February 11, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 26 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1155-S1161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 433 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S1156]]

  

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the second bill that I have introduced 
is the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act. I have introduced 
this bill with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. 
Our legislation will improve the access that Medicare beneficiaries 
have to home healthcare by allowing physician assistants, nurse 
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified nurse midwives 
to order home health services. All of these healthcare professionals 
are playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of healthcare, 
particularly in rural and underserved areas of our Nation, like those 
represented by the Presiding Officer and the State of Maine.
  I have learned of far too many cases of seniors experiencing 
unnecessary delays in accessing home healthcare because a physician was 
not available to order the care promptly. To avoid these needless 
delays, it is common sense that other medical professionals who are 
familiar with a patient's case should be able to order these services. 
Under current law, however, only physicians are allowed to certify or 
initiate home healthcare for Medicare patients, even though they may 
not be as familiar with the patient's case as the nonphysician 
provider. In some cases, the certifying physician may not even have a 
relationship with the patient and must rely on the recommendation of 
the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist, 
or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home 
healthcare. That makes no sense whatsoever. In too many cases, these 
requirements create obstacles, delays, and unnecessary paperwork before 
home healthcare can be provided. The result can be an unnecessary 
hospital readmission or other setback for the patient that would not 
have occurred had the home healthcare been provided promptly.
  The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act removes the needless 
delays in getting Medicare patients the home healthcare they need 
simply because a physician is not available to sign the form required 
by law. Again, I would make the point that this physician may not even 
have a relationship with the senior or other patient who needs the home 
healthcare. That primary care relationship may be between the patient 
and a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant, and yet that 
qualified healthcare professional is unable to order the home care that 
the patient needs.
  These two bills will help to ensure the viability and accessibility 
of home health services now and in the future. By helping patients to 
avoid much more costly hospital stays and nursing homes, we know that 
home healthcare saves Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers' 
programs millions of dollars each year. At a time when healthcare costs 
are among our most pressing policy challenges, we should embrace cost-
effective solutions like home healthcare.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, imagine going into a U.S. prison and 
announcing that a substantial number of the prisoners had to be 
released immediately--no exceptions, even if the prisoners in question 
had participated in serious crimes or committed violent offenses. That 
is an unthinkable scenario, and no one would seriously suggest going 
into our Nation's prisons and immediately releasing thousands of 
prisoners, including violent offenders onto the streets. Yet that is 
exactly what Democrats are proposing as part of a border security 
agreement.
  Over the weekend, Democrats proposed capping the number of illegal 
immigrants who could be detained by Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. Incredibly, they are refusing to allow an exception to the 
cap for violent criminals. Under Democrats' proposal, if Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement needed to detain more than 16,500 violent 
criminals in the interior of our country, they simply wouldn't be able 
to do it. Instead, immigration enforcement officers would have to 
choose which violent criminals to release back into our communities. 
Think about that.
  Obviously, everyone who has come here illegally has broken our laws, 
but in a lot of cases in question, we are talking about people who have 
violated other laws, like laws against assault, rape, murder, theft, 
drug trafficking, and more. We are talking about limiting law 
enforcement's ability to make sure that those individuals are detained.
  It isn't just about future detentions either. If the Democrats' 
enforcement cap went into effect, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
would be forced to release criminals already in detention onto our 
Nation's streets.
  Additionally, there are an estimated 180,000 criminal illegal aliens 
in the United States who currently are not in custody.
  So, under the Democrats' proposal, not only would Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement be forced to release violent criminals, for all 
practical purposes, it would also be prohibited from trying to take 
additional dangerous criminals off of our streets.
  Let's be very clear about what we are talking about here. We are 
talking about limiting the ability of a law enforcement agency to 
enforce criminal laws. No administration of either party would accept 
an arbitrary limit on the number of criminals it would be able to 
detain. No administration would or should sign off on a law that would 
force law enforcement agencies to leave violent criminals on our 
Nation's streets.
  As of a couple of days ago, the Republicans, I would say, were 
encouraged by the bipartisan nature of the negotiations to prevent 
another government shutdown. Then the Democrats came forward with this 
absurd proposal to limit law enforcement's ability to detain even 
dangerous criminals.
  Are Democrats trying to derail negotiations with a poison pill at the 
eleventh hour and force another shutdown? The question has to be asked 
since no one could seriously think that any President of either party 
would sign a deal that would limit his administration's ability to 
enforce the law.
  We still have a few days left. I hope the Democrats will abandon this 
preposterous proposal to release dangerous criminals onto our Nation's 
streets. We can achieve a deal to avert another shutdown, but we can't 
do it by jeopardizing law enforcement's ability to protect the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 47

