[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16693-16698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--S. 2165 AND S. 697

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 270, S. 2165, a bill to 
permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund; that the 
bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to ask that the consent be modified to pass a short-term 
extension, S. 2169, with my amendment, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will 
note that we secured this language an hour ago. We have no complete 
insight on the impact of the language, and this is language more 
appropriately debated in the committee process. I wish to ask my 
colleague to consider introducing it for action on the floor at some 
future point and not use it to obstruct funding or authorization of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. If my colleague is not comfortable 
with such a suggestion, then I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator declines to modify his request.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. LANKFORD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this first request was to get this bill 
done right now and reauthorized. I am going to turn to a different 
possibility, which is to secure a debate here on the floor which would 
afford my colleague from Oklahoma the opportunity to present his 
thoughts.
  I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, but no 
later than Thursday, November 12, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 270, S. 2165; that there be 1 hour of 
debate equally divided between the proponents and opponents; that upon 
the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the 
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the vote on passage 
be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and, finally, that there 
be no amendments, motions or points of order in order to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LANKFORD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page 16694]]

  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, we have now seen a demonstration. I want to 
talk to Senator Merkley about this. I ask unanimous consent to engage 
in a colloquy with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a piece of 
legislation that has been in place and in law for 50 years, as Senator 
Merkley knows. It has been in place for 50 years, and it has expired. 
There is overwhelming support for this. A number of us have signed 
letters. Senator Burr, who is here, I know has been a leader in terms 
of working on the Republican side. We have a huge amount of support, 
but a small little group is objecting to this moving forward.
  I say to Senator Merkley, this is showing the dysfunction that here 
we have a bill and the leadership cannot get the bill on to the floor. 
I wanted to ask the Senator in terms of his State. I know in my State 
people love their parks. They love the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. I think the same is true in Oregon; isn't it? This is something 
that we shouldn't have let lapse, and we have to put it in place.
  Mr. MERKLEY. My colleague from New Mexico is absolutely correct. For 
these 50 years that he noted, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 
protected millions of acres of our land, including playgrounds and 
parks, our most treasured national landscapes-- all without costing our 
taxpayers a single dime. It is, without question, our Nation's most 
important and successful conservation and outdoor recreation program.
  Oregon, specifically, has received about $300 million over the past 
five decades, safeguarding areas that are now complete treasures for 
our State, such as the Oregon Dunes and the Hells Canyon Recreation 
Area. These special places are part of our heritage, and protecting 
them has been made possible through this fund. It is a commitment to 
preserving these special places for future generations in Oregon and 
throughout the Nation, and it also serves to really strengthen the 
outdoor recreation economy in our State.
  What is a win for our heritage is also a win for our rural economy. 
This effort to torpedo something of great value in terms of protection 
of special places and our rural economy is a step or a stride in 
absolutely the wrong direction.
  Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Merkley, one of the things we face here 
is that because the Land and Water Conservation Fund has not been 
reauthorized, there are Senators who are trying to attach this to other 
pieces of legislation. You and I have worked very well on the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, which now has over 60 votes. This has really 
held down both pieces of legislation. The Land and Water Conservation 
Fund can't be reauthorized, and we can't pass the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, which has overwhelming support.
  We are in a situation where the leadership needs to step in and say: 
Both of these have huge support in the Senate--bipartisan support. 
