Michael Bennet

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Daines amendment. While I respect the perspective of my colleague from Montana, this amendment does nothing to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If you really want to support LWCF, you ought to support the bipartisan Burr amendment which we will consider in a few minutes. Instead of actually solving the problem, the Daines measure creates more delay for delay's sake and says LWCF should be a priority but undermines the very notion by suggesting there is something wrong with the program. For once we have a program where there actually is nothing wrong with it. It has been one of our Nation's most successful conservation programs for 50 years, funding projects in every State and literally every single county in the United States. These are projects that range from creating new parks for inner city kids, to providing new access to sportsmen, to protecting the Nation's historic battlefields. We don't need to overhaul LWCF, we just need to reauthorize it and let the program's proven track record of success continue. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daines amendment before us now, but vote yes on the bipartisan Burr amendment to follow. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the Burr- Bennet amendment No. 92, which we are slated to vote on later today. I will be brief because it is pretty straightforward. The amendment simply reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund and ensures that a dedicated portion of LWCF funds go to provide new access for our Nation's sports men and women. As many in this body know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the country's best and most important conservation programs. It is authorized to provide $900 million annually for efforts to preserve and increase access to our public lands and waterways. These resources historically have been used for projects that range from building city parks, to purchasing small parcels of isolated land from willing sellers, all the way to preserving the Nation's historic battlefields. This past summer in Colorado, we completed a huge LWCF project that retired several old mining claims on the San Juan National Forest near the town of Ophir. Over the Fourth of July weekend, the town invited me and my family to join them in a celebration of the accomplishment, and we took them up on that offer without a moment's hesitation. Ophir sits at 9,600 feet above sea level. It is the kind of place that has a sign on its main road--clearly painted by the kids who live in the town--indicating that their population totals 163 people, including, according to the sign, 55 kids, 30 dogs, and 15 cats. When we pulled in on the morning of the celebration, it seemed to me that the entire town was there. Over the course of that day--which included a hike, a picnic, and a formal program--it was amazing to hear from the community about the importance of this LWCF project and how many years so many people in the town devoted themselves to getting it done. Many of our mountain communities get huge portions of their revenue and business through recreation and tourism, and it is for some of these reasons that the town felt LWCF literally helped cement its economic future. I was an LWCF supporter before that visit, but that day really drove home the value of the program to me. That is only one of countless stories from Colorado. I know it can be replicated thousands of times across the country in all 50 States. Those stories and accomplishments alone make this amendment worth supporting. Let's also remember that when we are talking about LWCF, we are not talking about taxpayer dollars. When Congress crafted the measure back in 1965, they had a very innovative solution for how to pay for their concept. Instead of using taxpayer dollars from the Treasury, they decided to dedicate a portion of the revenue the government collects from offshore oil drilling to fund LWCF. This argument was very simple and elegant. As we deplete our natural resources--offshore reserves of oil and gas in this case--we ought to support the conservation of another natural resource: our lands and waterways. As I mentioned, Congress passed a law in 1965, and now it is time to reauthorize it. I thank Senator Burr, who has shown great leadership in crafting the amendment to do just that. This amendment is thoroughly bipartisan and enjoys cosponsors such as Senator Ayotte, Senator Alexander, and Senator Tillis, just to name a few. In fact, I am told there are 246 amendments that have been filed on this bill, and not one amendment has the number of cosponsors that this amendment does. This amendment has more cosponsors than any of the remaining 245 amendments. Before I close and urge my colleagues to vote yes, I want to paraphrase something I said on the floor last week about another amendment. Conservation policies such as LWCF are important to the American people. Protecting our land and water is mom-and-apple-pie stuff in Colorado, and I know our State is not the only one. Conserved lands and wide-open spaces are a huge economic driver across our country, and it is part of who we are in the West. We are not only talking about backcountry parcels, such as the one I visited in Ophir, we are talking about building new parks in inner cities and providing new access to hunters and anglers. The LWCF does all of these things and more. I say to my colleagues, if you are for city kids getting a new playground or making sure we protect gold medal trout streams or any number of benefits in between, then you need to be for amendment No. 92 from Senator Burr. I urge all of my colleagues to support the measure when it comes time for a vote later this evening. I think we would make a very meaningful statement about where the Senate is headed if we could supply the votes necessary to actually adopt this amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNET. I congratulate the Presiding Officer, and I also congratulate Chairman Hatch for the unanimous vote he got in today's markup in the Finance Committee. It was a great bipartisan start to our work, as he said. I hope we will continue to have these discussions in that manner. Amendment No. 92, as Modified

