Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the Desmond nomination expire at 12:15 p.m. tomorrow; further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the cloture vote on the Wheeler nomination.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 79, submitted earlier today.

I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 27; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Desmond nomination under the previous order.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have finally completed our work on S. 47, the Natural Resources Management Act. We had a good day yesterday. We had a good day here in the U.S. Senate. We passed this significant bill--really, a landmark piece of legislation--out of the Senate by a vote of 92 to 8. That is pretty strong. You don't see a lot of that in the Senate anymore--every now and again, and this was one of those every now and agains. I appreciate all the work.

We have now sent this over to the House of Representatives, and it has some good momentum. We are looking forward to being able to work with the House. I encourage them to move quickly on this important measure and see it enacted into law.

I want to take just a few moments this afternoon, while I can, to thank so many who have been key in getting us to this point. I want to start my comments with acknowledging the former ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Cantwell from Washington. We have spent a lot of time together. We have spent a lot of time over the years working on these lands bills. We did it in the public forum through the committee process. We had hearings on hundreds of bills. We worked to refine and reach agreement on them and to report them from committee. So there was all of that process, which went on throughout the committee, and then the two of us sitting down with our staffs on noncommittee time, just working through these particulars, in many meetings in my office and in her office. We really did this on a bipartisan basis. We stuck together. There were times when the prospects for this package did not look so good, and then there were moments when it looked even worse than not so good. But we kind of pulled one another along. I think that is a tribute to the commitment we made as colleagues and partners in this to advance not just to a message but to a product. I truly think that is a tribute to Senator Cantwell and her willingness to work together to find a path forward.

Then we weren't able to finish things at the end of the year. Senator Cantwell moved over to another committee, and I had an opportunity to pick up with Senator Manchin. He picked up.

Here he comes in, a new ranking member, and he has a bill to help manage on the floor with some 100-plus bills. But he helped us in a way that I am most, most grateful for. He kept us on track and helped us secure a very strong final tally here.

I am also very grateful to my other corners, the chairman and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee on the House side, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop. I thank them for their exceptional, exceptional work on this package and look forward to working with them as we finish this out.

Next on my list are Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer. The minority leader is here. We had a conversation on the floor just about where he is sitting--this was back in December. But the two leaders gave their commitment to take this bill up early this year. They kept that commitment. They made it happen. I thank them for what they did in recognizing that this public lands, resources, and waters bill deserved early attention in this new Congress.

I mentioned on the floor that there were many colleagues on both sides: Senator Heinrich, Senator Gardner, Senator Daines from Montana, Senator Wyden from Oregon, all of whom have been great partners here on the floor.

It is important to briefly mention the staffs, who put in the long hours--the work and the family life they gave up.

The first person on my list to recognize is my deputy chief counsel, Lucy Murfitt, who is truly an expert, a true expert on the lands issue. She has poured her heart and soul into these issues, and it is no exaggeration to say they would not have happened without her efforts.

I also thank my staff director, Brian Hughes; my chief counsel, Kellie Donnelly; the members of my lands team, Annie Hoefler, Lane Dickson, and Michelle Lane; our communications team, Nicole Daigle, Michelle Toohey, and Tonya Parish; our support staff, including Melissa Enriquez and Sean Solie; then Brianne Miller and Isaac Edwards, who basically kept the committee running while everyone else was focusing on this bill.

While I am proud of my team, we had great partners on the other side of the aisle. Sarah Venuto and Lance West joined the committee with Senator Manchin, and they have been great to work with. Sam Fowler, David Brooks, Rebecca Bonner, Bryan Petit, Camille Touton, Mary Louise Wagner, and Amit Ronen also played key roles.

Then on the House side, we had David Watkins and Brandon Bragato of Chairman Grijalva's staff, along with Parish Braden and Cody Stewart, who has now left the Hill, of Ranking Member Bishop's staff.

I have to give a shout-out for the floor staff. Laura Dove and her team were fabulous. We also appreciate our Parliamentarians, Elizabeth McDonough and Leigh Hildebrand; Terry Van Doren with Leader McConnell; and Aniela Butler at the Senate Budget Committee.

Two of the individuals who probably put the most time into this package, Heather Burnham and Christina Kennelly, are in the Office of Senate Leg Counsel. I also thank Janani Shankaran, Kim Cawley, and Aurora Swanson at CBO.

Great members, great team--we could not have done this great work without them.

To Senator Schumer, I say thank you for allowing me to complete this in its entirety. I appreciate your indulgence.

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Briefing on cyber operations to defend the midterm elections.''

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Janice Miriam Hellreich, of Hawaii, Robert A. Mandell, of Florida, Don Munce, of Florida, and Bruce M. Ramer, of California, each to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and a routine list in the Coast Guard.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``America's infrastructure needs: keeping pace with a growing economy.''

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The invasive species threat: protecting wildlife, public health, and infrastructure.''

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Dennis Dean Kirk, of Virginia, to be Chairman, and Julia Akins Clark, of Maryland, and Andrew F. Maunz, of Ohio, both to be a Member, all of the of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Ronald D. Vitiello, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Michael H. Park, of New York, and Joseph F. Bianco, of New York, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit,

Greg Girard Guidry, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Michael T. Liburdi, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, and Peter D. Welte, to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.

Committee on Rules and Administration

The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the U.S. Small Business Administration.''

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Conditions of the military housing privatization initiative.''

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

The Senator from Delaware is correct that the Rubio amendment does not affect the use of digital maps by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the implementation of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

The Senator from Delaware's understanding of the Rubio amendment is correct.

