[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17565-17576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 
                            2014--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                      Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes to talk as 
in morning business. I am not going to offer a unanimous consent 
request, but I am putting the majority leader on notice that I will do 
that before we leave today or tomorrow or whenever we leave.
  Yesterday the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, Senator Carper, and I, thought we cleared all holds 
on the Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act. I wish to give a little history 
about that because for 2 years the House and Senate, in conjunction 
with the committees, have been working on this bill. The history goes 
back to a bill that was passed with President Obama, myself, Senator 
McCain, and Senator Carper, and it was the Federal Financial 
Transparency and Accountability Act, usaspending.gov. It was the first 
start towards transparency in terms of how and where we spend our 
money.
  Quite frankly, as we got that bill through Congress, with we heard 
the same thing from OMB that Senator Reid is representing today. 
President Bush and his OMB Director didn't want that bill. They didn't 
think the American people ought to know where their spending was going. 
They didn't think the American taxpayer ought to have the right to hold 
us accountable to know where we spent the money, on which programs, and 
how.
  Interestingly, under Republican leadership, we passed that bill 
against the wishes of the OMB Director of the Bush administration, and 
that bill became law. The President has touted that bill as the first 
in a long line of transparency which his administration has embraced--
the idea that the American people ought to know where their money is 
being spent.
  Since that time, we passed the DATA Act, which will move us towards 
better quality in terms of usaspending.gov, and then we have the 
Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act, which the majority leader objected to 
yesterday.
  Here is what the Taxpayers-Right-To-Know Act says. It says the 
taxpayer has the right to know how many programs we have in each 
department, how much spending is going on in each program, and where 
the money is being spent. It is pretty simple, straightforward stuff 
that we ought to know about our government.
  The question that I am asking is, Why would anybody in this body 
object to us knowing where our money is being spent? Why would anybody 
in this body object to knowing how many programs each agency has? Why 
would anybody in this body object to coordinating with all the 
transparency things that we have done thus far and make it so that 2 
years from now the American people can actually see where their money 
is being spent, how much is being spent on each program in each State 
and at what location.
  If somebody can give me an honest explanation and a logical reason 
for why we wouldn't want to do that, I will take that, and I will not 
offer another unanimous consent request. But the answer from OMB is 
that it is too hard to work. It is not too hard to work. That is 
exactly what the Bush administration said when we said we are going to 
have the transparency act and usaspending.gov. They said it was too 
hard, and we can't do it. We can do it.
  The American people are owed that explanation, they are owed that 
transparency, and this administration, through its claims of being the 
most transparent administration should step forward and release this 
hold.
  So before we leave here, I will offer the unanimous consent request 
again. If it is objected to, we will know that it has nothing to do 
with reality. It has nothing to do with honesty, it has nothing to do 
with integrity, it has nothing to do with truth, it has nothing to do 
with being transparent with the American people, and it has everything 
to do with the Federal Government saying that it is just too hard to be 
honest with the American people to allow them to see where we are 
spending the money.
  I find that is really unacceptable for us, as Members of the Senate. 
For a Member of the Senate to stand up and say, I object to doing that, 
tells us that we have a long way to go on much, much bigger problems if 
we are going to play the game just because something is a little bit 
tough to do, and we are going to fall for complaining that we just 
can't get it done.
  With that, I yield the floor.

[[Page 17566]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


      SSCI Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I wish to salute my friend and 
colleague from Oklahoma. I don't agree with probably 80 to 90 percent 
of what he says, but I really respect him. He is a person of integrity 
who really cares. When you shake his hand and make a deal, a deal is 
done, which is a rarity around here, and we wish him the best.
  Today I rise to discuss the recently released report by the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. As a representative of one of the most targeted 
cities in the world, I feel compelled to speak about this report. I 
want to say clearly that I am troubled by many of its findings.
  First, the many members of the CIA and the intelligence community 
selflessly serve this Nation and put their lives on the line. They are 
patriots who are committed to protecting and serving America, keeping 
her safe from those very real enemies who are actively seeking to do 
the unspeakable in terms of harm. We owe the members of the CIA and the 
Intelligence Committee their due recognition and gratitude. We salute 
them for protecting us. In many cases, they risk their lives to protect 
us and our freedom.
  But as with many institutions in our society, be it part of the 
government or part of the private sector, transparency and 
accountability for mistakes are an essential part of the process that 
preserves the balance in our democracy. The fact of the matter is this 
report lays bare some very troubling activities on the part of the CIA. 
It warrants a close examination. When we find the conduct of the CIA to 
be grossly counter to the Nation's ideals, we must reckon with that and 
make sure we never go back to the days when our government sanctioned 
torture.
  Here, I agree with my colleague and friend from across the aisle, 
Senator McCain. He has been an unimpeachable voice on this topic, and 
has said time and again that these actions were torture, and that 
torture besmirches the honor of this great Nation.
  I also agree with the remarks made by Vice President Joe Biden, that 
only a great Nation and only an open and free society can forthrightly 
take ownership of their mistakes, find ways to change those policies, 
and move positively forward on both the domestic and international 
levels.
  It is doubtless this report contains lessons that our intelligence 
community must take to heart--for their goal must be to protect our 
Nation without sacrificing what it stands for.
  Before I go any further, I wish to recognize the many years of hard 
work, diligence, and courage--yes, courage--on the part of my 
colleagues on the Intelligence Committee and their staffs for putting 
this report together.
  I particularly wish to recognize my dear friend and colleague, the 
chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, for her 
work with this report. She has been a fearless, yet level-headed chair 
of the committee for many years now. She is just what you would 
envision as an ideal chair.
  I thank her for her excellent report, where once again, she has been 
both fearless and level-headed.
  An extensive report like this one deserves careful review, but at 
first reading, two things have been made very clear. First, the CIA 
undoubtedly went too far in its pursuit of intelligence from captured 
sources abroad.
  As I have said in formal proceedings in this legislature before, I am 
absolutely opposed to waterboarding and deplore some of the tactics 
depicted in this report.
  I believe our intelligence community can obtain information using 
methods that are not anathema to our Nation's values.
  Second, the report makes it clear that there was a breakdown of 
communication between the CIA and the administration at the time of 
these events.
  There is no doubt we live in a dangerous world. There are threats 
abroad and threats here in the homeland. We cannot expect to counteract 
these threats and protect our people and to do so in a responsible way 
if the CIA and the executive branch are not effectively communicating 
with one another.
  I was astounded to learn that the report asserts that over 4 years 
went by without the President having full knowledge of some of the 
CIA's actions detailed in this report. That simply cannot be the modus 
operandi for the CIA. They are accountable to the government and to the 
people and cannot behave without proper oversight. There is so much to 
unpack in this report. I urge my colleagues patience and a careful 
examination of the work produced by my colleagues on the Intelligence 
Committee. It should be out in front of the American people, and now it 
is. We must take a very, very close look at it.
  The United States, its government, and its people must take stock of 
this account and reckon with the conclusions of the study. We have 
hundreds of thousands of brave men and women posted around the world, 
tasked with the difficult job of keeping us safe. We should always be 
mindful of their dedication and thankful for their sacrifice. Their 
mission is demanding. It is never-ending and nearly all of them perform 
with a level of professionalism beyond reproach.
  However, from time to time, it is important for us to review those 
actions to make sure they meet the hard scrutiny of our Nation's ideals 
while still protecting its people.
  In that light the Senate Intelligence Committee report is an 
extremely important document for us all to examine.
  Again, I thank my colleagues, especially my friend Senator Feinstein, 
for their exhaustive and exemplary work on this report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            ISIS And Authorization For Use Of Military Force

  Mr. CASEY. I rise today to discuss the fight against ISIS and the 
debate we are having here in the Senate and across the country about 
the authorization for use of military force, known by the acronym AUMF.
  The debate about the appropriate use of force is, I believe, healthy 
for our country. The American people deserve to know when and how our 
servicemembers are going to be deployed to protect our national 
security interests. All Senators in this body have an abiding 
obligation to take the time to learn about this issue and to ask 
questions about our strategy, to thoroughly debate the strategy and the 
issues that relate to the authorization for use of force, and then we 
have an obligation to vote on the grave question of the use of military 
force.
  It has been 6 months since ISIS began its major offensive in Iraq, 
taking control of key border crossings and the city of Mosul. The 
President has laid out since that time a strategy for combating ISIS 
through all available means--military action, diplomatic coalition 
building, coordinating efforts to cut off financing and recruitment, 
and providing humanitarian assistance.
  The Administration has taken these actions under previous 
authorizations. In these weeks and months I have consulted with 
Administration officials, both military and civilian, outside experts 
and former diplomats, as I know many of our colleagues have. I also 
have listened to my constituents in Pennsylvania. We owe it to the 
American people to have a debate and a vote on a new authorization for 
use of military force that clarifies, and if necessary, places 
limitations on the President's authority in this fight against ISIS.
  We know that 1,830 servicemembers, 91 of whom were from Pennsylvania, 
have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and 
3,482 servicemembers, of which 197 were from Pennsylvania, have been 
killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those are two conflicts, and in 
Pennsylvania alone the killed-in-action number was 91 in Afghanistan 
and 197 in Iraq.
  Thousands more have been wounded in action from Pennsylvania and from