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, a little over a month ago, I stood before 
this body to object to the massive public lands package that it was 
poised to pass. This bill, some 680 pages long, was released at 10 a.m. 
that morning--that very morning when they first wanted us to pass this. 
My staff and I had not seen it beforehand, and we had been given no 
time to read it. This is, of course, really bad process--terrible 
process. This is not the way legislation should be written. It is not 
the way legislation should be debated. It is, of course, never ever the 
way legislation should be passed. In addition to the bad process, I 
objected at the time because I suspected that it also contained bad 
policy--bad policy that would disproportionately and negatively affect 
my State of Utah.
  Now we find ourselves today, more than a month later, at a moment at 
which we are considering the bill. During that time period, I have, of 
course, had time to read the bill. Unfortunately, those suspicions that 
I had

[[Page S1157]]

about the bill have since been confirmed. This bill perpetuates a 
terrible standard for Federal land policy in the West, particularly for 
the State of Utah.
  To give one some background, the Federal Government owns more than 
640 million acres of land. This is a staggering amount of real estate--
an amount of land that in its totality is larger than the entireties of 
France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Austria, 
Switzerland, and the Netherlands combined--all of them. I don't mean 
the national parks of those lands combined. I don't mean the government 
lands owned by those respective nations. I mean the entirety of those 
countries combined. That is how much land the Federal Government owns 
just within the United States. That is a problem, especially because of 
the way it is distributed.
  Do you see this? Federal public land is not distributed evenly across 
the entire country. It is distributed in such a way that the West bears 
a disproportionate burden. In fact, my home State of Utah is a place 
that itself bears a disproportionate burden, a disproportionate share 
of that land, with two-thirds of the land being owned by the Federal 
Government. You will see, on this map, we have Federal land marked in 
red, and land that is not owned by the Federal Government is marked in 
white. You will see there is a big difference, as you move from west to 
east, in the amount of Federal land that exists.
  I remember when Eliza, my daughter, was about 8 years old. It was the 
first time I ever showed her this map. As best I could, I explained it 
to her, an 8-year-old.
  At the time, she looked at the map and said:

       Look, Daddy. They own Utah.

  I said:

       Yes, Eliza, you're right. They own Utah.