Madam President, we are now down to the final minutes of debate on S. 47, our Natural Resources Management Act. This is something we had a good number of Members come to the floor to speak on. Our Members are proud of the many provisions that we have seen fit to include within this package itself--bills that relate to lands and land conveyances, conservation aspects, sportsmen's provisions, those measures that can help bring about economic development in very small areas. We are very proud of what we have done with this process that has led us to where we are today.

I am excited that we are coming to the end of the debate and, hopefully, will be able to move this bill across the floor with a very strong bipartisan vote. We had a good showing last night with our cloture vote, 87 to 7, to end the debate. That was good and sound. We are looking forward to sending this to our colleagues on the House side for their review and their support and, hopefully, shortly after that, their ratification.

When we take a package that is over 100 bills from over 50 different Senators and over 90 who have signed on as cosponsors, that demonstrates something. What we have done with the strength, extent, and expanse of these provisions, the efforts we have made to ensure that the Land and Water Conservation Fund continues with a permanent extension and what we have done, as I mentioned, within the sportsmen's provisions to really help make a difference for those men and women, certainly Senator Manchin and me and sportsmen and women around the country, by making sure that our public lands are open for recreational fishing, hunting, target shooting--this is significant for us, certainly from an economic perspective, when you think about how much goes into these areas. Sportsmen and women spent about $119 billion-- that was back in 2016--on everything from their gear to the support in these small communities. But when we talk about access to land, it is not just access to land, it is expansion of economic opportunities.

We also have provisions to encourage the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to think bigger and identify more opportunities for recreation, hunting, and fishing on our public lands. We have special hunting days for youth, veterans, and Active Duty military. We have included provisions from the WILD Act--the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act--to protect endangered populations and combat invasive species. There is so much contained in this measure.

With regard to the conservation provisions, we think we have done them right because we have worked to ensure that we have strong support at State and local levels. We are creating three new National monuments--two in Kentucky and one in Mississippi--with Congress at the helm of those provisions.

We have provisions to improve volcano monitoring and warning systems, which is important if an aircraft in the sky passes across an area where there has been eruptions. We have provisions that promote wildlife conservation, combat endangered species, protect endangered species and water management provisions that save water, protect public safety, enhance fish protections and wildlife habitat. We do all of this, and the CBO estimates that we will reduce direct spending by $10 million over the next 10 years. We recognize that is hardly enough to reduce deficits, but it is a bonus. We are chalking that up as an additional bonus.

This has come together with a great deal of hard work by many Members and our staffs. I want to particularly recognize the good work of my ranking partners, Senator Cantwell in the previous Congress and now Senator

Manchin, and their help in getting us to this point. I thank not only the Members but their very strong staffs who have worked in conjunction with my staff. I recognize that we stand up and do a lot of the talking, but the behind-the-scenes negotiation, the navigating, making sure that the wording is just exact--what we have done, I think, has been yeoman's work in getting us here, and I am very, very proud of all of those who have helped accomplish that.

Stating for the Members again, this is a big package, a substantive package, but there is more to come. These public lands matters have a tendency to stack up, so we are hardly finished with our work in this area. We are clearing the decks this afternoon of the items that are ready to go to the President right now. After we spent so much time working through them in this regular order process in this Congress, I think it is something we can be proud of.

There is a lot of stress that goes on, and there have been some discussions, just earlier, about how we keep the wheels on the bus, how we keep the government from shutting down, how we figure out how to deal with appropriations bills, and here we have been just plugging quietly along, moving forward on legislation that has been a great cooperative effort, a great bipartisan effort, and, hopefully soon, a very great bicameral effort, demonstrating that maybe--just maybe--we in Congress can get something done.

It is nice to be part of a team that is making things happen and, again, great thanks and great appreciation to the many Members who have helped. I also want to give a shout-out to Senator Heinrich, who has been here every step of the way, pushing on these sportsmen's matters. Senator Wyden has also been a great help. Over on the Republican side, Senator Gardner and Senator Daines have been in this every inch of the way, helping us advance. It is a good place and a good time to be working toward the finish line.

With that, I yield to my friend and ranking member, the Senator from West Virginia.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, we are here this Monday afternoon to continue debate on S. 47, which is our Natural Resources Management Act, which we introduced just last month with Senator Cantwell. We have been working on this bill with not only Senator Cantwell and Senator Manchin but with the chairman and ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. We did that last fall when the composition of that committee on the House side was a little bit different and now in this new year. We have been working forward with the commitment from our respective leaderships to bring this measure to the floor early in this Congress, and here we are.

I am very thankful and appreciative to Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer for keeping their word to allow us a few days of debate on this very important natural resources and lands package. We have a great partnership going on in working with my new ranking member on the committee, Senator Manchin, in working with his team in conjunction with ours, and, again, in building on the great, great work that we have had with my friend and colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, and her team. There have been so many who have really come together in a very collaborative way and in a very dedicated way to help make this happen.

I make mention of the contributions of a few Members on our side and a few Members on the Democratic side who have really been engaged with us throughout this process--Senator Gardner, Senator Daines, Senator Wyden, Senator Heinrich--and of the dozens of Members who are on this measure as cosponsors. We truly appreciate it.

We made some good progress last week. We reached agreement to enter into debate on our bill. We considered two amendments. Both of those amendments were tabled in order to preserve what we would refer to as the spirit of the bicameral-bipartisan agreement. We anticipate one more amendment to process today before we move to a cloture vote. I am pleased that we are at this point as we near the end of the floor debate on this measure, and I would like to spend just a few moments this afternoon, if I may, speaking to the really extensive process that has gone into this bill.