[[Page 17567]]

across the country--some of them grievously, permanently injured 
because of their service. I am mindful, as I know many are here, that 
with both the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of force, Congress 
moved very quickly to take that action. I understand that. We know in 
hindsight that in the case of Iraq, at least, mistakes were made 
because leaders did not take the time to debate and ask tough questions 
and demand answers to those tough questions. I believe it is 
appropriate for us to do the following: thoroughly debate this AUMF, as 
we should every time we consider sending U.S. servicemembers into 
harm's way; second, to be prepared to continually reassess and debate 
our strategy against ISIS to ensure it is achieving our national 
security goals.
  We all hope to develop an AUMF that has broad bipartisan support. 
However, our priority must be to give the President clear and specific 
authority to continue the fight against ISIS.
  The Administration should have come forward with a recommendation 
early in the process for what they would like to see in an 
authorization for use of military force. I welcomed Secretary Kerry's 
testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. That 
hearing was an important step in the right direction.
  It is appropriate for the Congress to not only conduct rigorous 
oversight of the executive branch's decisions about military force but 
also, from time to time, to take steps to shape or place boundaries 
around the Administration's strategy. I appreciate Chairman Menendez's 
efforts to craft an AUMF proposal that satisfies the needs of the 
Administration and the concerns from both sides of the aisle and across 
our country.
  The Congress should move forward with an authorization for use of 
military force which addresses the following:
  First, this AUMF should not allow for any significant deployment of 
U.S. troops in traditional ground combat roles. This is consistent with 
what the President has determined is necessary at this time. We also 
need to see nations in the region step up to do the fighting. We can't 
just have--to use an old expression from Pennsylvania--coat holders. 
That is someone that says you go do the fighting and I will hold your 
coat while you fight.
  We need a real coalition which we have in place now but it has to be 
built and strengthened and fortified and sustained. That coalition, 
especially in the case of members of the coalition from the region, 
will contribute fighters to the battlefield because it is their region. 
It is their conflict as much as it is for other nations in the 
coalition.
  When I say we cannot have a coalition of coat holders, I am serious 
about that. We need a coalition that will help us. We have already done 
a lot, and our people have, our taxpayers have, and our soldiers have. 
We need a real coalition that will do the fighting.
  We also know that ISIS has taken American hostages before and will 
try to do so again. If, for example, the Administration has a chance to 
bring one of these Americans home, I want them--the Administration--to 
take action expeditiously and with clear authority. If the 
Administration disagrees with the current proposal for authorization 
for exceptional circumstances or operations--for example, a search and 
rescue operation inside Syria or the recovery of an American hostage--
the Administration should propose to us language they find acceptable 
to use in those difficult situations.
  Second, this authorization for force should not be geographically 
limited. ISIS and its associated forces do not and will not respect 
sovereign borders. However, I would like to see language that requires 
the Administration consult closely with Congress if they want to 
consider U.S. military operation against ISIS in countries beyond Iraq 
and Syria. Expanding this fight geographically could have the 
unintended effect of prompting unrest in other countries or pushing 
recruits into the arms of ISIS.
  Third, this authorization for use of force should have a reasonable 
timeline--something along the order of 3 years--with the explicit 
option for the administration to extend it a bit longer if needed. We 
cannot know exactly how long it will take us and our coalition partners 
to degrade and defeat this terrorist organization. However, the AUMF 
should not be open-ended in the way that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs were. 
We have seen how difficult it is to shift gears or even to repeal an 
existing authorization for use of military force.
  Fourth, and finally, this authorization must also address the 
nonmilitary components of the administrations's strategy. I was one of 
the first Members to call for greater support for the moderate well-
vetted Syrian opposition. We know that opposition, especially in the 
north, is fractured and suffering, especially under the continual 
onslaught from Mr. Assad's barrel bombs--not to mention other actions 
he has taken against the opposition.
  Although efforts to support them are ramping up, the brutal Assad 
regime has done significant damage. That is an understatement. Further, 
the Assad regime continues to commit unspeakable atrocities against 
Syrian civilians, starving, torturing, or indiscriminately murdering 
them in violation of international law and U.N. Security Council 
resolutions--that is plural.
  I have also emphasized on a bipartisan basis with Senator Rubio 
several years ago the importance of cutting off ISIS's finances. This 
could include airstrikes against known oil-smuggling pipelines or 
additional sanctions against facilitators. I should say with Senator 
Rubio that the financing efforts or the cutting off of the financing 
was this year. I have worked with him in other years on other parts of 
Syrian policy.
  As we have heard multiple administration leaders today say, there is 
no purely military solution to this conflict with ISIS. I would also 
say that if we have an authorization for force, this bill should 
include strict reporting requirements that press the administration to 
answer a series of questions:
  First, what are you going to do to support the moderate opposition in 
Syria? I have raised this over and over again with the administration 
and still do not have satisfactory answers.
  Second, what steps are you taking to address the Assad regime's 
brutal barrel bomb campaign, and what are you doing to bring about a 
political settlement to the conflict in Syria?
  Third, how is the military campaign helping to cut off the financial 
support that ISIS is receiving, as I mentioned before?
  There is strong bipartisan agreement that ISIS proposes a clear and 
proximate if not immediate threat to our national security interests 
and those of our partners. I believe we can reach the same level of 
bipartisan agreement on an authorization for the use of military force.
  We have no greater or more sacred responsibility than to carefully 
and thoroughly consider when and how we send American men and women in 
uniform into harm's way. I urge my colleagues in both parties to engage 
in this debate and to work expeditiously to pass an authorization for 
the use of military force. I would have preferred and I know many would 
have preferred that we would have passed a bill before we adjourn this 
year, knowing that in this holiday season there are servicemembers 
already deployed away from home, from their families, to support this 
operation, Operation Inherent Resolve.
  If we cannot get that done by the end of this year, where the debate 
would not be fully developed enough to pass an authorization, we must 
get it done early in 2015. It must be among our first orders of 
business in the new year, in the new Congress when we come back in 
early January. This is a very grave matter. It is among the highest and 
most difficult responsibilities Congress has. I believe we will 
discharge that obligation with a full debate, with a debate that is 
well-informed and a debate that every Member participates in before we 
make a decision about the authorization for the use of force.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page 17568]]


