NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT--Resumed; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 27
(Senate - February 12, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S1178-S1186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 47, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 47) to provide for the management of the natural 
     resources of the United States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murkowski/Manchin Modified Amendment No. 111, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Murkowski Amendment No. 112 (to Amendment No. 111), to 
     modify the authorization period for the Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities Historic Preservation program.
       Rubio/Scott (FL) Amendment No. 182 (to Amendment No. 112), 
     to give effect to more accurate maps of units of the John H. 
     Chafee Costal Barrier Resources System that were produced by 
     digital mapping.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.


                             Green New Deal

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last Thursday, Democrats released their 
plan for a Green New Deal, although ``plan'' might be a bit of a 
stretch. It is more like a wish list because while Democrats announced 
their desired outcomes like getting rid of fossil fuels or upgrading 
every single building in the United States, they provided no details at 
all about how to get there. In particular, they failed to provide any 
details on how to pay for the staggering costs of what they are 
proposing to do.
  Take just one provision of the Democrats' green wish list: 
``Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building 
new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, 
safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through 
electrification.'' That is a direct quote from the so-called plan, 
upgrading all existing buildings--all existing buildings.
  Well, the cost of that provision alone is practically inconceivable, 
but that is just a small fraction of what the Democrats want to do. 
Their wish list also includes ``meeting 100 percent of the power demand 
in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy 
sources, including by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable 
power sources and by deploying new capacity; overhauling

[[Page S1179]]

transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and 
greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is 
technologically feasible'' and much, much more, and they don't limit 
themselves to energy initiatives either. They also announced that a 
Green New Deal must include guaranteeing every person in the United 
States a job, healthcare, paid vacations, and more.
  It is possible the reason the Democrats didn't provide any details 
about how to pay for their plan is because they knew that outlining the 
actual cost would sink their plan from the very beginning. I cannot 
even imagine the staggering amount of money that would be required to 
pay for the ideas on their wish list, and that money will come from the 
pockets of the American people.
  Like other socialist fantasies, this is not a plan that can be paid 
for by merely taking money from the rich. Actually implementing this 
so-called Green New Deal would involve taking money from working 
families--and not a little bit of money either.
  Before the introduction of last week's absurd resolution, the Green 
New Deal was modeled and projected to cost American families up to 
$3,800 a year in higher energy bills, and $3,800 a year in higher 
energy costs would be hard enough for most working families I meet, but 
that would be just the tip of the iceberg under the Democrats' plan 
because, of course, if your electricity costs are higher, then so are 
your business's electricity costs, your doctor's electricity costs, the 
electricity costs at neighborhood restaurants, and the electricity 
costs at your gym, and all of these places are going to charge more 
money to cover their cost increases so you are going to be paying more 
in electric bills and more on everything else as well.
  Then there is the fact that the government will not be able to pay 
for one-quarter of what is outlined in the Green New Deal without 
raising your taxes by a lot. There is no question that socialist 
fantasies sound nice--they always do--until they end up victimizing the 
very people they are meant to help.
  As Ronald Reagan is reported to have said, ``Socialism only works in 
two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and hell where they 
already have it.''
  Democrats' gauzy, nebulous proposal may sound appealing on the 
surface, but it would devastate our economy and be paid for on the 
backs of working families in this country. The Green New Deal would be 
a very bad deal for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  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. GARDNER. 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. GARDNER. Madam President, today we are making some great progress 
on a bill that is very important to so many Members in this Chamber and 
particularly important to the American people--a public lands package 
that, in some cases, has taken years for these bills to process through 
the Senate and hopefully are on their way to passage in the House and 
to the President's desk.
  For 4 years, since being in the Senate, I have worked to permanently 
reauthorize the crown jewel of our conservation programs, and we are 
about to have that crown jewel success, permanent authorization of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund--the passage of the public lands bill. 
The Senate will finally take an up-or-down vote and move forward on 
permanent authorization of LWCF.
  I have championed this program with so many of my colleagues in a 
bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats. It is time for this body to 
act and make sure that we do what is right for the people of Colorado 
and beyond with this reauthorization.
  This program has an incredible direct impact on public lands in 
Colorado and will be used to protect our State's amazing natural beauty 
for generations to come.
  Outdoor recreation opportunities in Colorado abound. The outdoor 
recreation opportunities in Colorado make it the destination for 
recreation, for adventure, for opportunity. You can hike in the summer, 
hunt in the fall, ski in the winter, raft in the spring. We have it 
all.
  Those activities and more have led to an incredible outdoor economy 
that is booming like never before. It generates the outdoor economy. It 
generates something like $28 billion in consumer spending in the State 
and $2 billion in State and local tax revenue. That is people coming in 
to camp, to hunt, to fish, to ski--incredible employment opportunities. 
Up to 230,000 people in Colorado alone are employed in the outdoor 
recreation economy.
  We don't just have this economy by chance. We have it because of our 
public lands and the extensive efforts that so many in this Chamber 
have undertaken over the years to conserve them in a condition that the 
next generation will also get to enjoy.
  One of our best tools to conserve and protect the public's lands has 
lapsed, though--it goes back to the very beginning of our conversation 
today--the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It has been over 100 days 
since the Land and Water Conservation Fund expired, a fund, a program, 
a conservation tool that has broad bipartisan support. It is an access 
program. LWCF is an access program. It is there to sustain access to 
land that may otherwise be cut off from public enjoyment, to provide 
access to land that has been closed off to recreationists, to 
environmentalists. The opportunities we have to enjoy this land, the 
LWCF restores.
  In the days leading up to the expiration of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, a report was published by the Theodore Roosevelt 
Conservation Partnership, and it published some figures on public land 
acreage that is inaccessible to the American public.
  It identified over 9.5 million acres in the Western United States 
alone that is inaccessible to the public because of the surrounding 
public lands; that is, 9.5 million acres of land that belongs to the 
American people that the American people have no access to because it 
is surrounded.
  The Land and Water and Conservation Fund is used to help give access 
to land that the American people already own, to enjoy, to benefit 
from, to create economic opportunities, and, more importantly, to 
create the opportunity just to be in our amazing, wonderful outdoors.
  In Colorado alone, there are over 250,000 acres that are closed off 
to the public. These are 250,000 acres of publicly held lands that are 
closed off because you don't have access.
  That translates into just shy of 400 square miles of public land in 
Colorado--basically, the same amount of land of the entire Rocky 
Mountain National Park--that can't be used to hike, to hunt, and to 
fish, even though it belongs to the American people to hike, to hunt, 
to fish, to think, to hope, to dream, to plan, to resolve. They are 
those things that we admire and need our public lands for--the 
opportunity to think, to hope, to admire, to plan, to rest, to resolve.
  Since its creation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided 
more than $258 million in support for Colorado public lands projects. 
Again, the opportunity to have this permanent reauthorization today is 
incredible. It is supported by this Chamber, and it is supported, 
certainly, by people across the political spectrum in Colorado. It is a 
great day for Colorado. It is a great day for public lands.
  I want to show and share some of the incredible beauty we are talking 
about. This is a picture of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 
in Colorado. You can see the Gunnison River through the canyon, and you 
can see the rim of the canyon. If you go to the next shot, though, you 
will see some of the land that was purchased by the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. You can see the top of the rim looking down over the 
river.
  The top of the canyon was owned by a family. It was privately held 
land. They could have sold it off. They could have developed the land. 
You can see Bruce Noble, the park superintendent, pointing at the rim 
of the canyon, the land that was purchased using Land and Water 
Conservation Fund dollars. That land belonged to a family that, thanks 
to LWCF, was purchased and held for the National Park Service so

