Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that will finally put an end to the separation of families at our southern border. I have believed from the outset that the administration was wrong to pursue a zero tolerance policy of family separation, which is cruel and detrimental to children and parents alike.

The President claimed to end this policy in June by executive order, but we have learned that the practice of separating families continues today. In fact, the separations may have been broader in scope than we previously knew.

Last year, the American people were rightly horrified when thousands of children, including babies and toddlers, were taken from their parents, to be separated for weeks and months. Dozens of these children spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum blankets.

In response, people from all walks of life--Republicans, Democrats, clergy, the medical community, business leaders, labor organizers-- stood up and

said, ``enough is enough.'' Average Americans spoke out, marched, and called their members of Congress pleading for us to stand up to the President and demand he reverse his policy.

But we still may not know the full scope of the harm that was caused. We still do not know just how many families were torn apart as a result of the zero tolerance policy.

Litigation has identified over 2,700 children who were separated from their parents by DHS, including nearly 100 children under the age of 5. However, in January the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found that ``this number does not represent the full scope of family separations.'' Indeed thousands--thousands--more children may have been separated from their parents in 2017, before the start of the accounting period required by the court.

We have also learned in recent weeks that this crisis is not over. Families are still being separated from one another.

In June, the Trump administration issued an executive order that ended the ``zero tolerance'' family separation policy. Despite that order, the practice of family separation did not end.

Instead, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services reported that separations are ongoing with little oversight or accountability. In fact, at least 118 children were separated from their parents between June 2018, when the executive order was issued, and early November.

These family separations could not have happened if Republicans had joined me and all Senate Democrats to pass the Keep Families Together Act last Congress. The Keep Families Together Act prohibits Border Patrol from separating children from their parents or legal guardians, without good cause.

Good cause is defined with a focus on the best interest of the child, and cannot be based on the parent's migration or crossing of the border. No separation can be made without consulting a child welfare specialist, and all presumptions are made in favor of family unity, including unity of siblings.

The Keep Families Together Act includes vital oversight mechanisms that will ensure that every child separated under the zero tolerance policy is accounted for. These include a requirement for DHS to publish transparent guidance on separations, as well as annual reporting requirements and a requirement for a GAO report on criminal prosecution of asylum seekers.

These are basic protections for children that should not be controversial. Parents who try to protect their children from violence and poverty abroad, should not be punished by having those children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration.

Instead, families should be kept together and given a fair chance to present their cases for asylum. The Keep Families Together Act will provide these fundamental necessities and protect children from further harm. We have a fresh start in a new Congress. It is time to make these vital protections a reality.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the ``Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act.'' This legislation would help implement a consensus-driven regional land management plan by directing the Bureau of Land Management to exchange land with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District in San Bernardino, California.

Before I continue, I would like to thank Senators Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell, as well as their staffs, for their hard work to move this bill forward last Congress. With their assistance, this legislation passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in August 2018 and was included in a bipartisan public lands package.

I thank Senator Murkowski for introducing a bipartisan lands package bill this Congress and including this legislation in it. I look forward to working once again with Senator Murkowski, as well as the newly designated Ranking Member, Senator Manchin, to maintain our momentum and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

I also would like to express my gratitude to Representative Paul Cook and his staff for their continuing work and collaboration on this legislation. Lastly, I welcome working with Representative Cook and Representative Aguilar who are cosponsoring companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Lastly, I thank Senator Harris for cosponsoring this legislation.

This bill is an excellent example of how smart, sustainable, land planning can be accomplished through interagency cooperation. Federal and State agencies, private industry, and municipalities representing mining, flood control, water supply, wildlife conservation, and other interests all came to the table to develop a land management plan that accounts for the array of land uses in this area.

The land exchange facilitated by this bill is broadly supported, including by: County of San Bernardino, City of Redlands, City of Highland, San Bernardino Water Conservation District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, East Valley Water District, Endangered Habitats League, CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, Robertson's Ready Mix, Inland Action.

This diverse group of entities formed the ``Wash Committee'' in 1993 to address mining and land management in the upper Santa Ana River wash area.

I applaud the Committee, along with federal, state and local stakeholders, for working together to develop a strategy for comprehensive land management planning for the area. This group has shown that through cooperation, it is possible to both protect the environment and support local business and community interests.

The land exchange between the San Bernardino Water Conservation District and the Bureau of Land Management will consolidate open space for conservation purposes and optimize the efficiency of mining operations and water conservation efforts.

The exchange will also set aside new land for conservation purposes near land already managed by BLM.

This bill will lead to increased habitat protection, groundwater recharge, and public access while allowing for the continued use of land and mineral resources.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act'' as soon as possible.

Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution in observance of ``National Trafficking and Modern Slavery Prevention Month.'' This resolution is meant to bring awareness to the worldwide scourge of human trafficking.

All of us, as Americans, must raise our awareness of this pernicious crime that often goes unnoticed and undetected in our communities. Human trafficking claims over 40 million victims globally. It has also created an estimated $150 billion global industry, an industry that affects every State in America.

