 250,000 acres of public land in the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo Plain National Monument as wilderness, and establish a 400-mile long Condor National Recreation trail, stretching from Los Angeles to Monterey County. The designations in the bill would protect the Central Valley's abundant biodiversity, including threatened and endangered species. In Southern California, the bill would expand the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument and establish a new National Recreation Area along the foothills and San Gabriel River corridor. Los Angeles County is one of the most park-poor, densely populated, and polluted regions in the Nation--this legislation would begin to rectify that by providing increased outdoor opportunities for all Angelenos, ensuring that disadvantaged communities can more easily benefit from our public lands. I want to highlight that this legislation protects existing water rights, property rights, and land-use authorities. The bill does not create any new public lands--rather, it protects existing public lands through the high-value designation as wilderness in order to keep these lands as untouched and wild as possible. The science is becoming increasingly clear that we must conserve 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030 in our efforts to solve the climate crisis, protect nature, and save America's wildlife. This legislation would provide a down payment on that goal, helping California and the Biden Administration meet our 30x30 goals and reverse the worst effects of climate change. The bill would also provide outdoor recreation opportunities to park- poor communities. It is imperative that as we conserve our public lands, we do so in a way that also reverses racial and economic disparities in access to nature and parks. This bill enjoys the support of hundreds of local municipalities and elected officials, community groups, and businesses and local outfitters. It is the product of significant public engagement in the legislative process over decades. I would like to thank my colleagues and conservation champions, Representatives Jared Huffman, Salud Carbajal, and Judy Chu, for championing these bills in the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``PUBLIC Lands Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Cornyn in introducing the ``Preventing Outages With Enhanced Resilience and Operations Nationwide (POWER ON) Act of 2021''. This legislation would authorize the Federal government to offer grants to States and Tribal governments to modernize the electrical grid and better withstand extreme weather events and natural disasters. It would also serve as a catalyst for our Nation's research and development and deployment of new technologies that will ensure our Nation's grid can meet the challenges of climate change and continue to provide reliable electricity to our citizens. The ``POWER ON Act'' is a bipartisan step-forward to combating the devastating impact of climate change and keep the lights on for everyone. This legislation would help protect America's electric grid and make it more resilient. Climate change is real and nowhere is that fact more clear than in my State of California. As the State continues to experience historic wildfires, droughts, dangerous mudslides, prolonged heatwaves, and extreme wind events that prompt sustained power shutoffs, the Federal government can and must help. We must work with States to invest in our electrical infrastructure and make our grids more reliable. This legislation would establish a grant program through the Department of Energy for States and Tribal governments to award funds to eligible entities to deploy projects that enhance the resilience of the electric grid. This legislation specifically includes natural disasters, such as wildfires, and extreme weather such as heatwaves, drought, and high winds as threats to the resiliency of the electrical grid. Additionally, it explicitly includes Public Safety Power Shutoffs, which have become all too routine in California in recent years, as eligible events. To protect ratepayers, this legislation ensures that a utility may not seek any cost recovery for any grant awarded through this new program. Lastly, this legislation would establish a grant program through the Department of Energy for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of innovations to enhance resilience and strengthen emergency response and management of the electric grid. California has always been a leader in research and development, and this new program would allow universities, national laboratories and others to make our grid smarter and more resilient. This legislation will not only work to harden our grid but it will allow our world- renowned institutions to usher in new technologies that will keep our grid and our citizens safe. I thank my colleague Senator Cornyn and our House partners, Representatives Doris Matsui, Jared Huffman, Doug LaMalfa, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Kevin Brady, and Michael Burgess for championing this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``POWER ON Act'' as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, April 19, 2021, at 6 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I also rise today to offer my strong support for the nomination of Ms. Vanita Gupta to be the Associate Attorney General of the United States. In the 44-year history of the position, a woman of color has never served as Associate Attorney General of the United States. We have the opportunity to confirm a qualified, proven, and respected woman of color in Ms. Gupta, and the Senate should not delay any longer. As Associate Attorney General, Ms. Gupta would help restore professionalism, empathy, and dignity to the highest levels of the Justice Department. Through more than 5 hours of testimony--5 hours-- before the Judiciary Committee and in a lengthy career in public service, Ms. Gupta