  In every State east of Colorado, the Federal Government owns less 
than 15 percent of the land. In many of those States, it is in the low 
single digits as a percentage of the total land in a State that is 
owned by the Federal Government. In Colorado or in every State west of 
Colorado, the Federal Government owns at least 15 percent of the land, 
and in many of the States, like mine, it is a lot, lot more than that. 
This is, of course, an enormous amount of land. Make no mistake--it 
imposes an enormous burden on my State. In light of this, what are my 
objections to this bill? Well, there are a few.
  First, this bill permanently reauthorizes something called the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, or the LWCF, as it is sometimes 
abbreviated. Passed in 1964 by Congress, the LWCF was enacted to 
promote and preserve access to recreation opportunities on public 
land--to promote and preserve access to recreation opportunities. This 
is an admirable and worthy goal, so the fund was set up to be the 
principal source of money for new Federal land acquisition and to 
assist the States in developing recreation opportunities.
  As originally conceived and passed by Congress, it directed 60 
percent of its funds to be appropriated for State purposes and 40 
percent for Federal purposes. Unfortunately, the program has since 
drifted from its original intent and from its original wording, and it 
has been a program that has been rife with abuse. I understand that in 
some States, people like it, and I understand that in some States, this 
is a program that is well regarded. It is not the case in every State.
  To be clear, in 1976, the law was amended, and it was amended to 
remove that 60-percent State provision, stating simply that not less 
than 40 percent must be used for Federal purposes. Then it was silent 
on whether a State would, in fact, receive a penny.
  The result? Well, it has been used for more Federal land acquisition 
than to actually care for, access, and manage the land that we already 
have, and 61 percent of funds have historically been used for 
acquisition, compared to the 25 percent that has historically been 
allocated to State grants. So millions of acres of land have been added 
to the Federal Government's already vast estate solely through the LWCF 
program.
  Not surprisingly, the Federal Government has not always been a good 
steward of this land, and that is putting it mildly. Look, the sheer 
magnitude of unfunded needs on Federal lands is itself staggering. Now, 
this shouldn't be surprising. The Federal Government is run by human 
beings, and the Federal Government owns an enormous amount of land--a 
staggering amount of land. So for any one entity to own and manage that 
much land is going to be a daunting task, and I am not just talking 
here about neglect of garden variety BLM lands--those managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management or one of the other land management agencies 
of the Federal Government. A lot of those lands that comprise what we 
might describe as the crown jewels, even of our National Park System--
those parts of the Federal public lands that the American people know 
and enjoy the most and identify most closely with what they like about 
Federal land management--even many of those have been neglected.
  Take, for example, Grand Canyon National Park. We have deferred 
maintenance costs there of over $329 million. Yellowstone National Park 
has deferred maintenance of over $515 million. That is an enormous 
amount of land that is not being properly maintained. So in 
Yellowstone, here you have a picture of a road going through the park, 
and that road is completely pockmarked and made dangerous--in some 
places almost unusable--by potholes that haven't been repaired.
  No American would necessarily want to drive down a road that looks 
like that. This is some of what happens when you continue to acquire 
more when you can't manage what you have.
  Here in the Grand Canyon, we have a picture of a pipe that has sprung 
a leak and is leaking quite dangerously.
  So what we have is a situation that, according to a 2017 CRS report, 
has resulted in a maintenance backlog of Federal lands totaling $18.6 
billion.
  Wildfires have run rampant in parts of the country, especially in the 
West, which the government has failed to prevent, and it is not just 
that they have failed to prevent those wildfires. It is not just that 
the Federal Government is not always well equipped to either prevent 
them in the first place or to fight them because of the vast inventory 
of lands that it has. In many instances, poor land management processes 
have resulted in severe environmental degradation that has itself been 
the predictable cause of widespread environmental catastrophe within 
Federal public lands.
  To cite one of many examples, there is an infestation of a certain 
type of bark beetle within a certain area of federally owned forest. 
Locals understand that it is coming and ask the Federal Government to 
abate the nuisance, to address the infestation. The Federal Government 
refuses. The State and local authorities come back and say: OK, will 
you at least let us deal with the nuisance, get rid of the bark beetle 
so it doesn't destroy the trees, because if it destroys the trees, it 
is going to create a local environmental and economic catastrophe for 
our people. The Federal Government says no. So the bark beetle does its 
damage and destroys hundreds of thousands of acres of wooded area. It 
kills the trees. The trees then die.
  The local populations go back to the Federal Government and say: 
These trees are dead. Will you cut them down so that we don't have this 
massive tinderbox of forest fire waiting to happen?
  The Federal Government says no.
  The people come back, those who live around the area, and say: Can we 
cut them down because, otherwise, this is going to be a tinderbox. 
There is going to be a fire. People are going to get hurt, and it is 
going to wreak havoc on our local environment.
  The Federal Government still says no.
  Then, guess what happens. Those trees catch on fire. They burn down, 
creating environmental catastrophe, disrupting the watershed, and this, 
in turn, leads to floods.
  All of these things connect back up to poor Federal land management 
processes, and those poor Federal land management processes are the 
result of the fact that we have too much Federal land in the inventory 
to begin with.
  Meanwhile, we have ill-kept roads and trails that, in some cases, 
have actually kept people away from our national treasures rather than 
allowing them to access them.
  Furthermore, none of the current LWCF funds--not any of them--are 
directed toward maintenance or upkeep

