Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague and his comment about the courtesy for allowing him to go first. I think the Senator from Colorado was scheduled to go first, and we were just a little bit behind, so I was pleased to listen to my friend's comments about one of the provisions in this NDAA lands bill, and I thank him for those comments.

I also wish to acknowledge the comments of the Senator from Louisiana, our chairman of the Energy Committee. I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with her as the ranking member on the committee now for the past 6 to 8 months since she has held the chair. But even before that, I have had the honor and privilege of working with her on so many energy issues.

As the Senator from Louisiana was detailing the contents of this lands package that is contained within the NDAA bill, I was reminded of what a good partnership we have had working together on the committee. They are not exactly easy issues that come before us. They generate a level of controversy--certainly a level of debate and dialog--but there has always been good, civil debate and dialog as we try to work through some very difficult issues.

As Senator Landrieu leaves the Senate at the end of this Congress, I want her to know, as I stated in committee just this morning, how much I have appreciated the good work she has done, not only on energy issues, but the good work she has done on behalf of the people whom she represents in Louisiana.

If there is anybody who exemplifies the word ``tenacious,'' it is Mary Landrieu, and I think the people of her State have enjoyed the benefit of the very tenacious approach and how my friend and colleague takes care of those she represents. I thank the Senator for that.

I too wish to add my comments this evening in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, and more specifically, to the public lands package, which is title 30.

As Senator Landrieu detailed in greater specificity, what we have here is a collection of smaller bills related to public lands. Just because a bill is small and somewhat discreet in terms of its area of impact, it doesn't mean these are not issues that are critically important to the people of that State, critically important to that region.

With so many of these bills that are now part of this package, we have spent months--and in some cases we have spent years--developing, considering, refining, amending, and working through these packages. We have spent weeks negotiating which ones will actually be in the package that we have before us in title 30. We have now arrived at this point where we have a bipartisan and bicameral consensus in support of it.

What I wish to do with my time this evening is to explain how this package is fundamental to economic development in our Western States.

I also wish to lay out what this package is as well as what it isn't because I think there have been some misconceptions about what is contained in this. I also want to provide a little bit of insight into the process by which we crafted this and why it is now time for the Senate to do what the House has already done in passing it by a very overwhelming margin.

But before we get into the substance of some of these measures, I think the Senate needs to understand why we want this package, why we need to pass it now rather than waiting until the next Congress or perhaps the one after that or perhaps whenever we have a slow day around here. So I will proceed to the basics of some of this.

It is probably best described by just looking at the map. The dominant landowner in the United States is the Federal Government. The Federal Government, like it or not, owns roughly 640 million acres of land. That is more than one-quarter of our country that is held by the Federal Government. Ninety-three percent of these lands are clustered in just 12 Western States. So we can see here our Federal fault line. These 12 Western States are areas where less than 50 percent of the land is owned or held by the State and private interests. When we look at this divide, on this side, more than 95 percent is state-controlled land.

So we have a situation where in many of our Eastern States the Federal Government owns just a small fraction of the lands. But if we look to some of our Western States and we look at the extent of Federal ownership, this is where the picture comes into greater focus. In Wyoming, 42.3 percent of the State of Wyoming is held in Federal lands. In my State of Alaska, 69 percent of the State of Alaska is federally owned. Nevada walks away with No. 1, where over 80 percent of the State of Nevada is held by the Federal Government.

For folks back on the east coast, what does that mean? Let's say it presents some real difficulties for us in the West. Say we want a minor land conveyance--not a big deal. But if a person lives in a State such as New York with less than 1 percent of Federal lands, chances are that person can go see a real estate attorney and they can have a document drawn up, and they might even be able to draw it up in 1 day or maybe it takes a couple of days, but a person can complete a transaction without too much difficulty. If a person tries to do a conveyance in 1 of our 12 Western States, where 93 percent of the Federal lands are, it is a different story. Chances are a person will not have the same luck as they might in New York. Even if they are seeking the smallest of land conveyances, say 1 acre--just 1 acre is all we want to move from the Federal side to the State side, to a local side, to the private side--a person does not go see an attorney. A person needs to go talk to one of the four Federal land management agencies to get approval for their request, and they are not done there. Then a person needs to go see their Congressman and their Senator because they need Federal legislation to make it happen. It honestly takes an act of Congress. In the East, in places where land ownership is different than it is in the West, people can handle all of these conveyances. We can work through some of what we are seeing in this public lands package. We can do it through private transactions. But in the West, it takes an act of Congress for a land conveyance.