[[Page S1180]]

that it doesn't risk development and we don't risk losing access and so 
that somebody is not going to put barriers to access this incredible 
majestic place. You see that land right there, and that is just one 
example of how important the Land and Water Conservation Fund is.
  The Black Canyon LWCF purchase was about 2,494 acres. Imagine that--
private land, nearly 2,500 acres of land, held within the national 
park, that could have been sold off to a developer. Imagine what could 
have happened. But this land allows us to continue to have access to 
gold medal fly fishing on the Gunnison River. It creates potential 
opportunities for the National Park Service to provide more family-
friendly hiking closer to the visitor center, and it serves as a 
potential source of water to the South Rim, which will reduce the 
operational costs of hauling water to meet visitor and staff need. It 
was a win for everyone--for the family who wanted to sell their land 
but not have it developed and certainly for the American people, who 
now have an incredible addition to their national park.
  If we go to the next picture. This next picture is a picture in the 
distance of the Great Sand Dunes National Park. You can see the light-
colored sand at the foot of the mountain range. There is a 12,000-acre 
ranch, the Medano Zapata Ranch, which borders the sand dunes on three 
sides. These are some of the highest sand dunes in North America. It 
has been bought by the Nature Conservancy, one of the great 
conservation partners of the LWCF, and it is going through the process 
to be incorporated into the park by using Land and Water Conservation 
Fund dollars.
  This is so important. This access with this purchase is so important 
because it will help us to have access, once again, to existing public 
lands, keeping these incredibly beautiful working lands conserved for 
healthy wildlife habitat.
  This is an inholding purchase. Inholding purchases are not the only 
way LWCF benefits the outdoors, however. The National Park Service, 
through LWCF State and local assistance programs, provides matching 
grants for State and local park projects that aren't inside the 
national park borders.
  LWCF isn't just about our forests, either, or BLM land, or national 
parks. It is also about local parks, bike trails, playgrounds--these 
little slices of Heaven among concrete and the chaos that provide us 
that respite in our daily lives to plan, to hope, to think, and to 
rest.
  In addition to the permanent reauthorization of LWCF, this package 
includes legislation that I supported, authored, and worked very hard 
the last several years to be included.
  For Colorado, it includes the Crags, Colorado Land Exchange Act. This 
will allow us and the U.S. Forest Service to have better access to the 
Barr Trail, working to allow greater public use of their public lands.
  The Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act. In Congress, when we have 
legislation like this, sometimes our colleagues, particularly in the 
East, don't necessarily have this problem that they are dealing with 
each and every day. We have a community in the mountains where their 
water supply goes through a wilderness area. As a result, you can't 
take mechanized, motorized equipment to fix this water project, this 
waterway. So Congress has to pass a bill to allow this city to have the 
ability to fix its water system. That is exactly what we do in the 
Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act. The 1980 Holy Cross Wilderness Area 
didn't address this problem. Here we are, nearly 40 years later, 
addressing this challenge and allowing the community to move forward to 
fix its water system.
  We included in this legislation a bill to update the map and modify 
the maximum acreage available for inclusion in the Florissant Fossil 
Beds National Monument. The park is currently restricted--this 
incredible national monument--to 6,000 acres. However, somebody wanted 
to give some of their land to the national monument. So we have added 
280 acres of land to this incredible national monument.
  We have reauthorized the Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This was 
originally created in 1988, over concern for four endangered fish in 
the Upper Colorado River. The Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery 
Implementation Program has been extended multiple times over the last 
30 years, most recently in 2013. It is a science-based, basin-wide 
approach to make sure that we recover these species and to make sure 
that this program has taken to preclude any lawsuits being filed, 
despite the diverse stakeholder group involved. This legislation will 
extend the authorization of the program through 2023.
  It also creates a feasibility study to look into whether or not we 
should designate Amache, the site of a Japanese-American internment 
site in southeastern Colorado, as a national park. During World War II, 
tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were wrongfully removed from 
their homes and held in internment centers. One such internment center, 
located in the eastern plains of Colorado, near the town of Granada, 
and that became known as Amache, was designated as a national historic 
landmark in 2005. This internment site is the best preserved among the 
entire system of internment sites that were used during World War II. 
To name this a national park--to have that recognition--is an important 
reminder of a very dark period in our history that we would never 
repeat the internment of Japanese-Americans. This is a study to do just 
that.
  I have also been part as cosponsor and original sponsor of other 
legislation: the Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act and 
the Fowler and Boskoff Peaks Designation Act. Charlie Fowler and 
Christine Boskoff, who tragically lost their lives in China in an 
avalanche in 2006, were world-renowned climbers. We are naming two 
peaks after them in Colorado.
  This bill authorizes a feasibility study for the Pike National 
Historic Trail.
  It authorizes a bill that we worked on with Senator Cantwell--the 
Wildfire Management Technology Advancement Act of 2017, a bill designed 
to protect men and women in firefighting from harm and injury and to 
give them greater tools on the behavior of fire.
  Every single one of these bills in the package has undergone 
extensive public review in the Senate and the House. They have gone 
through a lot of legislative process.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for getting to this 
moment as we pass this very critically important piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about S. 
47, a bill I authored with Senator Murkowski. It is a package of public 
land issues that has been working its way through the Congress now for 
several years.
  I would like to point out to people who may not be as familiar with 
the Interior side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's work, 
that the Interior side has a long history in our Nation. We decided a 
long time ago that we needed to have oversight and management of our 
public lands. S. 47, the legislation that is before us today, is a 
recognition that our climate is changing and that we need new tools to 
carry out new responsibilities as it relates to managing those public 
lands.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for her 
incredible leadership. I know we are going, hopefully, to go to final 
passage of this bill sometime today, and I thank her for her good 
bipartisan work on this legislation. It is safe to say that even though 
we both come from the Pacific Northwest, we don't see eye to eye on 
every issue, but we have worked hard to try to give local communities 
the resources they need and to maintain the national interest where the 
national interest was at stake. So I can't applaud my colleague enough 
for her hard work and for her dedication to getting this particular 
package moving through the Senate.
  I also want to thank a lot of the staff who have worked on this issue 
because I know that it is about the hard work of legislating. There are 
many issues about which maybe not everybody understands all of the 
details to, but, I guarantee you, all the details were critically 
important. So I want to in particular thank Mary Louise Wagner, the 
minority staff director for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee

[[Page S1181]]

until recently. I certainly also want to thank the dynamic duo of David 
Brooks and Sam Fowler who, as counsel to the committee, have played an 
incredible role over the last many years in preserving what is most 
important about our public lands. I also want to thank, additionally, 
Bryan Petit, Rebecca Bonner, Amit Ronen, and several of the staff who 
have worked on many of the aspects of this package; Camille Touton, 
Melanie Stansbury, and David Reeploeg and Megan Thompson who played key 
roles in the Yakima provisions. And Angela Becker-Dippmann who 
previously worked on this legislation.
  I also thank Senator Murkowski's staff, Brian Hughes, Kellie 
Donnelly, and particularly, Lucy Murfitt. I don't think we ever could 
have gotten this package through without her due diligence and hard 
work. I thank Lane Dickson and Michelle Lane.
  I also thank my colleagues in the House of Representatives. I 
certainly want to thank the staff director for Congressman Grijalva, 
David Watkins, but I also thank Chairman Grijalva for his hard work and 
Congressman Bishop. It is safe to say that all four of us, working 
together--Senator Murkowski, myself, Congressman Bishop, and 
Congressman Grijalva--definitely didn't always see eye to eye on these 
issues, but we worked hard to resolve these issues. I also thank my 
colleagues, Congressman Dave Reichert and Congressman Dan Newhouse, for 
their work on provisions related to Washington State.
  Before I get started in talking about the major provisions of this 
legislation and why they are so important, I also have to call out 
several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have played 
key roles.
  Certainly, the historic Utah wilderness provision would not be this 
lands package without my former colleague, Senator Orrin Hatch. He 
played such an incredible role over a long period of time in shaping 
the provisions as they affect Utah, and I thank him for that and for 
working with our colleague on this side of the aisle, Senator Durbin, 
on that important aspect of the package.
  We would not be where we are today on the fire provisions without my 
colleague Senator Gardner. Both Washington and Colorado have taken it 
on the chin time and again with devastating forest fires, and we know 
why it is so important to give firefighters and the land managers the 
best possible tools available to locate the fires and keep track of 
frontline firefighters.
  We need a more hasty response to putting out fires, and having GPS 
and tracking systems are going to help us do that. So I thank my 
colleague from Colorado for helping with this legislation.
  It is safe to say that without the strong determination of Senator 
Burr, we probably wouldn't be here right now on the permanent 
reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Making the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent represents the 
ethos that we have in the Senate here today that public lands are 
important to our Nation. They are important for recreating, for 
hunting, for fishing, for moving forward on access to these lands that 
are important for our veterans, for our school children, and for those 
who just may want to go out and access the outdoors and reconnect.
  We have had a big discussion here about whether we should return 
public lands to oil and gas drilling, and this bill basically says no, 
we are going to make a bigger investment in our public lands.
  We are going to make this program permanent, and we are going to make 
sure it is a key tool to continue to solve our problems of access to 
public land, particularly in parts of the country where access to those 
public lands is being eroded by development. That is exactly what the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund helps us do--to protect those areas so 
that either we can continue to have, for example, elk hunting, for 
which we did a big project in southwest Washington, or whether it is 
helping to improve access to Mount Rainier, a huge economic asset to 
the State of Washington, or whether it is as simple as giving a 
community like Auburn or Gas Works Park in Seattle access to a program 
that can help us keep open space in some of our most developing areas.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a preeminent program 
for access to public lands, but it had been threatened when Congress 
allowed it to expire 3 years ago, then only having a temporary 
reauthorization, and then failing again to reauthorize it last 
September.
  What we are doing here now is saying that this is a bipartisan issue, 
that more than 60 Senators here in the Senate didn't just see that we 
needed to further adjust this program but we needed to save this 
program. I emphasize this because I know my colleagues here in the 
Senate are going to go on to a larger discussion, which is to secure 
the funding that is set aside for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
and how it is spent, and we are going to get into a conversation about 
how we take care of our maintenance and the backlog at our national 
parks. I definitely believe that the mandatory spending for LWCF should 
be in a future budget, and I certainly believe we should do more to 
take care of our backlog and maintenance at our national parks. So I 
look forward to working with both sides of the aisle to push that 
through the U.S. Senate.