has demonstrated exactly why our Nation would be well served by her leadership in the Department of Justice. Throughout her career, Ms. Gupta has paid particular attention to the most marginalized and often the least heard among us. From representing wrongfully convicted individuals as a young lawyer to her time in leadership roles at the ACLU, the Leadership Conference, and the Department of Justice, Ms. Gupta has demonstrated her deep commitment to pursuing justice, equity, and equality for all people. In pursuit of that goal, Ms. Gupta has also demonstrated her desire and ability to work with anyone, including those who might normally disagree with her. Indeed, Ms. Gupta's endorsements from groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and individuals like Grover Norquist confirm that she is a thoughtful listener, a bridge builder, and a consensus seeker. In this charged political era, it is hard to imagine that any other nominee for Associate Attorney General could give my Republican colleagues more assurance that their views will be fairly considered at the Department of Justice. Yet, our Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee requested that Ms. Gupta's nomination be indefinitely stalled and that she be required to testify before the committee again. When those demands were rightfully declined, they chose to vote en bloc against referring Ms. Gupta's nomination to the floor. But the opposition to Ms. Gupta's nomination is, frankly, frivolous. For 4 years now, the now-minority members of the Judiciary Committee refused to even comment on, let alone criticize, President Trump's tweets antagonizing judges, Senators, everyday Americans, and so many others. Yet now they argue that Ms. Gupta's occasionally impassioned tweets over the last 4 years are somehow disqualifying, despite her sincere apology, her expression of respect for Members of this body, and her promise to participate in turning down the rhetorical temperature. My Republican colleagues' double standard could not be more clear. Similarly, our Republican colleagues spent the last 4 years hastily confirming judges and nominees who refused to answer basic questions, like whether or not Brown v. Board of Education was rightfully decided. Of course it was. But now they argue that more than 5 hours of testimony and 10,000 pages of documents were not sufficient to evaluate Ms. Gupta, who repeatedly answered each and every one of their questions. Again, the double standard could not be more clear. I could go on and on, but instead of continuing to point out the obvious hypocrisy, let me say a few more words about why I am excited to have Ms. Gupta serve as the Associate Attorney General. For years now, civil rights, voting rights, environmental justice, immigrants' rights, and consumer rights have found themselves as a second thought in the administration of our justice system. No longer. Under Ms. Gupta's leadership, I look forward to seeing a Justice Department that pursues equal justice for all of our citizens and that recognizes the dignity and humanity of all people. I look forward to seeing Ms. Gupta work with Republicans and Democrats, with liberals and conservatives to find solutions to our problems, as she has throughout her career. And I look forward to young girls and boys of color once again seeing someone who looks like them in the leadership of our Justice Department and knowing that one day, they, too, can reach such great heights. Colleagues, let's not wait a moment longer. It is time for us to confirm Ms. Gupta as the next Associate Attorney General of the United States. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I thank Senator Brown for including me on this reading. It is a tremendous honor. I will continue. When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows. In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: ``Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.'' In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: ``Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.'' And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular. I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: ``What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?'' Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists. There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being ``disturbers of the peace'' and ``outside agitators.'' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were ``a colony of Heaven,'' called to obey God rather than Man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be ``astronomically intimidated.'' By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust. Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives at present are misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record the following obituary for Mr. Antonio Gonzalez, written by his children. The material follows: Beloved Antonio Gonzalez made his transition the night of December 30, 2020. Born in Calera in the state of Zacatecas, Mexico on March 30, 1964, he was the eldest of four children born to Antonio Gonzalez and Antonia Del Villar. The Gonzalez family spent their early years living with Antonio's maternal grandparents in a small town in Calera. Antonio shared fond memories of times spent on his grandparent's abundant ranch. He described what seemed to him an endless landscape of rolling hills, trees, livestock and horses (his favorite). Hard times fell on the young family around the time Antonio turned eight. A sudden regime change resulted in his dad losing his job, forcing them to set their sights ``north'' in search for work and a better life. Their trek north ended in what was (at the time) a small dusty town just south of the California border. It was there, in Tecate, BC where he and his three siblings, Antonio (Tony Chico), Margarita and Maria de la Luz were raised and attended school. But, with a lack of good paying jobs, times remained tough