That is why we see hundreds of public lands bills introduced each Congress. It underscores why their passage is so critical to economic development and to job creation in our country. I have to admit, I am pleased the Senator from New Mexico is in the chair today, coming from a State such as New Mexico, which is at 41.77 percent. The Presiding Officer knows full well what we are talking about when we talk about the imperative of our communities that are asking for a little relief when it comes to a land conveyance, and the level it rises to is not the city council, it is not the mayor or the legislator or the Governor, it is a Congressman and Senator, and ultimately signed into law by the President of the United States.

So what are we actually looking at in this package? After truly months of negotiations, perhaps a few near-death experiences, and many temptations to walk away, we have agreed to a balanced, budget-neutral, revenue-neutral, bicameral, bipartisan package contained in title 30. These provisions that are contained here will create jobs. They will create thousands of American jobs. They will cut the redtape to energy production. They will boost American mineral production. They protect multiple use and public recreation. They convey Federal land for community development. They protect our treasured lands through measured conservation, and they provide new means for private dollars to support our national parks.

We have included a bipartisan provision to streamline oil and gas permitting on our Federal lands. It is supported by the Western Governors' Association. It cleared the Senate by unanimous consent before the elections. So think about that. So many things get tied up in the politics of elections, but this was so important to so many, on a bipartisan basis, on a regional basis, we moved it through the Senate by unanimous consent.

We have included a provision to address the backlog of the grazing permit renewals for our western ranchers to ease their burdens. Then there is another provision we have included that will help to hopefully protect the collapse of the timber industry in Southeastern Alaska with the conveyance to our Alaska Native peoples--a promise that has been 40 years--40 years--in achieving.

We have included a major priority for Arizona. This is an issue Senator Landrieu spoke to, an extensively negotiated land exchange led by Senator McCain and Senator Flake. I know Senator McCain has been working on this for a decade to find a way to responsibly open a copper deposit that could meet 25 percent of our country's needs while at the same time taking incredible care to protect and maintain access to cultural resources and traditional uses of those lands.

There is another provision that relates to Nevada which also facilitates development of a different copper mine. But now think about this. We are going to have an opportunity in Nevada and in Arizona to extract copper. Our military needs copper. The construction industry needs copper. The automotive industry needs copper. The renewable energy industry needs copper. There are so many benefits to be had here.

We have some provisions that are contained in this package that perhaps generate fewer headlines but are still hugely important for local communities. Probably the best example of

[Page: S6527]
this is a provision for a
school in Minnesota. This is a measure we have been working on with Senator Franken. But it facilitates a land exchange of just 1 acre--1 acre to a school in Minnesota--a single, lonely acre. We probably have people saying, So do we really have to pass a bill in order to make that happen? The simple answer is yes. That is why we are here. That is why we are including these provisions--so many provisions--in this very important bill.

I also want to mention what the package is not--what it does not do, what it does not contain, and some of the parade of horribles that certain groups have been saying that in fairness, they are not looking again to the balance we have achieved with this overall package.

We saw some rightful concerns emerge before this title was finalized. Everybody's ears always perk up when they hear ``public lands package,'' wondering what it is going to be. But we have seen some inaccurate criticisms emerge even after the release. It is one thing if they haven't seen what is in it. It is another thing to look at it and then be critical of it.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a balanced, revenue-neutral package. We have taken great care to make sure it is not all focused on new wilderness, new parks. In Western States, and particularly coming out of Alaska, we are just not going to have the support we need if it is all focused on wilderness and parks, so it is not. There is a conservation piece, absolutely, and it is a strong conservation piece, and I think it is a good, balanced one. But we also have the very important development piece that is critical to what is contained within.

