Floor Statements

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 National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 2:30 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. 398, to establish the Commission to Study the Potential

Creation of a National Women's History Museum, and for other

purposes;

S. 524, to amend the National Trails System Act to provide

for the study of the Pike National Historic Trail;

S. 618, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct

certain special resource studies;

S. 702, to designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers

Valley National Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley

National Heritage Corridor'';

S. 781, to modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park,

and for other purposes;

S. 782, to amend Public Law 101-377 to revise the

boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to

include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes;

S. 869, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National

Heritage Area, and for other purposes;

S. 925, to improve the Lower East Side Tenement National

Historic Site, and for other purposes;

S. 995, to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial

Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert

Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of

Columbia, and for other purposes;

S. 974, to provide for certain land conveyances in the

State of Nevada, and for other purposes;

S. 1044, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install

in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of

Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words

that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United

States on D-Day, June 6, 1944;

S. 1071, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make

improvements to support facilities for National Historic

Sites operated by the National Park Service, and for other

purposes;

S. 1138, to reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National

Heritage Area;

S. 1151, to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage

Partnership in the State of Iowa;

S. 1157, to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National

Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area,

the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area;

S. 1186, to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area;

S. 1252, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout

River in the State of Vermont, as components of the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System;

S. 1253, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon

Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other

purposes;

H.R. 674, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

study the suitability and feasibility of designating

prehistoric, historic,

and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park

System;

H.R. 885, to expand the boundary of the San Antonio

Missions National Historical Park, and for other purposes;

H.R. 1033 and S. 916, to authorize the acquisition and

protection of nationally significant battlefields and

associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812

under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and

H.R. 1158, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to

continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades

National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake

Chelan National Recreation Area.

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 David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

committee on rules and administration

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 Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.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. 37, to sustain the economic development and recreational

use of National Forest System land and other public land in

the State of Montana, to add certain land to the National

Wilderness Preservation System, to release certain wilderness

study areas, to designate new areas for recreation, and for

other purposes;

S. 343, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal

land in Clark County, Nevada,

for the environmental remediation and reclamation of the

Three Kids Mine Project Site, and for other purposes;

S. 364, to establish the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation

Management Area, to designate certain Federal land as

wilderness, and to improve the management of noxious weeds in

the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and for other purposes;

S. 404, to preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the

Glacier Peak Wilderness of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie

National Forest;

S. 753, to provide for national security benefits for White

Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss;

S. 1169, to withdraw and reserve certain public land in the

State of Montana for the Limestone Hills Training Area, and

for other purposes;

S. 1294, to designate as wilderness certain public land in

the Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, and

for other purposes;

S. 1300, to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of

2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result

contracting projects;

S. 1301, to provide for the restoration of forest

landscapes, protection of old growth forests, and management

of national forests in the eastside forests of the State of

Oregon;

S. 1309, to withdraw and reserve certain public land under

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for

military uses, and for other purposes;

H.R. 507, to provide for the conveyance of certain land

inholdings owned by the United States to the Pascua Yaqui

Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes;

H.R. 862, to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels

of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest

containing private improvements that were developed based

upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey

conducted in May 1960;

H.R. 876, to authorize the continued use of certain water

diversions located on National Forest System land in the

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-

Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other

purposes, and;

H.R. 993 and S. 507, to provide for the conveyance of

certain parcels of National Forest System land to the city of

Fruit Heights, Utah.

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 David Brooks (202) 224-9863, or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

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 the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 2:30 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. 398, to establish the Commission to Study the Potential

Creation of a National Women's History Museum, and for other

purposes;

S. 524, to amend the National Trails System Act to provide

for the study of the Pike National Historic Trail;

S. 618, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct

certain special resource studies;

S. 702, to designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers

Valley National Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley

National Heritage Corridor'';

S. 781, to modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park,

and for other purposes;

S. 782, to amend Public Law 101-377 to revise the

boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to

include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes;

S. 869, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National

Heritage Area, and for other purposes;

