Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to Rex Tillerson's nomination to be our next Secretary of State. I don't believe Mr. Tillerson is an appropriate selection to be our Nation's chief diplomat.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson repeatedly evaded questions related to transparency and corporate responsibility. For instance, on multiple occasions Mr. Tillerson stated that he was unaware of Exxon's history of lobbying Congress; yet, according to lobbying disclosure forms, Exxon lobbied against a variety of Iran and Russia-related sanctions since at least 2010. When pressed on the matter, Mr. Tillerson even claimed he didn't know if Exxon lobbied for or against these energy-related sanctions bills.

Additionally, I am troubled by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions about Exxon's dealings with Iran, Syria, and Sudan. According to public documents, Exxon established a joint venture with Shell to conduct business with state sponsors of terror. That joint venture--Infineum-- sold petroleum products to Iran, Sudan, and Syria, when those nations were being sanctioned by the United States.

During that time, Mr. Tillerson rose from senior vice president to president and director and eventually to chairman and CEO of Exxon; yet, during his testimony, Mr. Tillerson claimed to be unaware of Infineum's purposeful evasion of sanctions. Instead of recognizing the larger national interest, Mr. Tillerson suggested that American companies could legally avoid sanctions by setting up shell companies outside of the United States.

Infineum is not the only example of Exxon's history of undermining American policy. Under Mr. Tillerson's leadership, Exxon signed oil exploration contracts with the Kurds in Iraq. Doing so undermined the United States ``one Iraq'' policy and exacerbated the long-simmering conflict between the central government and the Kurds. That is because Exxon signed contracts to explore oil at six sites. Three of those sites were on disputed land claimed by both the Kurds and the Iraqi central government.

By agreeing to explore in disputed territory on behalf of the Kurds, Exxon changed the facts on the ground in favor of the Kurds. Exxon's decision may have been good for Exxon, but it certainly did not benefit a stable, unified Iraq.

I am also concerned by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions about Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, intervened in Syria, and meddled in our own elections; yet Mr. Tillerson refuses to offer support for international sanctions against Russia.

He refuses to describe Russia's bombing of Syrian hospitals and schools--and a U.N. humanitarian aid convoy--as war crimes.

Russia remains in violation of the Minsk agreement and continues to occupy Crimea, indiscriminately bomb in Syria, and hack American think tanks.

Now is not the time to remove sanctions against Russia, and I have little confidence Mr. Tillerson is committed to pushing back against Russian aggression.

Finally, Mr. Tillerson's indifference to the two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is unacceptable. Specifically, Mr. Tillerson said that a two-state solution is a ``dream'' and openly questioned whether or not it could ever become a reality. The reality is that, without a two-state solution, Israel cannot be both a democracy and a majority-Jewish state.

Today Israel is constructing settlements throughout the West Bank. Palestinian terror and incitement continue. Mr. Tillerson's almost casual dismissal of the two-state solution is disqualifying for a Secretary of State. Our chief diplomat must understand the urgency of the situation and must be willing to engage both sides in the pursuit of peace.

I simply do not believe Mr. Tillerson is interested in doing so.

Mr. Tillerson's lack of transparency, history of working against our national interests, close ties to Russia, and indifference to Israel's future make him unfit to serve as the Secretary of State.

I intend to oppose Mr. Tillerson, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an extraordinary public servant and a dedicated leader of the U.S. intelligence community, Brig. Gen. Francis Xavier Taylor, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, I&A, at the Department of Homeland Security.

I had the pleasure of presiding as chairman of the Intelligence Committee for the confirmation hearing for General Taylor in 2014 and have witnessed his leadership over the past 2 and a half years as I&A has made perhaps the most impressive progress of any intelligence agency over this time.

After nearly 40 years of honorable service to our Nation, Under Secretary Taylor retired on the last day of the Obama administration.

Prior to his work at DHS, Frank Taylor served for 31 years in the U.S. Air Force and at the U.S. Department of State as an ambassador for counterterrorism and head of diplomatic security. He also served as vice president of security at General Electric. For the past 2 years, he has applied the leadership skills, understanding of security at home and abroad, and his close personal friendship with Secretary Jeh Johnson to transform the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

I&A's mission is to equip the Homeland Security Enterprise with timely intelligence and information it needs to keep the homeland safe, secure, and resilient. It provides critical intelligence to the leadership of the DHS and its components; State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and private sector partners. The office itself was formed after the creation of DHS through the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and has seen significant change and disruption in its short lifetime. Due to Under Secretary Taylor's leadership, I&A is much further along on its vision of becoming a premier element of the IC, driving information sharing and delivering unique predictive intelligence and analysis to operators and decisionmakers at all levels.

During his confirmation hearing, General Taylor was asked why I&A needed to exist, given the domestic mission of the FBI and the analytic work of the National Counterterrorism Center. He was asked to justify the office's existence if it produced one analytic product per employee per year. Members questioned him on the need for State and local fusion centers and the support provided to them by the Federal Government. I focused my questions on why an intelligence agency should have more than 60 percent of its staffing come from a contractor workforce.

As we begin 2017, those questions are no longer applicable. Under Secretary Taylor has transformed the organization. He removed internal I&A stovepipes and realigned the organization to more closely reflect the intelligence cycle. Where homeland intelligence analysis had too often relied on repackaging products from other members of the IC, DHS collection now forms the basis of I&A production. Under Secretary Taylor also ordered that finished intelligence include DHS and State- local-tribal Partner data. Within 1 year, the organization achieved great success on this front, ensuring 80 percent of finished intelligence in fiscal year 2016 included unique homeland-derived data. Under his leadership, I&A is fulfilling the unique homeland-focused role that Congress intended. The contract workforce is below 25 percent and the office is producing valuable intelligence analysis, tips to law enforcement, compiling and improving the quality of DHS data for intelligence purposes, strengthening our watch listing capability, and lending expertise to decision makers from the President down to the cop on the beat.