  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss title 30 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the title of which has 
become referred to as the lands package. As with most of the items 
Congress considers, this provision has generated some controversy. For 
my part, however, it appears that many of the concerns here are 
outpaced by the substance of good public lands policy being advanced 
here and the economic development opportunities it will generate.
  The bill the committees of jurisdiction included in the package all 
have some form of committee procedure in either the House or the 
Senate. Thirty-four of the measures have passed the House on 
suspension. Another nine have passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
  It is also worth noting that because the Federal Government owns so 
much land, particularly in the Western United States, Congress has to 
approve all sorts of transactions involving these public lands no 
matter how small the tracts might be.
  On the substance, I believe the bipartisan group who assembled this 
package of bills struck a pretty good balance, deferring to intrastate 
priorities that will promote responsible economic growth. In Arizona, 
for example, I was pleased to see the inclusion of the Southeast 
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. This is a bill sponsored by 
my colleague John McCain. I was happy to join him to advance the 
measure. It also shares bipartisan support in the House among Members 
of Arizona's House delegation: Representatives Gosar, Kirkpatrick, 
Franks, Salmon, and Schweikert.
  At its core, this bill will facilitate access to the largest copper 
ore deposit in North America. By some estimates the economic impact of 
the mine could exceed $60 billion over the course of the mine 
operations. It will support approximately 3,700 direct and indirect 
jobs annually.
  It is also worth noting that copper is a critical component in most 
technologies, from weapon systems, to computers, to automobiles, to 
turbines that generate electricity, to name a few.
  This mine would supply an amount of copper roughly equivalent to 25 
percent of the U.S. demand.
  Also notable is what this bill does in terms of conservation. It 
would preserve more than 5,300 acres of conservation land in Arizona.
  Despite the broad benefits for economic development and conservation 
as well as the bill's bipartisan support, there has been some 
opposition. We have done our best to include some provisions that 
address those concerns. For instance, the land exchange would not occur 
until after the completion of a NEPA environmental impact statement. It 
will also generate a special management area around the large 
escarpment known as Apache Leap. Likewise, it will provide protections 
for Native Americans to continue traditional gathering and ceremonies 
after the land exchange has been completed so long as it remains safe 
to do so.
  I would also note that Resolution Copper has proactively sought ways 
to address its anticipated water needs. To that end, I was encouraged 
to learn that the company has entered into a contract with the Gila 
River Indian Community to use a portion of the tribe's water supplies 
to meet the long-term needs of the mine. This is further evidence of 
how the measure, even before it is passed, can help foster economic 
opportunities for Indian and non-Indian communities around the State.
  I would also like to take a moment to talk about a couple of the 
other positive provisions in the lands package. From a resource 
management perspective, it would support further economic activity on 
Federal lands by conveying approximately 110,000 acres of land out of 
the Federal estate. This includes not only the aforementioned 
Resolution Copper project but also a Copper mine in Nevada, timber 
harvests in Alaska, and coal production in Montana.
  The lands package also includes a provision that would streamline the 
permitting process for oil and gas leases. This is critical. We have 
seen the pace of oil and gas production on Federal lands decline in 
recent years while development on private lands has increased 
significantly. This measure also improves the permitting process for 
grazing and makes a downpayment on so-called payment in lieu of taxes, 
or PILT. This is critical in helping communities that are burdened with 
tracts of Federal land to meet the obligations of providing services 
related to those lands without a corresponding tax base. This applies 
to a lot of the land in rural Arizona.
  Although reasonable people can disagree, I believe this is a good 
measure for the State of Arizona and the United States as a whole. I am 
pleased to see that it will advance as part of this package. I know the 
lands package was difficult to negotiate. They always are. It has 
achieved strong bipartisan support. I think it does strike the right 
balance between deference to intrastate concerns and Federal lands 
decisions. I urge support of the legislation.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am on the floor this evening for 
``Time to Wake Up'' speech No. 82.
  Scientists tell us that the evidence for climate change is now 
``unequivocal''--not a word often used in scientific writing. The 
American people know that climate change is real.
  In a new poll released by the insurance firm Munich Re, 8 out of 10 
Americans believe the climate is changing. They see it happening around 
them. The American people also know we need to cut our carbon pollution 
if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. We can't keep 
burning carbon-polluting fossil fuels indiscriminately. Seven out of 10 
Americans put using more carbon-free energy, such as solar and wind, 
among the best ways to battle climate change.
  Changing the way we generate power will help cut emissions from the 
largest sources of carbon pollution in the country, our coal-fired 
powerplants. The Energy Information Administration notes that coal 
generates less than 40 percent of our country's electricity while it 
generates 75 percent of the carbon pollution from the power sector.
  The 50 dirtiest coal plants in America emit more carbon pollution 
than all of South Korea or all of Canada, which brings us to the war on 
coal.
  Every effort to protect the American people from coal pollution has 
been denounced by the fossil fuel industry and its various mouthpieces 
as a ``war on coal.'' When EPA proposed limits on emission from new 
powerplants, we heard ``war on coal.'' When EPA promoted limits on 
existing powerplants, ``war on coal.'' For mercury limits, ozone 
limits, particulate limits, always ``war on coal.''
  The war on coal is a fabrication. The denial machine, funded by 
fossil fuel money, literally owns the war on coal. The Web site 
waroncoal.com is owned by American Commitment, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit 
that has been funded by the Koch brothers-backed group Freedom 
Partners. War-on-coal is a public relations strategy, a catchphrase, a 
gimmick that serves to distract people from the harm coal wreaks on us.
  Dr. Drew Shindell is a professor at Duke University. He worked at 
NASA for two decades. Last week in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee he said:

       We hear a lot up here on Capitol Hill about the war on 
     coal; what we forget about is coal's war on us.

  So let's talk about the so-called war on coal versus coal's war on 
us. When Republicans talk about President Obama's war on coal, they 
leave a lot out. They leave out that coal companies have shifted to big 
open-topped mines--what is called mountaintop removal--so they can lay 
off miners and still produce the same amount of coal. They leave out 
that coal simply can't

[[Page 17569]]

compete with today's cheaper, cleaner burning natural gas.
  In 2012 Duke Energy's own CEO acknowledged that EPA's proposed 
climate rule for new powerplants was not to blame. This is what he 
said:

       The new climate rule is in line with market forces anyway. 
     We're not going to build any coal plants in any event.

  ``We're not going to build any coal plants in any event,'' he said.
  He continued:

       You're going to choose to build gas plants every time, 
     regardless of what the rule is.

  That is not a regulatory war on coal; that is the free market 
operating.
  EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan for existing powerplants is the 
newest PR front in the imaginary war on coal. EPA projects that the 
Clean Power Plan will yield between $55 billion and $93 billion in 
benefits per year by 2030, compared to $7 billion to $9 billion to 
comply with the rule. That math makes it a winner for the American 
people. Some war on coal. What would they expect us to do--give up $90 
billion at the high end in benefits for the American people in order to 
avoid a $9 billion compliance cost, again at the high end? Again, $90 
billion for the American people versus $9 billion in compliance--who 
wouldn't take that deal?
  If the Obama administration is waging a war on coal, it has a funny 
way of going about it. Coal exports grew by 44 percent from 2008 to 
2012. The Obama administration keeps opening up Federal lands to coal 
extraction, awarding many leases at below-market rates. It actually 
took a Federal judge in Colorado to tell the Obama Bureau of Land 
Management and Forest Service to factor the cost of climate change into 
their cost-benefit analysis of coal mining leases. The Federal agencies 
had looked at only one side of the ledger. They counted the economic 
benefits of mining coal but not the costs. Some war on coal. Two years 
ago the Obama Army Corps of Engineers fast-tracked environmental review 
of a proposed coal export terminal on the Columbia River in Oregon. 
Local communities and tribes objected, and the State of Oregon denied 
the permit for the project. If that is what a Federal war on coal looks 
like, somebody didn't get the memo.
  On the other side, let's look at what coal's war on us looks like. 
Evidence that mining and burning coal harms our health and our 
environment and our oceans is undeniable. It is this other side of the 
coal ledger which hits home in Rhode Island and Connecticut and many 
other States, and it is that side which the polluters want to ignore 
and obscure with ``war on coal'' rhetoric.
  Burning coal releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That 
warms our atmosphere, bringing changes we are already seeing in 
seasons, weather, and storms. There is a strong association between 
global warming and the kinds of rain bursts that flooded homes and 
businesses in Rhode Island in 2010, for instance.
  Coal burning contributes to the formation of toxic ground-level 
ozone, which is a cause of the bad air days in my home State of Rhode 
Island. Kids with asthma in the emergency room in Rhode Island are 
connected with midwestern powerplants that burn coal and pump often 
unscrubbed emissions up smokestacks designed to move the problem 
downwind--out of State, out of mind.
  Don't overlook our oceans, which absorb about one-third of the carbon 
pollution being emitted and most of the excess heat. As a result, 
oceans are becoming more acidic, water temperatures are rising, and sea 
levels are rising across the globe. In Rhode Island the sea is up 
nearly 10 inches at the tide gauge at Naval Station Newport since the 
1930s, when we had our great hurricane of 1938.
  So whether you have a flooded home or are a mom with a child with 
asthma in the emergency room or somebody with coastal property facing 
10-inch higher seas, there are costs to coal. This is all virtually 
indisputable, and it follows immutable laws of nature. Damage to 
coastal homes and infrastructure from rising seas and erosion, asthma 
attacks in children triggered by smog, forests dying from beetle 
infestations and unprecedented wildfire seasons, farms ravaged by 
worsened drought and flooding--these are all real costs to Americans. 
This other side of the coal ledger counts too.
  It even hits home in coal country, where blowing up mountaintops 
pollutes streams and harms folks around the mining operations. West 
Virginia University has linked the dust thrown up by these mountaintop 
mines to lung cancer among nearby residents.
  Coal-fired powerplants are the biggest sources of mercury pollution 
in the United States, and they also emit arsenic, acid gases, and other 
toxins.
  Dr. Shindell, whom I mentioned earlier, is an expert in atmospheric 
chemistry and health. Here is what he told the EPW Committee last week:

       Of all of the sources of the emissions that lead to poor 
     air quality in the United States, coal burning is the single 
     largest, causing by my calculations about 47,000 premature 
     deaths per year. That happens to be larger than the total 
     number of Americans killed in all of the years of the Vietnam 
     War by hostile fire.

