[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 240-244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 32. A bill to provide for conservation, enhanced recreation 
opportunities, and development of renewable energy in the California 
Desert Conservation Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the 
Desert Protection and Recreation Act of 2017.
  This bill, a decade in the making, charts a commonsense path forward 
for the California desert. The goal is simple: to manage California's 
fragile desert resources in a sustainable and comprehensive manner.
  This bill provides something for everyone that appreciates the 
national treasure that is the California desert. That this bill 
provides something for everyone is a result of the painstaking effort 
to build consensus among the array of groups that use the desert, 
including: environmental groups; Federal, State, and local governments; 
the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; and energy 
companies and California's public utility companies.
  As I will further describe later, the bill preserves 230,000 acres of 
wilderness and another 44,000 acres of national park land, each 
unrivaled for their unique natural landscapes. The bill also safeguards 
77 miles of free-flowing rivers and the abundant life and rich 
biodiversity these rivers and streams often support.
  Importantly, the bill provides certainty to off-road enthusiasts, 
establishing 142,000 acres of permanent off-highway recreation areas--a 
first for the Nation. I made a commitment to off-roaders to enact the 
entire bill, not just parts of the bill. I hope to fulfill that 
promise.
  The efforts to protect the desert are a long time coming. This effort 
first began with the original California Desert Protection Act, signed 
into law more than twenty years ago.
  Picking up where my predecessors left off, I introduced that bill 
only three months after I was sworn in as a Senator. Through hard work 
and perseverance, we were able to pass that law on the last day of the 
103rd Congress, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in 
October 1994.

[[Page 241]]