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. I congratulate the Presiding Officer for sitting in that chair. Amendment No. 18 I wish to speak about the Fischer amendment which is slated to be voted on at some point. While I respect where my neighbor from Nebraska is coming from with this effort, the proposal unfortunately misses the mark by a mile. The amendment would set up a new and unprecedented process for protective land designations. It says the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture has to publish in the Federal Register two findings before any congressional protections on public lands would go into effect. First, the Secretary has to find that new, protected land would not adversely affect our efforts to administer existing protected land. Second, the Department has to have ``sufficient resources''--whatever that is--to implement plans for existing protected land. While perhaps innocuous sounding, these would be huge changes in how we do business around here. Coming from a State that is over a third Federal land, I prefer that drastic reform proposals such as this at least have the benefit of a committee hearing before we vote on them on the floor. That way, we can hear expert testimony as to whether this is a good idea or consider ways we might be able to improve the measure. But as far as I know, this language hasn't had a hearing in this Congress, or any other Congress, for that matter. Proponents of this amendment are going to argue it simply ensures that our land agencies can afford to keep up with the maintenance of new protected lands. Listen, I am the first--and I have been on this floor year after year after year talking about the fiscal condition of this country--to believe we need more fiscal discipline around here, but this is not the way we should get it. I am also a huge believer that we shouldn't be overburdening these agencies, and we shouldn't be overregulating through them, either. Unfortunately, this amendment takes a hatchet when the absolute most that is needed, if anything, is a surgical fix. In fact, under the amendment, the opponents of protected lands could reduce funding for our land agencies through the appropriations process and then turn around and say the Secretary got a veto of the new proposals because sufficient resources aren't available. As one of my friends from Colorado said in the paper this morning: ``This amendment would be a one-two punch--first starve conservation agencies of needed funding and then block any new protections.'' This amendment is drafted in a way that it leaves huge discretion to a future Secretary to approve or veto protections that Congress has seen fit to create. If the amendment passed, nothing would stop a future Secretary from finding that every single conservation bill this Congress has passed should not take effect, all because he or she failed to publish the vague set of findings laid out in this proposal. Historically, we don't give a member of the executive branch any discretion as to whether they implement the laws that Congress passes and that the President has signed. Yet, this measure would do just that. I think keeping that historical precedent--where the legislative branch makes the laws and the executive branch implements them--is important. We have heard a lot about that on this floor recently, particularly in a case such as this where we are talking about our national heritage. Coloradans, and all Americans, love their public lands and want to see more done to protect them. Instead, this amendment creates new layers of redtape and makes enacting protective designations even more difficult than it has been. Once again, I wish to say on this floor that I appreciate the effort of the Senator from Nebraska and I would be happy to work with her to address some of her concerns. But I would argue that the investments we make in our public lands are worthwhile ones, and I would invite anyone in this Chamber to come to Colorado and see what I am speaking about. Protected lands and wide-open spaces are a huge driver of economic growth all across our country. They help sustain a $600 billion outdoor recreation economy, and a lot of those businesses, for obvious reasons, are headquartered in Colorado. On top of the economic benefits, wilderness areas, national monuments, and national parks are a fundamental part of the fabric of our country and of our country's history. It is important to preserve these lands for our kids and our grandkids, just as our grandparents preserved them for us. It is worth investing some money to do that so the next generation and the one after that can experience the greatness that all Americans feel when they first visit the Grand Canyon or Rocky Mountain National Park, or Chimney Rock National Monument, or the Everglades, or wherever