[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 26 (Monday, February 11, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1155-S1161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 433
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
[[Page S1156]]
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the second bill that I have introduced
is the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act. I have introduced
this bill with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin.
Our legislation will improve the access that Medicare beneficiaries
have to home healthcare by allowing physician assistants, nurse
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified nurse midwives
to order home health services. All of these healthcare professionals
are playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of healthcare,
particularly in rural and underserved areas of our Nation, like those
represented by the Presiding Officer and the State of Maine.
I have learned of far too many cases of seniors experiencing
unnecessary delays in accessing home healthcare because a physician was
not available to order the care promptly. To avoid these needless
delays, it is common sense that other medical professionals who are
familiar with a patient's case should be able to order these services.
Under current law, however, only physicians are allowed to certify or
initiate home healthcare for Medicare patients, even though they may
not be as familiar with the patient's case as the nonphysician
provider. In some cases, the certifying physician may not even have a
relationship with the patient and must rely on the recommendation of
the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist,
or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home
healthcare. That makes no sense whatsoever. In too many cases, these
requirements create obstacles, delays, and unnecessary paperwork before
home healthcare can be provided. The result can be an unnecessary
hospital readmission or other setback for the patient that would not
have occurred had the home healthcare been provided promptly.
The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act removes the needless
delays in getting Medicare patients the home healthcare they need
simply because a physician is not available to sign the form required
by law. Again, I would make the point that this physician may not even
have a relationship with the senior or other patient who needs the home
healthcare. That primary care relationship may be between the patient
and a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant, and yet that
qualified healthcare professional is unable to order the home care that
the patient needs.
These two bills will help to ensure the viability and accessibility
of home health services now and in the future. By helping patients to
avoid much more costly hospital stays and nursing homes, we know that
home healthcare saves Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers'
programs millions of dollars each year. At a time when healthcare costs
are among our most pressing policy challenges, we should embrace cost-
effective solutions like home healthcare.
Thank you, Madam President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, imagine going into a U.S. prison and
announcing that a substantial number of the prisoners had to be
released immediately--no exceptions, even if the prisoners in question
had participated in serious crimes or committed violent offenses. That
is an unthinkable scenario, and no one would seriously suggest going
into our Nation's prisons and immediately releasing thousands of
prisoners, including violent offenders onto the streets. Yet that is
exactly what Democrats are proposing as part of a border security
agreement.
Over the weekend, Democrats proposed capping the number of illegal
immigrants who could be detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. Incredibly, they are refusing to allow an exception to the
cap for violent criminals. Under Democrats' proposal, if Immigration
and Customs Enforcement needed to detain more than 16,500 violent
criminals in the interior of our country, they simply wouldn't be able
to do it. Instead, immigration enforcement officers would have to
choose which violent criminals to release back into our communities.
Think about that.
Obviously, everyone who has come here illegally has broken our laws,
but in a lot of cases in question, we are talking about people who have
violated other laws, like laws against assault, rape, murder, theft,
drug trafficking, and more. We are talking about limiting law
enforcement's ability to make sure that those individuals are detained.
It isn't just about future detentions either. If the Democrats'
enforcement cap went into effect, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
would be forced to release criminals already in detention onto our
Nation's streets.
Additionally, there are an estimated 180,000 criminal illegal aliens
in the United States who currently are not in custody.
So, under the Democrats' proposal, not only would Immigration and
Customs Enforcement be forced to release violent criminals, for all
practical purposes, it would also be prohibited from trying to take
additional dangerous criminals off of our streets.
Let's be very clear about what we are talking about here. We are
talking about limiting the ability of a law enforcement agency to
enforce criminal laws. No administration of either party would accept
an arbitrary limit on the number of criminals it would be able to
detain. No administration would or should sign off on a law that would
force law enforcement agencies to leave violent criminals on our
Nation's streets.
As of a couple of days ago, the Republicans, I would say, were
encouraged by the bipartisan nature of the negotiations to prevent
another government shutdown. Then the Democrats came forward with this
absurd proposal to limit law enforcement's ability to detain even
dangerous criminals.
Are Democrats trying to derail negotiations with a poison pill at the
eleventh hour and force another shutdown? The question has to be asked
since no one could seriously think that any President of either party
would sign a deal that would limit his administration's ability to
enforce the law.