Let's get a vote on them. Let's not continue to have this gridlock and 
dysfunction.
  Does the Senator see it that way in terms of how this is playing out 
on the floor right now?
  Mr. MERKLEY. I absolutely share the Senator's perspective on this. In 
terms of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, or the Lautenberg Act, 
as we now call it, this is an effort to remove--and you have championed 
this in a bipartisan way. You have brought this forward. It has been 
approved through an extensive committee process, and we have a shot, 
finally, to have a process in which we can take and remove toxic items 
from everyday products.
  A good example is that we are standing here on a carpet, and the 
carpet is full of flame retardants that don't really retard flames but 
definitely cause cancer. Having those scientifically analyzed and 
considered as to whether they should be in our carpets or not makes a 
lot of sense. You think of little babies crawling during their first 
months of life on these carpets, and their noses are right down there 
in the dust. The dust is attached to these toxic chemicals. I believe 
your bill--this bill--not only is bipartisan, but it has more than 60 
or at least 60 cosponsors.
  Mr. UDALL. Yes.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Here we are with this paralyzed process where a few 
individuals say: You know, I guess it is not important to get toxic 
cancer-causing items out of our household products. Also, it is not 
important that our States get flexible funds to preserve special 
places.
  I suggest that rather than blocking such legislation, folks who have 
that mind come to the floor and make their case. If they want more 
cancer for our children, come to make your case. If you don't want to 
preserve special places in America, come and make your case. But do not 
obstruct this body from being able to have the conversation.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Would the Senator consider consent to join the 
colloquy?
  Mr. UDALL. Please, Senator Lankford.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you for letting me join the conversation.
  The argument here is not against whether I would want or other 
Members would want cancer-causing items or would want to have the 
degradation. The problem is the degradation in our public parks and 
lands.
  We have an $11.5 billion backlog in our national parks right now. 
Inexplicably, the Land and Water Conservation Fund does not allow for 
the maintenance of what we have. The U.S. Government currently manages 
29 percent of the land mass in the United States. We have a 
multibillion dollar backlog, including in our national treasure, which 
is the national parks that are out there.
  This amendment that I have, and which others are proposing, is to 
simply say: Before we keep adding land--at least at the same rate we 
are adding more land--we should be maintaining that land. It is 
equivalent to if you are going to buy car, you need to at least set 
aside some money to pay for gas.
  All that we are asking for is something that has been asked for now 
for a long time through multiple committees and multiple hearings, and 
that is, that as we engage in purchasing new property, we also make 
sure we are setting aside dollars from the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund to actually maintain what we are purchasing.
  The dollars that are there already are a $20 billion amount that is 
set aside for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund continues 
to function under the current CR. Appropriations have already been 
planned and put in place by the committees to be able to put it out 
there. This doesn't affect the current ongoing functioning. It only 
affects new dollars coming to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It 
is already functioning as it is. In fact, it has a 65-year account set 
aside for it.
  The challenge now is this: Are we going to maintain what we have or 
are we going to keep purchasing new lands and not maintain what we 
have? I would say we can protect us from cancer-causing agents and we 
can maintain what we have as well.
  Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Senator Lankford, for that intervention.
  I think the important point here--and I know Senator Burr is here on 
the floor so I am going to make a unanimous consent request with regard 
to TSCA. But let me just say that I can't agree with the amendment that 
Senator Lankford has talked about. I know it is very controversial--the 
idea of taking money out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which 
is going to the States for parks and to the Federal side for parks, and 
dedicating that to maintenance. That is something we should have done 
in budgets long ago, and the problem is we haven't had adequate budgets 
for our parks. So we have a backlog.
  Senator Merkley mentioned, in terms of TSCA, the health and safety of 
children. There is one person I want to talk about, a woman by the name 
of Dominique Browning. She works with an organization called Moms Clean 
Air Force. She worries about her kids and

