John R. Curtis

Thank you, Senator Tillis, Senator Armstrong. It was a delight to travel with you. I think it is appropriate to point out how much work goes into a trip like this. To our team and our staff that put this together and to the Ukrainians that were our hosts, a big thank-you for the things we were able to see and do.

As you mentioned, this was a unique codel--the first, as I understand it, since the war began to actually go just a few miles away from the front.

We were told about stories where they would actually put a black bag over people's heads as they took them into these underground bunkers so they wouldn't be able to identify where they were later on for the Russians. They spared us that indignity and actually put us in vans with curtains that were 360 degrees as we drove into these facilities. We were then shown firsthand how this war is being fought and why this is a different war than most people expected and why the Ukrainians actually are having significant progress.

In reality, we saw drone pilots fly these drones into Russia, strike their targets, and have a pretty large impact. As a matter of fact, more Russians are being lost per month than they are able to replace.

My staff pointed out that had you put a snail on the Russian-Ukraine border the day the war started, it would actually make more progress than Russia has made. And I think that is an important story for us to come back and tell because the American people need to know this is not the war they thought it was 4 years ago.

Ukraine, we learned, is not the adversary we thought it was 4 years ago. It appeared, when this began, to be a very weak friend--a friend that was totally dependent on the United States for its support. In reality, what we found while we were there is that Ukraine is not only not weak and not dependent on the United States, they are actually now a partner with the United States in providing us things and help that will help us in the future. The benefits to the United States far exceed, in my opinion, what we have actually put into this. I think we will see that at a greater rate in the future.

Clearly, these drones have changed the way battles are fought. What Ukrainians are learning, the data they are collecting--imagine the data from

thousands and tens of thousands and millions of drone strikes. That data is all being collected, and that is just one of the small parts they have to bring forward to us.

I would also like to mention that one of the aspects that doesn't get talked a lot about is how much humanitarian aid is going to Ukraine that is nongovernmental.

While I was there, I had a chance to peel off from our group and go see a village called Hansen Village. A constituent in Utah, a friend, started Hansen Village. Obviously, it is Mr. Hansen. The amount of effort and work he has put into this so that some of these Ukrainians can start over and have hope and have a chance is overwhelming and touching.

I had a chance to talk to a couple of people in this village and hear their stories of imprisonment and torture by Russia. One gentleman had seen his son tortured to death. The stories will break your heart. But I am so grateful not just for the U.S. support but for the humanitarian support.

It just may be in Utah that we have more people who speak Ukrainian as a second language than anywhere else in the United States, and certainly it touches a lot of the hearts of Utahans.

There is a lot I would like to cover, but I don't want to dominate. Perhaps we can come back in just a minute. But I would like to turn the time over to my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Armstrong.

I will be brief because I want you to have the last word, but I came home convinced that we should continue finding ways to do four simple things: 1, help Ukraine to defend itself; 2, affirm NATO's resolve to use force against any threats or attacks on our members; 3, impose costs on Russia and those sustaining its war machine; and 4, one of the things we learned over there is that signals from the United

States matter. We need to send a signal and make it clear that, from Moscow to Beijing, invading your neighbors is not a successful strategy and we will push back.

I yield to Oklahoma.

Mr. President, my closing remarks are just simply this: When you make trips like this, you find out firsthand who your friends are and who they are not. And I will clearly say that Ukrainians are allies and friends, and Putin is not.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when Utah's pioneers first arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, they had almost nothing. They had no reservoirs, no pipelines, no pumps, no Federal grants, and no municipal bonds. Their most sophisticated earth-moving equipment ate hay. What they did have was a problem. There was not enough water where they needed it, so they moved it.

Even before Brigham Young entered the valley in July of 1847, members of the advance company diverted City Creek to soften the dry ground and irrigate crops. Within a year, thousands of acres were under irrigation. As settlements grew, Utahns did not simply accept the limits of the streams flowing conveniently past them. They built ditches and canals. They diverted mountain streams. They constructed the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal that stretched, roughly, 28 miles across the valley. Eventually, they developed water exchanges, providing farmers with water from Utah Lake and the Jordan River in exchange for higher quality canyon water that could serve a growing community.

There is something important in that history lesson for us today. These were people with picks, shovels, horses, and oxen. They had almost no capital; yet they were willing to undertake enormous projects because they understood that the limited water available to them at that moment did not have to define the territory's future. The pioneers were bold. They thought big.

We need some of that thinking again. Utah is growing. The West is getting more crowded. We are in a pattern of drought. The Colorado River is under extraordinary pressure, and the Great Salt Lake reminds us that every gallon has competing demands. Conservation has to be part of the answer. Agriculture needs to become increasingly efficient. Cities should reuse water and eliminate unnecessary consumption. We need to be better stewards of the water we already have. But I don't believe conservation alone is a long-term water strategy for a rapidly growing State.

