Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to associate myself with the comment of my friend from Montana and affirm that I too share the commitments he described. These payments extend a vital lifeline to counties across America, many of which are perched on the edge of financial disaster. Securing that funding has been a top priority for me this Congress. I am pleased that Congress found a way to continue its commitment to the Secure Rural Schools Program thanks to the helium bill that I worked on with colleagues in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. There is still work to do for the 1,850 PILT- eligible counties, and I look forward to working with the majority leader and Chairman Baucus--who are both longtime champions of PILT-- and other supportive colleagues to find a short-term extension and also a long-term solution for these communities.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend my colleague from New York for a very fine statement. He and I sit next to each other on the Finance Committee, and we are going to be working very closely together on these issues.

I have long felt that the best choice in terms of looking at these tax issues is comprehensive tax reform. The reality is the Tax Code in America is a dysfunctional mess. It is 100 years old at this point. I think it is pretty fair to say it looks its age every year.

When it comes to energy--and clearly a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle have done a lot of work on this--my preference would be Congress would simplify the various energy provisions, replace the dozens of separate incentives for each energy technology with fewer technology-neutral, performance-based incentives that bring us to a more level playing field in the energy area--a more level playing field, and one where there would be certainty for those who are going to do the innovation--those in New Jersey, Oregon, and elsewhere, who have those kinds of breakthrough innovative ideas and who are telling us that they badly need to get off this roller coaster of extenders and have some real predictability for the important innovative work that needs to be done.

Those kinds of incentives should take into account important policy goals of domestic energy security and reducing this country's carbon footprint, while getting the Tax Code more out of the way and letting the free market decide which technologies break through and ultimately succeed. It is my view that what Chairman Baucus released yesterday-- and he consulted with us extensively--certainly has some promising ideas in that regard.

With respect to where this debate is now, I think it is important to be clear about the challenge. It looks more and more like the other body has in effect decided to, if not slow walk tax reform, certainly take its time. Last month the news in Washington was full of headlines about various discussions among the House leaders. You got the sense--I will let them speak for themselves--on tax reform issues they apparently were going to take their foot off the gas. It does not seem the other body is poised to move forward any time soon on comprehensive tax reform. Because there is little indication the other body is going to move on this, my view is letting the incentives for the renewable energy resources--in particular solar and wind and other renewables and energy efficiency--in effect get thrown overboard, in effect sacrificed on this altar of inaction, would be a huge mistake. If we do that, we are talking about putting at risk thousands and thousands of American jobs in industries that are critical to our country's energy, environmental and economic security.

My view is that having these employers and having these innovative, cutting-edge technologies fall off the cliff would be a mistake. That is why it is critical Congress address and extend these key energy tax benefits as soon as possible.

Until the Congress takes the prudent step of broad-based reform of our tax system, the American people should not be left hanging. We ought to minimize the roller coaster of uncertainty that has been a drag on growth in recent years. Passing the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 and extending these important expiring provisions delivers a measure of confidence and continuity, and it builds a bridge between the current tax system and where all Members of Congress ought to hope we end up; that is, with a modern, progrowth Tax Code, worthy of the American economy and ready for the 21st century.

I have been interested in the subject for a number of years. I can briefly recount some of the history. Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, and I introduced the first comprehensive reform effort when he was still in the other body. We were not even able to get a Republican to join us in that effort.

Then Senator Judd Gregg, our former colleague from New Hampshire who sat across from me on a sofa every week for 2 years--and I were able to come together with a tax reform proposal, much of which I continue to believe is valid. Then our current colleague Senator Dan Coats was willing to work with myself and Senator Begich and others and he made important contributions. We very much need to have a modern progrowth, pro-entrepreneurial Tax Code that is up to the challenges of the 21st century. That is my first choice.

That is not what is in front of us today. Clearly, when the House made the decision to pull back for various reasons, we were faced with the question of whether we were just going to

sit by and, as a result of inaction, see these important renewable energy industries and the jobs they represent sacrificed. I hope the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, will say that is not acceptable and pass the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2013 to end the destructive cycle of underfunding wildfire prevention and then having to spend even greater amounts fighting wildfires than if our forests were properly managed.

For some time now, our country has witnessed tragic wildfire seasons that have put American lives and our treasured public lands in harm's way. Sadly, this year 19 firefighters lost their lives fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona. Due to climate change, drought, and other factors, the risks from these infernos are likely to increase in the future.