[[Page S1158]]

of these lands, including within our national parks.
  But for years now, Congress has perpetuated the status quo of this 
broken, dangerous, and environmentally reckless program by 
reauthorizing it in giant omnibus spending bills or continuing 
resolutions without even the slightest incremental, modest reform. 
Worse still would be making reauthorization permanent. Indeed, it would 
deny us any regular opportunity as a Congress to actually reform and 
improve the program.
  Second, the bill creates another 1.3 million acres of wilderness in 
the West--half of that being in Emery County, UT.
  Now, at the outset, I want to say that wilderness designations might 
sound like a good thing, and sometimes they are. But this highly 
restrictive designation limits far more activities than is necessary in 
many, many instances to actually protect the land.
  In fact, a wilderness designation prohibits almost all human 
activity. This land usually cannot be used for any commercial activity 
or any infrastructure. It cannot be developed for recreational purposes 
or traveled across by car, bus, automobile, or even a bicycle--even a 
bicycle made for that specific purpose--to say nothing of any type of 
agricultural development or timber harvesting. In a State like Utah, 
where the Federal Government owns more than two-thirds of the land, 
these designations have big consequences, especially for the poor and 
middle class in my State.
  The amount of Federal land in Utah already sets out a great 
disadvantage to the people of Utah to begin with. While private 
landowners would pay property taxes on this land, and those taxes would 
go to the State and its political subdivisions, the Federal Government 
does not. It does not pay property taxes. So Utah is deprived of what 
should be and otherwise would be a huge source of revenue and of 
opportunity.
  What does that mean? Well, as a result, our schools are underfunded, 
local governments are crippled, fire departments are, ironically, 
depleted and, therefore, unable to properly take care of the lands they 
are charged to protect in the first place, and many times strapped in 
their ability to provide basic services to those most in need.
  With so much of this land in the grip of Federal bureaucrats, it is 
again limited in its use, in its opportunity, in its potential for use 
for development, for infrastructure, and for jobs that are essential to 
our State's economy--jobs that would be essential to any State's 
economy.
  But with further wilderness designations by Congress, this is an even 
tighter grip. As the LWCF perpetuates the acquisition of even more 
Federal public land, communities like those throughout my State start 
to suffer even more. Citizens, you see, in this type of an environment 
have to go to the Federal Government, cap in hand, to ask permission 
for the use of any of the land at all, for access to any of the land at 
all, whether that means to dig a well, to build a road, to bury a 
cable, or to do virtually anything on it at all.
  So designating more than 660,000 acres of wilderness in Emery County 
is of no small consequence.
  I understand that a lot of people here like the fact that we are 
doing that. Make no mistake. They are not the people who live in Emery 
County. They are not the people who live within hundreds or even 
thousands of miles of Emery County.
  Finally, this bill does nothing to address the imminent threat that 
Utah faces from unilateral Executive land grabs through the Antiquities 
Act.
  To be clear, anything and everything that is designated as red on 
this map may be designated as a national monument overnight, at any 
moment, solely at the discretion of the President. Anything here is 
fair game to any President, at any time, to say: I now make you a 
monument.
  Now, the Antiquities Act, passed in 1906, was intended to give the 
President of the United States the power to declare land that is 
already owned or controlled by the Federal Government as a national 
monument and to do so by Executive fiat. This was done in order to 
protect specific historic and cultural objects in the case of an 
emergency where they couldn't otherwise be protected. But instead of 
