[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S55-S57]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. 
        Cardin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Schatz, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Warren, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 14. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
purchase of certain firearms by individuals under 21 years of age, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. 
        Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
        Casey, Mr. Coons, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Fetterman, 
        Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Hirono, Mr. 
        Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Reed, Ms. 
        Rosen, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. 
        Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, 
        Mr. Welch, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 25. A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right 
to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I rise to introduce two 
pieces of legislation, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Age 21 Act.
  Assault weapons are weapons of war and they have no place on our 
streets. We have successfully banned assault weapons in the past, and 
it is long past time that we do it again.
  Last year, our Nation suffered 648 mass shootings according to data 
from the Gun Violence Archive. That is nearly two mass shootings every 
day. An analysis by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that 
mass shootings involving assault weapons resulted in an average of 2.3 
more deaths and 4.4 more injuries than mass shootings that did not 
involve assault weapons.
  Congress must do more to protect people from these deadly weapons.
  The good news is, we have a solution that has been proven effective 
in the past: the Assault Weapons Ban.
  I introduced the original Assault Weapons Ban that was signed into 
law in 1994. In the 10 years that the Assault Weapons Ban was in place, 
our country saw a 37-percent decline in gun massacres. In the decade 
after the Assault Weapons Ban expired, gun massacres shot back up by a 
stunning 183 percent.
  There is no doubt that this bill would save lives. While the Assault 
Weapons Ban was in effect, gun massacres were down. After it expired, 
gun massacres rose.
  We must once again pass the Assault Weapons Ban. I am pleased that so 
many of my Democratic colleagues have agreed to cosponsor this bill.
  At the very least, Congress needs to take the important step of 
preventing individuals under the age of 21 from purchasing assault 
weapons. The Age 21 Act, which I am reintroducing today, would do just 
that.
  Under current law, a firearms licensee may not sell or deliver a 
handgun to a buyer under the age of 21. However, this commonsense 
protection does not apply to assault weapon purchases. This loophole 
costs lives.
  The Giffords Law Center, using FBI and census data, calculated that 
while 18- to 20-year-olds make up just 4 percent of the U.S. 
population, they commit 17 percent of all homicides.
  So it makes sense that the law restricts individuals under the age of 
21 from purchasing a handgun. But it does not make sense that this 
restriction does not extend to assault weapons as well. In the last 2 
years, the shooter in three of the five deadliest mass shootings in the 
United States was a man under the age of 21.
  If the Age 21 Act had been law last year, it could have stopped the 
18-year-old who killed 10 people in Buffalo, NY, and the 18-year-old 
who killed 21 people in Uvalde, TX. These shooters used assault-style 
weapons that were legally purchased shortly after their 18th birthdays.
  I thank the Senators who have stood with me in support of the Assault 
Weapons Ban and the Age 21 Act. I urge the rest of our colleagues to 
join us.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Daines):
  S. 21. A bill to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to 
modify the definition of the term ``at-risk community'' ; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Community Wildfire Protection Act, bipartisan legislation that Senator 
Daines and I are reintroducing today.
  This bill would ensure that those communities that are deemed to be 
under the greatest threat from wildfire are eligible to receive 
existing Federal wildfire grants. This sounds obvious but unfortunately 
is not the case under current law.
  The current definition of an ``at-risk community'' was codified in 
the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act. That law requires that, in 
addition to experiencing significant wildfire risk, an eligible 
community must either be adjacent to Federal land or included on a list 
generated in 2001 consisting of voluntary input from States and Tribes.
  Unfortunately, this 2001 list is far from objective or comprehensive. 
Communities on the list were not added based on an objective evaluation 
of their wildfire risk or threat to life and property, only whether an 
individual Governor or Tribal leader decided to add them. To make 
matters worse, there are obvious omissions from the list that show its 
inadequacy, and in fact, 19 States and territories never submitted a 
single community.

[[Page S56]]