Federal fire suppression spending has increased substantially over the past 20 years. In the case of the Forest Service, the proportion of their budget devoted to wildland fire management has increased steadily from 13 percent of the total budget in 1991 to 41 percent of the budget in 2013. Most recent fire seasons have cost upwards of $1 billion, compared to $200 million in the 1990's. This leads to an unfortunate new reality: our Forest Service is turning into the Fire Service.

In 8 of the past 10 years, the Forest Service has exceeded its budget for wildfire suppression, requiring the agency to conduct what is known as ``fire borrowing'' to cover wildfire suppression costs. ``Fire robbery'' would be a more accurate term because in many cases, the borrowed funds are never repaid. These transfers are incredibly disruptive and are undermining the core mission of the Forest Service.

What is worse, in order to fund the costs of fighting these infernos, the agencies responsible for fighting fires are underfunding the very programs designed to prevent fires. The 2013 President's Budget Request included significant cuts to hazardous fuels treatments for both the Department of the Interior, 50 percent cut, and the Forest Service, 30 percent cut.

Studies confirm that hazardous fuels treatments are effective at reducing fire risk and lowering costs. For example, a recent study published by Northern Arizona University's Ecological Restoration Institute concluded that treatments ``. . . can reduce fire severity . . .'', and ``. . . successfully reduce fire risk to communities.''

It is clear that our Nation needs a new path forward on fire budgeting to make sure that there is adequate funding for fire prevention work. For much of 2013, I have been urging the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to help the Congress develop a new path forward through oversight hearings, letters, and numerous discussions.

Therefore, today I am introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to provide a better path forward on wildfire funding and fire prevention.

This bill will establish parity for wildfire funding to how the Federal Government funds other major natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. Specifically, the bill would move any spending above 70 percent of the 10-year rolling average for fire suppression outside of the agencies' baseline budget by making these additional costs eligible to be funded under a separate disaster account.

Based on Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture analysis, 1 percent of wildland fires represent 30 percent of costs, so in essence my legislation would be moving the true emergency fire events to be funded under disaster programs, and the routine wildland firefighting costs--would be funded through the normal budgeting and appropriations process.

Most importantly, this legislation would free up as much as $412 million in discretionary funding to fund hazardous fuels projects and make sure urgently needed work is done in the forests to prevent wildland fires.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator Crapo in introducing the bill today. This legislation also has the support of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. I look forward to working towards enactment of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act in the 113th Congress through any possible avenue. Together, the Congress and the Administration must work to guarantee that

our country has the necessary tools to both combat and prevent wildland fires.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2013 to end the destructive cycle of underfunding wildfire prevention and then having to spend even greater amounts fighting wildfires than if our forests were properly managed.

For some time now, our country has witnessed tragic wildfire seasons that have put American lives and our treasured public lands in harm's way. Sadly, this year 19 firefighters lost their lives fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona. Due to climate change, drought, and other factors, the risks from these infernos are likely to increase in the future.

Federal fire suppression spending has increased substantially over the past 20 years. In the case of the Forest Service, the proportion of their budget devoted to wildland fire management has increased steadily from 13 percent of the total budget in 1991 to 41 percent of the budget in 2013. Most recent fire seasons have cost upwards of $1 billion, compared to $200 million in the 1990's. This leads to an unfortunate new reality: our Forest Service is turning into the Fire Service.

In 8 of the past 10 years, the Forest Service has exceeded its budget for wildfire suppression, requiring the agency to conduct what is known as ``fire borrowing'' to cover wildfire suppression costs. ``Fire robbery'' would be a more accurate term because in many cases, the borrowed funds are never repaid. These transfers are incredibly disruptive and are undermining the core mission of the Forest Service.

What is worse, in order to fund the costs of fighting these infernos, the agencies responsible for fighting fires are underfunding the very programs designed to prevent fires. The 2013 President's Budget Request included significant cuts to hazardous fuels treatments for both the Department of the Interior, 50 percent cut, and the Forest Service, 30 percent cut.

Studies confirm that hazardous fuels treatments are effective at reducing fire risk and lowering costs. For example, a recent study published by Northern Arizona University's Ecological Restoration Institute concluded that treatments ``. . . can reduce fire severity . . .'', and ``. . . successfully reduce fire risk to communities.''

It is clear that our Nation needs a new path forward on fire budgeting to make sure that there is adequate funding for fire prevention work. For much of 2013, I have been urging the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to help the Congress develop a new path forward through oversight hearings, letters, and numerous discussions.

Therefore, today I am introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to provide a better path forward on wildfire funding and fire prevention.