It is a substantive bill. There is no doubt about it. It is substantive because of the many, many different, discrete, small provisions that have been incorporated into it. Reaching this point has been no small task. I mentioned last week the way that we handle many of these lands matters before the U.S. Senate. It is an imperfect process--that is certainly for sure--but so many of these issues are so parochial that they just do not command the floor time that is available here. Invariably, what we effort to do is to put together a package of these measures. We really haven't seen a lands package before the Congress that has been ready to move out or, actually, be signed into law--that is, I guess, the best way to say it--since 2014. So that is 5 years of really pent-up demand, if you will, to address these matters.

So over the course of several years and multiple Congresses, both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee have held dozens of hearings and business meetings to prepare the more than 100 bills we have now incorporated into S. 47. So when you think about, again, the process that goes into it--this is endless hours, countless hours of Member time, of staff time that go into these meetings as we work on very local priorities and then drafting the legislative text and refining it to make it right and refining it yet again to make it right.

We have also worked for months on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to truly negotiate every word in this bill, literally down to one-tenth of a mile for a certain designation on a specific conveyance there, so really taking a very sharp eye and a sharp pencil to all of the provisions that are in here.

We have really worked to try to incorporate as many local, State, and Member priorities as possible. The process these matters went through in order to get where we are today--the regular order process in the House, in the Senate, and in many cases, in both--is really quite impressive. I mentioned some of the Member priorities last week. Members have come to the floor. I indicated that we have included provisions sponsored by at least 50 different Senators within this bill. That number rises to about 90 Senators when we count the cosponsorship of various Members. So, again, it was very collaborative in terms of how we reached out to everyone to ensure their priorities are heard.

We have heard a lot on the floor about the contributions contained within the sportsmen's provision--something I have worked on with Members over the course of years, with different partners on the other side, whether it was Senator Tester or Senator Heinrich. It has been three Congresses running that we have tried to advance a bipartisan sportsmen's bill. So there are so many who are looking with great interest into finally passing these sportsmen's provisions.

There is a provision in here that helps the folks in Tennessee. One of Senator Alexander's priority projects is a special resource study for the James K. Polk Presidential home in Columbia, TN. It was built in 1916. It is the only surviving private residence of our 11th President. What we do within this bill is we take that first step to make a determination, to ask the question of whether this special place should be designated as a national park unit at some point in the future. So pretty parochial, pretty small, but it is important to those in Columbia, TN.

I mentioned some of the Arizona provisions. Udall Park in Tucson, AZ, is a priority for the Arizona delegation. This is one of those issues where they have a pretty popular local community park in the city, and there are all kinds of activities one would anticipate taking place in a small park--baseball, swimming, farmers market. Up until just a couple years ago, the city of Tucson was actually unaware that the Federal Government even owned this local park. So what we do in this bill is we clean up the ownership issue, which allows the city to move forward with the day-to-day activities without facing these Federal bureaucratic hurdles that happen back here. So when they want to do something that would be good for that community, such as expanding a farmers market or improving cell service on the softball fields, they don't have to come to us to ask for permission--pretty common sense.

I mentioned some of the priorities coming out of the State of Louisiana and a measure that Senator Cassidy has been working on, the Lake Bistineau Land Title Stability Act. I shared the story of some homeowners who had been on a parcel for 13 years, built their home, wanted to sell, and then they found out they couldn't because they didn't have clear title to their land due to an issue with the BLM management survey. So we worked with BLM and the State of Louisiana-- all this bipartisan work--to clear up the title. Again, this is something that you wouldn't think you would need an act of Congress to do, but we do that.

Up in the State of Minnesota, we worked with their delegation to modify the boundaries of the Voyageurs National Park.

In Georgia, we are expanding the Ocmulgee National Monument--this is a prehistoric American Indian site--and we are doing this at the request of the local communities and the Tribes. It has strong support from the Creek Indian Tribe and the local community. It is a designation that will help preserve the historic and cultural values of the area as well provide economic benefit by giving greater opportunities for visitors.

So these are some of the various priorities we have included in this very

comprehensive package. These are not things that are going to make the front page of the Washington Post or the New York Times. These are very local. But I can pretty much guarantee that they will be on the front page of the Ocmulgee--I still don't know if I am pronouncing that correctly--within the Creek Indian Tribe. They are going to make sure people know that this is something we have been working on for a long period of time and that it has finally been addressed in Congress.

Working over the years to help address these priorities is very, very important. We have received the support of not only so many colleagues in the Senate and in the House, Republicans and Democrats, but we have heard it from organizations and communities around the country. Some of these names are pretty well known to us: Ducks Unlimited, the Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Wildlife Federation, the U.S. Travel Association, the Nature Conservancy.

That is just a few of the many that have weighed in. I want to give a couple more examples of groups that have written in to share their support.

The Southeast Tourism Society wrote that ``S. 47 has earned the enthusiastic support of the travel and tourism industry.''

I mentioned last week that so many of the provisions contained in this bill really help these little local economies or the broader economies within the region, so you can see where the travel and tourism industry would be appreciative.

The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable--this is a consortium made up of a number of recreation associations--wrote that our bill should be passed to ``guarantee American's great outdoors receive the attention and resources they so richly deserve and to ensure the outdoor recreation economy continues to grow.''

We are also hearing from communities that have been waiting for congressional action to resolve longstanding Federal land management issues. I mentioned the one in Louisiana. I also mentioned the situation in Tucson, AZ. We did receive a letter from the mayor of Tucson in support of our package because of the provision we have included that he says ``will bring closure to a historic agreement made between the city of Tucson and Bureau of Land Management at a popular urban park in Tucson's northeast business and residential areas.'' That mayor knows this is going to allow the local community to do some of the more simple tasks, such as operating a farmers market, without going through these bureaucratic hoops and hurdles.

