Floor Statements

Madam President, it is an exciting day for Colorado. I have known David Bernhardt, our nominee for Secretary of the Interior-- and the seventh Secretary of the Interior from Colorado should he be confirmed today--personally and professionally for over two decades. His roots are deep on both sides of Colorado--in the High Plains and on the Western Slope.

We share a lot of common interests in rural development and in saving our small towns. My experience stems from growing up in the agricultural community of Yuma, CO, in the Eastern Plains, and Mr. Bernhardt's formative years were spent on the Western Slope of Colorado--an area that is a microcosm of all of the things that we cherish about our great public lands. We both began our public service only 1 year apart when we worked for Colorado State Representative Russell George, who would later go on to become speaker of the Colorado House. That is when I first met David. Mr. Bernhardt worked with Jaime, my wife, at the Department of the Interior during the George W. Bush administration under another Colorado Secretary of the Interior.

His personal background and public and private sector professional experiences prove he is a strong voice for the West and is extremely well-qualified for the nomination to be the Secretary. In fact, there are few others who have the kind of experience that he has that enables him to be qualified to be Secretary. Which Secretary of the Interior has had more experience than David Bernhardt or has been more qualified to become the Secretary of the Interior? He has extensive insight on Western water policy, natural resources policy, and on Indian affairs, just to name a few.

Those who have worked with Mr. Bernhardt commend him for his integrity and wealth of knowledge on the issues under the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction.

In 2008, after the Department of the Interior reached the largest Indian

water rights settlement in our Nation's history, Secretary Kempthorne personally acknowledged Mr. Bernhardt's work as then-Solicitor and stated: ``His effective coordination--both within Interior as well as with the local, tribal, state and congressional leaders--was essential to the success we celebrate today.''

More recently, he worked to accommodate many Western States' requests for more flexibility under the Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment. John Swartout, who as a senior policy adviser ran point on this issue for Colorado's Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper, had this to say in December 2018 once that process was completed:

David Bernhardt is an honest man who puts all his cards on

the table and keeps his word. I have worked with DOI for 25

years, and David is one of the finest people I have ever

worked with.

That didn't come from a partisan Republican or a partisan Democrat; that came from a person in the Democratic Governor's office who worked with him on natural resource issues.

Dale Hall, the CEO of Ducks Unlimited, which is hardly a partisan Republican or Democratic organization but is an organization that does more real conservation work on the ground than most of the groups that have the word ``conservation'' in their names, had this to say when Mr. Bernhardt's nomination for Secretary was announced:

I have known and worked with David Bernhardt for more than

a decade, and we are excited to continue to work with him as

the new Secretary of the Interior. His integrity in following

the law is beyond reproach. David Bernhardt is a champion of

conservation and the right person for the job. We urge the

Senate to swiftly confirm him.

Colleagues of his from his time spent working for Representative Scott McInnis, who represented Mr. Bernhardt's hometown in Colorado, swore he worked 40 hours a day, 8 days a week. Notably, during Mr. Bernhardt's tenure in his office, Representative McInnis was the House author of the bill that led to the designation of the Great Sand Dunes as being a national park. Having now worked at very senior levels in the Department of the Interior over the course of many years, there is zero question Mr. Bernhardt is qualified to do this job.

Along with Mr. Bernhardt's professional career, I believe it is important to fully understand his background and the foundation of his interest in public lands, which further qualifies him for this role.

Mr. Bernhardt is originally from the outskirts of the small town of Rifle, located on Colorado's Western Slope. Few places more fully embody the spirit and mission of the Agency he has been nominated to lead as Secretary with that understanding of this public land. Growing up in rural Colorado has instilled in him Western values and interests, and to this day, Mr. Bernhardt enjoys hunting, recreation, the outdoors, and fishing.

Rifle is located in Garfield County, an area in which about 60 percent of the lands are public lands. Rifle was founded as a ranching community along the Colorado River, and it retains that heritage today, along with tremendous opportunities for outdoor recreation, including fishing, hiking, skiing, rafting, and rock climbing. It also sits at the edge of the Piceance Basin, an area in Colorado that has vast amounts of natural gas.

Mr. Bernhardt grew up in the oil shale boom and bust and has said that the boom and bust ``has made [him] more sensitive to the potential benefits and the potential impacts, both environmental and social'' of energy development. In the 1980s, Rifle was hit by the State's oil shale crash, and he personally experienced some of the hard times that the Nation's rural communities often face in those boom and bust moments.

Much like the Department of the Interior itself, Rifle is a community that is a product of its public lands and Western heritage. It is centrally located within a few miles of the iconic Grand Mesa--the world's largest flat-topped mountain--the Flat Tops Wilderness, and the Roan Plateau. It represents a home base among these public lands with there being virtually unmatched access to world-class outdoor experiences, which is why Mr. Bernhardt has such a passion for these issues.

His previous experience at the Department of the Interior allowed him to fix a problem for Colorado that I was told for 8 years, under the Obama administration, was simply not fixable. As a result, in 2018, revenue that had been sitting in an account in the Federal Government for over a decade that had been owed to three counties in Colorado were distributed back to these Colorado counties and to the taxpayers who had been owed this money. How did this get solved after a decade of saying it could not be solved? It is because David Bernhardt believes you don't just push the problems that are on your front porch onto somebody else's; you find a solution and you fix it.

Prior to his current position, his previous experience includes being tapped to be the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. In 2006, by voice vote in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Bernhardt was confirmed to be Solicitor. In the last Congress, he earned bipartisan support during his confirmation process to be Deputy Secretary.

His integrity and ability are assets that should bolster the case for his nomination, not detract from it. Yet, over the course of the last couple of months, the Washington, DC, political smear machine has been working overtime to sully a good man's name. None of what we have seen or heard in the pages of the New York Times and in other places has been new information. I guess the hope is that we will take it more seriously because this time around, the New York Times is the one writing about it.

Mr. Bernhardt has undergone two separate and extensive FBI reviews for both his nomination to be Deputy Secretary and his nomination to be Secretary. These reviews occurred after the allegations were first raised, and he was cleared for both positions, which is probably something people didn't read in the New York Times. In understanding that these claims had been reviewed previously to the Senate's committee's satisfaction, Mr. Bernhardt's nomination was reported out last week by a bipartisan vote of 14 to 6.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Chairman Murkowski's and Ranking Member Manchin's committee statements.

Madam President, let's talk about that story and ethics for a second.

Mr. Bernhardt has spent more than 15 years of a 25-year career in public service, and most of that time has been spent at the Department of the Interior. While in his private law practice, he never lobbied the Department of the Interior--not once. During his time as Deputy Secretary, he has focused on the fundamental transformation of the Department and Bureau-level ethics programs to ingrain a culture of ethical compliance and reduce workplace misconduct.