This bill will establish parity for wildfire funding to how the Federal Government funds other major natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. Specifically, the bill would move any spending above 70 percent of the 10-year rolling average for fire suppression outside of the agencies' baseline budget by making these additional costs eligible to be funded under a separate disaster account.

Based on Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture analysis, 1 percent of wildland fires represent 30 percent of costs, so in essence my legislation would be moving the true emergency fire events to be funded under disaster programs, and the routine wildland firefighting costs--would be funded through the normal budgeting and appropriations process.

Most importantly, this legislation would free up as much as $412 million in discretionary funding to fund hazardous fuels projects and make sure urgently needed work is done in the forests to prevent wildland fires.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator Crapo in introducing the bill today. This legislation also has the support of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. I look forward to working towards enactment of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act in the 113th Congress through any possible avenue. Together, the Congress and the Administration must work to guarantee that

our country has the necessary tools to both combat and prevent wildland fires.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, December 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources on Thursday, December 12, 2013, at 9 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the nominations of Dr. Franklin M. Orr to be Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy, Mr. Jonathan Elkind, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy, International Affairs, Ms. Rhea S. Suh, to be Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, and Mr. Tommy P. Beaudreau, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Policy, Management and Budget.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting and hearing have been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, December 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider the nominations of Dr. Steven P. Croley, to be the General Counsel, Department of Energy, Mr. Christopher A. Smith, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy, Fossil Energy, and Ms. Esther P. Kia'aina to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Insular Areas.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, Mr. Neil G. Kornze, Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Dr. Marc A. Kastner, Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy, and Dr. Ellen D. Williams, Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Department of Energy.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Abigail [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to end the gridlock on the Oregon and California, O&C, lands and secure a new future. I recently unveiled my legislation in Oregon alongside Governor Kitzhaber, premier forest scientists, and a cross-section of supporters from timber, county, collaborative group and environmental interests. With the introduction of this bill, I look forward to working with supporters and interested parties, as well as the entire Oregon delegation, to end decades of uncertainty and broken forest policy with a science-driven solution.

The 2.1 million acres of O&C grant lands have a history known too well by Oregonians. After the Oregon and California Railroad violated the terms of its land grant, Congress revested the lands to federal ownership in 1916. In 1937, Congress directed how the Department of the Interior was to manage these lands and laid out a formula for distributing timber receipts to the 18 Oregon counties with O&C lands. The high logging harvests of the 1980s made way for the spotted owl timber wars, and today the lands are ground zero for the battle between those seeking to halt logging in the Northwest and those seeking to return to the unsustainable logging levels of a bygone era.

My bill ends the O&C gridlock by using science to guide management of the O&C lands while upholding bedrock federal environmental laws. This bill provides the jobs that Oregonians need, certainty of timber supply that timber companies require, and continued environmental protections that our treasures deserve. It is legislation that I believe can pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

The first step the bill takes is to divide the O&C lands--with roughly half set aside for forestry emphasis and the other half for conservation emphasis--to put a stop to the uncertainty and conflicting priorities that have contributed to Federal management failure on these lands and produce wins on both sides of the historic timber conflict. The forestry emphasis lands will employ proven forestry practices, known as ``ecological forestry,'' to mimic natural processes and create healthier, more diverse forests. Modeling using Bureau of Land Management analysis confirms that ecological forestry will roughly double the harvest on O&C lands compared to the last 10 years, meaning more jobs for rural Oregon.

On the conservation side, my bill protects nearly a million acres of land, while designating wilderness lands, wild and scenic rivers, and other special areas. It creates 87,000 acres of wilderness and 165 miles of wild and scenic rivers. In all, it will permanently conserve nearly a million acres of O&C lands, which would be the single biggest increase in Oregon's conservation lands in decades. That includes special areas protected for recreation, which is an increasingly important part of our rural economy, and is responsible for 141,000 jobs in Oregon alone. Perhaps the most important conservation win in the bill is the first-ever legislative protection for old growth trees and stands on O&C lands.

This strategy of dividing the lands into conservation and timber emphasis and protecting old growth takes the most controversial harvests off the table. Timber harvests and thinning projects must protect water quality, highly erodible land, wetlands, endangered or threatened species, and tribal cultural sites. Mills and timber companies that rely on federal forests will have new certainty of a sustainable yield from the harvested lands. This bill upholds the Endangered Species Act and other bedrock environmental laws while providing expedited procedures and strict timelines for legal and environmental reviews. Two large scale environmental impact statements--one each for moist and dry forests--will study 10 years of work in the woods, rather than a single project. Anyone with concerns will have a chance to sue over those studies, but once the environmental review is approved, any timber sale consistent with the 10-year study can go ahead, without triggering a new legal stumbling block or procedural boulder that brings everything to a stop.

