[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 109 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2227-S2236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Wyden):
  S. 2134. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to require 
research and development regarding a policy to insure wine grapes 
against losses due to smoke exposure, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Smoke Exposure 
Crop Insurance Act of 2023. This legislation will make Federal crop 
insurance work better for wine grapes impacted by wildfire smoke 
exposure.

[[Page S2228]]

  Increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires in California, 
Oregon, and Washington are threatening the long-term sustainability of 
important winegrowing regions. Vineyards, winery operations, and the 
communities they support are routinely facing the threat of wildfires 
that can not only destroy vineyards, but can damage fruit through 
prolonged smoke exposure, which can be absorbed into the grape, 
creating an ashy taste known as smoke taint.
  The impact has been particularly acute for California's 4,800 
wineries and 5,900 winegrape growers, who have seen significant 
property loss, loss of tourism, and loss of production due to smoke-
exposed grapes. In 2020 alone, industry sources estimate that between 
165,000 and 325,000 tons of California wine grapes were lost due to 
actual or perceived smoke damage, and financial estimates place losses 
at over $600 million.
  Federal crop insurance tools are not working for winegrape producers 
grappling with the impacts of climate change induced wildfires. That's 
why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act.
  The Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act of 2023 would direct the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to 
research, develop, and create a crop insurance policy to better insure 
against wine grape losses due to wildfire smoke exposure.
  Wine grapes are vital to the economies of California, Oregon, and 
Washington--the largest producers of wine grapes in the United States 
and the most impacted by smoke-exposure. But crop insurance is not 
working for wine grapes--current products do not fully capture the 
risks associated with growing in these smoke and wildfire-prone States.
  That is why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act of 
2023, to improve crop insurance for winegrape producers, wineries, and 
the consumers they support to help address the impossible choice facing 
producers after a wildfire: Does a grower harvest grapes knowing they 
may be unusable for wine or do they take an indemnity for what may be 
perfectly good grapes?
  This bill gets us one step closer to answering that question.
  I would like to thank my colleagues from California, Washington, and 
Oregon for joining me to introduce this bill and for our partners in 
the House, Representatives Mike Thompson and Dan Newhouse, for 
championing this bill in the House.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Smoke 
Exposure Crop Insurance Act as quickly as possible for inclusion in the 
2023 farm Bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Wyden):
  S. 2135. A bill to require the Agricultural Research Service to 
conduct research relating to wildfire smoke exposure on wine grapes, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Smoke Exposure 
Research Act of 2023. This legislation will bolster research at land-
grant universities along the west coast to better understand the 
impacts of wildfire smoke on wine grapes.
  Increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires in California, 
Oregon, and Washington are threatening the long-term sustainability of 
important winegrowing regions. Vineyards, winery operations, and the 
communities they support are routinely facing the threat of wildfires 
that can not only destroy vineyards but even those vineyards that 
escape direct wildfire damage can still suffer from prolonged smoke 
exposure, which can be absorbed into grapes and create an ashy taste 
known as smoke taint.
  The impact has been particularly acute for California's 4,800 
wineries and 5,900 winegrape growers, who have seen significant 
property loss, loss of tourism, and loss of production due to smoke-
exposed grapes. The 2020 wildfires alone are estimated to have cost 
wineries and winegrape growers $3.7 billion both from immediate fire-
caused losses as well as losses in future sales due to unharvested 
grapes exposed to wildfire smoke.
  Yet, there is a limited understanding of how to measure and identify 
compounds that cause smoke taint and even less understanding of the 
mitigation and risk management measures necessary to reduce these 
impacts.
  Recognizing the dearth of information and how much is at stake for 
the wine industry, Congress provided $5 million to the USDA to identify 
the compounds responsible for smoke taint and to develop mitigation 
methods to reduce or eliminate smoke taint.
  This was a great first step, but we need more. That is what my bill 
would do.
  The Smoke Exposure Research Act of 2023 would provide $32.5 million 
over 5 years to ensure the sustainability of the wine industry in the 
face of climate crisis.
  Specifically, this bill would direct the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, in coordination with land-
grant universities and researchers with viticulture and enology 
expertise, to identify the compounds responsible for smoke taint; 
establish standard sampling, testing, and screening tools for use in 
vineyards and wineries; and develop new risk assessment tools, 
mitigation measures, and management strategies for growers.
  As researchers from the University of California Davis, Washington 
State University, and Oregon State University explain in recent 
research, the impact of smoke taint is not predictable.
  We cannot currently predict which grapes may have suffered damage 
based on anything intuitive, such as sight, smell, or even the flavor 
of fresh grapes. ``Freshness of the smoke, number of times exposed, 
variety of grape--the list goes on. There's so much we don't know.''
  That is why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Research Act, to 
ensure we have strong science-based data for actual risk management and 
mitigation tools to protect the U.S. wine industry.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, for 
his leadership bolstering California winegrowing communities and 
championing this bill in the House.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Smoke 
Exposure Research Act as quickly as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Young):
  S. 2150. A bill to establish an Interagency Council on Service to 
promote and strengthen opportunities for military service, national 
service, and public service for all people of the United States, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I believe that Americans are ready and 
willing to answer the call to serve, to come together and meet the 
challenges that we face at the local, national, and international 
level. We just need to create the conditions to mobilize them. That is 
why I am proud to join Senator Young in introducing the Unity through 
Service Act.
  Our legislation is based on the recommendations of the National 
Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. The Commission 
was established in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. At that 
time, the Armed Services Committee faced a critical question: Should 
women be required to register for the draft? Chairman John McCain and I 
quickly understood that the question was also about something bigger. 
What does it mean for the Nation when so many people do not have the 
common experience of service, whether in the military or in their 
communities? And what happens when those who want to serve do not have 
the opportunity to do so? With those thoughts in mind, we established 
the Commission to look at the issue of service comprehensively.
  The Commission published its final report and recommendations just as 
the COVID-19 pandemic began to grip the Nation. It set a 10-year goal 
for 5 million Americans to begin participating in military, national, 
or public service each year. Additionally, the Commission set targets 
for ensuring there are more than enough qualified individuals seeking 
to serve in the Armed Forces, and it called for modernizing government 
personnel systems to attract and enable Americans with critical skills 
to enter public service. The Unity through Service Act would help to 
implement those recommendations, providing the architecture and