S. 925, to improve the Lower East Side Tenement National

Historic Site, and for other purposes;

S. 995, to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial

Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert

Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of

Columbia, and for other purposes;

S. 974, to provide for certain land conveyances in the

State of Nevada, and for other purposes;

S. 1044, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install

in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of

Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words

that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United

States on D-Day, June 6, 1944;

S. 1071, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make

improvements to support facilities for National Historic

Sites operated by the National Park Service, and for other

purposes;

S. 1138, to reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National

Heritage Area;

S. 1151, to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage

Partnership in the State of Iowa;

S. 1157, to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National

Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area,

the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area;

S. 1168, to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area;

S. 1252, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout

River in the State of Vermont, as components of the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System;

S. 1253, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon

Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other

purposes;

H.R. 674, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

study the suitability and feasibility of designating

prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of

the National Park System;

H.R. 885, to expand the boundary of the San Antonio

Missions National Historical Park, and for other purposes;

H.R. 1033 and S. 916, to authorize the acquisition and

protection of nationally significant battlefields and

associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812

under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and

H.R. 1158, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to

continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades

National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake

Chelan National Recreation Area.

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 David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

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 will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1240, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013.

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 Lauren_Goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571, Dave Berick at (202) 224-2209, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, today I would like to reintroduce an important piece of forest legislation for my home State of Oregon.

This is legislation that I introduced in the last two Congresses. The legislation gained the support of the administration through a number of improvements, but unfortunately it failed to get passed. I have since made a few more updates and improvements as I continue talking to stakeholders who worked with me on this legislation. I am introducing the bill today to reinvigorate the discussion and get stakeholders to finalize any outstanding issues so we can finally get this bill done this Congress. I am sending the message that restoring these forests in Oregon is an urgent priority that needs to get done an I am going to keep at it until this issue gets addressed

I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley has again joined me today in introducing this bill. He also recognizes the urgent needs to restore Oregon's forests and help forest dependent communities and I am glad he is part of this fight.

Oregon's historic war over its forests restyled in gridlock that led to millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease. The outcome of the decades of conflict is very evident in Eastern Oregon's forests.

That is why I introduced legislation in the last two Congresses to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests and why I reintroduce this legislation again today.

The legislation I first introduced in 2009 reflected an agreement reached by leaders on both sides of these difficult issues Intense negotiations resulted in that legislation with the goal of bringing jobs and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon. That agreement has already resulted in progress being made on forestry issues in Eastern Oregon. Already there is more collaboration, less gridlock, more timber harvests and forests gradually beginning to get restored.

But we can't stop there. Since the last Congress, discussions and negotiations with interested stakeholders have continued. Today's bill reflects some of those discussions as well as some of the real progress seen on the ground in Eastern Oregon, but it also preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth.

Eastern Oregon today is down to only a small handful of surviving timber mills. Yet those mills are urgently needed to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects. Without them, there will be no restoration of Oregon's Eastside forests. But without far greater certainty of merchantable timber supply, more mills will close.

That's why we not only need to introduce legislation today, we need to pass it this Congress. Because time is not on our side and at risk forests and mills won't wait forever for the perfect consensus.

Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that Oregon's forests will pay the price if more mills close. That recognition is what brought us to the landmark agreement in the first place.

I expect continued discussions as the Senate process advances over the best way to craft the bill to reflect current reality on the ground but I want to build on the progress that has been made to this point.

I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets. I will fight, along with Senator Merkley and other stakeholders, for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests.

I thank the stakeholders that have continued to spend time and energy engaged in discussions with me on the details of this legislation. I know there is further work ahead, and I look forward to working with them to get the legislation ready for passage.

I want to also express my gratitude to Governor Kitzhaber, who also understands the importance of advancing efforts to treat and restore Oregon's forests. He went to bat to putting state funding behind these efforts so I want to ensure that the Federal Government is also honoring its commitment to manage these Federal treasures and be a good neighbor to state and private lands. I appreciate his efforts and look forward to continuing to work with him.

