Alex Padilla

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President and colleagues, I am here to share some good news. This past weekend, California State lawmakers passed a package of legislation to lower the cost of living for working families. I say this is good news because every day, Americans continue to wake up to higher and higher prices in so many ways. We all feel it at the grocery store. Many of us felt it these past few weeks as we were back- to-school shopping. We, I think, are about to see it in our healthcare costs pretty soon. We are certainly feeling it in our monthly energy bills. I can give a lot of examples, but I want to focus today on our energy bills and what California is doing and what we seem to be doing here in Congress. I think it is timely because despite the fact that then-candidate Donald Trump promised to ``slash prices by half within 12 months,'' the reality is that, today, not only are we not seeing energy prices go down, we are actually seeing them go up. That is right. They are actually rising twice as fast as inflation. So much for keeping your promises. Many Americans are struggling to keep up with these bills so much that they are now turning to payment plans just to keep the lights on. So in California this last weekend, lawmakers did something about it, and I think it is notable. Together, Governor Newsom and the legislature took several steps to strengthen our energy portfolio and lower prices for consumers. I want to point out just some of the highlights of these significant but meaningful steps. This includes working to increase the supply of energy that Californians count on, and it includes working with counterparts more formally now in States like Oregon and Washington to create a regional electrical grid across the Western United States. But even for the progress that we are making at the State level and at the regional level, what is so frustrating is that at the national level, Republicans continue to pursue policies that are increasing our energy costs. This administration is shamelessly working to block one of our best defenses against rising energy bills: renewable energy. And I say so because renewable energy is absolutely affordable; renewable energy is abundant; and whether you want to admit it or not, renewable energy sources are our future. I know I have heard a lot of my Republican colleagues for years say that, well, renewable energy is simply too expensive. But the reality is that, today, solar is half the cost of coal and significantly cheaper than natural gas. Wind power, too, is also cheaper than both coal and gas. Having heard the counterarguments, again, for years, I know others will say: Well, we shouldn't be subsidizing renewable energy sources, as if the fossil fuel industry hasn't been propped up by subsidies over the years. And even more recently, I suggest look no further than Trump's ``Big Beautiful Bill''--plenty of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. And, finally, I have heard naysayers say that, well, we can't depend on renewable energy because it is just not reliable. What happens when the Sun is not shining? What happens when the wind is not blowing? We have a genuine concern about intermittency. So do we. But guess what. California--yes, the same California that has grown to be the fourth largest economy in the world--is showing how we can overcome those concerns and solve those problems. See, over the last few years alone, California has brought renewable energy capacity onto the grid in record numbers. In 2023, clean energy made up two-thirds of our retail electricity. And it is not just bringing more renewable energy onto the grid; we have simultaneously made the grid more reliable. That is in part because, since 2019, battery storage capacity in California has grown by nearly 2,000 percent. So we are harnessing the power of solar and wind and hydroelectric power and nuclear, geothermal--even hydrogen power--to our State. It is exactly because of those investments that even in a year like 2024, just last year, when we experienced record heat waves, we also saw record renewable energy generation and we kept the lights on. Now, we are not naive. We know that with a growing population and a growing economy, including but not limited to the future of an AI boom, demand will continue to grow. But we are committed to the kind of inclusive portfolio of energy options that has made our grid more reliable. But despite that progress, despite that success story, Donald Trump and many of our Republican colleagues have continued to wage war on clean energy. This administration and Department of Energy Secretary Wright say they support an all-of-the-above strategy--this was actually a very intentional conversation we had at Secretary Wright's confirmation hearing in committee months and months ago--but the facts show otherwise. What we have seen over the last several months is the Trump administration cut historic tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act that were lowering costs and supercharging our clean energy transition. This administration has canceled offshore wind projects, including one that was nearly complete off the coast of Rhode Island, and they are clawing back funding from job-creating solar projects that are lowering energy bills. This makes no sense. According to Climate Power, since Donald Trump was elected to his second term, over 120 clean energy projects across the country have either been canceled, delayed, or they are laying off staff. That is certainly not good for the economy and not good for job creation. It is not good for the grid. Taking nearly 14,000 megawatts off the grid--that is the equivalent of removing power to supply 8.4 million homes in America. No wonder prices are rising. It is simple supply and demand. But at the same time, Donald Trump is paying to extend the life of older fossil fuel plants, which will only raise costs. When they are older, they tend to be dirtier. When they are older, they are more expensive to maintain. And all of this while ceding our global leadership in renewable energy production and innovation to China. Now, that is not just bad for consumers; it is not just bad for reliability; it is literally putting lives at risk. Every year that we burn more fossil fuel than we need to, our climate crisis worsens. That means more frequent and more devastating extreme weather--not just in California but across the country. In California, it has led to a worsening drought, relentless atmospheric rivers, and-- yes, all too often--life-threatening wildfires, just as we experienced in the Los Angeles region this past January. It is no surprise that Donald Trump loves to attack California's leaders on wildfire policy and our climate leadership. We also know he loves to play politics with disaster funding. That record is clear. He continues to dig us deeper and deeper into an energy policy that actually increases the risk of the next great disaster, and Californians will be left to clean up the mess. So here in the Senate, I have worked hard to try to address that. We passed the FIRE Act a couple of years ago to help FEMA better prepare for and respond to wildfires. We secured the transfer of seven C-130 Hercules aircraft to strengthen our arsenal and to fight against deadly wildfires, adding to CAL FIRE's largest aerial firefighting fleet in the world. I continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build support for the Fix Our Forests Act to improve forest management practices, protect urban areas from devastation, and harness our technology and our expertise. I am proud of that work we have been doing, but the backdrop of all of that is still an indisputable fact that reliance on fossil fuels comes at a cost, and Americans--not just Californians but Americans-- are paying for it in the form of higher energy bills and in lives destroyed after these major disasters. So no matter how many times Donald Trump says it, we can never and will never ``drill, baby, drill'' our way to cheaper energy costs. Our solution has to be a more inclusive approach to our energy portfolios, and we also need to streamline projects and speed up the timeline it takes to get them approved, to get them completed, and to get them online. We need to make our grid more efficient by supporting the buildup of our transmission system and the regionalization of our grid. Regional cooperation means improved efficiency and improved reliability. That is how we meet our growing demand--more options, not less; more cooperation, not less; and more sources of energy, not less. Trump might continue to lie to the American people about renewable energy, but Americans know that this energy crisis doesn't have to continue forever, and California is proud to show the way forward. