[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 104 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4172-S4176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. PORTMAN:
  S. 1925. A bill to authorize State opioid response grants, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I am here to continue the important 
conversation we had on this floor about the ongoing addiction crisis we 
face in this country. Over the past 2 years, I have come to the floor 
57 times to talk about addiction, and usually it has been about opioids 
and the impact opioids are having--tearing our families apart, 
devastating our communities. There is certainly an opioid epidemic in 
this country with prescription drugs, fentanyl, heroin--it is true--but 
we also have to focus on the fact that we have a broader problem. That 
is what I am going to talk about today, along with what we can do about 
it.
  Congress has done a lot in the last several years. When looking at 
what was proposed and what was passed, we put new policies in place at 
the Federal level to promote better prevention, better treatment 
programs, and better long-term recovery. We passed legislation to stop 
some of these deadly drugs from coming into our country. That has 
helped somewhat. Those legislative initiatives, such as the CARA Act, 
the 21st Century Cures Act, and the STOP Act, are starting to work.
  Over $3 billion of additional funds has been appropriated by this 
Congress just in the last 3 years alone to ensure that we have the 
ability to push back against this epidemic. In my home State of Ohio--
one of the States hardest hit by this epidemic--we received nearly $140 
million from the CARA and Cures grants. It is going toward stuff that 
is working--evidence-based prevention, innovative approaches to 
treatment and getting people into treatment, and closing some of the 
gaps in the continuum of prevention, treatment, and recovery. A lot of 
people were falling between the cracks. Closing those gaps has a made a 
big difference in my State. We also equipped our first responders with 
what they need and the training they need to help push back.
  The good news is, these programs are starting to work. Drug overdose 
deaths are still way too high, but for the first time in 8 years--8 
years of increased overdose deaths every year--we are seeing a 
reduction in overdose deaths.
  In my own State of Ohio, we have seen significant progress. We have 
had a 21-percent drop in our overdose deaths finally after 8 years of 
increases. This was the biggest drop in the Nation from July 2017 to 
June of 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control National 
Center of Health Statistics. Nationally, again after 8 years of annual 
increased deaths, we have seen a leveling out--in fact, a very modest 
downturn. Between 2017 and 2018, overdose deaths fell from 73,000 to 
71,000. In all, the overdose rate dropped in 21 States. Overall, there 
has been only about a 1-percent drop, so it is very modest but a lot 
better than the alternative we have seen for 8 years, which is 
increased deaths.
  As we begin to turn the tide on the opioid epidemic, I am convinced 
that we would be doing even better if not for the influx of fentanyl. 
About 4 or 5 years ago, fentanyl came to our country in a big way--
almost entirely from China and almost always through our own U.S. 
Postal Service, believe it or not--and it has caused all kinds of 
havoc. It is the deadliest of all the drugs. When you look at overdose 
deaths, the primary cause now is fentanyl. It is a synthetic drug that 
is 50 times more powerful than heroin.
  We are beginning to push back again, including with our STOP Act, 
which has now been passed, which requires the post office to begin 
screening and stopping some of these packages from coming in. We will 
do a better job in working with China. We have commitments from them, 
and we hope they will follow through on them.
  Even as this limited progress is being made on the opioid front, we 
have a new, growing danger. I have heard this over the past few years 
from law enforcement and from providers--from people on the frontlines 
of the drug epidemic. They are seeing a resurgence of what are called 
psychostimulants. Mostly it is pure, powerful methamphetamine from 
Mexico--crystal meth.
  In the last couple of months, I have heard about this from the people 
in the trenches all over Ohio. I have talked to community leaders in 
Knox County; treatment providers in Southeast Ohio; service providers 
in Columbus; the ADAMHS Board in Adams, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties; 
the leadership of