  This legislation is amazing because there are some--particularly in 
this administration--who want to use public lands to oil and gas 
drilling, but there is a bipartisan group here in the U.S. Senate who 
has said: No, we want to put more focus on saving our public lands. 
This legislation preserves over 1.3 million acres of new wilderness, 
and 367 miles of wild and scenic rivers. It allows conveyances of land 
but also protects lands from potential mining and development 
projects--like removing the threat of mining and development in the 
Methow Valley in the State of Washington. It also continues to make 
investments in heritage areas that are important to many parts of the 
United States of America.
  I want to talk about how this bill invests in water. The water issues 
are like fire; they are not going to go away. The only question is 
going to be this: What kinds of tools do we give communities across the 
West--and I should say probably throughout the United States--to deal 
with the changing climate and the impacts of less and less water?
  What this legislation says for ideas like the Yakima Basin Project is 
that we are not going to divide people and choose farming over fish. We 
are not going to divide people and choose one aspect of the environment 
over the other. It says that we are going to look to smart, holistic, 
and cost-effective ways to preserve more water and enact smart 
conservation across our State and country.
  This is so important because the water issues are not going to go 
away, but this legislation represents important new tools to fight 
those challenges and to move forward in a way that I think will prove 
to be an example of what we should be doing in other parts of the 
United States.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in trying to fund more 
water infrastructure improvements and conservation. I think this is 
just as important as any other infrastructure investment we are talking 
about in the U.S. Senate today. I know we see congestion in our 
streets. I know we need to do more on aviation infrastructure. But I 
guarantee you that we need to do more on water, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on these challenges in the future.
  One aspect that I don't know if my colleagues on the floor have as 
much interest in as Senator Murkowski and I do, but there is a 
provision on volcano monitoring that is very important to us.
  Having experienced the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington 
State and having active volcanoes in both Washington and Alaska, it is 
so important for us to have the right science and monitoring of these 
volcanoes. I was glad to work with my colleague Senator Murkowski on 
that provision to give the latest and best tools to our scientists so 
that they can give us the best information for the future.
  All in all, this legislation is a major investment in our public 
lands. It is the kind of hard work that happens behind the scenes that 
not everybody pays attention to. I guarantee you that when you use the 
word ``land,'' there are a lot of people to pay attention to.

[[Page S1182]]

There are local communities. There are landowners. There are 
environmental interests. There are all sorts of very, very thorny 
issues that have to be worked out. I thank all of my colleagues for 
their due diligence on this.
  Some people have said: Why is it that a lands package comes together 
only at the end of a Congress or, in this case, held over from last 
Congress into this session? I hope our colleagues will give more 
attention to these important public policies.
  Public lands and access to those lands is an economic juggernaut. 
Behind finance and healthcare, the outdoor economy is the third most 
important sector. So for something that important, let's pay more 
attention. Let's give the tools to local communities and to these 
resources to manage this, to give more access to the American people, 
and to do the things that will help us grow jobs and help us recreate 
for the future and preserve against a very challenging and threatening 
climate.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The assistant 
Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will finish its work on 
the Natural Resources Management Act. This is a bipartisan package 
addressing over 100 public lands, natural resources, and water. It will 
provide protection for a number of historical sites and treasured 
landscapes across the country.
  One of those sites is in my home State of Illinois. This lands 
package would include a bill I have cosponsored with my colleague 
Senator Tammy Duckworth to expand the Lincoln National Heritage Area. 
It would expand the heritage area to include several areas in Central 
Illinois that were a critical part of President Abraham Lincoln's life, 
including the site of Lincoln's legal career within the eighth judicial 
district, as well as the sites of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates.
  By expanding the Lincoln Natural Heritage Area, we can give more 
Illinois residents and visitors a chance to learn more about President 
Lincoln's legacy to our State and Nation.
  In addition, this lands package contains legislation that Senator 
Orrin Hatch of Utah introduced in the last Congress to protect over 
700,000 acres of land in Emery County, UT.
  I have worked for many, many years to protect the stunning, fragile, 
and amazing desert landscape in Utah through the Red Rock Wilderness 
Act, which I have introduced and reintroduced over a period of time. 
While I would like to have seen the Red Rock Wilderness Act included in 
this package, Senator Hatch and I worked together to protect some of 
the land covered by my bill in a bipartisan compromise that is, in 
fact, included in this bill.
  This lands package also contains an important tool for conservation 
and recreation throughout the country, permanently reauthorizing the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, also known as LWCF.
  In Illinois, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has invested more 
than $213 million to protect outdoor spaces, public access to trails, 
parks, and historic sites. Permanent reauthorization of this critical 
program should have happened a long time ago, but I am glad we have 
finally reached a bipartisan moment of achievement in passing it as 
part of this legislation.
  I look forward to the enactment of this legislation to protect these 
important areas in Illinois and across the Nation.