I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation today, and I intend to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our Eastside forests. I want to continue to get input from stakeholders on any further revisions to the bill and get a final product that will pass this Congress.

Mr. President, today I would like to reintroduce an important piece of forest legislation for my home State of Oregon.

This is legislation that I introduced in the last two Congresses. The legislation gained the support of the administration through a number of improvements, but unfortunately it failed to get passed. I have since made a few more updates and improvements as I continue talking to stakeholders who worked with me on this legislation. I am introducing the bill today to reinvigorate the discussion and get stakeholders to finalize any outstanding issues so we can finally get this bill done this Congress. I am sending the message that restoring these forests in Oregon is an urgent priority that needs to get done an I am going to keep at it until this issue gets addressed

I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley has again joined me today in introducing this bill. He also recognizes the urgent needs to restore Oregon's forests and help forest dependent communities and I am glad he is part of this fight.

Oregon's historic war over its forests restyled in gridlock that led to millions of acres of Oregon's Federal forest landscape containing choked, overstocked stands that are at great risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic fires, insect infestations and disease. The outcome of the decades of conflict is very evident in Eastern Oregon's forests.

That is why I introduced legislation in the last two Congresses to tackle the challenges facing Oregon's Eastside forests and why I reintroduce this legislation again today.

The legislation I first introduced in 2009 reflected an agreement reached by leaders on both sides of these difficult issues Intense negotiations resulted in that legislation with the goal of bringing jobs and a healthier tomorrow to the 8.3 million acres on the 6 Federal forests in eastern and central Oregon. That agreement has already resulted in progress being made on forestry issues in Eastern Oregon. Already there is more collaboration, less gridlock, more timber harvests and forests gradually beginning to get restored.

But we can't stop there. Since the last Congress, discussions and negotiations with interested stakeholders have continued. Today's bill reflects some of those discussions as well as some of the real progress seen on the ground in Eastern Oregon, but it also preserves the core elements of the agreement that I crafted with the stakeholders to this agreement--a push to increase the timber produced from our national forests, landscape scale restoration efforts and protections for watersheds and old growth.

Eastern Oregon today is down to only a small handful of surviving timber mills. Yet those mills are urgently needed to process saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects. Without them, there will be no restoration of Oregon's Eastside forests. But without far greater certainty of merchantable timber supply, more mills will close.

That's why we not only need to introduce legislation today, we need to pass it this Congress. Because time is not on our side and at risk forests and mills won't wait forever for the perfect consensus.

Fortunately leaders on both sides of this issue recognize that Oregon's forests will pay the price if more mills close. That recognition is what brought us to the landmark agreement in the first place.

I expect continued discussions as the Senate process advances over the best way to craft the bill to reflect current reality on the ground but I want to build on the progress that has been made to this point.

I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage and restore these valuable Federal assets. I will fight, along with Senator Merkley and other stakeholders, for the funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our forests.

I thank the stakeholders that have continued to spend time and energy engaged in discussions with me on the details of this legislation. I know there is further work ahead, and I look forward to working with them to get the legislation ready for passage.

I want to also express my gratitude to Governor Kitzhaber, who also understands the importance of advancing efforts to treat and restore Oregon's forests. He went to bat to putting state funding behind these efforts so I want to ensure that the Federal Government is also honoring its commitment to manage these Federal treasures and be a good neighbor to state and private lands. I appreciate his efforts and look forward to continuing to work with him.

I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation today, and I intend to keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in good faith about restoring our Eastside forests. I want to continue to get input from stakeholders on any further revisions to the bill and get a final product that will pass this Congress.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 25, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider supplemental funding options to support the National Park Service's efforts to address deferred maintenance and operational needs.

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 John [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

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 the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the issues associated with aging water resource infrastructure in the United States.

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 Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 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. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 18, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the current state of clean energy finance in the United States and opportunities to facilitate greater investment in domestic clean energy technology development and deployment.

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 Kevin Rennert at (202) 224- 7826 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

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 will be held on Tuesday, July 23, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 1273, the FAIR Act of 2013.