  If you look at the casualties, the Federal Government isn't waging a 
war on coal. If there is any war, coal is waging a war on us.
  This is business as usual for the polluter industry and its 
propaganda apparatus. Coal companies have long fought public health 
standards, mine worker protections, and compensation for ailments such 
as black lung disease, as well as efforts to address acid rain or 
reduce toxic pollutants, such as mercury, that cause brain damage in 
kids.
  In 1989 Southern Company's CEO Edward Addison testified that acid-
rain controls would increase electricity rates in States with the most 
coal power by 10 to 20 percent by 2009. Well, we couldn't evaluate that 
prediction then, but now we can. This is a fact: In the 10 States with 
the most coal, rates actually fell. Big Coal's war on the truth has a 
long history.
  I recently had the opportunity to visit West Virginia with Senator 
Manchin to learn about what coal means to the Mountain State economy. I 
get it. We need to care about the miners, the truckers, the powerplant 
operators, the engineers, and others who make their living in this 
industry. It would be wrong to ignore their plight, just as it is wrong 
when the coal industry tries to ignore the effects of its carbon 
pollution.
  I think we need a carbon fee to correct the market and to slow 
climate change. I am sure I will hear that is a war on coal. It is not. 
It is simple fairness. It is simply paying for the mess you cause. That 
is not war. It is not even punishment. It is just fair accounting, 
taking both sides of the ledger into account.
  When people do that--economists and scientists--they calculate the 
cost of carbon pollution as what they call the social cost of carbon. 
The administration estimates the social cost of carbon at around $40 
per ton of carbon pollution--$40 per ton. The effective cost to 
polluters for causing that mess is zero.
  My carbon fee bill would correct that. It would correct what even 
economists and groups as conservative as the American Enterprise 
Institute agree is a market failure, and then return every dollar of 
the fee to the American people. That could include transition 
assistance for coal workers--and assistance for communities far from 
coal mines, like in Rhode Island, facing these costs of climate change. 
It is also becoming increasingly clear that a revenue-neutral carbon 
fee will spur innovation, create jobs, and boost the economy 
nationwide.
  So it is time to end the polluters' holiday from responsibility. It 
is time to see through their fanciful war on coal, and protect those 
facing the effects of coal's war on us and coal's war on the truth. It 
is time to seize the economic benefit of a clean energy economy. It is 
time to wake up.
  I yield the floor to my friend, the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I 
am so happy to follow him on the floor today and to see him again. We 
have worked together on so many important

[[Page 17570]]

issues. It is wonderful to see the Presiding Officer to be back on the 
floor.
  I come today for a very special reason. I am so proud to present to 
the Senate a package of lands bills that have been included in the 
Defense Authorization Act.
  What is significant about this particular package is it is quite 
large, and it is the first package in almost 6 years and almost three 
Congresses, which is quite an accomplishment for our committee.
  I am so proud of the staff of our committee, Energy and Natural 
Resources. I made this a priority when I took over as Chair 9 months 
ago. It was a long shot to see if we could put any package at all 
together that had eluded us for several Congresses, but I worked very 
closely with my counterpart, Congressman Hastings, in the House. We met 
on several occasions with our top staff and committed to do all we 
could to see what was possible.
  One of the important principles that made this grand compromise 
possible--and there are Republican bills and Democratic bills; it is 
very well balanced as between the parties, but also geographically in 
projects and expansions of parks, creation of new parks, and land 
transfers. The principle that we followed is it is revenue neutral. 
Some of these bills raise money, some of these bills spend money, but 
the lands package is revenue neutral. I think the taxpayer is going to 
get some extraordinary value in the package being presented today.
  In addition, one of the principles I pushed very strongly is to make 
sure that this package included opportunities for the development of 
our natural resources. We are very proud of our wilderness areas. We 
are very proud of our parks. We are very proud of our areas that are 
off limits to economic development. But there are parts of the Federal 
landscape of public lands that should be developed--whether it is 
forests, or oil and gas, or hard-rock mining, for the benefit of the 
taxpayer and for our overall economy. That was a very important 
principle for me and of course for Congressman Hastings.
  We also wanted to make sure that we expanded our national park 
system. Again, this has been a 6-year hiatus, almost three Congresses. 
We have not been able to make any progress on adding to the beautiful 
heritage areas and special national park system that America is known 
for and helped to pilot for the world. Next year will be the 100th 
anniversary of the founding of the National Park Service, and we are 
excited about the additional eight new national parks that will be 
created by this lands package, and it expands the boundaries of six 
existing national parks.
  One of the expansions I want to note particularly is in Texas, in San 
Antonio. It expands the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. 
The reason I am excited about this is because the San Antonio missions 
are next on the list in the United States sites to be designated as 
world heritage sites. I had a great opportunity to help our only site 
in Louisiana, Poverty Point, achieve that designation just a few months 
ago. What an extraordinary action it was to be there when we cut the 
ribbon on a site that is going to continue to be excavated that we 
believe is over 3,500 years old, with a very sophisticated Native 
American settlement on these beautiful raised mounds in one of the 
highest points in the Louisiana-Mississippi delta area. I was excited 
to see that San Antonio missions will be next. This puts these sites on 
the same level as the Grand Canyon and other really extraordinary 
international places of cultural significance. So that is one example.
  In the new national parks, it has only taken us 200-something-plus 
years, with Senator Carper and Senator Coons, to get a national park in 
Delaware. They were the only State without a national park. Although 
they are small in size, they are very important as they are the first 
State in the Union. So as it would be appropriate, the name of their 
park is the First State National Park. So now every State in the United 
States has at least one national park. Of course, some States have many 
more. Our commitment is to continue this great heritage for our Nation 
for generations to come.
  This package represents a major milestone in our work to reach a 
consensus across party lines. We will clear much of the backlog of the 
public lands bill that has built up in the Senate, last passed in the 
omnibus package 5 years ago. It is worth noting the Congressional 
Budget Office has again scored this as revenue neutral.
  Let me speak for a minute about a few Louisiana priorities. Although 
most of these bills do not have anything to do with Louisiana--we did 
not have any major expansion efforts of any of our parks to present--I 
did wish to discuss two meaningful impact on the economy of my State.
  The first provision will ensure the economic vitality and viability 
of the Toledo Bend hydroelectric project located on the beautiful 
Sabine River on the Louisiana-Texas border. Toledo Bend provides power 
to thousands of Louisiana homes and serves as an economic engine for 
our western border with Texas.
  The project was first licensed in 1963. Russell Long and our 
congressional delegation were very instrumental in getting this dam for 
hydropower established in our State. Although we are known for oil and 
gas, we do have some hydropower in our State. It was relicensed in 
August--I am proud of, with my support and leadership--for an 
additional 50 years, which is a terrific certification on the part of 
the Federal Government that this project is fulfilling its original 
goals and objectives. Not only is it generating power, it is providing 
an extraordinary recreational opportunity.
  This project includes a dam which impounds a 185,000-acre reservoir, 
the largest manmade body of water in the South, and a powerhouse 
capable of generating 81 megawatts of electricity. The project is 
operated primarily for water supply purposes, secondarily for 
hydropower, and thirdly for recreation. But it has become an extremely 
popular recreational site both on the Texas side and on the Louisiana 
side. It is an interesting project, because we have joint jurisdiction. 
The Texas Commission runs its side, the Louisiana Commission runs our 
side, and it occupies about 3,800 acres of Federal land in a narrow 3-
foot strip along the shore of the reservoir where it borders the Sabine 
National Forest and Indian mounds.
  Under current law, just because of that 3-foot strip, the forest, 
land, and other Federal agencies were claiming jurisdiction just 
because of this very narrow edge around the Toledo Bend. So we 
eliminated their jurisdiction. It gave the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission the basis to impose annual charges. We didn't think that 
would be fair, so we carved out a much-needed exemption that would 
prohibit undue regulation, and allow the local governmental structures 
and appropriate Federal agencies to determine the best use of this 
land. Local zoning ordinances will apply, local rules about what areas 
can be developed privately and publicly. There is plenty of public 
access to this reservoir. We hope, and I anticipate, that it will be 
another momentum builder for the economic development in this region.
  Significantly for me--I have worked on it for many years, because I 
have been aware of this since I was a legislator years ago and the real 
need to develop this as a really first-class destination for resorts, 
hotels, marinas--not only for the people who live and have property 
there, but for visitors who may come from all over the region.
  In addition, Fort Polk is situated only about 40 miles away. So it is 
within driving distance for soldiers and their families for recreation. 
It is really quite beautiful. It is isolated. We don't have quite 
enough highway infrastructure I think for us to develop it in a way 
that we really should, but that will come with time. But this was a 
very important step to get the 50-year certification to move forward. 
And now our local communities--the parishes of Sabine, DeSoto, and 
Vernon--can lean forward and dream and plan for how this area can be 
developed.
  The second Louisiana-related provision authorizes the National Park