  The original Desert Protection Act was a crowning achievement for 
desert conservation, establishing 69 new Wilderness areas, creating the 
Mojave National Preserve, and converting Death Valley and Joshua Tree 
National Monuments into National Parks. All told, we were able to 
protect, or increase protections for, about 9.6 million acres.
  It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California, 
which is a boon for the economy.
  It has ensured that these enduring landscapes will be preserved for 
future generations.
  Since we passed the 1994 desert conservation bill, we've tried to 
build on this legacy of conservation. After years of collaboration with 
an array of stakeholders, we introduced new legislation in 2009.
  The goal of that bill was simple: to help manage California's desert 
resources through a comprehensive approach that balanced conservation, 
recreation, energy production, among other needs.
  After years of work, including two hearings in the Senate, we reached 
a major milestone this past February, when President Obama designated 
three new national monuments in the California desert: Castle 
Mountains, Mojave Trails, and Sand to Snow.
  Those monuments, based on the legislation I had introduced, created 
one of the world's largest desert reserves, encompassing nearly 1.8 
million acres of America's public lands.
  Those monuments connect vital wildlife corridors and habitats, 
preserve cultural resources, and establish an important buffer to the 
inevitable changes climate change will usher in for these fragile 
desert ecosystems.
  While the newly-designated desert monuments formed a cornerstone for 
future desert protection, our work is not complete. That is why I am 
introducing this legislation today.
  While I supported President Obama's decision to create three national 
monuments in the Mojave Desert, his authority under the Antiquities Act 
did not allow him to include the many other valuable provisions in the 
original legislation.
  Our intention has always been to balance the many uses of the desert 
through legislation, and that remains the case today. That is why I 
reintroduced that legislation immediately following the President's 
designation, and that is why I am introducing a bill again today: to 
make the rest of the provisions a reality.
  The legislation I am introducing today therefore includes all of the 
provisions the President was not able to enact through executive action 
under the Antiquities Act.
  These negotiated provisions--which represent our best attempt to 
achieve consensus among desert stakeholders--deserve to become law.
  That legislation includes many additional conservation areas and 
provides permanent protection for five Off-Highway Recreation Areas 
covering approximately 142,000 acres. Off-roaders were a vital part of 
the coalition we put together, and unfortunately those lands could not 
be designated under executive action. Off-roaders deserve certainty 
about their future use of the land, just as there is now certainty for 
conservation purposes. I gave them my word that I would fight for them, 
and I intend to do so again in this new Congress.
  This bill would also expand wilderness areas in the desert, by 
designating five additional wilderness areas that cover 230,000 acres 
of land near Fort Irwin.
  The bill would ensure clean and free-flowing rivers, through the 
designation of 77 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers; add to our 
national parks, by expanding Death Valley National Park Wilderness by 
39,000 acres and Joshua Tree National Park by 4,500 acres; expand 
National Scenic Areas, by adding 18,610 acres to the Alabama Hills 
National Scenic Area in Inyo County; and protect 81,000 acres of land 
in San Bernardino and Imperial County, and requires the Department of 
the Interior to protect petroglyphs and other cultural resources 
important to the surrounding tribes and communities.
  Lastly, the bill will facilitate renewable energy development in a 
way that protects delicate habitat.
  I want to highlight some of the key provisions of this legislation:
  By designating five new wilderness areas, this bill protects fragile 
desert ecosystems across 230,000 acres of wilderness near Fort Irwin. 
This includes 88,000 acres of Avawatz Mountains, 8,000-acre Great Falls 
Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 
32,500-acre Death Valley Wilderness.
  The desert's sweeping desert vistas and rugged mountain terrain not 
only provide for a truly remarkable backcountry experience, but also 
provide vital refuge for everything from bighorn sheep and desert 
tortoises to Joshua Trees and Native American artifacts.
  This bill is more than just wilderness, however. It also designates 
four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 77 miles in length. These 
beautiful waterways, carved through the heart of the arid desert, are 
Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino 
National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon 
Creek near Death Valley National Park.
  The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing 
wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local 
government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made 
available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway 
vehicle use on designated routes.
  We must also take into account another use of the desert land: 
renewable energy. I believe that we can honor our commitment to 
conservation while fulfilling California's pledge to develop a clean 
energy portfolio.
  Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we 
just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of 
these compromises are already in place.
  By April 2009, solar and wind companies had proposed 28 projects to 
be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on 
former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited 
some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful 
area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of 
pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I 
quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the 
right place for renewable energy development.
  Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. This is 
due in part to the state and federal governments' efforts to develop 
and finalize the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan--an 
ambitious effort to comprehensively manage renewable energy, 
conservation, and recreation on 22.5 million acres of California 
desert.
  By working with our state to develop this Plan, the federal 
government has shown it can be an effective partner in the State's 
efforts to combat climate change, all while protecting the magnificent, 
yet fragile, California desert landscape.
  The bill also makes use of about 370,000 acres of isolated, unusable 
parcels of State lands spread across the California desert. These small 
isolated parcels of State land in wilderness, national parks and 
monuments would be exchanged for Federal lands elsewhere that could 
potentially provide the State with viable sites for renewable energy 
development, off-highway vehicle recreation, or other commercial 
purposes.
  This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant 
protection and direct energy projects elsewhere.
  This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a 
clear path forward.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this 
legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved 
have made their voices heard.
  As you can see, there are many diverse interests in California's 
desert lands, an it is not easy to bring them all into agreement. But 
after years of painstaking efforts, they have reached agreement on this 
bill.
  Desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, 
legislators have come together across party

[[Page 242]]