We still have a few days left. I hope the Democrats will abandon this
preposterous proposal to release dangerous criminals onto our Nation's
streets. We can achieve a deal to avert another shutdown, but we can't
do it by jeopardizing law enforcement's ability to protect the American
people.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S. 47
Mr. LEE. Madam President, a little over a month ago, I stood before
this body to object to the massive public lands package that it was
poised to pass. This bill, some 680 pages long, was released at 10 a.m.
that morning--that very morning when they first wanted us to pass this.
My staff and I had not seen it beforehand, and we had been given no
time to read it. This is, of course, really bad process--terrible
process. This is not the way legislation should be written. It is not
the way legislation should be debated. It is, of course, never ever the
way legislation should be passed. In addition to the bad process, I
objected at the time because I suspected that it also contained bad
policy--bad policy that would disproportionately and negatively affect
my State of Utah.
Now we find ourselves today, more than a month later, at a moment at
which we are considering the bill. During that time period, I have, of
course, had time to read the bill. Unfortunately, those suspicions that
I had
[[Page S1157]]
about the bill have since been confirmed. This bill perpetuates a
terrible standard for Federal land policy in the West, particularly for
the State of Utah.
To give one some background, the Federal Government owns more than
640 million acres of land. This is a staggering amount of real estate--
an amount of land that in its totality is larger than the entireties of
France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Austria,
Switzerland, and the Netherlands combined--all of them. I don't mean
the national parks of those lands combined. I don't mean the government
lands owned by those respective nations. I mean the entirety of those
countries combined. That is how much land the Federal Government owns
just within the United States. That is a problem, especially because of
the way it is distributed.
Do you see this? Federal public land is not distributed evenly across
the entire country. It is distributed in such a way that the West bears
a disproportionate burden. In fact, my home State of Utah is a place
that itself bears a disproportionate burden, a disproportionate share
of that land, with two-thirds of the land being owned by the Federal
Government. You will see, on this map, we have Federal land marked in
red, and land that is not owned by the Federal Government is marked in
white. You will see there is a big difference, as you move from west to
east, in the amount of Federal land that exists.
I remember when Eliza, my daughter, was about 8 years old. It was the
first time I ever showed her this map. As best I could, I explained it
to her, an 8-year-old.
At the time, she looked at the map and said:
Look, Daddy. They own Utah.
I said:
Yes, Eliza, you're right. They own Utah.
In every State east of Colorado, the Federal Government owns less
than 15 percent of the land. In many of those States, it is in the low
single digits as a percentage of the total land in a State that is
owned by the Federal Government. In Colorado or in every State west of
Colorado, the Federal Government owns at least 15 percent of the land,
and in many of the States, like mine, it is a lot, lot more than that.
This is, of course, an enormous amount of land. Make no mistake--it
imposes an enormous burden on my State. In light of this, what are my
objections to this bill? Well, there are a few.
First, this bill permanently reauthorizes something called the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, or the LWCF, as it is sometimes
abbreviated. Passed in 1964 by Congress, the LWCF was enacted to
promote and preserve access to recreation opportunities on public
land--to promote and preserve access to recreation opportunities. This
is an admirable and worthy goal, so the fund was set up to be the
principal source of money for new Federal land acquisition and to
assist the States in developing recreation opportunities.
As originally conceived and passed by Congress, it directed 60
percent of its funds to be appropriated for State purposes and 40
percent for Federal purposes. Unfortunately, the program has since
drifted from its original intent and from its original wording, and it
has been a program that has been rife with abuse. I understand that in
some States, people like it, and I understand that in some States, this
is a program that is well regarded. It is not the case in every State.
To be clear, in 1976, the law was amended, and it was amended to
remove that 60-percent State provision, stating simply that not less
than 40 percent must be used for Federal purposes. Then it was silent
on whether a State would, in fact, receive a penny.
The result? Well, it has been used for more Federal land acquisition
than to actually care for, access, and manage the land that we already
have, and 61 percent of funds have historically been used for
acquisition, compared to the 25 percent that has historically been
allocated to State grants. So millions of acres of land have been added
to the Federal Government's already vast estate solely through the LWCF
program.