                     Sterigenics and Ethylene Oxide

  Mr. President, there is often kind of a casual debate about 
regulation and the power of government. Some basically start with the 
premise that all regulation is bad, eliminating regulation is always 
good, and the role of the government needs to be challenged and 
questioned regularly.
  I guess there is some truth in those statements, but there comes a 
moment when we put things in perspective. Let me tell you that the 
people who live in the community of Willowbrook in Illinois are putting 
things in perspective when it comes to regulation.
  Most people are not familiar with Willowbrook. It is a village west 
of Chicago with a population of 9,000. It is in DuPage County, just 
west of the downtown Chicago area. It is a middle-income community with 
a lot of hard-working families, and many of them work hard to make sure 
their kids have a better life than they do, as so many American 
families do.
  In the middle of this village at Willowbrook is a business known as 
Sterigenics. It is a sterilization plant that uses a chemical, ethylene 
oxide, to sterilize medical equipment, and they do it in great volume.
  On any given day, they will be sterilizing thousands of catheters 
that are being used across the country and certainly in the Midwest for 
stents and for investigative medicine--absolutely essential to the 
health of those who are being treated. They will approve over 1,000 
surgical kits each day through their sterilization process. They put 
through the sterilization process such things as knee replacements and 
defibrillating devices that are implanted in people, so it is an 
essential part of the medical picture in the Midwest at this moment, 
but it also turns out that the chemical they are using, ethylene oxide, 
is problematic, and that is where the issue of government regulation 
becomes front and center.
  I didn't know much about ethylene oxide. I was a liberal arts lawyer, 
so I skipped all of those hard chemistry courses and tried to 
understand other aspects of education. When it came to ethylene oxide, 
I needed to be educated. Here is what we found.
  We have learned that ethylene oxide is a dangerous toxin. It is 
carcinogenic. To put it in layman's terms, it causes cancer. We learned 
that ethylene oxide, a chemical in the form of gas, is more 
carcinogenic to humans than we previously thought, and this facility 
has been releasing ethylene oxide into the surrounding Willowbrook 
community for 34 years.
  Then we found out last August that the Willowbrook community is an 
area with higher cancer risk due to ethylene oxide emissions from 
Sterigenics, and we know that cancer-related ethylene oxide exposure 
includes lymphoid cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, and others.
  After we were told that this company, Sterigenics, was doing 
everything it could to reduce the emissions of this carcinogenic toxic 
gas and that it had installed pollution control measures, a local 
television station--CBS in Chicago--revealed a few days ago through 
interviews that this wasn't the case at all.
  Ex-employees of Sterigenics came forward and reported to this 
television station that ethylene oxide was often released directly into 
the air surrounding the plant through open doors and vents, and, 
instead of being directed through pollution control measures, it was 
simply released.
  According to these whistleblowers, employees at Sterigenics were 
instructed to dump a toxic liquid byproduct of ethylene oxide called 
ethylene glycol directly into the water drains that lead to the public 
sewer system. Ethylene glycol is a chemical that is used in antifreeze.
  Then, in the middle of last week, came a stunning revelation. We were 
told by the Environmental Protection Agency--an Agency that is often 
derided here in Washington by many--that the level of ethylene oxide 
measured outside of the Sterigenics facility in Willowbrook, IL, was 
350 times higher than what the EPA finds to be an acceptable risk and 
50 times higher than what was found in the surrounding area.
  Saying that the families--some of whom have lived in Willowbrook for 
decades--are concerned is a dramatic understatement. Imagine for a 
moment, if you will, that you have been raising a child in Willowbrook, 
that your family has lived within sight of this Sterigenics plant, and 
now you are learning that they were releasing this toxic gas into the 
air at a level of 350 times beyond what is deemed acceptable for human 
exposure. To say that the residents are concerned is a dramatic 
understatement. They are demanding action, and they want answers.
  For the record, this is not about Democrats making noise. This is a 
bipartisan response. Dan Cronin is a friend of mine. He is the chairman 
of the county board at DuPage County and a proud Republican. Both he 
and Jim Durkin, who is the Republican leader of the Illinois House, 
have come out publicly with the strongest possible statements about 
this Sterigenics

[[Page S1183]]

emission and the danger it poses to their community. The same thing is 
true for the Democratic side of public service in that county.
  All of us have come out together, Democrats and Republicans, decrying 
this terrible situation, this dangerous situation.
  Members of this community should not have to divert time away from 
their lives and their loved ones to try to research a chemical release 
and to piece together answers. That is the responsibility of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, an Agency which, sadly under this 
administration, has been led by people who don't have sympathy for 
families before business. They tend to lean toward the business side 
before they look at the public health aspect. That is unfortunate.
  The Clean Air Act was one of the first and most expansive 
environmental laws ever created in the United States, but, as with most 
laws, the Clean Air Act is enforced by a Federal Agency--in this case, 
the Environmental Protection Agency--with broad power and authority to 
act or to refuse to act.
  In this case, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority 
to use the new information that came off its own monitors--new 
information about the concentrations and danger of ethylene oxide--to 
develop new rules around the use of that chemical, including when it is 
used for commercial sterilization in plants like Sterigenics. The EPA 
has the authority to do this.
  The EPA should quickly promulgate rules to establish safe limits for 
ethylene oxide used in manufacturing and commercial sterilization. This 
would protect not only the people in Willowbrook but also the people in 
Gurnee and Waukegan, IL, which also have plants that use ethylene 
oxide--plants that are located smack dab in the middle of these 
populated communities.
  Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is 4 years overdue to begin the 
process of promulgating new rules for ethylene oxide commercial 
sterilization. Yet when I called the Acting Administrator, Mr. Wheeler, 
at the EPA last Friday, there didn't seem to be any sense of urgency to 
take action on this issue beyond the further collection of data over 
the next several weeks.
  The EPA is under court order to review ethylene oxide emission 
standards for manufacturing by 2020, but there is no official timeline 
for commercial sterilization review--exactly what we have asked of Mr. 
Wheeler and the EPA over and over again.
  Waiting 1 year is unacceptable for the families who are affected by 
these emissions. The health and safety of these families and their 
children are at stake in this decision by the EPA. That is too long to 
ask someone to wait when they sleep near this plant, work near this 
plant, or take their kids to school near this plant. That is why today 
I join my colleague Senator Duckworth, who has been my trusted ally in 
this effort, and my colleagues in the House of Representatives, 
Congressmen Schneider, Foster, Casten, and Lipinski. We are introducing 
legislation requiring the EPA to promulgate these rules within 180 days 
on the use of ethylene oxide in this manner. There is no excuse and no 
logical explanation for delaying this kind of establishment of a rule.
  But the EPA has to do a lot more than simply start a 6-month process 
toward promulgating a rule for ethylene oxide. The EPA needs to treat 
this matter like the public health crisis it is. Today Senator 
Duckworth and I are calling on the EPA to immediately require 
Sterigenics to work with an independent, third-party environmental 
engineering firm to identify the source of these emissions and reduce 
these emissions coming from that facility. We want a third party on the 
scene. We don't trust Sterigenics to do this by themselves.
  For their own credibility, they should invite a third-party 
environmental engineering firm to do this work. If Sterigenics cares 
about this community as much as they say they do, they shouldn't wait 
for the EPA to issue an order for them to have this sort of inspection 
and to make the repairs and changes necessary to protect the people in 
the surrounding community. They should immediately hire an independent, 
third-party expert to identify the source of the emissions and reduce 
them as quickly as humanly possible.
  The EPA should commit to continuous monitoring around the facility 
instead of ending the monitoring as planned later this week. The EPA 
should remain as a presence in this community to make sure we restore 
the faith to the people living nearby that the situation is no longer 
dangerous and threatening.
  The EPA should commit to continuing to analyze and share the data 
they collect with the public. No one should have to live in fear that 
simply breathing the air around their home, their school, or their 
workplace will give them cancer.
  I am calling on the EPA to treat this with the urgency it deserves. I 
am ready to work with them, and I am sure Senator Duckworth is as well.
  Let me close by saying that there are many people who mock the EPA 
and say that we would be better off if they stopped harassing 
businesses like Sterigenics. Tell that to the people who live in 
Willowbrook. Tell that to the people who live in Gurnee and Waukegan. 
They are counting on us--those in Washington who work with the 
Environmental Protection Agency--to keep this community safe for their 
families. They are counting on us to understand the concern they feel 
for themselves and their children. They are counting on us not to come 
with bureaucratic delay but to come up with a timely response, to put 
Sterigenics on the spot when it comes to the emissions that are coming 
off their plant, and to put us as a government on the spot to respond 
as quickly and as humanly as possible.
  It is not a matter of bureaucracy; it is a matter of common sense. If 
this were your family living next to this facility, would you want 
business as usual, or would you want to make sure the government 
responds in a timely fashion? I think the answer is obvious.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of William Barr