Above all, forest policy should be dictated by science, not lawyers. The forestry principles used in this bill are based on the work of Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, two respected Northwest forestry scientists, and built off of forestry approaches used around the globe. The bill also establishes the first ever legislative protections for O&C streams thanks in large part to the work of one of the Northwest's foremost water resources experts, Dr. Gordon Reeves. The Northwest Forest Plan's stream protections are extended to key watersheds and four drinking water emphasis areas, with additional lands designated for conservation, to protect drinking water. Science also guides how the agency can treat trees near streams and a scientific committee will evaluate stream buffers and reserves in areas dedicated to timber harvests, increasing or decreasing the boundaries as needed to address the ecological importance of streams. This acknowledges that one size does not fit all.

The bill also creates new tools to reduce fire danger in the dry forests of Southern Oregon. In areas that have grown prone to catastrophic fires, this bill reduces tree density and provides new tools for treating forest lands near residences. For the first time, county governments will have the flexibility to reduce fire danger within a quarter mile of homes, and private landowners can more easily protect against fire within 100 feet of their own homes.

The O&C solution that I present today will indeed secure a new future for the O&C lands. Management will be based on science, not lawyers. Counties will be able to count on dependable forest revenues. Communities will have steady jobs, and mill's timber to process, in place of a struggle to survive. My bill certainly doesn't provide everything all sides want, but it can get everyone what they need. I look forward to working with Congressmen DeFazio, Walden and Schrader and our colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives to pass an O&C solution into law.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to end the gridlock on the Oregon and California, O&C, lands and secure a new future. I recently unveiled my legislation in Oregon alongside Governor Kitzhaber, premier forest scientists, and a cross-section of supporters from timber, county, collaborative group and environmental interests. With the introduction of this bill, I look forward to working with supporters and interested parties, as well as the entire Oregon delegation, to end decades of uncertainty and broken forest policy with a science-driven solution.

The 2.1 million acres of O&C grant lands have a history known too well by Oregonians. After the Oregon and California Railroad violated the terms of its land grant, Congress revested the lands to federal ownership in 1916. In 1937, Congress directed how the Department of the Interior was to manage these lands and laid out a formula for distributing timber receipts to the 18 Oregon counties with O&C lands. The high logging harvests of the 1980s made way for the spotted owl timber wars, and today the lands are ground zero for the battle between those seeking to halt logging in the Northwest and those seeking to return to the unsustainable logging levels of a bygone era.

My bill ends the O&C gridlock by using science to guide management of the O&C lands while upholding bedrock federal environmental laws. This bill provides the jobs that Oregonians need, certainty of timber supply that timber companies require, and continued environmental protections that our treasures deserve. It is legislation that I believe can pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

The first step the bill takes is to divide the O&C lands--with roughly half set aside for forestry emphasis and the other half for conservation emphasis--to put a stop to the uncertainty and conflicting priorities that have contributed to Federal management failure on these lands and produce wins on both sides of the historic timber conflict. The forestry emphasis lands will employ proven forestry practices, known as ``ecological forestry,'' to mimic natural processes and create healthier, more diverse forests. Modeling using Bureau of Land Management analysis confirms that ecological forestry will roughly double the harvest on O&C lands compared to the last 10 years, meaning more jobs for rural Oregon.

On the conservation side, my bill protects nearly a million acres of land, while designating wilderness lands, wild and scenic rivers, and other special areas. It creates 87,000 acres of wilderness and 165 miles of wild and scenic rivers. In all, it will permanently conserve nearly a million acres of O&C lands, which would be the single biggest increase in Oregon's conservation lands in decades. That includes special areas protected for recreation, which is an increasingly important part of our rural economy, and is responsible for 141,000 jobs in Oregon alone. Perhaps the most important conservation win in the bill is the first-ever legislative protection for old growth trees and stands on O&C lands.

This strategy of dividing the lands into conservation and timber emphasis and protecting old growth takes the most controversial harvests off the table. Timber harvests and thinning projects must protect water quality, highly erodible land, wetlands, endangered or threatened species, and tribal cultural sites. Mills and timber companies that rely on federal forests will have new certainty of a sustainable yield from the harvested lands. This bill upholds the Endangered Species Act and other bedrock environmental laws while providing expedited procedures and strict timelines for legal and environmental reviews. Two large scale environmental impact statements--one each for moist and dry forests--will study 10 years of work in the woods, rather than a single project. Anyone with concerns will have a chance to sue over those studies, but once the environmental review is approved, any timber sale consistent with the 10-year study can go ahead, without triggering a new legal stumbling block or procedural boulder that brings everything to a stop.

