[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5662-S5676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  BANK ON STUDENTS EMERGENCY LOAN REFINANCING ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Arkansas.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 503

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, last month we marked the 24th anniversary 
of the beginning of the gulf war. In August 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. 
Shortly after this development the United States launched Operation 
Desert Shield, which led to Operation Desert Storm to drive Iraqi 
forces out of Kuwait.
  Arkansas made a huge sacrifice during Operations Desert Shield and 
Desert Storm. The Arkansas Army National Guard had 13 units called to 
serve during these operations, and 10 units of the Arkansas Air 
National Guard were called up. More than 3,400 Arkansas Guard soldiers 
were called up altogether--the second highest percentage of any State. 
Of those Arkansans called to serve, nine of the Army Guard units served 
in combat, including the 142nd Field Artillery Brigade--the only 
National Guard artillery brigade called to Active Duty during the gulf 
war.
  I thank all of the men and women--more than 600,000 Americans from 
across the United States--who served and sacrificed in Operations 
Desert Storm and Desert Shield.
  These servicemembers deserve a place of honor and recognition in our 
Nation's Capital. My friend and colleague Senator Donnelly and I have 
been working toward that goal. I am proud of my colleagues in the House 
who unanimously passed H.R. 503, the National Desert Storm and Desert 
Shield War Memorial Act in May. I ask that we bring this bill up for 
final passage here in the Senate.
  In a time where we are facing budget constraints, this bill is budget 
neutral. Private funds for construction of the memorial will be raised 
by the National Desert Storm War Memorial Association. This bill simply 
authorizes the establishment of a monument on Federal lands here in our 
Nation's Capital, which is what Congress needs to act on to honor all 
of those men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. Passing 
this bill will be a great step in honoring our gulf war veterans. I am 
grateful to have the support of the full Senate and look forward to a 
swift ultimate passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 403, H.R. 503. I further ask that the 
bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, with a great deal of respect and deference 
to my good friend and an extraordinary Senator from Arkansas, I 
actually do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


           Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1033 and H.R. 503

  Mr. BOOKER. What I would like to do, because I fully support what an 
extraordinary and very important piece of legislation this is, honoring 
those who served and fought and fell in Desert Storm--what I object to 
is the decoupling of the two bills, both of which honor our veterans.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 398, H.R. 1033, the American Battlefield 
Protection Program Amendments Act, and Calendar No. 403, H.R. 503, the 
Desert Storm Memorial en bloc, that the committee-reported amendment to 
H.R. 1033 be agreed to, that the bills, as amended, if amended, be read 
a third time and passed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
explain to the people watching what is happening here. We have a bill 
that everybody agrees to that is not going to get passed because 
everybody does not agree to another bill that is linked to it. We have 
offered multiple compromises on the battlefield protection act. We just 
have a $17.8 trillion deficit.

[[Page S5663]]

We are going to have a $599 billion debt this year. Yet this program 
they want to authorize that will keep this program that the Senator 
from Arkansas would like to honor our Desert Storm from happening--they 
refuse to take yes for an answer.
  There are 26 critical sites that need to be protected that we know 
of. We said: Do that. We have said: Do not authorize more than we can 
afford. We will not do that. We have made compromises so that we can do 
what the intent of the battlefield protection act is and accomplish the 
leverage against the bill honoring our Desert Storm veterans. But that 
is not good enough. So what we have asked for is to quit allowing 
States and localities to game the system with any kind of pay-fors and 
do not have the Federal Government pay for the State's share or the 
local community's share plus the Federal Government's share. We have 
said some good government stuff.
  You can pass this bill today if, in fact, they will take some 
adjustments to the bill. So what I would offer is rather than object, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey modify his 
request so that my substitute amendment to H.R. 1033, which is at the 
desk, be agreed to.
  If you agree to these simple, straight-forward, good government, 
financially secure items, you do not get the full basket, but you get 
the things that are critical to this country in terms of protecting 
battlefield sites and we will honor our Desert Storm veterans.
  I ask that we have that modification be agreed to which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey so modify his 
request?
  Mr. BOOKER. There is no more eloquent a person when it comes to good 
government than Senator Coburn, but I do not modify my request. I 
object. I ask unanimous consent that the previous request I made be 
agreed to.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the sad thing is the people who were 
involved in Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield are in the middle 
of this. We have this other bill that there are some concerns about. 
That is fine. That is what this place is all about. But the idea of 
holding the Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield bill hostage in 
this situation is not good. We live in an era of gridlock, and we have 
problems getting things done.
  This bill passed the House unanimously and would pass the Senate 
unanimously. So I would hope that we can again get together and get 
things worked out. The reality is and the problem is that there is no 
reason to couple these two together. If the other bill has problems, it 
needs to be worked out. That is what it is all about. Let's have that 
discussion.
  But the Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield bill has nothing to 
do with that. So I would hope that in the near future we can move 
forward and honor these 600,000 people who participated, so that one 
day their children can come and visit Washington and be able to look at 
the monument about which the committee will decide as to what is 
appropriate so that we can honor these individuals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--Calendar
                                 No. 12

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 24 years ago, on July 26, 1990, President 
George Herbert Walker Bush, in a glorious sun-filled day on the White 
House lawn, attended by more people than had ever attended a bill 
signing in the history of our country--President Bush signed into law 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, a bill broadly supported by 
Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate and in the House.
  It was a momentous occasion. You see, most people thought of civil 
rights as pertaining to people of color, religion, national origin, 
sex--that type of thing. But up until July 26, 1990, people with 
disabilities had no civil rights. I remember when President Bush signed 
that law, he uttered these words. He said: ``Let the shameful walls of 
discrimination come tumbling down.'' It was a wonderful day.
  Looking back over those 24 years, can anyone deny that our country 
has made great progress in expanding our concepts of the rights of 
people with disabilities: the right to be educated and well educated; 
the right of people with disabilities to have independent living, to 
live on their own, not to be institutionalized; the right of people 
with disabilities to associate freely with others; the right of people 
with disabilities, children with disabilities, to go to school with 
other kids who are not disabled; the right of people with disabilities 
to travel freely with barriers broken down, ramps not stairs, buses 
that are fully accessible now, trains, everything accessible, every 
building designed in America. Think about that. Every building designed 
and built in America today is fully accessible.
  We have gone a great way in making older buildings--even some of our 
national monuments--totally accessible to people with disabilities. 
People with disabilities are finding more and more employment. They are 
working--not at some minimum-wage job--but working alongside others, 
showing that they too can contribute to our society and be fully 
functioning members of our society.
  That is what the Americans with Disabilities Act did for our country. 
In 1991 the United Nations decided that what we had done in America 
could be an example for the world. So a commission was established to 
draw up a convention, a treaty on the rights of persons with 
disabilities. I might point out, it was negotiated under the George W. 
Bush administration. It took several years, but it was hammered out 
with the concurrence--get this--with the concurrence and the approval 
of the George W. Bush administration.
  That U.N. treaty has been sent out to nations to be ratified. Over 
150 nations have now ratified it. Think about that. Of 196 members of 
the United Nations, 150 have already ratified it. One country is 
singularly absent--the United States--from whence it all started. If 
you look at the treaty--if you just read it--it just echoes the 
Americans with Disabilities Act language in what it does.
  So I will have more to say about this later. But I just want to give 
that background. We brought it up 2 years ago for a vote. Now, under 
our Constitution, a treaty requires a two-thirds vote--two-thirds of 
those present and voting. It was brought up 2 years ago in December of 
2012. We did not get a two-thirds vote. It failed. Well, that Congress 
ended and a new Congress started, so the President had to resubmit it. 
It had to go back to the committee, now under the leadership of Senator 
Menendez.
  As requested, the committee has reported out the bill again with new 
reservations, understandings, and declarations. Now it is incumbent 
upon the Senate to debate and vote again on this treaty.
  I am hopeful we would have the votes this time--after due 
consideration over the past couple of years, that we would have the 
votes necessary.
  The unanimous consent request I am about to proffer is the mirror 
image of the same one 2 years ago. I want everyone to understand that 
this unanimous consent request was not denied 2 years ago. We went 
ahead, debated, and we had a vote.
  That is what this unanimous consent request would do, provide us 
with, again, 2 hours of debate, evenly divided in the usual form, and 
then an up-or-down vote. We have the time to do it.
  I mean, what are we doing around here, one quorum call after another? 
People want to leave here tomorrow night. Two hours of debate, a vote, 
that is nothing to pass this momentous piece of legislation.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--Treaty 
                               No. 112-7

  I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 12, the 
disabilities treaty document No. 112-7 (disability); that the treaty be 
considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages 
up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; 
that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that there 
be no amendments in order to the treaty or the resolution of 
ratification; that

[[Page S5664]]

there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote on the 
resolution; that any statements be printed in the Record; that if the 
resolution of ratification is adopted, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action; that if the resolution is 
not adopted, the treaty be returned to the calendar, and that there be 
no motions or points of order in order other than a motion to 
reconsider; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, I wish to note that this is a 
treaty that has attracted a fair amount of controversy. It is a treaty 
that was voted on in 2012 and failed to receive the requisite two-
thirds majority vote in order to be ratified in this body.
  This treaty received additional consideration this year in the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee on July 22 and received a 12-to-6 vote. 
There are a number of our colleagues, both on and off the committee, 
who have concerns with this treaty, who would like the opportunity to 
propose amendments, along with our consideration of this document. 
Under the proposed unanimous consent request, we would not be allowed 
to propose any amendments, and we would be given 2 hours--only 2 
hours--to debate it.
  Given the significance of treaties, and the fact that they carry the 
effect of the law of the land once ratified, I think this body deserves 
more, certainly, than the opportunity to debate it for only 2 hours. To 
be precluded here from the ability to present any amendments would not 
be an appropriate thing for to us do.
  On that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is another sad, irresponsible day in 
the Senate. I say to my friend from Utah, he was here 2 years ago when 
we proposed the same exact unanimous consent request, and the Senator 
did not object.
  It also did not allow for any amendments. That is usual when we have 
treaties and it comes through the committee. So why is the Senator from 
Utah objecting today to even doing what we did 2 years ago? Maybe he 
has the votes to defeat it. I don't know. We won't know until we vote 
on it. But 2 years ago, the Senator from Utah did not object to the 
very same unanimous consent request.
  He says there has been a lot of controversy about it. Well, that is 
not so. The only controversy has been raised by the tea party and some 
whom I call the black helicopter crowd, people who just don't like the 
United Nations. I don't care if they like the United Nations; that is 
up to them. But it seems to me we ought to at least bring it up again, 
debate it, and see if anyone has changed their minds. We have new 
people in the Senate who were not here 2 years ago--new Senators who 
have not had the opportunity to express themselves on this treaty.
  I disagree with my friend from Utah. There is no controversy over 
this, basically. Controversy? This is a treaty supported by former 
President George H.W. Bush. Former President George W. Bush, former 
President Carter, and former President Clinton all support it. All the 
veterans groups support it. The American Legion, VFW, Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, and Vietnam war veterans all strongly 
support ratification of this treaty.