Not surprisingly, the Federal Government has not always been a good
steward of this land, and that is putting it mildly. Look, the sheer
magnitude of unfunded needs on Federal lands is itself staggering. Now,
this shouldn't be surprising. The Federal Government is run by human
beings, and the Federal Government owns an enormous amount of land--a
staggering amount of land. So for any one entity to own and manage that
much land is going to be a daunting task, and I am not just talking
here about neglect of garden variety BLM lands--those managed by the
Bureau of Land Management or one of the other land management agencies
of the Federal Government. A lot of those lands that comprise what we
might describe as the crown jewels, even of our National Park System--
those parts of the Federal public lands that the American people know
and enjoy the most and identify most closely with what they like about
Federal land management--even many of those have been neglected.
Take, for example, Grand Canyon National Park. We have deferred
maintenance costs there of over $329 million. Yellowstone National Park
has deferred maintenance of over $515 million. That is an enormous
amount of land that is not being properly maintained. So in
Yellowstone, here you have a picture of a road going through the park,
and that road is completely pockmarked and made dangerous--in some
places almost unusable--by potholes that haven't been repaired.
No American would necessarily want to drive down a road that looks
like that. This is some of what happens when you continue to acquire
more when you can't manage what you have.
Here in the Grand Canyon, we have a picture of a pipe that has sprung
a leak and is leaking quite dangerously.
So what we have is a situation that, according to a 2017 CRS report,
has resulted in a maintenance backlog of Federal lands totaling $18.6
billion.
Wildfires have run rampant in parts of the country, especially in the
West, which the government has failed to prevent, and it is not just
that they have failed to prevent those wildfires. It is not just that
the Federal Government is not always well equipped to either prevent
them in the first place or to fight them because of the vast inventory
of lands that it has. In many instances, poor land management processes
have resulted in severe environmental degradation that has itself been
the predictable cause of widespread environmental catastrophe within
Federal public lands.
To cite one of many examples, there is an infestation of a certain
type of bark beetle within a certain area of federally owned forest.
Locals understand that it is coming and ask the Federal Government to
abate the nuisance, to address the infestation. The Federal Government
refuses. The State and local authorities come back and say: OK, will
you at least let us deal with the nuisance, get rid of the bark beetle
so it doesn't destroy the trees, because if it destroys the trees, it
is going to create a local environmental and economic catastrophe for
our people. The Federal Government says no. So the bark beetle does its
damage and destroys hundreds of thousands of acres of wooded area. It
kills the trees. The trees then die.
The local populations go back to the Federal Government and say:
These trees are dead. Will you cut them down so that we don't have this
massive tinderbox of forest fire waiting to happen?
The Federal Government says no.
The people come back, those who live around the area, and say: Can we
cut them down because, otherwise, this is going to be a tinderbox.
There is going to be a fire. People are going to get hurt, and it is
going to wreak havoc on our local environment.
The Federal Government still says no.
Then, guess what happens. Those trees catch on fire. They burn down,
creating environmental catastrophe, disrupting the watershed, and this,
in turn, leads to floods.
All of these things connect back up to poor Federal land management
processes, and those poor Federal land management processes are the
result of the fact that we have too much Federal land in the inventory
to begin with.
Meanwhile, we have ill-kept roads and trails that, in some cases,
have actually kept people away from our national treasures rather than
allowing them to access them.
Furthermore, none of the current LWCF funds--not any of them--are
directed toward maintenance or upkeep
[[Page S1158]]
of these lands, including within our national parks.
But for years now, Congress has perpetuated the status quo of this
broken, dangerous, and environmentally reckless program by
reauthorizing it in giant omnibus spending bills or continuing
resolutions without even the slightest incremental, modest reform.
Worse still would be making reauthorization permanent. Indeed, it would
deny us any regular opportunity as a Congress to actually reform and
improve the program.
Second, the bill creates another 1.3 million acres of wilderness in
the West--half of that being in Emery County, UT.
Now, at the outset, I want to say that wilderness designations might
sound like a good thing, and sometimes they are. But this highly
restrictive designation limits far more activities than is necessary in
many, many instances to actually protect the land.
In fact, a wilderness designation prohibits almost all human
activity. This land usually cannot be used for any commercial activity
or any infrastructure. It cannot be developed for recreational purposes
or traveled across by car, bus, automobile, or even a bicycle--even a
bicycle made for that specific purpose--to say nothing of any type of
agricultural development or timber harvesting. In a State like Utah,
where the Federal Government owns more than two-thirds of the land,
these designations have big consequences, especially for the poor and
middle class in my State.
The amount of Federal land in Utah already sets out a great
disadvantage to the people of Utah to begin with. While private
landowners would pay property taxes on this land, and those taxes would
go to the State and its political subdivisions, the Federal Government
does not. It does not pay property taxes. So Utah is deprived of what
should be and otherwise would be a huge source of revenue and of
opportunity.