Above all, forest policy should be dictated by science, not lawyers. The forestry principles used in this bill are based on the work of Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, two respected Northwest forestry scientists, and built off of forestry approaches used around the globe. The bill also establishes the first ever legislative protections for O&C streams thanks in large part to the work of one of the Northwest's foremost water resources experts, Dr. Gordon Reeves. The Northwest Forest Plan's stream protections are extended to key watersheds and four drinking water emphasis areas, with additional lands designated for conservation, to protect drinking water. Science also guides how the agency can treat trees near streams and a scientific committee will evaluate stream buffers and reserves in areas dedicated to timber harvests, increasing or decreasing the boundaries as needed to address the ecological importance of streams. This acknowledges that one size does not fit all.

The bill also creates new tools to reduce fire danger in the dry forests of Southern Oregon. In areas that have grown prone to catastrophic fires, this bill reduces tree density and provides new tools for treating forest lands near residences. For the first time, county governments will have the flexibility to reduce fire danger within a quarter mile of homes, and private landowners can more easily protect against fire within 100 feet of their own homes.

The O&C solution that I present today will indeed secure a new future for the O&C lands. Management will be based on science, not lawyers. Counties will be able to count on dependable forest revenues. Communities will have steady jobs, and mill's timber to process, in place of a struggle to survive. My bill certainly doesn't provide everything all sides want, but it can get everyone what they need. I look forward to working with Congressmen DeFazio, Walden and Schrader and our colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives to pass an O&C solution into law.

Mr. President, today I rise to join Senator Merkley and cosponsor a bill that strikes a balance between the competing demands for a scarce resource, Crooked River water. The Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013 is the product of long and determined negotiations to find solutions that will benefit many interests in and around Prineville, Oregon. I was pleased to work to advance this bill last Congress, and I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, other colleagues, and all the supporters of the bill to achieve the many benefits of this bill for Central Oregon.

Oregon works best when Oregonians work together and this is an example of what can be done when faced with a very challenging set of issues. The City of Prineville needs water to grow economically. Irrigators along the Crooked River want certainty for future water supply. The local utility Portland General Electric would like to build a small hydroelectric plant on the Bureau of Reclamation's Bowman Dam. And the Warm Springs Tribes and conservation groups seek to ensure more water is available for in-stream flows to protect reintroduced salmon runs in the Crooked River.

Water in the West is often the heart of many contentious battles, but these parties and more worked tirelessly and in good faith to build a consensus to meet those many important needs. The bill allocates uncontracted water in Bowman Dam to give water to the City and for fish populations, while attaining certainty for the contracted water for irrigation. It also moves the Wild and Scenic River Act boundary to a place that makes sense and would enable hydroelectric generation. The bill more explicitly looks after the recreation interests enjoyed by flatwater users above the dam.

I express my gratitude for the many groups and individuals who have worked diligently to strike the balance on the Crooked River. I look forward to working with those groups, the Bureau of Reclamation, Congressman Greg Walden, and especially Senator Merkley, who has shown determined leadership in marshaling this bill, to move this bill through Congress and to the President's desk this Congress.

Mr. President, today I rise to join Senator Merkley and cosponsor a bill that strikes a balance between the competing demands for a scarce resource, Crooked River water. The Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013 is the product of long and determined negotiations to find solutions that will benefit many interests in and around Prineville, Oregon. I was pleased to work to advance this bill last Congress, and I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, other colleagues, and all the supporters of the bill to achieve the many benefits of this bill for Central Oregon.

Oregon works best when Oregonians work together and this is an example of what can be done when faced with a very challenging set of issues. The City of Prineville needs water to grow economically. Irrigators along the Crooked River want certainty for future water supply. The local utility Portland General Electric would like to build a small hydroelectric plant on the Bureau of Reclamation's Bowman Dam. And the Warm Springs Tribes and conservation groups seek to ensure more water is available for in-stream flows to protect reintroduced salmon runs in the Crooked River.

Water in the West is often the heart of many contentious battles, but these parties and more worked tirelessly and in good faith to build a consensus to meet those many important needs. The bill allocates uncontracted water in Bowman Dam to give water to the City and for fish populations, while attaining certainty for the contracted water for irrigation. It also moves the Wild and Scenic River Act boundary to a place that makes sense and would enable hydroelectric generation. The bill more explicitly looks after the recreation interests enjoyed by flatwater users above the dam.