[[Page 16695]]

the toys and the products they use. She herself survived kidney cancer. 
When she asked her doctor what caused the kidney cancer, he said:

       It's one of those environmental ones. Who knows? We're full 
     of chemicals.

  This is about people such as Dominique Browning, who want to see a 
cop on the beat who is going to do something about chemicals. I think 
this dysfunction, this inability to deal with two very popular bills, 
is something on which we need the leadership to step in. The leadership 
has the control of the floor and is able to move forward.
  So I rise today in support of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety 
for the 21st Century Act.
  Last week, the Senate missed an opportunity to move forward on this 
bill and to send it to conference with the House. I was disappointed, 
but, I know that we can still get this done. And for the protection of 
American families we must get this done.
  The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is supposed to protect us. 
It doesn't.
  There are over 84,000 known chemicals and hundreds of new ones every 
year. Only five have been banned by the EPA. Only five out of 84,000.
  TSCA is broken. We all know this. It fails to protect families. It 
fails to provide confidence in consumer products. We have a chance to 
change that. And that is what our bill will do. That is why 60 Senators 
from both sides of the aisle support this critical reform.
  For decades now, the risks are there, the dangers are there, but, 
there is no cop on the beat. American families are waiting for real 
protection.
  Unfortunately, last week, because of Senate dysfunction, we asked 
them to wait a little longer.
  They have waited too long already, because this is about our health 
and safety. This is about our children and grandchildren. This is about 
people like Dominique Browning, who works with Moms Clean Air Force, 
who worries about her kids, and the toys and products they use every 
day. She herself survived kidney cancer. When she asked her doctor what 
caused her kidney cancer, he said: ``It's one of those environmental 
ones. Who knows? We're full of chemicals.''
  This is about people like Lisa Huguenin. Lisa is a Ph.D. scientist 
who has done work on chemical exposure at Princeton and Rutgers and at 
the State and Federal level. But she is a mother first. Her 13-year-old 
son, Harrison, was born with autism and autoimmune deficiencies. Five 
years ago, Lisa testified before Senator Lautenberg's subcommittee on 
the need for reform. She is eager to see TSCA reform pass the Senate 
and be signed into law.
  The time for TSCA reform is now, and it may not come again for many 
years. It has passed the House. It is ready to move through the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 121, S. 697, a bill 
to reauthorize and modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act; that the 
only amendment in order be a substitute amendment to be offered by 
Senator Inhofe; that there be up to 2 hours of debate equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees; that following the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate vote on adoption of the Inhofe 
amendment; that upon disposition of the substitute amendment, the bill 
be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
author of this unanimous consent request to modify the unanimous 
consent request to allow an amendment to be considered in the TSCA 
debate, where we would take up the Cantwell-Murkowski bipartisan 
language on the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. LANKFORD. I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma objects.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. BURR. I object to the underlying unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, we have hit a roadblock, not because of the 
substance, but because of a disagreement over a completely unrelated 
bill, the re-authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. A 
bill that I, along with a majority of Senators, strongly support.
  I respect my colleague, Senator Burr. He is a true leader on LWCF. It 
never should have expired.
  The reauthorization has strong, bipartisan support. Fifty-three 
Senators signed a letter led by Senator Burr recently, and I am 
confident there are over 60 supporters.
  I believe that we will reauthorize and continue to fund LWCF. As the 
ranking Democrat on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, that is 
an extremely high priority for me and it is extremely important to the 
people of my State.
  I want to work with Senator Burr. But, LWCF is being blocked by a 
small minority from Senator Burr's own party.
  We have to fight that, and we will. But, TSCA reform should not be 
held up by demands for a vote on unrelated LWCF legislation.
  Groups like the National Wildlife Federation and others who support 
LWCF reauthorization have called to decouple the two. Other members of 
the LWCF coalition have told me this as well.
  The safety of American families should not be held hostage to the 
LWCF because the result is all too obvious. The safety of our children 
and grandchildren is put at risk each and every day that we delay TSCA 
reform. Is it any wonder the American people look at the Senate with 
dismay and confusion? At times like this I share their frustration.
  Again, I respect Senator Burr. He is a cosponsor of our bill. And I 
know he does not want a dysfunctional Senate. He fought hard to get the 
Senate to work out its differences on his cyber security legislation. 
The Senate passed that bill this week.
  The Lautenberg Act deserves the same push. We need cooperation, not 
ultimatums. I will keep doing what I can to continue the conversation 
and move forward.
  We cannot sacrifice the health of infants and pregnant women, of the 
elderly and our most vulnerable, to Washington gridlock and 
obstruction.
  It has been a long road. This is a balanced bill and a bipartisan 
bill. One that Republicans, Democrats, industry, and public health 
groups can all support. This is historic and urgently needed reform.
  So, we won't give up. We will keep going. We aren't just Senators. 
Many of us are also parents and grandparents. We know how important 
this is.
  This is about the health and safety of our families too, and I 
believe we can do this.
  Our former colleague, Senator Lautenberg, who began this effort years 
ago, believed we could as well. TSCA reform was his last legislative 
effort, and he believed it would save more lives than anything he had 
done. We are proud to have the support of his widow, Bonnie. I want to 
repeat what Bonnie said so eloquently at the EPW hearing earlier this 
year.
  She said: This cause is urgent, because we are living in a toxic 
world. Chemicals are rampant in the fabrics we and our children sleep 
in and wear, the rugs and products in our homes and in the larger 
environment we live in. How many family members and friends have we 
lost to cancer? We deserve a system that requires screening of all 
chemicals to see if they cause cancer or other health problems. How 
many more people must we lose before we realize that having protections 
in just a few states isn't good enough? We need a federal program that 
protects every person in this country.
  Bonnie Lautenberg is right. How long must American families wait?