[[Page S2229]]

focus to mobilize a whole of government approach.
  Specifically, the Unity through Service Act would establish an 
Interagency Council on Service to coordinate and lead initiatives that 
extend across military, national, and public service. The council would 
be tasked with preparing and submitting to the President a national 
strategy on service, including a review of current programs, 
initiatives, and online content. The legislation would promote cross-
service marketing, recruitment, and retention through joint advertising 
campaigns and shared market research. It would also ensure that 
transitioning military members and AmeriCorps members are informed 
about other service opportunities open to them.
  The Unity through Service Act would elevate all forms of service, 
leveraging the strengths of existing programs. In addition, it would 
complement the ACTION for National Service Act, which I introduced 
earlier this year to put us on a path to one million national service 
members annually within 10 years. The Unity Through Service Act would 
provide a roadmap for bringing a new generation of Americans together 
in service to our Nation. Americans want to serve. We just need to 
provide the opportunities and the connection for them to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in reaffirming our national culture 
of service by working with Senator Young and me to take up and pass the 
Unity through Service Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2161. A bill to provide financial assistance for projects to 
address certain subsidence impacts in the State of California, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Canal Conveyance Capacity Restoration Act, which I introduced today. 
Representative Jim Costa has introduced companion legislation in the 
House of Representatives.
  The bill authorizes one-third cost-share totaling $653 million for 
restoring the capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the Delta-Mendota 
Canal, and the California Aqueduct.
  Coordinated legislation in the State legislature introduced by State 
Senator Melissa Hurtado has led to a downpayment on a State cost-share 
for restoring the canals' capacity. Local water districts would be 
responsible for the remainder of the cost not covered by the State or 
Federal governments.
  In addition, the bill authorizes an additional $180 million to 
restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River. The funding is for fish 
passage structures, levees, and other improvements that will allow the 
threatened Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon to swim freely 
upstream from the ocean to the Friant Dam.
  My bill would help California water users and California's Nation-
leading agriculture industry comply with a recent State requirement to 
end the overpumping of groundwater. The stakes are huge: If we don't 
bring groundwater into balance, then the San Joaquin Valley will lose 
access to about 2 million acre-feet of water per year.
  Unless local water agencies and the State and Federal governments 
act, a recent U.C. Berkeley study has projected severe impacts from 
these water supply losses: 798,000 acres of land would have to be 
retired from agricultural production, nearly one-sixth of the working 
farmland in an area that produces half the fruit and vegetables grown 
in the Nation; and $5.9 billion would be lost in annual farm income in 
a region that is almost entirely reliant on agriculture.
  One of the most economical and efficient ways to restore groundwater 
balance is to convey floodwater to farmland where it can recharge the 
aquifer. California has the most variable precipitation of any State. 
When massive storms from atmospheric rivers occur, there is runoff to 
recharge aquifers--but only if we can effectively convey the 
floodwaters throughout the San Joaquin Valley to recharge areas.
  However, the major canals are in desperate need of repair and have 
lost as much as 60 percent of their capacity. The bill I am introducing 
today would provide Federal assistance to help fix these Federal 
canals.
  Specifically, the bill would authorize $653.4 million in a Federal 
funding-cost share for three major projects to restore Federal canals 
damaged by subsidence to their former capacity: $180 million for the 
Friant-Kern Canal, which would move an additional 100,000 acre-feet per 
year on average; $183.9 million for the Delta Mendota Canal, which 
would move an additional 62,000 acre-feet per year on average; and 
$289.5 million for California Aqueduct repairs, which would move an 
additional 205,000 acre-feet per year on average. While parts of the 
California Aqueduct are State-owned, the majority of the repairs are on 
its federally owned portion.
  This will give local farmers a fighting chance to bring their 
groundwater basins into balance without being forced to retire vast 
amounts of land.
  Critically, the ability to deliver floodwaters through restored 
Federal canals will allow the water districts to invest in their own 
turnouts, pumps, detention basins, and other groundwater recharge 
projects. The South Valley Water Association, which covers just a small 
part of the valley, provided my office with a list of 36 such projects 
for its area alone.
  The Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC has determined that 
groundwater recharge projects are the best option to help the San 
Joaquin Valley comply with the new State groundwater pumping law. PPIC 
projects that the valley can make up 300,000 to 500,000 acre-feet of 
its groundwater deficit through recharge projects.
  A study commissioned by the coalition group Water Blueprint for the 
San Joaquin Valley estimates that reductions in groundwater could cause 
a loss of up to 42,000 farm and agricultural jobs in the San Joaquin 
Valley. Another 40,000 jobs or more could be lost statewide each year 
due to reductions in valley agricultural production, putting the total 
at approximately 85,000 jobs statewide. Most of these impacts will fall 
disproportionately on economically disadvantaged communities.
  Let me now turn to the three critical canals that the bill would help 
restore. The Friant-Kern Canal is a key feature of the Friant Division 
of the Federal Central Valley Project on the Eastside of the San 
Joaquin Valley. For nearly 70 years, the Friant Division successfully 
kept groundwater tables stable on the Eastside. This provided a 
sustainable source of water for farms and for thousands of Californians 
and more than 50 small, rural, or disadvantaged communities who rely 
entirely on groundwater for their household water supplies.
  But unsustainable groundwater pumping in the valley has reduced the 
Friant-Kern Canal's ability to deliver water to all who need it. Land 
elevation subsidence caused by overpumping means that not all of the 
supplies stored at Friant Dam can be conveyed through the canal. In 
some areas, the canal can carry only 40 percent of what it is designed 
to deliver.
  In 2017, a very wet year in which we should have banked as much 
floodwater as possible, the Friant-Kern Canal delivered 300,000 acre-
feet of water less than it would have conveyed before subsidence. This 
water would have helped recharge groundwater in the south San Joaquin 
Valley, where the impacts of reduced water deliveries, water quality 
issues, and groundwater regulation are expected to be most severe.
  The California Aqueduct serves more than 27 million people in 
Southern California and the Silicon Valley and more than 750,000 acres 
of the Nation's most productive farmland. But despite its name, much of 
the California Aqueduct is owned by the Federal Government and serves 
portions of Silicon Valley, small towns and communities in the northern 
San Joaquin Valley, and farms from Firebaugh to Kettleman City. The 
aqueduct represents a successful 70-year partnership between the 
Federal Government and the State of California.
  In recent years, particularly recent drought years, the California 
Aqueduct has subsided. It has lost as much as 20 percent of its 
capacity to move water to California's families, farms, and businesses. 
California is leading efforts to repair the aqueduct and is working to 
provide its share of funding, but the Federal Government will also need 
to pay its fair share. The bill I am introducing today would authorize 
$289.5