The reality is that the ethics program throughout the Department of the Interior had been, sadly, neglected by the previous administration. The Office of Inspector General and the Departmental Ethics Office had recommended significant resource changes that had fallen on deaf ears under the previous administration. Under Mr. Bernhardt's direction, the Department has hired a total of 42 career professional ethics advisers. By the end of fiscal year 2019, they will have doubled the number of career ethics officials that the previous administration had hired in its entire 8 years.

The record shows that he has actively sought and consulted with the Department's designated Agency ethics officials regarding compliance with his ethics obligations recusals.

In addition, he has installed a robust screening process to ensure that he does not meet with or engage in particular matters benefiting the former clients from which he is recused. Every proposed meeting is reviewed by career professionals to ensure compliance with not only his ethics agreement but ethics laws and to make sure his ethics pledge to the President is upheld.

His work in natural resources law prior to joining the administration and related ethics agreements are very similar in scope and substance to the private work and ethics agreements of senior Interior officials who came before him in previous administrations. Let me say that again. The same kinds of ethics agreements and obligations that basically he is doing are what previous administrations did as well.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of the Interior Designated Agency Ethics Official dated March 25, 2019.

This letter is in response to a letter from Senators Warren and Blumenthal and states that the Ethics Office has found that Mr. Bernhardt's actions as Deputy Secretary and Acting Secretary ``have complied with all applicable ethics laws, rules, and other obligations, including the requirements of President Trump's executive order 13770, entitled `Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees.' ''

This letter from the career head of the Department of Interior ethics professionals who served at the White House during the previous administration goes on to say:

My experience has been that the Acting Secretary is very

diligent about his ethics obligations and he has made ethics

compliance and the creation of an ethical culture a top

priority at the Department.

That wasn't in the New York Times, either, but I think it should be.

This is not about Mr. Bernhardt's ethics or his integrity or his qualifications; it is about the fact that he has been and will be effective at implementing an agenda that the other side doesn't agree with because they know he will be effective in protecting our great outdoors and our public lands.

I am thankful there are qualified people out there like Mr. Bernhardt and his family who are still willing to wade through the muck and serve the people of the United States, knowing that they will be called a liar in front of their children at a U.S. Senate committee hearing despite letters from top officers in charge of our ethics laws at the Department of Interior saying otherwise.

I am thankful for David, and I look forward to working with him and his team at the Department of the Interior. I hope my colleagues will see through the partisan rancor, see through the lens of blue or red, of party politics, and confirm a man who--if you go back to Colorado and talk to people like Russell George, you will learn that he has the greatest respect not only for our public lands but for the people of Colorado, and for that, I am grateful for him and my colleagues who will confirm him today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to honor an officer of the Colorado State Patrol who was killed in the line of duty on March 13.

As other Members of this Chamber know, many parts of the country were hit hard by a bomb cyclone storm system last month. Again today, we are going through another spring storm. That storm caused flooding in much of the Midwest, as we have seen across the national news, and extremely hazardous road conditions in my State, which led to thousands of stranded drivers.

State Patrol Corporal Daniel Howard Groves, like many first responders that day, was attempting to aid a driver in the Eastern Plains of Colorado on I-76 who had slid off the road, and he was struck by a passing vehicle.

Corporal Groves was 52 years old. He leaves behind a large and loving family, including his parents, his partner Eddie, his four siblings, and many more. We know that his family will continue to honor his sacrifice and ensure that his legacy lives on.

Corporal Groves joined the Colorado State Patrol in 2007 after leaving a career in the technology services industry in Chicago. His family and friends remember him as a man with a tremendous capacity to love and care for others. He was a man of humor who wasn't afraid to crack a joke just to make people smile. According to a fellow officer, he once arrived at training wearing pajamas instead of the required police sweats.

At a memorial service honoring his life, a longtime friend spoke about the encouragement and advice that Dan was known for. He always encouraged others to follow their dreams, no matter how big. He often spoke of the importance of family and friendship and the need to make time to enjoy life with others.

His fellow officers remembered him as a man who was drawn to service because of his desire to help, someone who always knew the risks inherent in the job but never let that deter him from doing what needed to be done.

One colleague who spoke at the memorial remembered Corporal Groves as someone who frequently asked, where do you need me to be? He always wanted to be in the spot where he could be most effective, no matter the danger involved.

Even on the morning of March 13, as the weather was taking a turn for the worse, Corporal Groves knew there were drivers on the road who needed his help, and, as many law enforcement officers did that day, he bravely ventured out to offer assistance. This quality makes for a great law enforcement officer but is sadly the quality that we most often take for granted.

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Dan and to all first responders who are willing to put their lives on the line to assist those in times of need and a debt of gratitude to their families as well.

I know my colleagues in the Senate will join me in offering our thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of Corporal Groves and all those who defend that thin blue line.

As I have done too many times in this Chamber, I remember the words of LTC Dave Grossman, who said: ``American law enforcement is the loyal and brave sheep dog, always standing watch for the wolf that lurks in the dark.''

I drive by the spot where Corporal Groves was killed at least two or three times a week, and he will always be in my prayers, along with his family, for his sacrifice.

It is my hope that the thoughts and prayers that we offer to those who wear the blue uniform will bring them comfort as they carry out their solemn duties.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

And I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in support of Dan Domenico, the district judge we will be voting on shortly.

I strongly support Dan Domenico for the district court position in the District of Colorado. Dan has impeccable academic and legal credentials. A native Coloradan, he is well known and well respected throughout the entire Colorado legal community. These characteristics make him very well suited to be on the bench.

A native of Boulder, CO, Dan received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and his juris doctorate from the University of Virginia--it has been a good week for the University of Virginia: a new Federal judge and a national championship--where he graduated order of the coif and was the editor of the law review.

After law school, Dan joined the respected firm of Hogan & Hartson and then clerked for Judge Tim Tymkovich, who is now the chief judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following his clerkship, Dan continued his public service as a Special Assistant to the Solicitor in the U.S. Department of the Interior. There, he advised the Secretary and the Department on matters related to national parks, fish and wildlife, Bureau of Land Management issues, and Indian affairs. These are all areas that matter a great deal to Colorado and the West.

Dan was then appointed to be the solicitor general for the State of Colorado. While he was the youngest person tapped for the position, he then became the longest serving solicitor general in our State's history, holding the position for 9 years. As solicitor general, Dan represented the State in both State and Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. He oversaw all major litigation for the State, and he provided legal advice to the Governor and State agencies.

Dan is currently the founding and managing partner at the Kittredge LLC, where he represents clients in high-stakes, complex litigation and appeals. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Denver's College of Law, where he teaches courses in natural resources law and constitutional law.

As impressive as this background is, it is also an insight into the type of judge Dan would be. I am particularly struck by Dan's service as the Colorado solicitor general.