[[Page 16696]]

  They have waited long enough. They should not keep waiting because of 
a dysfunctional Senate.
  Moms like Dominique and Lisa are watching and waiting and asking. 
What are we doing to protect their children, and the children of New 
Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and every other 
State.
  Reform is 40 years overdue. So, one way or another, we will pass this 
bill in the Senate. We will resolve our differences with the House, and 
this critical reform will go to the President's desk.
  Senator Merkley, we are here at this point where we saw--and we have 
now been joined by Senator Markey also, and if Senator Markey wishes to 
participate in this colloquy, I would ask consent to do that.
  We are at a point where we have two very popular pieces of 
legislation that have enough votes to get them on the floor and to deal 
with a filibuster, and we don't have the ability to do that. So that is 
where we are. It is time for this place to abandon dysfunction and 
abandon the kind of gridlock we see and get these bills on the floor.
  As Senator Merkley said, if people have an objection or an amendment 
like the Senator from Oklahoma, they can come down and offer it. I 
don't know what my friend's thoughts are, but Senator Markey is here 
and I am sure is willing to speak on this issue also.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I think what is extraordinary about this situation is 
that both of these bills have at least 60 cosponsors, which as Senator 
Udall pointed out is enough to close debate and get to a final vote. 
There was a time not very long ago when even controversial bills were 
voted on by a single majority. Unfortunately, we are now at the point 
where virtually every bill has to get cloture because some individual 
objects to having a debate, even if they are not willing to stand on 
the floor and debate it, and that is another topic. The Senator from 
New Mexico and I have suggested that we need to change that, so if 
someone objects to certain legislation, that Member should be on the 
floor speaking about their objection so it is transparent to the 
American public.
  Nonetheless, in this situation, we already have 60 supporters for 
both of these bills. We have 60 supporters and cosponsors for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund and 60 supporters for TSCA--the Lautenberg 
act, which is now my colleague's act--and they are both very important 
to our country. So for us to fail to get these bills on the floor and 
act is a dramatic example of the failure of this institution to be able 
to operate as a legislature.
  This can be cured. The majority leader could arrange to bring these 
bills to the floor. With his support and the support of the cosponsors, 
we could get cloture to bring those bills to the floor, and that would 
not only be a tribute to how the U.S. Senate functions, it would also 
do important work for the people of America by reauthorizing the funds 
to protect our special places and creating a system that will operate 
effectively to get toxic chemicals out of our everyday products.
  I think it comes as a shock to people across America that we have not 
regulated a single chemical that goes into toxic products since 1991, 
and it is absolutely unacceptable. They believe and expect that the 
items they handle every day have gone through the process of being safe 
and that we are not poisoning ourselves, and it is very shocking to 
discover that is not the case.
  These are two very important bills to our country. Both of these 
bills have 60 supporters. Let's get them to the floor and show that the 
Senate can actually be a deliberative body and that we can do good work 
for the future of America.
  Mr. UDALL. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from New Mexico and 
Oregon for their leadership on this issue.

       It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was 
     the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the 
     epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity. . . .