[[Page S4173]]

the Hamilton County Heroin Coalition; and community leaders and law 
enforcement in Butler County and the Dayton area just last week. From 
all over the State, they all tell me the same thing: We are making some 
progress now on heroin, and that is good. We are making limited 
progress on keeping the fentanyl out. But we are spinning our wheels on 
combating particularly crystal meth, and they are also seeing a 
resurgence of cocaine--both of which are stimulants, and both of which 
are causing havoc in these communities, in part because, as a 
psychostimulant, it leads to more violent behavior.
  They are having a devastating impact in my State. According to a 2018 
report from Ohio University, these psychostimulants--including meth--
were found in just nine overdose deaths in 2010. That number rose to 
556 overdose deaths in 2017, which is the most recent data we have. 
That is an increase of 6,000 percent. That same year, Ohio had more 
than 1,500 people die of cocaine overdose, which is an almost 140-
percent increase from the year before.
  This problem isn't isolated to Ohio. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, deaths involving cocaine, crystal meth, 
and other psychostimulants have increased nationwide. In the more than 
70,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017, more than 23,000 or nearly one-
third involved cocaine, meth, or both. Just from 2016 to 2017, in that 
1 year, death rates involving cocaine and crystal meth increased by 
approximately 33 percent. Increases occurred across all demographic 
groups and in all ZIP Codes.
  In the case of meth in particular, usage rates have gone up as opioid 
rates have gone down. I am told by experts that this is for a few 
reasons. Some meth users initially turned to this drug to manage the 
heavy crashes that followed prolonged usage of opioids--heroin, 
fentanyl, and other opioids--and then they became just as addicted to 
meth as they had been to opioids. Others turns to meth because the drug 
is stronger and cheaper than other options.
  By the way, the days of home chemists and one-pot meth labs in 
America are largely gone. You probably can remember, 5, 10, 15 years 
ago, the meth labs in your community. You are not hearing about those 
now. That is the good thing, but the bad thing is that you are not 
hearing about them because the stuff coming from Mexico is more 
powerful and less expensive. The super-labs in Mexico run by the drug 
cartels are mass-producing this meth. It is powerful, deadly, and low 
cost. I am told by law enforcement in Columbus, OH, that crystal meth 
now costs less than marijuana on the streets of Columbus.
  Most of this pure crystal meth enters the United States from Mexico 
in bulk at ports of entry along our southwest border, often hidden in 
cars and trucks. Our Customs and Border Protection officers, who are 
already stretched thin by the ongoing migration crisis, don't have the 
resources to identify these smuggled shipments. The INTERDICT Act, 
which we passed here, is beginning to help by providing some 
technology, but, frankly, we need research on better technology, and we 
need to provide more funding to ensure we can stop this deadly 
substance by identifying it at the border to keep it from coming in.
  According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the amount of 
methamphetamine at our ports of entry has soared from about 14,000 
pounds in 2012 to 56,000 pounds in 2018. We have also seen a 38-percent 
increase in methamphetamine trafficking along the southern border just 
in the 1 year from 2017 to 2018. One troubling measurement is that the 
number of crystal meth submissions to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal 
Investigation lab rose from 2,000 in 2015 to over 12,000 in 2018. That 
is a 500-percent increase in my home State. This is an indication of 
how much of this is being detained, being found by law enforcement and 
taken to these labs.
  As I heard from folks all across Ohio, we are also seeing meth laced 
with other drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, and sometimes cocaine. I 
am told that sometimes the cartels mix these drugs into methamphetamine 
to lower the cost of the final product, meaning that the users may be 
