Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create…
Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California.
I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the 5 Delta Counties to prepare this legislation and support their efforts to fully partner with the State, the Federal agencies, and other local governments to improve and care for the Delta.
This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area.
The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of federal, state, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history.
It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property.
Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it.
In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does is impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure.
Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States.
The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries.
These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the state.
Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America.
The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.
Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians, and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally.
Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.
The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors.
Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure.
Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure.
The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians.
The Delta Protection Commission, established under state law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta.
This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta.
This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of
government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and; sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta.
The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway.
Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011,'' a bill that would ban the chemical Bisphenol A, known as BPA, from all children's feeding products. I thank my cosponsors Senators Schumer, Kerry, Sanders, and Franken for their support.
I vowed in the last Congress not to give up, and this is why I am introducing a bill that bans the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food containers: the products used to provide food and beverages to the most vulnerable.
I have a deep, abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals in the daily lives of Americans. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which means that it interferes with the way hormones work in the body.
The evidence against BPA is mounting, especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing.
I believe we have an obligation to safeguard babies and children from unnecessary exposure to this chemical that is linked to so many health problems.
Over 200 scientific studies show that even at low doses, BPA is linked to serious health problems including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Early puberty, Behavioral problems, Obesity.
This chemical is so widespread it has been found in 93 percent of Americans.
Babies and children are particularly at risk to the exposure of BPA because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic consequences.
It may not surprise you that the chemical industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. According to at least one study, there is reason to be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies.
In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA studies funded by industry.
The difference is glaring.
Ninety-two percent of the government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems.
Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm. None of the industry funded studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure. Not one.
Clearly, serious questions are raised about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. The results also illustrate why our nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research on their own products.
The fact that so many adverse health effects are linked to this chemical, the fact that this chemical is so present in our bodies, and the fact that babies are more at risk from its harmful effects leads me to believe that there is no good reason to expose our children to BPA.
This is why we are introducing legislation that protects all babies across the country, no matter which state they happen to live.
This bill will ensure that parents no longer have to wonder whether products they buy for their babies and children will harm them now or later in life.
This bill: Bans the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 6 months; Bans the use of BPA in baby food within 1 year; Bans the use of BPA in infant formula within 18 months; Requires that the FDA issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and Includes a savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation.
This bill makes sense. It's a reasonable step forward to protecting our children's health.
Major manufacturers are already phasing out BPA from their food and beverage products for children.
Food and beverage products for children all have safe, alternative, BPA-free packaging available right now.
Major baby food and formula manufacturers offer BPA-free alternatives including: Nestle's GOOD START, Similac powdered infant formula, Enfamil powdered infant formula, Nestle liquid formula, and Similac liquid formula.
At least 14 manufacturers of baby bottles either offer some BPA-free alternatives or have completely banned its use. They are: Avent, Born Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medala, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy Cups, Playtex, Think Baby, and Weil Baby.
Many major retailers have taken action and sell BPA-free baby bottles and cups: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods.
Eight states have already enacted laws banning BPA from children's products: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Other countries have already moved forward to restrict this chemical. Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, and banned it from all baby bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France have national bans on BPA in certain children's products.
The European Commission banned BPA from baby bottles, protecting consumers in the European Union.
Clearly, the problem has been recognized and steps are being taken by countries, states, companies, and retailers to remove this harmful chemical.
Let me briefly explain what BPA is.
BPA is a synthetic estrogen. As I stated previously, it is a hormone disruptor and interferes with how hormones work in the body. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products to harden plastics, line tin cans, and make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets, grocery store receipts, and to make dental sealants.
It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. And, as with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without us knowing whether it was safe or not.
Alternatives exist because there is growing concern about the harmful effects of BPA. The chemical industry continues to try to quiet criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe.
I don't buy it.
As I previously stated, over 200 scientific studies show that exposure to BPA, particularly during prenatal development and early infancy, are linked to a wide range of adverse health effects in later life.
Because of their smaller size and stage of development, babies and children are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of
Mr. President, in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, on March 23, 2010, the 111th Congress made great strides towards protecting consumers from egregious health insurance company practices. However, despite the passage of this historic legislation, the urgent need to protect Americans from unfair health insurance rate increases remains.
Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards nationally at out-of-control rates--10, 20, 30 percent every year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.
Without further legislative action, health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people.
Over the past decade, family health insurance premiums have more than doubled, growing a shocking 130 percent, while workers' hourly earnings rose by only 38 percent, and inflation rose just 29 percent.