What does that mean? Well, as a result, our schools are underfunded,
local governments are crippled, fire departments are, ironically,
depleted and, therefore, unable to properly take care of the lands they
are charged to protect in the first place, and many times strapped in
their ability to provide basic services to those most in need.
With so much of this land in the grip of Federal bureaucrats, it is
again limited in its use, in its opportunity, in its potential for use
for development, for infrastructure, and for jobs that are essential to
our State's economy--jobs that would be essential to any State's
economy.
But with further wilderness designations by Congress, this is an even
tighter grip. As the LWCF perpetuates the acquisition of even more
Federal public land, communities like those throughout my State start
to suffer even more. Citizens, you see, in this type of an environment
have to go to the Federal Government, cap in hand, to ask permission
for the use of any of the land at all, for access to any of the land at
all, whether that means to dig a well, to build a road, to bury a
cable, or to do virtually anything on it at all.
So designating more than 660,000 acres of wilderness in Emery County
is of no small consequence.
I understand that a lot of people here like the fact that we are
doing that. Make no mistake. They are not the people who live in Emery
County. They are not the people who live within hundreds or even
thousands of miles of Emery County.
Finally, this bill does nothing to address the imminent threat that
Utah faces from unilateral Executive land grabs through the Antiquities
Act.
To be clear, anything and everything that is designated as red on
this map may be designated as a national monument overnight, at any
moment, solely at the discretion of the President. Anything here is
fair game to any President, at any time, to say: I now make you a
monument.
Now, the Antiquities Act, passed in 1906, was intended to give the
President of the United States the power to declare land that is
already owned or controlled by the Federal Government as a national
monument and to do so by Executive fiat. This was done in order to
protect specific historic and cultural objects in the case of an
emergency where they couldn't otherwise be protected. But instead of
reserving the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected, as the law itself requires
and as the text of the Antiquities Act itself mandates, Presidents in
more modern times have designated enormous, million-acre monuments far
beyond the scope of the objects in need of immediate protection.
These monument designations--perhaps the most restrictive of all
Federal land designations--often do more harm than good. They radically
undermine a State's economy by prohibiting energy production, mining,
fishing, ranching, recreation, and a myriad of other uses.
Furthermore, without allowing Congress or the State legislature any
actionable input in a decision like this, they effectively silence and
disenfranchise the voices of the people closest to and most affected by
and connected to the lands in question, depriving them of any say in
the process. This is not fair. It is wrong, and it is something that
needs to be addressed.
Take, for example, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument,
designated by President Clinton in 1996. The Clinton administration
designated 1.7 million acres of land--or about 67 percent of Kane
County, UT, for the monument, all the while claiming that grazing would
remain at historical levels.
But this promise, of course, was not kept. Since then, the BLM has
revoked permits and closed much needed range land. You see, the men and
women of the Bureau of Land Management, while well educated, well
intentioned, and perhaps hard-working in many instances, are not from
Utah. They don't respond to or stand accountable to anyone who is from
Utah. They don't come from these parts of the country or from my State,
where people's day-to-day livelihood and their ability to access their
own land for their own purposes and to make a living--they don't have
anything to do with this land. So why would they care? They don't.
Today, grazing is down almost one-third from what it had been more
than two decades ago when the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument was proclaimed by President Clinton--proclaimed and designated
as such, by the way, without any advance notice to the people of Utah,
without the President even entering the State of Utah to do it.
Now, ranchers were hit hard. Many of them lost their ability to fence
in water resources and maintain roads around them. In some cases, they
could no longer bring water to their cattle, and many families were
forced to reduce their herds, sometimes by half. This may not sound
like much to someone who doesn't understand ranching or doesn't know
anyone who makes their living off of ranching, but this means all the
world to those people whose families for generations have supported
themselves through ranching and ranching in that area where they are
deeply connected to this land.
Of course, there was the designation of the Bears Ears National
Monument by President Obama. The citizens of San Juan County, UT,--
incidentally, Utah's poorest county--woke up on December 28, 2016, to
find out that the Obama administration had unilaterally designated 1.35
million acres for that monument overnight, even though they had
specifically pleaded against that.
Keep in mind that San Juan County has historically had some
divisions--some of them along political lines, between Republicans and
Democrats, and some of them along ethnic lines, between those who are
Native American and those who are not.