  There is a certain Dickensian quality to the Senate floor today. We 
rarely have debate on environmental bills that enjoy not only token 
bipartisan support but overwhelming bipartisan support. Today is the 
best of times, the age of wisdom, and the epoch of belief because we 
can debate not just one environmental bill that has overwhelming 
bipartisan support but two bills that have overwhelming bipartisan 
support. Yet today is also the worst of times, the age of foolishness 
and the epoch of incredulity because a handful of Senate Republicans 
have just prevented both of these bills from even getting a vote.
  First, we had a request to reauthorize the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, a program conceived of by John F. Kennedy, who 
presented Congress with draft legislation for it in 1963. I am proud to 
be counted among the more than 60 Senate supporters of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  Next, we had a request to consider reform of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act that helps to protect the American people against these 
dangerous toxic chemicals. I am proud to be a supporter of the language 
the Senate is expected to vote on, and some have predicted upward of 85 
Senate votes in favor of that environmental bill.
  First, a handful of Senate Republicans will not allow a vote on the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund because they don't like the program, 
and then other Senate Republicans who do like the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund will not allow a vote on TSCA because we couldn't act 
on the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  This is nothing short of absurd. It is hard enough to reach a 
consensus in the U.S. Senate on any issues, much less environmental 
issues, but some of our colleagues seem determined to snatch defeat 
from the jaws of victory.
  Shouldn't we be able to make this the best of times on both of these 
bills while we have the chance to do so instead of perpetuating the 
worst of times view that Americans increasingly have of the ability of 
Congress to get its job done?
  I hope all of my colleagues can come together so we can agree that 
here, where there are far more than 60 votes on the Senate floor for 
two historic environmental bills--that we do not allow for a small 
handful of Members to be able to stop both bills from being able to 
even be considered on the Senate floor.
  Yesterday's agreement on the debt ceiling and on having the budget go 
forward is how Congress should be operating. We should take the big 
issues, try to work together, and understand that there are going to be 
differences of opinion, but when there is overwhelming support for 
legislation, we should be able to move forward.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I thank all who have worked on 
this issue on a bipartisan basis. This bill has vastly improved the 
TSCA bill from where it was months ago, and I highly recommend it to my 
colleagues on the Senate floor. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
something that goes back so many decades, and it is central to a 
continuation of the commitment that each and every State in our country 
is able to make on two environmental programs.
  I hope we can find a way of resolving this issue because it is time 
for us to take action on the Senate floor on these two critical 
environmental issues.
  I yield back to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  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. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Let me stand and take all the blame. I am the guy holding up the 
chemical bill, TSCA.
  This is the greatest deliberative body in the world. This is an 
institution that

[[Page 16697]]