From 2000-2008, individuals in the employer-sponsored market saw premiums increase an average of 90 percent.
The cost of health insurance continues to outpace income and inflation for other goods and services, and these rapidly escalating costs strain businesses, families, and individuals.
In 2009, 57 percent of people attempting to purchase insurance in the individual market found it difficult or impossible to afford coverage.
All the while, in the third quarter of 2010, the six-largest investor-owned health insurance companies (Aetna, Coventry Health, United Health, Humana, WellPoint, and Cigna) saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income, putting them on pace to break their own profit record.
The problem is that the health reform law did not go far enough to control these unfair premium increases, it leaves a loophole.
Simply stated, there is no federal authority to do anything about these rate increases, even if they are unfair.
We need to close this loophole.
This is why today I am introducing, with Senators Boxer and Inouye, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011. Representative Schakowsky is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
This legislation creates a federal fallback rate review process, and grants regulatory authority to block or modify rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.
This legislation is a simple, common-sense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or
use authority to block unfair rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so.
On March 4, 2010, I introduced similar legislation to what I am introducing today. I worked with the Administration and the Finance Committee in putting it together, and with Representative Schakowsky.
President Obama included it in his health reform proposal, but unfortunately, it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation.
The time has come now to take action.
This legislation is necessary in order to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of insurance companies, especially before the majority of the consumer protections included in health reform are fully in place in 2014.
It is disturbing that year after year, health insurance premiums spiral out control, all while insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.
Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, meaning that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education.
This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers.
Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem/Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians.
It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate health insurance premium increases to hundreds of thousands of policyholders in California, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary.
According to an independent analysis, the 25 percent average increase proposed by Anthem should have only been 15.2 percent.
What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it.
This is not a problem unique to California. In the spring of 2010, health insurance companies pursued rate hikes in a number of States: as much as 60 percent in Illinois; 72 percent in Georgia; 50 percent in New Jersey; and 40 percent in Virginia, to name a few.
The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation, with substantial geographic variation.
For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared to a 145 percent increase in Alaska.
A report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that this summer, WellPoint pursued double digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available, but right now, comprehensive data on the premium increases insurers are imposing does not exist.
In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., set a full-year profit record. These companies saw a 56 percent increase in profits from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion.
Furthermore, when many Americans were experiencing double-digit premium increases in 2009, high unemployment, and an average wage growth of only 2 percent, insurance CEOs gave themselves a 167 percent raise.
CEO pay for the 10 largest for-profit health insurance companies was $228.1 million in 2009, up from $85.5 million in 2008.
This doesn't even include the tens of millions more dollars in exercised stock options, and means that these CEOs raked in nearly $1 billion in total compensation.
In the first three months of 2010, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion--a 31 percent jump over the same period in 2009.
Meanwhile, large insurance companies now insure 2.8 million fewer Americans than they did on December 31, 2008. An estimated 59.1 million Americans were uninsured in the first quarter of 2010.
The California HealthCare Foundation reported that 6.8 million California residents lack health coverage.
That is 20 percent of the State's residents who are not able to afford health insurance.
All the while, insurance companies have been reducing the amount they spend on actual health care. As profits and CEO pay increased, the amount of money insurers spent on medical care went down.
The top six insurers drove down the portion of premiums spent on medical care. For example, the share of premium dollars that CIGNA spent on medical care decreased 6.4 percent in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the prior year, and Humana's decreased 7.4 percent.
Now, because of legislation in the health reform law, insurance companies have to spend 80-85 percent of premiums on medical care and quality improvement services, not on profits.
This will go a long way to keeping insurance company greed in check, but we need to go farther.
Clearly without additional legislative requirements, health insurance companies are not going to change.
The Department of Health and Human Services recently published proposed rules defining the rate review process. These regulations are a first step towards protecting consumers and keeping insurers in check.
But they fall short of creating a strong rate review system, and rely too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior.
The regulations do not grant explicit regulatory authority--either State or Federal--to deny, modify, or block rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.
The health reform law requires insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and post them on their Web sites.
The regulations subject rate increases of 10 percent or greater to additional scrutiny and review, but the State-specific thresholds in 2012 could sanction increases higher than 10 percent.
Transparency and increased scrutiny are steps forward, but there is still this loophole where there is no authority to block or modify even excessive, unjustified, and unfairly discriminatory increases.
This is why I am again introducing my rate review legislation, which will grant this authority.
I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review.
This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.
In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them.
In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5-percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase.
In at least 17 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive prior approval for rate increases before they take effect.