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 Todd Wooten at (202) 224-3907 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to MG Raymond F. Rees, one of Oregon's most remarkable military leaders. After 51 years of service to our Nation and the State of Oregon, General Rees will retire from the

Oregon National Guard and the U.S. Army next week. I know I speak for Oregonians across the State in thanking him for his service.

General Rees hails from the small eastern Oregon town of Helix, which boasts a proud population of 184. He learned the importance of hard work at an early age, putting in long hours on the family ranch. After graduating from West Point in 1966, he completed airborne and Ranger training, preparing himself for a tour in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division. Upon leaving the active Army, he joined the Oregon National Guard where he commanded at every level, serving both within the State and across the country.

Those who know him were not surprised that General Rees held a number of impressive titles over his long and distinguished career. He served as the director of the Army National Guard, the vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, and as the acting chief of the entire National Guard. He also served as the chief of staff for U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado. This month, he steps down as Oregon's Adjutant General, a job he held twice before. In fact, General Rees is the longest serving Adjutant General in the United States, with over 17 years of service to four different Oregon Governors.

General Rees has always been a champion of the Guard, both locally and nationally. Policy decisions he helped shape in the early 1990s enabled the National Guard to better respond after the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001. Under his leadership, the Oregon Guard deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. And Oregon units were able to respond rapidly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, sending nearly 2,000 servicemembers within 72 hours.

Nobody worked harder to strengthen the synergy between the Guard and communities across our State than General Rees, or to make sure that our returning men and women receive the vital services they earned. He helped establish the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, providing critical, sustaining support for Guardsmen and their families before, during, and after deployments. He led modernization efforts across Oregon, providing Guardsmen with the best equipment and facilities. He opened or improved projects across the State, including readiness centers in Pendleton, La Grande, Hermiston, Klamath Falls, Ontario, The Dalles, St. Helens, Clackamas, Gresham, Dallas and Salem. He was instrumental in helping us sign a new lease for the Portland Air National Guard Base, allowing the Air Guard to train and keep the skies safe along the west coast.

Building bridges between the Guard and foreign militaries is another legacy that General Rees will leave behind, and the Guard's State Partnership Program enjoyed no stronger supporter. Under this initiative, State Guard folks are partnering with more than 60 nations to improve regional and cultural awareness, increase security cooperation, and help prevent threats from emerging. I am proud to say that under General Rees' leadership, Oregon has become one of the few States to partner with two countries simultaneously: Bangladesh and Vietnam.

I could go on and on about the contributions General Rees made on behalf of servicemembers, their families, our citizens, and the State of Oregon. So today I want to join folks across the State and the country to stand and offer our congratulations to General Rees on his distinguished career. Whether as a cavalry troop commander, a cobra gunship pilot, or the Adjutant General of the Oregon National Guard, General Rees always shouldered more than his share of the task. We will miss this dedicated soldier, talented leader, and gifted diplomat--but his is a retirement well earned. I commend General Rees for his service to our country, and I want thank his wife, Mary Len, for her tireless support along the way. After decades of service, I wish Major General Rees a long and relaxing retirement. Well done!

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 will be held on Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider S. 1237, the Omnibus Territories Act.

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 danielle_deraney@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Isaiah Akin at (202) 224-5360 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

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 will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to explore how U.S. gasoline and fuel prices are being affected by the current boom in domestic oil production and the restructuring of the U.S. refining industry and distribution system.

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 Lauren_Goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Dave Berick at (202) 224-2209 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 Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study.

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 John_Assini@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Palau, one of our closest and most reliable allies. This legislation, if enacted, would implement the recommendations of the 15- year review called for under the Compact of Free Association between our two nations.

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be holding a hearing on insular issues on Thursday, July 11, and it is my intention to add this bill to the agenda for that hearing.