Under Secretary Taylor has worked tirelessly to mature and strengthen the Department's relationship with the State and local fusion centers and make information sharing a priority, changing the way the IC analyzes the domestic threat picture. When I have visited my local fusion center in San

Francisco, I receive nothing but praise for the support that I&A provides and the importance of local, State, and Federal information sharing. The most recent example of this partnership is the Field Analysis Report, FAR, an intelligence report written by State and local intelligence analysts in coordination with I&A for the State and local audience. This is an important development from intelligence handed down from intelligence agencies inside the Federal beltway that, at times, misses the mark of what the local customer needs. FARs are among the most highly rated finished intelligence products coming out of I&A and are a direct result of General Taylor's vision.

Under Secretary Taylor also took to heart the need to invest in the workforce and address extremely low employee morale. He has restructured the workforce, drastically reducing the ratio of supervisors to workers, streamlining management and developing what he calls ``seed corn''--young, junior intelligence professionals brought in to rejuvenate the organization and help develop a truly homeland- focused workforce. Besides shifting the balance of the staff, Under Secretary Taylor focused on hiring, growing, and investing in the workforce and ensuring that inherently governmental work is done by governmental employees and clear communication between the workforce and the leadership.

Members of the Intelligence Committee spend most of our time on international events and the often controversial practices of the CIA, NSA, and FBI. We have had the luxury in the recent past not to have to worry on the intelligence coming from and provided to our homeland security professionals because of the leadership and uncommon skill of Under Secretary Frank Taylor. We owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. I wish to thank Under Secretary Taylor for his decades of exceptional service to our country and to wish him and his wife, Connie, the very best in the days and years ahead as he retires for the fourth time.

Thank you.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor as we have just filed a resolution--a bill actually--with 26 cosponsors that would repeal the immigration ban placed by President Trump. President Trump's Muslim ban is unnecessary, it is unconstitutional, and it is un- American. It should be repealed immediately.

The Executive order prohibits individuals from Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from entering the country. It even bars relatives of Americans from visiting. The order suspends the entire U.S. refugee program, and most egregiously, Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely unless they are Christian. These provisions are not what America is all about.

First, the order is unnecessary. Individuals from the 7 targeted countries and 150 other nations are already thoroughly screened. Visitors fill out visa applications. They submit photographs that run through biometric databases. Their personal information is reviewed, including names, addresses, and dates of birth. They are interviewed at a U.S. consulate. The process could take months to complete and eliminates the need for the travel ban.

In addition, the move to ban refugees has no legitimate national security reason because these refugees undergo an even more thorough screening process that can take up to 2 years to complete. The vast majority of refugees are women and children who have experienced the absolute worst of humanity.

Let's not forget the heart-wrenching image of the small body of Aylan Kurdi, a 3-year-old Syrian boy, washed up on a beach, dead. I will never forget this small boy in his short pants, his shoes, and his socks, lying on that beach. To turn away women and children and men in their time of dire need is not what this Nation is all about.

Let me make this point: The poor execution of this Executive order has resulted in chaos and confusion. It is unclear whether the Justice Department or Homeland Security had any input. There seems to have been a disagreement about whether it would apply to green card holders. There was confusion about whether it applies to

individuals already in transit or approved for travel. Even airport directors--I have spoken directly with the directors of Los Angeles International and San Francisco International, and there was confusion about how it applies. Even airport directors were left in the dark about how many people were detained and who they were.

Sara Yarjani was one Californian caught up in this mess. She is an Iranian national studying at the California Institute for Human Science in San Diego under a valid student visa. After being detained at LAX for 23 hours, she was sent back to Europe, a clear violation of the nationwide stay against the order. What I am saying is that the court stay was actually violated. This is just one of more than 100 stories from the weekend.

I believe this order is also unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The order violates this First Amendment by targeting Muslims and favoring Christians. The order may also violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which forbids the government from burdening the person's exercise of religion. The law bars any discrimination based on national origin in the issuance of a visa.

Finally, detaining people at airports may violate their Fourth Amendment rights.

This was an ill-considered overreach, as the courts showed over the weekend, and it should be repealed.

So the bill that 27 of us are introducing rescinds the President's Executive order. The text is simple because the message is simple: We won't stand for these types of actions.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am so proud of the peaceful demonstrations we saw, and I join those who are so passionate about the free exercise of religion and free speech. These are our values, Mr. President, as a nation, and I will be right there with you if anyone tries to violate them.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for giving me the opportunity to make some remarks for the record.

I support Mike Pompeo to be Director of the CIA. I want to make clear that Congressman Pompeo has committed to following the law with respect to torture. He committed, during his open hearing, to a question I asked, to refuse any orders to restart the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques that fall outside of the Army Field Manual.

However, what has happened is that his written answers to my questions for the record on torture appear to leave open the possibility that he would be open to the CIA carrying out these practices again in the future. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with Congressman Pompeo, and I asked him today to give me some statements from him that I could put directly into the record in that regard, and I wish to share these responses. I received them today, prepared by his staff.

Let me quote. ``By law, any agency interrogations will be limited to techniques in the Army Field Manual.''

``The Army Field Manual explicitly prohibits waterboarding and other techniques.''

He further recommitted to the promise he made at his hearing that he ``would `absolutely not' comply with an order that violates the law, including an order to restart a program with techniques that violated the limitations in the Army Field Manual.''

Additionally, he clarified his comments regarding which experts he intends to consult at the CIA and other organizations in the government regarding the Army Field Manual. This is where there was particularly-- I think in the Daily Beast, this question was raised, as well as in other places, so I want to clear it up. Here is his statement: He ``would listen to any items raised by the High-Value detainee Interrogation Group''--which we call the HIG--``or other career intelligence professionals that any improvements were needed to the Army Field Manual based on their professional experience.''