This was an issue that united Democrats and Republicans alike in San
Juan County. It united Native Americans in San Juan County and non-
Native Americans in San Juan County like few issues ever have in San
Juan County and few issues ever will in San Juan County. This brought
them together because people from all walks of life opposed this if
they lived in San Juan County.
President Obama, at the time he declared it, claimed this to have had
the overwhelming support of Native American populations. What was often
left out of that discussion is they were not the Native American
populations in Utah. They were not the people who lived in San Juan
County. They were people outside of this area, most of them out of
State, who supported it.
[[Page S1159]]
Yes, it is easy to designate something as wilderness or a national
monument when it is not in your land, when it is not in your community,
when it doesn't affect your way of life. That is what happens when we
abuse Federal public land ownership. That is what happens when you take
one State and decide the Federal Government is going to own more than
two-thirds of the land in that State.
Imagine if in your State--or in any other State--any other land
owner, whether an individual, a for-profit corporation, a nonprofit
foundation, or anything else, owned more than, let's say, 5 percent of
the land. People would be understandably, justifiably concerned that
that person or that entity or that nonprofit, or whatever it was, could
have a disproportionate, outsized impact on that State's economy.
Imagine if that number were increased to include not just 5 percent
of the land in your State, but 10, 15, 20, 25 percent of the land. As
you rounded the corner of 30 percent, people would start to get freaked
out. Imagine if that number then soared above that--35, 40, 45, 50
percent--until it got up to nearly 70 percent of the land in your
State. Imagine further that, at that point, that landowner declared
itself exempt from all forms of property taxation. That would create
problems for your State.
This is what I beg and plead for my colleagues from around the
country, particularly those who live east of Colorado, to understand.
It is really easy to support these things when it is in somebody else's
State. It is really for people on the northeastern seaboard to look at
Utah and say: Well, it is just one of those square States. They have
plenty of land out there. They have plenty of room. They don't need to
worry about it.
Try living there. Try earning a living there for your family. It is
not right. This goes against so much of what we believe in, in this
country.
Federal land ownership is not the only unfair thing about this.
Again, Federal land ownership makes possible the designation
unilaterally, by one person, of a national monument, and if that one
person happens to decide that a particular State ought to be the next
victim, that person will make it so.
It just so happens that, just as Utah has a disproportionate share of
Federal public land in its State, so, too, is it a disproportionate
victim under the Antiquities Act. Since the passage of the Antiquities
Act, Presidents have designated 77.85 million acres of land as national
monuments, and 87 percent of that has been designated in the last 40
years. Of the land that has been designated as a monument over the last
25 years, 3.23 million acres, or 28 percent, are in Utah. All of the
land in the United States designated as a monument in the last 25
years, that portion--nearly 30 percent--is in my State. Why is that
fair? It is not, especially when you consider the harm done to the
economies, the disruption that takes place as a result of these
designations, the widespread opposition from Democrats and Republicans
alike, and in San Juan County the Native American population and the
non-Native American population alike are overwhelmingly against this.
What was intended to be an act of cultural preservation has, sadly,
deteriorated into a greedy, harmful Federal land grab. As it currently
stands, there is always the threat of a decision coming down from on
high that will utterly decimate the livelihoods of people in Utah.
There is no good reason for this.
Already, two other States have felt the abuse of the Antiquities Act
within their borders, and they have received relief. In the 1950s,
Wyoming and Alaska successfully called on Congress to grant them
Antiquities Act protections. Why? Because they had been
disproportionately burdened by this law. As a result of their efforts,
in Wyoming, any monument designation must be approved by Congress, and,
in Alaska, any designation made by Presidential fiat that exceeds 5,000
acres must be approved by Congress.
To be clear, in both of these States, Congress still has the power to
designate this. It is just that they are saying, for those States where
it has been abused in the past, Congress as a whole--people's elected
lawmakers as a whole in Congress--ought to be the ones designating,
rather than putting it in the hands of one person.
There is no reason why the people of Utah, who have suffered more
under the Antiquities Act than any other population in the entire
country, should be treated any differently. There is no reason Utahns
should live under this constant threat of abuse. That is why we have
offered an amendment that would remedy this.