we find the next beautiful or historically significant area that Congress or the President decides to protect. This discussion is actually a timely one because just this past December we passed a large package of conservation measures into law on a bipartisan basis. That package included a bill that we worked on in Colorado called the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act. Let me say at the outset that our office may have introduced that bill in Congress, but it was really the people I represent in southwest Colorado who wrote that bill. This legislation grew from the grassroots up from day one--Republicans, Democrats, Independents working together to cement a long-term plan for their community's future. Not only was it bipartisan at the local level, but also in Congress. My friend Scott Tipton championed the bill on the House side. The Hermosa Creek Watershed deserved to be protected. That is why the community came together to keep it just as it is. That was the plan in the community, and that is what our bill finally accomplished at the end of the last Congress. However, if we were to pass the amendment in front of us today, all the hard work that went into passing the Hermosa bill could be undone by the Secretary of the Interior. Every single meeting that took place in southwest Colorado, every single conversation that led to the improvement of this legislation--all of that could be gone in an instant, not because the Congress undoes the law but because some administrator, using their fiat, is able to undo the law. It is unlikely--I can't say this for sure, but it is unlikely that person is going to have any idea what is in the Hermosa Creek bill or any of the other bills we have worked on in the past. That is just simply not how we do business around here, and there is a good reason for that. I am compelled, therefore, to urge other Senators in this body to please oppose the Fischer amendment so we can avoid such a scenario. Rejecting the amendment will preserve our conservation legacy--a legacy that goes straight back to President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, who signed the Antiquities Act into law in 1906. It includes the formal establishment of the national park system almost 100 years ago. This is an extraordinarily beautiful country that we all have the privilege to represent. We ought to encourage conservation efforts, not make them harder to achieve. We ought to build on the legacy of generations of Americans and generations in this body of Republicans and Democrats working together to preserve our natural heritage. I will, therefore, oppose the Fischer amendment when it comes up for a vote, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Here is this year's form. It is a different color than the one we had last year. This is the form a student has to fill out-- 108 questions. This is the instruction manual that goes with the form, which is something in the neighborhood of 66 pages long. It is very tiny print. To be honest, the ridiculousness of this form would be funny if it were not for the lost time, money, and energy our country spends on it. Here are some of the examples of the questions families have to put up with on this form. Several times there are questions about income. We have been told by the witnesses we had that we only need two questions. There are a number of questions about income, investments, and assets. Each requires notes and instructions which are contained in here. Question 36: What was your and your spouse's adjusted gross income for 2014? Question 37: Enter your and your spouse's income tax for 2014. Question 39: How much did you earn from working in 2014? Question 40: How much did your spouse earn from working in 2014? It is ridiculous. The questions become even more complicated. Question 42: As of today, what is the net worth of your and your spouse's investments, including real estate but don't including the home you live in? That is the kind of reaction we get all over the country when we talk about this at home. The instruction form here says, for question No. 43, the net worth of businesses and/or investments. Business or farm value includes the current market value of land, buildings, machinery, equipment, inventory, et cetera. Do not include your primary farm. Do not include the net worth of a family-owned and controlled small business with more than 100 full-time or full-time equivalent employees. Just to make it really clear, in dark print, bolded print, it says: business/farm value minus business/farm debt equals net worth of business. This is as complicated as any tax form. At a time when the demands of the global economy require us to have more college access, not less, it is a shame that this bureaucratic piling up of questions is making it harder and harder for people to go to college. So I think this is going to be great for our students, to get it down to a postcard that has two questions. The estimate is that the time saved by moving away from this existing form is the equivalent of 50,000 jobs that could be spent actually providing college guidance to young people who will now have the benefit of knowing, as Senator Alexander said so eloquently, what financial aid they will be eligible for in their junior year before they apply to college rather than waiting until their senior year, until they have already been admitted to college. That makes no sense to the people we represent, and there is a reason for it--it is because it makes no sense. My hope is that this is a bill we will be able to move this year. Again, I thank Senator Alexander for his tremendous leadership.