Another provision in the bill will convey a parcel of land on the shores of Lake Fannin to Fannin County in Texas. The county commissioner shared that with the conveyance of this land, they will be able to ``continue the process to restore, preserve, and protect the historical significance and beauty this lake has to offer for years to come.''

So, again, there is the encouragement we are getting from the communities and from the organizations. I have certainly heard from a lot of Alaskans who are very pleased about where we are with this lands package.

We heard from Sheri Buretta. Sheri is the chair of Chugach Alaska Corporation, and she wrote that ``Section 1113 of S. 47, while long overdue from our perspective, provides a welcome and extremely helpful mechanism for addressing serious inequities relative to our land settlement.''

Again, the land settlement in Alaska is decades old, and we are still attempting to address some of those inequities, and this legislation allows us to do that.

David Fee, who is the coordinating scientist at the Alaska Volcano Observatory, noted that ``current volcano monitoring capacity in the United States is deficient, and we are unable to accurately forecast and detect eruptions at an adequate level. . . . Passing and funding [this measure will provide] for a safer and more resilient United States.''

The benefits we provide for so many around the country--these are just a few of the examples of the many communities and organizations that support the passage of the bill. We have a full list of our supporters that is available on the committee's website--it runs almost 7 pages long--that I am going to be submitting for the record--not only that consolidated list but also the many, many letters of support we have received. These folks--these individuals, these groups, these communities--are writing in to make their support known because there is good policy in this package. It is policy that fosters economic development in rural America. It is policy that ensures that incredible landscapes are conserved for future generations to enjoy. It is policy that ensures access for sports men and women. It also allows for greater access for some of our off-highway vehicles. It is policy that enhances our volcano-monitoring systems. It empowers local water managers to make decisions on how to conserve water and endangered species.

I want to just kind of segue off of that because there hasn't been a lot of discussion about the water provisions within this bill. I keep referring to S. 47 as the lands package, but the truth is, it is not just about land; it is about water as well, and it includes a number of important western water provisions.

We improve water management by taking important steps to provide greater local control over water resources and promote management that balances the needs of water users with fish and wildlife protection. As an example of this, we create a new Bureau of Reclamation title transfer program. This is going to facilitate conveyance of water facilities to the local agencies that have been managing them for decades and in some cases longer than decades--almost over a century-- and that have fully repaid the government for the cost. So effectively what we are talking about here is we are simplifying the process for local utilities, States, and Tribes to pursue title transfers for reclamation projects, not by requiring an act of Congress to do it. So it is simplification. It is common sense. It is making things work. It is a straightforward change in the law that will make a huge difference for the entities in 17 of our Western States that manage water projects, canals, and other water infrastructure that irrigate more than 11 million acres of land--land that provides fresh fruits and vegetables for millions of Americans every day.

In the bill, we also authorize individual title transfers to California and Oklahoma. These provisions will greatly improve water management and incentivize capital investment in water infrastructure while conserving water resources and protecting public safety.

The reauthorization of the Upper Colorado and the San Juan River fish recovery program and phase 3 of the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project are both included in this bill. I think both of these are great examples of how a collaborative approach to water challenges, rather than litigation and conflict, results in solutions that benefit water users and the environment. We have certainly heard from Senator Cantwell on this as it relates to the Yakima Basin project and the very collaborative effort that was involved with that. The Colorado River project involves bringing four species of endangered fish back from the brink of extinction while water development projects move forward.

There are other important water provisions that didn't make it into the bill for various reasons. I think many of us were disappointed, it is fair to say. It is clear to me that there is a lot more that we have to do to address these major challenges with western management of water and drought resilience. We have some issues to work through on that, certainly not the least of which is the Colorado River drought contingency plan. This involves an interstate agreement to keep Lake Mead from dropping to critical levels. It has taken years of negotiation with cities, Tribes, farmers, and elected officials.

I clearly understand that this is a time-sensitive issue. I had hoped we might be able to finalize it for this package, but I am looking forward to working with both Senator McSally, who is the new chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Energy Committee, and Senator Cortez Masto, who is the ranking member, so we can get this over the finish line as quickly as we can.

We also need to complete our work to reauthorize the Bureau of Reclamation's infrastructure funding programs

to better utilize Federal lands and water facilities for aquifer recharge and eliminate duplication in the permitting of reclamation pump storage projects.

We are making good strides on the water side with this measure as well. I think it is important to remind folks that it is a lands package; it addresses many of the issues related to water; it is a sportsmen's package; and it is truly a conservation package as we look to what we have included and incorporated as the permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

This is a good bill we have in front of us. We have been able to make it even a little better through our substitute amendment. I do know that we have many colleagues who, if we had more time, would say that they have more amendments they would like to offer for the package. We are not going to have the time or the ability to come to an agreement to add them here, but it is not without a great deal of work that we have gotten to this place. Again, the fact that we have been working for years--literally, years--to put this together is demonstration of our good faith to try to incorporate as much as we possibly can.

I do want to repeat, and I know Senator Manchin has, as well, that this is not going to be our last chance to pass natural resources legislation in this Congress. As soon as we get done here--hopefully, no later than early tomorrow--we are going to be right back at work. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is going back to work, holding hearings, moving lands legislation. This is our effort, what we are dealing with right now, to clear the deck, and then move on to some new issues. We will be back again to move many of the provisions that perhaps weren't quite ready for this particular package.

Later this afternoon, we are going to vote on motions to end debate on S. 47. I strongly, strongly encourage all Members to support that motion and to allow us to take final steps to move this important package with good, strong, robust bipartisan support, and send it over to the House of Representatives so that we can finally get this enacted into law.