With permanent authorization of the LWCF, which will result only in a
greater Federal land footprint, and with the roughly 660,000 acres of
new wilderness designation in Utah, I fear my State is at even greater
risk for yet another monument designation. Thus, at a bare minimum,
Utah deserves the same protection Wyoming has received. Our amendment
would add just two words: ``or Utah.'' Without it, I simply cannot vote
for this bill. With it, it gives us the protection we deserve and
protection that other States like ours have already received.
In a day and age when we have to deal with 680-page bills dropped on
our desks at 10 a.m. on the day we are asked to pass it or a 2,232 page
spending bill, as we faced last March for the omnibus spending package,
a bill that is not two pages long, but just two words long, should be
welcomed.
There is much that is wrong with our Federal land policy in the West,
and, unfortunately, much of that is something that this bill fails to
correct. Utahns, and Americans, deserve better than the stranglehold
that the Federal Government is exercising over so much of our country's
lands. Yet Washington greedily continues to grab more, year after year,
imposing tighter and tighter restrictions, all the while failing to
maintain the lands that it already owns. These lands will not be
national treasures for everyone if we can't take care of them in the
first place. Indeed, they will be treasures for no one if we continue
along this same pattern of willful neglect.
Let me be very clear. My opposition today is not about whether our
national treasures or parks or monuments or lands should be protected.
It is not about whether they should be, but how to do that and who is
best equipped to do that and who is most knowledgeable to do it well.
What I am asking for is for Utah's elected leaders--its elected
lawmakers in Congress--to at least be given a chance to weigh in on
these matters before they become law, rather than to have those
decisions being made from thousands of miles away by just one person.
Indeed, the very best way to ensure that these national treasures are
protected and recreation available is to empower our States and our
local communities, which understand and appreciate their backyards
best. They know which land to prioritize, and they know how to make
that happen.
Just look at the State and local ballot initiatives in the last few
decades to see the evidence. Since 1988, these State initiatives have
approved over $72 billion in combined expenditures for recreation and
conservation. These things matter to States and local communities, and
they have already raised huge funds and found ways to preserve and
competently manage their public lands.
Protection of our lands will happen without the Federal Government's
thumb on the scale, and it will happen in a way that actually makes
these treasures more available for future generations. We will not be
helping them preserve them, however, by denying access to the people
who are in the best position themselves to preserve them; that is, the
people who live and work and recreate on them, the people whose lives
are interwoven with them and have been for generations. And we will not
be helping the American people by depriving them of their livelihoods.
That is why I have introduced amendments that would make reforms and
improvements to the LWCF, the Emery County wilderness designation bill
and other provisions in this package--amendments that would steer our
lands policy in a better direction, at least as a starting point.
These are conversations worth having. They need to be had, and we
ought to have them. But at a bare minimum, with the least shred of
compromise, we could add just those two words--``or Utah''--to give
Utahns justice, to give them a voice in managing and caring for their
lands.
[[Page S1160]]
Amendment No. 187 to Amendment No. 112
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 187 to amendment
No. 112.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee], for himself and others,
proposes an amendment numbered 187 to amendment No. 112.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit the extension or establishment of national monuments
in the State of Utah)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON THE EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN THE STATE OF UTAH.
Section 320301(d) of title 54, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``Wyoming'' and inserting
``the State of Wyoming or Utah''; and
(2) by striking ``Wyoming'' and inserting ``the State of
Wyoming or Utah''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just to speak very, very briefly to the
good Senator's amendment to amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit the
President from designating national monuments in Utah.
He and I have had some opportunity to speak to this issue, and I
certainly agree with him when it comes to the policy goals that he is
seeking to assert here. I clearly understand the frustration he has.
With the previous administration, I believe we have seen a real abuse
of authority--certainly an abuse of the spirit--of the Antiquities Act.
We saw that in Utah when millions of acres were locked up through
Executive designation. This was done despite some pretty robust local
opposition and objection.
This is a scenario that I know pretty well because, in my State, we
have a Federal landlord that owns about 63 percent of the State, 224
million acres. We have a provision in ANILCA that is a specific no-more
clause, prohibiting the withdrawal of more than 5,000 acres absent
congressional approval. The Obama administration circumvented that law.
They placed hundreds of thousands of additional acres off limits to
development.
What my colleague is seeking here, the ability to affirm or reject a
monument designation by the State of Utah, is something that, again, I
truly understand. I have supported legislation and introduction of
legislation to do just as he has done--maybe not specific to one State
but making sure that we truly do respect the spirit of the Antiquities
Act and making sure, when monuments and monument designations move
forward, that they are done with local support.