Traffickers prey on vulnerable populations, like those in the juvenile justice system, and use physical and psychological techniques to control their victims behind closed doors: isolating them from the public, exploiting language and cultural barriers, and threatening victims with violence. These techniques often prevent victims from coming forward. All of us can do better in recognizing warning signs.

I have been heartened that recently, various private entities, such as hotels, the travel industry, and those in the convenience-store industry, have all come together to commit to training their employees to better detect human trafficking. In addition to raising awareness, January is also a month to renew our commitment to enforce, and enact, laws to help eradicate trafficking.

For example, in 2000, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which marked a strong commitment to prosecute human traffickers and better aid victims.

Last Congress, then-Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and I authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which was complemented by Senators Cornyn's and Klobuchar's Abolish Human Trafficking Act. Both of those bills update our trafficking laws to better aid victims.

Bipartisan members of Congress worked together to address this critical issue, and I am proud that both bills were signed into law last month.

Finally, in introducing today's resolution, I would like to thank Senators Grassley, Leahy, Cornyn, Klobuchar, Isakson, Markey, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Brown, Toomey, and Rubio for cosponsoring the resolution.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that would shield farmworkers from deportation and put them on a path to earned legal status and eventual citizenship.

By protecting farmworkers from deportation, this bill would achieve two goals: ensuring that hardworking immigrants don't live in fear and that California's agriculture industry has the workforce it needs to survive.

Under the Agricultural Worker Program Act, farmworkers who have worked in agriculture for at least 100 days in each of the past 2 years may earn lawful ``blue card'' status. Farmworkers who maintain blue card status for the next 3 or 5 years, depending on the total hours worked in agriculture, would be eligible to adjust to a green card or legal permanent residency. This would provide them with a path to citizenship.

Everywhere I travel in California, I hear from farmers, growers and producers from all industries--wine, citrus, fruit and tree nuts, dairy--that there aren't enough workers. Farm labor is performed almost exclusively by immigrants--fact that should surprise no one. In fact, over 90 percent of California's crop workers are immigrants, and half are unauthorized.

Despite their significant contributions to California's economy and communities, farmworkers are now a priority for deportation under this administration's shameful policies. We simply must protect the families who help put food on our tables. By providing a path to citizenship for these workers and their families, the Agricultural Worker Program Act will preserve our agricultural system. This bill will also protect vulnerable workers who should not have to live in fear of becoming easy enforcement targets.

It is time to get started on solutions for agricultural communities across the country. Law-abiding workers should not have to fear deportation, but should have a path to citizenship that recognizes their enormous contribution to American prosperity and society. Employers should not have to fear that their labor force will be unable to return to work as a result of deportation. The Agricultural Worker Program Act provides the security and stability for our farmworkers that is necessary to keep the industry strong.

I would like to thank Representative Lofgren in the House for working with me to introduce this legislation today in both chambers. I invite my colleagues in the Senate to join me in cosponsoring the bill and preventing the deportation of those who work so hard to put food on our tables.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that would shield farmworkers from deportation and put them on a path to earned legal status and eventual citizenship.

By protecting farmworkers from deportation, this bill would achieve two goals: ensuring that hardworking immigrants don't live in fear and that California's agriculture industry has the workforce it needs to survive.

Under the Agricultural Worker Program Act, farmworkers who have worked in agriculture for at least 100 days in each of the past 2 years may earn lawful ``blue card'' status. Farmworkers who maintain blue card status for the next 3 or 5 years, depending on the total hours worked in agriculture, would be eligible to adjust to a green card or legal permanent residency. This would provide them with a path to citizenship.

Everywhere I travel in California, I hear from farmers, growers and producers from all industries--wine, citrus, fruit and tree nuts, dairy--that there aren't enough workers. Farm labor is performed almost exclusively by immigrants--fact that should surprise no one. In fact, over 90 percent of California's crop workers are immigrants, and half are unauthorized.

Despite their significant contributions to California's economy and communities, farmworkers are now a priority for deportation under this administration's shameful policies. We simply must protect the families who help put food on our tables. By providing a path to citizenship for these workers and their families, the Agricultural Worker Program Act will preserve our agricultural system. This bill will also protect vulnerable workers who should not have to live in fear of becoming easy enforcement targets.

It is time to get started on solutions for agricultural communities across the country. Law-abiding workers should not have to fear deportation, but should have a path to citizenship that recognizes their enormous contribution to American prosperity and society. Employers should not have to fear that their labor force will be unable to return to work as a result of deportation. The Agricultural Worker Program Act provides the security and stability for our farmworkers that is necessary to keep the industry strong.

I would like to thank Representative Lofgren in the House for working with me to introduce this legislation today in both chambers. I invite my colleagues in the Senate to join me in cosponsoring the bill and preventing the deportation of those who work so hard to put food on our tables.

Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce the Mare Island Naval Cemetery Transfer Act, which would transfer control of the Mare Island Naval Cemetery from the City of Vallejo in California to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where it belongs.