Moreover, he promised to provide objective analysis of Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement and insisted that he would keep the Senate informed of all CIA activities in that regard.

Additionally, he has promised to put aside his previous political considerations, and he has committed to providing the President and the Congress with independent, objective intelligence analysis.

Certainly, I, and certainly others, intend to hold him to these commitments. For these reasons, I am clearly voting for his confirmation and look forward to working closely with him on the Senate Intelligence Committee to make sure strong congressional oversight of the CIA continues.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my deep sorrow on the passing of Tim Mitchell. Through his absolute dedication to this institution and the special kind of person he was, Tim made the Senate a better place.

Tim served as the assistant secretary for the minority. As Senator Reid shared during his September remarks in celebration of Tim's 25 years of exemplary service, Tim began his career in the Senate working for Senator Don Riegle, Jr., of Michigan.

He later worked for Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota and the Democratic Policy & Communications Committee before joining the Democratic floor staff in 2001. Tim also took night classes at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law--an impressive feat.

The Senate often calls for long days and longer nights. Debates on the floor may get heated, rollcall votes may drag on for hours, but Tim always kept a calm temperament and kind demeanor. He was soft spoken, but firm--not an easy feat while juggling the Members of this body's unique needs and passions.

He was simply the best at what he did, and he made a real difference in how the Senate worked. The value of his service is incalculable.

To Tim's family--his wife, Alicia, and his 11-year-old son, Ben--I am so sorry for your loss. I am forever grateful that you shared Tim with us for so many years.

I echo Senator Reid's previous remarks: Tim's time here changed the Senate and this country for the better.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Desert Protection and Recreation Act of 2017.

This bill, a decade in the making, charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. The goal is simple: to manage California's fragile desert resources in a sustainable and comprehensive manner.

This bill provides something for everyone that appreciates the national treasure that is the California desert. That this bill provides something for everyone is a result of the painstaking effort to build consensus among the array of groups that use the desert, including: environmental groups; Federal, State, and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; and energy companies and California's public utility companies.

As I will further describe later, the bill preserves 230,000 acres of wilderness and another 44,000 acres of national park land, each unrivaled for their unique natural landscapes. The bill also safeguards 77 miles of free-flowing rivers and the abundant life and rich biodiversity these rivers and streams often support.

Importantly, the bill provides certainty to off-road enthusiasts, establishing 142,000 acres of permanent off-highway recreation areas--a first for the Nation. I made a commitment to off-roaders to enact the entire bill, not just parts of the bill. I hope to fulfill that promise.

The efforts to protect the desert are a long time coming. This effort first began with the original California Desert Protection Act, signed into law more than twenty years ago.

Picking up where my predecessors left off, I introduced that bill only three months after I was sworn in as a senator. Through hard work and perseverance, we were able to pass that law on the last day of the 103rd Congress, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994.

The original Desert Protection Act was a crowning achievement for desert conservation, establishing 69 new Wilderness areas, creating the Mojave National Preserve, and converting Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks. All told, we were able to protect, or increase protections for, about 9.6 million acres.

It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California, which is a boon for the economy.

It has ensured that these enduring landscapes will be preserved for future generations.

Since we passed the 1994 desert conservation bill, we've tried to build on this legacy of conservation. After years of collaboration with an array of stakeholders, we introduced new legislation in 2009.

The goal of that bill was simple: to help manage California's desert resources through a comprehensive approach that balanced conservation, recreation, energy production, among other needs.

After years of work, including two hearings in the Senate, we reached a major milestone this past February, when President Obama designated three new national monuments in the California desert: Castle Mountains, Mojave Trails, and Sand to Snow.

Those monuments, based on the legislation I had introduced, created one of the world's largest desert reserves, encompassing nearly 1.8 million acres of America's public lands.

Those monuments connect vital wildlife corridors and habitats, preserve cultural resources, and establish an important buffer to the inevitable changes climate change will usher in for these fragile desert ecosystems.

While the newly-designated desert monuments formed a cornerstone for future desert protection, our work is not complete. That is why I am introducing this legislation today.

While I supported President Obama's decision to create three national monuments in the Mojave Desert, his authority under the Antiquities Act did not allow him to include the many other valuable provisions in the original legislation.

Our intention has always been to balance the many uses of the desert through legislation, and that remains the case today. That is why I reintroduced that legislation immediately following the President's designation, and that is why I am introducing a bill again today: to make the rest of the provisions a reality.

The legislation I am introducing today therefore includes all of the provisions the President was not able to enact through executive action under the Antiquities Act.

These negotiated provisions--which represent our best attempt to achieve consensus among desert stakeholders--deserve to become law.

That legislation includes many additional conservation areas and provides permanent protection for five Off-Highway Recreation Areas covering approximately 142,000 acres. Off-roaders were a vital part of the coalition we put together, and unfortunately those lands could not be designated under executive action. Off-roaders deserve certainty about their future use of the land, just as there is now certainty for conservation purposes. I gave them my word that I would fight for them, and I intend to do so again in this new Congress.

This bill would also expand wilderness areas in the desert, by designating five additional wilderness areas that cover 230,000 acres of land near Fort Irwin.

The bill would ensure clean and free-flowing rivers, through the designation of 77 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers; add to our national parks, by expanding Death Valley National Park Wilderness by 39,000 acres and Joshua Tree National Park by 4,500 acres; expand National Scenic Areas, by adding

18,610 acres to the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County; and protect 81,000 acres of land in San Bernardino and Imperial County, and requires the Department of the Interior to protect petroglyphs and other cultural resources important to the surrounding tribes and communities.

Lastly, the bill will facilitate renewable energy development in a way that protects delicate habitat.

I want to highlight some of the key provisions of this legislation:

By designating five new wilderness areas, this bill protects fragile desert ecosystems across 230,000 acres of wilderness near Fort Irwin. This includes 88,000 acres of Avawatz Mountains, 8,000-acre Great Falls Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 32,500-acre Death Valley Wilderness.