While the Democratic leader may object to Dan Domenico, two Democratic Governors in Colorado did not. In fact, they kept his service. In fact, Dan served as solicitor general for the State of Colorado during one Republican Governor and two Democratic Governors. He served, regardless of party, with competence and zeal. That is what the Colorado legal community would tell anyone who wishes to listen. His approach to the legal issues he confronted was the same regardless of the party in power. He looked to the law. And that is what we expect in every judge. That is what Colorado wants. That is what our country needs. We need experienced practitioners who are respected by their peers and who will faithfully apply the law regardless of politics or place in life. That is what I believe Dan will do, and that is why I enthusiastically support his nomination and hope my colleagues will follow suit as well.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Yes, the statements Senator Cortez Masto and Senator McSally have made regarding the existing environmental compliance documents and actions contemplated in the DCP agreements and the Secretary's expected immediate implementation of those agreements once acted upon by the basin states are consistent with my understanding.

This legislation is an important steppingstone to helping assure the long-term sustainability of the Colorado River. It enables the seven Colorado River Basin States to take advantage of flexible water management tools they have created under the Upper and Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plans to address variable water supply conditions in the face of an almost two-decades-long drought that has no end in sight.

The Upper Basin Drought Contingency Plan involves planning for how to move water from the Initial Units of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, otherwise known as the CRSP Initial Units, to protect critical elevations at Lake Powell and subsequently recover storage at the Units. It also provides a mechanism for the upper basin to conserve water to help assure continued compliance with the Colorado River Compact which will improve the resiliency of the entire Colorado River System. In the Upper Basin DCP, the ``applicable Colorado River System reservoirs'' include and are limited to the Initial Units of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, which include the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Aspinall, and Navajo facilities.

This legislation enables the goals of the DCP to be met by authorizing the storage and release of water in CRSP initial units, without charge, for a demand management plan approved by the Upper Division states and the Upper Colorado River Commission. This water will be delivered into such storage pursuant to the law of, and at the direction and control of, the State from which the water is delivered, subject to approval of the Upper Colorado River Commission. Development of the Demand Management Plan, which will include water accounting mechanisms and other operational factors, will require hard work by all four upper basin States, but once completed will be a critical tool for these states to improve their water security.

I ask Senator Bennet, who has been involved throughout the development of this bill, does he agree with my characterization?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete the full duration of my remarks.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize a great citizen of the State of Colorado and a dear friend of mine, Sam Mamet. Sam is retiring at the end of March after 40 years of working with the Colorado Municipal League. CML is an organization that is dedicated to representing the best interests of cities and towns throughout the State of Colorado.

In 1979, shortly after receiving a master's in public administration from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Sam began his tenure at CML. For 26 years, he worked diligently to make sure that local communities had the proper tools to better serve themselves.

In 2005 he was appointed executive director of the organization. From this unique position, Sam was at the forefront of developing the organization's policies and executing vital programs with the overarching purpose of helping those who oversee communities become more effective leaders. It is clear to the people of Colorado that Sam has excelled in this position from day one.

It is unlikely you will find someone in Colorado government or politics who doesn't know Sam or hasn't worked with Sam, and there is no shortage of recognition for the incredible work he has done. If you need proof, you can look through the abundance of awards he has received, including a lifetime achievement award from the Colorado City & County Management Association earlier this year. It is also not surprising that Sam has his own day, Sam Mamet Day, on February 4, which was dedicated by the city of Greenwood Village as a thank-you for his years of sincere dedication to them. These are just a few of the many examples of appreciation that showcase the passion and zeal Sam has for the cities and communities across our great State.

I can't stress enough how Colorado communities have benefited and how the State of Colorado has benefited from the work of Sam Mamet. His years of persistence and dedication in his work have had a tremendous and monumental impact. His work transcends beyond partisanship, and I think that is the most important thing to talk about. When you see Sam Mamet, you don't think of left or right or red or blue. You see nonpartisanship in the work he does.

He cautions leaders to avoid demeaning an issue or individual on the other side, something so important in today's political environment, and to focus more on cultivating policies that will simply benefit each and every community based on the specific needs and requirements of the people. We need more leaders like Sam.

Sam has long believed public service is the highest calling. He recognizes the gravity the position holds and why it is so important that public servants are given the tools necessary to better the streets and neighborhoods and communities they belong to. This is what each and every citizen expects of their leaders and what he has dedicated his life to accomplish.

``Empowered Cities and Towns, United for a Strong Colorado,'' is CML's vision statement, and Sam is the embodiment of these words. Each and every day he worked to give the cities and towns around him the tools and knowledge to empower them, and for 40 years he helped to unite a stronger Colorado. While CML and the local municipalities they serve will be losing an exceptional, talented, and impassioned civil servant, I have every confidence Sam will continue to better the lives of the people of Colorado in his work going forward.

On a personal note, there are many times when Sam and I were on the same side of an issue and were able to work together and accomplish great things. There were also times when Sam and I were on opposite sides of an issue, and some of my most glorious defeats were at the hands of Sam Mamet. As legislation went down in flames of glory, thanks to work he was able to lead, I never took it personally because Sam Mamet never took it personally. I remember meeting Sam through my father and his work on the city council years ago. When a leader like Sam steps down, he will be missed. He has big shoes to fill, but I know Kevin Bommer, the next executive director, will do an outstanding job.

I know we all wish for Sam to stay involved in his next endeavors that will continue to benefit our great people of Colorado. Thank you.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I want to recognize Junior Achievement USA, who are celebrating their 100th anniversary this year. In 1919, Junior Achievement opened its doors to young people, with the simple goal of helping students succeed in their future careers. This was accomplished by helping students develop skills necessary to make smart choices in their academic and economic futures.

Junior Achievement strives to positively impact students by providing skills centered on financial literacy, work readiness, and entrepreneurship. They focus on preparing tomorrow's workforce by bridging the gap between traditional education and the obtaining of career skills and competencies needed to succeed beyond a student's high school years. Junior Achievement provides classroom programs, capstone educational experiences, and entrepreneurship summits, all while partnering with companies who value relevant hands-on learning.

Headquartered in Colorado Springs, Junior Achievement impacts a diverse population in all 50 States. Today Junior Achievement USA reaches almost 5 million students in over 22,000 classrooms across the country. It employs nearly 1,600 people and approximately 250,000 volunteers help inspire students along the way.

Throughout its history, Junior Achievement USA has had an impact on more than 110 million students, making them one of the Nation's most accomplished organizations dedicated to providing young people the skills necessary to plan for the future and create their own economic success. We need more organizations like Junior Achievement that work to empower young people and help them recognize the opportunities and realities of life and work in the 21st century. Junior Achievement USA has and will continue to be valued and appreciated for their significant contributions to the State of Colorado and to the country as well.

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

Madam President, today we are making some great progress on a bill that is very important to so many Members in this Chamber and particularly important to the American people--a public lands package that, in some cases, has taken years for these bills to process through the Senate and hopefully are on their way to passage in the House and to the President's desk.

For 4 years, since being in the Senate, I have worked to permanently reauthorize the crown jewel of our conservation programs, and we are about to have that crown jewel success, permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--the passage of the public lands bill. The Senate will finally take an up-or-down vote and move forward on permanent authorization of LWCF.