The Mare Island Naval Cemetery is the oldest military cemetery on the West Coast. Opened in 1856, it was originally part of Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the first U.S. naval base established on the Pacific Ocean. The historic cemetery is the final resting place for 860 veterans and their loved ones, including three Medal of Honor recipients. Anna Arnold Key, the daughter of Francis Scott Key, is also buried there, next to her husband who fought in the War of 1812. After the base closed in 1996, the nearby City of Vallejo assumed control of the naval property and cemetery.

Unfortunately, the city doesn't have the necessary funds to properly care for the cemetery. The city is also ineligible for VA support since it's not part of the State or Federal government. The maintenance, therefore, is left to volunteers with limited resources who lack the expertise necessary to maintain this historic cemetery.

The cemetery has fallen into disrepair and is no longer a fitting tribute to the brave men and women buried there. Gravestones are toppled over, broken, or sinking into the ground. Plants and weeds are overgrown, and water is pooling due to the lack of proper drainage. The cemetery's current condition requires urgent action to restore the gravestones and grounds to a respectable condition. Our bill would accomplish this by transferring control to the VA's National Cemetery Administration.

The transfer would not only allow the VA to restore the cemetery, but also ensure it's maintained for future generations to pay their respects to the heroes buried there. I want to thank Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) for leading this effort in the House. Passing this bill would be a small, but important, token of our gratitude to the veterans to whom we owe so much.

Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce the Mare Island Naval Cemetery Transfer Act, which would transfer control of the Mare Island Naval Cemetery from the City of Vallejo in California to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where it belongs.

The Mare Island Naval Cemetery is the oldest military cemetery on the West Coast. Opened in 1856, it was originally part of Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the first U.S. naval base established on the Pacific Ocean. The historic cemetery is the final resting place for 860 veterans and their loved ones, including three Medal of Honor recipients. Anna Arnold Key, the daughter of Francis Scott Key, is also buried there, next to her husband who fought in the War of 1812. After the base closed in 1996, the nearby City of Vallejo assumed control of the naval property and cemetery.

Unfortunately, the city doesn't have the necessary funds to properly care for the cemetery. The city is also ineligible for VA support since it's not part of the State or Federal government. The maintenance, therefore, is left to volunteers with limited resources who lack the expertise necessary to maintain this historic cemetery.

The cemetery has fallen into disrepair and is no longer a fitting tribute to the brave men and women buried there. Gravestones are toppled over, broken, or sinking into the ground. Plants and weeds are overgrown, and water is pooling due to the lack of proper drainage. The cemetery's current condition requires urgent action to restore the gravestones and grounds to a respectable condition. Our bill would accomplish this by transferring control to the VA's National Cemetery Administration.

The transfer would not only allow the VA to restore the cemetery, but also ensure it's maintained for future generations to pay their respects to the heroes buried there. I want to thank Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) for leading this effort in the House. Passing this bill would be a small, but important, token of our gratitude to the veterans to whom we owe so much.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney, and Mike Thompson are introducing a House companion measure today as well.

I will be brief in explaining the reasons I support the bill, which I introduced with Senator Harris. The bill would transfer title to the Contra Costa Canal from the United States to Contra Costa Water District (``District''). The District has fully paid off

the capital debt for constructing the canal, so it is financially reasonable to transfer the 48-mile long canal to it. There is no known opposition to the bill, and several good reasons to support it.

The District would like to convert the existing open earthen canal to a closed pipe at an estimated cost to the district ratepayers of $650 million. The District understandably wants to take title to the facilities to have collateral for issuing bonds to cover the expense of the conversion.

There are a number of good reasons to convert the existing canal to a pipe:

First, 82 people have drowned in the earthen canal despite protective fencing in the 70 years since the Canal began operation. This is about a death per year on average, which would be completely prevented if the canal were converted into a pipe. Tragically, there was another drowning in the canal just last year.

A second reason is water conservation. Drought is always an issue in California, and water is becoming more and more expensive. About 6% of the canal's water is lost through evaporation and seepage. A pipeline would eliminate these losses.

A third reason is avoiding flood risk from the earthen canal. When the canal was built 70 years ago, much of the surrounding land was farming country, but more recently homes have been built around it. These homes are at risk from the types of floods that earthen canals periodically experience.

Finally, the 70-year old canal is nearing the end of its lifespan and needs a major facility upgrade or replacement. Replacement with a pipeline is the best option, for all the reasons set forth above.

Besides the advantages of the bill, there is no known opposition to it. The District has reached an MOU with East Bay Regional Parks District to continue the existing recreational uses of the adjoining parks it manages. In addition, the District has received letters of concurrence from the City Managers of Walnut Creek and Antioch regarding the smaller parks managed by the cities along the route of the existing canal. Like East Bay Regional Parks, these cities agree the bill would preserve the existing recreational uses of the adjoining lands.

The bill would not just transfer title to Contra Costa Canal, but would also authorize the transfer of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen, one of Contra Costa's diversion points from the Delta. This transfer will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility. As I understand it, because the bill will not affect the environmental management of the canal, and because the District has paid off its capital debt, the environmental groups NRDC and the Defenders of Wildlife will not oppose the bill.

