New HOPE Act

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, when I was elected to the U.S. Senate, a group of people came to me and asked me to sponsor a bill. It was a bill that had been sponsored many times by Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. He retired shortly before I arrived.

The bill related to the Utah wilderness. I remember saying to those who approached me: This isn't my State. It is the State of Utah.

They said: This is a bill which we are having some controversy with when it

comes to the Utah congressional delegation.

Secondly, I said: It is a wilderness bill about a part of the world that I have never seen. I don't feel right introducing it.

They said: Why don't you come out and look at it?

I did just a few weeks later. My wife and I went and took a look at the Red Rocks Wilderness area in Utah. I will tell you, initially, as a midwesterner, when I looked at the stark landscape, I looked around thinking, what are we trying to preserve here? I took a closer look, which everyone should, and found a unique part of America--a wilderness area which can't be found anywhere else and a wilderness area which boasts archeological and historic and environmental significance way beyond what many people in the rest of the lower 48 might appreciate.

Today, I am reintroducing the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. It would safeguard 9.2 million acres of Park Bureau Land Management land in Utah as wilderness--some of the last great wild places in the lower 48.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked with the committed volunteers of the Utah Wilderness Coalition to protect the stunning, fragile desert landscape. These unique lands are rich in archeological resources and provide a habitat for rare plants and species. They offer unparalleled research, educational, and recreational opportunities for scientists, teachers, outdoor enthusiasts, and families.

The Bureau of Land Management has confirmed that the vast majority of the majority of the lands meet the qualifications for a wilderness designation. However, despite their pristine condition and their historical significance, these lands are threatened by oil and gas development, as well as rampant off-road vehicle use.

Although these activities are appropriate in some places, they don't belong in such a fragile landscape. Designating these lands as wilderness would safeguard wildlife, protect ancestral lands, help mitigate climate change, and provide access to future generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, boaters, and lovers of the natural world.

Last December, President Obama took an important step in protecting some of Southern Utah's fragile lands by designating the Bears Ears National Monument, which contains some of the lands that would be protected by my Red Rocks bill.

The 1.35 million-acre swath of land covers forested mesas and red rock canyons, and the designation protected the region's abundant Native American cultural resources. The monument contains well over 100,000 cultural and archeological sites. Let me say that again. Over 100,000 cultural and archeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings, granaries, burial sites, and kivas, as well as spectacular pictographs and petroglyphs strewn upon rock walls and boulders all across the region.

Artifacts range from 700 to 12,000 years old, providing tribes with an incredible insight into the shared history of their ancestral homeland, bolstering their deep spiritual connection to the land itself.

The Bears Ears National Monument, designated by President Obama, is the first monument of its kind to be proposed and advocated by a united coalition of five Tribes who sought its protection because of its importance in their respective culture. In total, 30 Native American tribes with ancestral, historical, and contemporary ties to the Bears Ears region supported the designation.

The Tribal coalition's original Bears Ears proposal was 1.9 million acres. You see them here. It is slightly larger than the 1.35 million- acre designation by President Obama.

Many in the Utah delegation, including one of my colleagues in the Senate, have raised concerns about President Obama's decision to protect this area and even the size of the designation. One of the critics of the size of the designation is the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rob Bishop.

Last Congress, before President Obama designated the Bears Ears region a national monument, the same Chairman Bishop introduced a bill that would have protected part of the Bears Ears region while opening other areas of land for oil and gas development.

Look at the two here in comparison. Chairman Bishop's proposal protected 1.28 million acres--only 17,500 acres smaller than the area protected by President Obama.

As you can see from these maps, the areas protected by Chairman Bishop's Public Lands Initiative are not that much different than the areas protected by the Bears Ears National Monument. To argue that the designation is so much larger than anyone anticipated is to ignore what the chairman submitted in his own legislation last year. Both are much smaller than what the Tribes originally requested, which is the third map here.