[[Page S2230]]

million toward restoring the California Aqueduct.
  The Delta-Mendota Canal stretches southward 117 miles from the C.W. 
Bill Jones Pumping Plant along the western edge of the San Joaquin 
Valley, parallel to the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal 
has lost 15 percent of its conveyance capacity due to subsidence. The 
bill I am introducing today would authorize $183.9 million toward 
restoring its full ability to convey floodwaters to farms needing to 
recharge groundwater and to wildlife refuges of critical importance for 
migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway.
  This bill responds to a potential crisis that very possibly could 
cause the forced retirement of nearly one-sixth of the working farmland 
in an area that produces half of America's fruits and vegetables.
  These are Federal canals, and the Federal Government must help give 
these farmers and agricultural communities a fighting chance to keep 
their lands in production.
  Lastly, this legislation helps to restore a historic salmon run on 
California's second longest river, the San Joaquin.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Sinema):
  S. 2162. A bill to support water infrastructure in Reclamation 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 
STREAM Act, Support to Rehydrate the Environment, Agriculture and 
Municipalities Act, which I am introducing today alongside my 
cosponsors, Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema. This bill is 
intended to help Western States upgrade their water infrastructure in 
preparation for the severe droughts and weather whiplash that we have 
seen the past few years and that will worsen significantly with climate 
change.
  If we don't take action now, it is only going to get worse. 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 percent of our 
water supply and is our biggest reservoir.
  For these reasons and others, we need an ``all of the above'' water 
strategy, including increased water supply; incentivizing projects that 
build in environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged 
communities, and investing in separate environmental restoration 
efforts.
  The bill I am introducing today helps meet this challenge in four 
fundamental ways:
  No. 1, it authorizes significant water supply funding that, in 
combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide 
California with 1.04 million additional acre-feet of water per year on 
average, enough water for over 6 million people.
  No. 2, it provides additional financial incentives for water supply 
projects that include environmental benefits and drinking water for 
disadvantaged communities.
  No. 3, it reforms the congressional review process to more quickly 
approve water supply projects;
  No. 4, it significantly invests not only in water supply projects but 
also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to 
climate change.
  The recent drought in the West from 2020 to 2022 illustrates why this 
bill is so desperately needed.
  In 2021, the drought caused the California agriculture industry to 
shrink by an estimated 8,745 jobs and incur $1.2 billion in direct 
costs, according to a report prepared for the California Department of 
Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California at 
Merced. Reduced water deliveries resulted in 395,000 acres of cropland 
left dry and unplanted.
  Counting ``spillover effects'' in the broader economy, the U.C. 
Merced analysis found the total impacts were more than 14,600 lost 
jobs, both full time and part time, and $1.7 billion in gross revenue 
losses.
  In both 2021 and 2022, homes in significant parts of the State were 
at risk of running dry. In 2021, large parts of Marin and Sonoma 
Counties and the Mendocino coast came very close to losing all water 
supply. In 2022, much of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino 
Counties were placed under emergency orders limiting them to once-a-
week landscape irrigation, with the possibility of a complete 
irrigation shutoff that was only avoided by the timely arrival of 
multiple atmospheric rivers last fall.
  In California, one in eight acres statewide has burned from wildfires 
in the last decade, with the past 2 years being the worst on record. 
The drought has been devastating to the aquatic ecosystem as well as 
our forests. As just one example, the endangered winter-run Chinook 
salmon depend on sufficient cold water released by Shasta Dam to rear 
their offspring in the Sacramento River.
  With limited water available in 2021, NOAA Fisheries models predict 
that approximately 75 percent of the winter run Chinook salmon's eggs 
died from elevated water temperatures. This is a species with three 1-
year age classes, and a prolonged drought could threaten the survival 
of the species.
  To increase drought resiliency in California and other Western 
States, the bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 
years: $750 million for surface and groundwater storage projects and 
supporting conveyance, including $50 million for natural water 
retention and release projects; $300 million for water recycling 
projects; $150 million for desalination projects; $250 million for 
environmental restoration projects; and $100 million for drinking water 
for disadvantaged communities.
  This funding builds on the bipartisan infrastructure law's funding of 
$1.15 billion for storage projects, $550 million for water recycling 
projects, and $250 million for desalination projects.
  The STREAM Act, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure 
law, would provide California with the Federal cost-share for 
approximately 1,042,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply, 
or enough water for over 6 million people. This comes from the 
following:
  Enough funding for California to finally build three major off-stream 
storage projects providing 370,000 acre-feet of water on average each 
year: Sites Reservoir, the Los Vaqueros Expansion, and the BF Sisk 
raise. In addition, the storage funding could provide an additional 
55,000 acre-feet per year from some combination of other smaller 
surface and groundwater storage projects like the Sacramento Regional 
Groundwater Bank or Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir. All of the projects 
are non-Federal projects with a 25-percent Federal cost share, with the 
exception of the Federal BF Sisk Raise with a 50-percent Federal cost-
share.
  Enough funding for 532,000 additional acre-feet from water recycling 
projects, from the $300 million authorized in the bill plus $550 
million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25-percent 
Federal cost-share for projects.
  Enough funding for approximately 85,000 additional acre-feet from the 
$150 million authorized in the bill for desalination projects, plus 
$250 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 
percent Federal cost-share for projects.
  While virtually everyone supports water recycling projects, surface 
and groundwater storage projects are sometimes more controversial. I 
want to point out a 2022 report from the widely respected Public Policy 
Institute of California, PPIC, which relates to the benefits of 
additional surface and groundwater storage as California's climate is 
changing.
  Many climate forecasters emphasize that as climate change 
intensifies, California will get more of its precipitation in a few 
large to extraordinarily large storms fueled by atmospheric rivers, and 
more of the precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. In 
between the bursts of atmospheric rivers there will be longer and more 
intense droughts. We have definitely seen a preview of this pattern 
this year.
  PPIC has studied these projections and estimated that there is 
substantial water in wet years that is not needed to maintain healthy 
Delta outflows but currently cannot be captured because California 
lacks the infrastructure to