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Land Exchange Act. This bill would transfer 1.475 acres of land from the Forest Service to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation in fee in exchange for 1,460 acres of fee land the Tribe already owns. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Indians, is a federally recognized Native American Tribe of Serrano people. Their reservation is located in San Bernardino County, CA, and their people have lived in the San Bernardino Mountains and surrounding areas for thousands of years. Today, the Tribe is known for its strong commitment to cultural preservation and philanthropy. For years, the Tribe has been working toward a land exchange with the Forest Service, which would enable them to acquire lands that were once home to Tribal village known today as Arrowhead Springs. The Tribe has gone through the administrative process to transfer this land, but it has been expensive and time--consuming. That is why I am proud to introduce this legislation to facilitate this land transfer and allow the Tribe to manage their ancestral lands. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation, and I also want to thank Republican Congressman Jay Obernolte for introducing companion legislation in the House. I hope my colleagues will join me in advancing this bill in the Senate.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Land Exchange Act. This bill would transfer 1.475 acres of land from the Forest Service to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation in fee in exchange for 1,460 acres of fee land the Tribe already owns. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Indians, is a federally recognized Native American Tribe of Serrano people. Their reservation is located in San Bernardino County, CA, and their people have lived in the San Bernardino Mountains and surrounding areas for thousands of years. Today, the Tribe is known for its strong commitment to cultural preservation and philanthropy. For years, the Tribe has been working toward a land exchange with the Forest Service, which would enable them to acquire lands that were once home to Tribal village known today as Arrowhead Springs. The Tribe has gone through the administrative process to transfer this land, but it has been expensive and time--consuming. That is why I am proud to introduce this legislation to facilitate this land transfer and allow the Tribe to manage their ancestral lands. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation, and I also want to thank Republican Congressman Jay Obernolte for introducing companion legislation in the House. I hope my colleagues will join me in advancing this bill in the Senate.

Mr. PADILLA

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

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, last year, Senate Democrats presented to Senate Republicans a proposal meant to fix some of the partisan gridlock that slowed down the confirmation process for both parties over the years. I rise to speak to it because of the pending action that Senate Republicans have teed up to change the rules or utilize the nuclear option to set a new precedent for how nominees are considered and/or confirmed in this body. So it is not a new conversation, not a new effort that has come up just overnight. There have been efforts over the years to revisit this, including last year by Senate Democrats. I reference that proposal from last year because it was intentional. It was presented at a time when nobody knew who would be elected President of the United States. It was done at a time when no one knew who would be occupying--which party would be occupying the White House and be charged with filling key positions in the Federal Government. It was done at a time when we were not sure who would be in the majority of this body. So it was an ideal time to discuss and implement reforms on a nonpartisan basis. It was a chance for the two sides to come together in a bipartisan fashion and negotiate a change to the Senate rules at a 67-vote threshold for the purpose of improving the process, improving the Senate as an institution. Now, Democrats proposed ideas out of the interest of fairness, of reform, and of making this institution work better. Unfortunately, at the time, my understanding is the Republican response was basically: No, no, no, we are not really interested. They wouldn't play ball. They didn't want to be part of the solution because they were busy at the time obstructing Democratic nominees. Fast-forward to today. We know that Donald Trump is in the White House. Not only is he in the White House, he is nominating historically under-qualified nominees, political hit men, loyalists, and extremists. Surprise, surprise--guess who all of a sudden has changed their tune. Not only do Senate Republicans now want to revisit the nominations process and the confirmation process, they are doing it in a way that can have them very, very quickly confirm unlimited numbers of these nominees. They are doing so in a way without trying--not even trying to build bipartisan support for these changes. They are threatening to go nuclear once again and only require a 50-vote threshold. So you have to wonder why. Maybe because they want to hide some of Donald Trump's most controversial nominees. Just look at who they have worked so quickly to confirm over the last several months. Let me give a couple of examples of the kinds of Republican nominees who could have qualified for mass consideration, with hardly any oversight, under this new proposed process--nominees like Kash Patel, a conspiracy theorist who made a target list of Trump's perceived enemies, who has now been elevated to serve as Director of the FBI; Dan Bongino, a far-right podcaster turned Epstein apologist confirmed as Deputy Director of the FBI; Todd Blanche, Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer who represented him when he was convicted of concealing hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels. He is now the Deputy Attorney General--and, by the way, recently paid a very high-profile visit to a certain Ghislaine Maxwell, in Federal prison for her role in the whole Epstein saga. Russell Vought, the architect of the scheme to steal hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people and illegally stop funding critical housing and food assistance programs, has now returned as OMB Director--the same Russell Vought who has publicly said and advocated for less bipartisan actions when it comes to appropriations and more partisan determinations on our Federal Government's spending plan. E.J. Antoni is slated to replace the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whom Trump fired after he didn't like the July jobs numbers--someone who has a history of making sexually degrading attacks, homophobic remarks, promoting conspiracy theories, and lobbing crude insults at anyone critical of the President. Look, there are dozens more nominees coming before the Senate who repeatedly denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election in order to please Trump. And it doesn't stop there. Now many of these nominees have also committed to dismantling the very Departments, Agencies, and programs they are tapped to lead. While we are not there yet, I might add that the next Chair of the Federal Reserve will not be subject to the Cabinet-level confirmation process either. Colleagues, this is not normal, and so that is the context for what we are debating--not truly bipartisan reform but a Republican- engineered plan to ram through Trump's unfit nominees to implement an extreme agenda. Sadly, the truth is, it is not surprising because time and again, under this President--especially this term--we have seen Republicans in Congress give up responsibility to serve as a check and a balance on the executive branch in order to please Donald Trump. In just about every way imaginable, Republicans are inventing new ways to cede power to Trump on appropriations, on tariffs, on oversight, on foreign policy. Today, it is not just that they are ceding power to Trump; they are going nuclear for the third time since May, changing the rules of this body unilaterally to do it, just as they did earlier this year when they revoked three of California's Clean Air Act waivers and just like they did when they abused the Budget Act with magic math to take away healthcare for millions of people and give trillions in tax cuts to billionaires. In every instance, the arguments