reserving the smallest area compatible with the proper care and 
management of the objects to be protected, as the law itself requires 
and as the text of the Antiquities Act itself mandates, Presidents in 
more modern times have designated enormous, million-acre monuments far 
beyond the scope of the objects in need of immediate protection.
  These monument designations--perhaps the most restrictive of all 
Federal land designations--often do more harm than good. They radically 
undermine a State's economy by prohibiting energy production, mining, 
fishing, ranching, recreation, and a myriad of other uses.
  Furthermore, without allowing Congress or the State legislature any 
actionable input in a decision like this, they effectively silence and 
disenfranchise the voices of the people closest to and most affected by 
and connected to the lands in question, depriving them of any say in 
the process. This is not fair. It is wrong, and it is something that 
needs to be addressed.
  Take, for example, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 
designated by President Clinton in 1996. The Clinton administration 
designated 1.7 million acres of land--or about 67 percent of Kane 
County, UT, for the monument, all the while claiming that grazing would 
remain at historical levels.
  But this promise, of course, was not kept. Since then, the BLM has 
revoked permits and closed much needed range land. You see, the men and 
women of the Bureau of Land Management, while well educated, well 
intentioned, and perhaps hard-working in many instances, are not from 
Utah. They don't respond to or stand accountable to anyone who is from 
Utah. They don't come from these parts of the country or from my State, 
where people's day-to-day livelihood and their ability to access their 
own land for their own purposes and to make a living--they don't have 
anything to do with this land. So why would they care? They don't.
  Today, grazing is down almost one-third from what it had been more 
than two decades ago when the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
Monument was proclaimed by President Clinton--proclaimed and designated 
as such, by the way, without any advance notice to the people of Utah, 
without the President even entering the State of Utah to do it.
  Now, ranchers were hit hard. Many of them lost their ability to fence 
in water resources and maintain roads around them. In some cases, they 
could no longer bring water to their cattle, and many families were 
forced to reduce their herds, sometimes by half. This may not sound 
like much to someone who doesn't understand ranching or doesn't know 
anyone who makes their living off of ranching, but this means all the 
world to those people whose families for generations have supported 
themselves through ranching and ranching in that area where they are 
deeply connected to this land.
  Of course, there was the designation of the Bears Ears National 
Monument by President Obama. The citizens of San Juan County, UT,--
incidentally, Utah's poorest county--woke up on December 28, 2016, to 
find out that the Obama administration had unilaterally designated 1.35 
million acres for that monument overnight, even though they had 
specifically pleaded against that.
  Keep in mind that San Juan County has historically had some 
divisions--some of them along political lines, between Republicans and 
Democrats, and some of them along ethnic lines, between those who are 
Native American and those who are not.
  This was an issue that united Democrats and Republicans alike in San 
Juan County. It united Native Americans in San Juan County and non-
Native Americans in San Juan County like few issues ever have in San 
Juan County and few issues ever will in San Juan County. This brought 
them together because people from all walks of life opposed this if 
they lived in San Juan County.
  President Obama, at the time he declared it, claimed this to have had 
the overwhelming support of Native American populations. What was often 
left out of that discussion is they were not the Native American 
populations in Utah. They were not the people who lived in San Juan 
County. They were people outside of this area, most of them out of 
State, who supported it.