in Tecate. Antonio recalled working odd-end jobs throughout his childhood and adolescence; a shoe shiner, sweeper--anything to help ensure that there was food on the table. As a young adult, Antonio set his sights on completing the journey north--to the U.S. In 1971, shortly after marrying Florentina ``Nina'' Herrera, he made his way to Los Angeles. They settled in the San Fernando Valley--a sleepy suburb of LA at the height of rock and roll, disco, and bell bottoms. Antonio worked just about anywhere where hard work was needed--maintenance work at a convalescent hospital, landscaping, you name it. But his fate would change when he landed a job at a large construction company. I'm not sure what it was about ``construction'' that he loved. Perhaps it was the job stability or the early start to the day where he could greet the sunrise on his drive into downtown. Or maybe it was the art of building--the satisfaction of erecting a structure where only a plot of land existed--a tangible outcome only accomplished by hard work and sweat. Over the years, he had become somewhat of an infrastructure historian, recalling with such clarity the buildings he helped build and rehabilitate in the San Fernando Valley, Downtown LA, Santa Monica, and Malibu. He dedicated most of his life to erecting buildings and homes, whether for work or building homes for his family both in the San Fernando Valley and in Tecate, BC. Antonio built his family home, simple and unpretentious yet on a solid foundation with strong bones. In fact, as time would prove, there's nowhere else his family would prefer to be in an earthquake but under the protection of those strong beams hammered together with pride and affection. Even in his retirement years, Antonio never stopped building. Antonio was a great provider for his family. Through his hard work and dedication, he showed his children that the true American dream could be achieved--of buying a home, raising a family and ensuring a better future for the next generation. He is survived by his wife, ``Nina'', son David, daughter Maria Ines and son-in-law Jose, daughter Sandra and son-in law James, son Cristian and grandchildren Javier, Sienna and Julian. Siblings Antonio, Margarita and Maria de la Luz and many loving cousins, nieces and nephews. He was preceded in death by his father Antonio Gonzalez and mother, Antonia Gonzalez Del Villar.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the life of Mr. Joe Lozano. Joe ``Pinoy'' Lozano was born on December 26, 1934, in Pacoima, CA, as one of 10 children. Joe had every job you can imagine. He shined shoes and worked in the fields as a young boy. He joined the U.S. Marine Corp in 1954 and served during the Korean war as an infantryman. After the service, he married the love of his life, Virginia. They were married for 60 years and had 6 children, 21 grandchildren, 26 great-grandchildren, and 1 great-great-grandchild. Joe was a community-oriented person. After his family, his community came first. He painted over graffiti, he helped beautify the streets, and he even mowed the grass on the center divider of his street when the city was too busy to do it. Joe worked as a prop maker for the studios for many years. He had tons of stories, and he loved his job. He retired, went back to work, and only stopped again to care for his wife when she became ill. Since 2004, Joe worked with the annual San Fernando Valley Veterans Day Parade organizing committee so that Veterans could be honored on Veterans Day. He will be missed by many.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the life of Ms. Marlene Bane. Marlene answered the highest calling of dedication to her country, her State, and her local community. Along with her husband, Assemblyman Tom Bane, she carved out a unique niche in State government through a blend of intelligence, soft-spoken charm, organization, and, most of all, dear friends and relatives. She spent a lifetime engaged in political consulting and nonprofit projects such as lupus research and the Jewish Home for the Aging. Marlene worked tirelessly to improve California and serve those most in need. She was also well known and loved throughout L.A.'s Jewish community for her civic activism and support for Israel. Marlene was renowned for mentoring an amazing number of our political leaders on how to serve constituents with honor and commitment. Up to the last week of her life, she threw herself into the cause of supporting candidates. She believed in the commandment of Tikkun Olam, that she must leave the world better than she found it. It is undeniable that she left those who knew her better off for having known her.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PADILLA. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I share my colleague's desire to prevent child trafficking. Trust me, as a parent, I know it is a laudable goal. But as drafted--as drafted--this bill would create enormous and instant chaos at airports around the country and every other port of entry. As written, it would require every foreign family who seeks admission to the United States, even just for a family vacation, to have a third party witness a test to their affiliation or else submit to a DNA test. I can't imagine any of our airports have the resources to implement this. It would simply lead to the same chaos we saw after the implementation of President Trump's Muslim ban, or worse, it would overwhelm our law enforcement officials and create bottlenecks at customs for citizens and noncitizens alike, not to mention the many legal and ethical questions as it pertains to genetic privacy and the storage of that information. I would be more than happy to sit down with my colleague from Tennessee in the context of a larger discussion about immigration reform to see how we can ensure that we include provisions to prevent child trafficking, but I don't think this bill as drafted will actually accomplish that goal, and so I object.