[[Page 17571]]

Service to study areas along the Lower Mississippi River in Plaquemines 
Parish for the potential addition to the national park system. It is 
just a study, but this Lower Mississippi area is of course rich in 
cultural history. It was first traveled by Spanish explorers in the 
1500s and later, in 1699, became the site of the first fortification on 
the Lower Mississippi River known as Fort Mississippi.
  The area to be studied includes several other historic 
fortifications, including Fort St. Philip, which played a key role 
during the Battle of New Orleans and was the final major battle of the 
War of 1812. While Andrew Jackson's forces were successful on land, it 
was William Overton's 10-day defense of the back door to New Orleans 
that helped seal the American victory.
  Fort Philip, and its companion fort located across the river, Fort 
Jackson, also played a pivotal role during the siege of New Orleans 
during the Civil War. These two forts, with their withering crossfire, 
held the Union Navy at bay for 12 days. And the history goes on and on.
  These special places are tangible links to the dramatic stories of 
our Nation's history and deserve to be studied for inclusion in our 
national park system.
  Let me underscore again how important I think is the principle of 
developing our public resources in the right ways--preserving what we 
can, conserving what we must, but developing what we can for the 
benefit of the taxpayer. That is one of the underlying principles of 
this grand compromise. I recognize that to break the logjam, 
particularly with the House of Representatives, we needed to find a way 
to address both the development of natural resources and conservation 
and preservation, as well as the expansion of our public lands and 
public parks. This package reflects that balance. Let me mention a 
couple of the economic development provisions.
  We will convey 70,000 acres in the Tongass National Forest to 
Sealaska, an Alaska Native corporation, to complete its land settlement 
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This legislation has 
been a longstanding priority for Senator Begich and Senator Murkowski. 
I thank them both for their extraordinary leadership in working on this 
land transfer.
  This bill has been considered in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee for years, and the final language was carefully negotiated 
with the Department of Agriculture. So I thank the Department for 
helping us work out this extraordinary land transfer.
  Another provision which was included at the request of Senator McCain 
and Senator Flake and which has been worked on by the Arizona 
delegation is a land exchange in Arizona between the Forest Service and 
the Resolution Copper company to allow development of a major copper 
mine. My friend Trent Franks has been a leader in this area as well in 
the House and in his legislative district, and I have had good 
conversations with him. This may be the deepest copper mine in the 
United States of America. It is going to be one of the richest in the 
world.
  There was some original language in this legislation that was perhaps 
not as responsible as it should have been--or as sensitive maybe is a 
better word--to some of the needs or requests of some of the nearby 
tribes. We tried to address some of their concerns in the final 
language. We haven't, of course, settled all complaints, but we have 
settled as many as we can.
  This is an extraordinarily valuable asset for the people of the 
United States, and the people of the United States own this land and 
right now own the potential copper that would come out of this mine. I 
most certainly, through my staff, have insisted and negotiated that the 
taxpayers get a fair exchange, that they are not underpaid in any way 
in this transfer and this development. I am very hopeful that the 
Forest Service, which will continue under the authorization in this 
bill to negotiate, will make sure the taxpayers of the United States 
are paid fairly for the exchange of this very valuable property, which 
will create many jobs in Arizona and which will create opportunities 
for economic development in our whole country and around the world, as 
copper is a very valuable substance. One of my overriding conditions 
for approval was to make sure the taxpayers get a full benefit.
  While the Sealaska and Resolution Copper provisions have drawn most 
of the attention in this bill, in total the package includes many other 
prominent Federal land conveyances, all which will allow for community 
services such as cemeteries and schools, provide land for development 
by local communities, allow for outdoor recreational opportunities, and 
increase management efficiencies for both public and adjacent private 
land.
  The package also wonderfully includes almost 250,000 acres of new 
wilderness designations, including in Washington State. I thank Senator 
Cantwell and Senator Murray for their advocacy for their State and for 
our Nation. Senator Tester has been a strong proponent for the State of 
Montana, Senator Reid in the State of Nevada, and in the State of 
Colorado, Senator Bennet and Senator Mark Udall, and, of course, in New 
Mexico we have had some expansion of wilderness areas. Each of these 
bills was the product of years of discussion among stakeholders and 
each State's congressional delegation.
  In addition to wilderness designations, the package will protect the 
watershed of over 360,000 acres of natural forest lands adjacent to 
Glacier National Park and will designate 200,000 Forest Service and BLM 
lands in Montana as the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Heritage area 
and protect 70,000 acres of the Hermosa Creek Watershed in Colorado.
  Among the eight new national parks are two in Maryland and New York 
that celebrate the life of Harriet Tubman, known, of course, for her 
great role in civil rights and developing the Underground Railroad and 
for so many other things she did as a leader at that time. Our new 
national parks will protect 80,000 acres of forest land and volcanic 
peaks in New Mexico; designate the first national park in Delaware; 
protect fossil resources outside of Las Vegas; and interpret the story 
of the World War II Manhattan Project in Washington State, which was so 
important to Representative Hastings. Tennessee and New Mexico are, of 
course, also included in that history and the Colt firearms company in 
Hartford, CT, which is an unusual kind of park to celebrate, but it is 
part of the American development of manufacturing, and the Colt 
firearms company played a major role. So we have that included in this 
bill.
  The individual bills that are included have been developed with local 
support and in many cases have been priorities of Senators for years. I 
am pleased to have played a pivotal role in building this comprehensive 
package, and it took a lot of compromising and an awful lot of hard 
work.
  I thank the lead Senator on the Defense bill, Mr. Levin, for allowing 
us to be part of the Defense authorization bill, along with Senator 
Jack Reed, whom I spoke with on many occasions along with Senator 
Levin, because without their support I don't know if this bill could 
have survived standing alone with one or two strong objections still 
out there. But they can't fight the Defense authorization bill. Tucking 
it in a bill that is going to pass and will not be vetoed is a way to 
move these bills forward.
  It does enjoy broad and deep bipartisan support from literally 
hundreds of Members of Congress, and hundreds of staffers have spent 
hours and hours, and the executive branch--particularly Interior and 
Agriculture--has spent hours negotiating the fine details of this 
package.
  I thank David Brooks, who is a lead staff member with our committee, 
Energy and Natural Resources, who has been a magnificent staffer here 
in the Senate for many years. He is known as the Senate expert on 
public lands, and that title certainly is appropriate for a man who 
knows so much and cares deeply about our public spaces and finding the 
right balance between preservation, conservation, and development.

[[Page 17572]]