[[Page S2231]]

store for future dry periods. PPIC suggests that given this reality, 
cost-effective storage projects in appropriate locations could help 
improve California's drought resiliency.
  PPIC also argues that these storage projects should be managed for 
environmental flow benefits as well as water supply benefits. This bill 
would help with that because Federal funding for Sites Reservoir would 
help provide cold water for salmon, and Federal funding for the 
expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir would provide needed water for 
wildlife refuges. Regarding cold water reserves for salmon in 
particular, these reserves will be critical to prevent salmon runs from 
being wiped out during the potential fourth, fifth, and maybe even 
sixth and seventh years of devastating droughts.
  The bill's funding authorizations apply not just to California but 
throughout the 17 Western States where the Bureau of Reclamation has a 
presence. Many of these States have recently benefited from the Bureau 
of Reclamation's storage, water recycling, and desalination programs 
and/or have projects currently seeking funding from these programs, 
including Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Nevada, and 
New Mexico. I believe the Federal funding assistance authorized by this 
bill will be particularly important for all seven Colorado River basin 
States as the States negotiate the next painful round of water supply 
cuts from the Colorado River between now and 2026 in order to meet the 
challenge of an increasingly dry Colorado River basin.
  In Arizona, the STREAM Act would significantly advance the Salt River 
Project's proposal to raise Bartlett Dam on the Verde River to 
counteract the loss of approximately one-third of the nearby Horseshoe 
Dam's capacity from accumulating sediment.
  The bill uses financial incentives to encourage storage and 
conveyance projects to include environmental benefits and other public 
benefits such as drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This is 
important to ensure that the environment and disadvantaged communities 
are included in our drought resilience strategies.
  If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general 
municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes 
only low-interest loans to support these projects.
  In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance 
projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits 
for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part 
of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan 
adopted together with the project.
  This access to grants gives project sponsors a strong financial 
incentive to design environmental and disadvantaged community benefits 
into their projects. This approach builds on the experience of the 
Proposition 1 water bond California's voters passed by a 2-to-1 margin 
in 2014, which also incentivizes projects with environmental and other 
public benefits.

  If storage and conveyance projects take these steps, they can get 
Federal grants both directly for the public benefits and for an equal 
value investment in the water supply component of the project. Thus, 
the Federal Government will provide $50 million for the general water 
supply benefits of a project if the project also has $50 million in 
fish and wildlife or water quality benefits either directly from the 
project or from an associated watershed restoration plan.
  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:
  No. 1, reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a 
decade or more for major projects.
  No. 2, once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes 
projects individually, which can take another 3 to 5 years or longer in 
many cases.
  No. 3, the design and construction can take a decade or longer.
  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 and currently Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
Works, 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 
     historic Federal role in financing water storage projects 
     through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a 
     greater emphasis on non-Federal financing.

  In response to the concerns articulated by then-Deputy Secretary 
Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the 
2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, makes two 
significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes 
expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of 
available Federal funding.
  First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize 
individual water recycling and desalination projects and non-Federal 
storage projects a Federal investment of less than $250 million. It can 
take 3 to 5 years or longer for projects to get legislatively approved. 
In fact, zero new water recycling projects were authorized from 2009 to 
2017 despite dozens of meritorious projects with approved feasibility 
studies.
  Federal storage projects, which are often more controversial, 
continue to require congressional authorization, as do non-Federal 
storage projects with a greater than $250 million Federal investment. 
The bill shortens the timeline for congressional approval of these 
projects through directing Reclamation to follow a process that the 
Army Corps of Engineers uses to notify Congress of completed 
feasibility studies each year to set up an orderly timeline to 
authorize projects.
  Second, the bill no longer requires 100 percent Federal funding 
upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. 
Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50 percent Federal funding for 
federally owned projects and a maximum of 25 percent 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 nearly 50 percent by the State of California, which has 
already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 20 to 
25 percent by the Federal Government and the remaining 25 to 30 percent 
by water users.
  Multipartner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion 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.
  If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general 
municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes 
only low-interest loans to support these projects.
  In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance 
projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits 
for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part 
of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan 
adopted together with the project.
  Let me give an example of how this works. If a project sponsor is 
seeking $100 million in Federal funding for a $400 million non-Federal 
storage project, the sponsor can get that $100 million funding as a 
grant if there is

[[Page S2232]]