Palau is located in the western Pacific about 800 miles south of Guam and 500 miles east of the Philippines. The close ties between the U.S. and Palau date from World War II, when Japanese forces were defeated in the Battle of Peleliu with a loss of nearly 2,000 U.S. marines. In 1947, the islands became a District in the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The United States was appointed Administrating Authority of the Trust Territory with the responsibility to promote economic and political development. Because of the United States' strategic interest in this region, the Trust Territory was established as the only U.N. ``Strategic'' Trust under the authority of the U.N. Security Council, as opposed to the U.N. General Assembly.

In 1982, Palau signed a 50-year Compact of Free Association that was approved by the U.S. in 1986, P.L. 99-658. The Compact went into effect on October 1, 1994, and the U.N. Trusteeship was subsequently terminated, making Palau a sovereign, self-governing state in free association with the United States. The Compact provides the U.S. with the ability to deny the use of Palauan territory to the military forces of other nations, and to establish military bases in Palau, should the need arise. These security provisions are described by the administration as ``vital'' to U.S. regional security and diplomatic interests.

The U.S. and Palau completed a formal review of the Compact in 2010 and, on September 10, 2010, signed an agreement with amendments to the Compact based on the conclusions and recommendation of the review. The bill

being introduced today would approve this agreement and its appendices and incorporate them into the law which established the Compact.

First, the legislation would extend and phase-out annual financial assistance over 11 years, through 2024, for operations, construction, maintenance and trust fund contributions totaling $165 million, or an average of $15 million annually. Second, the legislation significantly enhances accountability of U.S. financial assistance by requiring Palau to undertake financial and management reforms. Third, the bill would require any Palauan entering the U.S. to have a Palau passport. This would be the same requirement that was imposed on citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands when their Compacts were reviewed and amended in 2003.

This agreement and legislation reaffirms and strengthens the special ties between the U.S. and Palau. Together we will continue our commitment to regional security. The United States will continue to be responsible for the security and defense of Palau, and the U.S. is honored to have the continued service of the men and women of Palau in the U.S. armed services. Strategic denial and the associated base rights provided for under the Compact were originally designed to counter the Cold War threat in the Pacific. While the Cold War has ended, the U.S. continues to face new challenges in the region.

I look forward to working with officials in the administration and in Palau who conducted the Compact Review and concluded this important agreement. I urge my colleagues to join with me in approving this agreement and assuring the continued strength of this historic partnership.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Palau, one of our closest and most reliable allies. This legislation, if enacted, would implement the recommendations of the 15- year review called for under the Compact of Free Association between our two nations.

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be holding a hearing on insular issues on Thursday, July 11, and it is my intention to add this bill to the agenda for that hearing.

Palau is located in the western Pacific about 800 miles south of Guam and 500 miles east of the Philippines. The close ties between the U.S. and Palau date from World War II, when Japanese forces were defeated in the Battle of Peleliu with a loss of nearly 2,000 U.S. marines. In 1947, the islands became a District in the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The United States was appointed Administrating Authority of the Trust Territory with the responsibility to promote economic and political development. Because of the United States' strategic interest in this region, the Trust Territory was established as the only U.N. ``Strategic'' Trust under the authority of the U.N. Security Council, as opposed to the U.N. General Assembly.

In 1982, Palau signed a 50-year Compact of Free Association that was approved by the U.S. in 1986, P.L. 99-658. The Compact went into effect on October 1, 1994, and the U.N. Trusteeship was subsequently terminated, making Palau a sovereign, self-governing state in free association with the United States. The Compact provides the U.S. with the ability to deny the use of Palauan territory to the military forces of other nations, and to establish military bases in Palau, should the need arise. These security provisions are described by the administration as ``vital'' to U.S. regional security and diplomatic interests.

The U.S. and Palau completed a formal review of the Compact in 2010 and, on September 10, 2010, signed an agreement with amendments to the Compact based on the conclusions and recommendation of the review. The bill

being introduced today would approve this agreement and its appendices and incorporate them into the law which established the Compact.