I express my gratitude for the many groups and individuals who have worked diligently to strike the balance on the Crooked River. I look forward to working with those groups, the Bureau of Reclamation, Congressman Greg Walden, and especially Senator Merkley, who has shown determined leadership in marshaling this bill, to move this bill through Congress and to the President's desk this Congress.

Madam President, before he yields the floor, I wish to commend my colleague from Connecticut in terms particularly--and I am going to go into some of the history with respect to this so-called zero tolerance policy because I think when we look back over history, there is a very big gap between the past pledges of zero tolerance for sexual assault and the realities of what we have seen. That is one of the key points the Senator from Connecticut has made, among many others. I thank him for it. It was a very valuable presentation.

I also commend the Presiding Officer for her extraordinary work. Again and again, she has outlined what I think is very constructive; that is, the areas where there is common ground here, common ground to try to address an issue that I just went through with Senator Blumenthal. We have heard past pledges about it, and it has not really come to be. The Presiding Officer has done very fine work. Senator Gillibrand, Senator McCaskill, Senator Ayotte, I know the best, but a whole host of Senators have been interested in this issue. I also see my friend from Rhode Island Senator Reed. He and Senator Levin have been very interested in this issue over the years. So there has been plenty of good work. I think the question now really is: How are we going to make a fundamental break from policies that over the last couple of decades simply have not worked?

Go back to the Tailhook scandal. That was in 1991. Over the course of a 4-day conference in Las Vegas, more than 100 Naval and Marine Corps aviation officers sexually assaulted 90 victims. We watched the Secretary of the Navy resign after Tailhook. His replacement said that ``sexual harassment will not be tolerated'' and that ``those who do not get the message will be driven from our ranks.''

Then there was the Aberdeen debacle 5 years later. Five years after we were told this would not be tolerated, 5 years later, we had the Aberdeen debacle. Army Secretary Togo West delivered remarks to the Senate Armed Services Committee titled ``There's a Problem, And We Mean To Fix It.''

Once again, years go by, and we have another such problem. That was the 2003 scandal at the Air Force Academy where 19 percent of women cadets reported having been sexually assaulted and 7 percent reported having been the victim of a rape or attempted rape. The Air Force Secretary told Congress, ``We will not tolerate in our Air Force, nor in our Academy, those who sexually assault others; those who would fail to act to prevent assaults.''

So, again, we heard--and certainly I am not here to doubt the sincerity of those who made those comments, but yet the pattern continues. We have a horrible set of sexual assaults, not just one but multiple ones. We have these pledges for zero tolerance. Yet we have one event after another. After the 2003 scandal, there were again the pledges of zero tolerance. We had the Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland scandal where some 30 training instructors were accused of offenses ranging from improper relationships with trainees to sexual assault and rape. In response, the Secretary of Defense said--as did many of his predecessors in the military--``the command structure from the chairman on down have made very clear to the leadership in this department that this is intolerable and it has to be dealt with. We have absolutely no tolerance for any form of sexual assault.''

So the pattern through all of these instances is ``zero tolerance. We will fix this.'' These comments--as I say, I do not question the sincerity of those who made them. These were officials in the military who served their country with great distinction and great valor. But the bottom line is the bottom line: When they said there would be zero tolerance, somehow those policies did not actually work as it related to real life for those who wear the uniform of the United States.

Today the military officer in charge of sexual abuse education at Fort Hood is under investigation for running a prostitution ring. Two Navy football players await trial in a military court on charges of sexual assault. Today a West Point sergeant stands accused of secretly videotaping female cadets in the shower. So it seems to me that because of the good work of so many here--I cited the Presiding Officer; Senator Reed, who is managing the bill at this point; Senator Gillibrand; Senator McCaskill--I believe we are now in a position to finally make some significant changes and turn these past pledges of zero tolerance into a new reality that really ensures that those who wear the uniform of the United States do have a new measure of protection from sexual assault.

In effect, this is a new zero tolerance policy, a new policy that says: Zero tolerance for promises that go unfulfilled. Zero tolerance for a culture in which these assaults are treated as something less than the violent crimes they are. Zero tolerance for a system that continues to fail so many victims.

The Pentagon estimates that in 2012 some 26,000 servicemembers experienced sexual assault. Some, I know, have looked at this issue as sort of a glorified hazing matter, boys being boys, a discipline issue.

Senator Fischer, one of our colleagues who has come to the Senate most recently, has been correct to point out this is not a gender issue, this is a violence issue. It is a violence issue because sexual assault is called assault for a reason. It is assault. We are talking about a violent crime that involves control and domination.