$100 million in public benefits from either the project itself or other 
projects as part of a watershed restoration plan approved with the 
project.
  The public benefits could be either drinking water for disadvantaged 
communities or fish and wildlife benefits. Some examples of fish and 
wildlife or water quality benefits from a watershed plan could include 
water leasing during a dry year, water sharing agreements, water 
banking, ongoing water conservation, and related activities if they 
provide fish and wildlife or water quality benefits; environmental 
restoration projects; and natural water retention and release projects.
  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 $250 million for 
environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different 
species, including fish and migratory birds. Some 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; ensuring 
that when Sacramento Valley rice growers sell their water and idle 
their crops, some water is left behind and applied to bare fields in 
late summer and early fall to create shallow flooded habitat during a 
critical shorebird migration period; and assistance in implementing 
water-related settlements with State agencies and State water quality 
laws.
  The bill would also authorize $50 million of the broader storage 
funding for natural water retention and release 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. I 
look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multibenefit 
projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with 
the bill.
  The bill also authorizes pay-for-performance environmental 
restoration approaches that award grants contingent on the success of 
the restoration effort. These approaches can expedite environmental 
restoration and build public/private partnerships to increase the 
number of acres restored.
  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.
  California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major 
statewide 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. 
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 as a result of climate 
change.
  I hope my western colleagues will join my cosponsors and me on this 
bill because drought is a serious threat for all of our States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PADILLA:
  S. 2166. A bill to amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought 
Relief Act of 1991 and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 
to provide grants to States and Indian Tribes for programs to 
voluntarily repurpose agricultural land to reduce consumptive water 
use, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Voluntary 
Agricultural Land Repurposing Act to support voluntary efforts to 
repurpose agricultural land to multibenefit uses. Enactment of this 
legislation would provide new tools for States, producers, water users, 
and Federal partners to adapt to long-term water scarcity at the basin 
scale.
  The bill would modernize existing Federal programs at the Bureau of 
Reclamation to support long-term drought planning and resiliency by 
stakeholders.
  Specifically, the bill would authorize funding for States that choose 
to pilot and implement their own multibenefit land repurposing 
programs. Eligible State-run programs must be basin-scale, reduce 
consumptive water use, and repurpose irrigated agricultural land for at 
least 10 years. Programs must also provide one or more other measurable 
benefits to the environment or community, including the restoration 
habitat or floodplains connection to streams or rivers, the creation of 
dedicated recharge areas, the facilitation of renewable energy 
projects, the creation of parks or recreational areas, and other listed 
uses. The bill would also prioritize State programs that provide direct 
benefits to disadvantaged communities or were developed through a 
multistakeholder planning process.
  Because it may take time for States to stand up or pilot programs, 
the bill would also make multibenefit land repurposing an eligible use 
under the WaterSMART Program so that individual water users could apply 
and compete for funding for multibenefit land repurposing projects.
  Water scarcity at the basin scale demands widespread changes in water 
use across the West. The Colorado River Basin's water storage shortage, 
Utah's decline to record low levels of the Great Salt Lake, and 
California's subsidence due to groundwater overdraft in the Central 
Valley are just a few of the many examples of long-term, basin-scale 
water scarcity demanding change in our water use.
  Through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction 
Act, Congress has stepped up and invested billions of dollars in new 
technologies to shore up our water supplies, including large-scale 
water recycling and desalination. But a historic megadrought and the 
climate crisis are unfortunately forcing Western States and water users 
to reimagine how to allocate and govern water and forcing producers to 
be more efficient with water or make do with less.
  One tool to bolster drought resilience is to retire irrigation from 
some agricultural lands, particularly where soils or productivity is 
marginal, where non-irrigated agricultural uses can sustainably 
contribute to an operation, or where important public benefits such as 
fish and wildlife habitat, watershed health and aquifer recharge, or 
renewable energy can be supported in a conversion from irrigated 
agriculture.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Voluntary 
Agricultural Land Repurposing Act as quickly as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2179. A bill to help increase the development, distribution, and 
use of clean cookstoves and fuels to improve health, protect the 
climate and environment, empower women, create jobs, and help consumers 
save time and money; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Clean 
Cooking Support Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my 
friend and colleague Senator Durbin. Our bill aims to address a serious 
global public health and environmental issue where leadership by the 
United States can make a real difference.
  Today, more than 2 billion people, or 30 percent of the global 
population, rely on ``dirty cooking,'' such as open fires or 
inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves that use agricultural 
waste, coal, dung, or other solid fuels, to cook their meals. The 
majority of people using these types of cookstoves and fuels are in 
developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
  Exposure to smoke from these traditional cooking methods and open 
fires, referred to as household air pollution, can cause chronic and 
acute diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. 
Alarmingly, the household air pollution caused by traditional 
cookstoves and open fires leads to 3.2 million premature deaths 
annually, including 450,000 children younger than 5

[[Page S2233]]