In summary, this bill has no known opposition and good reasons to support. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney, and Mike Thompson are introducing a House companion measure today as well.

I will be brief in explaining the reasons I support the bill, which I introduced with Senator Harris. The bill would transfer title to the Contra Costa Canal from the United States to Contra Costa Water District (``District''). The District has fully paid off

the capital debt for constructing the canal, so it is financially reasonable to transfer the 48-mile long canal to it. There is no known opposition to the bill, and several good reasons to support it.

The District would like to convert the existing open earthen canal to a closed pipe at an estimated cost to the district ratepayers of $650 million. The District understandably wants to take title to the facilities to have collateral for issuing bonds to cover the expense of the conversion.

There are a number of good reasons to convert the existing canal to a pipe:

First, 82 people have drowned in the earthen canal despite protective fencing in the 70 years since the Canal began operation. This is about a death per year on average, which would be completely prevented if the canal were converted into a pipe. Tragically, there was another drowning in the canal just last year.

A second reason is water conservation. Drought is always an issue in California, and water is becoming more and more expensive. About 6% of the canal's water is lost through evaporation and seepage. A pipeline would eliminate these losses.

A third reason is avoiding flood risk from the earthen canal. When the canal was built 70 years ago, much of the surrounding land was farming country, but more recently homes have been built around it. These homes are at risk from the types of floods that earthen canals periodically experience.

Finally, the 70-year old canal is nearing the end of its lifespan and needs a major facility upgrade or replacement. Replacement with a pipeline is the best option, for all the reasons set forth above.

Besides the advantages of the bill, there is no known opposition to it. The District has reached an MOU with East Bay Regional Parks District to continue the existing recreational uses of the adjoining parks it manages. In addition, the District has received letters of concurrence from the City Managers of Walnut Creek and Antioch regarding the smaller parks managed by the cities along the route of the existing canal. Like East Bay Regional Parks, these cities agree the bill would preserve the existing recreational uses of the adjoining lands.

The bill would not just transfer title to Contra Costa Canal, but would also authorize the transfer of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen, one of Contra Costa's diversion points from the Delta. This transfer will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility. As I understand it, because the bill will not affect the environmental management of the canal, and because the District has paid off its capital debt, the environmental groups NRDC and the Defenders of Wildlife will not oppose the bill.

In summary, this bill has no known opposition and good reasons to support. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that prohibits the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons.

I will keep doing this every Congress. This legislation must constantly be before us until Republicans finally decide to join me in the effort to stop mass shootings. This legislation is not perfect. But it is part of the solution. We must start with reducing the supply of the weapons of war that are used to take the lives of our loved ones.

These last years have seen some of the worst gun-violence tragedies in our Nation's history. For example, on October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada, a gunman opened fire with multiple semi-automatic assault rifles that he had legally transformed into automatic weapons. He killed more than fifty people and left more than 500 wounded. Among the victims were mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters.

There was Kelsey Meadows, 28 years old, who after graduating from the University of California, Fresno, returned to her hometown of Taft, California to be a substitute teacher at her alma mater, Taft Union High School. She was described by the high school principal as ``smart, compassionate, and kind'' with a ``sweet spirit and a love for children.'' Her entire family and community were completely devastated. Kelsey could have been any of us, attending that concert.

My own daughter told me after the Las Vegas shooting that she was supposed to be in the city that evening, but her plans had to change. It was only a little more than a year before the Las Vegas shooting that we experienced what had then been the worst mass shooting in our nation's history. That was when 49 people, who were enjoying an evening of dancing with friends and loved ones, were massacred in Orlando, Florida. Victims in Orlando included 22-year old Luis Velma, who was working at Universal Studios on a Harry Potter ride.

There was also Eddie Justice, a 30-year old accountant who texted his mother from the shooting, telling her: ``Mommy I love you.'' ``In club they shooting.'' ``He has us.'' I encourage every member of this chamber to imagine receiving those text messages from their son or daughter.

And just six months before that, 14 people were killed and more than 20 were injured in San Bernardino, California at a work holiday party. Among the victims was a father of six. A mother of three. A woman who was eight when she and her mother left Vietnam for a better life in America. The youngest victim was 26, and the oldest was 60.

And we should never forget that on December 14, 2012, 20 children had their lives taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Children. This issue could not be more important for our children's future.

This past year we saw young men and women begin an incredible movement after the shooting that took place on February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. They are setting an example for all of us. Tens of thousands of students nationwide have taken to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our youngest generation has grown up hiding under their desks, and they have said, ``enough.''

Following their example, I encourage every member of this body to imagine dropping their young child off at school this morning, only to learn a few hours later that a gunman walked into that school and tried to kill as many people as possible. That is something we can prevent.

The deadly assault weapons used by the attackers in each of the devastating shootings I have mentioned would have been banned under the Assault Weapons Ban bill that I am introducing today. This bill helps keep us safer, while also protecting the rights of lawful gun owners.