First, the legislation would extend and phase-out annual financial assistance over 11 years, through 2024, for operations, construction, maintenance and trust fund contributions totaling $165 million, or an average of $15 million annually. Second, the legislation significantly enhances accountability of U.S. financial assistance by requiring Palau to undertake financial and management reforms. Third, the bill would require any Palauan entering the U.S. to have a Palau passport. This would be the same requirement that was imposed on citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands when their Compacts were reviewed and amended in 2003.

This agreement and legislation reaffirms and strengthens the special ties between the U.S. and Palau. Together we will continue our commitment to regional security. The United States will continue to be responsible for the security and defense of Palau, and the U.S. is honored to have the continued service of the men and women of Palau in the U.S. armed services. Strategic denial and the associated base rights provided for under the Compact were originally designed to counter the Cold War threat in the Pacific. While the Cold War has ended, the U.S. continues to face new challenges in the region.

I look forward to working with officials in the administration and in Palau who conducted the Compact Review and concluded this important agreement. I urge my colleagues to join with me in approving this agreement and assuring the continued strength of this historic partnership.

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

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 will be held on Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the September 10, 2010 Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Palau and S. 1237, the Omnibus Territories Act.

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 Isaiah Akin at (202) 224-5360 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

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 the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, August 1, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the November 6, 2012 referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico and the Administration's response.

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 Allen Stayman at (202) 224- 7865 or Danielle Deraney at (202) 224-1219.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on oil in the transportation sector by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. Until very recently, our nation was dependent upon foreign, often unstable governments for its energy supply--particularly for the oil that fuels our transport--70 percent of which was imported from overseas. Now, recent advances in drilling technologies have uncovered abundant domestic energy resources and it is predicted that the U.S. will be a net oil and gas exporter in the near future. Today, we are introducing legislation that builds on our introduction of a similar bill last Congress which was approved by Committee, our continual work with a broad array of stakeholders and the feedback received during the series of natural gas forums held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Those forums served as a reminder of the great opportunity no one imagined we'd have even a few years ago, of being able to chart our own energy future rather than relying on other countries or single technologies to drive our economy forward.

While the natural gas forums served as a reminder, it is crucial that we don't just supplant reliance on oil for reliance on another single resource or technology. At the end of the day, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not choose which fuel is used where, or for what kinds of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers. This bill brings us closer to the day when conventional gas stations give way to the ``Fueling Station of the Future'' where consumers will have the option to choose between whichever fuel serves their needs.

Energy legislation, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, have instituted a number of programs at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to address the need to strengthen our energy security by replacing a significant portion of the oil Americans use for transportation with alternative fuels such as electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. However, these programs currently fail to provide workable solutions for many of the obstacles alternative fuels suppliers and alternative fuel vehicles manufacturers face when attempting to get their technologies to market.

Modifying these existing programs--and bolstering them with cohesive policies enshrined in law to make them more useful for potential applicants--will help our nation exploit our newfound abundant energy resources, target climate change by incentivizing more widespread use of cleaner transportation fuels, and create jobs by catalyzing new businesses in the diverse alternative fuel and alternative fuel vehicles sector.

Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than creating new ones.

First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers.

Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created in section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure.

The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States, local and tribal governments, public-private partnerships, and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill further provides worker training provisions to ensure our nation has a skilled workforce capable of making the goals of this bill a reality. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State, local, and tribal officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Our bill has broad support from industry groups and has been endorsed by the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, Natural Gas Vehicles for America, Global Automakers, the American Public Gas Association, Drive Oregon, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the Electric Drive Transportation Association. We ask our colleagues to stand with us in support of this bill.

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

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

Mr. President, today Senator Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on oil in the transportation sector by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. Until very recently, our nation was dependent upon foreign, often unstable governments for its energy supply--particularly for the oil that fuels our transport--70 percent of which was imported from overseas. Now, recent advances in drilling technologies have uncovered abundant domestic energy resources and it is predicted that the U.S. will be a net oil and gas exporter in the near future. Today, we are introducing legislation that builds on our introduction of a similar bill last Congress which was approved by Committee, our continual work with a broad array of stakeholders and the feedback received during the series of natural gas forums held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Those forums served as a reminder of the great opportunity no one imagined we'd have even a few years ago, of being able to chart our own energy future rather than relying on other countries or single technologies to drive our economy forward.