In these States, the Secretary would review potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rate increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase.
Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect them.
However, for the consumers in the other 17 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided.
Given the variation in State rate review authority and process, I think this proposal strikes the right balance.
There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I am introducing simply
provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line.
This legislation is particularly important given a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that many States lack the capacity and resources to conduct adequate rate review, regardless of the State's statutory authority to review rates.
I strongly believe that we need to take action on this. The health reform law made great strides towards holding companies and shareholders accountable for providing health care at a reasonable rate.
However, there is this loophole.
So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many States have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.
There needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. In States where the Insurance Commissioner is not equipped to review, modify, and block unreasonable rates, my legislation would grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do so.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011, which will close this loophole.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the California Desert Protection Act of 2011.
This bill is an effort to plan for the competing uses--such as conservation, off-highway vehicle recreation, development, and military training--that are now being proposed for the desert. These uses of our public lands can coexist through comprehensive planning, but in the absence of such planning, it's quite possible that none will thrive.
During the previous Congress I introduced similar legislation to help preserve pristine desert lands that were donated to the Federal Government for permanent conservation a decade ago, but that more recently have come under threat of development because of a flawed bureaucratic process that failed to protect them.
Over the last year the bill was endorsed by more than 100 organizations and agencies, and it had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
I am grateful to Senator Bingaman and his staff for working with me to prepare the bill for further action in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe we can revise the bill to address further the needs of renewable energy developers, the Department of Defense, off-road recreation enthusiasts, local government and others, and I look forward to continuing that effort in the new Congress.
I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California Desert--and this legislation strikes a carefully conceived balance between these sometimes competing concerns.
The key provisions of this bill would designate two new national monuments--the Mojave Trails and the Sand
to Snow National Monuments; add adjacent lands to the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve; designate 5 new BLM wilderness areas and protect 4 important waterways--including the Amargosa River and Deep Creek--as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and enhance recreational opportunities in the desert and ensure that the training needs of the military are met.
This bill is the product of painstaking discussions with key stakeholders including environmental groups, local and State government, off-highway recreation enthusiasts, hunters, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Department of Defense, wind and solar energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. I am grateful for all of their efforts.
The previous version of my bill proposed specific improvements to the Department of the Interior's rules governing the development of renewable energy on public lands. I'm pleased that the Department has instituted a number of new policies over the last year which have greatly improved the process. Consequently, the current bill focuses primarily on conservation, recreation and other important uses of the California desert.
However, I intend to work with my colleagues from the West on separate legislation to further expedite the development of wind and solar energy in California and the West.
The California Desert Protection Act, which was enacted in 1994, was a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at conserving some of the most beautiful and ecologically significant lands in my home State.
The law created Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, as well as 69 desert wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM.
Collectively, it protected more than 7 million acres of desert lands, making it the largest land conservation bill in the lower 48 States in U.S. history.
To this day, it remains one of my proudest accomplishments since joining this body.
Much has changed since the passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Many of the impediments that prevented conservation of other pristine desert lands in the area no longer exist.
For example the Department of Defense concerns with designating some wilderness areas near Fort Irwin have been resolved; many mining areas inside national parks and potential wilderness have closed; grazing allotments on both BLM and National Park Service land have been retired by willing sellers; hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned land have been donated to or acquired by the Federal Government.
Yet even as these issues were resolved, new challenges have emerged. There are now competing demands over how best to manage hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the desert.
Some believe the lands should be used for large-scale solar and wind facilities and transmission lines. Others would like to conserve critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.
Some would like more acreage available for grazing or for off-road recreation.
Finally, some would like to see additional lands made available for military training and base expansion.
Two years ago, I learned that BLM had accepted applications to build vast solar and wind energy projects on former railroad lands previously owned by the Catellus Corporation. These lands had been donated to the Federal Government or acquired with taxpayer funds with the explicit goal of conservation.
Approximately $45 million of private donations--including a $5 million land discount from Catellus Corporation--and $18 million in Federal Land and Water Conservation grants was spent to purchase these lands, with the intent of conserving them in perpetuity.
As the sponsor of the legislative provisions that helped secure the deal to acquire the roughly 600,000 acres of former private land, I found the BLM's actions unacceptable.
We have an obligation to honor our commitment to conserve these lands--and I believe we can still accomplish that goal while also fulfilling California's commitment to develop a clean energy portfolio.
I believe the development of these new cleaner energy sources is vital to addressing climate change, yet we must be careful about selecting where these facilities are located.