It prohibits semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. This is the standard employed in my home state of California--and it works. The bill also prohibits bump-fire stocks, which, as we saw in Las Vegas, allow people to convert semi-automatic rifles to function like machine guns.

Importantly, our legislation further prohibits large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than ten rounds. It also has several technical updates to the bill that was introduced last Congress. Specifically, it bans stocks that are otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a weapon. Additionally, it prohibits assault pistols that weigh 50 ounces or more when unloaded, a provision which was originally part of the 1994 ban.

Finally, it bans assault pistol stabilizing braces and Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade assault weapons bans. Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by specifically exempting 2,258 firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes. It also exempts antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons. Moreover, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.

Opponents believe that this legislation impinges upon Second Amendment rights. I disagree. The Supreme Court expressly held in District of Columbia v. Heller that ``the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.'' The Court made clear that reasonable regulations are constitutional. This bill simply establishes reasonable regulations on what types of weapons may be sold and used. Individuals should not own nuclear weapons, they should not own rocket launchers, and they should not own military-style assault weapons.

In fact, a number of courts have considered challenges to assault weapons bans. To date, every court that has considered a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines has upheld the law. Mr. President, I believe very strongly that the most important duty that government has to its citizens is to protect the nation and the safety of its people. Now, I am under no illusions. I know that the gun lobby has a stranglehold on this building. I know we got 40 votes in 2013, and I know Republicans control the Senate today.

But I also know this was hard-fought in 1994, and we prevailed--with Republican support. It was a bipartisan vote.

I still believe that, at some point, my Republican colleagues will come together and realize that we can be a nation that protects its people from the savagery of these weapons.

I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the ``California Desert Protection and Recreation Act of 2019.''

This bill represents a decade-long collaborative effort between conservationists, the off-road vehicle recreational community, State and local governments, small businesses, and public utilities. Through this collaborative effort, we have developed a path forward to sustainably and comprehensively manage California's fragile desert resources.

Before I continue, I would especially like to thank Senators Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell, as well as their staff, for all of their hard work to move this bill forward last Congress. With their assistance, this legislation passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in October 2018 and was included in a bipartisan public lands package.

Despite the disappointing outcome of last Congress, we have come farther with this bill than ever before, and I look forward to working once again with Senator Murkowski, as well as the newly designated Ranking Member Joe Manchin, to maintain our momentum and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

I also would like to express my gratitude to Representative Paul Cook and his staff for their tremendous work and collaboration on this legislation over the past two years.

The California desert is as special as it is unique. Unlike many deserts in the world, our desert is abundant with plant and animal species, many of

which are only found in California. From the iconic Joshua Trees to the desert tortoise, big horn sheep, and scores of wildflowers, the beauty of the California desert is unrivaled.

I have heard from thousands of constituents who share a love for the peace and tranquility of this majestic area, such as young students from urban areas exposed to the desert for the first time and veterans returning home from warzones finding much-needed quiet in California's desert landscapes.

When I first came to Washington twenty-six years ago, Senator Alan Cranston asked me to assume the mantle and carry on his efforts to protect the desert by introducing and passing a desert protection bill.

Despite opposition, and even filibuster attempts, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 passed and was signed into law by President Clinton. Since then, we have all watched the unique desert plants, animals, and surrounding communities flourish, attracting visitors from around the world.

The 1994 bill permanently protected more than 7.5 million acres of pristine desert land in national parks and preserves, and I worked closely with President Obama in 2016 to designate three new desert National monuments that protected a further 1.8 million acres.

The original Desert Protection Act was a crowning achievement for desert conservation, establishing 69 new Wilderness areas, creating the Mojave National Preserve, and converting Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks. All told, we were able to protect, or increase protections for about 9.6 million acres.

I am proud to have been a part of these achievements for the desert, and I remain steadfast in my commitment to get this legislation across the finish line.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill represents the varied interests of desert stakeholders and balances the many uses of the California desert. I'll highlight some of what's in the bill now.

The bill designates approximately 375,500 acres of wilderness, including eight new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness areas.

It expands Death Valley National Park Wilderness by approximately 88,000 acres and adds 7,141 acres to the San Gorgonio Wilderness within San Bernardino National Forest.

This bill also expands Joshua Tree National Park by 4,518 acres and Death Valley National Park by approximately 35,292 acres. The additions to Joshua Tree National Park include 1,600 acres donated by the Mojave Desert Land Trust.

The legislation also officially designates six existing Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas totaling 200,580 acres to provide certainty that these recreational uses will be protected and maintained in a manner similar to conservation areas.

Two more additions are the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County and the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area in Imperial County. The Alabama Hills National Scenic Area preserves 18,610 acres for continued recreation and conservation. The Vinagre Wash Special Management Area covers approximately 81,800 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to provide for wilderness preservation, vehicular use on designated routes, and limitations on extractive uses of the land within the management area.

Lastly, this bill designates 77 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve and protect California's desert.

Considering our progress and bipartisan efforts last Congress, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward as quickly as possible.