While the natural gas forums served as a reminder, it is crucial that we don't just supplant reliance on oil for reliance on another single resource or technology. At the end of the day, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not choose which fuel is used where, or for what kinds of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers. This bill brings us closer to the day when conventional gas stations give way to the ``Fueling Station of the Future'' where consumers will have the option to choose between whichever fuel serves their needs.

Energy legislation, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, have instituted a number of programs at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to address the need to strengthen our energy security by replacing a significant portion of the oil Americans use for transportation with alternative fuels such as electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. However, these programs currently fail to provide workable solutions for many of the obstacles alternative fuels suppliers and alternative fuel vehicles manufacturers face when attempting to get their technologies to market.

Modifying these existing programs--and bolstering them with cohesive policies enshrined in law to make them more useful for potential applicants--will help our nation exploit our newfound abundant energy resources, target climate change by incentivizing more widespread use of cleaner transportation fuels, and create jobs by catalyzing new businesses in the diverse alternative fuel and alternative fuel vehicles sector.

Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than creating new ones.

First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers.

Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created in section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure.

The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States, local and tribal governments, public-private partnerships, and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill further provides worker training provisions to ensure our nation has a skilled workforce capable of making the goals of this bill a reality. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State, local, and tribal officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Our bill has broad support from industry groups and has been endorsed by the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, Natural Gas Vehicles for America, Global Automakers, the American Public Gas Association, Drive Oregon, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the Electric Drive Transportation Association. We ask our colleagues to stand with us in support of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there certainly is a lot of discussion--and understandably so--about the fact that so often there really aren't bipartisan efforts here in the Senate on major issues. We can turn on practically any talk show in America, and the constant refrain is, they are just not working together down there. The Democrats and Republicans can't find common ground and in many instances aren't even trying.

The issue before the Senate right now shows that is certainly not the case. We all understand how important this immigration issue is. It is an economic issue. It is a justice issue. It affects scores and scores of communities across the country. And for many months now here in the Senate, four Democrats and four Republicans, hour after hour after hour, have sought to come together in a bipartisan way to tackle a major issue. I certainly don't support every single provision in the bill. I am sure that is the case for most Senators. But I think in terms of its large implications, this is an extraordinarily important effort.

The immigration system is broken. Our country knows it needs to be fixed. And what this shows is that we can find some common ground to really address principled bipartisanship--not just bipartisanship for the sake of patting ourselves on the back but bipartisanship in terms of actually showing

that the values important to both sides of the aisle can be addressed and at the same time the Senate can come together, work together, and pass a law and actually succeed in the business we are sent here to do, which is to pass legislation.

I particularly wish to commend three on our side of the aisle whom I have worked with on these and many other issues--Chairman Leahy, Senator Schumer, and, of course, our majority leader. They have constantly put the focus on trying to show that Senators will have a chance to be heard on this issue. We have had a lot of debate on it. They had literally scores and scores of amendments in the Judiciary Committee. We have had a lot of debate here on the floor of the Senate. Chairman Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Senator Reid have all indicated that Senators are going to have an extensive opportunity to be heard. But, yes, when there is a bipartisan bill produced by four Democratic leaders and four Republican leaders, those three have been resolute in saying that we are actually going to get it in front of the Senate, and I commend them for their very important work.

In addition to making it clear that I think bipartisanship is valuable, I wish to highlight for a moment three amendments that I hope that I will be able to make pending and that we will be able to get votes on. In particular, I am troubled by the fact that the bill as written waives our country's environmental laws in order to secure the border.

I am of the view that strengthening our immigration system should not come at the cost of throwing our environmental laws aside. These are bedrock principles with respect to protecting our environment, our public lands, and our natural resources. So I and seven other colleagues in the Senate have introduced an amendment that would strike several of the unnecessary provisions in the bill that thwart the rule of law and ensure, as we go forward with the very important security agenda in securing the border, that, as I have indicated, we don't do long-term damage to our environment that may take generations to recover from, if at all.