I plan to work with senators from Western States to improve the renewable energy permitting process to allow quicker development of renewable energy projects on private and disturbed public land. This effort likely requires separate legislation and improved regulation.
I applaud the Department of the Interior's efforts over the last year to address this problem, especially Interior's proposed designation of 24 solar energy zones encompassing 677,000 acres of public land in 6 Western States. By designating these zones in appropriate areas and streamlining the permitting process for projects proposed there, the Department has helped ensure that sensitive areas of the desert can be preserved.
As BLM finalizes the creation of these Zones and its new Solar Energy Program, I will push BLM to create a development zone in the West Mojave, conduct sufficient study of zones to ensure projects in these locations can be permitted quickly, and establish the program's rules as expeditiously as possible.
I will continue to suggest ways that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can improve permitting on private lands, the Defense Department can welcome development on its bases, and the Forest Service can utilize its own lands. These matters may require legislation.
There is enough land in California's desert to protect the most precious areas of the Mojave and aggressively develop renewable resources where permitting will be rapid. California must develop 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts of renewable power to meet its climate goals by 2020, and the current permitting process will need to vastly improve for the state to meet this goal.
First, this bill will ensure that hundreds of thousands of acres of land donated to the federal government for conservation will be protected by creating the Mojave Trails National Monument. This new monument would cover approximately 941,000 acres of federal land, which includes approximately 266,000 acres of the former Catellus-owned railroad lands along historic Route 66. I visited the area and was amazed by the beauty of the massive valleys, pristine dry lakes, and rugged mountains.
In addition to its iconic sweeping desert vistas and majestic mountain ranges, this area of the Eastern Mojave also contains critical wildlife corridors linking Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. It also encompasses hundreds of thousands of acres designated as areas of critical environmental concern, critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise, and ancient lava bed flows and craters. It is surrounded by more than a dozen BLM wilderness areas.
The BLM would be given the authority to both conserve the monument lands, and also to maintain existing recreational uses, including hunting, vehicular travel on open roads and trails, camping, horseback riding and rockhounding.
The bill also creates an advisory committee to help develop and oversee the implementation of the monument management plan. It would be comprised of representatives from local, state and federal government, conservation and recreation groups, and local Native American tribes.
Before I go on to the other conservation provisions in the bill, I would like to address one important issue--and that is what should be done about some of the proposed renewable energy development projects proposed for lands included in this monument.
Although it is true that the monument will prevent further consideration of some applications to develop solar and wind energy projects on former Catellus lands or adjoining lands in the monument, it is important to note that of the proposals in question, not a single one has been granted a permit, nor is a single one under review at the California Energy Commission or under formal NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, review at BLM.
To ensure that creation of the monument does not unnecessarily harm the
firms that worked in good faith and invested substantial time and resources to produce renewable energy in California, the legislation will offer these companies an opportunity to relocate their projects to federal renewable energy zones currently being developed by the Department of the Interior.
Additionally, the monument would not prevent the construction or expansion of necessary transmission lines critical to linking renewable energy generation facilities with the electricity grid.
Second, the bill would establish the ``Sand to Snow National Monument,'' encompassing 134,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley up to the top of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California.
The boundaries of this second, smaller new monument would include two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service San Gorgonio Wilderness, the Wildlands Conservancy's Pipe's Canyon and Mission Creek Preserves, and additional public and private conservation lands, including two wildlife movement corridor areas connecting the Peninsular Ranges with the Transverse Ranges.
This area is truly remarkable, and would arguably be the most environmentally diverse national monument in the country. It serves as the intersection of three converging ecological systems--the Mojave Desert, the Colorado Desert, and the San Bernardino mountains--and is one of the most important wildlife corridors in Southern California.
This monument designation would protect 23.6 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and the habitat for approximately 240 species of migrating and breeding birds, the second highest density of nesting birds in the United States. It also serves as a home and a crucial migration corridor for animals traveling between Joshua Tree National Park, the oasis at Big Morongo, and the higher elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains.
I'd like to make one additional point, and that is that despite its ecological significance, this area is not particularly well-known-- largely because it is managed by a number of distinct entities, including the BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service and private preserves and conservation agencies. So, the monument designation would help to attract more attention to one of California's natural gems.
Third, the bill establishes new wilderness areas and allows more appropriate use of lands currently designated as Wilderness Study Areas.
The 1994 California Desert Protection Act extended wilderness protection to many areas in the desert, yet several areas near Fort Irwin were designated as wilderness study areas in order to allow the base to expand.