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor today with, among others, Senator Alexander, who has worked so hard on the bill we are talking about today. Through the Chair, I want to wish him well in his new role as chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on which I serve. He is quite right to have said this bill came to us as a result of testimony in front of that committee by a variety of witnesses but all of whom agreed that the current system is completely unwieldy. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors--Senators Burr, Booker, Isakson, and King--for joining the efforts and for being here today as well. I first became aware of this problem when I was superintendent of the Denver public schools. We had a couple who very generously donated $50 million for scholarships for kids who were graduating from the Denver public schools and who had applied to college. One of the things we learned in that process was how terrible the process was for filling out the financial aid forms for the Federal Government. That was a requirement we had for people to be able to be eligible for this scholarship. We literally had to put new rooms in our schools, in our high schools, and staff them with people in order to fill out these forms. Every year tens of thousands of students and parents in Colorado and millions more across the country fill out the FAFSA as part of the college application process. It is the gateway to financial aid. By some estimates, over 2 million people who are eligible for financial aid and Pell grants do not get it simply because of the complexity of the form. I ask unanimous consent to show some demonstrative evidence.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I again say thank you to the chairman of the HELP Committee for all his leadership and his work dealing with this form. We have been after this for about 1 year. This might be a quiet bill, as Senator King said earlier, but in my travels around the State I can't find anybody who is unhappy with this legislation except for the people who have already filled out the form, who are asking: Where were you 5 years ago when I was having to do this for my students or where were you when I was having to fill this out for my college education? It makes absolutely no sense. I am sure many of these questions are well intentioned, but what we have learned in the hearings we have had, in the testimony, is they are not necessary. If they are not necessary, we shouldn't be asking them. Our students would be a lot better off spending their time figuring out what college they want to attend, figuring out what course of study they want to undertake than spending their time with this bureaucratic nightmare. I am enormously optimistic that we are going to get this passed with the chairman's leadership, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that. I would like to thank the Senator from New Jersey again for signing on as one of the original cosponsors. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Here is this year's form. It is a different color than the one we had last year. This is the form a student has to fill out-- 108 questions. This is the instruction manual that goes with the form, which is something in the neighborhood of 66 pages long. It is very tiny print. To be honest, the ridiculousness of this form would be funny if it were not for the lost time, money, and energy our country spends on it. Here are some of the examples of the questions families have to put up with on this form. Several times there are questions about income. We have been told by the witnesses we had that we only need two questions. There are a number of questions about income, investments, and assets. Each requires notes and instructions which are contained in here. Question 36: What was your and your spouse's adjusted gross income for 2014? Question 37: Enter your and your spouse's income tax for 2014. Question 39: How much did you earn from working in 2014? Question 40: How much did your spouse earn from working in 2014? It is ridiculous. The questions become even more complicated. Question 42: As of today, what is the net worth of your and your spouse's investments, including real estate but don't including the home you live in? That is the kind of reaction we get all over the country when we talk about this at home. The instruction form here says, for question No. 43, the net worth of businesses and/or investments. Business or farm value includes the current market value of land, buildings, machinery, equipment, inventory, et cetera. Do not include your primary farm. Do not include the net worth of a family-owned and controlled small business with more than 100 full-time or full-time equivalent employees. Just to make it really clear, in dark print, bolded print, it says: business/farm value minus business/farm debt equals net worth of business. This is as complicated as any tax form. At a time when the demands of the global economy require us to have more college access, not less, it is a shame that this bureaucratic piling up of questions is making it harder and harder for people to go to college. So I think this is going to be great for our students, to get it down to a postcard that has two questions. The estimate is that the time saved by moving away from this existing form is the equivalent of 50,000 jobs that could be spent actually providing college guidance to young people who will now have the benefit of knowing, as Senator Alexander said so eloquently, what financial aid they will be eligible for in their junior year before they apply to college rather than waiting until their senior year, until they have already been admitted to college. That makes no sense to the people we represent, and there is a reason for it--it is because it makes no sense. My hope is that this is a bill we will be able to move this year. Again, I thank Senator Alexander for his tremendous leadership.