  I thank Liz Craddock, who is my staff director for the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, who was absolutely tireless. Not only 
running the committee in my absence, sometimes when I was on the 
campaign trail, but also taking appropriate time to come and work with 
me for reelection and in addition putting together, with David, this 
package while all this was going on is really a testimony to their 
professionalism. I thank them very much.
  I thank all the Members of my side particularly for their patience 
and their understanding as we worked through this package of almost 80 
to 90 bills and the subcommittees that worked so well moving them 
forward.
  I will submit this for the Record. There may be other Senators, I am 
sure, who want to put in individual remarks for the parks and projects 
and land swaps, but I think it is pretty remarkable that we have 
cleared up 6 years of backlog at zero expense to the taxpayer with 
extremely broad and deep bipartisan support.
  I will only say as one of my last remarks on the Senate floor that it 
is possible to find common ground if we are willing to look for it and 
work hard enough to find it. We need to have our eyes open a little 
wider. We need to put our shoulder to the wheel a little bit stronger, 
and if we can do that, we can move a lot of significant legislation 
through that benefits generations of our citizens and taxpayers for 
years to come.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I have come down to the floor today to 
talk about the package of public lands measures included in the House-
passed Defense bill. I am told we are likely to vote on that bill as 
early as tomorrow in the Senate.
  Within the lands package is a measure we worked on called the Hermosa 
Creek Watershed Protection Act.
  The watershed, which is pictured here, is a beautiful parcel of 
national forest land up the road from Durango in the southwest corner 
of Colorado.
  I will say at the outset that our office may have introduced the bill 
in the Senate, but it was really the people I represent in southwest 
Colorado who wrote every bit of this piece of legislation.
  Over 6 years ago, a diverse group of local citizens, mountain bikers, 
anglers, outfitters, local officials, and many others all got together 
to talk about the future of the land. Everyone involved liked to visit 
the area for recreation or to do business there. Their discussion was 
to developing a plan to manage the area so everyone could enjoy it and 
benefit from the multiple uses well into the future.
  Over the Memorial Day weekend in 2011, the Hermosa workgroup invited 
my family and me for a hike through the watershed and to join the 
discussion, and we took them up on that offer.
  We loaded up the van, drove to Durango, and met the working group at 
the Hermosa Creek trailhead.
  My youngest daughter Anne, who was then probably about 8, made a 
hiking stick out of a nearby fallen branch, and we started up the trail 
with 40 or so others from the local community.
  The Presiding Officer knows this area well. As we climbed higher and 
higher, we were overcome by the beauty around us and the forests and 
valleys and crystal-clear streams and unspoiled views in almost every 
direction.
  After about an hour, the group pulled off the forest service trail 
into a meadow, and as Anne, Halina, and Caroline Bennet, my three 
daughters, made me a dandelion necklace out of the dandelions that were 
there, we started a discussion about what this area meant to the people 
who were on this trip.
  The sportsmen came to fish for native Colorado cutthroat trout and 
for back-country elk hunting. The mountain bikers came to enjoy single-
track riding trails known throughout the country and throughout the 
world. The local water districts love Hermosa because it provides clean 
water for the city of Durango, and workers in the timber and mining 
industry stress that some of the watershed could contribute to 
extractive development in the future.
  The upshot of the discussion we had in the meadow that afternoon was 
an agreement to work together on a bill, a balanced bill that managed 
the watershed so it would contribute to the local economy long into the 
future. More than just working on this bill, I think the people in that 
meadow set out to prove that people in this country can still work 
together and set an example for the U.S. Congress.
  After nearly 3\1/2\ years of negotiations since that hike, we are on 
the verge of passing that bill and sending it to the President for his 
signature. The Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act governs the 
entire watershed. It includes provisions to allow for multiple uses, 
such as timber harvesting for forest health, continued access for 
Colorado's snowmobilers--a critical provision to allow Silverton's 
winter economy to continue to prosper.
  The bill enhances opportunities for back-country fishing made 
possible by the great work of Trout Unlimited and Colorado Parks and 
Wildlife to reintroduce native cutthroat trout to the watershed.
  The bill also adds--importantly--nearly 40,000 acres to the National 
Wilderness Preservation System, lands that provide unique and important 
opportunities for solitude and reflection, lands that will remain 
undeveloped forever so that they will always have clear streams to fish 
and lush forests for local outfitters to take clients into the forest 
on horseback.
  I am proud to report that the bill has the unanimous bipartisan 
backing of the two county commissions involved, the San Juan County 
Commission and the La Plata County Commission. I thank those 
commissioners for their leadership, collaboration, and their vision, 
and the two local towns, Durango and Silverton. It has the support of 
the Hermosa Creek Workgroup, ranging from hardrock miners to 
environmental groups. These are the people we say can never get along 
and can never get anything done because everybody has to get only their 
position and disregard the position that the other has, and we have 
proven that is not true, as I said, ranging from hardrock miners to 
environmental groups such as the San Juan Citizens Alliance, 
Conservation Colorado, and The Wilderness Society.
  It has the support of sportsmen, Trout Unlimited, and the back-
country hunters and anglers.
  The Hermosa bill is also supported by the local water district, the 
Southwestern Water Conservation District.
  The outdoor recreation community--including the Colorado Snowmobile 
Association, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and the Trails 
2000 mountain bike group--supports the measure. And support for Hermosa 
is especially strong from the local business community. Companies as 
diverse as fly shops, car dealerships, the Durango Chamber, and Mercury 
Payment Systems, one of the area's largest employers, all agree that 
protected public lands add to the region's quality of life and help 
them attract topnotch talent to the region.
  This bill grew from the grassroots up. Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents worked together to cement a long-term plan for their 
community's future.
  I thank Senator Udall, a long-time champion for Colorado's public 
lands and wilderness, for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill.
  I also wish to thank Congressman Scott Tipton, our partner in the 
House, for supporting this bill and demonstrating that bipartisanship 
still exists in some corners of the Capitol. He has been outstanding to 
work with, as has his staff, and I look forward to collaborating on 
other conservation measures in the future.
  To close and bring this back to the beginning--I see my colleague is 
here--

[[Page 17573]]

I don't have to convince most people that Colorado is a special place. 
Many people from all over the United States have been to our State to 
ski our mountains, run our rivers, or climb a 14er.
  The Hermosa Creek watershed represents some of the best Colorado has 
to offer. It deserves to be protected, and that is what this bill does.
  However, in some respects, I wish Hermosa didn't have to pass this 
way. This lands package is a great achievement. It came through a 
robust bipartisan and bicameral process, and that work is something 
truly to be commended.
  At the same time, I think the Hermosa Creek bill could have passed by 
unanimous consent years ago as a stand-alone bill, or as part of 
another smaller, bipartisan, bicameral package that didn't have to wait 
almost 6 years while local communities all across the country have been 
left in limbo. People there don't work on the same time that people 
here work, and their expectations are that we are going to move things 
along. No one should object to bipartisan, commonsense measures that 
are widely supported. But instead of regular order, we are left voting 
on large packages of lands bills every number of years.
  In fact, save one wilderness bill that passed earlier this session, 
Congress has not passed a wilderness bill since 2009. Congress has not 
passed one wilderness bill since 2009--I suppose we passed one.
  Last Congress was the first time a session of Congress hadn't passed 
a wilderness bill in the 50-year history of the Wilderness Act. That 
had never happened before, whether the Senate was Democratic or the 
Senate was Republican, whether the House was Democratic or Republican, 
or whether the President was a Democrat or a Republican. It never 
happened before. This Congress--provided the vote goes well tomorrow--
will have waited until the eleventh hour.
  The 2009 bill, which was one of the very first ones I voted on as a 
Senator, created 2 million acres of new wilderness.
  The package we will vote on tomorrow contains several hundred 
thousand acres more, including nearly 40,000 new wilderness acres, as I 
mentioned in the Hermosa bill. While that is great progress, and it 
truly is, I wish we were doing more.
  Despite dozens of other widely supported conservation proposals that 
have been introduced this session, there are only four other wilderness 
bills included in this package. Once again, I am strongly supportive of 
the package, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes. But in the new 
Congress we ought to hit the reset button and truly honor the intent of 
the Wilderness Act--which President Johnson signed into law 50 years 
ago--by passing more wilderness bills. I can't think of a better 
anniversary present for the landmark law than for the 114th Congress to 
return and pass more of these bills.
  Let's defy expectations about what the change in the majority means 
here. Let's lift up the bipartisan work that is happening around here 
and pass more of these bills.
  Historically conservation has been a bipartisan issue going all the 
way back to Teddy Roosevelt, and I hope we might return to the 
cooperation we have seen in the decades since then and get some more 
wilderness and conservation done for the American people.
  This is a glorious and beautiful country that we all represent. We 
ought to save some of it for our kids and grandkids by passing this 
package and coming together on some others.
  I urge yes on the bill.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for all of his work to make sure we 
could bring this lands bill together with the NDAA bill.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleague from Alaska 
for allowing me to go ahead with my remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague and his comment about the 
courtesy for allowing him to go first. I think the Senator from 
Colorado was scheduled to go first, and we were just a little bit 
behind, so I was pleased to listen to my friend's comments about one of 
the provisions in this NDAA lands bill, and I thank him for those 
comments.
  I also wish to acknowledge the comments of the Senator from 
Louisiana, our chairman of the Energy Committee. I have had the 
pleasure and privilege of working with her as the ranking member on the 
committee now for the past 6 to 8 months since she has held the chair. 
But even before that, I have had the honor and privilege of working 
with her on so many energy issues.
  As the Senator from Louisiana was detailing the contents of this 
lands package that is contained within the NDAA bill, I was reminded of 
what a good partnership we have had working together on the committee. 
They are not exactly easy issues that come before us. They generate a 
level of controversy--certainly a level of debate and dialog--but there 
has always been good, civil debate and dialog as we try to work through 
some very difficult issues.
  As Senator Landrieu leaves the Senate at the end of this Congress, I 
want her to know, as I stated in committee just this morning, how much 
I have appreciated the good work she has done, not only on energy 
issues, but the good work she has done on behalf of the people whom she 
represents in Louisiana.
  If there is anybody who exemplifies the word ``tenacious,'' it is 
Mary Landrieu, and I think the people of her State have enjoyed the 
benefit of the very tenacious approach and how my friend and colleague 
takes care of those she represents. I thank the Senator for that.
  I too wish to add my comments this evening in support of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, and more specifically, 
to the public lands package, which is title 30.
  As Senator Landrieu detailed in greater specificity, what we have 
here is a collection of smaller bills related to public lands. Just 
because a bill is small and somewhat discreet in terms of its area of 
impact, it doesn't mean these are not issues that are critically 
important to the people of that State, critically important to that 
region.
  With so many of these bills that are now part of this package, we 
have spent months--and in some cases we have spent years--developing, 
considering, refining, amending, and working through these packages. We 
have spent weeks negotiating which ones will actually be in the package 
that we have before us in title 30. We have now arrived at this point 
where we have a bipartisan and bicameral consensus in support of it.
  What I wish to do with my time this evening is to explain how this 
package is fundamental to economic development in our Western States.
  I also wish to lay out what this package is as well as what it isn't 
because I think there have been some misconceptions about what is 
contained in this. I also want to provide a little bit of insight into 
the process by which we crafted this and why it is now time for the 
Senate to do what the House has already done in passing it by a very 
overwhelming margin.
  But before we get into the substance of some of these measures, I 
think the Senate needs to understand why we want this package, why we 
need to pass it now rather than waiting until the next Congress or 
perhaps the one after that or perhaps whenever we have a slow day 
around here. So I will proceed to the basics of some of this.
  It is probably best described by just looking at the map. The 
dominant landowner in the United States is the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government, like it or not, owns roughly 640 million acres of 
land. That is more than one-quarter of our country that is held by the 
Federal Government. Ninety-three percent of these lands are clustered 
in just 12 Western States. So we can see here our Federal fault line. 
These 12 Western States are areas where less than 50 percent of the 
land