I see my friend from Nebraska is here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just to speak very, very briefly to the good Senator's amendment to amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit the President from designating national monuments in Utah.

He and I have had some opportunity to speak to this issue, and I certainly agree with him when it comes to the policy goals that he is seeking to assert here. I clearly understand the frustration he has.

With the previous administration, I believe we have seen a real abuse of authority--certainly an abuse of the spirit--of the Antiquities Act. We saw that in Utah when millions of acres were locked up through Executive designation. This was done despite some pretty robust local opposition and objection.

This is a scenario that I know pretty well because, in my State, we have a Federal landlord that owns about 63 percent of the State, 224 million acres. We have a provision in ANILCA that is a specific no-more clause, prohibiting the withdrawal of more than 5,000 acres absent congressional approval. The Obama administration circumvented that law. They placed hundreds of thousands of additional acres off limits to development.

What my colleague is seeking here, the ability to affirm or reject a monument designation by the State of Utah, is something that, again, I truly understand. I have supported legislation and introduction of legislation to do just as he has done--maybe not specific to one State but making sure that we truly do respect the spirit of the Antiquities Act and making sure, when monuments and monument designations move forward, that they are done with local support.

I am in a bit of a quandary here because what he is advocating for is something that, again, I have been there with him on. But our dilemma, if you will, is that we have a package before us of lands bills, of water bills, of sportsmen's provisions, of conservation provisions that we have been working to kind of--not kind of, but to build that level of consensus.

This measure is one that has been identified by those with whom we have been trying to work, not only here in this body but with the House as well. They have identified this as one of those measures that would bring down this effort. So we are in a position where, while I support the goals the Senator is seeking to achieve, I don't see a path forward for it in this Chamber at this time.

As I mentioned--as you have heard me say--we have some very important provisions that we have been working on for a period of years. I want to ensure those proceed. I don't want to see S. 47 fall. So I am going to move to table the Lee amendment, but I want to once again commit to the Senator from Utah that I will work with him, as the chairman of the Energy Committee, to address these monument designations.

Given the vehicle that we have in front of us, I will move to table and ask that colleagues join me in this tabling motion.

Mr. President, at this moment, I move to table the Lee amendment No. 187.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to proceed to table Lee amendment No. 187.

Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment No. 187.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.

While I was pleased that we could reach agreement to include a designation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area in the substitute amendment, I want to clarify what this designation does and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not do.

The purpose of this designation, as with congressionally designated National Heritage Areas in general, is to celebrate the region's history and cultural heritage by promoting education, tourism, recreation, and other historic values. It also creates the opportunity for Federal participation in promoting these regional attributes.

In no way does this designation implicate or interfere with any water facilities or operations associated with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We are not creating new regulatory authority or modifying existing regulatory authority, including those related to land or water use, at any level of government.

Further, S. 47 includes protections to ensure that private property will not be impacted by the designation, protections that apply to the ownership and use of water rights both inside and outside of the National Heritage Area's boundary.

I ask Senator Feinstein, you have championed this National Heritage

Area designation for quite some time. In her view, have I properly characterized the intended effect of this designation?

I thank Senator Feinstein. As we have explained, the purpose of this designation is straightforward and intended to promote and celebrate the cultural heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region, without any broader implications on water or land management.

Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.

Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 12, all postcloture time be considered expired on S. 47; that following the disposition of any pending amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be

read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the body on the very substantive vote, and I look forward to tomorrow.

Madam President, I call up substitute amendment No. 111, as modified, with changes at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, we are now on S. 47, our lands package bill, and as we have heard, Senator Lankford's amendment has just been called up. I am happy to speak to that, but I understand he is in the process of coming back to the Hill. We will wait for his arrival, and he can speak directly to his amendment.

I want to take just a couple of minutes, right off the top, and speak to some of the broader provisions in this bill that I view as significant. Interestingly, I was just visiting with our President pro tempore, and he thanked me. He said thank you because we have a provision that helps Council Bluffs, IA. It is something we have been working on for a long time, and now it appears it will be finally resolved through this legislation.

That is a prime example of what we have put together with this 100- plus package of land and water bills--bills that help sports men and women, bills that help us with measures on conservation. It is a very wide and broad effort, and yet so many of these provisions are very local and very parochial. However, local issues can help with economic development in a region, and I want to highlight how this package does create economic opportunities in our communities across the country.

For example, when this bill is signed into law, Fannin County, in rural Texas, will gain local control over the Lake Fannin Recreation Area from the Forest Service. This recreation area right now, we are told, is rundown. It has been closed to the public for many years. The county is looking forward to actually taking ownership so it can transform Lake Fannin into a multiuse recreation area, complete with trails, playgrounds, and water recreation, allowing and encouraging people to come and visit and enjoy.

We also include a provision for La Paz County in Arizona. This conveys a parcel of Federal land to facilitate the development of a large-scale solar project. It will also allow for a link to an electric transmission line. This is going to be creating local jobs and is going to be bringing renewable energy online to power many of our communities. There is a great benefit there.

In Tucson, AZ, we removed bureaucratic obstacles to allow for the city to operate a park. They have done this, apparently, for dozens of years without the control of a Federal Agency. So when the local citizens want to operate, perhaps, a farmer's market, they are not going to have to jump over hurdles or be subjected to the whims of Federal officials there. Instead, they are able to make these local decisions. For heaven's sake, if they want to put a little farmer's market in there, they shouldn't have to come to Congress to ask for permission.

Another example--I mentioned this one before--is in South Dakota, in Custer County. This is a conveyance that will allow the county to have full ownership of all the lands on which it operates its airport. It will allow the county to expand the airport so a little bit larger aircraft can get into the airport.