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I again say thank you to the chairman of the HELP Committee for all his leadership and his work dealing with this form. We have been after this for about 1 year. This might be a quiet bill, as Senator King said earlier, but in my travels around the State I can't find anybody who is unhappy with this legislation except for the people who have already filled out the form, who are asking: Where were you 5 years ago when I was having to do this for my students or where were you when I was having to fill this out for my college education? It makes absolutely no sense. I am sure many of these questions are well intentioned, but what we have learned in the hearings we have had, in the testimony, is they are not necessary. If they are not necessary, we shouldn't be asking them. Our students would be a lot better off spending their time figuring out what college they want to attend, figuring out what course of study they want to undertake than spending their time with this bureaucratic nightmare. I am enormously optimistic that we are going to get this passed with the chairman's leadership, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that. I would like to thank the Senator from New Jersey again for signing on as one of the original cosponsors. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor today with, among others, Senator Alexander, who has worked so hard on the bill we are talking about today. Through the Chair, I want to wish him well in his new role as chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on which I serve. He is quite right to have said this bill came to us as a result of testimony in front of that committee by a variety of witnesses but all of whom agreed that the current system is completely unwieldy. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors--Senators Burr, Booker, Isakson, and King--for joining the efforts and for being here today as well. I first became aware of this problem when I was superintendent of the Denver public schools. We had a couple who very generously donated $50 million for scholarships for kids who were graduating from the Denver public schools and who had applied to college. One of the things we learned in that process was how terrible the process was for filling out the financial aid forms for the Federal Government. That was a requirement we had for people to be able to be eligible for this scholarship. We literally had to put new rooms in our schools, in our high schools, and staff them with people in order to fill out these forms. Every year tens of thousands of students and parents in Colorado and millions more across the country fill out the FAFSA as part of the college application process. It is the gateway to financial aid. By some estimates, over 2 million people who are eligible for financial aid and Pell grants do not get it simply because of the complexity of the form. I ask unanimous consent to show some demonstrative evidence.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment regarding natural gas that was adopted earlier this year by the Senate Finance Committee and was included in the Senate-passed highway bill. I wish it were included in one of the year-end measures this body is passing in the next few days. This is a bipartisan proposal that passed the Senate overwhelmingly and deserves to be enacted before we conclude this Congress. The measure--a bill we worked on with Senator Burr from North Carolina--would equalize the tax treatment of liquefied natural gas, LNG, and diesel fuel. The federal highway excise tax on both diesel and LNG is set at 24.3 cents per gallon. However, because LNG contains less energy per gallon than diesel fuel, on an energy equivalent basis, LNG effectively pays 170 percent of the diesel tax rate. The current highway excise tax treatment of LNG is a disincentive to investment in new LNG trucks and fueling stations, and should be corrected to encourage capital investments and help diversify transportation fuel choices. LNG is a transportation fuel used for large trucks and some marine and rail vessels. The fuel has attracted the attention of fleet operators due to its low cost at the pump and reduced environmental impact. LNG produces significantly lower levels of toxic emissions than diesel fuel, including lower levels of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. Using LNG instead of diesel fuel also reduces pollution from so-called ``black carbon,'' also known as soot. Black carbon is a major contributor to climate change, second only to carbon dioxide in the amount of heat it traps in the atmosphere once emitted. This amendment would change the highway excise tax and the Inland Waterways Financing rate on LNG so that the tax is imposed on the energy content of a diesel gallon, known as a diesel gallon equivalent, rather than strictly on a per-gallon basis. LNG has huge potential as a cheaper, cleaner, domestic energy source and we need to ensure our tax system is not putting it at a disadvantage.

Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I wish to take a moment today to speak about my friend Mark Udall, who is soon going to be finishing his term. Mark's sister Doty describes him as an OK politician but an extraordinary public servant. I think it is fair to say that Mark could never reduce his role as a representative of the people of Colorado to just politics. It is not in his DNA. It is with a very heavy heart that I see him leave the Senate, because he is my friend. But it is especially sad at a time when Mark's kind of leadership and constructive engagement is exactly what this place needs. ``Udall'' is a name that is synonymous with the West, and Mark and the collective service of the Udall family have come to represent the very best of our western way of life. They have embodied that pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit dating back to the days when Americans were building entirely new lives on the frontier. They have a historic love for the beauty and majesty of the West. They have spent lifetimes protecting it. Mo and Stu Udall, Mark's uncle and father, both served our country during World War II. Stu was elected to serve the Second District of Arizona. When President Kennedy asked Stu to serve as the Secretary of Interior, Mo won Stu's seat in Congress. Unlike his son Mark, Mo never ran for the Senate. He explained why. He said: I told the Arizona Press Club with [Barry] Goldwater present that there were three reasons I was not running for the Senate: 1. I love the House. 2. My wife and family are against it. And 3, I have taken a poll and you are going to beat the hell out of me. Although, he did run for President. The New Republic reported on that: The Arizona Congressman, Morris Udall liked to tell a story about a response he got at a barber shop in Maine: He looked in at the door and, meaning to introduce himself, said ``Mo Udall, running for president.'' ``Yeah,'' the barber said, ``we were just laughing about it this morning.'' It is not hard to know where Mark acquired his self-deprecating approach to the world, just as it not hard to know where he inherited his commitment to civil rights, to conservation, and to good government. Mark has said it was during this time that his political views were formed. He himself went on to seek office. In 2008, when Mark was elected to represent Colorado in the Senate, his cousin Tom--Stu's son--was elected to serve the State of New Mexico and is one of our colleagues today. Mark Udall's connection to the West and to public service comes from both sides of his family. Mo Udall, a man of many talents, met Patricia Emory, Mark's mother, while playing baseball in Colorado. Patricia or ``Sam'' Udall was a sharpshooter, pilot, Peace Corps volunteer at the age of 56. She was a native Coloradan and the person Mark credits most for his passion for the outdoors, for backpacking and climbing. Today in the 21st century we face a profound set of challenges and a dramatic test of our democratic institution. Can what Mark Udall often calls this glorious experiment in self-government continue to thrive into the next century and beyond? Mark has carried the tradition of his family by serving as a moral forward-pointing compass. Throughout his career he has defended personal freedom and liberty, and he has built a legacy of conservation and preservation. As a member of the Colorado General Assembly representing Longmont and parts of Boulder County, Mark toughened the laws against poaching big game as trophy animals. As a Member of the House of Representatives, he worked across the aisle to establish the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge, cleaning up the former nuclear site and preserving 4,000 acres of wild land near Denver. He established the James Peak Wilderness Area, protecting 14,000 acres of some of our most scenic land in Gilpin and Grand Counties. He passed the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act to designate nearly 250,000 acres within the park as wilderness, including Longs Peak, which is actually a 14er that I have climbed. Mark Udall has climbed all of them in Colorado, every single 14er we have, because they are included in the tallest 100 mountains that we have, each one of which has been summited by Mark Udall. These are lands that will be protected long after any of our political careers are over and long after they remember who it was who protected those lands to begin with. But if anybody cares to check, they are going to know that it was Mark Udall. Mark has been vocal, active, and effective in his fight against climate change and in his promotion of renewable energy. He was the statewide cochair of the successful 2004 campaign to pass Colorado's amendment 37. This measure required Colorado's power companies to generate most of their electricity from renewable sources. Colorado was the first State in the Union to take the issue to the voters. Amendment 37 passed. Mark Udall was the driving force behind that effort. After his victory in the State, Mark took this issue to the House of Representatives. The House has twice passed the national renewable electricity standard championed by Mark. During his time in the Senate, he has continued to push for a national policy, and his doggedness in standing up for Colorado's wind energy production saved thousands of good-paying jobs across the State and ensured that we will continue to lead the Nation in developing our clean energy economy. The same is true for our ski areas, which have expanded recreation activities and summertime job opportunities thanks to a law Mark passed in this Senate. Colorado's aerospace industry is thriving in part thanks to Mark Udall. His work on space policy also dates back to his time in the House of Representatives as ranking member on the Space Subcommittee. Mark helped revitalize aeronautics and aviation research and development at NASA and ensure that the Hubble space telescope received service and funding. In the Senate, Mark helped lead the Colorado delegation opposition to a proposal that would have canceled the Orion Program, costing the State 1,000 jobs. The administration backed off. Last week, with a shuttle and rocket--both built by companies based in Colorado--NASA launched a successful test flight of the Orion vehicle. We