lines to preserve this great piece of land.
  Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this 
legislation up and move it forward. Most importantly, I hope this body 
recognizes the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a 
partisan issue.
  Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to 
preserve this great piece of land. It's the right thing to do.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Sullivan):
  S. 49. A bill to provide a leasing program within the Coastal Plain, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to once again open a small 
portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil 
and gas development. I am introducing the bill because, now more than 
ever, new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my state's 
future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security.
  It has been known for more than nearly 4 decades that the 1.5 million 
acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the northern one-
eleventh of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are the most 
prospective lands in North America for a major conventional oil and gas 
discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this 
part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the 
coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--has a mean likelihood of 
containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 
16 billion barrels of oil. Even the relatively recent major finds in 
North Dakota's Bakken field and the recent estimates of shale oil in 
Texas' Wolfcamp formation pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold 
over three times more conventional oil than any other onshore energy 
deposit in North America.
  In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that 
the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain 
almost as much oil. However, early this decade the U.S. Geological 
Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23 million acre 
reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion 
barrels as forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 
million barrels--a dramatic downward revision. While I still believe 
oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development 
of satellite fields must be allowed to occur, the revised forecast 
means that opening a small area on shore to the east on the coastal 
plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national 
security interests.
  That is especially the case given that President Obama late last year 
closed almost all of Alaska's outer continental shelf oil and gas 
deposits to future exploration and development. That makes production 
of onshore deposits even more vital for Alaska's economic future, and 
for the Nation's long-term energy security.
  America once received more than 10 percent of its daily domestic oil 
production from fields in Alaska. You heard correctly, production 
already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and has for nearly 40 years. We have 
successfully balanced resource development with environmental 
protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those 
endeavors are not mutually exclusive.
  Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope 
production has declined for years and now accounts for just under 5 
percent of the Nation's daily production. It is now forecast to decline 
further to levels next decade that will threaten the continued 
operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would 
shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate 
Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our 
energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world, 
especially once oil shale production peaks in the Lower 48 States.
  Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no 
matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial 
amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce at 
home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment 
levels, and the world's environment will be. To help meet future demand 
both here in America and throughout the rest of the world, and to help 
avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of supply disruptions, we 
need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online, as 
soon as possible.
  ANWR development will provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. 
Let's examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 
10 billion barrels, at even today's $50 per barrel price, means that 
there is half a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this 
small area in northern Alaska--and even more when prices rebound. That 
is half a trillion taxable dollars, and it is difficult to calculate or 
even fathom the corporate and payoll taxes that this would generate for 
our treasury. But we do know that there are hundreds of billions of 
dollars in pure Federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of 
the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current 
law allows.
  As our Nation grapples with a huge budget deficit, nearly $20 
trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize new 
energy development, it is folly for America to further delay new 
onshore oil development from Alaska. The question is no longer, 
``Should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``Can we afford not 
to?''
  I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to 
development in this region. The outgoing administration has attempted 
to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal 
plain--proposing to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness--
but also has proposed to impede oil and even natural gas development 
from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort 
and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it 
ignores the Nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact 
that Arctic oil production can proceed without any significant 
environmental impact. Our development has coexisted productively with 
polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other 
form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my 
legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, 
extended reach drilling, three- and four-dimensional seismic testing, 
and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan 
energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the 
environment.
  For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the 
coastal plain of ANWR to development. At the same time, I am again 
focusing and narrowing that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 
1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, 
pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be impacted. 
For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is roughly the size of National 
Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the state 
of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map.
  Limiting development to such a small area is important. It will help 
guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural 
state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar 
bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent 
environmental standards.
  The bill, named the Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act, AOGPA, which 
is being cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan, 
also includes guaranteed finding to mitigate any impacts in the region, 
and guarantees that the Federal Government will receive half of all 
revenues generated.
  For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR 
development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in 
the

[[Page 243]]

coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is possible 
to develop oil and gas from the coastal plain with little or no impact 
on the area and its wildlife.
  At this time of unsustainable debt, and an unstable global 
environment, we need to pursue domestic development opportunities more 
than ever. My ANWR bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own 
energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-
friendly way. I hope this Congress, given the new administration that 
will soon take office, will have the common sense to allow America to 
help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is 
critical to my state and the Nation as a whole. And with this in mind, 
I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will 
show why such development should occur, why it must occur, and how it 
can benefit our Nation at a time when we need the domestic jobs and 
energy security that ANWR will produce.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Markey, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Hirono, 
        and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 54. A bill to prohibit the creation of an immigration-related 
registry program that classifies people on the basis of religion, race, 
age, gender, ethnicity, national origin, nationality, or citizenship; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today, I introduced the Protect American 
Families from Unnecessary Registration and Deportation Act of 2017, or 
the Protect American Families Act. This critical bill would advance 
civil and human rights by ensuring we protect American immigrants from 
being wrongfully targeted by the Federal Government because of who they 
are or how they worship. I thank Senators Elizabeth Warren, Brian 
Schatz, Ed Markey, Patty Murray, Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Jeff 
Merkley, Mazie Hirono, and Ron Wyden for joining me on this important 
legislation.
  Enshrined in the Constitution are the ideas that all people are free 
to practice the religion of their choice and that we will not 
discriminate because of your faith or national origin. Creating a 
Federal immigration program that requires people to register their 
status with the Federal Government on the basis of their religion, 
race, ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, national origin, or 
citizenship is contrary to those values. Because the United States is 
the world's beacon of democracy, we must lead by example and live the 
values we preach.
  Yet, in troubling times we have not always stayed true to our values. 
During World War II, soon after Imperial Japan attacked United States 
Naval Base Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive 
Order 9066. That order authorized the Secretary of War to designate 
particular areas as military zones, which allowed for the removal of 
Japanese Americans from certain parts of the United States. 
Subsequently, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans were relocated to 
internment camps.
  Similarly, in 2002, the year following the tragic terrorist attacks 
on September 11, the Federal Government created the National Security 
Entry-Exist Registration System, NSEERS. This Federal program required 
non-citizen visa holders from certain countries to register with the 
Federal Government. The registration process included fingerprinting, 
photographs, and interrogation. Once an individual registered, NSEERS 
required the person to regularly check in with immigration officials. 
Finally, NSEERS monitored people who registered with the program to 
ensure that no one remained in the country longer than the law 
permitted them.
  Inconsistent with the American values of religious freedom and 
nondiscrimination, the NSEERS program wrongly targeted males over 16 
years old from the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, 
Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, 
Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, 
Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and North Korea. 
Thus, 24 out of the 25 countries listed in the NSEERS program were Arab 
and Muslim countries. This was another moment in our nation's history 
where our leaders succumbed to the politics of fear and adopted a 
program that tore at the very fabric of our country.
  Immigration-registry programs do not make the public more safe. The 
purpose of NSEERS was to identify and capture terrorists. Yet, despite 
registering over 83,000 people, the program yielded zero terrorism 
convictions. Without proof of a single terrorist related conviction, 
the NSEERS program did not do its job of keeping the homeland safe.
  But immigration-registry programs do result in discrimination. The 
fact that NSEERS led to the forced registry, interrogation, and 
deportations of immigrants from predominantly Muslim or Arab countries 
is proof that broadly defined enforcement programs often result in 
racial and religious profiling. That is why the United Nations and 
major American civil rights groups condemned NSEERS for unfairly 
singling out Muslims. By targeting Muslims, NSEERS sent the wrong 
message that America does not welcome immigrants from certain lands.
  While the Obama administration dismantled the NSEERS program, this 
alone will not prevent the incoming administration from attempting to 
follow through on its threats to create a registry based on religion or 
national origin. On the campaign trail President-elect Trump called for 
a ``total and complete shutdown'' of Muslim immigrants entering the 
United States. Additionally, he has called for ``extreme vetting'' of 
immigrants reminiscent of NSEERS. It is incumbent upon congressional 
leaders to ensure that the United States does not sacrifice its values 
in the face of fear.
  Today, I introduce the Protect American Families Act to ensure that 
America protects the rights and liberties of American immigrants from 
overly broad, ineffective, and discriminatory registry programs. This 
bill would prohibit the Federal Government from requiring noncitizens 
to register or check in with the Federal Government simply because of 
their religion, race, ethnicity, age, gender, national origin, 
nationality, or citizenship. Banning the creation of a discriminatory 
registration program is not only consistent with our democratic values, 
but it allows law enforcement to focus resources on the real threats to 
our safety.
  The bill has commonsense exemptions. Data collection is critical in 
our fight against terrorists, and the bill allows the government to 
collect routine data on the entry and exit of noncitizens. The bill 
would also protect important immigration programs like Temporary 
Protected Status, Deferred Enforced Departure, the Visa Waiver Program, 
and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This provision makes clear 
that legitimate Federal programs that confer immigration benefits are 
not prohibited by the ban on enforcement immigration programs that 
target immigrants and other vulnerable Americans.
  In his First Inaugural Address, President Roosevelt said that ``the 
only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'' Unfortunately, he failed 
to live up to that statement when he issued Executive Order 9066. But 
we have a chance to fulfill that vision. We have a chance to stand up 
against fear and stay true to our American values in the face of 
hardship. I am proud to introduce the Protect American Families Act 
today, and I urge my colleagues to support its speedy passage through 
the Senate.

[[Page 244]]



                          ____________________