I think it is also worth noting that somewhere in the vicinity of close to half of military assault victims are men. In fact, the Department of Defense estimates that 14,000 of those 26,000 victims last year were men.

Colleagues are waiting to speak, and I would simply wrap up by way of saying that I think the bill, the committee bill, takes some constructive steps in the right direction. I wish to see it go further. It is why I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues to support Senator Gillibrand's legislation that would remove the decision to prosecute from the chain of command and give it to experienced, impartial military lawyers.

Suffice it to say we are going to have to come to grips, colleagues, with this question of assault--and particularly sexual assault--in a variety of forums.

This is not the place to discuss it, but yesterday Senator Cornyn, I, and Senator Klobuchar introduced a fresh approach to dealing with sex trafficking,

which is also sexual assault. There will be an opportunity to discuss that bipartisan bill in the future.

This is the time. This is the time to close the gap between all of those unfulfilled promises about how there will be zero tolerance for sexual assault and a new reality that affords a new measure of protection from sexual assault for those who wear the uniform of the United States. This is the opportunity we have in the Senate today and the opportunity we have to achieve that goal in a bipartisan manner.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Udall for his exceptional leadership in our effort to put together a comprehensive bipartisan reform bill. I also thank the Presiding Officer from Connecticut because, as we all know, he has really been the ringleader in the effort to ensure that when there are major constitutional arguments put in front of the FISA Court, there is somebody there to make the case for the other side. So I am very pleased that, for purposes of this colloquy, when we discuss the transparency amendment we have filed today with Senator Mikulski, we have Senator Blumenthal in the Chair because he has been an integral part of the reform effort.

I also appreciate what the distinguished Senator from Colorado said about Chairman Leahy. We have had a real partnership with him in working on these issues for a long time. We were thrilled that Chairman Leahy went on our bill and we went on his bill because it illustrates the need to try to make common cause around these issues. And as the Senator from Colorado said, we are talking about bipartisan approaches that help promote reform agenda.

As the Senator from Colorado noted, it would be pretty hard to have a full debate on this legislation about surveillance reform. Suffice it to say that there are differing views here in the Senate with respect to surveillance. The Senator from Colorado and I support comprehensive overhaul, particularly as it relates to the collection of millions of phone records of law-abiding Americans, which has come to be known as metadata. So we have supported restrictions on that in order to protect law-abiding Americans who have had their privacy intruded upon.

But having sat right next to the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee for many years--on the Intelligence Committee, and I think my friend from Colorado sits on the other side--we have heard Senator Mikulski speak eloquently about the need for transparency and accountability. My view is that this is something that can bring together all Senators around what really is a jump-start to the later debates about intelligence reform.

Senator Udall and I, with the support of the chair of the Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski have put together an amendment and filed it today on this legislation which takes important steps forward with respect to transparency. The amendment we have offered would require the executive branch to answer some of the major unanswered questions about domestic surveillance authorities and would require that future court opinions which find that domestic surveillance activities have violated the law or the Constitution ought to be made public. They ought to be made public to the American people, and if there is some aspect that should be held back--what is called redaction--so be it. Under our proposal, the executive branch would have the authority again to make sure that no details about secret intelligence methods or operations were in any way divulged as part of this transparency effort.

While we feel strongly about protecting secret operations, we do not believe in secret law. The American people ought to always be able to find out what the government and government officials think the law actually means. To use a basketball analogy--and folks at home know I am always fond of those--parts of the playbook for combating terrorism will often need to be secret, but the rule book our government follows should always be public. So this amendment presents a chance for Senators who may have differing views about surveillance policy to rally together behind the cause of greater transparency.

I would note at this time that Senator Mikulski has filed an additional amendment that the Senator from Colorado and I have cosponsored. It would make the Director of the NSA a Senate-confirmed position. This is a reform Senator Mikulski has been advocating for years. I think this too allows us to have a more vigorous and more open debate about these issues.

The reality is that the thousands of Americans who work in the intelligence field honor our Nation day in and day out with their dedication and their commitment to the security of our country. But, as the Senator from Colorado has noted, too often in the past the leadership of the intelligence community has said one thing in private and another in public. If our amendment which we have put together with Senator Mikulski passes, there would be a new focus on transparency, and I think that would create some very serious obstacles to those who might want to engage in the kinds of deceptions that the Senator from Colorado noted and that we have seen in our hearings.

I yield back. And we will wrap up our colloquy shortly.