[[Page 17574]]

is owned or held by the State and private interests. When we look at 
this divide, on this side, more than 95 percent is state-controlled 
land.
  So we have a situation where in many of our Eastern States the 
Federal Government owns just a small fraction of the lands. But if we 
look to some of our Western States and we look at the extent of Federal 
ownership, this is where the picture comes into greater focus. In 
Wyoming, 42.3 percent of the State of Wyoming is held in Federal lands. 
In my State of Alaska, 69 percent of the State of Alaska is federally 
owned. Nevada walks away with No. 1, where over 80 percent of the State 
of Nevada is held by the Federal Government.
  For folks back on the east coast, what does that mean? Let's say it 
presents some real difficulties for us in the West. Say we want a minor 
land conveyance--not a big deal. But if a person lives in a State such 
as New York with less than 1 percent of Federal lands, chances are that 
person can go see a real estate attorney and they can have a document 
drawn up, and they might even be able to draw it up in 1 day or maybe 
it takes a couple of days, but a person can complete a transaction 
without too much difficulty. If a person tries to do a conveyance in 1 
of our 12 Western States, where 93 percent of the Federal lands are, it 
is a different story. Chances are a person will not have the same luck 
as they might in New York. Even if they are seeking the smallest of 
land conveyances, say 1 acre--just 1 acre is all we want to move from 
the Federal side to the State side, to a local side, to the private 
side--a person does not go see an attorney. A person needs to go talk 
to one of the four Federal land management agencies to get approval for 
their request, and they are not done there. Then a person needs to go 
see their Congressman and their Senator because they need Federal 
legislation to make it happen. It honestly takes an act of Congress. In 
the East, in places where land ownership is different than it is in the 
West, people can handle all of these conveyances. We can work through 
some of what we are seeing in this public lands package. We can do it 
through private transactions. But in the West, it takes an act of 
Congress for a land conveyance.
  That is why we see hundreds of public lands bills introduced each 
Congress. It underscores why their passage is so critical to economic 
development and to job creation in our country. I have to admit, I am 
pleased the Senator from New Mexico is in the chair today, coming from 
a State such as New Mexico, which is at 41.77 percent. The Presiding 
Officer knows full well what we are talking about when we talk about 
the imperative of our communities that are asking for a little relief 
when it comes to a land conveyance, and the level it rises to is not 
the city council, it is not the mayor or the legislator or the 
Governor, it is a Congressman and Senator, and ultimately signed into 
law by the President of the United States.
  So what are we actually looking at in this package? After truly 
months of negotiations, perhaps a few near-death experiences, and many 
temptations to walk away, we have agreed to a balanced, budget-neutral, 
revenue-neutral, bicameral, bipartisan package contained in title 30. 
These provisions that are contained here will create jobs. They will 
create thousands of American jobs. They will cut the redtape to energy 
production. They will boost American mineral production. They protect 
multiple use and public recreation. They convey Federal land for 
community development. They protect our treasured lands through 
measured conservation, and they provide new means for private dollars 
to support our national parks.
  We have included a bipartisan provision to streamline oil and gas 
permitting on our Federal lands. It is supported by the Western 
Governors' Association. It cleared the Senate by unanimous consent 
before the elections. So think about that. So many things get tied up 
in the politics of elections, but this was so important to so many, on 
a bipartisan basis, on a regional basis, we moved it through the Senate 
by unanimous consent.
  We have included a provision to address the backlog of the grazing 
permit renewals for our western ranchers to ease their burdens. Then 
there is another provision we have included that will help to hopefully 
protect the collapse of the timber industry in Southeastern Alaska with 
the conveyance to our Alaska Native peoples--a promise that has been 40 
years--40 years--in achieving.
  We have included a major priority for Arizona. This is an issue 
Senator Landrieu spoke to, an extensively negotiated land exchange led 
by Senator McCain and Senator Flake. I know Senator McCain has been 
working on this for a decade to find a way to responsibly open a copper 
deposit that could meet 25 percent of our country's needs while at the 
same time taking incredible care to protect and maintain access to 
cultural resources and traditional uses of those lands.
  There is another provision that relates to Nevada which also 
facilitates development of a different copper mine. But now think about 
this. We are going to have an opportunity in Nevada and in Arizona to 
extract copper. Our military needs copper. The construction industry 
needs copper. The automotive industry needs copper. The renewable 
energy industry needs copper. There are so many benefits to be had 
here.
  We have some provisions that are contained in this package that 
perhaps generate fewer headlines but are still hugely important for 
local communities. Probably the best example of this is a provision for 
a school in Minnesota. This is a measure we have been working on with 
Senator Franken. But it facilitates a land exchange of just 1 acre--1 
acre to a school in Minnesota--a single, lonely acre. We probably have 
people saying, So do we really have to pass a bill in order to make 
that happen? The simple answer is yes. That is why we are here. That is 
why we are including these provisions--so many provisions--in this very 
important bill.
  I also want to mention what the package is not--what it does not do, 
what it does not contain, and some of the parade of horribles that 
certain groups have been saying that in fairness, they are not looking 
again to the balance we have achieved with this overall package.
  We saw some rightful concerns emerge before this title was finalized. 
Everybody's ears always perk up when they hear ``public lands 
package,'' wondering what it is going to be. But we have seen some 
inaccurate criticisms emerge even after the release. It is one thing if 
they haven't seen what is in it. It is another thing to look at it and 
then be critical of it.
  As I mentioned earlier, this is a balanced, revenue-neutral package. 
We have taken great care to make sure it is not all focused on new 
wilderness, new parks. In Western States, and particularly coming out 
of Alaska, we are just not going to have the support we need if it is 
all focused on wilderness and parks, so it is not. There is a 
conservation piece, absolutely, and it is a strong conservation piece, 
and I think it is a good, balanced one. But we also have the very 
important development piece that is critical to what is contained 
within.
  To those who have spoken out against creating new national parks, 
given the maintenance backlogs that I think we recognize--it could be 
as high as $20 billion. I get it. I agree with Senator Coburn that we 
must address the backlog issues, the maintenance issues, and I thank 
him for the scrutiny he and his staff have given to this issue and the 
report they came out with. We are going to be working to address that 
in a manner that is constructive and long term. I want to reduce the 
backlogs, and we will do it.
  Again, this has been judged to be revenue neutral. Through its 
passage, we could make progress on the backlog issue.
  One provision that is contained in the bill that will help is the 
authorization of a National Park Service commemorative coin. There are 
75 Senators who are cosponsors that will allow for additional funds to 
be raised. Senator Coburn has a measure in here that will allow for 
appropriate recognition of volunteers to our national