[[Page S1159]]

  Yes, it is easy to designate something as wilderness or a national 
monument when it is not in your land, when it is not in your community, 
when it doesn't affect your way of life. That is what happens when we 
abuse Federal public land ownership. That is what happens when you take 
one State and decide the Federal Government is going to own more than 
two-thirds of the land in that State.
  Imagine if in your State--or in any other State--any other land 
owner, whether an individual, a for-profit corporation, a nonprofit 
foundation, or anything else, owned more than, let's say, 5 percent of 
the land. People would be understandably, justifiably concerned that 
that person or that entity or that nonprofit, or whatever it was, could 
have a disproportionate, outsized impact on that State's economy.
  Imagine if that number were increased to include not just 5 percent 
of the land in your State, but 10, 15, 20, 25 percent of the land. As 
you rounded the corner of 30 percent, people would start to get freaked 
out. Imagine if that number then soared above that--35, 40, 45, 50 
percent--until it got up to nearly 70 percent of the land in your 
State. Imagine further that, at that point, that landowner declared 
itself exempt from all forms of property taxation. That would create 
problems for your State.
  This is what I beg and plead for my colleagues from around the 
country, particularly those who live east of Colorado, to understand. 
It is really easy to support these things when it is in somebody else's 
State. It is really for people on the northeastern seaboard to look at 
Utah and say: Well, it is just one of those square States. They have 
plenty of land out there. They have plenty of room. They don't need to 
worry about it.
  Try living there. Try earning a living there for your family. It is 
not right. This goes against so much of what we believe in, in this 
country.
  Federal land ownership is not the only unfair thing about this. 
Again, Federal land ownership makes possible the designation 
unilaterally, by one person, of a national monument, and if that one 
person happens to decide that a particular State ought to be the next 
victim, that person will make it so.
  It just so happens that, just as Utah has a disproportionate share of 
Federal public land in its State, so, too, is it a disproportionate 
victim under the Antiquities Act. Since the passage of the Antiquities 
Act, Presidents have designated 77.85 million acres of land as national 
monuments, and 87 percent of that has been designated in the last 40 
years. Of the land that has been designated as a monument over the last 
25 years, 3.23 million acres, or 28 percent, are in Utah. All of the 
land in the United States designated as a monument in the last 25 
years, that portion--nearly 30 percent--is in my State. Why is that 
fair? It is not, especially when you consider the harm done to the 
economies, the disruption that takes place as a result of these 
designations, the widespread opposition from Democrats and Republicans 
alike, and in San Juan County the Native American population and the 
non-Native American population alike are overwhelmingly against this.
  What was intended to be an act of cultural preservation has, sadly, 
deteriorated into a greedy, harmful Federal land grab. As it currently 
stands, there is always the threat of a decision coming down from on 
high that will utterly decimate the livelihoods of people in Utah. 
There is no good reason for this.
  Already, two other States have felt the abuse of the Antiquities Act 
within their borders, and they have received relief. In the 1950s, 
Wyoming and Alaska successfully called on Congress to grant them 
Antiquities Act protections. Why? Because they had been 
disproportionately burdened by this law. As a result of their efforts, 
in Wyoming, any monument designation must be approved by Congress, and, 
in Alaska, any designation made by Presidential fiat that exceeds 5,000 
acres must be approved by Congress.
  To be clear, in both of these States, Congress still has the power to 
designate this. It is just that they are saying, for those States where 
it has been abused in the past, Congress as a whole--people's elected 
lawmakers as a whole in Congress--ought to be the ones designating, 
rather than putting it in the hands of one person.