consuming dangerous opioids without realizing it. Other traffickers do 
so because they know that fentanyl is incredibly addictive. You may 
think it is one thing, but it is really another. Any street drug you 
use is potentially deadly--remember that.
  We still don't have the full picture of how these drugs are being 
mixed together and sold for consumption. Over the past 2 years, I have 
seen more reports of individuals in Ohio who used cocaine that, unknown 
to them, had been mixed with fentanyl. In the last month alone, at 
least 49 Ohioans in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, were killed by that 
deadly combination. It has been hitting our African-American 
communities particularly hard.
  Again, this highlights how the drug cartels sometimes try to hook 
users by cutting stimulants with addictive, deadly fentanyl, often with 
lethal outcomes.
  The bottom line is, we have to address the broader issue of 
addiction, not just the issue of individual drugs. We know that crystal 
meth and cocaine are increasing pretty dramatically. That is why we 
have to continue our fight against opioid use but also provide more 
flexibility to our communities. As a result, today I am introducing new 
legislation designed to address the resurgence of crystal meth and 
cocaine into our communities.
  To date, the grants provided by the 21st Century Cures Act--these are 
grants that go directly back to the States, and the States determine 
how they are used in local communities. These are called State opioid 
response grants. They have been used to increase access to naloxone--a 
miracle drug that reverses the overdose. They have also been used for 
longer term addiction treatment and support services for opioids.
  For all the good they have done, these grants can't be used 
effectively to combat the drug crisis beyond opioids, which ignores the 
new on-the-ground reality of addiction in my State and many others. So 
the legislation I am introducing today will make a simple change to 
existing law. It will allow the State opioid response grants to be more 
flexible so they can be used for whatever the drug addiction problem is 
on the ground, which will be a little different for every State and, 
for that matter, every community. In particular, dollars would be able 
to be used in programs focused on methamphetamine and cocaine treatment 
and recovery.
  We know these existing funds are making a difference. We have to be 
sure and keep this program going. That is why my legislation will also 
reauthorize the State opioid response grants program with this 
flexibility but reauthorize it for 5 years, providing $500 million 
annually to ensure there is stable funding.
  A stable funding stream to these States is absolutely essential to 
having the predictability and the certainty we need to continue to make 
progress and to avoid these new drugs coming in and creating more 
devastation in our communities. It is a simple, commonsense change that 
will allow State and local organizations the flexibility they need to 
fight what is quickly becoming a two-front war on addiction.
  The fact that we are continuing to see these new types of drugs pop 
up in Ohio and around the country highlights the reality that this is a 
fight against addiction. Addiction is a disease. Again, this Congress 
has done an unprecedented amount of work in this area in the last few 
years, and I commend us for that, but we have to do more. We have to 
provide this flexibility. We have to be sure we are focusing on the 
fight against addiction, not just on individual drugs.
  While I am encouraged by the welcomed progress in preventing opioid 
overdose deaths, we cannot rest on our laurels. The cartels continue to 
pump new combinations of opioids and stimulants into vulnerable 
communities, hooking individuals on yet another toxic drug and 
perpetrating this cycle of addiction. Let's keep our unprecedented 
bipartisan efforts going in this body. Let's continue to partner with 
allies, local government and State governments, and with our 
nonprofits. Let's make sure the resources are there to continue to save 
lives and restore communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GARDNER (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. McSally, and Ms. 
        Sinema):