  For example, large California cities such as Fresno, Fairfield, and 
Napa are not encompassed by this definition, all of which have 
experienced recent major wildfires. The list also omits Grizzly Flats, 
CA, which was devastated by the 2021 Caldor Fire, despite its proximity 
to Federal lands, as well as countless other small towns at great risk 
of wildfire.
  These small, rural towns are frequently at the highest risk of 
wildfire and lack the resources to undertake wildfire resiliency 
projects on their own. Obviously, these are some of the towns that 
would most benefit from addition Federal help but because of the 
outdated definition, may not be eligible.
  Aligning the definition in law for at-risk communities to today's 
environmental realities is more important than ever given the increased 
spread, frequency, and destructiveness of wildfires, especially in the 
West.
  Our bill would simply end the practice of making Federal grants 
contingent on this outdated, incomplete list or proximity to Federal 
lands. Instead, our legislation would allow communities to be eligible 
based on the most up-to-date quantitative wildfire risk data for the 
entire United States--data already maintained by the U.S. Forest 
Service.
  The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $1 billion 
for community wildfire resilience grants, and last year's Inflation 
Reduction Act included an historic $1.8 billion for wildfire resilience 
on federal forestlands. Congress has done the work of providing funding 
for wildfire resilience. Now it must ensure that these projects can be 
targeted where they are most necessary and completed with the swiftness 
that the wildfire crisis demands.
  I am pleased to work with Senator Daines on this commonsense bill 
that will save lives, save communities, and ensure that Federal dollars 
are spent as effectively as possible. This change would help more 
communities in our home States of California and Montana and others 
throughout the West access Federal grants to reduce hazardous fuels 
around their communities and utilize authorities to complete them in a 
timely fashion, thereby reducing the threat posed by wildfire.
  I am proud that our bill has received the support of the National 
Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, 
the National Association of State Foresters, the Pacific Forest Trust, 
and the California Fire Safe Council.
  Our bill is simple, but it would correct a glaring oversight in 
current law and ensure that billions of dollars in wildfire resiliency 
funding are applied where they are most needed. I urge my colleagues to 
cosponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Merkley, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Booker, 
        Mr. Markey, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 22. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer 
Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the West 
Coast Ocean Protection Act, legislation that would prohibit new oil or 
natural gas leases in federal waters off the coast of California, 
Oregon, and Washington.
  I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Padilla, Wyden, Merkley, 
Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, Booker, Markey, and Sanders in introducing 
this bill, which is critically important to protecting the west coast 
from additional oil spills.
  Californians know all too well the devastating effects of oil spills. 
In 1969, a well blowout on an offshore rig spilled an estimated 3 
million gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of 
Santa Barbara. At the time, it was the worst oil spill in U.S. history 
and was catastrophic to the local environment and marine life, closing 
beaches, harming the economy, and killing thousands of birds, fish, and 
marine mammals.
  After the Santa Barbara disaster, California had enough. The State 
blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters and in 1994 enacted a 
permanent offshore drilling ban. Through local ordinances, 
congressional opposition, and Presidential moratoria, no new drilling 
in Federal waters off California has been allowed since 1984.
  Unfortunately, Californians are still confronting the impacts from 
ongoing offshore drilling operations. In October 2021, a ruptured 
pipeline spilled more than 25,000 gallons of crude oil into the Pacific 
Ocean and onto the beaches of Orange County. Despite numerous alarms, 
operators allowed oil to flow from the leak for over 14 hours. It was 
absolutely devastating.
  The spill covered more than 8,000 acres of the ocean's surface and 
required more than a week of cleanup. In that time, local businesses 
suffered, fisheries shuttered, and crews worked to remove harmful oil 
and tar balls from sensitive wildlife habitat.
  Despite the harm caused to individuals and businesses in the 
community, the operator has been given permission to repair the 
pipeline and begin drilling again, exposing the California coastline to 
the risk of yet another accident.
  California's coastal and ocean economies are engines of growth that 
support millions of jobs and generate significant economic activity for 
the State and Nation. Because of the unique nature of the west coast 
ocean shelf, any new potential drilling would occur near the coastline 
and directly threaten the environment and robust economy.
  Beyond that, we are currently in the midst of a historic offshore 
energy transition. This past December, a successful auction was held 
for five offshore wind energy areas off the California coast, paving 
the way for a new floating wind industry. At the same time, the Federal 
Government has begun a programmatic review of decommissioning oil and 
gas platforms in the Pacific to prepare for their eventual removal. The 
era of offshore oil and gas production in the Pacific is coming to a 
close, and it is long overdue.
  It is time to respect the view of California and our fellow west 
coast States by passing the West Coast Ocean Protection Act permanently 
ban offshore drilling and protect the Pacific coast for generations to 
come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Klobuchar, and 
        Mrs. Shaheen):
  S. 24. A bill to fight homelessness in the United States by 
authorizing a grant program within the Health Resources and Services 
Administration for housing programs that offer comprehensive services 
and intensive case management for homeless individuals and families; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the 
Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would 
establish a new Federal grant program to increase capacity for 
comprehensive supportive services paired with housing as a way to 
address our country's homelessness crisis.
  As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless 
populations--individuals with mental health conditions or those 
struggling with addiction, people who simply could not keep up with 
increases in rent, families with children, and veterans--our Nation's 
homelessness crisis is not going away on its own without coordinated 
efforts at every level of government.
  According to the data released in December from the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, there are approximately 582,500 
homeless individuals, including families with small children, in the 
United States. Nearly 30 percent of this population is in California, 
with approximately 172,000 homeless people sleeping on the streets on 
any given night.
  In a nation as prosperous and wealthy as ours, we can and we must do 
better to address the issue of homelessness.
  That is why I am introducing the Fighting Homelessness Through 
Services and Housing Act, which would authorize a new Federal funding 
stream of $1 billion per year, subject to annual appropriations. 
Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk 
of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive 
set of services and must

[[Page S57]]

provide a 25-percent match for any Federal funds received.
  Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant 
program would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any 
homeless population.
  This bill is based on a model that has proven to be effective and 
supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing 
local governmental entities and nonprofit organizations to expand their 
capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where 
they will be most effective.
  I am proud that this legislation is supported by a wide coalition of 
local governments, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, 
including the mayors and CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, National 
League of Cities, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National 
Association of Counties, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the 
National Housing Conference.
  Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, 
substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills 
such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with 
intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.
  We have seen the success of such partnerships in San Francisco, where 
the GLIDE Foundation provides critical services that meet an 
individual's basic needs, including meals, crisis intervention and 
prevention, childcare and educational programming, legal advice, and 
housing.
  This would not be possible without the organization's partnerships 
with the city of San Francisco, particularly the San Francisco 
Department of Public Health, and other critical stakeholders. I highly 
encourage my colleagues to examine this exemplary homeless services 
model to see firsthand how effective partnerships can help to combat 
homelessness.
  It is imperative that we support these types of partnerships, as well 
as nonprofit service providers, as they work to get people into housing 
to both mitigate the spread of the coronavirus and address their long-
term needs.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill and moving 
it through the Senate, especially as we continue to contend with the 
increase in homelessness.

                          ____________________