Despite that, Utah's congressional delegation has called the area ``well beyond the areas in need of protection'' and they pushed President Trump to consider shrinking or overturning this wilderness monument designation. Yet Utah's Salt Lake Tribune called Utah politicians' determination to rescind these designations ``blindness.''

Let me quote the Salt Lake Tribune:

That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political

system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with

their constituents.

They then continue and say:

The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there

is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The

presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries

and shared management [Utah Rep. Rob] Bishop pursued with his

public lands initiative.

They saw the same maps and said: Why is this acceptable and this objectionable?

Today, President Trump is planning to sign an Executive order. It is going to call on the Department of Interior to review previous national monument designations under the Antiquities Act.

While the President's Executive order will target the Bears Ears National Monument first, the order is going to go well beyond Utah and consider changes to all of the national monuments that have been designated since 1996--more than 50 different sites.

These are areas designated ``national monument protected areas'' by Republican and Democratic Presidents with bipartisan support. Yet President Trump is going to insist with his new order that he can review and change every single one of them.

Let me tell you the list of places and sites of great cultural significance that could be impacted: A portion of Sequoia National Forest in California, Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historic Park in Maryland, African Burial Ground National Monument in New York, and in my home State of Illinois, the Pullman National Monument.

It is rare for any national monument designation to be changed by another President. It happened once. The last time a President used the Antiquities Act to adjust the borders of a national monument was over a century ago, in 1915. Then-President Woodrow Wilson shrunk Washington State's Mount Olympus National Monument so they could harvest more timber resources from this land.

A lot has changed since 1915, including our views on conservation. Attacks on conservation seem to have remained consistent. One of our greatest conservation Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt--a proud Republican, I might add--faced a great deal of opposition to his designation of a national monument that most of us are familiar with--the Grand Canyon.

Most Americans can't imagine our country without the iconic Grand Canyon because it is truly a national treasure. At the time of its 1908 designation by President Roosevelt, groups were opposed to protecting that area. For years after its designation, oil and gas miners fought additional protections for the Grand Canyon.

The attacks on the Bears Ears designation doesn't seem all that different from the attacks on the Grand Canyon, but the attacks on the Bears Ears National Monument also attack the Native people who have worked so hard to get this area protected.

Let's be very honest. When we look at how Native Americans were treated by our government and the settlers, we certainly look back with some shame and some embarrassment. What the Tribes are asking for here is a protection of areas that are of special significance to them and special significance to the environmental legacy, which we should be leaving to future generations.

The President's decision to review these national monuments puts the future of these resources in jeopardy and threatens our culture, history, and heritage. If President Donald Trump decides to use the Antiquities Act to reverse one of these monuments, he would treading in uncharted water. Never before has a President used the Antiquities Act to repeal a national monument. For what purpose? For oil and gas exploration? For off-the-road vehicle use?

These monuments themselves help promote tourism and outdoor recreation. Regions with national monuments saw increased employment and personal income growth--exactly the opposite of what the critics promised. Specifically, rural counties in the West, with protected lands, saw jobs increase by 345 percent over areas without protected lands--345 percent. Despite the opposition from Utah's elected officials, many in the State, including the Tribes, want to protect those areas, and I want to help them.

Teddy Roosevelt once said:

It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the

destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a

cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the

United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and

dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and

exterminate fishes, birds, and mammals--not to speak of

vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements.

But at last it looks as if our people were awakened.

That was said by that Republican President over a century ago. Since Teddy Roosevelt's time, we have made progress in protecting our lands and waters, but these recent attacks and this recent Executive order by President Donald Trump show that we still have a long way to go.

I urge this administration, this Republican administration, to heed the words of Teddy Roosevelt. Carefully consider the legacy they will leave to future generations. It would be foolish not to protect Bears Ears and other monuments, just as it would have been foolish to listen to the critics and refuse to protect the Grand Canyon.

These monuments are for all of us, and we must ensure that they remain in their current natural condition for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. President, Arizona is home to more than a half million veterans. They have served in every conflict from World War II to present-day operations in the Middle East. Nothing makes me prouder than to shake the hand of one of these veterans and to call them an Arizonan.