I have championed this program with so many of my colleagues in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats. It is time for this body to act and make sure that we do what is right for the people of Colorado and beyond with this reauthorization.

This program has an incredible direct impact on public lands in Colorado and will be used to protect our State's amazing natural beauty for generations to come.

Outdoor recreation opportunities in Colorado abound. The outdoor recreation opportunities in Colorado make it the destination for recreation, for adventure, for opportunity. You can hike in the summer, hunt in the fall, ski in the winter, raft in the spring. We have it all.

Those activities and more have led to an incredible outdoor economy that is booming like never before. It generates the outdoor economy. It generates something like $28 billion in consumer spending in the State and $2 billion in State and local tax revenue. That is people coming in to camp, to hunt, to fish, to ski--incredible employment opportunities. Up to 230,000 people in Colorado alone are employed in the outdoor recreation economy.

We don't just have this economy by chance. We have it because of our public lands and the extensive efforts that so many in this Chamber have undertaken over the years to conserve them in a condition that the next generation will also get to enjoy.

One of our best tools to conserve and protect the public's lands has lapsed, though--it goes back to the very beginning of our conversation today--the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It has been over 100 days since the Land and Water Conservation Fund expired, a fund, a program, a conservation tool that has broad bipartisan support. It is an access program. LWCF is an access program. It is there to sustain access to land that may otherwise be cut off from public enjoyment, to provide access to land that has been closed off to recreationists, to environmentalists. The opportunities we have to enjoy this land, the LWCF restores.

In the days leading up to the expiration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a report was published by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and it published some figures on public land acreage that is inaccessible to the American public.

It identified over 9.5 million acres in the Western United States alone that is inaccessible to the public because of the surrounding public lands; that is, 9.5 million acres of land that belongs to the American people that the American people have no access to because it is surrounded.

The Land and Water and Conservation Fund is used to help give access to land that the American people already own, to enjoy, to benefit from, to create economic opportunities, and, more importantly, to create the opportunity just to be in our amazing, wonderful outdoors.

In Colorado alone, there are over 250,000 acres that are closed off to the public. These are 250,000 acres of publicly held lands that are closed off because you don't have access.

That translates into just shy of 400 square miles of public land in Colorado--basically, the same amount of land of the entire Rocky Mountain National Park--that can't be used to hike, to hunt, and to fish, even though it belongs to the American people to hike, to hunt, to fish, to think, to hope, to dream, to plan, to resolve. They are those things that we admire and need our public lands for--the opportunity to think, to hope, to admire, to plan, to rest, to resolve.

Since its creation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided more than $258 million in support for Colorado public lands projects. Again, the opportunity to have this permanent reauthorization today is incredible. It is supported by this Chamber, and it is supported, certainly, by people across the political spectrum in Colorado. It is a great day for Colorado. It is a great day for public lands.

I want to show and share some of the incredible beauty we are talking about. This is a picture of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park in Colorado. You can see the Gunnison River through the canyon, and you can see the rim of the canyon. If you go to the next shot, though, you will see some of the land that was purchased by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. You can see the top of the rim looking down over the river.

The top of the canyon was owned by a family. It was privately held land. They could have sold it off. They could have developed the land. You can see Bruce Noble, the park superintendent, pointing at the rim of the canyon, the land that was purchased using Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars. That land belonged to a family that, thanks to LWCF, was purchased and held for the National Park Service so

that it doesn't risk development and we don't risk losing access and so that somebody is not going to put barriers to access this incredible majestic place. You see that land right there, and that is just one example of how important the Land and Water Conservation Fund is.

The Black Canyon LWCF purchase was about 2,494 acres. Imagine that-- private land, nearly 2,500 acres of land, held within the national park, that could have been sold off to a developer. Imagine what could have happened. But this land allows us to continue to have access to gold medal fly fishing on the Gunnison River. It creates potential opportunities for the National Park Service to provide more family- friendly hiking closer to the visitor center, and it serves as a potential source of water to the South Rim, which will reduce the operational costs of hauling water to meet visitor and staff need. It was a win for everyone--for the family who wanted to sell their land but not have it developed and certainly for the American people, who now have an incredible addition to their national park.

If we go to the next picture. This next picture is a picture in the distance of the Great Sand Dunes National Park. You can see the light- colored sand at the foot of the mountain range. There is a 12,000-acre ranch, the Medano Zapata Ranch, which borders the sand dunes on three sides. These are some of the highest sand dunes in North America. It has been bought by the Nature Conservancy, one of the great conservation partners of the LWCF, and it is going through the process to be incorporated into the park by using Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars.

This is so important. This access with this purchase is so important because it will help us to have access, once again, to existing public lands, keeping these incredibly beautiful working lands conserved for healthy wildlife habitat.

This is an inholding purchase. Inholding purchases are not the only way LWCF benefits the outdoors, however. The National Park Service, through LWCF State and local assistance programs, provides matching grants for State and local park projects that aren't inside the national park borders.

LWCF isn't just about our forests, either, or BLM land, or national parks. It is also about local parks, bike trails, playgrounds--these little slices of Heaven among concrete and the chaos that provide us that respite in our daily lives to plan, to hope, to think, and to rest.

In addition to the permanent reauthorization of LWCF, this package includes legislation that I supported, authored, and worked very hard the last several years to be included.

For Colorado, it includes the Crags, Colorado Land Exchange Act. This will allow us and the U.S. Forest Service to have better access to the Barr Trail, working to allow greater public use of their public lands.

The Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act. In Congress, when we have legislation like this, sometimes our colleagues, particularly in the East, don't necessarily have this problem that they are dealing with each and every day. We have a community in the mountains where their water supply goes through a wilderness area. As a result, you can't take mechanized, motorized equipment to fix this water project, this waterway. So Congress has to pass a bill to allow this city to have the ability to fix its water system. That is exactly what we do in the Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act. The 1980 Holy Cross Wilderness Area didn't address this problem. Here we are, nearly 40 years later, addressing this challenge and allowing the community to move forward to fix its water system.

We included in this legislation a bill to update the map and modify the maximum acreage available for inclusion in the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. The park is currently restricted--this incredible national monument--to 6,000 acres. However, somebody wanted to give some of their land to the national monument. So we have added 280 acres of land to this incredible national monument.

We have reauthorized the Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This was originally created in 1988, over concern for four endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River. The Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Program has been extended multiple times over the last 30 years, most recently in 2013. It is a science-based, basin-wide approach to make sure that we recover these species and to make sure that this program has taken to preclude any lawsuits being filed, despite the diverse stakeholder group involved. This legislation will extend the authorization of the program through 2023.

It also creates a feasibility study to look into whether or not we should designate Amache, the site of a Japanese-American internment site in southeastern Colorado, as a national park. During World War II, tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were wrongfully removed from their homes and held in internment centers. One such internment center, located in the eastern plains of Colorado, near the town of Granada, and that became known as Amache, was designated as a national historic landmark in 2005. This internment site is the best preserved among the entire system of internment sites that were used during World War II. To name this a national park--to have that recognition--is an important reminder of a very dark period in our history that we would never repeat the internment of Japanese-Americans. This is a study to do just that.