  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has supported it strongly--and I don't 
just mean leaning back. Tom Donohue, the head of the Chamber of 
Commerce, has written, has called people about how important it is to 
the business community that we ratify it.
  Former Governor John Engler, who is now the head of the Business 
Roundtable, brought this up to the Business Roundtable and they 
unanimously supported our ratification of this treaty.
  I spoke to the Business Roundtable group last evening, and they all--
the ones I talked to individually--couldn't understand why we would 
block this treaty because it is good for business, and they understand 
it.
  It is supported by the Information Technology Industry Council--that 
is AT&T. I just spoke with the CEO of AT&T last evening who strongly 
supports it; Sprint, Adobe, Microsoft--all the high-tech people--
because they understand we need strong, accessible standards for their 
products and their software across the globe.
  All disability groups, every single disability group in America 
supports the treaty. Faith-based groups across the spectrum support it.
  Senator Bob Dole has worked his heart out on getting votes to ratify 
this treaty. He has been on the phone, he has made appearances, and we 
have Republicans on it. Senator McCain has been a strong supporter for 
this treaty from the very beginning. Senator Mark Kirk is a supporter. 
Mr. Kirk is a veteran himself.
  We had a press conference with all the veterans groups here not too 
long ago and I thought Mr. Kirk said something very poignant. He said: 
A lot of disabled American veterans fought in places around the world 
to secure our freedom. They should have the right to travel freely in 
other parts of the world, even though they have a disability.
  Think about that.
  Senator Barrasso is a strong supporter, and Senator Murkowski, 
Senator Collins, Senator Ayotte have all worked hard on this subject. 
But for a couple of people who have raised an objection, we can't bring 
up the treaty.
  The Senator from Utah just objected to bringing it up for, what, 2 
hours of debate and an up-or-down vote. I say: Hey, look around the 
Chamber. There is nobody here. There won't be anybody here all 
afternoon. We could have a little debate on this, 2 hours; they could 
make their case, we could make our case and have a vote for 15 
minutes--and yet the Senator from Utah will not let it be brought up, 
even though he let it be brought up 2 years ago. He said: Well, we 
can't offer amendments. That was the same 2 years ago, but they didn't 
object to bringing it up.
  When we see all of the support this has--and I might address an issue 
that has come up, and it seems to have its genesis in the tea party. 
They have raised objections on the basis that somehow, by ratifying 
this treaty, we give up our sovereignty as a nation, that it erodes our 
sovereignty. That is based upon the fact that there is a commission 
under this treaty. There is a U.N. commission set up, a 16-member 
commission of experts, to draft standards and advise countries on what 
they need to do to meet their obligations.
  Again, if we are a signatory to the treaty, I have no doubt we would 
get a seat on that commission, and the high-tech industry council and 
the business groups know that. That is where we have our input to 
making sure that accessibility standards, software standards, and other 
things are adaptable for us, our business community, our software, and 
our hardware.
  The tea party, some of these people, have objected to this 
commission, saying that the commission can issue findings and such that 
take away our sovereignty.
  We have operated, at least for the past 20 years, under two other 
treaties that have the same kind of commission of experts, and it 
hasn't eroded our sovereignty. Do you know why? Because it is advisory. 
That commission has no authority to assess penalties or anything else 
on the United States or any other country. All they can say is: Well, 
you should do this, you should do that--but it is only advisory. How 
does that erode our sovereignty?
  Yet the very same people who make the argument that somehow this 
erodes our sovereignty will rush to the front to vote on a trade 
agreement--a trade agreement such as NAFTA or other trade agreements we 
have, which do erode our sovereignty, because it turns over to the 
World Trade Organization the ability to fine America, to tell us what 
we have to do in order to make trade right. They have the ability to 
tell America what to do. Yet my friends who are objecting to this 
probably support those trade agreements.
  Yet when it comes to people with disabilities, why is it they are so 
adamant that we cannot join 150 other nations of the world to advance 
the rights of people with disabilities globally? Why is it just people 
with disabilities they focused on?
  They didn't focus on torture, they didn't focus on the worst forms of 
child labor, they haven't focused on any of

[[Page S5665]]

our trade agreements. Why people with disabilities? It makes us wonder, 
is this another blatant form of discrimination against people with 
disabilities?
  Maybe some in that tea party would like to undo the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. I don't know. But we can't say honestly that, yes, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act is good, it has done a lot of good 
for our country, for our business community, for people with 
disabilities, everyone, and say but we don't want to be involved in 
helping other countries advance the cause of people with disabilities 
so people with disabilities in other countries have the same kind of 
rights, accessibilities, and standards we enjoy in this country for 
people with disabilities.

  Some people may say we are the best in the world on disability law 
and policy--and that is true, we are--so why don't we shine our light 
around the world?
  President Reagan always referred to America as the ``shining city on 
the hill.'' If we are a shining city on the hill and no one can get 
there and we are not willing to help other countries, what does it mean 
to be a shining city on the hill? Is that some kind of an idea that 
only we can have? We are a shining city on the hill when it comes to 
disability rights, and we ought to be involved in spreading it 
globally. This is our opportunity to do so.
  Some people say: We can work with other countries. If they want our 
advice, we can go to other countries to help them with disability 
policy. Think about that for a second. We don't have the personnel or 
the wherewithal to go to 150 separate different countries to help them 
in terms of changing policy. It takes a kind of collective action where 
we can join with other countries that have done pretty darned well. 
There are a lot of other countries that have done very well in 
disability policy. To join with them, we are much better and much 
stronger that way than us just going to another country.
  I was in China earlier this summer meeting with people about this 
treaty, which China has adopted. They have signed on. We talked about 
the United States working with China, not only in China but with other 
countries, to help advance the rights of people with disabilities.
  China is doing some interesting things. They are starting to move 
ahead.
  One person said to me: What is so important about America being a 
part of the treaty is that when we speak to one another, we speak in a 
common language of the Convention on the Rights of People with 
Disabilities. It seems to me that if the United States is not a part of 
it, they speak to us in a different manner. It is: The United States, 
here is what we do; here is what you ought to do. That doesn't get us 
very far in diplomacy.
  But if we work with the Chinese and other countries to say: Here is 
what we ought to do, here is what other countries have done, here are 
the standards we ought to abide by, there is much more force and effect 
than if we try to go it alone.
  I assume there are military analogies to this. Think about the 
present situation. Should we go it alone simply because we are the most 
powerful, we have the biggest military, the best weapons, and 
everything else? Should we just go it alone because we are the best 
militarily in the world? I don't think the American people would want 
that.
  We have to join with other countries and sometimes ask other 
countries to take the lead and we will provide that strong backbone. 
That is how I see the disabilities treaty. We have to join with other 
countries.
  How can we give up the moral leadership we have had on this issue, 
both here and abroad, the moral leadership we have had on advancing the 
rights of people with disabilities?
  How can we abdicate that because a handful of people are afraid of 
giving up our sovereignty--which is a bogus argument because that 
committee is advisory only. It makes recommendations, but it has no 
enforcement authority whatsoever.
  By not ratifying this treaty, we are left behind. Think about that. 
We, the United States, are left behind in a field in which we have 
carved out leadership, and we are just going to give it up: No, we 
don't want to lead the world.
  Why wouldn't we want to lead the world in disability policies? To not 
join 150 other countries, to not provide the leadership, to not provide 
the expertise we have developed over 24 years or more relinquishes our 
responsibility to people with disabilities, both in America and around 
the world. Why on Earth would we want to do that?
  In Ghana, a great young advocate named Emmanuel Ofosu Yeboah, a man 
born with no left leg but determined as a child to play soccer, turned 
his obsession for this sport into an obsession advocating for the 
rights of people with disabilities in Ghana.
  Earlier this year in Malawi, 21 African nations met on this issue of 
changing their policies, advancing the rights of people with 
disabilities. I was asked to go and meet with them. I couldn't because 
we were in session in the Senate. But that is why they are reaching out 
to us. They want us to be involved with them to help move this issue 
forward.
  In Nepal parents of children with autism banded together to start 
their own school to educate their children. They want their kids with 
disabilities to be fully included in society and have opportunities for 
work and for life. They want us to be joined together with them. It is 
conspicuous.
  I was privileged to join Senator Cardin earlier this summer in Baku, 
Azerbaijan, for a meeting of the committee for security and economic 
development in Europe. I offered an amendment putting all the nations 
of Europe that are in that OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development--OECD countries--that we supported ratification of this 
treaty. It was adopted unanimously. They want the United States to be a 
partner in this effort.

  Talk to a disabled veteran who would like to travel overseas maybe 
with his or her spouse and their children.
  I recently talked to a mother whose family immigrated from Italy. She 
wanted to go over for a big family reunion, but she has a child with a 
disability, and where they were going they had no accessibility. She 
could have gone and left her son at home, but she couldn't do that. So 
she missed that big family reunion because of the lack of accessibility 
in Italy.
  It is a sad day that one individual on the Senate floor would object 
to bringing this up when it has such broad support.
  I will say one last thing about the issue of sovereignty. I have 
heard a couple Senators on the Republican side talk about the fact that 
with this Commission, we give up our sovereignty, which I have said is 
a bogus argument.
  Of my friends on the other side, the few who have objected to this on 
the grounds that we would lose our sovereignty, let me ask this 
question.
  Former President George H.W. Bush supports this treaty 
wholeheartedly. Does he not understand about sovereignty or does he not 
care about sovereignty?
  Former President George W. Bush, under whose administration this 
treaty was hammered out, supports it. Does former President George W. 
Bush not understand this or does he just not care about our 
sovereignty?
  Bob Dole knows this treaty backward and forward--a World War II hero, 
Presidential candidate, Republican leader of the Senate, disabled 
American veteran.
  Are those few people over there who say this would erode our 
sovereignty saying they know more than Senator Dole or are they saying 
Senator Dole doesn't care about our sovereignty--which is it--or those 
few who raise the issue of sovereignty, that the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce doesn't care about our sovereignty? I don't think we would 
like to say that to Tom Donohue or to John Engler at the Business 
Roundtable. Of course they care about our sovereignty. Tell that to the 
American Legion. Tell the American Legion they don't care about our 
sovereignty or they don't understand this or they are too stupid to 
understand it. Is that what they are saying or are they saying they are 
the arbiters--those few, they are the arbiters of what is and is not 
our sovereignty. They rise above all former Presidents. They rise above 
Republican leaders. They rise above John McCain, a war hero. Believe 
me, I think John McCain understands about our sovereignty. He knows 
this treaty. He supports it wholeheartedly. Are

[[Page S5666]]

those few who raise this issue of sovereignty saying John McCain 
doesn't get it or he doesn't care about our sovereignty? Which is it? 
The fact is, John McCain does care about our sovereignty, he does get 
it, and he knows this doesn't erode our sovereignty one single iota.
  But I wish to make that point because those few keep raising this 
issue of sovereignty as though they are the guardians, they alone know 
what distinguishes our sovereignty and what erodes it--not former 
Presidents, former Republican leaders. In fact, every former Republican 
leader of this Senate still alive supports this treaty.
  My, how far we have gotten off track since the adoption of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act that was strongly bipartisan and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act amendments we put through in 2008, 
strongly supported by both sides. I dare say, we have strong Republican 
support for this treaty but for a few on the Republican side who just 
want to adhere to that tea party nostrum that somehow this erodes our 
sovereignty and we can't join.
  I will close where I started. The unanimous consent I offered today 
that was objected to by the Senator from Utah is the same as what we 
had 2 years ago and no one objected to it. The Senator from Utah was 
here 2 years ago, and he didn't object then to the same unanimous 
consent request. He did not object. So it goes back on the calendar. It 
goes back on the Executive Calendar and it will be there.