they made for going nuclear just don't pass muster. President Trump has actually seen more--more--of his civilian, nonjudicial nominees confirmed before the August recess in this term than he did in his first term. This year, it was 128 compared to 126 in the year 2017. He has also had 14 more of those nominees confirmed before the August recess than President Biden did by the same date--128 to 114. So I have to say it seems like our colleagues are forgetting what it was like over the prior 4 years when many Republican Senators had blanket holds on dozens of nominees at a time: Republican Senators blocking all Department of Justice nominees for a significant time period; Republican Senators blocking all State Department nominees for a significant time period; one Republican Senator even holding up routine promotions for all Department of Defense nominees--yes, Department of Defense. Department of Defense. For nearly a year, he did so, and it was a national scandal, a national embarrassment. Dozens of military families were stuck in limbo for partisan Republican reasons that had nothing to do with their qualifications or ability to serve. Now there is this Republican outrage for nominees having to wait a couple of months to go through the process? Did our colleagues already forget what happened just before this August recess? Senate Democrats again, despite the political climate we are in, tried to negotiate in good faith. There was a bipartisan proposal on the table to expedite some nominees. What happened to that? I will tell you what happened to that. Donald Trump said no, and he made a mockery of good-faith negotiations less than 2 months ago. He told Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats--and I am going to quote--he said: Go to hell. But that is par for the course for Donald Trump. He has contempt for bipartisan negotiations and for checks and balances--the very checks and balances in our Constitution. That is the reason we are here today. No one is fooled about what is happening here. It is clearly yet another power grab. Republicans are prepared to go nuclear and change Senate rules once again with a simple majority vote. I will end simply by saying once again that what goes around comes around, because at some point in time in the future, not only will there be a Democratic President back in the White House, there will be a Democratic majority in the Senate Chamber as well. And I guess we will have to abide by the new rules and new precedents that Republicans are so happy to set today. So be prepared because I know I will be. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I have been listening to my colleague from Texas. The part that he said a couple of times over the last several minutes was that he was looking for some sort of explanation as to why Democrats are doing what we are doing. So let me attempt to respond to them. I can't help but observe that my colleague from Texas and Senate Republicans like to point out that Senate Democrats were proposing reforms to the nominations process in 2024--yes, just last year. That is not a secret. A formal proposal was introduced. The Senate Rules Committee, of which I was a member and am now serving as ranking member this session, held a public hearing on these issues just over a year ago. There have been bipartisan discussions about these issues going back years. Senate Democrats led a bipartisan effort in 2024 for changes that would take effect in 2025. Now, why are those dates important? Because these proposals were made back when the outcome of last year's Presidential election was unknown, like that is the ultimate fair way to do it. That is the way to get bipartisan support. These ideas are good or not good; you support them or you don't support them regardless of who is President or which party is in power. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans, at the time, showed little interest in these reforms, not just last summer but even late into 2024. I can't help but observe that, at the time, they were engaging in their own unprecedented obstruction and blockades of President Biden's nominees. One Senator, a Republican Senator, held up routine promotions at the Department of Defense for nearly a year--yes, I said the ``Department of Defense,'' by the way--and they were planning to use these same tactics if then-Vice President Harris had been elected President. But now that Donald Trump is back in the White House-- surprise, surprise--they are ready and set to make all of these changes immediately. The truth is, we shouldn't be in this situation. On that much, I guess, we do agree. But I am not just talking about the process. I am not just talking about the process. Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, this Senate has been faced with an unprecedented number of highly extreme and unqualified, unfit nominees, many nominees whose stated goal is to dismantle the Departments and Agencies and programs which they are being nominated to lead. Meanwhile, this administration is unlawfully impounding funds, firing people in droves, and abolishing Agencies created by Congress--actions that, if this Senate and Congress as a whole was living up to its responsibility as a separate but coequal branch of government, this branch is supposed to be providing oversight and accountability that is so lacking by the majority. Yet still, given all that, Senate Democrats have been willing to negotiate. We have been partners in good faith. There was even a bipartisan agreement on the table just before the August recess that we just returned from, a proposal that would expedite some of the less objectionable nominees. All the administration had to do was accommodate some reasonable requests--bipartisan requests, for that matter--from a number of Senators. Now, that is the normal process. Presidents and administrations of both parties have cooperated with Senators from both parties for decades to ensure the confirmation of nominees. But Trump rejected that option just weeks ago. The President himself told Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats to ``go to hell'' before the recess. Those three words are the perfect summary of how this President views Congress. It shows his contempt for Congress. That is why we are in this situation when it comes to his nominees, many, again, of whom are extreme and unfit in so many unprecedented ways. Talk about unprecedented. The way this administration is behaving is unprecedented. This is not normal. Now, it is clear that the President rejected a reasonable bipartisan agreement before the recess, and I appreciate my Republican colleagues' new interest in the 2024 proposal to reform the nomination process. So in that spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I think there is a very good chance that we can pass this with a very simple amendment to make the resolution effective January 20, 2029. Nobody here knows who the President will be then. Nobody knows which party will control the White House or be in the majority in this body by then. Nobody can predict it, and that is exactly the point. If the rule is good, then let's do it not knowing who is going to be in power when it takes effect. So I invite discussion and negotiation about the effective date in this resolution or, as my colleague from Texas suggested, maybe even revisiting the list of which nominees should require Senate confirmation. But this resolution doesn't even begin to discuss or address that. So as this resolution is currently drafted, it is unacceptable, and, therefore, I object.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Shingle Springs Band Miwok Indians Land Transfer Act of 2025. This bill would place approximately 80 acres of land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management into trust for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and place into trust 185 acres of fee land already owned by the Tribe. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians is a federally recognized Tribe located near Placerville, CA. The Tribe's current land base is limited, just 160 acres, and their reservation access was significantly disrupted decades ago when Highway 50 was constructed across their only entrance. While the Tribe has since invested in an off-ramp to restore access, their existing land remains insufficient to meet the needs of their citizens, particularly related to housing. Today, more than 180 Tribal families are on a housing waitlist. To address this crisis, the Tribe purchased 118 acres of nearby land with the goal of building housing for their citizens, which this bill would place into trust. The land owned by BLM cannot be placed into trust without an act of Congress, making this bill essential to meeting the Tribe's goals of housing, fire risk management, and responsible land stewardship. This legislation is a commonsense step forward that will empower the Tribe to build much needed housing and better manage its ancestral lands. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation, and I also want to thank Republican Congressman Tom McClintock, who also represents this land, for introducing companion legislation in the House.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Shingle Springs Band Miwok Indians Land Transfer Act of 2025. This bill would place approximately 80 acres of land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management into trust for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and place into trust 185 acres of fee land already owned by the Tribe. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians is a federally recognized Tribe located near Placerville, CA. The Tribe's current land base is limited, just 160 acres, and their reservation access was significantly disrupted decades ago when Highway 50 was constructed across their only entrance. While the Tribe has since invested in an off-ramp to restore access, their existing land remains insufficient to meet the needs of their citizens, particularly related to housing. Today, more than 180 Tribal families are on a housing waitlist. To address this crisis, the Tribe purchased 118 acres of nearby land with the goal of building housing for their citizens, which this bill would place into trust. The land owned by BLM cannot be placed into trust without an act of Congress, making this bill essential to meeting the Tribe's goals of housing, fire risk management, and responsible land stewardship. This legislation is a commonsense step forward that will empower the Tribe to build much needed housing and better manage its ancestral lands. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation, and I also want to thank Republican Congressman Tom McClintock, who also represents this land, for introducing companion legislation in the House.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Corporal Frank S. Wright, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who served in the Second World War with the 4th Marine Raider Battalion, one of WWII's most elite fighting units. Frank Wright was born on July 5, 1925, in Arkadelphia, AR, and grew up as a child of the Great Depression. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Frank felt called to serve his country and decided to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps on January 21, 1942. But at only 16 years old and well below the weight requirement to serve, Frank was initially turned away. Undeterred, Frank found himself lying about his age and even filling his pockets with bananas to meet the minimum weight requirement. Soon enough, he was headed out West, reporting to Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, with the Nation at war. Corporal Wright trained in San Diego for 2 months before leaving for his first duty station in Astoria, OR. There, he served on guard duty, including during the Japanese bombardment of Fort Stevens. It was in Oregon where Corporal Wright first heard a call for recruits to join the 4th Marine Raiders. After being accepted to join the group, he was surprised to learn that James Roosevelt, President Roosevelt's eldest son, would be leading the special forces unit. As a Marine Raider, Corporal Wright participated in some of the most pivotal battles of the Pacific Theater--including Guadalcanal, New Georgia, Guam, and Iwo Jima. His service was marked by sacrifice and bravery, persevering through malaria in the Solomon Islands, a bayonet injury during the liberation of Guam, and gunfire to the chest and arm during Iwo Jima. Despite his injuries, he continued to serve long enough to see an American flag raised high over Iwo Jima--and the war won. In recognition of his service, Corporal Wright received a Purple Heart with two gold stars and the Presidential Unit Citation with two stars, among others. After the war, Corporal Wright moved to Lodi, CA, where he remained active in veteran causes, including the Stockton Marine Corps Club and the American Legion Karl Ross Post 16. He also authored two books documenting his experiences in World War II entitled ``Battles in the Pacific: World War II--My Personal War Causing PTSD'' and ``My 12 Days in Hell.'' Corporal Wright is a father, a beloved grandfather, and great- grandfather. Throughout his life, he has been blessed by the love of his late wife Katherine; their three sons David, Duane, and Dean; their four granddaughters Tricia, Cheryl, Christina, and Beth; and their 11 great-grandchildren. I would like to thank Corporal Wright for his century of service to our country and to his community, which has inspired and educated generations of Americans. And even today, we know he is not done serving. As Corporal Wright himself has said, when he reports to the Pearly Gates, he will simply tell St. Peter: ``Just another Marine reporting for duty, sir.''

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Forest Legacy Management Flexibility Act, which would give States the option to designate accredited nonprofit land trusts to hold conservation easements purchased with Federal funding from the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program. As my colleagues may know, the Forest Legacy Program is a conservation program administered by the U.S. Forest Service, in partnership with State agencies, that encourages the protection of privately owned forestlands through conservation easements or land purchases. Protection of private forests through FLP maintains a multitude of public benefits, including opportunities to hunt, fish, and camp; clean and abundant drinking water; habitats for fish and wildlife; and timber, fuel wood, and other forest products. Since its creation in 1990, FLP has conserved over 3 million acres of forestland and expanded across the country to 53 States and territories. Current law requires that Federal or State governments hold conservation easements purchased under the Forest Legacy Program. This bill would amend this existing law to ensure that States have the option to designate accredited nonprofit land trusts to hold conservation easements purchased with Federal funding from the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program. I would like to thank Senator Sheehy for working with me on this crucial piece of legislation. I also want to extend my appreciation to Representatives Garamendi and Calvert for leading the House version of this bill.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Forest Legacy Management Flexibility Act, which would give States the option to designate accredited nonprofit land trusts to hold conservation easements purchased with Federal funding from the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program. As my colleagues may know, the Forest Legacy Program is a conservation program administered by the U.S. Forest Service, in partnership with State agencies, that encourages the protection of privately owned forestlands through conservation easements or land purchases. Protection of private forests through FLP maintains a multitude of public benefits, including opportunities to hunt, fish, and camp; clean and abundant drinking water; habitats for fish and wildlife; and timber, fuel wood, and other forest products. Since its creation in 1990, FLP has conserved over 3 million acres of forestland and expanded across the country to 53 States and territories. Current law requires that Federal or State governments hold conservation easements purchased under the Forest Legacy Program. This bill would amend this existing law to ensure that States have the option to designate accredited nonprofit land trusts to hold conservation easements purchased with Federal funding from the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program. I would like to thank Senator Sheehy for working with me on this crucial piece of legislation. I also want to extend my appreciation to Representatives Garamendi and Calvert for leading the House version of this bill.