I have also been part as cosponsor and original sponsor of other legislation: the Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act and the Fowler and Boskoff Peaks Designation Act. Charlie Fowler and Christine Boskoff, who tragically lost their lives in China in an avalanche in 2006, were world-renowned climbers. We are naming two peaks after them in Colorado.

This bill authorizes a feasibility study for the Pike National Historic Trail.

It authorizes a bill that we worked on with Senator Cantwell--the Wildfire Management Technology Advancement Act of 2017, a bill designed to protect men and women in firefighting from harm and injury and to give them greater tools on the behavior of fire.

Every single one of these bills in the package has undergone extensive public review in the Senate and the House. They have gone through a lot of legislative process.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for getting to this moment as we pass this very critically important piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for this opportunity to come to the floor to talk about what this Chamber needs to do, along with the House and the President, to get this government reopened and to fund border security, something that all Americans agree on--that we can walk and chew gum at the same time; that we can multitask; that we can find a way to fund priority spending on the border; and that we can find a way to fund 800,000 government employees, including 53,000 Federal employees in my home State of Colorado.

In 2014, I was elected to the Senate. In November of 2014, we were dealing with a question of whether the government would shut down. In fact, the first issue we were asked in the new Congress as we headed back into session was this: Would there be a looming shutdown over immigration? That was not in 2018 or 2019. That was actually in 2014. Here is what I said then:

There's no time, place, or purpose of a government shutdown

or default. That's simply ridiculous and something that a

mature governing body doesn't even contemplate. We ought to

make it very clear that that's simply not acceptable.

I said that in 2014; I echoed it in December 2018; and I stand on the floor today sharing the same belief, sentiment, and value.

We need border security in this country. We need to have barriers and structures on the border where it makes sense, as the President has said. He has made a reasonable request to put in place border security.

We also have a responsibility to the people of this country to govern responsibly. That means not jeopardizing our economy, not jeopardizing the firefighters in Colorado who can't go to training right now because the government is shut down.

My home State lost hundreds of homes last year due to wildfires. Think about the catastrophes in California and across the West last year. Firefighters from around the country were called to do heroic things and save entire towns, yet those training services, classes, and tools they need for a fire season that could start at any time are being denied--training and classes that they need to save their own lives, to save other lives, and to protect our land.

We have farmers who are trying to get production loans right now. They can't get their production loans through certain offices because of the shutdown. Farming is not good right now, and prices are so low right now that people are struggling. I talked to a farmer in Colorado yesterday. He doesn't know what the bank is going to say to him on Friday, tomorrow, when he goes in, and he can't get ahold of anybody at the USDA because of the shutdown.

We need border security. That is why I voted for both measures today--the $5.7 billion for border security and the continuing resolution proposal that contains the President's 2018 border security proposal. Both measures included border security.

We can do this. It is not that difficult. It shouldn't be a challenge to govern responsibly. Shutdowns aren't the solution. Walking and chewing gum at the same time shouldn't be so difficult, and I hope this Chamber will come to its senses, along with our House colleagues and the White House, to move forward.

Mr. President, to my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, we will challenge the Clemson Tigers to the NCAA skiing championship anytime.

I rise to speak about the bill we are working on today, S. 1, Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act.

I am proud to be a sponsor of this legislation, along with Senator Rubio and Senator Risch. I commend Chairman Risch for working with the majority leader in attempting to move this important legislation and effort without delay.

I think it is important to recognize that this bill combines four noncontroversial pieces of legislation from the 115th Congress that are intended to support our strong allies, Israel and Jordan, and to impose sanctions against the gross human rights abuses of the Assad regime in Syria.

We have no stronger ally in the Middle East than the State of Israel. Israel has proven itself to be a resilient beacon of democratic values, despite facing existential threats daily since its founding in 1948.

Our two nations have worked closely to fight terrorism, to stop the spread of radical Islamist extremism, and to prevent nuclear and chemical weapons proliferation by rogue regimes, such as Syria and Iran. The legislation before us today simply reaffirms our strong support for Israel, including $3.3 billion per year in annual U.S. security assistance, consistent with the 10-year U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding, which was signed in 2016 by President Obama.

In the 115th Congress, 72 Senators--72 Senators, Republicans and Democrats--cosponsored this legislation. It passed in the Senate unanimously on August 1, 2018. There is no reason why my colleagues across the aisle should not support this legislation today--no reason-- in order to show our strong bipartisan support to our friend and ally, Israel, at a time of great need.

This package also includes provisions supporting State governments that have taken action against the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic movement known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, or BDS. To date, 26 States--including my home State of Colorado--have adopted laws or executive orders against BDS. This legislation before us today simply endorses those decisions and clarifies that these measures adopted or enforced by a State or local government are not preempted by any Federal law if they comply with the requirements in the legislation.

This anti-BDS legislation had 48 bipartisan cosponsors in the 115th Congress. There is no reason it should not be passed with bipartisan support today.

BDS is a vile movement--a vile movement--and should be vociferously opposed by Republicans, Democrats, and everyone alike. This is why, on December 20, I led a letter, with 14 of my Senate colleagues, to the majority leader and the minority leader to take immediate action against BDS.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

In that letter, we asked for immediate bipartisan response against BDS, including moving today's legislation forward. In that letter, we quote the minority leader, Senator Schumer, when he spoke at the annual American-Israel Public Affairs Committee conference just this past March. Less than a year ago, here is what Senator Schumer told the audience at AIPAC on March 5, 2018:

[W]e must continue to stand firm against the profoundly

biased campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel through

[boycotts, divestment, and sanctions].

While Iran publicly executes its citizens, Turkey jails its

journalists, scores of Arab nations punish homosexuality with

imprisonment and torture, why does BDS single Israel out

alone for condemnation?

When there is such a double standard, when the world treats

everybody one way and the Jew or the Jewish State another

way, there's only one word for it: anti-Semitism. Let us call

out the BDS movement for what it is. Let us delegitimize the

delegitimizers by letting the world know when there is a

double standard. Whether they know it or not, they are

actively participating in an anti-Semitic movement.

Those are the words of the Democratic minority leader in March of 2018. I completely agree with Senator Schumer. Yet today I understand that he and Members of his caucus plan to vote against the motion to proceed on bipartisan legislation that would condemn BDS. It is regrettable. It is unfortunate. It is horrible.

It is also part of a new and disturbing trend that we see from some of our colleagues in the Democratic caucus. As we noted in our letter, several Members of the House of Representatives have now publicly endorsed BDS and have not been condemned by Senator Schumer and other Democratic leaders. We saw the manifestation of this dangerous trend 2 days ago, when a Democratic Representative issued a statement alleging that the Senators who introduced the bill before us today, myself included, forget what country they represent. This is a reprehensible charge of dual loyalty utterly unbefitting of a sitting Member of Congress, and we all need to come together to condemn such vile insinuations.