Now that Fort Irwin's expansion is complete, it is time to consider these areas for permanent wilderness designation.
The bill protects approximately 250,000 acres of BLM land as wilderness in five areas. These areas contain some of the most pristine and rugged landscapes in the California desert.
Beyond Fort Irwin, the bill also expands wilderness areas in Death Valley National Park, 90,000 acres, and the San Bernardino National Forest, 4,300 acres, inside the Sand to Snow National Monument created by this bill.
The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes.
Fourth, this bill would create the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area.
The agreed-upon designation for this area in Imperial County, near the Colorado River, was reached after careful discussion with key stakeholders.
Although the land possesses some wilderness characteristics, there are also competing interests. The Navy Seals currently use some of this area for occasional training. Additionally, many local residents enjoy touring the rolling hills in the area by jeep.
Through the combined efforts of conservation groups, local residents and county government, and the Department of Defense, a compromise conservation designation was developed.
For the land known as the Vinagre Wash, the bill will create a ``special management area'' covering 76,000 acres, including 12,000 acres of former railroad lands donated to the federal government.
Of these, 49,000 acres are designated as potential wilderness and only become permanent wilderness if and when the Department of Defense determines these lands are no longer needed for Navy Seal training.
This designation will permit the area to continue to be accessed by vehicles and be used for camping, hiking, mountain biking, sightseeing, and off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and protect tribal cultural assets in the area.
Fifth, the bill adds to or designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 76 miles in length. These designations will ensure the rivers remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park.
Sixth, the bill adds approximately 74,000 acres of adjacent lands to the three National Parks established by the 1994 California Desert Protection Act: 41,000 acres in Death Valley National Park. This includes former mining areas where the claims have been retired and a narrow strip of BLM land between National Park and Defense Department boundaries that has made BLM management difficult; almost 30,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve. This land was not included in the original Monument because of the former Viceroy gold mine. However, the mining operations ceased several years ago and the reclamation process is nearly complete. Additionally, a 2007 analysis by the Interior Department recommended that this area would be suitable to add to the Preserve; 2,900 acres in Joshua Tree National Park. This includes multiple small parcels of BLM land identified for disposal on its periphery. Transferring this land to the Park Service would help protect Joshua Tree by preserving these undeveloped areas that border residential communities.
Seventh, the bill designates new lands as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.
One of the key goals I have strived for in this bill is to find balance to ensure that the many different needs and uses in the desert are accommodated with the least possible conflict. Some of the most frequent visitors to the desert are the off-highway recreation enthusiasts.
In California alone, there are over 1 million registered off-highway vehicles, many of which can be found exploring thousands of miles of desert trails or BLM designated open areas.
However, in order to meet military training needs, the Marine Corps is studying the potential expansion of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms into Johnson Valley, the largest OHV area in the country. I strongly support providing our troops with the best possible training, but if the Marines need to expand the base into Johnson Valley, this could have potentially resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of OHV recreation lands.
In 2009 I met with Major General Eugene Payne, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics, and Brigadier General Melvin Spiese, Commanding General, Training and Education Command, to discuss this issue, and I am very grateful for their efforts to consider base expansion options that would preserve much of Johnson Valley for recreation.
As the result of those meetings, the Marine Corps has committed to studying an alternative that would allow for a portion of Johnson Valley to be used exclusively for military training, another portion to be used exclusively for continued OHV recreation and a third area for joint use. While the environmental review process must first be completed, I am hopeful that this option will prevail for the benefit of the Marines and recreational users of Johnson Valley.
The lesson learned from Johnson Valley is that, despite the vast size of the California desert, there are relatively
few areas dedicated to OHV recreation, and even those areas face increasing competition from other types of uses. These areas are important not only to the hundreds of thousands visitors who enjoy them, but also to the local economy that depends on their tourist dollars. Additionally, by protecting these areas, we also protect conservation areas by providing appropriate places for OHV recreation.
This bill will designate five existing OHV areas in the Mojave desert as permanent OHV areas, providing off-highway groups some certainty that these uses will be protected as much as conservation areas. Collectively, these areas could be as much as 314,000 acres, depending on what, if any, of Johnson Valley is ultimately needed by the Marines.
This section of the bill also requires the Secretary of the Inerior to conduct a study to determine which, if any, lands adjacent to these recreation areas would be suitable for addition. This will help make up for some of the lost acres in Johnson Valley should the Marines decide to expand there.