Again, you want to think about economic opportunity. If you can't bring more folks into your community, into your region, you are limited. Conveyances like this--small-scale acreage that can allow for that expansion of opportunity--are strong and are important. This is yet another reminder as to the opportunities that we create for our local communities.

We are also expanding and designating new areas of off-highway vehicle recreation in the Mojave Desert, which is out in San Bernardino County in California. The OHV recreation is a growing sector in the outdoor recreation economy. It is so important to a lot of our communities.

We also encourage Agencies to look for new opportunities for fishing, for

hunting, and for recreation on our Federal lands. Again, this is a very, very significant sector in our economy as consumer spending by hunters and anglers and target shooters supports over 1.6 million jobs and about $71.8 billion in salaries per year. Of course, there is that ripple effect then to the larger communities when you are able to bring in folks to enjoy these areas. This is just a further example of how we really work to create new economic opportunities and why this lands package is so important.

We are creating economic opportunities, but we also fix a lot of problems. That is one of the things that we try to do on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Sometimes problems are created because you just didn't even know that it was actually your Federal Government or your land disposition that was causing any form of impediment, but we really do work with a number of these provisions to help to solve real problems with Federal land management.

There is one example that, I think, my friends from Louisiana will appreciate, and this relates to the situation at Lake Bistineau--I hope I am pronouncing that right--sponsored by Senator Cassidy.

Back in 2017, there were a couple of residents who wrote to Senator Cassidy. They were outlining their problem, and they wrote: Look, our family purchased our land, our minerals, our home, in the subject section over 13 years ago after we retired.

They go on to write: We have lived in our home on the land ever since. There were no contrary claims or clouds on the title to the property when we purchased it. Therefore, we were disturbed to discover that the government felt it had a claim to our title.

That would be kind of a bummer of a letter to receive when you have been living there for over a dozen years, and now you find out, well, maybe you don't have a clear title there.

Lake Bistineau has a long and a very complicated history with the Federal Government. The land in question was conveyed by the Federal Government to the local levee district in 1901. Then it was subsequently deeded to private individuals. Yet, in the 1960s, the BLM resurveyed the land, and then it realized the boundary line was incorrect. That survey led to the determination that about 200 acres of land that were currently held privately were actually Federal land. That is a real problem, of course.

As the letter to Senator Cassidy went on, they wrote: Just a few years ago, we had the property listed for sale. Once a suggested claim was made by the BLM in its 2013 letter, the potential contract on the property fell through.

Again, this is a situation of people who had been living happily in their home for a period of time and decided that they were going to be moving on but now were limited--handcuffed. They had no idea that this was a problem that they had to deal with.

It is not just they. There were more than 100 private landowners in Louisiana who were impacted by this. This is regarding land that has been held under a private title for over a century now--places where people have built their homes, their businesses, their lives--and now it is unclear where exactly everybody stands. In the case of Lake Bistineau, our bill clarifies ownership of the land and prevents the Federal Government from ever claiming it in the future.

I think, as people go through this to look at individual bills that we have included, that these are the types of things that really help people. They help improve people's lives, and they help improve our local economies. Unfortunately, sometimes it literally takes an act of Congress to clear up whether these are problems or impediments to our opportunities. Again, what we have managed to address within the structure of this bill is very, very important.

I want to address the issue that will be before us this afternoon, and that is a conversation about the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

As I mentioned, Senator Lankford's amendment is before us, and I wanted to kind of put in context what it is that we have done within our lands package proposal and the title that relates to the LWCF, as we call it. This is in title III. Effectively, what the Land and Water Conservation Fund establishes and what our provision does is to make permanent the authorization within the LWCF. So we deposit oil and gas receipts into the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Also within our bill, we make some commonsense reforms to the LWCF Act. This is something that, in my view, has been a long time in coming. We have had good collaboration going back and forth as to how we can make these reforms and also allow for this important conservation fund to be authorized permanently going forward.

There is a little bit of history here. The LWCF was enacted to help to preserve, to develop, and to assure access to outdoor recreation resources. It is kind of a paper trust fund that accumulates revenues from the Federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales and then to supplement these sources to reach the annualized level of $900 million, which is what the authorized figure is. It is not a figure that we have reached historically. That is for sure. The fund also accumulates revenue from oil and gas leases from the Outer Continental Shelf, or the OCS. As we see those revenues come in, those revenues from the fossil fuel then go to fund an account, if you will--the LWCF fund--to help with conservation, and whether States are moving forward with conservation efforts or Federal entities are, it helps to fund that.

The authorization to deposit oil and gas receipts into the LWCF expired on September 30, 2018, at the end of this past fiscal year. We have to make sure that those LWCF funds are moved, are made available, but the moneys in the fund are only available if they are appropriated by Congress. Currently, we have an unappropriated balance of just over $20 billion in the LWCF. So some have said: Oh, my gosh. The authorization expired in September, and nothing is happening within the

Madam President, for the awareness of Senators, they should expect a vote in relation to the Lankford amendment No. 158 sometime around 1:30 this afternoon--so just in a little bit here. Then, next in the queue will be Senator Lee's amendment No. 162. We hope to have a vote on that amendment around 2 o'clock. There is a lengthy Judiciary hearing that is still underway, and we want to accommodate that.

Both of these amendments are related to the Land and Water Conservation Fund I just spoke about a few moments ago. I just wanted to give Members a heads-up.

Mr. President, we have before us now the pending amendment. This is the Lankford amendment regarding the use of LWCF funds for deferred maintenance. This amendment acknowledges and, I think, attempts to address what we are dealing with in a deferred maintenance backlog. We all recognize that it is an issue and a problem. What Senator Lankford has done is specifically to direct 5 percent of funds distributed from LCWF to deferred maintenance. It also requires that any new Federal lands acquisitions allow for maintenance needs at the time of acquisition.