has never shied away from any debate or any vote, and we proved it last 
night as we passed a very technical, difficult cyber security vote. We 
can take on tough issues and we can weed through them, but what we are 
doing today is a charade. We said that at 12 we would come down here 
and that there would be competitive unanimous consent requests. It is a 
joke. It is an absolute joke. We forced the Presiding Officer to be 
here to object, knowing he strongly objects to the legislation.
  There is one guy who has been trying to facilitate this, and that is 
Senator Inhofe. Throughout the whole process he has tried to work it 
out, but the fact is maybe we are at a stalemate. To suggest that I 
shouldn't have the opportunity to amend any piece of legislation is to 
take every right I have as a U.S. Senator. To come to the floor and 
chastise any Member because they would like to amend legislation--that 
is why we were sent here by our constituents from our States.
  If we look back at over 200 years of history, we know this body 
doesn't allow the biggest State to win. It allows every State to have 
their voice heard and every Member has the right to provide input on 
behalf of their constituents.
  Let me say to the authors on both sides that I am going to hold up 
the chemical bill until there is an opportunity for me to either amend 
it or to offer the Land and Water Conservation Fund and permanently 
extend it on another piece of legislation. It is plain and simple.
  We can come and do these unanimous consent requests, we can feel good 
and go home and look and say: Here is what I did. I am on both sides of 
an issue. If that works, then do it.
  I will be brave enough to tell everyone I am the guy holding it up. I 
am holding it up because I am an equal Member of the U.S. Senate. I am 
not scared to debate TSCA, and I am not scared to debate the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund because that is what this institution was 
created to do.
  I sort of get the impression that we set this up to determine who is 
more committed to something. That is what the vote is for. It is not 
about the talk or the debate, it is the vote. If we can't get to the 
vote, it is difficult to determine who is for something and who is 
against it.
  Let me say to my colleagues that the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
was set up over 50 years and receives its funding off the royalties of 
the exploration on offshore oil and gas; 87.5 percent of it goes to the 
general revenue fund of the Federal Government and 12.5 percent goes to 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund was never set up to handle 
maintenance at any State or Federal facilities. It was set up to allow 
individual treasures to be preserved by leveraging Federal dollars 
against private and State dollars to take in parcels, such as the 
Appalachian Trail, to take buffer pieces against things like the Blue 
Ridge Parkway, to protect a certain treasure in a State where the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund went in and matched with private dollars 
and then turned around and turned it over to the State for a State 
park. The benefit is if it is private land, there is no access, but 
when it is public land held by the State, fishermen and hunters can 
access it for recreational use and can now use that State park.
  I am exactly where the Presiding Officer is. I don't want to increase 
the Federal footprint of what we own, whether it is land or buildings. 
I want to get out of the business of ownership. I only want to preserve 
those things that up to this point we have determined are valuable to 
future generations, and that is not by increasing the size of those 
Federal holdings, it is just about protecting those Federal holdings. 
And when we talk about protecting and providing for maintenance, let me 
suggest that it is a conversation we need to have with appropriators 
because they are getting 87.5 percent of the royalty split.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund, when we originally conceived 
it--I admit I was not here 50 years ago; I think John McCain was the 
only person who might have been around--it was envisioned when that 
fund was created that when we take something from the land, we put 
something back. So when we take resources, we are going to protect 
something over here. It was also the direction of the legislation that 
$900 million a year go into this Land and Water Conservation Fund. We 
have averaged over those 50 years somewhere in the neighborhood of 
about $385 million a year.
  The Presiding Officer stopped me one day and he said: What about the 
$20 billion in the fund? There isn't any $20 billion in the fund. 
Appropriators spent that every year. They get the royalty split 100 
percent, 20 percent goes over into this fund, they appropriate X, and 
what is left over they spend, along with the other 87.5 percent.
  Do we want to do maintenance in national parks? Appropriate it. The 
money is there, and it is not taxpayer money. We are collecting it off 
of royalties on expirations. And it is very important that we do that 
maintenance. It is also important that the National Park Service 
prioritize maintenance over every other thing that is funded when 
maintenance is eliminated. But I think we have to understand it is not 
an either/or. We can be good stewards and invest in how we leverage 
Federal dollars with private dollars and also invest in the maintenance 
of existing facilities. If that wasn't the case, States would be up 
here crying for more money, more money, more money to maintain their 
parks. But they understand that is their responsibility and they budget 
for it.
  As I sat here a little while ago, I thought this was more reminiscent 
of an episode of ``Star Trek.'' I was waiting for somebody to say, 
``Beam me up, Scotty.'' This is crazy. I will agree with my good friend 
from New Mexico--maybe it does take leadership making a decision that 
we are going to do both of these, but the leader doesn't control things 
when we get the debt ceiling from the House. He doesn't control what 
legislation we have to do. Let's face it--we don't have to do either 
one of these. If we did, the Land and Water Conservation Fund after 50 
years would not have expired.
  I might say I came to the floor and I begged at the time that I would 
be satisfied if we just extended for 60 days the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund in TSCA. We could have debated it and voted on it 
with just one amendment. But some said: No, not a 60-day extension; we 
want it to expire. Well, it has expired, and the price to bring it back 
is permanent reauthorization. It is no longer 60 days or 90 days, it is 
permanent reauthorization. Why? Because this may be the best Federal 
program we have ever run. It is not funded with taxpayer money. It 
takes those royalty moneys and it leverages against State and private 
dollars to maximize the preservation for the next generation. Name 
another program that does that. Name another program that doesn't stick 
their hand in the taxpayers' pocket, that leverages it with private 
dollars to maximize the impact of it. This program does it day in and 
day out in all of the States in the United States.
  I could argue today that I would love to see as part of the amendment 
that North Carolina gets a bigger share of that. But, as the Presiding 
Officer knows, with me, that is sort of left up to appropriators 
because they are the ones who decide where the money goes. I am not 
here to prosecute them, but I am here to say to my colleagues: Let's 
quit being foolish. Let's have an honest debate on two different bills 
or put them together. I have heard that we can't amend TSCA and put 
permanent reauthorization in because then it stands a chance of not 
passing in the House. Bull. I just say bull to that. Give the House a 
chance. There are just as many people over there who support the 
permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They 
are not all captured in the U.S. Senate. Why? Because a majority of 
America is for permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. Why wouldn't they be? It is their future. It is 
about their children and their grandchildren.
  I will end with this. To all of my colleagues, this is not about us. 
No piece