  I guess I would say the action by a few on the Republican side 
blocking ratification of the convention on the rights of people with 
disabilities will not be the end. I may be retiring from the Senate, 
but I am not retiring from this fight. I will never retire in the fight 
for justice, fairness, and equality for people with disabilities both 
here and around the world. I will never retire from the fight to refute 
those absolutely unfounded and bogus objections to this crucial treaty.
  I will continue to work with former Senator Bob Dole, with former 
Presidents, with veterans, with business leaders, with Republicans on 
the other side who support this treaty, with the national disabilities 
community, with our disabilities community. I will continue to work to 
advance this and to get it over the hurdle.
  The false claims--the false claims--of those who object to this 
treaty will be overcome. We will succeed in ratifying this treaty. We 
will restore America's stature as the world leader on disability rights 
and we will continue to fight for justice and a fair shake for people 
with disabilities not just here in America but around the world.
  It is a sad day, another sad and irresponsible day in the history of 
the United States Senate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Suicide Prevention Month

  Mr. DONNELLY. I rise today in recognition of Suicide Prevention Month 
to once again bring attention to an issue that weighs heavy on many of 
our hearts and minds.
  Last month the world paused to mourn the loss of a man who brought 
laughter and joy to countless lives, a man whose internal suffering 
didn't stop him from improving the lives of so many he touched, 
including our heroic men and women serving overseas. Robin Williams 
said the best audience he ever had was with the troops he entertained 
on USO tours. His death showed us that we may not always know who among 
us is living the life of unbearable pain and suffering. Even the 
strongest among us sometimes needs a helping hand, including the brave 
men and women in uniform who protect our country each and every day.
  Today I wish to once again shine the light on the scourge of military 
suicide. Earlier this month the Department of Defense released a report 
which detailed the number of suicides among servicemembers during the 
first quarter of 2014. The Department of Defense reported that a total 
of 120 servicemembers committed suicide from January through March, 
including 74 active component servicemembers, 24 Reserve members, and 
22 National Guard members. In 2013, 475 servicemembers took their own 
lives. In 2012, we lost 522 to suicide. We have seen 2 straight years 
of more deaths as a result of suicide than of combat in Afghanistan.
  These men and women are giving their all to support our way of life 
and they risk making the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms. At 
a minimum we should honor this service and sacrifice by doing all we 
can to support them.
  We all understand this is not a simple issue. There is no one 
solution to the problem, no cure-all that ends it tomorrow. I do 
believe, though, there are commonsense steps we can take now to make 
meaningful progress.
  In May I introduced the bipartisan Jacob Sexton Military Suicide 
Prevention Act of 2014. This legislation is named after Jacob Sexton, 
an Indiana National Guardsman from Farmland, IN, who took his own life 
while home on a 15-day leave from Afghanistan. Building upon 
legislation I introduced last year, the Sexton act ensures that mental 
health is evaluated regularly and is a central element of a 
servicemember's overall readiness in four key ways.
  First, it requires annual mental health assessments for all 
servicemembers, including active duty, the Guard, and the Reserves. 
Right now the military provides the most effective mental health care 
only for those who are preparing for or returning from deployment, 
despite research that shows the majority of military suicides occur 
among servicemembers who have never been deployed.
  Second, it establishes a working group between the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services to find 
innovative ways to improve access to mental health care for members of 
the Guard and Reserve. Where servicemembers often rely on civilian 
health insurance and providers, as the Guard and Reserve do, we want to 
team up to be able to provide care right in their own communities. 
Suicide among Guard members hit a record high in 2013, and we are 
committed to bringing that number down to zero.
  Third, the bill requires an interagency report to evaluate existing 
military mental health practices and to provide recommendations for 
improvement, including peer-to-peer programs I have proposed in the 
past.
  Finally, the bill ensures that seeking help remains a sign of 
strength. It protects the privacy of the servicemember coming forward, 
because no one should be punished for seeking help. No one should be 
kept from their next promotion for seeking help.

  I introduced the bipartisan Sexton act with my Republican colleague 
Roger Wicker of Mississippi. Since then it has received the endorsement 
of numerous national organizations, including the National Guard 
Association of the United States, the American Foundation for Suicide 
Prevention, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. This bill 
is a step in the right direction in the fight against military suicide.
  I was encouraged when the Senate Armed Services Committee passed this 
legislation as part of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense 
Authorization Act this past May. This is important progress, but we 
need to get this legislation signed into law. As the Senate prepares to 
recess, I call on the Senate to take up the NDAA as soon as we return 
to Washington. There is no reason why this bipartisan legislation 
should not be passed, and passed quickly, just as we have for the last 
52 years.
  Our country, as we all know, is faced with many serious issues, some 
of which we don't have good answers to yet; but the Sexton act is a 
good start to address the pressing issue of military suicide. This 
legislation helps save lives--helps save soldiers' lives. So let's pass 
the NDAA and with it the Jacob Sexton Act to show our service men and 
women that we are all in on supporting them the same way they support 
us.
  This legislation is just the beginning. Combating suicide both in our 
military and elsewhere is an issue that continues to demand Congress's 
attention. We must continually evaluate what we

[[Page S5667]]

are doing, take a second and third look at the resources we are 
offering, and ask ourselves every day: Can we do better? Is there more 
we can do before it is too late? The answer more often than not is yes.
  That is why we must be vigilant in the effort to let people know they 
are not alone. There is somewhere they can go, someone to talk to, and 
someone to help carry the load. We need to continue the conversation 
about what we can do to help our brothers and sisters, our sons and 
daughters, our husbands and wives, who may feel like they are 
struggling with seemingly insurmountable challenges all by themselves. 
These challenges can be overcome.
  Suicide Prevention Month is a reminder of that fact. There are many 
resources available to those who struggle with suicidal thoughts. For 
our servicemembers, trained mental health specialists are available 24 
hours a day through the military and Veterans Crisis Line. All you have 
to do is call 1-800-273-8255, and press 1. You will get immediate, 
confidential assistance 24 hours a day. For additional help, 
militarymentalhealth.org offers a free, 100-percent anonymous mental 
health assessment. This is a valuable tool for servicemembers unsure of 
where they stand.
  I hope all of our servicemembers struggling with mental health 
concerns and with challenges know that we are here for them and that we 
are working nonstop to ensure they receive the care and support they 
deserve. Let's continue to spread that message throughout the rest of 
Suicide Prevention Month, and every month thereafter.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Portman pertaining to the introduction of S. 2839 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Angels in Adoption

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, it is my pleasure today to come to the 
floor of the Senate to honor some very special constituents from all of 
our States who are here for 3 days, and they are very special because 
they actually have wings. We call them angels, and I think the 
Presiding Officer has met her angels who are here this week. They are 
Members who have been honored or constituents of ours who have been 
honored by Members of the Senate and Members of the House for the 
extraordinary work these individual citizens and sometimes entities and 
organizations have done on behalf of orphans here in the United States 
and around the world. There are happily over 124 angels here with us, 
124 Members of Congress--70 Members of the House and 54 Members of the 
Senate--who took the time to identify someone in their district or 
State who has really stepped up for orphans through either the domestic 
adoption and foster care system or our international adoption world.
  I am proud of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. I am one of 
the founders of the organization. About 16 years ago a group of about 
20 of us came together to begin really focused work on educating 
ourselves first and then our colleagues across the aisle and in both 
Houses of Congress on the barriers that were keeping children from 
families, the barriers that were causing children to be left and 
abandoned, never to be reunited with their birth families or ever 
placed with new families who could adopt them. We struggled to learn 
and educate ourselves about why families break up and disintegrate and 
what is the proper approach after that happens to try to pull that 
family back together and if not, how we can place children in homes 
where they can be raised and nurtured and cared for.
  You heard me say this many times: Governments do some things very 
well--some things not so well--but raising children is not one of them. 
Parents, responsible adults, raise children. It is the way we are 
wired. It is the way we are created. It is the only real way that ever 
works well. I believe our job at the Federal, State, and local level, 
both here in the United States and around the world, is for the 
government to get out of the way and let this happen or start leading 
and helping with the kinds of policies that help children reunite with 
birth families and if that is not possible, to move quickly--because 
time is of the essence in a child's development--to make sure that 
child and sibling groups are placed in a loving, supportive family and 
not in an institution--not necessarily with people who are paid to be 
parents, not necessarily in group homes, but in real families. 
Sometimes governments, nonprofits, and charitable individuals want to 
help with stipends to support that effort. We perfectly understand 
that. It is perfectly legal. But we really love children to be in homes 
where they feel they are being loved out of a gift of love, and that is 
our goal.
  There is so much gridlock and arguing going on. This is one issue 
about which there is no gridlock and no argument. Republicans and 
Democrats have come together. Jim Inhofe and I are proud to serve as 
the leaders in the Senate with many Members who have been very active. 
The Presiding Officer has been extremely active. I wish to say thank 
you to the Senator from Wisconsin for her leadership on several pieces 
of important legislation. I would like to give a special shout-out to 
the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, who has been remarkable in 
her leadership; Senator Gillibrand, who has been extremely helpful; 
Senator Shaheen; Senator Blunt; Senator Boozman; and I could go on. 
There have been 20 or 25 real champions this year in the Senate on 
issues that affect orphans and children in foster care. Senator 
Grassley, who leads the foster care caucus, has also been a very 
reliable advocate on behalf of these children.
  To frame the challenge, there are about 500,000 children in the 
United States who are in foster care. About 100,000 have been deemed to 
be adoptable. Parental rights have been terminated due to gross 
neglect, abuse, et cetera. The courts have stepped in and said these 
children need a new home, new parents. That is a big number, 500,000, 
but it represents about one-half of 1 percent of all the children in 
America. From that standpoint, you can say America is doing pretty well 
with keeping all of our children in families, keeping them loved and 
supported. When families fail, the community, the government, and 
churches and places of worship need to step in and help and be 
supportive.
  But we still have many problems. Some children are waiting too long. 
Some children are born in this country without birth certificates--I 
just met one in my office today, if you can imagine that--so their 
legal status has been compromised. There are millions of orphans around 
the world who don't have any advocacy and don't have the kinds of 
systems we have in the United States to help with their identification, 
their rescue, their placement, et cetera, so that is the work we do.
  The Congressional Coalition on Adoption educates Members of Congress. 
We hold seminars for ourselves, educational opportunities. We hold an 
annual gala, and this year the Angels In Adoption gala is happening 
tonight in Washington. Angels are visiting Senate offices, telling 
their stories of adoption to our Members. Tonight we will be at the 
Ronald Reagan International Trade Center celebrating with almost 1000 
people the work our angels are doing.
  I wish to congratulate our three very special national award winners: 
adoptive parents Bill Klein and Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the stars of the 
TLC reality show ``The Little Couple.'' They are very famous in America 
and well-known around the world. People have watched them overcome the 
great challenges they face. They are very tiny but have great hearts 
and great minds, and by being on television, they have an extraordinary 
reach. We are all very familiar with their show. They are married and 
have proceeded to build a family through adoption. They adopted a 
little, little child from India and another little child from China and 
are building their family. They have just

[[Page S5668]]

been remarkable models for all adoptive parents, of which I am one. 
They share the joys and challenges of being adoptive parents of 
children with very special physical needs.