years of age, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Women 
and girls are disproportionately affected, as they spend hours cooking, 
inhaling toxic smoke, and collecting fuels.
  These cookstoves also create serious environmental problems. 
Household air pollution does not remain in the home; it contributes to 
global ambient air pollution. Specifically, more than half of manmade 
black carbon emissions come from household fuel combustion. Black 
carbon is a powerful short-lived climate pollutant with warming impact 
on the climate that is 460 to 1,500 times stronger than carbon dioxide.
  These cookstoves should be replaced with modern alternatives to 
reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. Since 2010, the 
Clean Cooking Alliance, an innovative public-private partnership hosted 
by the United Nations Foundation, has supported the adoption of clean 
cooking worldwide. Recognizing the serious health and environmental 
issues posed by traditional cookstoves, the alliance aims to save 
lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by 
creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household 
cooking solutions.
  Our legislation reinforces our country's policy on promoting clean 
cookstoves and seeks to take a whole-of-government approach to address 
household air pollution. Specifically, the Clean Cooking Support Act 
would create an interagency working group, with representatives from at 
least six different Federal Agencies, committed to increasing access to 
clean cooking fuels and technologies worldwide. Our legislation 
explicitly spells out the role of each Federal Agency in the 
advancement of clean cooking as well. The Department of Energy, for 
instance, is tasked with research and development to spur the 
production of low-cost, low-emission, and high-efficiency cookstoves, 
while the Department of State is directed to engage in diplomatic 
activities across the globe to support the clean cooking and fuels 
sector. Finally, our would authorize funding for the U.S. Government to 
continue such activities through 2028 to ensure that these important 
efforts to prevent unnecessary illness and reduce pollution around the 
globe continue.
  Our legislation would directly benefit some of the world's poorest 
people, including the women and girls who are disproportionately 
affected, and reduce harmful pollution that affects us all. I urge my 
colleagues to join me and Senator Durbin in supporting the Clean 
Cooking Support Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Budd, 
        Mr. Markey, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 2196. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate work disincentives for childhood disability beneficiaries; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, one topic there is much agreement on is 
the benefits of work, and our laws should support those who want to 
work. The bill I am introducing today will change Social Security so 
that parents and their children will know that working will never 
disadvantage them in the future.
  Let me explain the problem. Under current law, a child with a 
disability that began before age 22 may receive a Social Security 
benefit based on the work of a disabled, retired, or deceased parent. 
Often the child receives this benefit for the rest of their life. 
Social Security provides the benefit because the child is usually 
dependent on their parents for financial support. The problem is that 
the law regards earnings by the child above $1,470 a month as ending 
that dependency--even if the child is no longer able to maintain that 
level of work in the future. When that dependency ends, the child 
ceases to be eligible for the benefit from the parent. Instead, the 
child would receive a benefit based on their work. The benefit from the 
parent's work is often significantly larger than the child's own 
benefit. Because of this policy, parents of children with disabilities 
may prevent their child from working at their full potential, fearing 
that the work will cause the child to lose out on the larger benefit. 
We need to change Social Security to ensure parents and their children 
that working will not cause them to be worse off in the future.
  To provide that assurance, I am introducing the Work Without Worry 
Act. The bill ensures that any individual with a disability that began 
before age 22 will receive the larger of the benefit from either their 
parent's work or the benefit from their own work. Any earnings from 
work--no matter how much--will not prevent the child from receiving a 
Social Security benefit from their parent's work as long as the child 
is eligible for disability insurance by the same impairment from before 
age 22. This legislation would give parents the assurance that their 
child with a disability can work without having to worry that the child 
will lose out on the full protections that Social Security provides.
  I want to thank Kathy Holmquist, president of Pathways to 
Independence, Inc., in Portland, OR, who has been a leader in my State 
helping people with disabilities live and work with dignity. Kathy 
contacted me about the need for this legislation, and I appreciate her 
advocacy and support. Additional thanks to The Arc for the technical 
assistance and endorsement of the bill. The bill is also endorsed by 
the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR, 
National Down Syndrome Congress, the Association of University Centers 
on Disabilities, Justice in Aging, American Association on Health and 
Disability, Lakeshore Foundation, Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network, 
National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives, 
Special Needs Alliance, National Association of Disability 
Representatives, Autism Society of America, Disability Rights Education 
Fund, and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, CCD, 
Social Security Task Force. I am grateful that Social Security 
Subcommittee Ranking Member John Larson is introducing the companion 
bill in the House of Representatives. The Senate bill is cosponsored by 
Senators Cassidy, Budd, Sanders, Klobuchar, Markey, Warren, Whitehouse, 
Merkley, Murray, and Brown.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record following this statement, along with two support letters.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill and letters of support 
were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2196

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Work Without Worry Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF WORK DISINCENTIVE FOR CHILDHOOD 
                   DISABILITY BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 202(d) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 402(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ``is under a 
     disability (as defined in section 223(d)) which began before 
     he attained the age of 22, and'' and inserting the following: 
     ``is under a disability (as defined in section 223(d)), and--

       ``(I) the physical or mental impairment (or combination of 
     impairments) that is the basis for the finding of disability 
     began before the child attained the age of 22 (or is of such 
     a type that can reasonably be presumed to have begun before 
     the child attained the age of 22, as determined by the 
     Commissioner), and
       ``(II) the impairment or combination of impairments could 
     have been the basis for a finding of disability (without 
     regard to whether the child was actually engaged in 
     substantial gainful activity) before the child attained age 
     22, and''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(11)(A) In the case of a child described in subparagraph 
     (B)(ii) of paragraph (1) who--
       ``(i) has not attained early retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l)(2));
       ``(ii) has filed an application for child's insurance 
     benefits; and
       ``(iii) is insured for disability benefits (as determined 
     under section 223(c)(1)) at the time of such filing;
     such application shall be deemed to be an application for 
     both child's insurance benefits under this subsection and 
     disability insurance benefits under section 223.
       ``(B) In the case of a child described in subparagraph 
     (B)(ii) of paragraph (1) who--
       ``(i) has attained early retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l)(2));
       ``(ii) has filed an application for child's insurance 
     benefits; and
       ``(iii) is a fully insured individual (as defined in 
     section 214(a)) at the time of such filing;
     such application shall be deemed to be an application for 
     both child's insurance benefits

[[Page S2234]]

     under this subsection and old-age insurance benefits under 
     section 202(a).
       ``(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of a child 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B), if, at the time of 
     filing an application for child's insurance benefits, the 
     amount of the monthly old-age or disability insurance benefit 
     to which the child would be entitled is greater than the 
     amount of the monthly child's insurance benefit to which the 
     child would be entitled, the child shall not be entitled to a 
     child's insurance benefit based on such application.
       ``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the amount of the 
     monthly old-age or disability benefit to which the child 
     would be entitled shall be determined--
       ``(i) without regard to the primary insurance amount 
     calculation described section 215(a)(7); and
       ``(ii) before application of section 224.
       ``(12) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child shall 
     not be required to be continuously under a disability during 
     the period between the date that the disability began and the 
     date that the application for child's insurance benefits is 
     filed.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to applications filed on or after the date that 
     is 24 months after the date of the enactment of this section.

                                  National Down Syndrome Congress.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Cassidy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Cassidy: The 
     National Down Syndrome Congress (NDSC) writes to thank you 
     for introducing the Work Without Worry Act of 2023. NDSC is 
     the country's oldest national organization for people with 
     Down syndrome, their families, and the professionals who work 
     with them. We provide information, advocacy, and support 
     concerning all aspects of life for individuals with Down 
     syndrome and work to create a national climate in which all 
     people will recognize and embrace the value and dignity of 
     people with Down syndrome. This bill would undoubtedly 
     positively impact the lives of people with Down syndrome.
       Under the current law, young adults who qualify for Social 
     Security Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits often hesitate 
     to explore employment opportunities due to the fear of losing 
     their vital benefits. The Work Without Worry Act offers a 
     much-needed solution by ensuring that any past earnings from 
     work, irrespective of the amount, will not impede the 
     eligibility of otherwise qualified individuals for Social 
     Security DAC benefits based on their parent's work history, 
     provided their medical impairment originated before the age 
     of 22.
       We believe that this bill will have a transformative impact 
     on the lives of individuals with disabilities, allowing them 
     to pursue their professional aspirations while maintaining 
     financial security. By promoting fairness and treating all 
     individuals with severe medical conditions that began before 
     age 22 equally, regardless of their parents' Social Security 
     benefit status, the Work Without Worry Act better ensures 
     inclusivity and equity within our society.
       NDSC fully supports the Work Without Worry Act's objectives 
     and applauds the bill's commitment to financial security and 
     fairness for young adults with disabilities. It is estimated 
     that this legislation will positively impact the lives of 
     nearly 6,000 individuals with disabilities over the next 
     decade, creating opportunities for growth and independence.
       Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and we look 
     forward to working with you to pass this bill into law. If 
     you have any questions, please contact Chapman Bryant, Policy 
     and Advocacy Associate.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Jordan Kough,