[[Page S4174]]

  S. 1932. A bill to support water infrastructure in Reclamation 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources .
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
Drought Resiliency and Water Supply Improvement Act, which Senator Cory 
Gardner (R-CO) introduced today. I am the lead Democratic sponsor on 
the bill, and Senators Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) 
are also original cosponsors.
  Drought--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark 
reality for California and the West. Climate change presents a triple 
threat to our water supply:
  Higher temperatures causing a dwindling snowpack, increased 
evaporation and other effects that will reduce our natural storage and 
runoff. This could decrease flow in the Colorado River by 20% or more 
by mid-century and as much as 40% by the end of the century.
  Longer and more severe droughts, including perhaps as much as an 80% 
chance of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration in the Colorado 
Basin during this century.
  Although this is more uncertain, the possibility of reduced overall 
precipitation, perhaps 10-15% less in California's Sierra Nevada 
mountains within the next 20-30 years.
  We must respond to this challenge. The bill we are introducing today 
does so in three fundamental ways:
  It significantly increases funding for an ``all-of-the above'' 
solution to improve our water supply, including surface and groundwater 
storage, conveyance, water recycling and desalination;
  It reforms the Bureau of Reclamation's outdated project delivery 
system to more quickly approve and more cost-effectively fund new 
projects; and
  It significantly invests not only in water supply projects, but also 
in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate 
change as well.
  Climate Change and Drought: I would like to say more about the 
effects of climate change on two critical areas for California: the 
Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Colorado River Basin.
  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate 
change will cause a 54 percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the 
next 20 to 40 years and a 79 percent drop by the end of the century. 
This change alone could be devastating for California, because we 
absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30% of 
our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. We need to start now to 
provide substitute ways for storing precipitation in the Sierras, 
whether through surface storage, groundwater storage, or improved 
infrastructure to transport floodwaters to the best recharge areas.
  This enhanced storage in its many forms will be helpful not only for 
water users but also to maintain enough cold water for salmon. Cold 
water reserves are critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out 
during years of devastating droughts.
  The outlook for the Colorado Basin is perhaps even more challenging. 
The Colorado River provides a critical part of the water supply for 19 
million people in southern California, but that water supply is 
diminishing. Already in 2019 the water demands on the Colorado River 
exceed average inflows to the river by 1.2 million to 1.5 million acre 
feet each year.
  That is a huge gap, and the Drought Contingency Plan that was just 
negotiated among the 7 Colorado River Basin states represents just the 
beginning of efforts needed to close even the existing gap. With 
climate change, far more needs to be done, especially with warmer 
temperatures and greatly increased evaporation in the Basin and with 
the considerable odds of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration.
  The bill we are introducing today provides the Colorado River Basin 
States with the tools to begin investing in a wide range of water 
supply projects to meet this challenge. I believe this bill will be 
critical for helping reach agreement in the next round of negotiations 
for Colorado River drought contingency plans due to be completed by 
2026.
  Funding Authorizations in the Bill: In response to the water supply 
challenges presented by climate change, the bill we are introducing 
today significantly increases funding authorizations for a wide variety 
of water supply and environmental restoration projects.
  The proposed legislation builds on and doubles the 5-year funding 
authorizations in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the 
Nation (WIIN) Act. The bill authorizes the following funding over the 
next 5 years:
  $670 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and 
supporting conveyance;
  $100 million for water recycling projects; and
  $60 million for desalination projects.
  In addition, the bill authorizes $140 million for environmental 
restoration and compliance projects. These projects include forest, 
meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits and 
projects to help restore threatened and endangered species affected by 
Bureau of Reclamation water projects.
  Low-Interest Loans for Water Supply Projects: The bill creates a new 
loan program at 30-year Treasury rates (currently about 2.6%) for water 
supply projects known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act (RIFIA). The loans would use existing criteria under the 
successful WIFIA program (the Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act).
  The Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has approved loans of 
$2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of 
just over 1% of that amount or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was 
able to approve loans backed by just 1% of the loan amount because 
there is a virtually non-existent default rate for water projects. Only 
4 in a thousand water infrastructure projects default, based on a study 
conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency.
  Given OMB's experience that Federal outlays need only cover 1% of the 
loan cost for water projects, the $125 million in authorized Federal 
spending in the draft bill likely could support $12.5 billion in water 
project lending authority.
  Needless to say, $12.5 billion is a meaningful amount of Federal low-
interest lending assistance for new water supply projects. And, because 
RIFIA is limited to no more than 49 percent of total project costs, 
that same $125 million in RIFIA budget authority will support no less 
than $25.5 billion in new water infrastructure investments throughout 
the west.
  Need to Improve Reclamation's Project Delivery System: The bill not 
only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites 
their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching 
taxpayer dollars further.
  The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding 
new water supply projects has involved the following:
  Reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade 
or more for major projects:
  Once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects 
individually, which can take another 3-5 years or more in many cases; 
and
  Congress then funds 100% of the project construction cost over many 
years of incremental appropriations, with project sponsors paying back 
the federal government over 50 years at little to no interest.
  One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to 
construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the 
case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost 
of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed 
by climate change to Western water supply, we need a nimbler and more 
responsive model.
  Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama 
Administration, testified in support of a new model during an October 
8, 2015 hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated:

       The traditional Reclamation business model, in which 
     feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and 
     Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are 
     first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then 
     construction is authorized and funded, does not always 
     address the needs of project sponsors at the State and local 
     levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the 
     availability of other available financing mechanisms, the

[[Page S4175]]

     historic federal role in financing water storage projects 
     through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a 
     greater emphasis on non-federal financing.