We should also be asking: Where is the next water, and how do we get it?

I recently met with a group of experts who were working on water in the Great Salt Lake, and I challenged them to think like pioneers. What are the big ideas? What are the ideas that sound a little crazy today but that might not sound so crazy 50 years from now?

For purposes of the discussion, I asked them to temporarily take money and even engineering implementations off the table. Before telling me why something couldn't be done, I wanted to hear what might be possible. The list quickly became long. What about desalination plants? What about bringing water from wetter parts of the country? What about ground water beneath the Great Salt Lake? Can we recover water that is currently stranded from the lake? Can we reduce evaporation? Can we develop crops that produce more with less water? Can better forest management help more winter snow actually reach the ground? Some of these ideas may not work. Some will be too expensive. Others may fail because of engineering, environmental, or legal problems. That is fine, but we should know they don't work because we took them seriously enough to find out.

Utah has done big things before. The Central Utah Project moves Colorado River Basin water across the Wasatch Mountains through a remarkable system of reservoirs, tunnels, aqueducts, and pipelines. It took generations to conceive, finance, and build. Before that came the canals, and before the canals came a ditch from City Creek.

We have a tendency to look back at what the pioneers did and accomplished and romanticize it. We celebrate their courage, put their pictures in museums, and tell their stories every July. I wonder if one of the best ways to honor them is to simply think and act more like they did. Imagine telling a Utah pioneer that constructing a 28-mile canal with picks, shovels, and horse-drawn equipment was too ambitious. Imagine telling them the valley could support only as many people as the existing water streams happened to accommodate.

They looked at what Utah had and started building the Utah they wanted their children to inherit. Our challenge is different, but I think our responsibility is much the same. None of this means we should build every project someone can draw on a map. We need good engineering, honest accounting, environmental responsibility, and respect for our neighboring States. We should conserve aggressively before spending enormous amounts of money to create or transport additional water, but we should not assume that today's water supply is all Utah will ever have.

The answer probably isn't one enormous project but, more likely, a combination of conservation, agricultural efficiency, reuse, watershed restoration, desalination, better storage, new technology, and perhaps, someday, bringing additional water into the Colorado River system. And there are probably good ideas we haven't thought of yet.

Utah has an extraordinary collection of engineers, entrepreneurs, capital providers, universities, lawmakers, and technology companies. I would like to see more of us working on this problem. We need our best minds to help us figure out water. Most importantly, we need to think beyond the next legislative session or election cycle. Water projects can take decades. We ought to be thinking 50 and even 100 years ahead.

The pioneers who diverted City Creek in 1847 could not have imagined millions of people living along the Wasatch Front or a modern Utah economy built around technology, manufacturing, and innovation. Fortunately, they built more for Utah than they could see, and we should too.

Our ancestors came to one of the driest places in America and built thriving communities because they were willing to move water where it was needed. Nearly two centuries later, we have resources and technology they could not have even imagined. We could use a little more of their ambition and dreaming. When Utahns look back at us 100 years from now, I hope they will say that we didn't just manage the water problems we inherited but that we started building the solutions they need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, too, would like to give my colleagues a shout-out. Senator Padilla and Senator Merkley, thank you for being down here on the floor with me for this first UC of my Senate career. More importantly, thank you for your work on this bill.

And a shout-out to our colleagues. We share this commonality of Western State, and it is no secret that just as I speak today, Utah is in the midst of one of our worst fire seasons--over 1,200 fires over half a million acres in our State. And with these fires come devastating floods and other consequences. And every day the threat to our communities and our lands grows substantially more severe.

That is why it makes sense to not leave a critical tool like these controlled burns off the table. You both have described how well these prescribed burns help us channel and focus these forest fires. The data, as presented to me by the Forest Service, is clear: Wildfire prevention and containment are more successful in areas where prescribed burns took place. Yet States that proactively use prescribed burns can face regulatory consequences for the temporary emissions created by the very work that prevents far greater emissions in our environment.

Our bill, the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act, provides States with greater certainty by ensuring that prescribed fires and other wildfire mitigation activities can be treated as exceptional events under the Clean Air Act.

The people of Utah are not looking for an emissions loophole. They are looking to protect their families, communities, and land. This is about recognizing that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We have alluded to it today, all of us have. This bill passed through our Environment and Public Works Committee 19 to 0. This is exactly what people back home want us to do, to work up these bipartisan solutions. This reflects something I think we can all agree on: States should not be punished for taking responsible action to prevent catastrophic wildfires.

I appreciate our chairman and ranking member--once again, Senators Merkley, Padilla, also Senators Boozman, Kelly. Thank you for your work on this legislation.

I also urge my House colleagues to support WEPA and help us get this commonsense legislation across the finish line.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 620, S. 5045.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if Senator Van Hollen or his designee makes a motion to discharge S. Res. 852 from the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge at 7 p.m. today.