  It has just been remarkable. We will be so touched by their story 
tonight. They just left my office and they will share their story with 
us tonight. I just wanted to thank them for their leadership.
  Shonda Rhimes is not with us in Washington. She will be receiving an 
award. She is the executive producer of the hit shows ``Scandal,'' 
``Private Practice,'' and ``Grey's Anatomy.'' She has been a tremendous 
advocate for adoption. She has written about some issues regarding 
adoption into her shows and has helped to educate the United States of 
America and the world about the needs of orphans and the great 
privilege of being adoptive parents.
  Finally, our third national award winner is our Paul Singer awardee. 
Paul Singer is deceased, but he was a great leader in our corporate 
world and our organization gives an award every year to a corporate 
executive. This year our winner is Debra Steigerwaldt Waller, CEO of 
Jockey International. She founded an organization that really helps 
provide support with postadoption services because many of our adoptive 
families have adopted children with special needs and some have adopted 
teenagers or older children. There are all sorts of challenges that 
come with those adoptions, just as there are with infant adoptions, and 
those families need someplace to turn. She stepped up as a corporate 
leader and adoptee herself, and we are thankful for her leadership.
  I wish to mention two other angels.
  I see my colleague is on the floor ready to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I was proud to nominate Pastor Chad 
Hardbarger and his wife Marsha. They served as foster parents in 
Louisiana for over 9 years. Amazingly, the couple has cared for 14 
children from the foster care system and have adopted 6 of those 
children out of foster care. They have a 19-year-old, a 14-year-old, an 
11-year-old, a 9-year-old, an 8-year-old, and a 7-year-old. They are in 
the process of adopting a special infant named Amber. All of them are 
here in Washington and have had a great tour of the city today.
  Monique, Chris, Bryce, Jordan, Bailey, Gavyn, and Amber are a 
wonderful family that was brought together and into the loving home of 
Pastor Chad and his wife Marcia. They are now working with their local 
church in Shreveport--in the northwest Louisiana area--to help advocate 
and get other churches and other families involved in fostering and 
adopting.
  I was so pleased to present the award to the senior pastor of 
Emmanuel Baptist Church. He has established his own ministry, Fashioned 
for a Home, and he does so many great things to help our children.
  These children don't have any fancy lobbyists or PR firms fighting 
for them. The pastors at home, their wives, and advocates are the ones 
who are doing a beautiful job. Congratulations to Chad Harbinger and 
his wife Marsha. I was so moved when I met Senator Wicker's angel at 
the pinning ceremony, and he was such an interesting angel that I 
wanted to put his story in the Congressional Record.
  Senator Wicker nominated Mendell L. Thompson, who has been president 
of America's Christian Credit Union in Glendora, CA, serving more than 
48,000 members and has more than $500 million in managed assets.
  He serves as trustee and director of several different organizations. 
He received his award from Senator Wicker for designing a loan package 
at the credit union that would provide low-interest loans to families 
that were adopting, because sometimes the expenses can be overwhelming, 
particularly if you are adopting internationally but even if you adopt 
out of foster care. The foster care costs are minimal, but there are 
other costs when you adopt a child. Sometimes they have to add a room 
to the house or get a special vehicle if they have adopted a special-
needs child. He has made over 1,000 loans to families that have adopted 
children.
  I wanted to give a shout-out to Senator Wicker's angel, Mr. Mendell 
L. Thompson, and his board of directors at America's Christian Credit 
Union in California and thank them for believing that every child 
deserves a forever family and for taking an active role in crafting an 
affordable solution for America's adoptive parents. He has a passion at 
heart for the miracle of adoption and continues to promote this in 
California and around the country.
  I thank the members for their participation. It is going to be one of 
our biggest events.
  Before I take my seat, Madam President, I wish to speak on one more 
topic.


                  Tribute to Reverend Samuel R. Blakes

  Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in 
congratulating Rev. Samuel Raymond Blakes, pastor of New Home Family 
Worship Center in New Orleans, LA on his 19th pastoral anniversary. I 
was honored to participate in the recent anniversary celebration and 
worship alongside members of the congregation and friends.
  Reverend Blakes is a graduate of St. Augustine High School. He 
attended Southern University at New Orleans and earned both a bachelors 
and master's degree in theology from Christian Bible College in 
Louisiana.
  Rev. Blakes has devoted himself to New Home Family Worship Center 
where he has served as pastor since 1995. Through his leadership, the 
congregation of New Home has expanded to a membership of over 10,000 
worshipers. Reverend Blakes remains committed to making a positive 
impact on the lives of all people through his weekly televised 
spiritual broadcasts, live radio show and ongoing community outreach.
  Rev. Samuel R. Blakes is the youngest son of the late Prophet Robert 
C. Blakes, Sr. and Minister Lois R. Blakes, both residents of New 
Orleans for decades. Prophet Blakes was an outstanding community 
leader, spreading his ministry across Louisiana and into Texas.
  I commend Reverend Blakes and his congregation for remaining 
vigilant, faithful and steadfast in his service to his community. I 
join his wife Stacey, daughter Sariah and the entire New Home Family 
Worship Center congregation in celebrating his 19th pastoral 
anniversary. I pray that Rev. Samuel R. Blakes will continue to be 
blessed with many more years as a spiritual leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3522

  Mr. VITTER. Recently the House of Representatives passed, on a 
bipartisan basis, H.R. 3522, the Employee Health Care Protection Act by 
Congressman Bill Cassidy. This bipartisan act that passed the House 
would keep the President's core promise throughout the ObamaCare debate 
when he told every American: If you like the health care coverage you 
have, you can keep it--period, end of story. I am bringing this up in 
the Senate because it is vital that the President, and everyone who 
made that pledge, keep that promise, and the bill that was enacted into 
law would do that.
  Again, the bill is limited, focused, and straightforward. It lets 
small businesses and workers keep their health care coverage if they 
like it. It provides more affordable health care options for American 
workers who don't want or can't afford the other ObamaCare mandated 
plans.
  Again, the President and every Democrat who voted for ObamaCare 
promised that explicitly again and again and again. When that didn't 
happen--when millions of Americans were kicked off the plan they had 
and liked and wanted to keep--Americans rightly felt misled. In fact, 
that led to the President's promise and commitment ``if you like your 
plan, you can keep it'' being labeled by nonpartisan sources in 2013 as 
the ``lie of the year.'' This bill would fix that and make it good. It 
would not repeal ObamaCare. It would fix that part of ObamaCare. It 
would make that promise good.
  The keep your plan bill would let insurers continue to sell those 
plans that people want to keep that are less expensive and cover basic 
but crucial needs. At least 2 million people would likely sign up for 
these plans.
  Last fall nearly 5 million Americans all across the country had their 
health

[[Page S5669]]

plans canceled even though they wanted to keep them--even though the 
President told them they could keep them. In Louisiana, 93,000 received 
cancellation notices after getting that clear pledge and promise from 
the President and other supporters of ObamaCare.
  Sadly, that hurt isn't over because the employer mandate for 
businesses that employ 100 or more workers is still coming. When that 
mandate kicks in in just a few months, we are going to see the same 
thing happen all over again with millions upon millions of Americans in 
Louisiana and in every single State getting pushed off the plan they 
had, they liked, and they wanted to keep. Small businesses are losing 
the plans they had, they liked, and they wanted to keep.
  The bill passed the House, as I said, on a bipartisan basis, 247 to 
167, and over 2 dozen Democrats voted to support this bill by 
Congressman Bill Cassidy. Even Democrats on the House side see the 
importance of the legislation.
  I ask all of us to recognize this is a crucial element of ObamaCare 
that needs to be fixed. It absolutely needs to be fixed. Thirty-nine 
Democrats in the House had previously voted for a similar bill to let 
Americans keep their plan in the individual market. Senate Democrats 
scrambled with the administration last year to find some way to let 
individuals who faced cancellations on the individual market keep their 
plan, but those cancellations are happening to a lot of folks. It has 
not been fixed for all those folks by a long shot, and more of those 
sorts of cancellations are on the way when the employer mandate finally 
hits.
  I urge all of us to come together to pass this bill in the Senate as 
it has been passed on a bipartisan basis in the House.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 3522, which was received from the 
House. I further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and 
passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Reserving the right to object, just bear with me. As the 
Senator knows, the President set forth a policy to let States, such as 
Louisiana, take advantage of this opportunity--through the work of the 
insurance commissioner--to allow those individuals to stay on their 
plans.
  This bill would allow new plans to be offered that do not comply with 
the ACA--plans that would include the kind of discriminatory treatments 
that the ACA seeks to cure, such as higher costs for women than men and 
treatments that are discriminatory against individuals with preexisting 
conditions. For that reason, Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I think this is very unfortunate. My distinguished 
colleague alluded to what I know. Let me tell you what I know. I know 
93,000 Louisianians were forced off a plan they had, they liked, and 
they wanted to keep. I know the President of the United States promised 
them exactly the opposite. I know my Louisiana colleague in the Senate 
promised them exactly the opposite, and I know thousands of more 
cancellations are on their way when the employer mandate is enforced. 
That is what I know.
  I hold hundreds of townhall meetings in Louisiana, and that is what I 
know from talking to Louisianians, and that is why I know this is the 
central problem of ObamaCare and it needs to be fixed.
  The bill passed the House on a bipartisan basis. I find it very 
unfortunate that we can't bring it up in the Senate on the same basis 
and pass it expeditiously.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the Land and 
                        Water Conservation Fund