  There is no reason why the people of Utah, who have suffered more 
under the Antiquities Act than any other population in the entire 
country, should be treated any differently. There is no reason Utahns 
should live under this constant threat of abuse. That is why we have 
offered an amendment that would remedy this.
  With permanent authorization of the LWCF, which will result only in a 
greater Federal land footprint, and with the roughly 660,000 acres of 
new wilderness designation in Utah, I fear my State is at even greater 
risk for yet another monument designation. Thus, at a bare minimum, 
Utah deserves the same protection Wyoming has received. Our amendment 
would add just two words: ``or Utah.'' Without it, I simply cannot vote 
for this bill. With it, it gives us the protection we deserve and 
protection that other States like ours have already received.
  In a day and age when we have to deal with 680-page bills dropped on 
our desks at 10 a.m. on the day we are asked to pass it or a 2,232 page 
spending bill, as we faced last March for the omnibus spending package, 
a bill that is not two pages long, but just two words long, should be 
welcomed.
  There is much that is wrong with our Federal land policy in the West, 
and, unfortunately, much of that is something that this bill fails to 
correct. Utahns, and Americans, deserve better than the stranglehold 
that the Federal Government is exercising over so much of our country's 
lands. Yet Washington greedily continues to grab more, year after year, 
imposing tighter and tighter restrictions, all the while failing to 
maintain the lands that it already owns. These lands will not be 
national treasures for everyone if we can't take care of them in the 
first place. Indeed, they will be treasures for no one if we continue 
along this same pattern of willful neglect.
  Let me be very clear. My opposition today is not about whether our 
national treasures or parks or monuments or lands should be protected. 
It is not about whether they should be, but how to do that and who is 
best equipped to do that and who is most knowledgeable to do it well.
  What I am asking for is for Utah's elected leaders--its elected 
lawmakers in Congress--to at least be given a chance to weigh in on 
these matters before they become law, rather than to have those 
decisions being made from thousands of miles away by just one person. 
Indeed, the very best way to ensure that these national treasures are 
protected and recreation available is to empower our States and our 
local communities, which understand and appreciate their backyards 
best. They know which land to prioritize, and they know how to make 
that happen.
  Just look at the State and local ballot initiatives in the last few 
decades to see the evidence. Since 1988, these State initiatives have 
approved over $72 billion in combined expenditures for recreation and 
conservation. These things matter to States and local communities, and 
they have already raised huge funds and found ways to preserve and 
competently manage their public lands.
  Protection of our lands will happen without the Federal Government's 
thumb on the scale, and it will happen in a way that actually makes 
these treasures more available for future generations. We will not be 
helping them preserve them, however, by denying access to the people 
who are in the best position themselves to preserve them; that is, the 
people who live and work and recreate on them, the people whose lives 
are interwoven with them and have been for generations. And we will not 
be helping the American people by depriving them of their livelihoods. 
That is why I have introduced amendments that would make reforms and 
improvements to the LWCF, the Emery County wilderness designation bill 
and other provisions in this package--amendments that would steer our 
lands policy in a better direction, at least as a starting point.
  These are conversations worth having. They need to be had, and we 
ought to have them. But at a bare minimum, with the least shred of 
compromise, we could add just those two words--``or Utah''--to give 
Utahns justice, to give them a voice in managing and caring for their 
lands.

[[Page S1160]]

  



                 Amendment No. 187 to Amendment No. 112

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 187 to amendment 
No. 112.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee], for himself and others, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 187 to amendment No. 112.

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To limit the extension or establishment of national monuments 
                         in the State of Utah)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON THE EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF 
                   NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN THE STATE OF UTAH.

       Section 320301(d) of title 54, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``Wyoming'' and inserting 
     ``the State of Wyoming or Utah''; and
       (2) by striking ``Wyoming'' and inserting ``the State of 
     Wyoming or Utah''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just to speak very, very briefly to the 
good Senator's amendment to amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit the 
President from designating national monuments in Utah.
  He and I have had some opportunity to speak to this issue, and I 
certainly agree with him when it comes to the policy goals that he is 
seeking to assert here. I clearly understand the frustration he has.
  With the previous administration, I believe we have seen a real abuse 
of authority--certainly an abuse of the spirit--of the Antiquities Act. 
We saw that in Utah when millions of acres were locked up through 
Executive designation. This was done despite some pretty robust local 
opposition and objection.
  This is a scenario that I know pretty well because, in my State, we 
have a Federal landlord that owns about 63 percent of the State, 224 
million acres. We have a provision in ANILCA that is a specific no-more 
clause, prohibiting the withdrawal of more than 5,000 acres absent 
congressional approval. The Obama administration circumvented that law. 
They placed hundreds of thousands of additional acres off limits to 
development.
  What my colleague is seeking here, the ability to affirm or reject a 
monument designation by the State of Utah, is something that, again, I 
truly understand. I have supported legislation and introduction of 
legislation to do just as he has done--maybe not specific to one State 
but making sure that we truly do respect the spirit of the Antiquities 
Act and making sure, when monuments and monument designations move 
forward, that they are done with local support.
  I am in a bit of a quandary here because what he is advocating for is 
something that, again, I have been there with him on. But our dilemma, 
if you will, is that we have a package before us of lands bills, of 
water bills, of sportsmen's provisions, of conservation provisions that 
we have been working to kind of--not kind of, but to build that level 
of consensus.
  This measure is one that has been identified by those with whom we 
have been trying to work, not only here in this body but with the House 
as well. They have identified this as one of those measures that would 
bring down this effort. So we are in a position where, while I support 
the goals the Senator is seeking to achieve, I don't see a path forward 
for it in this Chamber at this time.
  As I mentioned--as you have heard me say--we have some very important 
provisions that we have been working on for a period of years. I want 
to ensure those proceed. I don't want to see S. 47 fall. So I am going 
to move to table the Lee amendment, but I want to once again commit to 
the Senator from Utah that I will work with him, as the chairman of the 
Energy Committee, to address these monument designations.
  Given the vehicle that we have in front of us, I will move to table 
and ask that colleagues join me in this tabling motion.
  Mr. President, at this moment, I move to table the Lee amendment No. 
187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a cloture motion that has ripened. The 
motion to table is not in order unless you have unanimous consent.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be 
allowed to proceed to table Lee amendment No. 187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Motion to Table