Finally, this bill includes other key provisions that address various challenges and opportunities in the California desert, including state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of state lands spread across the California desert in isolated 640 acre parcels. Because many of these acres are inside national parks, wilderness, the proposed monuments or conservation areas, they are largely unusable. The bill seeks to remedy that problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to complete the exchange of these lands for other BLM or GSA owned property in the next ten years. These land exchanges will help consolidate the state lands into larger, more usable areas that could potentially provide the state with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation or other commercial purposes.
Military activities. The bill ensures the right of the Department of Defense to conduct low-level overflights over wilderness, national parks and national monuments.
Climate change and wildlife corridors. The bill requires the Department of the Interior to study the impact of climate change on California desert species migration, incorporate the study's results and recommendations into land use management plans, and consider the study's findings when making decisions granting rights of way for projects on public lands.
Tribal uses and interests. The bill requires the Secretary to ensure access for tribal cultural activities within national parks, monuments, wilderness and other areas designated within the bill. It also requires the Secretary to develop a cultural resources management plan to protect a sacred tribal trail along the Colorado River between southern Nevada and the California-Baja border.
Prohibited uses of donated and acquired lands. In order to ensure that donated and acquired Catellus lands outside the Mojave Trails National Monument are maintained for conservation, the bill prohibits their use for development, mining, off-highway vehicle use, except designated routes, grazing, military training and other surface disturbing activities. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest, but comparable lands would have to be purchased and donated to the federal government as mitigation for lost acreage.
All of these provisions, when taken together, would serve to complement the lasting conservation established by the California Desert Protection Act--while ensuring that other important local uses are maintained in appropriate areas.
Though I have lived in or near San Francisco for most of my life, over the years I have come to truly appreciate California's sweeping desert landscapes.
I remember my first visits to the desert years ago. It was treated like a waste dump. It was full of abandoned cars. Old appliances littered the landscape.
But we have worked very hard to clean it up.
We have worked to make sure that the vast vistas and pristine desert habitat are respected by humanity, and that we give to our children a healthier, more beautiful desert than we inherited.
But if we are to remain successful in the long run, we must not only protect the desert land itself, we must also protect the broader environment from the ravages of climate change, and we must offer economic opportunity to those who live in these areas.
That is the purpose of this legislation. There are many places in the California desert where development and employment are essential and appropriate.
But there are also places that future generations will thank us for setting aside.
I have worked painstakingly with stakeholders to ensure that this legislation balances sometimes competing needs.
This bill, if enacted, will have a positive and enduring impact on the landscape of the Southern California desert by conserving pristine areas while meeting the needs of all desert stakeholders.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. This legislation will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013.
The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013.
I firmly believe that the United States Government needs these authorities to help prevent against future terrorist attacks against our nation and to collect vital intelligence insights into the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries. We remain a nation under threat and need to remain vigilant in our defense.
Let me briefly describe the three expiring provisions.
First, court-ordered roving authority is directed against foreign intelligence targets who attempt to thwart FISA surveillance by such actions as rapidly changing cell phones. In a September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice reported to Congress that this authority ``has proven an important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders.''
Second, lone wolf authority allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been identified. In the last Congress, when the Department of Justice advised that it had not yet been necessary for the Government to use this authority, the Department stated that it could foresee circumstances in which a terrorist target had not actually contacted a terrorist group or was known to have severed his association from a terrorist group.
From the events of the last several years, we have all become aware that we may be attacked by a lone, unaffiliated terrorist--or one whose links to
terrorist groups are only clear after an individual is apprehended.
Third, the collection of business records pursuant to court orders. This provision allows the Government to require the production of ``tangible things'' in order to obtain foreign intelligence information as part of an investigation. In the September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice urged reauthorization of that authority because ``[t]he absence of such authority could force the FBI to sacrifice key intelligence opportunities.''
I cannot elaborate into the use of these authorities in this unclassified context. I can say, however, that as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as one who reviews the intelligence on the threats we face, we remain a nation under attack. Providing the authorities to collect intelligence to identify and prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland remains necessary.
It is also important to allow Congress, in the future, to conduct a complete review of FISA provisions. By synchronizing the dates when different pieces of the law expire, Congress can consider changes to FISA at once, prior to the end of 2013.
In closing, l would like to assure all Members of the Senate and the American public that extending these sunsets does not shield them from oversight. There is a system of review and oversight in place that consists of the FISA Court, Inspectors General in the Department of Justice and in the intelligence community, regular oversight reviews by the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, a new Director of Compliance at the National Security Agency, and reporting to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can assure colleagues that the Senate has placed, and will continue to place, oversight of the Government's surveillance authorities as a major priority.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