The desert's sweeping desert vistas and rugged mountain terrain not only provide for a truly remarkable backcountry experience, but also provide vital refuge for everything from bighorn sheep and desert tortoises to Joshua Trees and Native American artifacts.

This bill is more than just wilderness, however. It also designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 77 miles in length. These beautiful waterways, carved through the heart of the arid desert, are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park.

The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes.

We must also take into account another use of the desert land: renewable energy. I believe that we can honor our commitment to conservation while fulfilling California's pledge to develop a clean energy portfolio.

Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place.

By April 2009, solar and wind companies had proposed 28 projects to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development.

Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. This is due in part to the state and federal governments' efforts to develop and finalize the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan--an ambitious effort to comprehensively manage renewable energy, conservation, and recreation on 22.5 million acres of California desert.

By working with our state to develop this Plan, the federal government has shown it can be an effective partner in the State's efforts to combat climate change, all while protecting the magnificent, yet fragile, California desert landscape.

The bill also makes use of about 370,000 acres of isolated, unusable parcels of State lands spread across the California desert. These small isolated parcels of State land in wilderness, national parks and monuments would be exchanged for Federal lands elsewhere that could potentially provide the State with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation, or other commercial purposes.

This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere.

This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward.

I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard.

As you can see, there are many diverse interests in California's desert lands, an it is not easy to bring them all into agreement. But after years of painstaking efforts, they have reached agreement on this bill.

Desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land.

Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. Most importantly, I hope this body recognizes the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue.

Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Desert Protection and Recreation Act of 2017.

This bill, a decade in the making, charts a commonsense path forward for the California desert. The goal is simple: to manage California's fragile desert resources in a sustainable and comprehensive manner.

This bill provides something for everyone that appreciates the national treasure that is the California desert. That this bill provides something for everyone is a result of the painstaking effort to build consensus among the array of groups that use the desert, including: environmental groups; Federal, State, and local governments; the off-road community; cattle ranchers; mining interests; and energy companies and California's public utility companies.

As I will further describe later, the bill preserves 230,000 acres of wilderness and another 44,000 acres of national park land, each unrivaled for their unique natural landscapes. The bill also safeguards 77 miles of free-flowing rivers and the abundant life and rich biodiversity these rivers and streams often support.

Importantly, the bill provides certainty to off-road enthusiasts, establishing 142,000 acres of permanent off-highway recreation areas--a first for the Nation. I made a commitment to off-roaders to enact the entire bill, not just parts of the bill. I hope to fulfill that promise.

The efforts to protect the desert are a long time coming. This effort first began with the original California Desert Protection Act, signed into law more than twenty years ago.

Picking up where my predecessors left off, I introduced that bill only three months after I was sworn in as a senator. Through hard work and perseverance, we were able to pass that law on the last day of the 103rd Congress, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in October 1994.

The original Desert Protection Act was a crowning achievement for desert conservation, establishing 69 new Wilderness areas, creating the Mojave National Preserve, and converting Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks. All told, we were able to protect, or increase protections for, about 9.6 million acres.

It continues to attract millions of tourists to southern California, which is a boon for the economy.

It has ensured that these enduring landscapes will be preserved for future generations.

Since we passed the 1994 desert conservation bill, we've tried to build on this legacy of conservation. After years of collaboration with an array of stakeholders, we introduced new legislation in 2009.

The goal of that bill was simple: to help manage California's desert resources through a comprehensive approach that balanced conservation, recreation, energy production, among other needs.

After years of work, including two hearings in the Senate, we reached a major milestone this past February, when President Obama designated three new national monuments in the California desert: Castle Mountains, Mojave Trails, and Sand to Snow.

Those monuments, based on the legislation I had introduced, created one of the world's largest desert reserves, encompassing nearly 1.8 million acres of America's public lands.

Those monuments connect vital wildlife corridors and habitats, preserve cultural resources, and establish an important buffer to the inevitable changes climate change will usher in for these fragile desert ecosystems.

While the newly-designated desert monuments formed a cornerstone for future desert protection, our work is not complete. That is why I am introducing this legislation today.

While I supported President Obama's decision to create three national monuments in the Mojave Desert, his authority under the Antiquities Act did not allow him to include the many other valuable provisions in the original legislation.

Our intention has always been to balance the many uses of the desert through legislation, and that remains the case today. That is why I reintroduced that legislation immediately following the President's designation, and that is why I am introducing a bill again today: to make the rest of the provisions a reality.

The legislation I am introducing today therefore includes all of the provisions the President was not able to enact through executive action under the Antiquities Act.

These negotiated provisions--which represent our best attempt to achieve consensus among desert stakeholders--deserve to become law.

That legislation includes many additional conservation areas and provides permanent protection for five Off-Highway Recreation Areas covering approximately 142,000 acres. Off-roaders were a vital part of the coalition we put together, and unfortunately those lands could not be designated under executive action. Off-roaders deserve certainty about their future use of the land, just as there is now certainty for conservation purposes. I gave them my word that I would fight for them, and I intend to do so again in this new Congress.

This bill would also expand wilderness areas in the desert, by designating five additional wilderness areas that cover 230,000 acres of land near Fort Irwin.

The bill would ensure clean and free-flowing rivers, through the designation of 77 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers; add to our national parks, by expanding Death Valley National Park Wilderness by 39,000 acres and Joshua Tree National Park by 4,500 acres; expand National Scenic Areas, by adding

18,610 acres to the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in Inyo County; and protect 81,000 acres of land in San Bernardino and Imperial County, and requires the Department of the Interior to protect petroglyphs and other cultural resources important to the surrounding tribes and communities.

Lastly, the bill will facilitate renewable energy development in a way that protects delicate habitat.