I am glad to see that respected, nonpartisan organizations, like the American Jewish Committee, AJC, have now issued strong statements rebuking this Democratic Member of Congress.

The AJC statement reads in part:

AJC is outraged at the tweet posted by [the Representative]

that U.S. senators who had introduced Israel-related

legislation ``forgot what country they represent.''

That assertion, which completely avoids legitimate debate

about the content of the bill itself, insinuates that a

number of respected, long-serving senators are somehow more

loyal to Israel than they are to the United States.

The charge evokes classical anti-Semitic tropes about dual

loyalty--in this case applied to some lawmakers who are not

even Jewish--that have no place in our political discourse.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement from AJC dated January 7, 2019.

Mr. President, I believe this body can do different, so I ask my colleagues to put politics aside and vote yes on the motion to proceed to this legislation that will help enhance our national security and will take strong action against a reprehensible and racist movement known as BDS.

I know there are some who believe we should shut down the Senate because of the current funding situation in the Federal Government, but let me remind Members of this Chamber that in 2013, under Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, what was voted on during the shutdown in 2013--here it is--a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to take actions to implement the agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States concerning transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. Somehow, in 2013, it was OK to find time for that measure.

While complaining about finding time for other measures right now, during the shutdown in 2013, they found time to address the Security Clearance Oversight and Reform Enhancement Act. They found time for the Small Airplane Revitalization Act. They found time to ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial motor

vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding and for other purposes. Now they don't want to bring up anti-BDS legislation because we shouldn't be talking about anything else, but in 2013, they had time to vote on and to consider things like extending the period during which Iraqis who are employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq may be granted special immigrant status and temporarily increasing the fee or surcharge for processing machine- readable nonimmigrant visas.

I am not downplaying the importance of these bills. I am saying that there seems to be a significant double standard and a significant partisan double standard because what is being complained about today is the same thing that was fine in 2013--had time to vote on a couple of district judges as well, but now there is no time for that.

People are saying we shouldn't vote on this legislation until the government is funded. I have said it very clearly--we need to fund the government. What also needs to be very clear is how people will vote on this legislation, to not hide behind the shutdown how they would vote on anti-BDS legislation.

We have heard the rhetoric. We have heard the very real comments from not fictitious Members of Congress but from actual Members of Congress who support an anti-Semitic movement. We can condemn it today with a simple vote to proceed. If people don't want to take too much time to debate it, I think everybody knows that it is right to support an anti- BDS position. They know it is right to oppose Assad and his chemical attacks and the other torturous actions he has taken against his own people. It is a pretty simple vote on this motion to proceed--vote yes; support the underlying legislation. Bipartisan Members, Republicans and Democrats, just last year supported this legislation, voted for this legislation, and I hope they will not let partisan politics get in the way of doing what is right.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to honor our men and women in law enforcement. As Members of Congress and their staffs head home this holiday season, we must remember the sacrifice of those who make our communities safe, those who make our safety possible.

This year, across the United States, 143 law enforcement officers have paid the ultimate price.

In Colorado, we honor three fallen officers. We honor Deputy Sheriff Heath McDonald Gumm, whose final act was to bravely pursue an armed suspect. We will never forget the courage and bravery of his action. We honor Deputy Sheriff Micah Lee Flick, who was killed in the line of duty in February of this year after serving in the El Paso County Sheriff's Office for 11 years. We also honor the memory of Sergeant Matthew Moreno, who was killed in the line of duty in Las Animas County just last week. He was responding to reports of domestic violence when his cruiser and that of another officer's crashed into a civilian's vehicle that was headed in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, the occupants of the other vehicle, including a 1-year-old child, also lost their lives.

The pain of losing loved ones this close to the holidays is unimaginable.

Sergeant Moreno ends his watch after having served honorably for 5 years. He is survived by his loving family, including his three beautiful children, Summer, Morgan, and Jared. He has been described as being a superhero to his kids. It seems very fitting given the bravery that he showed throughout his career. He is also remembered for his sense of humor and his love for hunting and fishing--something all Coloradans can relate to. Our prayers are certainly with Sergeant Moreno's family and with the families of those in the other vehicle. I also offer my sincere condolences to the entire Las Animas County Sheriff's Department. The officers have not just lost a fellow officer but a brother.

All of the officers whom we lost this year were neighbors, beloved family members, and extraordinary Coloradans who gave their lives to protect their communities. Although the need is great, so few of us are blessed with the level of bravery and courage shown each and every day by the men and women in law enforcement.

As we all enjoy the warmth of this holiday season, law enforcement officers around the country will stand guard in cold and uncertain streets. This includes the selfless men and women who serve right here in the U.S. Capitol, who work through the holidays to ensure that every American who visits the Nation's Capitol can do so safely. It is important that we keep them in our thoughts as we gather with family and friends this holiday season to celebrate.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the families of these brave men and women whose sacrifices must not be forgotten. They endure time apart from their loved ones so that families, like millions across this country, will know peace and security during their holiday celebrations.

When thinking about the brave men and women who defend that thin blue line, I am always reminded of the words of LTC Dave Grossman, who said, ``American law enforcement is the loyal and brave sheepdog--always standing watch for the wolf that lurks in the dark.'' It is my hope that the thoughts and prayers we all offer to those who wear the blue uniform will bring them comfort as they carry out this solemn duty. I am thankful for their service and thankful to their families for their continued sacrifice.

I am also reminded of the words of Joe Rice, a former State legislator in Colorado, with whom I served. He served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and wrote how he prays for his fellow soldiers and their safety each and every day by saying and praying:

For all of those around the world in harm's way, we pray

with you. Please God, just not today.

Each and every day, we echo that same prayer.

Thank you to the men and women in blue.

I also thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, for allowing me to speak out of turn. I greatly appreciate it.

I thank the Presiding Officer for taking the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 2736.

The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2736) entitled

``An act to develop a long-term strategic vision and a

comprehensive, multifaceted, and principled United States

policy for the Indo-Pacific region, and for other

purposes.'', do pass with an amendment.

Motion to Concur

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate a momentous bipartisan achievement--this bill that we just passed for our Nation's foreign policy.

Shortly, we will send this legislation, now--after its passage--to the President's desk: Gardner-Markey, also known as the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act.

I first want to thank an incredible partner throughout this entire effort,

Senator Markey and his staff, for their incredibly hard work on this bill and their efforts to get this bill over the finish line. I believe we have set a strong example of how major foreign policy can be accomplished in a very thorough and bipartisan fashion, and I look forward to our next effort together.

I also want to thank Senators Cardin and Rubio and their staffs, as well, for early and consistent support on this effort.

Thanks go to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Corker, the ranking member, Bob Menendez, and their staffs for helping to shepherd this effort through the Foreign Relations Committee, where ARIA passed unanimously on September 26, 2018.