I think we would all agree that we have a very real problem with deferred maintenance on our Nation's public lands. We think about the National Park Service most often, which has an $11.6 billion backlog, and it is not just the National Park Service. It is the National Wildlife Refuge, BLM, and the Forest Service. So this is an issue, and we have been working within the committee to address this. There have been numerous bills that have come before our committee. We are working with the administration, and we know we have to address it.

This proposed amendment is clearly an effort to do that, and I appreciate what Senator Lankford has done in focusing our attention on this significant maintenance backlog and the need to plan for routine and ongoing maintenance in any new acquisition.

So I am standing before our colleagues saying: I understand where Senator Lankford wants to take us, I appreciate it, I agree with him, but given where we are right now with this package and how it has come together, knowing that we will have, I think, significant opposition, whether it is on the other side or in the other body, it is viewed as detrimental to what we have put together.

So I am reluctantly going to be opposing the Lankford amendment, but, again, I want to make sure that we all take this on as an issue to address in a way that is rational, sound, and reasonable going forward into the future.

Mr. President, I move to table the Lankford amendment No. 158, and I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I stand to object to the amendment of my friend from Utah.

We recognize the significance and importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There has been an effort for reauthorization back and forth over the years.

Within this measure before us, we have not only permanently authorized LWCF, but we have included significant reforms--reforms that I believe are necessary and reforms that I think the Senator from Utah would agree are good in terms of getting more resources to the State side and making sure that there are better ways to account for the funds.

I now have an opportunity to move to table the Lee amendment No. 162 and would encourage Members to vote on this tabling motion in the affirmative.

What we have collaborated to build at this point in time is a necessary fix to address the continuation of the LWCF, and I ask for Members' support.

Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment 162.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute amendment No. 111.

Mr. President, I call up Murkowski amendment No. 112.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 1:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining United States Africa Command and United States Southern Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program.''

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing on the following nominations: nominations of William Pelham Barr, of Virginia, to be Attorney General, and Donald W. Washington, of Texas, to be Director of the United States Marshals Service, both of the Department of Justice, Bridget S. Bade, of Arizona, and Eric D. Miller, of Washington, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Paul B. Matey, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Eric E. Murphy, of Ohio, and Chad A. Readler, of Ohio, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Rossie David Alston, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Roy Kalman Altman, A Rodolfo Armando

Ruiz II, and Rodney Smith, each to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Raul M. Arias-Marxuach, to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, Thomas P. Barber, and Wendy Williams Berger, both to be a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, J. Campbell Barker, and A Michael J. Truncale, both to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Pamela A. Barker, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, Kenneth D. Bell, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, Jean-Paul Boulee, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, Holly A. Brady, and A Damon Ray Leichty, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana, Andrew Lynn Brasher, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Brian C. Buescher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, James David Cain, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, Stephen R. Clark, Sr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, Clifton L. Corker, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, Karin J. Immergut, to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Corey Landon Maze, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, David Steven Morales, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Sarah Daggett Morrison, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, Carl J. Nichols, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah, J. Nicholas Ranjan, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Wendy Vitter, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, T. Kent Wetherell II, and Allen Cothrel Winsor, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, Joshua Wolson, and John Milton Younge, both to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Patrick R. Wyrick, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, M. Miller Baker, of Louisiana, and Timothy M. Reif, of the District of Columbia, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, and Richard A. Hertling, of Maryland, and Ryan T. Holte, of Ohio, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, during the first vote to conduct an organizational hearing.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, to conduct an organizational hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

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

Mr. President, we are at a point we have been hoping to get to for some time, which is debate on S. 47, the Natural Resources Management Act.

This is a compilation, if you will, of various lands bills, water bills, and sportsmen's bills. This is a lands package that Senator Cantwell, Senator Manchin, and I recently introduced, but it is the result of years--multiple years, actually--of regular order process in the committees of jurisdiction--most notably, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is the result of months of intense, bicameral back-and-forth negotiations with now-Chairman Raul Grijalva and now- Ranking Member Rob Bishop of the House Natural Resources Committee. In that back-and-forth, we said: We are going to be very specific to our jurisdiction here, and we are going to stick to a four-corners agreement that we reached late last year and had actually confirmed here on the Senate floor in late December.

This package contains more than 100 public lands, natural resources, and water measures that have good, strong support in both Chambers. We are at that point where we can not only do the back-and-forth, but we can work through the back-and-forth that comes when we are able to advance a package like this to the floor.

I would like to thank Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer for agreeing to add our lands package directly to the Senate calendar. This was an agreement that was made back in December. We were teed up and ready to go, but in fairness, you run out of time at the end of the year. There was an agreement that was reached here on the Senate floor between the two leaders and other colleagues to make sure that we would take up this package quickly and that we would work to address it early in this new Congress.

A lot of thanks go out to our leadership, and special thanks to my former ranking member, Senator Cantwell, for working with me to get us to this point and to my new ranking member, Senator Manchin, for really stepping up and helping to manage this package just weeks into his new role as the ranking member.

Before I get into my full remarks, I also want to recognize the efforts of several of the other members of the Energy Committee who have really gone the extra mile to help us get to this point. On our side of the aisle, Senator Gardner and Senator Daines have been just dogged in making sure that--as issues arose and as we tried to cobble together different proposals, they were in the thick of it and have been helpful every step of the way. On the other side of the aisle, Senator Heinrich and Senator Wyden have been equally aggressive and helpful in all they have done to help advance and build support for this package.