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the Senate floor 
to discuss William Barr, President Trump's nominee to serve as 
America's next Attorney General.
  The Attorney General's job is to defend the U.S. Constitution against 
all enemies, foreign or domestic, and to stand up for the rights of all 
Americans, but President Trump has a different view of the Attorney 
General's role. He has made it quite clear that he is not interested in 
an Attorney General who is committed to working for the American 
people. For President Trump, only two criteria matter when it comes to 
picking an Attorney General.
  No. 1 is loyalty to President Trump. William Barr easily checks this 
box. Just look at the Mueller investigation. As Special Counsel 
Mueller's team investigates whether there are connections between 
Russia's meddling in the U.S. elections and the Trump campaign and 
indicts more and more people with close ties to the President, 
President Trump has viciously attacked the investigation, calling it a 
``witch hunt.''
  Trump was not pleased that his first pick for Attorney General, Jeff 
Sessions, recused himself from the Mueller investigation. He doesn't 
want to make the same mistake twice. In Barr, the President has found 
someone he believes will put the President's interests above those of 
the country, and it is not hard to see why.
  Barr has taken extraordinary steps to undermine the Mueller 
investigation, even voluntarily submitting an unsolicited memo to the 
Justice Department arguing that the special counsel doesn't have the 
power to investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. Man, that is 
quite the cover letter for a job application when the job is overseeing 
the very investigation you don't think should exist in the first place.
  Loyalty to President Trump--check.
  The second criterion for President Trump when picking an Attorney 
General or any nominee to serve in the

[[Page S1184]]

highest levels of the Federal Government is whether the nominee will 
continue to tilt our government further and further in favor of the 
powerful few over everyone else.
  Once again, Barr checks the box. Barr's record on women's rights, 
criminal justice reform, immigration, and so many more issues shows 
that he will promote the interests of the powerful few instead of 
defending the rights of all.
  Take women's rights. Barr believes Roe v. Wade--the Supreme Court 
case establishing the right to abortion care--was wrongly decided and 
should be overturned. He also joined the amicus brief arguing that 
employers should be allowed to deny women access to contraceptive care 
based on employers' religious beliefs.
  On criminal justice reform, Barr has endorsed harmful policies that 
have perpetuated America's broken criminal justice system. While 
serving as Attorney General in the early 1990s, the Justice Department 
issued a report arguing that the United States had an under-
incarceration problem--that we put too few people in jail in this 
country--and Barr has personally made many statements in line with that 
misguided approach. He has argued that children should be prosecuted as 
adults. Despite the fact that Black people are arrested, prosecuted, 
convicted, and more harshly sentenced than their White counterparts for 
exactly the same crimes, Barr has denied that racial disparities exist 
in the criminal justice system and has championed discriminatory 
sentencing policies.
  On immigration, Barr supported the first and harshest iteration of 
President Trump's unconstitutional and immoral Muslim ban. In his stint 
as Attorney General in the 1990s, he advocated for denying political 
asylum to Haitian asylum seekers who happened to be HIV positive.
  On healthcare, Barr has argued that the Affordable Care Act is 
unconstitutional.
  On LGBTQ equality, he has opposed efforts to promote LGBTQ equality.
  The list goes on and on. There is no doubt that if confirmed, Barr 
would continue the same broken system that protects the wealthy and 
well-connected while it leaves everyone else behind.
  The President doesn't hide what he wants from an Attorney General. He 
wants someone who will put protecting the President ahead of protecting 
our Constitution and someone who will help maintain America's two very 
different justice systems--one that protects and coddles the wealthy 
and the powerful and another harsh, unjust system for everyone else.
  Barr's record shows that he is not the Attorney General America 
desperately needs--an Attorney General who will stand up for the rule 
of law and for the rights of all Americans. That is why I will vote no 
on Barr's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a former chair of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, I have a pretty good sense of how complicated it 
is to pull together a legislative package of public lands like the one 
this Senate is about to pass.
  So I would like to begin my comments with a special shout-out to our 
chair and committee leadership, Chair Murkowski, Senator Cantwell, 
Senator Manchin, then-chairman and my friend Congressman    Rob Bishop, 
and now-Chairman Grijalva for helping me negotiate the Oregon 
provisions in this bill.
  This morning, I have brought to the floor of this Senate a copy of a 
wonderful story. It is called ``Fire at Eden's Gate.'' It is an 
inspiring account of our late Republican Governor, Tom McCall. Nobody 
understood better than Tom McCall the very basic idea that protecting 
our public treasures should not be a partisan proposition. In this day 
and age, too often, it can feel like the sense of common purpose around 
protecting our public treasures is slipping away, but I hope this bill 
is a bit of a signal that it is coming back.
  That is why this morning, I am dedicating the Oregon provisions of 
this bill to the memory of our late, great Tom McCall. If Governor 
McCall were here with us this morning, he would say the Oregon 
provisions in this legislation are all about protecting and enhancing 
Oregon's unique and extraordinary livability. At the heart of that 
livability are our natural treasures and the recreation economy that 
pumps billions of dollars into Oregon, especially in our rural 
communities.
  I am heading home this weekend. I have townhall meetings in every one 
of Oregon's 36 counties. In those rural areas, I am constantly seeing 
people whose livelihood revolves around that theory Tom McCall talked 
about--our unique livability. We will see small businesses, we will see 
guides who are taking folks out into the back country, and people who 
sell gear. The recreation economy is a big economic multiplier, and it 
is all tied to what Tom McCall talked about, which is protecting 
Oregon's livability.
  Tom McCall would be very pleased with a number of aspects of this 
bill, and I want to tick them off briefly this morning. I believe 
Governor McCall would be especially pleased that this legislation does 
more to protect Oregonians from the growing threats of wildfires that, 
in our part of the world, are not your grandfather's fires. They are 
becoming infernos. We are seeing fires leap our majestic Columbia 
River, something that used to be unheard of but is a reality today. 
This legislation, in my view, makes a real difference in reducing the 
threats of wildfires.
  I want to talk about one provision specifically, and that is what the 
bill does for Crooked River Ranch in Central Oregon. The Crooked River 
Ranch provision I worked on with the committee leadership and that we 
got in this bill is just common sense because it reduces the risk of 
fire and also prevents the increasing backlog that prevents our land 
managers from clearing out dead and dying hazardous fuels near the 
homes of families.
  Folks from this really small community, the Crooked River Ranch, came 
to my townhall meetings and told me about their very understandable 
fear of being engulfed in one of these infernos, which is how I 
describe some of these fires that just leap through Federal, State, 
local, and private boundaries. I want everybody at Crooked River Ranch 
this morning to know the provisions of this bill reduce the risk of 
those huge fires, promote forest health, and reduce the backlog that is 
so critical to preventing fires in the future. I think the provisions 
in this bill show all those folks from Crooked River Ranch who came to 
our townhall meetings that the Senate has listened to them and 
responded to this very real threat.
  In addition, I can picture Tom McCall this morning--this towering 
figure--striding through the forests that this bill designates as the 
first new wilderness in Oregon in nearly a decade. I am talking about 
the Devil's Staircase Wilderness area, which is 30,000 acres of rugged 
rainforest in our beautiful Oregon Coast Range. This is an untouched, 
pristine area, and it was named after a series of cascading waterfalls. 
It is an area that is so remote and so steep that hikers--who come from 
all over the country and literally from around the globe--when they 
come to Devil's Staircase, they can only gain access after a daylong 
trek through miles of devil's club, which is a tall, spiky bush that 
has irritated many a hiker. Few people have actually seen the 
waterfalls and the primeval stands of old-growth trees that surround 
it. In true Tom McCall fashion, this bill ensures that these majestic 
Douglas firs and tall trees on the hike are there for future 
generations to come, and that, in particular, is something Tom McCall 
personally talked to me about.
  I am going to mention volunteers in the forests and a conversation I 
had with Tom McCall not long before he passed. He was always coming 
back, trying to make sure those of us in positions to make policy were 
thinking about future generations.
  Nancy and I are older parents. We have twins who are 11 and a little 
redhead who is 6. Pictures are available on my iPhone after my 
presentation.