  Changes to Traditional Model: In response to the concerns articulated 
by Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing 
today, building on the WIIN Act, makes five significant changes to the 
traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals 
and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding.
  1) Congressional authorization no longer required:
  First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize 
individual projects. It can take 3-5 years for projects to get 
legislatively approved or longer. In fact, zero new water recycling 
projects have been authorized since 2009 due to the Federal earmark 
ban.
  While Congressional authorizations are no longer required, Congress 
retains full veto authority over which projects get built through the 
appropriations process. Unless Congress approves funding for the study 
and construction of individual projects, Reclamation cannot proceed 
with them.
  The advantage of the appropriations process as an alternative 
mechanism for Congressional approval is that it occurs every year. So 
rather than waiting 3-5 years or longer for Congressional approval 
under the traditional model, Congress decides each year whether or not 
to fund proposed projects.
  2) Non-Federal funding is required upfront:
  Second, the bill no longer requires 100% federal funding upfront as 
was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the 
bill allows a maximum of 50% Federal funding for Federally-owned 
projects, and a maximum of 25% federal funding for non-federal projects 
that are built by States, water districts, or Indian tribes.
  Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with 
States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For 
example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California 
would be funded 50% by the State of California, which has already 
conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 10-25% by the 
federal government and the remaining 25-40% by water users.
  Multi-partner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion will 
frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and 
Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the 
water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for 
migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement 
the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts.