I thank my colleague. First, let me just mention in closing that this bill is directly relevant to work done at the Department of Defense, as the NSA is an integral part of the Department of Defense. In fact, this bill already contains half a dozen provisions that affect the NSA in one way or another, so it has been our view that this amendment is clearly germane to the bill.

It also directs the Comptroller General to conduct an assessment of the economic impact of recently disclosed surveillance programs. The fact is that surveillance policy does not just affect foreign relations--although clearly it does affect our foreign relations. We see practically every day accounts of how our allies are concerned about their relations with us because of questions with respect to whether the privacy of their citizens are affected.

When we are talking about allies, we are talking about partnerships we need to protect America in a dangerous world. Of course, at the same time we are talking about how in a fragile economy, some of America's leading companies, those on the cutting edge of our future--for example, with cloud technology that the distinguished Presiding Officer and I have talked about. This is an area where Americans have a big lead. We do not want to fritter it away, as we also suffer in terms of our national security, in terms of our relationships with allies. There are high stakes here. I am very hopeful we will have a chance to get a vote on this legislation.

As I say, with Senator Mikulski particularly, the role that she has played as chair of the Appropriations Committee, I think we have a chance to jump-start the broader debate about intelligence. We have a chance to set the record straight about some of the comments that the intelligence leadership has made in the past that are either wrong, misleading or kind of shrouded in intelligence-speak. This is almost incomprehensible lingo that we try to sort through in terms of what they have to say.

I am very hopeful the Senate will want to join Senator Udall, Senator Mikulski, myself--I know Senator Blumenthal and others are interested in it--in taking the next logical, commonsense approach in terms of intelligence reform; that is, to come out

foursquare for this approach, which I would like to state does not ban any collection tool at all that is now used by the government, but it does require that there be basic transparency and accountability in how they are used.

(Mr. HEINRICH assumed the Chair.)

That is long overdue. Let me have my friend and colleague from Colorado wrap up and express to him how much I appreciate it.

I note somehow the Presidency of the Senate seems to be passed from one supporter of intelligence reform to another, since the distinguished Senator from Connecticut was just there. We have just been joined by Senator Heinrich, who has been a very valuable partner in these efforts as well.

I thank him and allow the last word to be offered by the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public of an addition to a previously announced hearing before Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

In addition to the other measures previously announced, the Committee will also consider:

S. 339, to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of Federal and non-Federal land, and for other purposes;

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Meghan Conklin at (202) 224- 8046, or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The business meeting will be held on Thursday, November 21, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This business meeting will be held on Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, prior to the already scheduled nominations hearing.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending military land withdrawal bills.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing was previously scheduled for Thursday, October 10, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building; and will now be held on Thursday, November 7, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to consider the Draft Regional Recommendation regarding the Columbia River Treaty.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Dan Adamson at (202) 224- 2871, Cisco Minthorn at (202) 224-4756 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, November 14, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing to consider the nominations of Mr. Steven P. Croley to be the General Counsel of the Department of Energy, Christopher A. Smith to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy, Fossil Energy, and Ms. Esther P. Kia'aina to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, for Insular Areas.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 182, to provide for the unencumbering of title to non-

Federal land owned by the city of Anchorage, Alaska, for

purposes of economic development by conveyance of the Federal

reversion interest to the City;

S. 483, to designate the Berryessa Snow Mountain National

Conservation Area in the State of California, and for other

purposes;

S. 771, to provide to the Secretary of the Interior a

mechanism to cancel contracts for the sale of materials CA-

20139 and CA-22901, and for other purposes;

S. 776, to establish the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness in the

State of New Mexico, to provide for the conveyance of certain

parcels of National Forest System land in the State, and for

other purposes;

S. 841, to designate certain Federal land in the San Juan

National Forest in the State of Colorado as wilderness, and

for other purposes;

S. 1305, to provide for the conveyance of the Forest

Service Lake Hill Administrative Site in Summit County,

Colorado;

S. 1341, to modify the Forest Service Recreation Residence

Program as the program applies to units of the National

Forest System derived from the public domain by implementing

a simple, equitable, and predictable procedure for

determining cabin user fees, and for other purposes;

S. 1414, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal

land in the State of Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians;

S. 1415, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal

land in the State of Oregon to the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua

Tribe of Indians, and;

S. 1479, to address the forest health, public safety, and

wildlife habitat threat presented by the risk of wildfire,

including catastrophic wildfire, on National Forest System

land and public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management

by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary

of the Interior to expedite forest management projects

relating to hazardous fuels reduction, forest health, and

economic development, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact please contact Meghan Conklin (202) 224-8046, or John Assini (202) 224-9313.