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Transportation Emergency Relief Extension Act, which I introduced today. When disasters strike, entire communities are left to pick up the pieces. Families lose their homes, businesses are destroyed, and essential infrastructure is severely damaged. In the wake of natural disasters like the California wildfires in January or the severe flooding that devastated Texas just a month ago, many States turn to the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program to rebuild highways, roads, and bridges. This program is essential, but as it currently stands, its regulations include rigid deadlines that do not reflect realities on the ground. Under current law, the Department of Transportation can claw this money back if the state has not initiated the funded projects by the end of the second fiscal year following the disaster. While this requirement was designed to encourage prompt action, in practice it often punishes States for circumstances beyond their control, even when they strive to initiate their projects in a timely manner. These include ongoing supply chain disruptions that have driven up the cost of materials and caused long lead times for equipment and lengthy regulatory steps such as environmental reviews and other permitting challenges. The delays caused by these hurdles are not due to the lack of effort by States; they are simply the reality of rebuilding critical, large-scale infrastructure. While States can request 1-year extensions of these funds, those extensions are not guaranteed. Additionally, the lengthy DOT review process adds another layer of uncertainty that complicates States' efforts to plan and execute long-term recovery projects. The bipartisan, bicameral Transportation Emergency Relief Extension Act would give States additional time to use the emergency relief funds they have been allocated, ensuring they do not lose out on critical funding because of factors they cannot control. This extension is not about delaying progress: it is about giving States the flexibility they need to complete these projects responsibly, efficiently, and without the looming threat of losing Federal support just as they get underway. When a community is struck by disaster, recovery is long and challenging. This commonsense legislation will help the Federal Government strengthen our role as a partner in that recovery. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to ensure that all our communities have the support they need to rebuild strong, resilient infrastructure when they need it most.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Transportation Emergency Relief Extension Act, which I introduced today. When disasters strike, entire communities are left to pick up the pieces. Families lose their homes, businesses are destroyed, and essential infrastructure is severely damaged. In the wake of natural disasters like the California wildfires in January or the severe flooding that devastated Texas just a month ago, many States turn to the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program to rebuild highways, roads, and bridges. This program is essential, but as it currently stands, its regulations include rigid deadlines that do not reflect realities on the ground. Under current law, the Department of Transportation can claw this money back if the state has not initiated the funded projects by the end of the second fiscal year following the disaster. While this requirement was designed to encourage prompt action, in practice it often punishes States for circumstances beyond their control, even when they strive to initiate their projects in a timely manner. These include ongoing supply chain disruptions that have driven up the cost of materials and caused long lead times for equipment and lengthy regulatory steps such as environmental reviews and other permitting challenges. The delays caused by these hurdles are not due to the lack of effort by States; they are simply the reality of rebuilding critical, large-scale infrastructure. While States can request 1-year extensions of these funds, those extensions are not guaranteed. Additionally, the lengthy DOT review process adds another layer of uncertainty that complicates States' efforts to plan and execute long-term recovery projects. The bipartisan, bicameral Transportation Emergency Relief Extension Act would give States additional time to use the emergency relief funds they have been allocated, ensuring they do not lose out on critical funding because of factors they cannot control. This extension is not about delaying progress: it is about giving States the flexibility they need to complete these projects responsibly, efficiently, and without the looming threat of losing Federal support just as they get underway. When a community is struck by disaster, recovery is long and challenging. This commonsense legislation will help the Federal Government strengthen our role as a partner in that recovery. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to ensure that all our communities have the support they need to rebuild strong, resilient infrastructure when they need it most.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, my colleagues, it feels like every single day the Trump administration finds new ways to defy the rule of law. They will tear families apart, decimate local businesses, and deceive the public in order to distract from their own failures and scandals. And nowhere has this been clearer than in their cruelty toward immigrants. As I have said time and again, this administration is not really just focused on cracking down on dangerous, violent criminals. We hear that from them all the time. But in practice, it is far from that. If it was just deportation operations focused on dangerous, violent criminals, there would be no discussion, there would be no debate, and there would be no disagreement. But that is not what this administration is doing. They are going after all immigrants. The vast majority of those who have been arrested and detained, and many of those deported--many without due process before being deported--are not convicted criminals. Don't just take my word for it. These are statistics and data coming out of ICE themselves, the Department of Homeland Security. But through their indiscriminate raids, this administration is arresting not just undocumented immigrants but lawful permanent residents as well. There are U.S. citizens who have been arrested and detained, even veterans. Think about that: individuals who have served our country, prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation and our democracy, now being rounded up indiscriminately. If you think I am exaggerating with this concern, let the comments coming out of the Department of Homeland Security just yesterday leave no doubts. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson declared for the first time--now, I want to make sure I get this right, so I am going to quote: Illegal aliens who claim to be recipients of DACA are not automatically protected from deportations. She went on to say that DACA recipients should now self-deport from the United States. Think about what that means. The Trump administration is saying that these young adults who were brought to the United States as children and who have lived here, who have studied here, and who have worked here legally--let me emphasize that: worked here, studied here, lived here legally since the year 2012, thanks to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, this administration is saying now that they have no right to be here; that they could be deported or maybe should be deported at a moment's notice; or, worse, that they should choose to leave their families and their communities for countries that they have never known. The whole point of DACA is protection from deportation. These are not criminals or some danger to society; these are young people who have lived in the United States for as long as they can remember. These are young adults who, as kids, were on your Little League team or in your Girl Scout troop. For God's sake, they are part of our communities, and they are young adults who have now grown up to be lawyers, to be doctors, to be teachers, and who have more love for everything that this country stands for than anyone threatening them in Trump's Department of Homeland Security. But this week the Trump administration is now telling them that they should be arrested and thrown out of the only home they have ever known in an attempt to satisfy Donald Trump's quest for political points or an arbitrary quota. So, to the Trump administration, let me say this: You cannot claim to love our country at the same time you are trying to destroy our future. Already, this administration has worked to cut healthcare for millions of Americans, including DACA recipients. They are cutting education benefits and opportunities for DACA recipients, but now they are threatening to arrest DACA participants as well. That is exactly what has been happening in my