I want to thank and extend my gratitude to the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and his staff for their hard work to pass this bill through the House of Representatives with only minimal changes, by voice vote, last week.

Leader McConnell and his staff took an early interest in this effort, and it could not have been done without their support.

I am grateful to Leader Steny Hoyer, the chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, and Representative Illeana Ros-Lehtinen for their support.

Nearly 2 years in the making, the Gardner-Markey ARIA Initiative will establish a generational, multifaceted, and principled U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific region, a region that is vital for U.S. national security and economic interests. ARIA is important because the Indo- Pacific is home to half of the world's population, half of the world's GDP, the world's largest standing armies, and six U.S. defense treaty allies.

The security and economic future of the United States depends on having the right policies to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific. Therefore, the Gardner-Markey ARIA establishes and provides new resources for a long-term strategy to enhance security cooperation with our allies and establishes the Asia-Pacific security initiative.

It promotes American businesses through trade opportunities, projects American values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the Indo-Pacific. It is a bill designed to drive U.S. leadership as other powers turn to economic colonialism.

Starting in June 2017, Senator Markey and I have held over five hearings at the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee to inform this legislation. The hearings examined a range of national security, economic, and rule of law challenges in the Indo-Pacific and culminated in a final hearing with State Department and Department of Defense officials to allow the administration to express its views on ARIA.

We introduced ARIA on April 24 of this year with a bipartisan group that included Senators Rubio, Cardin, and Young. On June 21, we received a letter signed by Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Mattis formally endorsing ARIA. The letter states:

[We] value the ARIA legislation's reaffirmation of the

United States' security commitments to our Indo-Pacific

allies and partners. Furthermore, ARIA's focus on promoting

stronger regional economic engagement--and its support for

democracy, the rule of law, and the development of civil

society--is especially welcome as part of a diplomatically-

led whole-of-government approach to the Indo-Pacific region.

The Gardner-Markey ARIA passed the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously on September 26. It passed unanimously on the floor of the Senate on December 4, and the House passed ARIA by voice vote, as I mentioned, December 12.

This bill is a rare piece of bipartisan legislation that enjoys broad support in the Congress and the White House but is also strongly supported by the business community and policy experts.

On June 4, the Wall Street Journal editorial board endorsed ARIA, stating:

Congress is trying to help with the bipartisan Asia

Reassurance Initiative Act. . . . The Senate bill affirms

core American alliances with Australia, Japan, and South

Korea, while calling for deeper military and economic ties

with India and Taiwan. It notably encourages regular weapons

sales to Taipei.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also endorsed ARIA, stating:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Asia

Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018'' and thanks Senator

Gardner [and Markey] for [their] efforts to strengthen U.S.

strategic and economic relationships across the Indo-Pacific

region.

Particularly with regard to the legislation's economic

goals, we appreciate the bill's focus on closer trade ties,

stronger protections for intellectual property, and a renewed

focus on trade facilitation.

The Heritage Foundation wrote on December 6:

Don't look now, but a sweeping bill with bipartisan support

in Congress and the backing of the Trump administration is

one step closer to becoming reality. The Asia Reassurance

Initiative Act, introduced by Sen. Cory Gardner . . . along

with key cosponsors Ed Markey . . . and Marco Rubio . . .

passed the Senate on Wednesday. This was a welcome display of

leadership.

In these partisan times, the bill has garnered support from both current and former administration officials and experts across the political spectrum. As the Singapore-based Straits Times wrote on December 13:

Under the Obama administration, there was a big rhetorical

commitment to the Asia Pacific or Indo-Pacific region, but

the US ``just flat out did not readjust our resources in a

way that actually backed that up,'' said Dr. Lindsey Ford,

Director of Political-Security Affairs for the Asia Society

Policy Institute.

The ARIA marks an important start to rectifying that, she

said.

``The ARIA . . . if passed, would be probably one of the

most consequential pieces of funding legislation that has to

do with Asia, that US Congress would have passed in years,''

Dr. Ford told Straits Times.

When you have the Heritage Foundation and former Obama administration officials on the same page, you know we have done something right.

So again, I want to congratulate this body--truly the world's most deliberative Chamber, as this bill has proved--for this bipartisan victory, and I hope the President will sign this important bill into law shortly.

Again, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Markey, for his tremendous leadership on this.

I yield the floor to Senator Markey.

Mr. President, as my colleague from Utah knows, we offered the chance to vote on those two words tonight. The two words that he is asking for tonight we offered a chance to vote on.

Let me talk about this because I am pretty doggone upset because the people of Colorado tonight--who are worried about whether they can protect themselves from fire--lost the Wildfire Technology Act in this bill. That was in this bill--a bill that our committee heard, that our committee voted on, that it voted on with bipartisan support, probably unanimously. That was in this bill to protect our communities from wildfire and to protect our firefighters from injury--in this bill.

The other thing in this bill is Minturn, CO, which has a water system

over a wilderness area and which for years has been trying to fix it. They can't because it is in a wilderness area. So we have to have an act of Congress to allow the city to fix their water system. Rejected tonight because we weren't allowed to vote on it tonight.

And you bet the permanent Land and Water Conservation Fund is in here tonight because, guess what, it has the majority support of this body. If we had a vote on it tonight, it would have passed. Republicans and Democrats would have voted yes. It would have passed.

Not only that, we have boundary adjustments in here because people died, and they wanted to give it to the national monument. That is not controversial. Somebody wanted to do the right thing, and doggone it, we can't even vote on it here.

I give compliments to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who struck a deal. Yes, it was yesterday. We got the bill as fast as we could. And so many of these doggone pieces of legislation we have already heard. We had committee hearings on them, and we voted them out unanimously. Bipartisan support. We offered deal after deal after deal to try to get a deal arranged and made so that we could have a vote tonight.

Go tell the people of Minturn, CO, that they don't have a water system that they can fix because Congress has decided we are not going to allow that to come to a vote. Sportsmen back home--tell them we are not going to have a sportsmen's package because we decided not to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor for a vote.

When we come back to this body next year, we have an agreement--I believe that is correct; and I will defer to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that this will be one of the first actions this Chamber addresses. When that happens, there will be a chance to file cloture, there will be a chance for open debate, and we will have that vote. We will have it next year. There will be different leadership in the Senate, so different negotiations will have to take place, but I have no doubt that we will get this done.

It is frustrating to me that some of these bills have languished for year after year after year after year that received unanimous support out of committee.

I remember coming to this floor a year ago offering a unanimous consent agreement. It was objected to because somebody didn't get what they wanted, somebody else didn't get what they wanted, and somebody else didn't get what they wanted, so everything was objected to. It created a whole domino effect, so they said just wait for the lands package.

So here we are waiting for the lands package. We had a chance to do it. And we tried and tried and tried to make offer after offer to get something agreed to.