  3) Feasibility studies are expedited:
  Third, for the non-Federal projects authorized by the bill, the 
federal study process would be significantly expedited, and it does so 
without waiving any environmental protection requirements. The bill 
makes clear that federal environmental laws must be fully and strictly 
followed.
  Existing law, however, already addresses study procedures in parallel 
circumstances when the nonfederal entities are building a project and 
the federal government is only responsible for a minority of the 
project cost, no more than 25%. In these circumstances, the Federal 
government can and should expeditiously approve feasibility and other 
preliminary studies. There is existing precedent for such projects in 
the guidelines adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for feasibility 
studies for water recycling projects under the Title XVI program. Like 
all the non-federal projects in this bill, these water recycling 
projects are built by non-federal entities with a maximum 25% federal 
cost-share.
  The bill we are introducing today would direct Reclamation to model 
its feasibility study standards for all non-federal projects based on 
the Title XVI example. This will reduce delays in project approval and 
get these projects built faster.
  4) The new loan program is cost-effective:
  Fourth, the low-interest loan program created by the bill is an 
exceptionally cost-effective program. As I mentioned above, OMB has 
validated that low-interest water project loans need to be backed by 
Federal appropriations totaling only 1% of the project loan amount.
  Federal funding of 1% of the loan amount will typically return 10-25% 
savings in the repayment cost of the loans for the water districts 
funding the projects. The total savings can be about 10% for AAA rated 
districts, and 20-25% for AA-rated districts.
  For example, the water users who are supporting the proposed Sites 
Reservoir in northern California have estimated that the loans 
authorized by this bill would allow them to pay only $512/acre-foot for 
water delivered by the project instead of $682/acre-foot. This is a 25% 
reduction in their costs.
  Thus, the Federal government can provide a loan at 1% of the loan 
amount and save the project sponsors 10-25% of the project cost. That 
is an exceptionally cost-effective federal investment.
  There are at least three significant reasons that the loans are so 
beneficial for the project sponsors:
  The sponsors pay about a 2.6% interest rate on their loans based on 
today's rates, versus 4% or greater rates for the alternative of 
municipal bond financing.
  The districts would not need to start loan repayments until 5 years 
after substantial completion of the project, a substantial cost saver.
  Loans are for 35 rather than 30 years, lowering annual debt service 
costs.
  Significantly, the loans include all the taxpayer protections from 
the successful WIFIA and TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance 
and Innovation Act) programs. In particular, the RIFIA loans would be 
limited to 49% of the project cost, and the federal loans would have 
senior status in the event of any default. These provisions ensure the 
taxpayer won't be harmed in any default where the project retains at 
least 50% of its value, which is extremely likely for ratepayer backed 
water supply projects.
  5) Federal grants and loans work together:
  Fifth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up 
to 25% of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users 
to make up the difference where the Federal government is no longer 
funding 100% of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in 
particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100% of the 
cost of new water supply projects.
  Under the bill we are introducing today, these communities will still 
have to provide a significant cost-share for improving their water 
supplies, and new water projects will have to be cost-effective enough 
to justify that investment. However, the Federal government can help 
build the best and most effective projects in increasing drought 
resiliency by providing assistance through both grants and loans.
  Environmental Benefits: The longer and more severe droughts coming 
with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities, 
but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to 
improve species' drought resiliency as well.
  The significant funding authorization of $140 million for 
environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different 
species, including fish, migratory birds, and forest species. Some of 
the authorized uses of this funding include:
  Improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species 
adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects;
  Additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along 
the Pacific flyway;
  Improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand 
how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with 
reduced environmental impacts;
  Assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State 
agencies and state water quality laws; and
  Forest, meadow and watershed restoration efforts that improve the 
quality, timing, or other attributes of runoff to reservoirs or 
groundwater storage facilities.
  I want to say a little more about the new authorization for forest, 
meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits. Wildfire 
and drought are two of our biggest challenges in California, and we 
need new tools to respond to them.
  There are national forest lands and meadows upstream of many 
reservoirs

[[Page S4176]]

in California that are at serious risk of catastrophic fire.
  If treatments of these lands restore healthier ecological conditions, 
it will improve water runoff into the downstream reservoirs and reduce 
the risk of large sedimentation dumps into the reservoirs from 
catastrophic fires.
  Restoration of these lands may not be a top priority for the Forest 
Service because that agency's mission does not emphasize water 
benefits.
  The bill being introduced today would authorize the Bureau of 
Reclamation to contribute a portion of the cost of these projects. The 
new funding source will in turn make these multi-benefit projects more 
likely to be implemented.
  I believe it is critical that we develop new tools like this one for 
reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and improving our drought 
resiliency.
  I and the other cosponsors of today's bill are also looking for 
additional ways to increase the natural environment's resiliency to 
droughts in our states. We have circulated language for discussion and 
potential inclusion in the bill that would provide additional funding 
for ``natural water storage projects.''
  These projects would help restore stream and river channels with 
natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized 
by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including 
increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and 
increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species.
  We look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multi-
benefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward 
with the bill.
  In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented 
consistently with all federal environmental laws, including the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state 
laws must also be followed.
  Offsets: Finally, the bill includes two provisions offsetting the new 
spending authorizations within it:
  It extends the existing WIIN Act provisions allowing water districts 
to prepay their outstanding capital debts and convert to indefinite 
length water supply contracts. These provisions are expected to bring 
in additional revenue within the 10-year scoring window.
  It sets up a process to deauthorize inactive water recycling project 
authorizations.
  Conclusion: California is home to more than 40 million people, but 
our major state-wide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed 
in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people.
  We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state.
  I believe that this bill will place California on a long-term path to 
drought resiliency. Critically, this means putting in place 
infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural 
communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to 
face due to climate change.
  I hope my Western colleagues will join me and the others who have 
introduced this bill, because drought is a serious threat for all of 
our states. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________