I want to highlight some of the key provisions of this legislation:

By designating five new wilderness areas, this bill protects fragile desert ecosystems across 230,000 acres of wilderness near Fort Irwin. This includes 88,000 acres of Avawatz Mountains, 8,000-acre Great Falls Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 32,500-acre Death Valley Wilderness.

The desert's sweeping desert vistas and rugged mountain terrain not only provide for a truly remarkable backcountry experience, but also provide vital refuge for everything from bighorn sheep and desert tortoises to Joshua Trees and Native American artifacts.

This bill is more than just wilderness, however. It also designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 77 miles in length. These beautiful waterways, carved through the heart of the arid desert, are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park.

The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes.

We must also take into account another use of the desert land: renewable energy. I believe that we can honor our commitment to conservation while fulfilling California's pledge to develop a clean energy portfolio.

Balancing conservation, development and other uses is possible, we just need to come up with the right solutions. Thankfully, some of these compromises are already in place.

By April 2009, solar and wind companies had proposed 28 projects to be included in the Mojave Trails National Monument, including sites on former Catellus lands intended for permanent conservation. I visited some of those sites at the time, including one particularly beautiful area known as the Broadwell Valley, where thousands of acres of pristine lands were proposed for development. Seeing it first hand, I quickly came to the conclusion that those lands were simply not the right place for renewable energy development.

Since then, 26 of the 28 applications have been withdrawn. This is due in part to the state and federal governments' efforts to develop and finalize the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan--an ambitious effort to comprehensively manage renewable energy, conservation, and recreation on 22.5 million acres of California desert.

By working with our state to develop this Plan, the federal government has shown it can be an effective partner in the State's efforts to combat climate change, all while protecting the magnificent, yet fragile, California desert landscape.

The bill also makes use of about 370,000 acres of isolated, unusable parcels of State lands spread across the California desert. These small isolated parcels of State land in wilderness, national parks and monuments would be exchanged for Federal lands elsewhere that could potentially provide the State with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation, or other commercial purposes.

This blueprint will help identify pristine lands that warrant protection and direct energy projects elsewhere.

This is a fair balancing of priorities, and I think it provides a clear path forward.

I strongly urge my colleagues to take a good look at this legislation. I hope they understand that the many stakeholders involved have made their voices heard.

As you can see, there are many diverse interests in California's desert lands, an it is not easy to bring them all into agreement. But after years of painstaking efforts, they have reached agreement on this bill.

Desert conservation has never been a partisan issue. Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land.

Given our past success, I am hopeful this Congress will take this legislation up and move it forward. Most importantly, I hope this body recognizes the simple fact that desert conservation has never been a partisan issue.

Over the years, legislators have come together across party lines to preserve this great piece of land. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act, a bill to extend the time for minors to seek justice against their perpetrators.

Sex crimes committed against children tragically remain a vile and dangerous reality in communities across this country.

Just this past summer, as the world tuned into the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, the Indianapolis Star reported that USA Gymnastics had failed to report to law enforcement allegations of child sexual abuse committed by some of its coaches.

Due to these purported failures, athletes as young as 7 years old were reported to have been abused for years, without any action taken to prevent the abuse.

Since the initial Indianapolis Star report, more and more young gymnasts have come forward about their abuse.

All over the world, and all over this country, sex abuse victims are bravely coming forward to tell their stories of abuse when they were children.

In my home state of California, numerous victims have contacted my office. They have shared the amount of courage and strength it took to finally come forward with their experiences.

These stories represent an untold amount of pain and suffering. They also represent how difficult it is to come forward until later, in adulthood.

It has been estimated that 90 percent of child sex crime victims never go to the authorities concerning their abuse.

To put this into context, studies indicate that at least one in four girls and about one in five boys is sexually abused. 90 percent of those victims never go to the authorities.

A great number of victims don't ever disclose their abuse. If they do, they do not come forward until many years later, after reaching adulthood.

This bill extends the civil statute of limitations in two ways for minor victims of Federal sex crimes to seek justice against their perpetrators.

For one, the bill extends the statute of limitations for minor victims until the age of 28, from age 21, for injuries stemming from sex crimes such as sexual abuse and child pornography.

Second, for the two laws that provide civil remedies for sex abuse and sex trafficking victims, the bill clarifies that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until after the victim actually discovers the injury or the violation.

This is significant because victims of sex crimes are sometimes abused even before they can remember the abuse, some as young as 3 years old. Some victims are unable to connect their abuse to the injurious symptoms they exhibit throughout their lives.

The bill therefore clarifies that the limitations period begins when the victim first discovers the injury or the violation.

Through these provisions, the bill ensures that minor victims have an extended period to seek justice against their perpetrators after discovering their injury or violation.

I want to thank Senator Cornyn again for working so closely with me on this issue. I also want to thank the cosponsors to this bill: Senators Klobuchar, Inhofe, Franken, Flake, Gillibrand, Tillis, and Markey.

I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Victims of Crime, Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, the National Children's Advocacy Center, SGS for Healing, National Crime Victim Law Institute, National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Stop the Silence, PROTECT, the National Association to Protect Children, Rights4Girls, End Rape on Campus, National Children's Alliance, Lauren's Kids, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing a lease for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, or Washington.

I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, and Harris in sponsoring this bill, which has been reintroduced in every Congress since 2010.

The original impetus for this bill was the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010, which demonstrated yet again the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction.

When the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, 11 people died and 17 others were injured. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.

Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, and more than one-third of federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing.

While Deepwater Horizon served as an important reminder, the dangers of offshore oil and gas were already too well known to Californians. In 1969, the Santa Barbara oil spill leaked up to 100,000 barrels of oil, and remains the third largest oil spill in the country to this day.

Like the Deepwater Horizon, the Santa Barbara oil spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated.

It took 11 days to plug the hole with mud and cement, but oil and gas continued to seep for months.

Using containment technologies still in place today, the cleanup effort relied on skimmers, detergent, and booms.