hometown of Los Angeles when, last month, masked immigration officials--unidentified and masked immigration officials--carrying weapons, raided a carwash in Temple City. It was there that they confronted and arrested Javier Diaz Santana. Let me tell you about Javier, and I really, really hope you are listening not just with your ears but with your hearts. Javier Santana is 32 years old. He is a DACA recipient. He is deaf. And he has been working at a carwash 6 days a week for the last 5 years. Immigration officials confiscated his identification. They confiscated his cell phone. They proceeded to handcuff him, put his hands behind his back in handcuffs, leaving him no way of communicating. You need to be able to use your hands to communicate with sign language. They deprived him of his ability to communicate. This young man was a DACA recipient who has been in the United States since he was 5 years old. He has no criminal record. His immigration removal case has been closed, and he was issued a work permit by USCIS. He is a son. He is a brother. He is a friend. Colleagues, he is a human being--just one of many cases. So don't tell me the Trump administration is following the law when we hear cases like this, and don't tell me that the administration is only targeting dangerous, violent criminals because the data proves otherwise. As his family was scrambling to find details about where he was, where he had been taken, DHS quickly whisked Javier out of Los Angeles, all the way to El Paso, TX. His family feared that he could be deported or he had been deported, not only to a country he doesn't know but to a country whose language he doesn't speak. But as tragic and as heartbreaking as Javier's story is, he is not alone. There have been more and more stories of DACA recipients being arrested and detained. And the fear is just growing across communities. One thing is certain: This mass detention and deportation operation will go down in our history as a stain, a dark chapter in our Nation's history, an outrageous moral failure intentionally caused by this administration--because for all the tough talk, this is not just politics as usual. In fact, when the DREAM Act was first introduced over 20 years ago, it was bipartisan, and it enjoyed bipartisan support for most of the last 20 years. And even today, polling shows an overwhelming majority of the American public supports DACA recipients--yes, both Republicans and Democrats across the country. Now, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have supported the DREAM Act for most of the last 20 years. And I think, in our private conversations, I sense the bipartisan support is still there, and I can't wait for it to resurface. Let the public statements be on both sides of the aisle--the political will on both sides of the aisle-- reflect what we are saying behind closed doors because the only thing that we are seeing publicly is the Trump administration going out of their way to enact a policy of cruelty. But it is exactly what we have come to expect 6 months into this administration--using immigrants as scapegoats for the administration's failures, the administration creating a spectacle in their attempt to distract and deflect. But make no mistake, Americans will not soon forget what this administration is doing to their neighbors--to their neighbors, to their coworkers, to their friends. Now, this story doesn't end the way you think it might because we will continue fighting not just to stop these outrageous arrests, but we will not rest until we enact real and permanent protections for DACA recipients who contribute so much to our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan NCUA Central Liquidity Facility Enhancements Act. In December 2022, the temporary statutory enhancements that assisted the agent membership of corporate credit unions expired, leaving 3,322 smaller credit unions without access to the National Credit Union Administration's, NCUA, Central Liquidity Facility, CLF. This also contracted the facility's capacity by almost $10 billion. This bill would grant the NCUA Board permanent statutory authority to determine the amount of capital stock in the CLF required for a corporate credit union to become a member of the facility, allowing more institutions to access this important backup liquidity source. At a time of increased interest rate and liquidity risks for some credit unions, the CLF's role is increasingly important. This flexibility will ensure that the CLF can contain or avert any liquidity crises before they escalate and provide financial stability. I thank Senator Cramer for introducing this legislation with me in the Senate. I hope all our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill to ensure that the CLF can appropriately and rapidly respond to economic events.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan NCUA Central Liquidity Facility Enhancements Act. In December 2022, the temporary statutory enhancements that assisted the agent membership of corporate credit unions expired, leaving 3,322 smaller credit unions without access to the National Credit Union Administration's, NCUA, Central Liquidity Facility, CLF. This also contracted the facility's capacity by almost $10 billion. This bill would grant the NCUA Board permanent statutory authority to determine the amount of capital stock in the CLF required for a corporate credit union to become a member of the facility, allowing more institutions to access this important backup liquidity source. At a time of increased interest rate and liquidity risks for some credit unions, the CLF's role is increasingly important. This flexibility will ensure that the CLF can contain or avert any liquidity crises before they escalate and provide financial stability. I thank Senator Cramer for introducing this legislation with me in the Senate. I hope all our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill to ensure that the CLF can appropriately and rapidly respond to economic events.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 Act. This legislation would permit individuals who have lived in the United States continuously for at least 7 years to file for lawful permanent residence here. The Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 Act will provide long-term residents of the United States a path to lawful permanent residence. Specifically, this bill would amend the existing registry mechanism in the Immigration and Nationality Act by opening the application to register permanent or adjust status to long-term residents who have lived in the United States for at least 7 years at the time of filing. This bill would also allow long-term residents who have been in the United States for at least 7 years, waiting patiently for a visa number to become available, to immediately file an application to register permanent or adjust status. This legislation has the added benefit of creating a much needed pathway to permanent residency for Dreamers and forcibly displaced individuals, such as TPS holders, who have been stuck in legal limbo for years. By making the eligibility cutoff rolling, this bill would also preempt the need for Congress to repeatedly update the registry's cutoff date to a specific year of entry into the U.S. There is strong precedent for Congress to advance the registry date, which it has done on a bipartisan basis four times since it first codified the registry in 1929. In 1958, Congress opened the registry mechanism to long-term residents of the United States who had entered the country improperly, overstayed visa, or otherwise violated the terms of a temporary period of entry. Congress clearly intended the registry to allow undocumented immigrants to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. Currently, the eligibility cutoff date for the registry is January 1, 1972, more than 50 years ago. Just a handful of immigrants can currently satisfy this cutoff entry date requirement, rendering the 1972 entry cutoff all but meaningless. From 2015 to 2019, only 305 individuals adjusted their status based on the registry, compared to the 58,914 individuals who did so between 1985 and 1989. If this legislation passed today, long-time, hard-working immigrants who are critical to our communities and economy would become eligible to apply for permanent residency through registry. Today, about 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States. It would significantly hurt the U.S. economy to remove those people, who are essential to our workforce and fill critical gaps across industries. The overwhelming majority of these undocumented immigrants have established roots in the United States and are law- abiding community members. They work essential jobs, pay taxes, and even serve in our military. Leaving them without a path to permanent residency relegates them to second-class status and denies them the opportunity to fulfill the American dream. It is imperative that we create a path to permanent residence status for immigrants who lack certainty about their futures. This uncertainty is especially salient now as the Trump administration conducts indiscriminate arrests of immigrants who have no criminal records whatsoever, who have U.S. citizen family members, and who are workers in critical industries driving our economy. There is no strategic benefit to removing people that have been living and working in this country for 7-plus years. We can invest in our local communities and make our economy stronger with legislation like this.