This bill represents years of collaborative work and the interests of a wide variety of groups and communities with the shared goal of protecting and sustainably managing California's desert. This area is a true national treasure, and I look forward to continuing our work to protect it for generations to come.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that prohibits the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons.

I will keep doing this every Congress. This legislation must constantly be before us until Republicans finally decide to join me in the effort to stop mass shootings. This legislation is not perfect. But it is part of the solution. We must start with reducing the supply of the weapons of war that are used to take the lives of our loved ones.

These last years have seen some of the worst gun-violence tragedies in our Nation's history. For example, on October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada, a gunman opened fire with multiple semi-automatic assault rifles that he had legally transformed into automatic weapons. He killed more than fifty people and left more than 500 wounded. Among the victims were mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters.

There was Kelsey Meadows, 28 years old, who after graduating from the University of California, Fresno, returned to her hometown of Taft, California to be a substitute teacher at her alma mater, Taft Union High School. She was described by the high school principal as ``smart, compassionate, and kind'' with a ``sweet spirit and a love for children.'' Her entire family and community were completely devastated. Kelsey could have been any of us, attending that concert.

My own daughter told me after the Las Vegas shooting that she was supposed to be in the city that evening, but her plans had to change. It was only a little more than a year before the Las Vegas shooting that we experienced what had then been the worst mass shooting in our nation's history. That was when 49 people, who were enjoying an evening of dancing with friends and loved ones, were massacred in Orlando, Florida. Victims in Orlando included 22-year old Luis Velma, who was working at Universal Studios on a Harry Potter ride.

There was also Eddie Justice, a 30-year old accountant who texted his mother from the shooting, telling her: ``Mommy I love you.'' ``In club they shooting.'' ``He has us.'' I encourage every member of this chamber to imagine receiving those text messages from their son or daughter.

And just six months before that, 14 people were killed and more than 20 were injured in San Bernardino, California at a work holiday party. Among the victims was a father of six. A mother of three. A woman who was eight when she and her mother left Vietnam for a better life in America. The youngest victim was 26, and the oldest was 60.

And we should never forget that on December 14, 2012, 20 children had their lives taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Children. This issue could not be more important for our children's future.

This past year we saw young men and women begin an incredible movement after the shooting that took place on February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. They are setting an example for all of us. Tens of thousands of students nationwide have taken to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our youngest generation has grown up hiding under their desks, and they have said, ``enough.''

Following their example, I encourage every member of this body to imagine dropping their young child off at school this morning, only to learn a few hours later that a gunman walked into that school and tried to kill as many people as possible. That is something we can prevent.

The deadly assault weapons used by the attackers in each of the devastating shootings I have mentioned would have been banned under the Assault Weapons Ban bill that I am introducing today. This bill helps keep us safer, while also protecting the rights of lawful gun owners.

It prohibits semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. This is the standard employed in my home state of California--and it works. The bill also prohibits bump-fire stocks, which, as we saw in Las Vegas, allow people to convert semi-automatic rifles to function like machine guns.

Importantly, our legislation further prohibits large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than ten rounds. It also has several technical updates to the bill that was introduced last Congress. Specifically, it bans stocks that are otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a weapon. Additionally, it prohibits assault pistols that weigh 50 ounces or more when unloaded, a provision which was originally part of the 1994 ban.

Finally, it bans assault pistol stabilizing braces and Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade assault weapons bans. Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by specifically exempting 2,258 firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes. It also exempts antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons. Moreover, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.

Opponents believe that this legislation impinges upon Second Amendment rights. I disagree. The Supreme Court expressly held in District of Columbia v. Heller that ``the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.'' The Court made clear that reasonable regulations are constitutional. This bill simply establishes reasonable regulations on what types of weapons may be sold and used. Individuals should not own nuclear weapons, they should not own rocket launchers, and they should not own military-style assault weapons.

In fact, a number of courts have considered challenges to assault weapons bans. To date, every court that has considered a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines has upheld the law. Mr. President, I believe very strongly that the most important duty that government has to its citizens is to protect the nation and the safety of its people. Now, I am under no illusions. I know that the gun lobby has a stranglehold on this building. I know we got 40 votes in 2013, and I know Republicans control the Senate today.

But I also know this was hard-fought in 1994, and we prevailed--with Republican support. It was a bipartisan vote.

I still believe that, at some point, my Republican colleagues will come together and realize that we can be a nation that protects its people from the savagery of these weapons.

I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the ``California Desert Protection and Recreation Act of 2019.''

This bill represents a decade-long collaborative effort between conservationists, the off-road vehicle recreational community, State and local governments, small businesses, and public utilities. Through this collaborative effort, we have developed a path forward to sustainably and comprehensively manage California's fragile desert resources.

Before I continue, I would especially like to thank Senators Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell, as well as their staff, for all of their hard work to move this bill forward last Congress. With their assistance, this legislation passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in October 2018 and was included in a bipartisan public lands package.