[[Page S1185]]

Whenever I look at them, I think about what Tom McCall said: You are 
making policy for future generations. Now, because of the provisions 
here to protect Devil's Staircase and create this unique, new 
wilderness area, it is going to be there for those future generations, 
for Oregonians, Americans, and literally visitors from around the 
world.
  While we are on the topic of remote areas in my State, the lands bill 
we are about to vote on protects yet another very special place, the 
Chetco River in Southwestern Oregon. The Chetco lives within steep, 
mountainous terrain in the heart of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area. 
This river--one of the wildest in Oregon--drops almost 4,000 feet in 
elevation from its headwaters in the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest 
before it empties into the Pacific Ocean near Brookings. This area 
would be particularly beloved by Tom McCall because it is a haven for 
treasured Oregon fish species like salmon and steelhead. There are so 
many pictures of Tom McCall throwing a rod because he loved to fish. 
Although it is a hike to get there, it is an irresistible challenge to 
even the most proficient anglers and whitewater kayakers, but they will 
find it the trip of a lifetime.
  In addition to its recreation benefits and wildlife-sustaining 
habitat, the river also provides a clean and pristine source of 
drinking water for the city of Brookings and the town of Harbor on the 
Oregon Coast.
  For years, this extraordinarily pure river, with crystal clear water, 
was being threatened by those who simply didn't appreciate what it 
meant for fishing and protecting the future, and simply just looked at 
as an opportunity for mining. This legislation ends the future 
potential for mineral exploitation along the banks to the Chetco once 
and for all.
  I and other Members of the delegation have been working for years to 
try to make sure this was done permanently. We wouldn't have to lurch 
from one kind of administrative fix to another. Now we are embedding in 
black letter law that we are ending the future potential for mineral 
exploitation along the banks of the Chetco River.
  I have been working on this for my entire time in public service 
representing Oregon in the U.S. Senate, and it is something that I--
again, apropos of that shout-out to Senator Murkowski, Senator 
Cantwell, Chair Bishop, Chair Grijalva--am so appreciative of.
  The Chetco, by the way, is just one of the many rivers the public 
lands bill will protect and conserve in my home State. The bill 
protects more than 250 miles of rivers and streams in Oregon by adding 
them to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
  As an Oregonian, I know it doesn't take an act of Congress to remind 
us that rivers and streams are the backbone of Oregon's recreation 
economy. I spoke about it earlier, but this is something that, in my 
view, is missed in much of the debate about public lands. Recreation is 
an enormous economic multiplier for our communities.
  I see our new colleague in the Chair, the Presiding Officer, and I 
know Florida cares deeply about treasures. So, again, this is not a 
partisan concern. This is all about looking down the road. When I have 
a chance, as I will this weekend, to be home for townhall meetings, I 
am always stunned at how far the reach is with respect to the 
recreation economy.
  I was home recently, and a young man said he wanted to talk to me 
about his kayak business, and so we visited. He talked about how he had 
tourists come, and he would take them out in his kayak. Then he talked 
to me about how there is a global market for his kayaks.
  I am the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee with 
jurisdiction over trade. He asked me about my view on economics. One 
out of five jobs in Oregon revolves around international trade. We like 
to make things and grow things and add value to them and ship them all 
over the world.
  Well, the recreation economy creates opportunities here at home, as 
that young man took folks out in his kayaks, but creates even more 
opportunities as the rest of the world benefits from his kayaks as 
well.
  In Oregon, we outdoor enthusiasts understand that from every corner 
of the United States we have an opportunity to show Oregon's true 
natural beauty as well as give people the experience of a lifetime 
seeing unparalleled treasures. It is a big boost to a lot of families 
for increasing their incomes.
  Rivers and streams, such as those we are going to protect with the 
new additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, are a 
place for families to picnic, for anglers to cast a fly rod into some 
of the best fishing holes in the country, and for whitewater rafters to 
get an adrenaline rush while enjoying Oregon's treasures.
  I can tell you about Tom McCall because Tom McCall loved fishing 
almost more than life itself. I am telling you, he would look at these 
provisions, and he would say that what this bill does to protect those 
hundreds of miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers is something that he would 
call part of laying the future for future generations but making sure 
there is a lot that benefits the people of my State and our country 
right now.
  From Brookings to the Willamette Valley, from the Chetco to the 
Molalla River, this bill and the provisions we were able to negotiate 
on rivers protects treasured fishing streams and salmon habitats in 
every single corner of Oregon. As I indicated, it is going to be a real 
shot in the arm to rural communities that are going to be able to 
create world-class recreation destinations and look at that recreation 
economy as an increasing opportunity to build a more secure economic 