If we are talking about waiving the laws that protect our public resources--and I know the distinguished Presiding Officer cares a great deal about these issues--we ought to waive those laws only where there is compelling evidence that it is necessary, and even then it ought to be done in a narrow and targeted way.

So my first amendment I hope to be able to get pending and hope to be able to offer is amendment No. 1543. It would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, local landowners, and State and Indian tribes to determine if any negative impacts can be mitigated. This means that if in order to secure the border there is damage to important environmental concerns--private property, public lands, tribal lands--the Secretary could take action to reduce that damage. So if, for example, the wall along the border causes unintended flooding in a city, the Secretary would be able to look at measures such as new infrastructure, dikes, or drainage systems to prevent flooding. If a road has to be built through a wetland or the habitat of an endangered species, the Secretary would have the authority to restore wetlands or conserve habitat for that species elsewhere.

All I want understood is that the Department has testified--Secretary Napolitano has testified several times before the Congress, including recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, that the Department of Homeland Security does not need these blanket authorities to waive the environmental law. They have not requested blanket authority to waive the environmental law.

I think the Secretary's view in this regard speaks volumes to the need to carefully review what the legislation does so as to make sure, when we are talking about a matter of such enormous concern--and really also setting a precedent--that we think through how to ensure that we provide the security the American people want, and at the same time, if we are talking about waiving environmental laws, at least we provide the authority to the Department to mitigate the damages in doing that, particularly given the fact that the Department has not sought the authority in the first place. They didn't seek the authority in the first place, so let's at least give them the authority to mitigate the damages.

Another amendment I seek to offer is amendment No. 1544, which would simply sunset this provision to waive the environmental laws when what is called the second trigger in the legislation is met. There has been considerable interest in the committee with respect to sunset authority and provisions to do that in one additional area. We ought to make sure we sunset the provision to waive the environmental laws when the second trigger is met.

Finally, I hope to be able to offer amendment No. 1545, which creates a definition for ``physical tactical infrastructure'' in the waiver of all of the environmental laws. The amendment would define it as ``roads; vehicles and pedestrian fences; port of entry barriers; lights; bridges; and towers for technology and surveillance.''

So, again, what we are talking about is not getting rid of the waiver. I understand that isn't going to happen. But let's at least mitigate these damages that I think are very real threats, and let's set forward some unambiguous terms that relate to how this waiver is going to be used.

In my view these are amendments that improve the bill. They don't take away any of the authorities that are granted in this bill, but they are going to ensure that private property, public lands, and our environmental values are also going to be a priority while allowing the border to be secured as quickly as possible.

So in wrapping up, let me say again for all those who may be following this debate and who have been skeptical about whether there was enough good will to do anything bipartisan here, I think the Senate, in a bipartisan way, with a pretty significant vote next week-- I will not join the parlor debates of speculating about how many Senators will vote for the bill, but I believe it is going to be a very substantial majority. It will, in fact, be a bipartisan law that is passed, that responds to a significant issue, not just some kind of issue du jour that may have come up in the last few days and all of a sudden a few Senators get interested and come to the floor. This is a major, substantive issue. It has gone on and on. It has been tackled in a bipartisan way. Initially, eight Senators were willing to stick their necks out and take a fair amount of flak, as invariably happens when trying to work on a partisan issue in a bipartisan way.

Again, it is also important to acknowledge, particularly on our side of the aisle, Chairman Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Leader Reid, who have tirelessly focused on trying to make sure Senators have a chance to be heard, and have done so, and I commend them for that effort.

I will conclude today by saying I think the three amendments I seek to make pending and get votes on will deal with another important issue. The bill as written waives the environmental laws in order to secure the border, and I and a number of other Senators would like, at a minimum, to make sure the Department of Homeland Security has the legal authority to mitigate the damage associated with that waiver wherever possible. We think it is particularly important that those provisions that would mitigate the damages be allowed since the Secretary has actually testified she does not need those authorities in the first place.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.