There has been no new drilling in waters controlled by the State of California since then, and there has been no new drilling in Federal waters off the coast of California since 1981.

Appropriately, the most recent plan from the Department of the Interior for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing will not allow new leasing off the Pacific Coast of California, Oregon or Washington through 2022.

The fact is that those of us on the Pacific coast do not want any further offshore oil or gas development.

In 2012 California's 19 coastal counties generated $662 billion in wages and $1.7 trillion in GDP. This accounts for 80 percent of the economic activity in the State.

California's Ocean economy, including tourism, recreation, and marine transportation, accounts for over 489,000 jobs.

Unlike other areas of the country, any potential fossil fuel resources off the coast of California are likely to be found within only 50 miles of the coast, because of the narrow shelf off the California coast. This means that any potential drilling, and any potential spills, would be in direct conflict with the ocean environment and economy that my state enjoys.

Enacting a permanent ban on offshore drilling would protect our coast for generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act, a bill to extend the time for minors to seek justice against their perpetrators.

Sex crimes committed against children tragically remain a vile and dangerous reality in communities across this country.

Just this past summer, as the world tuned into the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, the Indianapolis Star reported that USA Gymnastics had failed to report to law enforcement allegations of child sexual abuse committed by some of its coaches.

Due to these purported failures, athletes as young as 7 years old were reported to have been abused for years, without any action taken to prevent the abuse.

Since the initial Indianapolis Star report, more and more young gymnasts have come forward about their abuse.

All over the world, and all over this country, sex abuse victims are bravely coming forward to tell their stories of abuse when they were children.

In my home state of California, numerous victims have contacted my office. They have shared the amount of courage and strength it took to finally come forward with their experiences.

These stories represent an untold amount of pain and suffering. They also represent how difficult it is to come forward until later, in adulthood.

It has been estimated that 90 percent of child sex crime victims never go to the authorities concerning their abuse.

To put this into context, studies indicate that at least one in four girls and about one in five boys is sexually abused. 90 percent of those victims never go to the authorities.

A great number of victims don't ever disclose their abuse. If they do, they do not come forward until many years later, after reaching adulthood.

This bill extends the civil statute of limitations in two ways for minor victims of Federal sex crimes to seek justice against their perpetrators.

For one, the bill extends the statute of limitations for minor victims until the age of 28, from age 21, for injuries stemming from sex crimes such as sexual abuse and child pornography.

Second, for the two laws that provide civil remedies for sex abuse and sex trafficking victims, the bill clarifies that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until after the victim actually discovers the injury or the violation.

This is significant because victims of sex crimes are sometimes abused even before they can remember the abuse, some as young as 3 years old. Some victims are unable to connect their abuse to the injurious symptoms they exhibit throughout their lives.

The bill therefore clarifies that the limitations period begins when the victim first discovers the injury or the violation.

Through these provisions, the bill ensures that minor victims have an extended period to seek justice against their perpetrators after discovering their injury or violation.

I want to thank Senator Cornyn again for working so closely with me on this issue. I also want to thank the cosponsors to this bill: Senators Klobuchar, Inhofe, Franken, Flake, Gillibrand, Tillis, and Markey.

I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Victims of Crime, Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, the National Children's Advocacy Center, SGS for Healing, National Crime Victim Law Institute, National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Stop the Silence, PROTECT, the National Association to Protect Children, Rights4Girls, End Rape on Campus, National Children's Alliance, Lauren's Kids, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing a lease for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, or Washington.

I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, Murray, and Harris in sponsoring this bill, which has been reintroduced in every Congress since 2010.

The original impetus for this bill was the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010, which demonstrated yet again the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction.

When the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, 11 people died and 17 others were injured. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.

Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, and more than one-third of federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing.

While Deepwater Horizon served as an important reminder, the dangers of offshore oil and gas were already too well known to Californians. In 1969, the Santa Barbara oil spill leaked up to 100,000 barrels of oil, and remains the third largest oil spill in the country to this day.

Like the Deepwater Horizon, the Santa Barbara oil spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated.

It took 11 days to plug the hole with mud and cement, but oil and gas continued to seep for months.

Using containment technologies still in place today, the cleanup effort relied on skimmers, detergent, and booms.

There has been no new drilling in waters controlled by the State of California since then, and there has been no new drilling in Federal waters off the coast of California since 1981.

Appropriately, the most recent plan from the Department of the Interior for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing will not allow new leasing off the Pacific Coast of California, Oregon or Washington through 2022.

The fact is that those of us on the Pacific coast do not want any further offshore oil or gas development.

In 2012 California's 19 coastal counties generated $662 billion in wages and $1.7 trillion in GDP. This accounts for 80 percent of the economic activity in the State.

California's Ocean economy, including tourism, recreation, and marine transportation, accounts for over 489,000 jobs.

Unlike other areas of the country, any potential fossil fuel resources off the coast of California are likely to be found within only 50 miles of the coast, because of the narrow shelf off the California coast. This means that any potential drilling, and any potential spills, would be in direct conflict with the ocean environment and economy that my state enjoys.

Enacting a permanent ban on offshore drilling would protect our coast for generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to address what I believe is a national security and public safety weakness.

The United States currently has a system in place to keep known or suspected terrorists off of airplanes. But even though they can't fly, these very same terrorists can walk into any gun store anywhere in the country and purchase a firearm.

If a terrorist is too dangerous to board an airplane, that same individual is too dangerous to possess a gun.

That's why we are introducing the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill to fix this glaring loophole in our background check system.

This is not a hypothetical issue.

Individuals with links to terrorism regularly purchase guns in the United States.

According to data just received from the Government Accountability Office, between February 2004 and December 2014, there were at least 2,233 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist--individuals who at the time were on federal terrorist watch lists--tried to buy a firearm or obtain a firearm or explosives license or permit.

In 91 percent of these cases, a total of 2,043 separate occasions, those known or suspected terrorists successfully passed a background check.