future.
  Especially important are some of the protections this bill gives to 
the Rogue River in Southern Oregon. Fifty-one years after President 
Johnson named the Rogue to the original Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 
this bill adds just over 120 miles of important Rogue River tributaries 
to the list. In doing so, this bill further protects and safeguards the 
mighty Rogue that the iconic western author Zane Grey put on the map 
when he wrote about the wilderness and remoteness of the river from his 
cabin at Winkle Bar nearly one century ago.
  With these designations, Oregon will now have more miles of Wild and 
Scenic Rivers than any other State in the contiguous 48. Stay tuned, 
folks. Alaska is the only State that has more miles designated, but 
given that State is about six times the size of my Oregon, I still 
think we are in a position to catch up.
  As the Governor who gave the public access to all of Oregon's beaches 
and passed the Nation's first bottle recycling bill, Tom McCall valued 
those who volunteered to keep Oregon so special. He was a great 
champion of promoting volunteers--again, something that historically 
has been bipartisan.
  I ran the legal aid program for older people for a number of years--
the Gray Panthers, for about 7 years--and shortly before he passed, Tom 
McCall came to see me. I had never been elected to anything. I was 
stunned that such an important person would come to see an obscure 
fellow like myself. He was talking about the elderly, and it really led 
to a broader discussion of volunteerism and people participating, 
getting involved in their communities, and because he was always 
working to get people involved in cleaning up our beaches, and then he 
passed the Nation's first bottle recycling bill, he always came back--
as he did that day when he came to see me--to talking about how 
volunteerism is a big part of what keeps Oregon so special.
  In that spirit, this bill honors the conservation legacy of two 
Oregonians who spent their lives working to keep Oregon special--Frank 
and Jeanne Moore.
  Frank Moore just embodies the Oregon way. He served in World War II, 
and he returned to Oregon and settled with Jeanne in North Umpqua, 
guiding generations of anglers on the river. Frank and Jeanne dedicated 
their lives to preservation and conservation of the Umpqua River.
  For somebody who knows a thing or two about casting a fly rod, Frank 
Moore understood just how important protecting the river is. I and my 
colleagues have felt it is long past time to honor Frank and Jeanne's 
legacy along the river and in their community. That is what this bill 
does.
  I went and visited them not long after we made a judgment that we 
wanted to protect these Oregon icons and their conservation legacy, and 
now Frank and Jeanne Moore will be recognized in this bill for 
protecting nearly 100,000 acres of Forest Service land near the North 
Umpqua River through

[[Page S1186]]

the inclusion of the Frank and Jeanne Moore Salmon Sanctuary.
  As anybody who works on public lands legislation knows, sometimes it 
is hard to find a balance in order to get public lands legislation 
passed. Nobody gets everything they want. Nobody gets everything they 
believe they ought to have. The question is, can you bring people 
together.
  I am going to close by way of saying I have highlighted a number of 
provisions that I am glad we got in here. It was 10 years earlier when 
then-President Obama signed seven pieces of public lands legislation 
that I was the lead author of. So these opportunities don't come along 
all the time.
  There are additional protections that I wish were in this bill we 
will vote on in a few hours. I particularly wanted further protections 
for the Rogue and the Molalla Rivers. I want to say to the people I am 
so honored to represent at home that as soon as we get this done, we 
are going to go back and start building support to get those 
protections through Congress in the future, and I am optimistic that if 
we can have the same kind of cooperation I have been talking about this 
morning, we can get them across the finish line.
  This public lands bill may not be perfect, but it is a major 
accomplishment. If you had told me, in a polarized political climate 
like the one we have today, that we could get a permanent authorization 
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I would have said, ``No way. 
Can't happen,'' but now we have real protection for, as it is called, 
LWCF.
  I am just going to close by mentioning, finally, my friend, our late 
Republican Governor, Tom McCall. He embodied--and you see it in this 
book, ``Fire at Eden's Gate: The Oregon Story.'' Tom McCall, a 
Republican, embodied Oregon's long and proud history of conservation.
  I want to close by saying the reason I focused on Tom McCall this 
morning is that he is part of a historical legacy. Sometimes, over the 
last few years, I have gotten the sense that that historical principle 
that protecting public lands was not a partisan issue--sometimes I felt 
it was just slipping away. Today, it seems to me, we are pushing back. 
We are headed in the right direction, and protecting the special places 
my home State is known for is something that gives me great pride. It 
is also something you bring some humility to because Tom McCall was in 
a league of his own with respect to protecting our treasures, and I am 
very glad today, with the Oregon provisions in this bill, we can build 
on Tom McCall's legacy. I am proud to have been able to play a role in 
making sure those provisions that help Oregon and our country have been 
included in this bill.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________