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 Act. This legislation would permit individuals who have lived in the United States continuously for at least 7 years to file for lawful permanent residence here. The Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 Act will provide long-term residents of the United States a path to lawful permanent residence. Specifically, this bill would amend the existing registry mechanism in the Immigration and Nationality Act by opening the application to register permanent or adjust status to long-term residents who have lived in the United States for at least 7 years at the time of filing. This bill would also allow long-term residents who have been in the United States for at least 7 years, waiting patiently for a visa number to become available, to immediately file an application to register permanent or adjust status. This legislation has the added benefit of creating a much needed pathway to permanent residency for Dreamers and forcibly displaced individuals, such as TPS holders, who have been stuck in legal limbo for years. By making the eligibility cutoff rolling, this bill would also preempt the need for Congress to repeatedly update the registry's cutoff date to a specific year of entry into the U.S. There is strong precedent for Congress to advance the registry date, which it has done on a bipartisan basis four times since it first codified the registry in 1929. In 1958, Congress opened the registry mechanism to long-term residents of the United States who had entered the country improperly, overstayed visa, or otherwise violated the terms of a temporary period of entry. Congress clearly intended the registry to allow undocumented immigrants to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. Currently, the eligibility cutoff date for the registry is January 1, 1972, more than 50 years ago. Just a handful of immigrants can currently satisfy this cutoff entry date requirement, rendering the 1972 entry cutoff all but meaningless. From 2015 to 2019, only 305 individuals adjusted their status based on the registry, compared to the 58,914 individuals who did so between 1985 and 1989. If this legislation passed today, long-time, hard-working immigrants who are critical to our communities and economy would become eligible to apply for permanent residency through registry. Today, about 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States. It would significantly hurt the U.S. economy to remove those people, who are essential to our workforce and fill critical gaps across industries. The overwhelming majority of these undocumented immigrants have established roots in the United States and are law- abiding community members. They work essential jobs, pay taxes, and even serve in our military. Leaving them without a path to permanent residency relegates them to second-class status and denies them the opportunity to fulfill the American dream. It is imperative that we create a path to permanent residence status for immigrants who lack certainty about their futures. This uncertainty is especially salient now as the Trump administration conducts indiscriminate arrests of immigrants who have no criminal records whatsoever, who have U.S. citizen family members, and who are workers in critical industries driving our economy. There is no strategic benefit to removing people that have been living and working in this country for 7-plus years. We can invest in our local communities and make our economy stronger with legislation like this.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Mental Health for Latinos Act to boost our continued efforts to reduce stigma and promote mental wellness, while meeting the diverse needs of Latino communities across the country. This bill would require SAMHSA to develop a strategy to increases awareness of symptoms of mental illnesses and provide information on evidence-based interventions and treatments that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. The evidence is clear: We are experiencing a mental health crisis in the Latino community. Disparities within our healthcare system are preventing members of Latino communities from receiving lifesaving mental health services. These barriers to care are causing too many to suffer in silence, and this must change. Only 47.4 percent of Hispanic adults ages 18 or older with any mental illness received services in 2023. Between 2010 and 2020, the suicide rate among male Hispanic adults, ages 20 to 64, increased by 35.7 percent and the female rate increased by 40.6 percent. As our Nation confronts an unfolding mental health crisis, this critical legislation reinforces the timeless message that there is zero shame in asking for help and that seeking support is a sign of strength. I would like to thank Congresswoman Salinas for leading this legislation in the House of Representatives, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Mental Health for Latinos Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Mental Health for Latinos Act to boost our continued efforts to reduce stigma and promote mental wellness, while meeting the diverse needs of Latino communities across the country. This bill would require SAMHSA to develop a strategy to increases awareness of symptoms of mental illnesses and provide information on evidence-based interventions and treatments that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. The evidence is clear: We are experiencing a mental health crisis in the Latino community. Disparities within our healthcare system are preventing members of Latino communities from receiving lifesaving mental health services. These barriers to care are causing too many to suffer in silence, and this must change. Only 47.4 percent of Hispanic adults ages 18 or older with any mental illness received services in 2023. Between 2010 and 2020, the suicide rate among male Hispanic adults, ages 20 to 64, increased by 35.7 percent and the female rate increased by 40.6 percent. As our Nation confronts an unfolding mental health crisis, this critical legislation reinforces the timeless message that there is zero shame in asking for help and that seeking support is a sign of strength. I would like to thank Congresswoman Salinas for leading this legislation in the House of Representatives, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Mental Health for Latinos Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I informed Senate leadership of my intent to object to the Senate proceeding to Trump's nominee to serve as Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau. So I rise today to both publicly and clearly explain my hold on this nomination and to demand that the Trump administration release all remaining U.S. military forces from the unnecessary and political deployment to Los Angeles. Earlier this week, the Trump administration did announce that they would be releasing 2,000 National Guard troops from deployment--no, not from an overseas mission, not from some disaster response to a region in need, but from a deployment against their own fellow citizens. Around 2,000 National Guard women and men and an additional 700 marines are still in Los Angeles today. Why? Because Donald Trump needs a distraction. Think back to about a month ago. The President found himself at the lowest point of his Presidency thus far. He was drowning in negative headlines, everything from his failing tariff wars that continue to raise prices and costs on working families, to Vladimir Putin embarrassing him on the world stage, to a messy, public breakup with Elon Musk. So in order to change the news cycle, which he does so often, to shift the headlines away from his many, many failures, President Trump chose to ramp up ICE raids in California. When Californians took