The Kouachi brothers, the terrorists who killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, are reportedly on the U.S. no fly list.

However, if they had made it to the United States, the fact that they were on terrorist watch lists would have done nothing to prevent them from legally buying firearms or explosives.

One of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was reportedly placed on two terrorist watch lists in 2011.

He later killed three and injured 170 with homemade explosives and killed a police officer with a handgun.

In 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed one and critically injured another.

According to press reports, Muhammad had been under investigation by the FBI for suspected links to terrorism after traveling to Yemen, where he was arrested for using a Somali passport. Those actions certainly would have placed him on terrorist watch lists, but would not have kept him from buying firearms.

The bill that we are introducing today is very simple.

It would close this dangerous loophole by giving the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from buying explosives or a gun if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism.

It would also give the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from obtaining a license to sell guns or explosives if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism.

The Attorney General could use a range of tools to make this decision, most notable terrorist watch lists and the no fly list.

In addition to making the decision at the discretion of the Attorney General, the bill includes other safeguards to make sure innocent individuals are not denied the ability to buy firearms or explosives.

The first safeguard is that very high standards already exist for an individual to be designated as a known or suspected terrorist.

The FBI or the National Counterterrorism Center must nominate the individual to be included in the Terrorist Screening Database.

There must be sufficient identifying data about the person to ensure they can be accurately matched with the terrorist on the watch list.

The circumstances must meet the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard. This means the facts of the case must be strong enough to reasonably determine the person is known or suspected to be engaged in terrorism.

The second safeguard is that every provision in current law allowing individuals to appeal the denial of a firearm or explosive purchase will also apply to this bill.

The office within the FBI that handles the background check system, known as the NICS Section, or the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section, must provide the reason for denial upon request.

Individuals then have the right to correct any inaccurate records in the background check system. If a purchase is still denied, individuals can take the Justice Department to court to overturn the decision.

Gun safety safety bills are often labeled as Democratic bills. That is not the case here.

This bill was first proposed by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush, who recognized that keeping guns away from terrorists is good policy.

Attorney General Holder has also testified that the Justice Department under President Obama continues to support this proposal.

The bill has also been endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety. This group represents more than 1,000 current and former mayors, both Republican and Democrat.

The legislation has also been endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

I would also like to thank the bill's cosponsors: Senators Whitehouse, Schumer, Durbin, Blumenthal, Boxer, Reed, Menendez, Gillibrand, Murphy, Warren, and Markey. All of you are champions for stronger gun safety laws.

The terrorist attack in Paris should be a wake-up call for everyone.

This sort of terrorist attack is very possible here in the United States, and the ability for known and suspected terrorists to buy guns and explosives makes it even more likely.

Congress should close this loophole in our background check system and ensure that known and suspected terrorists can't easily gain access to these weapons.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to address what I believe is a national security and public safety weakness.

The United States currently has a system in place to keep known or suspected terrorists off of airplanes. But even though they can't fly, these very same terrorists can walk into any gun store anywhere in the country and purchase a firearm.

If a terrorist is too dangerous to board an airplane, that same individual is too dangerous to possess a gun.

That's why we are introducing the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill to fix this glaring loophole in our background check system.

This is not a hypothetical issue.

Individuals with links to terrorism regularly purchase guns in the United States.

According to data just received from the Government Accountability Office, between February 2004 and December 2014, there were at least 2,233 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist--individuals who at the time were on federal terrorist watch lists--tried to buy a firearm or obtain a firearm or explosives license or permit.

In 91 percent of these cases, a total of 2,043 separate occasions, those known or suspected terrorists successfully passed a background check.

The Kouachi brothers, the terrorists who killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, are reportedly on the U.S. no fly list.

However, if they had made it to the United States, the fact that they were on terrorist watch lists would have done nothing to prevent them from legally buying firearms or explosives.

One of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was reportedly placed on two terrorist watch lists in 2011.

He later killed three and injured 170 with homemade explosives and killed a police officer with a handgun.

In 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed one and critically injured another.

According to press reports, Muhammad had been under investigation by the FBI for suspected links to terrorism after traveling to Yemen, where he was arrested for using a Somali passport. Those actions certainly would have placed him on terrorist watch lists, but would not have kept him from buying firearms.

The bill that we are introducing today is very simple.

It would close this dangerous loophole by giving the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from buying explosives or a gun if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism.

It would also give the Attorney General discretion to prevent someone from obtaining a license to sell guns or explosives if that individual is a known or suspected terrorist and may use the firearm in connection with terrorism.

The Attorney General could use a range of tools to make this decision, most notable terrorist watch lists and the no fly list.

In addition to making the decision at the discretion of the Attorney General, the bill includes other safeguards to make sure innocent individuals are not denied the ability to buy firearms or explosives.

The first safeguard is that very high standards already exist for an individual to be designated as a known or suspected terrorist.

The FBI or the National Counterterrorism Center must nominate the individual to be included in the Terrorist Screening Database.

There must be sufficient identifying data about the person to ensure they can be accurately matched with the terrorist on the watch list.

The circumstances must meet the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard. This means the facts of the case must be strong enough to reasonably determine the person is known or suspected to be engaged in terrorism.

The second safeguard is that every provision in current law allowing individuals to appeal the denial of a firearm or explosive purchase will also apply to this bill.

The office within the FBI that handles the background check system, known as the NICS Section, or the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section, must provide the reason for denial upon request.

Individuals then have the right to correct any inaccurate records in the background check system. If a purchase is still denied, individuals can take the Justice Department to court to overturn the decision.

Gun safety safety bills are often labeled as Democratic bills. That is not the case here.

This bill was first proposed by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush, who recognized that keeping guns away from terrorists is good policy.

Attorney General Holder has also testified that the Justice Department under President Obama continues to support this proposal.

The bill has also been endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety. This group represents more than 1,000 current and former mayors, both Republican and Democrat.