Despite the disappointing outcome of last Congress, we have come farther with this bill than ever before, and I look forward to working once again with Senator Murkowski, as well as the newly designated Ranking Member Joe Manchin, to maintain our momentum and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

I also would like to express my gratitude to Representative Paul Cook and his staff for their tremendous work and collaboration on this legislation over the past two years.

The California desert is as special as it is unique. Unlike many deserts in the world, our desert is abundant with plant and animal species, many of

which are only found in California. From the iconic Joshua Trees to the desert tortoise, big horn sheep, and scores of wildflowers, the beauty of the California desert is unrivaled.

I have heard from thousands of constituents who share a love for the peace and tranquility of this majestic area, such as young students from urban areas exposed to the desert for the first time and veterans returning home from warzones finding much-needed quiet in California's desert landscapes.

When I first came to Washington twenty-six years ago, Senator Alan Cranston asked me to assume the mantle and carry on his efforts to protect the desert by introducing and passing a desert protection bill.

Despite opposition, and even filibuster attempts, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 passed and was signed into law by President Clinton. Since then, we have all watched the unique desert plants, animals, and surrounding communities flourish, attracting visitors from around the world.

The 1994 bill permanently protected more than 7.5 million acres of pristine desert land in national parks and preserves, and I worked closely with President Obama in 2016 to designate three new desert National monuments that protected a further 1.8 million acres.

The original Desert Protection Act was a crowning achievement for desert conservation, establishing 69 new Wilderness areas, creating the Mojave National Preserve, and converting Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks. All told, we were able to protect, or increase protections for about 9.6 million acres.

I am proud to have been a part of these achievements for the desert, and I remain steadfast in my commitment to get this legislation across the finish line.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill represents the varied interests of desert stakeholders and balances the many uses of the California desert. I'll highlight some of what's in the bill now.

The bill designates approximately 375,500 acres of wilderness, including eight new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness areas.

It expands Death Valley National Park Wilderness by approximately 88,000 acres and adds 7,141 acres to the San Gorgonio Wilderness within San Bernardino National Forest.

This bill also expands Joshua Tree National Park by 4,518 acres and Death Valley National Park by approximately 35,292 acres. The additions to Joshua Tree National Park include 1,600 acres donated by the Mojave Desert Land Trust.

The legislation also officially designates six existing Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas totaling 200,580 acres to provide certainty that these recreational uses will be protected and maintained in a manner similar to conservation areas.

Two more additions are the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County and the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area in Imperial County. The Alabama Hills National Scenic Area preserves 18,610 acres for continued recreation and conservation. The Vinagre Wash Special Management Area covers approximately 81,800 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to provide for wilderness preservation, vehicular use on designated routes, and limitations on extractive uses of the land within the management area.

Lastly, this bill designates 77 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve and protect California's desert.

Considering our progress and bipartisan efforts last Congress, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward as quickly as possible.

This bill represents years of collaborative work and the interests of a wide variety of groups and communities with the shared goal of protecting and sustainably managing California's desert. This area is a true national treasure, and I look forward to continuing our work to protect it for generations to come.

Thank you.

Mr. President today I rise in opposition to S. 1. We should be working to reopen the Federal Government, not voting to infringe upon Americans' First Amendment rights.

S. 1 is a package of four bills that were introduced during the last Congress. Three of the bills concern U.S. aid to Israel and Jordan, as well as sanctions against the Assad regime. They are noncontroversial, and I support them.

Unfortunately, the fourth bill, which is entitled the ``Combatting BDS Act of 2019,'' is so controversial that I am compelled to vote against the entire package before us tonight.

This Israel boycott legislation would encourage States and localities to restrict First Amendment protections for millions of Americans. It would do so by tacitly endorsing State actions to cut financial ties and terminate any government contract with anyone who engages in or supports boycotts of Israel.

My grandfather arrived in the United States as a stowaway fleeing the Polish pogroms, and my grandmother's family fled Russia during the revolution.

As a young child during World War II, I came to view Israel as a symbol that never again will there be another Holocaust. My support for Israel isn't about politics. It is about Israel's right to exist.

I will always support a free and democratic Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. That is why I have always voted to provide Israel the security assistance it needs.

However, my unwavering support for Israel does not override my support for Americans' constitutional rights.

The right to free speech is the foundation of American democracy. Any legislation that encroaches on that foundation should be considered with great caution. I don't believe that has been the case here.

Federal courts have already ruled against similar laws regarding boycotts of Israel enacted by Arizona and Kansas.

In Kansas, the State legislature passed a law in 2017 requiring any individual or company that contracts with the State sign a certification that they are not participating in a boycott of Israel.

In Arizona, State law requires any company that contracts with the State to certify that it is not engaged in a boycott of Israel and that it will not do so in the future.

Federal courts in both States found that these laws raised substantial First Amendment concerns by infringing on individuals' right to political expression and issued preliminary injunctions blocking their enforcement.

Given the courts' rulings in Arizona and Kansas, I fail to see why supporters believe this legislation can be considered constitutional.

Equally alarming, the legislation would also apply to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, territory that Israel has never claimed as its own.