                                               Executive Director,
     National Down Syndrome Congress.
                                  ____

                                       Consortium for Constituents


                                            with Disabilities,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2023.
     Senator Ron Wyden,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Bill Cassidy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Wyden and Cassidy: The cochairs of the 
     Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities (CCD) Social 
     Security Task Force write in support of the Work Without 
     Worry Act and thank you for introducing this crucial 
     legislation. The Consortium for Constituents with 
     Disabilities (CCD) is the largest coalition of national 
     organizations working together to advocate for Federal public 
     policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, 
     empowerment, integration, and inclusion of children and 
     adults with disabilities in all aspects of society free from 
     racism, ableism, sexism, and xenophobia, as well as LGBTQ+ 
     based discrimination and religious intolerance.
       Many people with disabilities rely on Social Security 
     ``Disabled Adult Child'' (DAC) benefits. These crucial 
     benefits allow people whose disabilities onset before age 22 
     to claim benefits on a parent's record, allowing parents to 
     continue to support their children with disabilities even 
     after retirement, disability, or death. Unfortunately, 
     navigating the different programs and their rules are 
     extremely complex for people with disabilities and their 
     families. Most important, if a young person with disability 
     has countable earnings of even a dollar over the substantial 
     gainful activity (SGA) level ($1470 a month in 2023) before 
     receiving DAC benefits, they lose their eligibility for DAC 
     benefits forever. This creates a disincentive to work for 
     young adults with disabilities, who may want to try and work, 
     but who are unsure of their capacity and need to try working 
     different numbers of hours. There are many circumstances in 
     which a young person with a disability may be able to earn 
     over SGA for a short period of time or a few times, but are 
     unable to sustain that level of work or income in the long-
     run. Families often worry that the wrong amount of work will 
     cause their family member to lose eligibility for DAC 
     benefits and this fear may discourage young adults with 
     disabilities from working.
       The Work Without Worry Act would eliminate this work 
     disincentive by allowing young adults with disabilities to 
     try and work and see if they can support themselves without 
     losing eligibility for DAC benefits. Earnings from work over 
     SGA will not prevent the individual from receiving DAC 
     benefits from their parent's work history as long as the 
     individual remains disabled by the same impairment from 
     before age 22 and meets other eligibility conditions for 
     benefits. The benefit amount will be either the benefit from 
     the individual's parents or the benefit from the individual's 
     own work history, whichever is higher.
       We strongly support this important change to allow young 
     adults with disabilities to work to the best of their 
     abilities and look forward to working with your offices to 
     advance this legislation. For more information or to arrange 
     a meeting on this important issue, please contact Darcy 
     Milburn.
           Sincerely,
     Tracey Gronniger,
       Justice in Aging.
     Jeanne Morin,
       National Association of Disability Representatives.
     Jennifer Burdick, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.
     Darcy Milburn,
       the Arc of the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Padilla):
  S. 2202. A bill to amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009 to authorize the modification of transferred works to increase 
public benefits and other project benefits as part of extraordinary 
operation and maintenance work, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Restore Aging Infrastructure Now RAIN Act, which I introduced today. 
Senator Alex Padilla is cosponsoring the legislation.
  This bill has three purposes: No. 1, upgrade aging canals and other 
facilities owned by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide environmental 
and other benefits; No. 2, for the first time provide grant funding 
rather than loans for Reclamation facility upgrades that provide 
drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and No. 3, incentivize 
agricultural and municipal irrigation districts to participate in these 
projects by giving them a 15 percent discount on what they owe for 
repairing the aging facilities that serve them.
  Let me explain these three bill purposes in more detail. First, 
Congress has appropriated $3.2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
repair its aging canals, dams and other facilities. If the Federal 
taxpayers are spending this much money to retool Reclamation 
infrastructure for the needs of the 21st century, the Department of the 
Interior should have the authority to modify the Reclamation facilities 
to achieve increased environmental benefits, drinking water for 
disadvantaged communities, and other project benefits.
  This bill applies to Reclamation ``transferred works'' facilities, 
which are operated and maintained by agricultural or municipal water 
districts. The bill authorizes Reclamation to modify these transferred 
works facilities when the Agency is repairing them, as long as the 
modifications add no more than 25 percent of the cost of the repair 
projects, or $25 million for repair projects costing less than $100 
million.
  In California, this could be particularly helpful for projects to 
restore major Central Valley Project canals that have lost up to 60 
percent of their conveyance capacity due to subsidence. These projects 
are important to allow farmers to capture runoff from our increasingly 
concentrated winter storms and move the water to overdrafted areas 
where it is needed to recharge the local aquifers.