To those who have spoken out against creating new national parks, given the maintenance backlogs that I think we recognize--it could be as high as $20 billion. I get it. I agree with Senator Coburn that we must address the backlog issues, the maintenance issues, and I thank him for the scrutiny he and his staff have given to this issue and the report they came out with. We are going to be working to address that in a manner that is constructive and long term. I want to reduce the backlogs, and we will do it.

Again, this has been judged to be revenue neutral. Through its passage, we could make progress on the backlog issue.

One provision that is contained in the bill that will help is the authorization of a National Park Service commemorative coin. There are 75 Senators who are cosponsors that will allow for additional funds to be raised. Senator Coburn has a measure in here that will allow for appropriate recognition of volunteers to our national parks. We have also tailored this package to include the wilderness provisions, but it is a discrete number. All of these have strong local and congressional support. We are looking at less than 250,000 acres in all, and actually from a practical perspective, far less than that. Most of these provisions were sponsored by a House Republican. Some have been endorsed by a Governor or a State legislature. With others, we are simply making it official. Nearly half of what would become wilderness is already managed as if it were wilderness. It is in wilderness study areas or it is in roadless area designation.

This is not a zero-sum game because we should be focused on the productive value of our public lands above all else. But for those who are kind of keeping score--is this acre per acre--I want to remind people that the package transfers almost 110,000 acres of Federal land into State or private hands through conveyances, exchanges, and sales. We are also releasing more than 26,000 acres of land from wilderness study back into multiple use. Examples of what those lands could be used for include building of transmission lines or motorized recreation.

I know some have raised issues about the various studies that are contained within the bill which, in my view, are more a matter of due diligence than anything else. Because a further act of Congress will be required before any new park, any new museum or wild or scenic designation can be established, and then we have the funding aspect of it as well. So, again, these are studies. This is not the creation of a new museum. This is not the creation of a new park. These are studies.

I think it is also important to reiterate that we have taken great care to protect private property. We have forbidden the use of eminent domain and the condemnation of private property. We have also set a positive precedent by eliminating the potential use of buffer zones around designated lands.

Again, I am going to say it one more time: This package is the result of bipartisan and bicameral negotiation, weeks of meetings amongst Members and staff of the committees of jurisdiction, the committees that have crafted the overall NDAA bill, leadership in both Chambers, and many individual Members.

For those who would suggest that this package was somehow hastily assembled, that this is some kind of rush to judgment, it is at the end of a very long and actually a very traditional process. We have considered, debated, and amended these provisions over the course of Congress using the committee process and the House and Senate floor when we could. Every bill within this package has been reviewed by the committees of jurisdiction. We are not hopscotching over anybody. At least 30 bills have passed the House and 7 have passed the Senate. Even though we haven't devoted time to a large package of individual bills, some of these provisions have been considered in multiple Congresses. You may look through the list, and they look like reruns. It is because we have tried, and the process didn't allow for full completion.

What we have with title 30 builds upon the lands and natural resource provisions that were included in the initial House-passed NDAA. These were provisions that were primarily the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's jurisdiction.

We have seen in the past the NDAA bill include public lands packages. It has happened enough times that the House leaders actually name the House Resources Committee as official conferees to it. But I think what is very important for us to remember about this lands package is that what we have done, this effort, has taken no time and no funding away from our military or our veterans, nor has its inclusion held the NDAA back for a single moment here.

I think we would all prefer a process where we could take the time to bring up Senator Bennet's bill on the floor and talk about it and have him tell us about all the magic of this region, but we haven't seen that in this body in far too long. I would prefer that process where all these bills could be considered individually on their own, but know that we have reviewed everything closely. This is a revenue neutral package. We found the right balance and reached bipartisan and bicameral agreement. We don't need to start over. We don't need to be working these same bills in a new Congress. We don't need to see a groundhog's day with so many of these measures that are small but are so important to these Western States. It is time to finish this. It is time to pass these reasonable measures. So I would encourage the Senate to support this package as part of the larger NDAA bill so that we can fulfill our responsibility to those in the Western States and those who have public lands that we are happy to have, but we also need to know we can have a level of responsiveness within our system to allow us to work those lands.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source