Fortunately, many of these veterans have the support of friends and family, as well as their fellow veterans with whom they served, but far too many who have served our country lack a support system that can help them successfully make the transition back to civilian life.

For those who have post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury, this could be particularly difficult. Studies have shown that veterans often do not seek out medical health treatment due to concerns about stigma, negative career prospects, lack of awareness, or logistical challenges in accessing care. For those who go without treatment, it can lead to substance abuse and, in some cases, run-ins with the law.

While there is no justification for criminal behavior, it is important to recognize when certain actions may be symptomatic of the harrowing experiences a veteran has endured during years of service. This is something the criminal justice system often fails to deal with. By not providing treatment that actually addresses a veteran's underlying service-connected issues, our criminal justice system sometimes creates a vicious cycle. It overcriminalizes service- connected mental illness, undertreats incarcerated veterans, and increases recidivism.

To address the problem, the VA created the Veterans Justice Outreach Program in 2009. The program was established to remove veterans from the regular criminal justice process and to provide specially tailored treatments to address many of these underlying issues. These veterans treatment courts have a proven record of preventing initial incarceration and reducing recidivism.

The lifeblood of the program is the veterans justice outreach specialists, VJO specialists, who link veterans to available court services. These outreach specialists identify veterans in jails and local courts, they assess their health status, and they help them develop the rehabilitation treatment program specific to each of their needs.

I recently had the opportunity to observe the veterans docket and meet with some of these dedicated specialists while visiting the Mesa Municipal Court earlier this month. Let me tell you, there is no substitute for seeing this firsthand. Even though it is a courtroom setting, there is a comradery and collaboration that you don't see in traditional courtroom proceedings. I was amazed at how many

organizations there are to help these veterans--to help them successfully transition and help them with treatment.

The collaboration I am talking about comes from having a judge and hard-working staff who have served in the military themselves. They understand the hardship of multiple deployments for servicemembers and their families. They understand the mental and physical tolls of combat. They understand that the transition back to civilian life can mark the beginning of a new battle for veterans.

The program has experienced remarkable success. The unfortunate reality is that the VA doesn't have enough outreach specialists to ensure access to already available treatment for justice-involved veterans. Demand for VJO specialists is outpacing the program's ability to serve eligible veterans. This means future veterans treatment courts can't be established, existing courts will go understaffed, and veterans will go unserved. That is not right.

That is why today I am introducing the Veterans Treatment Court Improvement Act to ensure our veterans receive swift and appropriate access to justice. This legislation will provide 50 additional VJO specialists for veterans treatment courts nationwide. By increasing the number of dedicated specialists at these facilities, Congress can ensure that more veterans have access to the treatments they have earned with their service. This is bipartisan legislation. I will work to inform my colleagues about the need for this program and additional VJOs in the coming weeks and months.

Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats.

I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I am glad to be introducing today the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017, which will ensure the continued success. I appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Hirono, Blunt, Whitehouse, Ernst, Heitkamp, Thune, Udall, Heinrich, Shaheen, Klobuchar, Franken, Donnelly, and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blender's credit to a domestic production credit starting this year and extend the credit through 2020.

Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation.

Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating the mixture credit be modified to a producer credit since 2009. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this.

A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. Since 2014, we have seen imports increase from 510 million gallons to about 1 billion gallons in 2016, and already in the first quarter of 2017 imports are 10 percent higher than they were last year at this time.

We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save taxpayer money. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a similar amendment adopted in the Finance Committee in 2015 would have reduced the cost of the extension by $90 million for 2016 alone.

Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity, which does not even account for idled capacity. The fact is, the domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers.

The current biodiesel credit expired at the end of 2016. Adoption of the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017 should be strongly considered as part of tax reform efforts currently underway. Absent tax reform, Congress should include it as part of any tax legislation extending expired tax provisions.

Modifying the current blenders credit to a producers credit will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production and promoting American jobs. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American biodiesel and this commonsense, cost reduction reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.