to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights by peacefully protesting, Trump responded by federalizing the California National Guard, and then later the U.S. Marines were ordered in to intimidate the people of Los Angeles. It was the first time that the National Guard has been deployed against the wishes of the State's Governor since 1965. None of these servicemembers signed up to become a political prop, but Trump has put them in this impossible position that he knew would escalate tensions in the region and take them away from their critical missions elsewhere. That is exactly why, in late June, a few weeks ago, the head of U.S. Northern Command requested that Secretary Hegseth return at least 200 troops from the National Guard's wildfire unit who were stuck in Los Angeles for Trump's political purposes, because every day that those troops were unnecessarily deployed to Los Angeles was another day that their primary mission went unmet. We are talking about undermining firefighting and fire mitigation efforts as we are approaching peak wildfire season. This is dangerous and unnecessary. Because the Trump administration continued to keep thousands of troops in Los Angeles, 2 weeks ago, I exercised my constitutional duty as a U.S. Senator to advise and consent to nominations in order to block the nomination of LTG Thomas Carden. Lieutenant General Carden currently serves as second in command of Northern Command, the combatant command that has overseen Trump's orders to militarize Los Angeles. But I want to be very clear about something. My objection is about more than Lieutenant General Carden. None of what we are seeing in Los Angeles through this militarization is business as usual. Deploying the Guard against the wishes of the Governor, against the wishes of the mayor, and against even the wishes of local law enforcement--the sheriff, the police chief--none of that is normal. So today, I am making it clear to all of my colleagues of my intent to oppose any expedited consideration of this nomination until two conditions are met: First, every last guardsman and marine must be released from this deployment in Los Angeles. Stop militarizing our cities and using our servicemembers as political pawns. Second, I will maintain my hold until I have been given sufficient commitments and assurances from this administration that no guardsmen from other States will be sent to enforce the President's political demands on California. Until both of these conditions are met, I will maintain my hold on this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life of Dr. Jaime Regalado--a beloved father, grandfather, U.S. Navy veteran, and former executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles--Cal State LA. Dr. James ``Jaime'' A. Regalado was born on April 2, 1945, in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. The son of an educator who served in World War II, Jaime went on to follow in his father's footsteps, first serving in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam war and later returning home to become an educator, himself. He earned both his bachelor's and master's degrees from Cal State LA and his Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Riverside. As a professor, his career took him from his undergraduate alma mater to Cal Poly Pomona to Occidental College. In 1991, he began his tenure as executive director for the Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown Institute of Public Affairs--PBI--a position he would hold for the next 20 years. Over the course of his time at PBI, Jaime became a trusted researcher, a vocal leader advocating for civic engagement, an expert analyst of Los Angeles and California politics, and a founding editor of California Politics & Policy as well as California Policy Issues Annual. It is in no small part because of Jaime's work that PBI became the powerhouse for political research and civic engagement it remains today. Through friends, family, and loved ones, we will remember Jaime for his incredible intellect, his mentorship, his leadership, and of course, his sense of humor. And generations of leaders past and present will continue to celebrate him each year through PBI's newly created Dr. Jaime Regalado Public Service Award. Angela and I send our love to Jaime's wife of 26 years, Rocio; his three sons James Jr., Jay, and Camilo; his eight grandchildren; and his siblings Ray and Olivia.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Arturo Vargas on a remarkable career spent in service to others as he steps down after more than 30 years as CEO of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials--NALEO--and the NALEO Educational Fund. As a CEO, a demographics expert, a mentor, and a friend to so many, Arturo has dedicated his career to growing civic participation and representation for Latinos in California and across our country. Arturo Vargas was born on July 13, 1962, in El Paso, TX, to Jose Vargas Castillo and Antonieta Valverde Vargas. After meeting in Ciudad Chihuahua, Mexico, his parents moved to New Mexico and Texas before eventually settling down in Los Angeles in 1964, where Arturo and his siblings were raised. Arturo earned a bachelor's degree in history and Spanish and later a master's degree in education from Stanford University. After graduation, Arturo set out on a career that took him from the National Council of La Raza to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund--MALDEF--to chairing the 2030 Census Advisory Committee. During his time at MALDEF, Arturo contributed to a historic increase in Latino representation in California, working both for accurate enumeration of Latinos in the census and to grow the number of Latino elected officials. In his three decades as CEO of NALEO, Arturo dedicated himself to the challenging work of building power and representation for Latinos in America. During his tenure, he took what was already an important and impactful organization and turned it into a highly respected national platform not only for Latino elected officials, but for any political, corporate, or philanthropic leader wanting to speak to the political leadership of the Latino community. Thanks to his work, Latinos across the country now see ourselves represented at nearly every level of government--from State and local government to the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, and the Supreme Court. Our community and our country are more inclusive and better off because of the work of Arturo Vargas. On a personal note, as a former president of NALEO myself, I have had the privilege of seeing Arturo's dedication up close. Whether it was calling on him for his unparalleled expertise--or even just to talk Dodgers baseball--I consider myself fortunate to call Arturo an ally and a friend. As we look ahead to the 50th anniversary of NALEO and all the fights that lie ahead, I take comfort knowing that future generations of Latino leaders will have a roadmap for representation, leadership, and advocacy that Arturo carved out to follow. I thank Arturo's husband, the Honorable Michael Fitzgerald; his siblings Jose, Jorge, Maria Antonieta, and Rogelio; and his entire family for sharing him with us for all these years.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Equal Health Care for All Act, which appropriately frames healthcare discrimination as a civil rights issue. Inequitable access to quality, affordable healthcare is the result of centuries of structural and systemic racism, all of which continues to result in poorer health outcomes in communities of color. Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous individuals are disproportionately more likely than their White counterparts to suffer from a range of illnesses, from asthma, to heart disease, to prostate cancer. Inequitable outcomes are not exclusive to racial trends, however. Women are both diagnosed with and die from lung cancer at a higher rate than men, even when they don't smoke. And while rates of lung cancer have dropped for men, they have risen for women. The Equal Health Care for All Act seeks to address structural inequities by establishing a legal definition of ``inequitable healthcare'' and creating a formal process to enforce the standard. The bill would also establish a grant program to assist hospitals and other providers in implementing reforms to ensure equitable care and would establish a permanent Federal Health Equity Commission to study and make recommendations on health equity issues. I would like to thank my coleads, Senators Booker and Schiff, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Equal Health Care for All Act as quickly as possible.