The legislation has also been endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

I would also like to thank the bill's cosponsors: Senators Whitehouse, Schumer, Durbin, Blumenthal, Boxer, Reed, Menendez, Gillibrand, Murphy, Warren, and Markey. All of you are champions for stronger gun safety laws.

The terrorist attack in Paris should be a wake-up call for everyone.

This sort of terrorist attack is very possible here in the United States, and the ability for known and suspected terrorists to buy guns and explosives makes it even more likely.

Congress should close this loophole in our background check system and ensure that known and suspected terrorists can't easily gain access to these weapons.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I support Dr. Ashton B. Carter to be our next Secretary of Defense.

I have known Dr. Carter for many years, both inside government and out, and especially as members of the Aspen Strategy Group. I have found Dr. Carter to be deeply thoughtful and extraordinarily competent. I am confident he will serve with distinction as our next Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

It is vital to swiftly confirm Dr. Carter because we face countless threats around the world, many of which know no simple resolution. On all these national security issues, I strongly believe we need someone in charge who brings leadership, experience, intellect and a strategic lens. Dr. Carter possesses all of these things, and I fully expect he will put his expertise and counsel to good use in tackling our Nation's pressing challenges.

First and foremost, Dr. Carter will need to lead the Pentagon in confronting and ultimately defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL.

ISIL is an unconscionably evil terrorist organization. Its barbarity knows no bounds. ISIL has burned alive Jordanian Capt. Moath al- Kasasbeh, beheaded American journalists and aid workers, and inflicts daily savagery on the people of Syria and Iraq, including the murder of civilians, women, children, and minorities. To marshal international support to sustain the global coalition and ensure ISIL is ultimately eliminated, I trust Dr. Carter to serve his country well.

At the same time, Dr. Carter will need to focus on our drawdown in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent, ISIL is attempting to establish itself in the country, and the Afghan National Security Forces need our continued support. In 2011, the United States fully withdrew from Iraq only to see that country fall apart due to sectarian violence and undue foreign influence. We cannot afford the same in Afghanistan.

I have discussed with Dr. Carter my view that our drawdown in Afghanistan should not be linked to an arbitrary timeline, but rather to the needs on the ground and the necessity of an orderly transition.

Dr. Carter's deep history with nuclear nonproliferation issues will also be important in the coming years. Unfortunately, many of our nonproliferation programs with Russia have gone dormant due to our worsening bilateral relationship. We cannot let this continue to happen.

For decades the United States and Russia have worked together to secure nuclear materials and reduce our nuclear arsenals because doing so is important not only for U.S. security, but for global security. Finding a way to work constructively with Russia on securing and eliminating nuclear material, despite its invasion of Ukraine and continued support for the Assad regime in Syria, is clearly a most difficult assignment. I think Dr. Carter is up to the task.

Finally, Dr. Carter will need to deal with the extremely difficult spending limitations created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. If Congress cannot come together to find a bipartisan solution to raise the spending caps, like we did for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, overall security spending will only be allowed to increase by $1.8 billion this year, that is a less than one-half of 1 percent increase.

At a time when threats to our Nation are increasing, not decreasing, I am deeply concerned that, under current law, our defense budget will not be allowed to rise to meet current threats. Dr. Carter understands this. In his confirmation hearing, he said, ``I very much hope that we can find a way together out of the wilderness of sequester.'' I fully agree, and I urge my colleagues to work together to increase the spending caps for both defense and non-defense programs.

Dr. Carter is a rare combination of a strategic foreign policy thinker and an expert on the roles and procedures of the Department of Defense. In his time as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, he focused on key national security issues like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and relationships with other major world powers.

In his two recent positions at the Pentagon--as Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and as the Deputy Secretary--Dr. Carter has managed the Department's business functions and ran its day-to-day operations. As Secretary, he will bring his unique experience in both sides of the job to the numerous challenges the Department and the Nation face.

Dr. Carter returns to the Defense Department at a time of immense global upheaval. Leading the Defense Department in such a time is no easy task, but I believe he will prove to be an excellent pick to help our country address these challenges head-on. He has the support of the President, the military, the civilian leadership of the Department, and by virtue of this vote, the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire- Damaged Home Rebuilding Act.

This legislation is simple. It allows families living in federally- designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is destroyed by a fire.

The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to block reconstruction after floods, but which have been applied to block reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as well.

I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from Sacramento, Jennifer Taylor. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood burned down, and she was denied when she applied for a permit to rebuild it. The county informed her that Federal floodplain regulations required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood.

Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the rest?

More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant, and would not be covered by her insurance. Instead, the cost would be imposed on a family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy.

When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one the family was willing to bear.

But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project would cost an additional $200,000.

Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their insurance.

There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake.

This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult time, the Federal Government is instead blocking them from rebuilding. Why? Because the Federal Government has failed to maintain adequate flood protection.

It just doesn't seem fair.

The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing local communities to grant variances to federal flood plain regulations without jeopardizing their participation in the program.

The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the following conditions are met: communities must already have taken steps to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future.

The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home.

The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed structure.

The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood Insurance Program.

These limitations will only allow families to rebuild very limited circumstances after tragedy strikes that is unrelated to a flooding event. The number of waivers local governments can approve is capped at ten per year so that this authority is not subject to abuse. This limit will ensure that waivers are used prudently and sparingly.

I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses to be constructed without adequate mitigation in an area where you know that flooding is likely.

The Federal floodplain regulations were put in place to block individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their homes. They were also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding after a flood. By doing so, the Federal Government limits its liability for future flood insurance claims.

Fire-damaged homes clearly represent an exception to these circumstances, however. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy.

City and county governments must be empowered to make case by case judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground level.

That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow them to do what makes sense for their communities and will allow families to rebuild after a fire or other non-flood disaster.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues will work to quickly adopt the bill.