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this month America celebrates the 50th 
anniversary of both the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I am going to spend a few minutes today--and I 
believe I am going to be joined at various times by a number of 
colleagues--to talk about the important role these two storied pieces 
of legislation have played in creating a legacy of protection and 
access to America's treasures.
  First, people may not remember, perhaps given the way some in 
Congress talk about wilderness these days, but the Wilderness Act had 
an extraordinary bipartisan push behind it. It passed 73 to 12 in the 
Senate and 373 to 1 in the other body. Then congressional champions 
included leading Democrats and Republicans of that time. To celebrate 
the success of this landmark piece of legislation today--and it is the 
middle of Wilderness Week--I introduced a Senate Resolution, along with 
our colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Sessions, 
commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness 
Act.
  Just like the original bill, our bipartisan resolution has numerous 
cosponsors and the support of our colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle. Part of the beauty of the Wilderness Act lies in the balance 
that was forged between immediately designating some places as 
wilderness in 1964 as part of the enactment, while providing a pathway 
for future designation.
  It is that balance that has helped to make the Wilderness Act one of 
our country's most democratic pieces of legislation in our rich 
history. By requiring future legislation, it compelled citizen 
activists to go out at the grass roots level to involve their friends 
and neighbors to seek permanent protection for the special places that 
were important to them.
  While passing wilderness designations through Congress has been far 
from easy, the reward has been extraordinary.
  Since the act was signed, Congress has designated more than 110 
million acres of Federal lands as wilderness and each acre a gift to 
our future from our past selves.
  Next to me a few of those acres are in a photo of Mirror Lake and 
Mount Hood, part of the Mount Hood Wilderness within the Mount Hood 
National Forest in my home State of Oregon.
  Mount Hood is an Oregon icon. Ava and William Wyden, our twins, 6 
years old--pictures available on my iPhone after this discussion--ski 
there. They have already recognized, at a very young age, that Mount 
Hood is an icon.
  Wilderness, there and across America, has been called the gold 
standard of conservation, keeping areas under the strongest level of 
protection the law provides and ensuring that they remain wild for 
future generations to appreciate and enjoy. By identifying what places 
deserve wilderness protection in an open, inclusive fashion, the 
country ensures full public debate, opportunities to bring people 
together to build a consensus, sensitivity to rural traditions and 
local economic needs, with an end product being wilderness areas that 
all Americans can be proud of.
  Creating wilderness is not only important for preservationists, it is 
also crucial for conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts everywhere, and 
for all those who make a recreation economy hum--the outfitters, the 
guides, the lodges, and the mom-and-pop diners. The fact is that the 
recreation economy supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural 
America and generates billions of dollars of economic activity across 
our country.
  That is also where the Land and Water Conservation Fund comes in 
because it helps to secure and maintain public access to the country's 
public lands and wilderness areas for recreation and enjoyment.
  Also celebrating its 50th anniversary this month is the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. This exceptionally important program is 
responsible for protecting areas in all 50 States and our territories. 
This includes such special places, iconic places, as the Grand Canyon 
National Park, many of our storied

[[Page S5670]]

Civil War battlefields, and numerous national wildlife refuges.
  In my home State of Oregon the fund has helped protect many of our 
most precious outdoor treasures, such as the Columbia River Gorge 
National Scenic Area, Crater Lake National Park, the Pacific Crest 
Trail, and the Oregon Dunes. Equally important, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund feeds States critical funds that help create and 
maintain the local parks, the trails, and the recreational facilities.
  Every year the Treasury collects billions of dollars of revenue, from 
offshore oil drilling and other sources of energy production. Out of 
that total, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is authorized to 
receive up to $900 million a year.
  It is in my view a balanced approach, it is a simple approach, and it 
is a constructive approach to managing public lands with some of the 
money the country makes from extracting resources, taking that money 
and turning it around, and reinvesting it in the country's unique, open 
spaces.
  There are tremendous economic benefits to the investment the fund 
makes. Nationwide, 98 percent of our counties contain land protected by 
the fund, and in these places America's outdoor recreation economy 
generates $646 billion in consumer spending and supports more than 6 
million jobs.
  Few States enjoy the outdoors more than Oregonians. It is almost as 
if the outdoors is a part of our gene pool.
  We see ourselves as outdoors people, and outdoor recreation accounts 
for nearly $13 billion in consumer spending in our State, and it 
supports 141,000 Oregon jobs.
  As I mentioned before, in addition to its Federal role, the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund helps the States. It provides matching grants 
so that State and local governments can use those funds to build new 
parks that are going to help struggling cities or towns develop. Or, 
they can maintain natural spaces that are critical to the quality of 
life in those local communities.
  But the bottom line is, those investments--Federal, State, and local 
investments--lead to job creation. We know that recreation 
opportunities drive tourism, especially in our counties where there is 
a significant amount of protected lands.
  Those who are recreating go to the local restaurants, go to the local 
shops, and they stay in the hotels. Often they look for outfitters and 
guides.
  Economists note that job growth in rural western counties, where 
there is a significant amount of federally protected land, is four 
times faster than in areas where we do not have that measure of Federal 
protection.
  These are just some of the many reasons why failing to give the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund the resources it needs, in my view, would 
be nothing short of legislative malpractice.
  Unfortunately, despite the fact that 80 percent of Americans approve 
of the program's mission, it has been consistently underutilized, 
underappreciated and, yes, underfunded. As a result, jobs, growth, and 
protection--needed protection for these treasures--are left behind.

  I plan to introduce two bills that would help to secure the future of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The first bill would provide a 1-
year extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the second 
bill--that I hope to be able to introduce very shortly--would make it 
permanent because I believe that dedicated, stable funding will ensure 
our public lands continue to be preserved and accessible to support 
those recreationists of the future, the conservationists of the future, 
and the local economic leaders of the future who will prosper as a 
result of those investments.
  In closing I will simply note that we celebrate the 50th anniversary 
of the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund as 
millions of families across the country return from summer vacations to 
the parks and wilderness areas that these great laws have helped to 
preserve and enrich.
  Children everywhere are sharing stories in their schools about how 
they went fishing, hiking, and camping in their Nation's backyards.
  If realized to their greatest potential, the Wilderness Act and the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund are sure-fire ways to help guarantee 
that the next generation of Americans will continue to have access to 
beautiful recreation areas, captivating historic sites, and pristine 
wilderness. Strong, robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund will help grow economies and create jobs in every State 
nationwide.
  Finally, let me note that until recently I had the honor of chairing 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As chair, I had the 
opportunity to work particularly with two colleagues who are on the 
floor now, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall, and the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich. It makes me feel 
very good that they are here because, as Westerners, they see day in 
and day out what we are talking about with respect to the importance of 
this program and this extraordinary contribution it has made to the 
country.
  These two great Western leaders, with respect to natural resources, 
understand it is not only about the past. It is not just about the 
wonderful half century that I have taken the time to note. These are 
two leaders--Senator Udall of Colorado and Senator Heinrich of New 
Mexico--who I think are going to be part of the leadership, the 
leadership that works to protect these two great programs for years to 
come.
  I am very grateful to have the opportunity to be on the floor with 
them.
  I had a chance particularly to see some of the treasures in Colorado 
recently. I can see why Senator Udall feels so strongly.
  New Mexico is one of the few States I have not visited, so I hope I 
will be able to wrangle an invitation to join Senator Heinrich.
  But I want to leave the floor knowing that as we make this commitment 
to do all we can to make the protection part of our extraordinary 
outdoor spaces part of the legacy we leave for our children and 
grandchildren, the case for these two programs--and advocating for 
them--is in very good hands with Senator Udall and Senator Heinrich.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking the 
Senator from Oregon. He has been a true leader in the Senate for many 
years and I know the Senator from New Mexico joins me in thanking him 
for his leadership and for his partnership.
  I rise--as Senator Wyden has to celebrate the public lands of his 
State of Oregon--to celebrate the public lands of Colorado. I make the 
point right out of the gate that our public lands support thousands of 
jobs across Colorado and they strengthen our special way of life.
  This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and the Wilderness Act. Both of these incredibly 
successful laws have been instrumental in protecting our public lands 
for future generations, growing our outdoor recreation economy, and 
ensuring access to public lands in Colorado and all across the country.
  In sum, what I am saying is these landmark laws have touched every 
corner of Colorado over the past 50 years.
  I am very pleased in that spirit to join Senator Wyden and Senator 
Sessions in submitting a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of 
the Wilderness Act.
  From the snowcapped peaks of the Eagles Nest Wilderness and the 
desert arches of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, to James Peak--
which I worked hard to establish--the Wilderness Act has protected more 
than 3.6 million acres in Colorado alone. These places have inspired 
generations of Coloradans and remind us that we don't inherit the Earth 
from our parents, we borrow it from our children.
  Let me turn to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In 1964, some 50 
years ago, President Lyndon Johnson worked with the Congress to 
establish LWCF--the acronym for the Land and Water Conservation Fund--
to fulfill a basic promise to the American people.
  That promise is, as we develop our oil and gas resources, we will 
also conserve other special places throughout our country for the next 
generations.
  As we mark 50 years of the program, we can tangibly see, feel, and 
breathe its success in the 3 million acres LWCF has helped us to 
preserve as part of 40,000 local park and recreation development 
projects across all 50 States, as

[[Page S5671]]

well as over 4 million acres of public lands managed by the Federal 
Government.
  In Colorado we have seen firsthand how LWCF dollars have helped 
protect access to the public lands that help define us as a State.
  From my position as chairman of the national parks subcommittee, I 
have seen how these funds have been particularly useful to our parks.
  After all, there is no better example than the creation of Great Sand 
Dunes National Park in Colorado. This magnificent place was protected 
by LWCF appropriations that were obtained with very strong local 
support. Great Sand Dunes National Park protects one of our Nation's 
great landmarks and is also a critical source of tourist dollars for 
the surrounding rural communities, and this economic boost is something 
we have seen all across our State and our Nation.
  It is noteworthy that for every dollar coming out of the LWCF fund, 
we see four times that much created in economic value--$1 equals $4 in 
economic value--and this investment through the LWCF program is part of 
the reason we have seen strong growth in America's outdoor recreation 
industry. When I say the outdoor recreation industry, that is 
activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, skiing, biking--you name 
it--and those activities have generated over $13 billion. That supports 
over 124,000 jobs in Colorado alone.
  In another vein, LWCF resources have helped States such as ours 
become more resilient when it comes to national disasters. Last weekend 
I was in Lyons, CO, one of the towns hardest hit by Colorado's historic 
2013 floods. This photograph is one of numerous examples of what we 
faced for about 3 days last fall a year ago.
  Trout Unlimited has shared a story of how LWCF funds were used to 
help recover from a similar flood in the neighboring Big Thompson 
Canyon 30 years ago. Back in 1976 local officials had the foresight to 
make an LWCF purchase of 80 flooded properties and to replace the 
damaged homes with new parkland which then provided fishing access to 
the community and critical floodplain protection. That $1 million 
investment in 1976 helped families who had lost their homes then and 
avoided an estimated $16 million in property damages in 2013 that would 
have happened without those preservation efforts.
  The Big Thompson Canyon flooded in a similar fashion last year as it 
did in 1976, but because of the LWCF moneys and the fact that 80 
flooded properties were purchased, there weren't buildings and there 
wasn't human activity in those areas, and we saw the result. It was a 
way to rebuild smarter and better in 1976, and we are going to do that 
going forward from 2013's flood.
  As a part of that, I was really excited and pleased to hear that the 
town of Lyons recently received $350,000 of LWCF funding to repair and 
rebuild the spectacular St. Vrain River corridor trail. Before that 
trail was destroyed last fall in the flood, it had been used as a 
regional connector for anglers, cyclists, kayakers, mountain bikers, 
and many others. This project will now help restore a vital economic 
asset for the community, and it will ensure access to the river and the 
river corridor for many generations to come. That is a success story, 
pure and simple.
  LWCF has helped in many other less obvious ways. As we fight to get 
our kids--and ourselves--to spend less time in front of the television, 
outdoor recreation is still the best way to stay physically fit and 
active and emotionally healthy.
  This past July I rafted the Browns Canyon Wilderness Study Area of 
the Arkansas River. You can see here what a spectacular and unique 
place Browns Canyon is--an area I have proposed to preserve permanently 
as the Browns Canyon National Monument and Wilderness. Along on that 
rafting trip we had a group of veterans, and several of them are 
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, as we know it. 
They told me how they use their time outdoors as a part of their 
healing--again, a success story.
  How do we keep LWCF strong? Even though LWCF has been successful by 
any measure, while enjoying strong bipartisan support, the program has 
only been fully funded two times since its enacting law in 1964 
promised $900 million in annual funding. That is right--only two times 
out of the last 50 years. LWCF is a victim of the uncertainty of the 
annual appropriations cycle, which leaves a huge unmet need in Colorado 
and across our country. That is why I have been fighting--joined by 
many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--for full, permanent 
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am very pleased to 
be working with Senator Wyden, Senator Heinrich, and others on a fix 
that would fulfill the LWCF promise. This is a promise to our kids, our 
grandkids, and all generations down the line, and we have an obligation 
to keep it.
  The good news is that this potential fix would also reauthorize and 
fund two other programs that are critical to our rural communities: the 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which is also known as PILT, and 
Secure Rural Schools. I will talk briefly about both of those programs.
  For decades the PILT Program has provided critical funding to nearly 
1,900 rural counties to make up for diminished tax revenues stemming 
from Federal land ownership within those county boundaries. PILT helps 
ensure rural communities have access to basic services such as law 
enforcement, education, and health services.
  Let me share an example. Ouray County in southwestern Colorado is 
still recovering from the recent economic downturn and the 
corresponding 36 percent drop in property tax collection. The county 
has already cut staff time significantly by reducing county operations 
to only 4 days a week. Without PILT, that would drop to just 3 days a 
week. PILT also ensures that the county can hire a sheriff and that 
students can get to school.
  Unfortunately, permanent funding for this program expired, and PILT 
now experiences the uncertainty of short-term fixes, creating 
significant planning challenges for Colorado and rural Americans. I was 
proud to lead the effort last year to extend PILT funding through the 
farm bill, which delivered $34.5 million to Colorado communities. But 
here in the Congress we have to do more. We have to confront this 
annual uncertainty over the future of the PILT Program. That is why I 
have championed a separate bill to permanently fund PILT. This is also 
a bipartisan effort, and it is why I have worked with Senator Wyden to 
include such certainty in this comprehensive bill today.