[[Page S2235]]

  As I mentioned, the bill applies to those Reclamation facilities 
known as ``transferred works,'' which are operated and maintained by 
agricultural or irrigation water districts. In order to modify these 
projects when they are being repaired, the Secretary must obtain the 
consent of the transferred works operating entity and any individual 
water district that would receive less water under the modified 
project.
  Many Bureau of Reclamation facilities were built for the sole purpose 
of assisting agricultural water supply. This irrigation focus is 
critically important in the arid West. However, as climate change 
stretches western water supplies, Reclamation facilities will need to 
serve multiple purposes as efficiently as possible.
  There are many rural communities in the areas served by Reclamation 
facilities that have dwindling water supplies. In California, many of 
these communities are home to migrant farmworkers who plant and harvest 
the crops that Reclamation water deliveries support.
  All too often, these communities' water supplies have become 
unreliable as groundwater tables drop, or drought reduces surface water 
supplies for lengthy periods. Many of these communities lack the 
ratepayer base and income levels to provide clean drinking water to 
meet their residents' basic daily needs.
  In order to meet this challenge, the bill authorizes Reclamation to 
offer grants rather than loans when it modifies existing Reclamation 
facilities to provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities. 
Eligible communities are defined using existing precedent that their 
median family income must not exceed 80 percent of the statewide median 
family income.
  In California, this could be particular helpful for the major canal 
repair projects which are restoring the original capacity of the 
Friant-Kern Canal, the California Aqueduct, and the Delta-Mendota 
Canal, all of which have been damaged by subsidence. Under the bill, 
Reclamation can now modify these upgraded canals to provide turnouts to 
recharge the aquifers of disadvantaged communities along the canals.
  As a result, when we have wet years like this past winter, 
Reclamation could send some of the flood flows to help these 
communities boost their local water supplies.
  These project modifications can be an efficient way to assist these 
disadvantaged communities; the canals already exist, works crews will 
already be mobilized to repair them, and in many cases, the canals run 
very near the communities that would benefit.
  To make the bill work, agricultural and municipal water districts 
must participate in these modifications to Reclamation facility repair 
projects.
  In many cases, the water providers will face disincentives to 
participate in these projects. Some providers may see their benefits 
reduced. All providers will have to accept significant delay in 
obtaining the benefits of the restoration of these projects. It will 
take significant time to modify the projects in a manner that the 
providers can accept and then to conduct environmental compliance on 
the proposed modification. The providers will also have to accept 
modified project operations that give increased priority to public 
benefits.
  To offset these disincentives for water providers to participate in 
modifications to projects which increase just public benefits, the bill 
reduces the amount the providers have to pay for the underlying repair 
projects by 15 percent. The result is that each project beneficiary 
will pay 85 percent of the costs for the modified project that the 
beneficiary would otherwise have been allocated.
  This provision sets up a financial incentive for water providers to 
support modified projects that solely increase environmental and other 
public benefits without increasing water diversions or other water 
supply benefits. Without this financial incentive, water providers 
might be expected to frequently oppose such modification of the 
projects that they rely on for water deliveries. In the case of canal 
restoration projects, the agricultural water districts will receive 
less water than they would have under the original canals at full 
capacity if an increased amount of the water is diverted for dedicated 
to disadvantaged communities or wildlife refuges. The financial 
incentive is important in this context to avoid generating agricultural 
water district opposition to project modifications to benefit 
disadvantaged communities and wildlife refuges.
  This approach is consistent with Reclamation programs like the Title 
XVI and large-scale water recycling programs. These programs provide 25 
percent Federal grant funding for projects that increase municipal 
water supplies, even where the benefiting communities are not 
disadvantaged. These grants are justified because the recycled water 
programs provide both water supply and broader public benefits by 
reducing pressure to divert water from often overallocated streams and 
rivers. With this bill, too, the modified projects merit some Federal 
grant funding because they provide a range of public benefits beyond 
just regular water supply, including potentially environmental benefits 
or drinking water for disadvantaged communities.
  Given the inevitability of increasingly severe and lengthy droughts 
as the West's climate changes, it will be essential to provide 
incentives to collaborate on multibenefit projects that bring 
agricultural, environmental, and urban interests together to address 
the very serious challenge of maintaining sufficiently reliable water 
supply for all, including disadvantaged communities. This proposed 
legislation seeks to increase incentives for such needed collaboration.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PADILLA:
  S. 2203. A bill to require the conduct of winter season 
reconnaissance of atmospheric rivers on the West Coast of the United 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Atmospheric 
Rivers Reconissance, Observation and Warning Act or ARROW Act. This 
legislation will support critical atmospheric river reconnaissance 
missions to improve forecasting for water managers across the west 
coast.
  Atmospheric rivers produce between 40 to 65 percent of annual 
precipitation along the U.S. west coast but cause an estimated 90 
percent or more of flood damage. These extreme storm events are the 
primary driver of drought and major flooding events impacting the 
entire western region, which is why the Federal Government alongside 
researchers and water managers support a growing Federal investment 
into atmospheric river reconnaissance research missions to help improve 
AR forecasting.
  The Air Force Reserve's 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, also 
known as Hurricane Hunters, fly specially equipped aircraft directly 
into the eye of a storm between 8,000 and 10,000 feet above sea level 
to collect valuable, real-time data that allows water managers, 
disaster responders, researchers, and meteorologists to better predict 
the impact of storm events such as ARs, hurricanes, and tropical 
cyclones.
  The ARROW Act would formalize ongoing AR reconnaissance efforts led 
by the Air Force Reserve's 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, which, 
in consultation with NOAA, provide aircraft, personnel, and equipment 
to meet the AR mission requirements during the winter season in the 
west coast, from November through March.
  The bill would direct the Air Force to work with NOAA to improve the 
accuracy and timeliness of west coast AR forecasts and warning 
services; support water management decisions and flood forecasting; and 
participate in the Research and Operations Partnership, which guides 
flight planning, to improve and expand the capabilities and 
effectiveness of AR Recon into the future.
  The 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron is the only Department of 
Defense organization still flying into tropical storms and hurricanes 
and is a critical component of the U.S. weather forecasting apparatus.
  Since fiscal year 2020, Congress has directed the 53rd to prioritize 
atmospheric river reconnaissance in its National Winter Storms 
Operations Plan. However, without formal authorization, growing AR 
recon research will go unmet, leaving civil authorities and military 
decision makers without key forecasting data to predict and respond

[[Page S2236]]

to AR landfall and to more effectively manage water supplies in an 
increasingly variable climate.
  That is why we need to pass the ARROW Act, to formalize the role of 
the Air Force Reserve's Weather Reconnaissance Squadron as a critical 
part of the U.S. storm forecasting and response infrastructure.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ARROW Act as 
quickly as possible.

                          ____________________