I have great respect for my colleague from Utah. We are a public lands State too. Yes, our agencies need to make better decisions about how they conserve that public land. The people of Colorado have great support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Great support. They would like to see it made permanent. I would like to see it made permanent. My guess is, next year, it will be made permanent.

Why can't we have a vote tonight? Why can't we have people who don't like it vote no and people who do like it vote yes? There is plenty of opportunity to do that tonight.

The people of Colorado expect this place to get its work done. The bills we have had have been through, negotiated in the House and Senate, many out of the committee with bipartisan support, if not unanimous. I guess the folks in Minturn will just have to wait one more Congress to get their water system fixed because this body couldn't agree to allow a vote. We wonder why people are sick of this place. It is because of that.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Sean McClintock, a congressional fellow in Senator Cotton's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4123.

I thank the Presiding Officer and Chairman Grassley. After much debate, disagreement, and compromise, this week the Senate is going to be taking up a bill that he has worked very hard to see through to this day, a criminal justice reform package.

The package that is on the floor today that we are debating and talking about amending shows the American people that bipartisanship remains alive in the U.S. Senate. Leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as the White House, should be commended for their admirable and persistent cooperation and determination on this legislation.

I believe the package's goals are noble. It is right to help those who have paid their debt to reenter society with the best possible chance to be productive contributors. It is right to take steps to ensure that sentences are fair and appropriately tailored to the defendant. It is right to calibrate the way we treat those in custody based on the risk they pose to society.

But being from Colorado, it is hard to think about Federal criminal justice reform without thinking about the biggest problem the Federal law creates for Colorado--the refusal to respect the will of Coloradans when it comes to their decision on marijuana. That is exactly what I am trying to do, is to create a debate so that we can address the conflict between State and Federal law.

Every day, Coloradans of good faith follow Colorado law to a T. Yet they are still criminals in the eyes of the Federal Government. Cancer patients who are using medical marijuana to control their pain and veterans who are using marijuana to alleviate the post-traumatic stress they suffer because they served their country--Federal law says they are criminals, even though they are perfectly legal within their rights under State law. The attempt we are making today is to fix the inconsistency between Federal and State law, to begin the debate, because the people don't think that they are criminals when they follow the law in Colorado. So we should change Federal law.

This disconnect doesn't affect just the industry's patrons or even the growers or retailers, for that matter; it also makes criminals of those outside of the industry. As we are talking about criminal sentencing reform, we should be thinking about plumbers, electricians, bankers, landlords, real estate service providers, employment and advertising agencies, insurance companies, and HR services. All of the everyday businesses that interact with the marijuana industry--like they do any other part of our economy--are affected by Federal law too. That is because when they take money from a marijuana business, Federal law considers them money launderers, putting them at risk for both criminal liability and civil asset forfeiture.

That means the mother who moved to Colorado to treat her child who has epileptic conditions--severe epilepsy, thousands of seizures a month--moved to Colorado to treat her child with CBD oil, derived from the work we are doing on marijuana, which reduces those seizures from 1,000 a month to a few--6, 7, 8, or a dozen a month--that is illegal in the eyes of the Federal Government, putting her at risk for criminal liability and civil asset forfeiture.

The disconnect forces Colorado's $1.5 billion market back into the pseudo-shadows, where business is in hard-to-track cash--$1.5 billion in cash--inviting dangerous robberies and hindering law enforcement efforts to ensure that legal marijuana sales benefit legitimate businesses rather than illicit cartels. This is an effort to bring that $1.5 billion in Colorado alone out of those shadows. It also means that researchers can't test marijuana for medical efficacy to help better understand impairment, because those researchers fear the loss of Federal funding.

All of this flies in the face of what the Colorado people have chosen to do for themselves. Indeed, it flies in the face of the 33 States that have legalized some form of marijuana, including 10 that allow regulated adult use. This year alone, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Utah have passed laws establishing medical marijuana programs, and Michigan and Vermont have passed laws permitting regulated adult use. Wisconsin voters in 16 counties overwhelmingly passed advisory referenda supporting legalization.

Here is the chart. Look at this chart. Green on this chart represents the States that have legalized some form of marijuana, whether it is recreational, whether it is medical, whether it is CBD, or some kind of hemp product, cannabis. Look at the green on this map. Over 95 percent of the population in this country live in a State that have made legalization happen in some way, shape, or form.

Let's go to the list of the States. It is almost every State. Here are the States allowing some form of marijuana: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida--it goes on and on.

It is easier to say the three States that have not allowed it: Idaho, Nebraska, and South Dakota. They are the only three States that have not.

Recent polling from Quinnipiac shows that more than 60 percent of the American people support legalized marijuana, and 93 percent support medical marijuana. The American people have made up their minds. This is happening. Let's be clear. This isn't just happening in blue States, like California or Massachusetts, or purple States, like Colorado. It is happening in bold, deep red States like Utah, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. It is happening in swing States like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Missouri. The bedrock principle of our government expressed in the Declaration of Independence is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the government. As the Federal Government continues to ignore the will of the people, the people lose respect for the law. The Congress must respond because, one way or the other, the people of this country are having their say.

That is why Senator Warren and I are offering the STATES Act as an amendment to this criminal justice package before the Senate. The act is a simple, straightforward plan. Within certain basic Federal guardrails, conduct and compliance with State marijuana law will not violate the Controlled Substances Act. This legislation is the embodiment of federalism our Founders envisioned. It allows each State to move--if at all--at their own pace. It lets States like Colorado be the laboratory of democracy that American people have come to expect. But most importantly, it lets Colorado be Colorado, South Carolina be South Carolina, and Florida be Florida--and they all will have Federal prosecutors backing up whatever decision they make with respect to this decision.

The people of Colorado have made their decision already. I did not vote

for legalization in 2012. I did not support legalization, but I respect my State's decision. Its people know what is right for the State of Colorado. The decision that Colorado makes may not be right for the people of South Carolina or Florida. But their decision should be respected and supported by the Federal Government just like the decisions in every other State.

I am all for helping those who have paid their debt to society, but there are many for whom there should be no debt. That is why the STATES Act should be included in Federal criminal justice reform.

Let's close with this map. Over 95 percent of the population of the United States lives in a State where they have legalized some form of marijuana. Every State in green is a State that has legalized some form of marijuana. By the year 2022, this industry will be over $20 billion--all of which can't be in the banking system because it is against Federal law. And what happens when you force a $20 billion all- cash economy? I guess that is what we ought to be dealing with here today. This isn't just about banking; that is a side effect of the STATES Act. The STATES Act recognizes that Federalist principle that a State can decide this issue for itself. This amendment at this time recognizes that you shouldn't go to Federal prison for following State law. That, in its essence, is sentence and reform. If we had a chance to vote on this amendment today, the amendment would be germane. It would have a 50-vote threshold--a simple majority, up or down.

I know this amendment has the support of this body on both sides of the aisle to fix this conflict and allow the States to make their own decisions without the heavy hand of Washington telling them what to do.

I yield my time and will not give up this fight.