  I mentioned the Secure Rural Schools Program, and the same could be 
said of it. Rural Colorado communities rely on the Secure Rural Schools 
Program to hire teachers and strengthen our education system. In 2013 
alone Colorado communities--where one teacher can make or break a 
school--received $9.5 million through this vital program. So this 
important bill for our Secure Rural Schools Program would ensure that 
the Federal Government keeps its commitment to our rural counties to 
help offset the costs of public education, roads, and other essential 
services.
  We have a dynamic trio of very important programs: LWCF, PILT, and 
Secure Rural Schools. They help support Colorado's rural communities 
and our special way of life.
  I will conclude with this theme. We are a nation of risk-takers and 
explorers, always searching for the next challenge to overcome or the 
next mountain to climb. Our public lands are a reminder of that 
heritage, and finding the right balance for how to use our public lands 
is the next challenge to overcome. As we tackle problems such as 
growing our economy, disaster response, and taking care of our wounded 
warriors, let's not forget the important role of our public lands and 
the opportunities they provide for outdoor recreation, our economy, and 
our health. This year, let's reflect on what President Kennedy called 
``intelligent use of natural resources.'' Let's celebrate 50 years of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund with bipartisan action for full 
and permanent funding for LWCF, PILT, and Secure Rural Schools.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let me start out by righting a wrong. I 
hadn't realized Chairman Wyden, our chairman from Oregon, had not had a 
chance to visit the great State of New Mexico. I will fix that right 
now and

[[Page S5672]]

make sure he is not only invited, but we might seek to show him some of 
the incredible places the two programs we are talking about today have 
helped preserve, protect, and make as assets to our local economy in 
the State of New Mexico.
  As we heard from our colleague Senator Udall and our colleague 
Chairman Wyden of Oregon as well, this month we celebrate two 
incredible milestones in our country's conservation history. We 
celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the 50th 
anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Both of these 
programs have been etched into the history of my home State by New 
Mexico conservationists with names such as Aldo Leopold, Senator 
Clinton P. Anderson, and Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall.
  When Senator Anderson steered the passage of the Wilderness Act here 
on the floor of the Senate, he said on August 20, 1964:

       In no area has this Congress more decisively served the 
     future well-being of the Nation than in passing legislation 
     to conserve natural resources and to provide the means by 
     which our people could enjoy them. . . . While we stretch out 
     the highways to carry ever-expanding traffic, while we build 
     whole new communities to house a growing population, and 
     while we consume more acreage for a burgeoning industry, we 
     have set aside part of our land as it was when human eye 
     first saw it--unscarred by man, primeval, a memorial to the 
     Creator who molded it.

  Senator Anderson was also unquestionably one of the principal 
architects of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the 88th 
Congress, where so much of this work was done, was coined as the 
``Conservation Congress.''
  LWCF is the primary tool our Nation uses to fund the protection of 
our natural and cultural heritage, and I have worked diligently with my 
colleagues--including Senator Udall, his cousin Senator Udall of New 
Mexico, Senator Wyden of Oregon, and others--to secure full and 
permanent funding for this program.
  But even 40 years before the enactment of the Wilderness Act or LWCF, 
conservationist Aldo Leopold had the vision and influence to help 
protect 500,000 acres of mountains, rivers, and mesas in New Mexico--
which eventually became the Gila Wilderness--in order to ensure a 
roadless and backcountry experience free of what Aldo Leopold called 
``Ford dust'' for those hearty enough to saddle up or hike into the 
heart of this wild country. With the passage of the Wilderness Act, it 
became the National Forest System's very first designated wilderness 
area. New Mexico is also where the idea of tribally administered 
wilderness became a reality when Blue Lake was returned to Taos Pueblo.
  Former Senator Jeff Bingaman's leadership was absolutely invaluable 
in conserving important public lands in New Mexico, such as the Rio 
Grande del Norte and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks regions, both of 
which were designated national monuments within the last 2 years.
  But the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is not just about the past, as we have heard from my 
colleagues. The future of public lands conservation will depend on the 
continued collaborative efforts of our elected officials, our business 
owners, tribal leaders, sportsmen, conservation organizations, outdoor 
retailers, and others to work together to protect America's most 
treasured natural landscapes.
  Our efforts should continue our proud bipartisan history. After all, 
it was Representative John Saylor, a Republican from Pennsylvania, who 
was the lead sponsor and champion in the House of Representatives for 
the Wilderness Act. And it was former Republican Senator Pete Domenici 
of my home State who championed legislation to designate the Sandia 
Wilderness, a place I look upon every time I go home to Albuquerque, 
and who said at the time that the area ``forms a beautiful natural 
backdrop for the city which all the residents can enjoy.''

  In New Mexico, hunters and anglers, campers and acequia parciantes, 
chili farmers and urban dwellers, all have a deep connection to the 
outdoors and benefit from the recreation, wildlife, and the water that 
wilderness provides. Many of my own most formative moments, decisions, 
memories, and turning points have occurred in these public wildlands.
  I remember a trip with my wife Julie to the Irish Wilderness in 
Missouri, a trip that we made as we were leaving our college days 
behind in the Midwest and heading back west to New Mexico to start our 
new life together. In 2001, shortly after 9/11, I backpacked through 53 
miles of the Gilo Wilderness and decided on that trip to run for a seat 
on the Albuquerque City Council.
  I have many cherished memories from the trips my wife and I have made 
over the years along the spines of the American Rockies, the Sangre de 
Cristos, the Tetons, in places with names like the Pecos Wilderness, 
the South San Juan, Jedediah Smith, and canyons with names like Dark 
Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Gray, Grand Gulch, the Goosenecks, the San 
Juan, and of course the Chama River Canyon near my home.
  Wilderness is in my blood, and I make no apologies for believing that 
some places are so very special that we will never improve upon them. 
These are the places worth fighting for.
  I am committed to carry on my State's rich conservation history. 
Senator Tom Udall and I have introduced legislation to designate 
special places such as the Columbine-Hondo in Taos County, the San 
Antonio River and Ute Mountain in the new Rio Grande del Norte National 
Monument as new wilderness areas. It is clear that conservation and 
growing our economy are inextricably linked. Protected wild places 
contribute to the New Mexico economy in a robust and sustainable 
outdoor recreation community which generates $6.1 billion in consumer 
spending every year in the State, gives us 68,000 New Mexico jobs, and 
$1.7 billion in wages and salaries, according to the Outdoor Industry 
Association.
  The new Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in northern New Mexico 
has already yielded economic benefits since its designation. After less 
than 1 year since it was designated a national monument, the local 
community saw a 40-percent increase in visitors.
  As we look back on the last 50 years since the Wilderness Act and the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund both became law, let us also look to 
the future. My children love wild places as much as I do. My son Carter 
will be backpack hunting for elk with me later this fall. My son 
Michael will join me on BLM land to chase mule deer. They have hiked 
the Columbine Hondo Wilderness Study Area and fished in Cruces Basin 
Wilderness.
  It is up to all of us to ensure that their children have the same 
opportunities we had and that we have shared with their generation.
  I close with a quote from Aldo Leopold's book, ``A Sand County 
Almanac'':

       When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may 
     begin to use it with love and respect.

  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund and to commemorate its 50th anniversary 
this month.
  Fifty years ago, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, the House and 
Senate passed and President Johnson signed into law the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act. And for 50 years now, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has helped protect and preserve our Nation's outdoor 
heritage all around my home State of Washington and across the country 
for our children and grandchildren.
  The LWCF contains a set of unique tools that empower local 
communities to increase public access to open space, conserve forests, 
and protect wilderness areas. These funds help secure permanent, public 
access to lands and waterways for hikers, bikers, campers, hunters, 
anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts. Senator Henry Jackson, from my 
home State of Washington, was one of the drafters of the original 
legislation. During debate of the bill on this very floor, he reminded 
his colleagues of the importance of open space to Americans, that these 
public lands are ``the places they go to hunt, fish, camp, picnic, 
swim, for boating or driving for pleasure, or perhaps simply for 
relaxation or solitude.'' And that description still rings true today.
  There are many examples of the LWCF at work in my home State of 
Washington. LWCF support flowing through its State and local assistance