I am in a bit of a quandary here because what he is advocating for is
something that, again, I have been there with him on. But our dilemma,
if you will, is that we have a package before us of lands bills, of
water bills, of sportsmen's provisions, of conservation provisions that
we have been working to kind of--not kind of, but to build that level
of consensus.
This measure is one that has been identified by those with whom we
have been trying to work, not only here in this body but with the House
as well. They have identified this as one of those measures that would
bring down this effort. So we are in a position where, while I support
the goals the Senator is seeking to achieve, I don't see a path forward
for it in this Chamber at this time.
As I mentioned--as you have heard me say--we have some very important
provisions that we have been working on for a period of years. I want
to ensure those proceed. I don't want to see S. 47 fall. So I am going
to move to table the Lee amendment, but I want to once again commit to
the Senator from Utah that I will work with him, as the chairman of the
Energy Committee, to address these monument designations.
Given the vehicle that we have in front of us, I will move to table
and ask that colleagues join me in this tabling motion.
Mr. President, at this moment, I move to table the Lee amendment No.
187.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a cloture motion that has ripened. The
motion to table is not in order unless you have unanimous consent.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be
allowed to proceed to table Lee amendment No. 187.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion to Table
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment No. 187.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
Sasse).
Further, if present and voting the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Gillibrand), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gardner
Graham
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Isakson
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Tester
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--33
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Cassidy
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hawley
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--7
Cornyn
Cruz
Gillibrand
Hoeven
Klobuchar
Sasse
Stabenow
The motion is agreed to.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.
While I was pleased that we could reach agreement to include a
designation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area
in the substitute amendment, I want to clarify what this designation
does and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not do.
The purpose of this designation, as with congressionally designated
National Heritage Areas in general, is to celebrate the region's
history and cultural heritage by promoting education, tourism,
recreation, and other historic values. It also creates the opportunity
for Federal participation in promoting these regional attributes.
In no way does this designation implicate or interfere with any water
facilities or operations associated with the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta. We are not creating new regulatory authority or modifying
existing regulatory authority, including those related to land or water
use, at any level of government.
Further, S. 47 includes protections to ensure that private property
will not be impacted by the designation, protections that apply to the
ownership and use of water rights both inside and outside of the
National Heritage Area's boundary.
I ask Senator Feinstein, you have championed this National Heritage
[[Page S1161]]
Area designation for quite some time. In her view, have I properly
characterized the intended effect of this designation?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague from Alaska and appreciate her
help with this measure. Yes, her characterization of this provision is
exactly right. There is no intent that this designation will have any
impact on water rights or water-related management decisions. The
general protections and limitations, along with the inclusion of
language specific to Delta water operations, makes certain that the
designation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area
will not affect or influence water operations of the Central Valley
Project, State Water Project, or other water supply facilities within
the Bay-Delta watershed, including a reduction in water exports from
the Bay-Delta. I am pleased that we have included additional language
to dispel any such concerns and make absolutely certain that no one
reads anything into the legislation that is not there and was never
intended.
I thank her for including this designation in S. 47 and for all of
her work to move this historic public lands package forward. The public
lands package includes a number of provisions that will benefit
California, and I appreciate her leadership in building bipartisan
agreement to steer it through the Senate.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank Senator Feinstein. As we have explained, the
purpose of this designation is straightforward and intended to promote
and celebrate the cultural heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
region, without any broader implications on water or land management.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator
Murkowski, regarding S. 47, the Natural Resources Management Act, often
referred to as the lands package, of which Chairman Murkowski is the
sponsor and which is currently under consideration by the full Senate.
In particular, I am interested in clarifying the intent of title IV,
regarding ``Sportsmen's Access and Related Matters.''
This title of the legislation deals with--among other issues--the
amount of Federal lands open to hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting. If I understand the bill correctly, nothing in S. 47 opens
existing Federal lands to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting
that are not currently open to those activities. Moreover, under this
bill, those lands may be closed for reasons, including public safety
and environmental protection, among other reasons.
Is that a correct reading of the bill?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. It is also my understanding that S. 47 makes
uniform the process by which Federal lands may be closed to hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting Moreover, it is my understanding
that S. 47 does nothing to change the standards that the Federal
Government uses to determine whether to close Federal lands to hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting or to otherwise limit those
activities.
Is that a correct reading of the bill?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.
____________________