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment No. 187.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Sasse).
  Further, if present and voting the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Gillibrand), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Graham
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--33

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Gillibrand
     Hoeven
     Klobuchar
     Sasse
     Stabenow
  The motion is agreed to.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.
  While I was pleased that we could reach agreement to include a 
designation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area 
in the substitute amendment, I want to clarify what this designation 
does and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not do.
  The purpose of this designation, as with congressionally designated 
National Heritage Areas in general, is to celebrate the region's 
history and cultural heritage by promoting education, tourism, 
recreation, and other historic values. It also creates the opportunity 
for Federal participation in promoting these regional attributes.
  In no way does this designation implicate or interfere with any water 
facilities or operations associated with the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta. We are not creating new regulatory authority or modifying 
existing regulatory authority, including those related to land or water 
use, at any level of government.
  Further, S. 47 includes protections to ensure that private property 
will not be impacted by the designation, protections that apply to the 
ownership and use of water rights both inside and outside of the 
National Heritage Area's boundary.
  I ask Senator Feinstein, you have championed this National Heritage

[[Page S1161]]

Area designation for quite some time. In her view, have I properly 
characterized the intended effect of this designation?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague from Alaska and appreciate her 
help with this measure. Yes, her characterization of this provision is 
exactly right. There is no intent that this designation will have any 
impact on water rights or water-related management decisions. The 
general protections and limitations, along with the inclusion of 
language specific to Delta water operations, makes certain that the 
designation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area 
will not affect or influence water operations of the Central Valley 
Project, State Water Project, or other water supply facilities within 
the Bay-Delta watershed, including a reduction in water exports from 
the Bay-Delta. I am pleased that we have included additional language 
to dispel any such concerns and make absolutely certain that no one 
reads anything into the legislation that is not there and was never 
intended.
  I thank her for including this designation in S. 47 and for all of 
her work to move this historic public lands package forward. The public 
lands package includes a number of provisions that will benefit 
California, and I appreciate her leadership in building bipartisan 
agreement to steer it through the Senate.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank Senator Feinstein. As we have explained, the 
purpose of this designation is straightforward and intended to promote 
and celebrate the cultural heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
region, without any broader implications on water or land management.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator 
Murkowski, regarding S. 47, the Natural Resources Management Act, often 
referred to as the lands package, of which Chairman Murkowski is the 
sponsor and which is currently under consideration by the full Senate. 
In particular, I am interested in clarifying the intent of title IV, 
regarding ``Sportsmen's Access and Related Matters.''
  This title of the legislation deals with--among other issues--the 
amount of Federal lands open to hunting, fishing, and recreational 
shooting. If I understand the bill correctly, nothing in S. 47 opens 
existing Federal lands to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting 
that are not currently open to those activities. Moreover, under this 
bill, those lands may be closed for reasons, including public safety 
and environmental protection, among other reasons.
  Is that a correct reading of the bill?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. It is also my understanding that S. 47 makes 
uniform the process by which Federal lands may be closed to hunting, 
fishing, and recreational shooting Moreover, it is my understanding 
that S. 47 does nothing to change the standards that the Federal 
Government uses to determine whether to close Federal lands to hunting, 
fishing, and recreational shooting or to otherwise limit those 
activities.
  Is that a correct reading of the bill?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

                          ____________________