Today, there are more than 400,000 Israelis living on 132 settlements in the West Bank. Since President Trump took office, the Netanyahu government has accelerated the expansion of existing settlements, created new settlements and outposts, and taken steps to retroactively legalize settlements built on private Palestinian land.

Enacting legislation to stifle criticism of settlements on land beyond Israel's borders would set a dangerous precedent that would further erode our credibility as a neutral arbiter in the Middle East conflict.

Instead of wasting time on this unconstitutional bill, the Senate should instead focus on reopening the government by voting on the Federal funding package the House passed last week.

I fail to see why S. 1 should be a priority during the government shutdown. The Senate has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and keep the government running. This bill does neither.

Madam President, I rise today regarding President Trump's reversal of his commitment to support a short-term government funding bill and defer further spending negotiations until February.

The Senate voted late Wednesday night on bipartisan legislation to avoid a government shutdown right before Christmas. I supported that legislation, and my position has not changed. I do not support President Trump's wall proposal, and I do not believe the President should shut down the government over it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell scheduled a vote on a straightforward, 7-week continuing resolution because the White House committed to him that President Trump would sign it into law. The Senate voted on that legislation with the understanding that the President would sign it and defer any further debate over his wall until February.

President Trump's reversal of his commitment to sign the continuing resolution has now placed the Federal Government on the brink of a shutdown.

Everyone knows that Trump's border wall proposal cannot get the 60 votes it needs in order to pass the Senate. That is an inescapable fact that the President needs to finally accept.

I cannot support the version of the short-term continuing resolution that the House passed last night. The $5.7 billion in wall funding added by House Republicans is accompanied by no meaningful justification from the White House. Earlier this year, President Trump requested $1.6 billion in wall funding. That was the amount requested in the President's official budget submitted to Congress. That was the amount that would be provided under the spending bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, however, the President says he needs $5 billion.

The House version of the short-term continuing resolution also contains almost $8 billion in disaster funding that would help victims of this year's devastating wildfires, which I would support. However, this disaster funding is not necessary now as when Federal disaster assistance accounts retain sufficient balances for the purposes of immediate recovery needs.

Unfortunately, due to the timing of the vote and difficulties incurred in returning to Washington, DC, I was unable to cast my vote in person. This statement in the Congressional Record is intended to make clear that, if present, I would have voted no.

Thank you.

Mr. President, Thank you very much.

I want to begin by congratulating Senators Grassley and Durbin on getting such strong bipartisan support for this bill, including support from the President.

I am proud to support it, too.

As I have said in the past: I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences, particularly those that are very harsh and allow no discretion to a sentencing judge.

Early in my career, I sat on some 5,000 felony cases as a member of the California Women's Board of Terms and Parole. This board set sentences and granted parole to women sentenced to State prison.

I recall one individual sentenced to more than a decade in prison for three marijuana cigarettes. The judge ran the counts consecutively, and the sentences added up to 15 years--15 years for three cigarettes.

These sorts of cases are the ones that show why judicial discretion is so vital to our justice system and why the bill we are considering today is an important step towards restoring it.

The bill before us makes several changes to criminal law.

Most importantly, in my view, it reduces some of the harshest mandatory minimum sentences.

For example, right now, the mandatory sentence for a third drug offense is life in prison without the possibility of parole. This bill lowers that mandatory minimum to 25 years.

Similarly, right now, the mandatory minimum sentence for a second drug offense is 20 years. This bill reduces that to 15 years.

To be clear, the reductions in mandatory minimums under this bill do not prevent a judge from giving a defendant the maximum allowed under the law, if that is appropriate.

The point is that the judge decides, and sentences are not automatic.

The bill also gives more discretion to judges to sentence below mandatory minimums.

Under what is called the safety valve, when someone has been convicted of a nonviolent drug offense, is cooperating with the government, and has a limited criminal history, the judge, in his or her discretion, can sentence a defendant below a mandatory minimum.

This ability to sentence below a mandatory minimum is important for judges to sentence the specific defendants before them, as the facts of the case demand.

The bill also helps address some of the racial disparities in our criminal justice system. For many years, when it came to sentencing, our Federal courts treated 1 ounce of crack cocaine as if it was 100 ounces of powder cocaine.

Congress addressed this disparity in 2010, when the Fair Sentencing Act became law. That law, which Senator Durbin introduced and I cosponsored, reduced the crackpowder disparity from 100-1 to 18-1. In other words, under the law today, one ounce of crack cocaine is treated as 18 ounces of powder cocaine.

Unfortunately, this new law did not apply retroactively, and so there are still people serving sentences under the 100-1 standard.

The bill before us today fixes that and finally makes the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive so that people sentenced under the old standard can ask to be resentenced under the new one.

Along with reducing sentences that are too harsh, the bill includes prison reforms to help individuals reenter society.

Prison sentences do not end when someone leaves the prison walls, and as a society, we must do more to help people who have served their sentences return as productive members of society. I believe that the job training and drug rehabilitation programs that this bill creates will do just that.

I am pleased to support this bill and would urge all of my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.