[[Page 17575]]

parks. We have also tailored this package to include the wilderness 
provisions, but it is a discrete number. All of these have strong local 
and congressional support. We are looking at less than 250,000 acres in 
all, and actually from a practical perspective, far less than that. 
Most of these provisions were sponsored by a House Republican. Some 
have been endorsed by a Governor or a State legislature. With others, 
we are simply making it official. Nearly half of what would become 
wilderness is already managed as if it were wilderness. It is in 
wilderness study areas or it is in roadless area designation.
  This is not a zero-sum game because we should be focused on the 
productive value of our public lands above all else. But for those who 
are kind of keeping score--is this acre per acre--I want to remind 
people that the package transfers almost 110,000 acres of Federal land 
into State or private hands through conveyances, exchanges, and sales. 
We are also releasing more than 26,000 acres of land from wilderness 
study back into multiple use. Examples of what those lands could be 
used for include building of transmission lines or motorized 
recreation.
  I know some have raised issues about the various studies that are 
contained within the bill which, in my view, are more a matter of due 
diligence than anything else. Because a further act of Congress will be 
required before any new park, any new museum or wild or scenic 
designation can be established, and then we have the funding aspect of 
it as well. So, again, these are studies. This is not the creation of a 
new museum. This is not the creation of a new park. These are studies.
  I think it is also important to reiterate that we have taken great 
care to protect private property. We have forbidden the use of eminent 
domain and the condemnation of private property. We have also set a 
positive precedent by eliminating the potential use of buffer zones 
around designated lands.
  Again, I am going to say it one more time: This package is the result 
of bipartisan and bicameral negotiation, weeks of meetings amongst 
Members and staff of the committees of jurisdiction, the committees 
that have crafted the overall NDAA bill, leadership in both Chambers, 
and many individual Members.
  For those who would suggest that this package was somehow hastily 
assembled, that this is some kind of rush to judgment, it is at the end 
of a very long and actually a very traditional process. We have 
considered, debated, and amended these provisions over the course of 
Congress using the committee process and the House and Senate floor 
when we could. Every bill within this package has been reviewed by the 
committees of jurisdiction. We are not hopscotching over anybody. At 
least 30 bills have passed the House and 7 have passed the Senate. Even 
though we haven't devoted time to a large package of individual bills, 
some of these provisions have been considered in multiple Congresses. 
You may look through the list, and they look like reruns. It is because 
we have tried, and the process didn't allow for full completion.
  What we have with title 30 builds upon the lands and natural resource 
provisions that were included in the initial House-passed NDAA. These 
were provisions that were primarily the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee's jurisdiction.
  We have seen in the past the NDAA bill include public lands packages. 
It has happened enough times that the House leaders actually name the 
House Resources Committee as official conferees to it. But I think what 
is very important for us to remember about this lands package is that 
what we have done, this effort, has taken no time and no funding away 
from our military or our veterans, nor has its inclusion held the NDAA 
back for a single moment here.
  I think we would all prefer a process where we could take the time to 
bring up Senator Bennet's bill on the floor and talk about it and have 
him tell us about all the magic of this region, but we haven't seen 
that in this body in far too long. I would prefer that process where 
all these bills could be considered individually on their own, but know 
that we have reviewed everything closely. This is a revenue neutral 
package. We found the right balance and reached bipartisan and 
bicameral agreement. We don't need to start over. We don't need to be 
working these same bills in a new Congress. We don't need to see a 
groundhog's day with so many of these measures that are small but are 
so important to these Western States. It is time to finish this. It is 
time to pass these reasonable measures. So I would encourage the Senate 
to support this package as part of the larger NDAA bill so that we can 
fulfill our responsibility to those in the Western States and those who 
have public lands that we are happy to have, but we also need to know 
we can have a level of responsiveness within our system to allow us to 
work those lands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Alaska for her tireless efforts on the lands bill and the NDAA bill and 
the bipartisan spirit she brought to all of these negotiations over a 
long period of time. She is to be commended for it. I don't think we 
would be anywhere close to where we are without her work. I thank her 
for that.
  I am here to speak briefly about the Intelligence Committee's report 
on the CIA's interrogation methods. I support the committee's decision 
to release the report. As a country, it shows we have the courage to 
face the truth no matter how ugly that truth may be. Coloradans need to 
know the truth. The American people deserve to know the truth. Our 
willingness to face this difficult truth reminds us that we live and we 
are lucky to live in the most open and transparent democracy the world 
has ever known. Unlike the acts brought to light by the Intelligence 
Committee report, the willingness for self-examination is something to 
be celebrated about America.
  The report will be the subject of significant debate over the coming 
weeks and months and maybe even years, as it should be. Nobody should 
be cavalier about the risks that are associated with the release of 
this information, but this is a discussion our country needs to have.
  Although I am still reviewing the report, a couple of things are 
pretty clear at the outset.
  First, the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques failed 
to secure accurate information or cooperation from detainees. The very 
first finding of the report says:
  While being subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques 
and afterwards, multiple CIA detainees fabricated information, 
resulting in faulty intelligence. Detainees provided fabricated 
information on critical intelligence issues, including the terrorist 
threats which the CIA identified as its highest priorities.
  Not only has torture not made the country safer, it may have made us 
less safe--at least according to this report.
  Second, the report reveals that the CIA withheld information from the 
FBI, the State Department, and the Director of the Office of National 
Intelligence. It denied access to detainees and provided inaccurate 
information about the interrogation tactics. Information was withheld 
from former Secretary of State Colin Powell out of concern he would 
``blow his stack if he were to be briefed on what's been going on.'' 
The CIA repeatedly misled Congress and impeded oversight by its own 
inspector general.
  The report rebuts any notion that these brutal tactics led to 
actionable intelligence that made our country safer. It highlights the 
lengths to which people systematically misled other agencies, the 
Congress, and for years the American people. But most significantly, 
this report--and I thank the Presiding Officer for his service on the 
Intelligence Committee. It is a committee that by definition people 
can't learn very much about, and I know it takes a lot of time and an 
awful lot of work that can go underappreciated. But this week we are 
learning why the work on that committee is so important.

[[Page 17576]]

  Most significantly, as I was saying, this report has reminded us that 
the use of torture is completely at war with who we are as a country 
and the ideals we hold. Throughout our country's history, our American 
values--the notion that all people are endowed by their Creator with 
certain unalienable, sustainable rights--have sustained us through our 
most difficult times. They helped us triumph in World War II and 
eventually led to the fall of communism during the Cold War. They have 
attracted millions of immigrants to our shores. They inspired 
generations of Americans to rectify the inequality that exists in their 
own time to create a more perfect union. In fact, the values of 
democracy and human dignity are what brought my mother and her family 
to the United States after surviving the horrors of the Holocaust in 
Poland. It was a place that they called beautiful America, as much an 
idea as it was a place to them. Torture is repugnant to these 
fundamental American ideals.
  It is often said that the strength of our democratic institutions is 
tested during times of crisis. Understanding what happened and ensuring 
we won't use torture again will help our democratic institutions 
persevere in the future and serve future generations as well as the 
generations that were here before. It will demonstrate that we are 
better and we are stronger than our enemies. It will ensure that our 
uniquely American values will continue to inspire people like my mother 
and her parents all across the globe.
  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. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               HAVEN ACT

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleagues Chairman Levin of the Committee on Armed 
Services and Chairman Johnson of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I join with my colleagues to speak about the inclusion of 
the HAVEN Act in the National Defense Authorization Act we are 
considering today. The HAVEN Act, which I sponsored along with Senator 
Johanns, authorizes a pilot program to help make repairs or 
modifications that are necessary for disabled or low-income veterans to 
stay in their homes. The HAVEN Act lies within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to which it has been 
referred. However, working in close coordination with the chairman of 
the banking committee, we were able to include this measure in the NDAA 
bill, in recognition of its potential to assist veterans of our armed 
services who are in need; isn't that correct, Chairman Johnson?
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Senator Reed is correct, I thank him for 
working with me on this matter and for his continued advocacy on behalf 
of veterans.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would like to thank both Senator Reed and Chairman 
Johnson for working with our committee to include the HAVEN Act within 
the bill we are considering today.

                          ____________________