It is probably true, if you were to look through this package, you are not going to see something that stands out with bright lights and flags that says these are sweeping changes in Federal policy. Most of the items we have included are probably considered too parochial, too local, too discrete to merit floor time on a standalone basis. That is the problem with lands packages, generally, in that they don't take up a lot of space when it comes to a Senate calendar, but I can tell you that every one of the provisions in this package matters to a community, matters to a constituency--many of them in Western States, States like mine, that have a great amount of public land, of Federal lands. These are, again, important at a host of different levels. So working with colleagues to understand their local priorities, their constituency, has really been a real pleasure as part of this process.

We worked very hard within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this last Congress to prepare the vast majority of bills in the package, and our colleagues on the House side did the same. What we were able to agree to is a package that is sponsored by 50 different Senators in this past Congress. When you count the cosponsor provisions, this package addresses the priorities of close to 90 Senators. You have just about everybody in this body, Republicans and Democrats, who have come together and said: This is an issue in my region, in my State. These are issues we need to be working on together.

I think it is a real reflection of the priorities--the wide range of priorities--that Members have for their home States. I think it is also a sign, when you have more than 100 of these smaller, more discrete bills packages together--it is a sign that we are really overdue in moving these lands bills.

The last time we had a significant lands package on the floor was 2014. It has been 5 years since we have had an opportunity to move, again, a significant number of Members' priorities. I think it is also a testament to the long hours we have spent and our staffs have spent reviewing and working through and really trying to build the agreements on what we hope is soon to be ready to be signed into law.

It is important this bill, this package, becomes law in the near future. What we do through this legislative package is we really provide new opportunities for economic development through land conveyances and exchanges. We expand and we enhance access for sports men and women on our Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation activities.

This should be noted. We have been trying to work a sportsmen's package--a compilation of bills that relate to access on our Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and shooting sports. We have been trying to do this for three Congresses running. It is long overdue.

We also feature provisions related to western water management, national park units, other Federal lands administered by the BLM and the Forest Service. One of the provisions that is probably most strongly supported in this package reauthorizes the deposit function of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This expired last September. Instead of leaving that program subject to repeated lapses and short- term extensions--we see a lot of that around here--what we have done is we have agreed to remove that expiration date. We effectively make that permanent, and we paired it--this is very important to us. We paired that permanent authorization with meaningful reforms, with meaningful reforms that will help ensure greater balance in the funds that are allocated to the program.

I mentioned that many of these provisions might seem very local, very parochial. We have a provision that will facilitate the expansion of an airport in Custer County, SD. I have never been to Custer County, but when you have a constriction, a limitation on your ability to expand an airport because you need a land conveyance, it literally takes an act of Congress in order to make that happen.

Another provision in the measure will enable the construction of a large-scale solar project in the State of Arizona. This is going to bring about jobs, and it is going to bring about renewable energy opportunities. We have several more provisions that will designate national monuments but done the right way. The right way is with Congress in the lead, rather than the President exercising his authorities under the Antiquities Act--so making sure you have that level of consensus that is so important when designations like this move forward.

On some of the more Alaska-specific provisions, we have upheld our promise, a promise made decades ago to Alaska Natives who served during the Vietnam war. During this time of their service, they basically missed out on their opportunity to receive the land allotments that had been promised to them by the Federal Government under the land rights. What we have done is we have worked to address that inequity in a way that is fair to our veterans and fair to the process.

We provide routing flexibility for the natural gas pipeline that has been proposed for some time. We are able to create new opportunities for small, small, small communities, like down in Kake in Southeast Alaska or Utkiagvik up in the North Slope.

We also reached agreement to improve our volcano warning and monitoring system. Some of you might not think about why we need to be paying attention to our volcanoes. Believe me, you don't want to be in an aircraft when you are flying through volcanic ash. Knowing what is going on is important. Whether you are in Hawaii, Alaska, or another State, it is really just a matter of time before we see more eruptions. We saw it in Alaska with Mount Cleveland last year and Kilauea in Hawaii. So we are paying attention to that.

These are just a few of the highlights. I am going to be talking to more of them on the floor as debate goes on, but I also want to close with kind of an explanation of where we are in the process right now.

As I mentioned, when you have a package that has 100-plus bills--and we haven't done something like this in now 5 years--there is no shortage of provisions that we could include. We really worked hard. We did our best to work through everything we had on the table and included as much as we could reach agreement on. I think we all can agree there is more we can do, and we should try to do, and that our work on our lands and our resource issues is not going to end just because we passed this bill.

That is why I would encourage folks to view this as a first step. It is literally a downpayment. We say we are clearing the decks of the provisions that have been outstanding for a long time right now and that are ready to go right now.

I know we have several Members who would like to have amendments. We want to try to find a way to accommodate some of those, but that is going to take a level of cooperation. It always does. We may be able to take some by unanimous consent or by rollcall vote, but there are also going to be some we are just not going to be able to accept at this time and on this package.

Again, I would take back to the bipartisan agreement that we had and the spirit of that agreement, that we want to stay away from things that are outside our jurisdiction or that would create problems with the House. The House has been good--a cooperative arrangement up to this point in time. I think it is fair to say we have had some very good signals that they are anxious to receive this from the Senate and thus help us facilitate its passage into law.

For those who aren't able to add their specific provisions, you certainly have my commitment to work with you in this Congress, but in the meantime I think what you have in front of you is an excellent package. It is time for us to pass it. It is time to show our strong support, send it to the House of Representatives, and then to the President's desk.

I am pleased to yield and recognize my friend and new colleague on the Energy Committee--not a new colleague but certainly my new ranking member--who has been a great person to work with and a real help in all of our efforts.