[[Page S5673]]

grants, Forest Legacy Program, Federal Land Management Agency projects, 
and Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund have helped 
protect over 120,000 acres of land and create or enhance hundreds of 
recreational facilities. These funds have gone to a wide variety of 
projects, from Federal wilderness to private working farms and forests, 
from scenic rivers to urban water parks. From the Straits of Juan de 
Fuca to the crest of the Cascades, from the Columbia River Gorge to the 
Little Spokane River, the LWCF has made my State a better place for 
future generations.
  But a common thread through all these projects has been the way LWCF 
funding has brought together local public officials, conservationists, 
farmers, business leaders, forest owners, and engaged citizens to 
create and enhance public access to open space and natural areas and 
help keep sprawl in check, all while allowing for sustained economic 
growth and development. Funding from the LWCF were key in allowing for 
many of the individual acquisitions needed to achieve this, and I am 
proud to have supported many of these projects which have helped make 
these communities' visions a reality.
  It is important to remember that it isn't just rural areas in 
Washington that have been enhanced with resources from the fund. Dozens 
of projects in the hearts of our cities have given children access to 
much needed parks, sports fields, and swimming facilities. Families can 
now enjoy time together picnicking, biking, and even hiking in forests 
and other habitats, right outside their doorsteps. And we all benefit 
from the cleaner air and cleaner water that results from these high 
quality protected lands. Land and water conservation is good for our 
health, good for our families, and good for our souls.
  But we also know it is good for our economy. In 2012, Americans spent 
over $640 billion on outdoor recreation, and in Washington alone 
outdoor pursuits supported 227,000 direct jobs.
  Our Nation has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources. 
That is why it makes perfect sense that when we develop some of those 
energy resources to fuel our economy, we set aside a portion of the 
royalties generated from that development to protect those other 
natural resources. But these conservation dollars are more than just 
outlays, they are also good investments. Studies have estimated that 
each dollar invested in land conservation returns between $4 and $10 in 
economic benefits to the economy, and we will see this return on 
investment for generation after generation.
  Even with all the good that we see as a result of the LWCF, there is 
so much more that we could be doing. That is because in spite of all 
the benefits that we receive from LWCF spending, Congress has diverted 
the bulk of these conservation dollars to unrelated programs. We ought 
to fix that. Next year, the funding authority for the LWCF will expire. 
We need to permanently reauthorize this program, and create an 
independent, dedicated stream of funding for it. Doing so will benefit 
all Americans, both now and for generations to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 7 minutes, followed by Senator Cornyn for up to 10 
minutes, and Senator Blumenthal for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             ISIL Strategy

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the 
President's strategies on combating the threat of ISIL, or ISIS. I 
applaud the President's recognition that ISIL is a barbaric terrorist 
group that beheaded Americans. It murders, kidnaps, and tortures 
civilian populations. It sells women into slavery. It has the stated 
purpose of attacking America and its allies. It poses a threat, and the 
President is right that it calls for appropriate action by the 
international community.
  I support and congratulate the President on the selective military 
strikes that have been done at the request of the Iraqi Government 
against ISIL's advances, which have held them back, and being able to 
regain territory that was held by ISIL, protecting civilian 
populations. I strongly support the President's commitment that there 
will be no combat ground troops interjected into this combat, and I 
think the President has done a good job in engaging the international 
community to work with us so that this is truly an international 
effort.
  Let me comment for a moment, if I might, about military action and 
that it needs to be restricted. I oppose authorizing military use of 
force that is open-ended, that could result in the use of ground troops 
or where we could be asked to carry through or have our military do 
what the countries where these terrorist groups are located should be 
doing with their own military. In Iraq, it should be the Iraqi security 
forces that take on the ground responsibilities.
  Let me remind my colleagues, when we went into Iraq--and it was done 
without my support. I voted against the authorization to go into Iraq. 
We were told that was going to be a short campaign, that the might of 
the military of the United States would make that a very quick 
operation. As we see years later, it took a long time and we are still 
in Iraq. It must be done with the help of the international community, 
particularly the countries that are in the region.
  I think we have a strong responsibility as Members of the Senate and 
Members of Congress to revisit the 2001 authorization that was passed 
by Congress shortly after the attack on our country on September 11, 
and the 2002 authorization that was used for Americans going into Iraq. 
I don't think either one of those resolutions is relevant for 
additional military action today in either Syria or Iraq.
  Let me read into the Record the appropriate language that was 
included in the 2001 authorization:

       The President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided 
     the terrorist attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or 
     harbored such organizations or persons . . .

  It is a real stretch to say that authority applies to actions against 
ISIL today. Therefore, I think it is incumbent. I think we have a 
constitutional responsibility to act, and I think we must act and make 
it very clear that there will be no ground combat troops authorized in 
any action taken by Congress.
  In regard to Iraq, the Iraq resolution was passed at a time when the 
information supplied to Congress was not accurate. It is certainly not 
relevant to the fact that now there is an independent Iraqi Government. 
That authorization also needs to be revisited.
  Let me remind you, if this administration can use the authority of 
2001 and 2002 for using aircraft and military operations by air, what 
is to say that the next administration--because we know this is going 
to take a long time--couldn't use that authorization for introducing 
ground troops in these countries?
  So I think it is important that we revisit these authorizations, 
eliminate the previous authorizations, and make it relevant to the 
current need. It has to be limited to strategic air missions requested 
by the Iraqi Government, targeted at protecting civilian populations.
  In regard to Syria, I have serious doubt about authorizing military 
operations. I think we need to have clarification from the 
administration as to the clear objectives they are seeking to 
accomplish in Syria. We have to be very careful about the authorization 
of the use of our military in a country where we are not invited.
  Now let me talk 1 minute about timing. The President has article II 
powers. I don't deny that. So if something were to happen, he has the 
right to defend our country and use our military to defend our country. 
He can do that for a period of 60 days. Sixty days from now we will 
soon be returning for a lameduck session of Congress, so I don't think 
there is any immediate rush for us to try to get an authorization bill 
done. But I think we should be working on an authorization bill so we 
can take it up when Congress reconvenes, and if something happens in 
the interim, we are certainly available and we can come back in and be 
ready to act.
  America is always stronger when Congress and the administration work 
together on these issues, and I would

[[Page S5674]]

hope we could come together with the appropriate authorization, making 
clear we will not allow authorization for combat ground troops and that 
we are very restricted on the use of our air power.
  Let me lastly comment about the continuing resolution we will be 
voting on tomorrow, as I understand it, that gives title 10 power for 
the arming and equipping of the Syrian opposition. Clearly in that 
authorization there is no authorization for use of U.S. military force. 
It is consistent with the action taken by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee on which I serve and the resolution I supported that talked 
about arming and training the vetted Syrian opposition. We did that 
over a year ago. It was for a different mission; it was for dealing 
with Assad. This in a way is comparable to dealing with ISIL but also 
deals with the capacities against Assad. It is limited, to expire on 
December 11, and I think it is consistent with our mission to deal with 
our policies in Syria.
  As I said earlier, I voted against the Iraq authorization in 2002. I 
see that we have to be very careful that we do not allow authorization 
to exist that could be used for a long and costly involvement of the 
United States.
  It is also clear to me that we cannot win the campaign against ISIL 
by military action alone. We have to have diplomatic support. We have 
to deal with cutting off the financial aid. We have to deal with 
cutting off the political support in Iraq. In Iraq we have a 
representative government. The seeds have been planted. That is what we 
need to do. That cuts off the support ISIL will need for long-term 
survival. The international community needs to stay resolved and the 
United States needs to stay in leadership.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas is recognized.


                            Senate Procedure

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since I 
first came to this Chamber of the United States Senate. It has become 
unrecognizable--what has traditionally been a forum for thoughtful 
debate, amendments, and discussion based frequently on different 
perspectives that we come to based on our experience or the parts of 
the country we represent. Unfortunately this Chamber has devolved into 
one where not much gets done, and when there are votes, they are 
frequently show votes with the election clearly in mind.
  Look no farther than our September agenda. Amid high unemployment, 
stagnant wages, widespread frustration over the consequences of 
ObamaCare, and genuine humanitarian and security crises abroad and here 
at home, our colleagues who control the agenda in the Chamber decided 
the most urgent order of business was to amend the Bill of Rights to 
the U.S. Constitution and gut the First Amendment.
  As I said at the time, when I went home during the August recess to 
talk to my constituents, not one of them said: I want you to go back to 
Congress and I want you to gut the First Amendment guarantee to freedom 
of speech. This clearly is not at the top of the American people's 
agenda.
  Despite all the challenges facing our country, the majority leader, 
who controls the agenda on the Senate floor, continues to prioritize 
election year votes--show votes--over serious legislation.
  Back in March, when our Democratic friends decided to promote their 
so-called ``fair shot'' agenda, the New York Times noted that the 
exercise was completely political in nature. The New York Times--hardly 
hostile to our Democratic friends and their policy agenda--put it:

       Democrats can see that making new laws is really not the 
     point. Rather they are trying to force Republicans to vote 
     against them.

  Meanwhile, the majority leader has prevented millions and millions of 
Americans from having a real voice in this Chamber. Since he became the 
majority leader, he has blocked legislation more than twice as often as 
the majority leaders Bill Frist, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, Bob Dole, 
George Mitchell, and I should add Robert Byrd, combined. But he hasn't 
just blocked Republican amendments, not just those in the minority; he 
has blocked amendments from the majority party--his own party.
  Since July of last year we have had rollcall votes on only 14 
Republican amendments and only 8 Democratic amendments. I have to tell 
you that if my party was in the majority and we ended up getting less 
votes than the party in the minority, I would be pretty hot about it, 
and I would have some explaining to do to my constituents. Indeed, the 
majority leader has allowed so few amendments that one of his fellow 
Senate Democrats, the junior Senator from Connecticut, recently told 
Politico: I got more substance on the floor of the House of 
Representatives in the minority than I have as a Member of the Senate 
majority.
  Our colleagues in the House have sent over scores and scores of bills 
relating to job creation, taxes, health care, immigration, and other 
issues only to have Senator Reid declare them dead on arrival. No 
wonder Congress has a 14-percent approval rating. When people see the 
dysfunction here--primarily in the Senate, since the House is passing 
legislation and then it dies here because the majority leader refuses 
to take it up--it is understandable why they are frustrated, just as we 
are frustrated.
  I know it is not just those of us in the minority. Many Democratic 
colleagues privately expressed their own frustrations about the Senate 
becoming so dysfunctional. If the majority leader was serious about 
solving the problems that confront our country, they would not need to 
look far beyond positive progrowth ideas to address our Nation's most 
pressing challenges. They would see that Senate Republicans have joined 
our House colleagues in offering a bevy of thoughtful proposals.
  First and foremost we have long stressed the need to pass a progrowth 
fiscally responsible budget. The Senate--under Democratic control--has 
not passed a budget since 2009. That is malpractice. We should leave 
the next generation with more economic opportunity, not more debt. 
Somebody is going to have to pay that money back. Maybe the young folks 
who are sitting in the front row--the young pages and their children 
will have to pay the money back. Americans and small businesses across 
the country budget responsibly every month and so should their 
government.
  In addition, we pushed sensible progrowth energy policies that enjoy 
bipartisan support, such as approving the Keystone XL Pipeline and 
boosting the U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas. We need energy 
policies that enhance our energy security, reduce prices, encourage 
investment, and create jobs at home. We also need a regulatory system 
that fosters economic growth and prosperity, not one that furthers 
Washington's overreach. Republicans believe we must continue aggressive 
oversight of the Obama administration's out-of-control regulatory 
agenda, which is hitting hard-working Americans and their wages while 
empowering Federal bureaucrats.
  Senate Republicans also believe the President's health care law was 
absolutely the wrong way to expand affordable, accessible, quality 
health care to more Americans. We believe families and patients should 
be free to purchase whatever kind of insurance they prefer without 
having to worry about the government meddling.
  We believe future reform should guarantee that health care decisions 
will be made by patients and their doctors, not by Washington. We 
believe those reforms should make quality health insurance and quality 
care more accessible for more people. Here is the greatest irony of 
ObamaCare--instead of making health care more affordable, it made it 
more expensive, thus limiting access to care.
  On tax reform, we believe our overriding goal should be to lower tax 
rates for all taxpayers, broaden the base, and simplify the entire 
system in order to restore America's global competitiveness. We also 
favor ending ``too big to fail,'' thereby, ending the implicit 
government backstop and subsidy currently enjoyed by America's largest 
banks. There are a number of ways to achieve that goal, but we all 
agree Dodd-Frank did not solve that problem.
  Immigration continues to be among the most pressing issues we face, 
especially given this year's record surge of unaccompanied children 
coming from Central America and pouring across our southwest border. We 
understand