[[Page 16698]]

of legislation that we bring on this floor, we debate, and we vote on 
is about us. If it is, we are nothing better than a crisis management 
institution. This is about generations to come. This is about our 
children and our grandchildren. And when we look through that window at 
the issue, we understand the stewardship we assume. We assume 
stewardship in the way we spend taxpayers' money, we assume stewardship 
in the direction of this country, we assume stewardship in the impact 
we have globally around the world, and we assume stewardship when we 
talk about taking care of this footprint God gave us.
  I remember the debate as we got ready to build a visitors' center 
outside. I remember the history lessons that the more senior Members 
gave me at the time when I said: It will cost a lot of money. We can 
build it on top of the ground for about half the cost as we can build 
it underneath the ground.
  I was given the history of this building being the byproduct of a 
bill through Congress called the Residence Act in 1790. Congress 
appropriated 500,000 taxpayer dollars to build it. When the British 
came, the building wasn't finished, but they were nice enough to burn 
what we had built. Most of the exterior was saved. The interior needed 
to be totally redone. Congress ended up appropriating another chunk of 
change, and the original Capitol design was not completed until 1823. 
And by 1823, the footprint needed to increase because the size of the 
Senate and the House had grown; therefore, we needed more space.
  I remind my colleagues that at the original time, we had housed in 
this building the House, the Senate, the Library of Congress, and the 
Supreme Court. And we started this wing--what we are in--in the Senate 
and the wing in the House. Outside they look identical; inside they are 
very different. But when they did that, they doubled the length of the 
Capitol, and they actually had to then take off the Bulfinch dome of 
wood and copper sitting on a sandstone base, and they built the dome we 
know today--cast iron, 9 million pounds, still suspended on that 
original sandstone and limestone base.
  Since 1863, when the Statue of Freedom was lowered on top of this 
Capitol, it has looked exactly the same. I have said for 21 years that 
my responsibility is to make sure that 100 years from now and 200 years 
from now, it looks exactly like this on the outside. That was the 
compelling reason for spending twice as much money to put the Capitol 
Visitor Center underground where it didn't obstruct what is a 
historical footprint of America's history.
  This building--walk around it. It is a museum of American history--to 
think that an Italian artist could depict scenes in American history 
probably better than Americans, but he understood why this country was 
created, and that influenced his artwork throughout the Capitol.
  Let me just suggest to my colleagues that maybe it is time for us to 
go back on a tour of the Capitol, to realize that our Founders came 
here not to accomplish anything for themselves but to make sure their 
children and their grandchildren had something better. And when we 
start looking at our jobs the same way they looked at creating this 
country and the same way they looked at preserving this building, then 
I will assure my colleagues we will settle issues like this in the way 
that the Senate functions and functions well, and that is in debate and 
in votes.
  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. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, what just happened here, just so we can 
allow the American people to understand, was the really honest, sincere 
effort on two bills that have overwhelming support--the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and the Frank Lautenberg 21st Century Chemical Safety 
Act--we wanted to get these on the floor so that we can have debate and 
have amendments. It is exactly what just happened in the last week and 
part of this week on the cyber security bill. We got a bill on the 
floor, there were amendments, we invoked cloture, and then we passed 
the bill at the end of the day. That is what we are trying to do.
  Individual Senators don't have control of the floor. They do have the 
ability to come to the floor and ask to put bills on the floor, and 
that is what happened here. Senator Merkley showed up and asked to put 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund bill on the floor, with specific 
outlines, and it was objected to. I asked to put the Frank Lautenberg 
21st Century Chemical Safety Act on the floor, and it was objected to. 
That is the only power we have. The leadership has the ability to 
control the floor, and that is why we are on the floor speaking about 
this.
  So this was in no way a charade; this was an honest, sincere effort 
to try to do everything we can to make sure that everything is 
transparent here in terms of who is objecting, who doesn't want things 
to move forward, and who is for moving forward on two very popular 
bills.
  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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a period of morning business.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know there is a 10-minute limit; however, 
I do not see anyone else seeking the floor, so I ask unanimous consent 
to continue for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________