[[Page S5675]]

that one of America's top priorities is to make sure our laws are being 
enforced and our border is secure. We share that priority and we will 
keep advocating the necessary reforms, along with other reforms, to fix 
our broken immigration system.
  We believe there are a lot of good ideas, and they are not the 
purview of either political party. In fact, we have been sent by our 
constituents to work in a bipartisan way to try and solve some of 
America's most pressing challenges, and we view our intellectual 
diversity as a sign of strength, but we remain united on the core 
principles and ideas that define our party.
  We have had an experiment in big government over the last 6 years 
and, you know what, it hasn't worked very well. Unemployment rates 
remain high, the labor participation rate is at a 30-year low, and 
people have simply given up. The economy should be bounding back rather 
than knocking along the bottom. We remain committed to tackling our 
Nation's biggest challenges of promoting greater prosperity for all 
Americans, and we do that by growing the economy and creating jobs and 
letting people work hard, as they always have in America, and pursuing 
their dreams.
  Proposals such as the ones I mentioned, many of which enjoy 
bipartisan support--they certainly have in the House of 
Representatives--will never see the light of day here as long as the 
majority leader continues to operate this Chamber like an incumbent 
protection program.
  The American people sent us to take tough votes and solve problems. 
Indeed, I don't know anyone who would want to be a Senator if we are 
not allowed to vote and solve problems. The American people certainly 
deserve a Senate that operates that way.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Connecticut.


                           Domestic Violence

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, recently the Nation has been shocked 
and horrified by a video showing Ray Rice, a professional football 
player, knocking out his then fiancee who is now his wife, Janay Rice, 
and dragging her like a sack of potatoes out of an elevator as it 
almost closed on her. The Nation was shocked by the callous 
indifference and disregard for the issue of domestic violence not only 
by Ray Rice but by the NFL itself, which has fumbled and failed in its 
reaction from the very beginning.
  Indeed, I wrote to the NFL asking for stronger measures after it 
suspended Ray Rice for a mere two games. Since then it has received the 
now infamous and notorious video, and he has been suspended 
indefinitely.
  Ray Rice is only 1 of 85 players since the year 2000 who has been 
charged or cited for domestic violence, and many more were arrested for 
sexual assault, drunk driving, and other crimes.
  This poster shows how the league could field an entire lineup of 
players who have been arrested for domestic violence and who remain 
active in the NFL. There are others who are not shown here. Ray Rice is 
on the field, though he may be suspended indefinitely.
  These incidents, and literally thousands of others, are the ugly, 
brutal, bloody face of domestic violence in this Nation. Not only is it 
bigger and broader and more painful and serious than Ray and Janay 
Rice, it affects our entire society. Its victims are throughout the 
country, and what they need most desperately are more services to 
bolster their courage and strength to come forward and break the cycle.
  I know domestic violence is an issue in Connecticut because I worked 
to fight child abuse and neglect and related kinds of domestic violence 
when I served as attorney general. Not only have I worked in courts but 
also in schools to speak to young men and women.
  I have worked with shelters such as Interval House, the largest 
shelter in Connecticut, which helped to form an organization called Men 
Make a Difference, Men Against Domestic Violence, which is composed of 
men as role models. Coaches, former athletes, successful 
businesspeople, law enforcement types, and broadcasters provide role 
models and take a stand and speak out against this scourge.
  I know the brutal and terrible toll taken by domestic violence in 
Connecticut and in this country. The economic consequences run into the 
billions and the searing pain, savage emotional harm, and physical 
wounds are incalculable. The tentacles of domestic violence reach into 
every aspect of American life--homes, workplaces, hospitals, and 
athletic fields.
  In Connecticut, the demand for victim support services has steadily 
increased over the years, and in Connecticut and around the country the 
need for services has spiked as a result of the Ray Rice video because 
more women and men have gained the courage and strength to come forward 
as a result of the national conversation that video has spurred.
  As I have continued my work in Congress as a Member of the Senate, I 
have been deeply troubled, in fact, outraged on occasion, that we 
authorized barely a pittance of what is necessary to deal with that 
problem and support those services that are so vital to providing 
counseling, support, and advocacy.
  Just in the past couple of days, I have learned that 30 percent of 
calls to the National Domestic Violence Hotline go unanswered. Congress 
bears a majority of the responsibility for this lack of resources.
  There are heroes in this fight against domestic violence. Some of the 
advocates, service providers, and people such as Karen Jarmoc, CEO of 
the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and Kim Gandy, 
president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and 
most important, the survivors and victims who have come forward and are 
telling their stories and speaking truth to the power and brutality 
they faced and confronted and conquered.
  In fact, one of the challenges on this issue has always been the 
secrecy that surrounds it. The video of Ray Rice assaulting and 
knocking out his wife is the exception that proves the rule. It is the 
exception because most instances of domestic violence occur behind 
closed doors in secrecy and often at night and they go unrecorded 
because in most instances of domestic violence, women are disbelieved, 
embarrassed, shamed, and stigmatized when they come forward.
  The Ray Rice video is the exception that proves the rule. It is the 
exception of this brutality being shown, but it is the rule that the 
response is almost always slow and inadequate. Even after Ray Rice was 
indicted for third-degree assault, Janay virtually apologized for her 
role in a stage-managed press conference orchestrated by the team--the 
Ravens--for whom Ray Rice played.
  Only after the second video was circulated did the league even 
approach real action. The prosecutor in this instance said he would not 
treat Ray Rice more leniently or harshly simply because of his 
celebrity, which is understandable.
  The routine in most courts in America is failure to treat domestic 
violence as seriously and severely as the crime it is and provide the 
punishment it deserves. The Ray Rice case was routine and it was done 
routinely, but that doesn't make it right. So the courts bear a measure 
of responsibility, along with the Congress.
  The NFL is not alone here, but the NFL has a special position of 
trust. It is one of the most massively influential organizations in 
America. It employs players who have a massive impact on the attitudes 
and feelings of young men and women--in fact, Americans of all ages.

  The NFL has a position of public trust because of its prominence and 
power, but it also has a position of public trust because of the 
special benefits it is accorded under the law. And it is like the NBA, 
the MLB, and the NHL, which all receive tremendous assistance in 
putting their brands and their messages before the American people. So 
it is our responsibility to call on these leagues to ensure that their 
messages which they can spread so widely because of the benefits they 
are accorded under our law--to ensure and require them to keep faith 
with their public trust and public obligation.

  The public assistance these leagues receive take a number of very 
exceptional forms: tax benefits, public subsidies, and local 
assistance. But chief among them is the antitrust exemption enjoyed by 
the four major sports leagues. Although large corporations and similar 
organizations that have the potential to dominate a particular 
marketplace are generally prevented

[[Page S5676]]

from coordinating their activities under our antitrust laws, Congress 
permits this kind of coordination by professional sports teams, 
particularly in the area of pooling their broadcast rights and 
television contracts--the very means that enable them to spread their 
message and create that public image.
  Teams in smaller media markets are able to remain competitive with 
their larger counterparts because of those benefits and the fact that 
the governing national leagues can evenly distribute resources--again, 
through coordination, agreements, combinations that would violate the 
law for any other corporation.
  This exemption was the product of significant debate and analysis in 
Congress and around the country when it was granted. It was first 
established in 1961, and the Judiciary Committee noted even then that 
it was not intended to be absolute and that it was not to be used for 
unfair competition and that there was a public trust and obligation.
  In 1976 the House of Representatives convened what it called a 
``Select Committee on Professional Sports'' which prepared detailed 
reports on ``the large number of off-the-field problems that affected 
all four of the professional sports,'' including ``both violence that 
involves participants in the sports as well as violence involving 
spectators of the sports.'' We know the problems in these leagues 
include not only domestic violence but also the failure to address 
injuries such as concussions, drug abuse, and other problems that have 
been reported.
  If anything, in the more than 50 years since the exemption was first 
granted, the prominence of the four professional sporting leagues in 
the American media landscape has only increased. The leagues have a 
tremendous effect, again, reaching into every aspect of American life, 
on programming, pricing, advertising, and more.
  A lot has changed over the past 50 years, not least of which is our 
understanding of the harms of domestic violence and the importance of 
workplace policies that protect women, minorities, and other members of 
society. Yet the NFL's response to the Ray Rice incident came right out 
of the 1960s--right out of an episode of ``Mad Men.''
  Our laws and our practices and our culture must change. Most leagues, 
most athletes, most managers, and most teams play by the rules on and 
off the field. But, unfortunately, these deep-seated problems are not 
new. This special status can no longer be a blank check. It can no 
longer be granted permanently. It must be reviewable and the teams and 
the league held accountable. The era of the blank check for sports 
teams must end. The special benefits must be dependent on the leagues' 
fulfilling their positions of trust and special responsibility.
  I will be proposing legislation to sunset the leagues' special 
antitrust treatment, ending the blanket antitrust exemption and making 
it renewable every 5 years. The exemption should depend on the leagues' 
acting consistently with their public trust and complying with ethical 
and legal standards that both protect and oversee players and that keep 
the teams accountable to their fans. Their fans deserve better.
  To ensure that Congress has accurate information, my legislation will 
establish a commission, like many that have existed in the past, to 
monitor the leagues' record of corporate citizenship. The commission 
would include representatives with special knowledge of issues that 
were proven to be a problem for the leagues, such as the heads of the 
Department of Justice's Office of Violence Against Women, the Federal 
Communications Commission, and the Surgeon General, and the commission 
would be responsible for submitting a report to Congress in advance of 
the vote to reauthorize and renew the antitrust exemption.
  Other groups would have an opportunity to be heard and to submit 
their views, and there would be hearings, meetings, and other exchanges 
that would give all an opportunity to be heard on this vital topic. I 
hope the Congress will have hearings as soon as possible on this issue.
  I believe the professional sports leagues, and in particular the NFL, 
have an obligation to adopt policies that train players on domestic 
violence--more than lip service, more than check-the-box orientation 
settings--and, most important, to punish acts of abuse and promote 
awareness of this terrible crime. They have an obligation to act in 
accordance with due process and establish rules that treat more 
stringently and strictly this crime of domestic violence, in accordance 
with standards that give the players the right and opportunity to be 
heard.
  But maybe more importantly than all else, these leagues should be 
accountable to help the survivors and victims, to provide funds out of 
the tens of billions in their profits to support these services that 
are more necessary than ever. They should support the survivors--most 
of them women--who come forward and have the incredible courage, 
bravery, and strength to break with a situation of domestic violence. 
It is at that point of maximum danger and turmoil in their lives that 
they most need to reach someone and have someone reach them to provide 
the counseling and advocacy they need and deserve at that moment of 
turmoil and pain.
  Congress, the courts, all of us, have a responsibility to do more and 
to do better and to demand of professional sports leagues that they do 
more and do better.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________