will again carry astronauts into space, traveling deeper than ever before and eventually maybe even visit Mars. As everybody in this Chamber knows, Mark has been a staunch defender of the rights and freedoms we cherish as westerners. As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, Mark fought every single day he was here to protect the security of the American people and the Bill of Rights. He has taken on NSA and CIA when they violated our constitutional values. In 2011 he worked on a classified level to pressure intelligence officials to dismantle a massive email collection program that affected American privacy. Administration officials were unable to provide evidence that the program was effective. It was shut down. It only became public information when the New York Times reported on it in July of 2013. Well before Edward Snowden made headlines in 2013, Mark warned of the NSA's overreach. In 2012, on this Senate floor, he warned the American people that they would be shocked to learn about what the NSA was doing in secret. He introduced landmark, bipartisan surveillance reform legislation with Senators Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, and Rand Paul. It became the basis for the USA FREEDOM Act, which received 58 votes just a few weeks ago. There was a time, before the relentless use of the filibuster, when a majority of votes in the Senate would have been enough to ensure passage of that bill. Earlier this week the Intelligence Committee released the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Nobody in this place fought harder than Mark Udall to shed light on these tactics. His goal from day one has been holding the CIA accountable, shedding light on this dark chapter of our history, and ensuring that the neither the CIA nor any other agency or future administration would make the grievous mistakes that were made here. He accomplished his goals with respect to the process without leaking classified information but by applying pressure both politically and privately until the report was finally released. He has been effective because he has stood on consistent principle on every issue we have faced. He voted against the PATRIOT Act. He opposed the war in Iraq. He helped lead the fight to end don't ask, don't tell. Mark truly is the very best of what it means to be a public servant: independent, responsible, tough, focused on the future, and possessing an abiding can-do spirit. His calm presence, his unassuming nature, and his ability to see pure good in those around him are exactly what we so desperately need in our process today. Simply put, Mark Udall has fought for Colorado families in the most constructive way possible--by pushing thoughtful commonsense solutions--but has never ever fought to achieve a partisan political fleece. When Colorado was struck with a series of natural disasters, from wildfires to floods, Mark was at his very best, standing up for our State and our families to lead the efforts to ensure that our communities had the support they needed to recover and better prepare for the threats we faced next. He has strengthened the way we respond to the growing threat of wildfire by emphasizing preservation efforts that will save lives, property, and tax dollars. We would expect nothing else from a man who has dedicated himself and his career to standing up for Colorado families, the middle class, and the values of the American West. As a Senator, a Representative, a State legislator, director of the Colorado Outward Bound school, Mark has been a model public servant. He has lived up to and exceeded the high standards his family has set for more than a century. Throughout all of his work, Mark has always fought against the dysfunction that persists in Washington. It is true, however, that Mark cannot take full credit for the work. His wife and partner Maggie Fox shares his commitment to leaving more opportunity for the next generation. She has worked as a teacher and community organizer on the Navajo and Hopi reservations of Arizona, New Mexico, and for the Colorado, North Carolina, and Northwest Outward Bound schools. She has become a leading voice in many efforts to protect our land, our air, and our water. Their partnership is a genuine one. It has made Mark's work possible. Mark's staff has been among the finest, most professional, and most effective in the Senate. It has been a pleasure for me and for my staff to work alongside them on behalf of the people of Colorado. Over the past few years I have learned that really there are two broad categories of people in Washington: There are those who embrace and add to the dysfunction because it serves their ideological convictions or gives them an opportunity to star on the cable news or both. Then there are the people who are actually trying to save the place. They are looking for areas of compromise to break the gridlock and to move us forward. Mark is one of the good ones, and I have no doubt he will continue to make profound contributions to Colorado and to our Nation in a variety of ways, but we are diminished by his loss. Every one of us, for the sake of this institution, would do well to live up to the example Mark Udall has set. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4193, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BENNET

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

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2822 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3374 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BENNET

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

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Alaska for her tireless efforts on the lands bill and the NDAA bill and the bipartisan spirit she brought to all of these negotiations over a long period of time. She is to be commended for it. I don't think we would be anywhere close to where we are without her work. I thank her for that. I am here to speak briefly about the Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's interrogation methods. I support the committee's decision to release the report. As a country, it shows we have the courage to face the truth no matter how ugly that truth may be. Coloradans need to know the truth. The American people deserve to know the truth. Our willingness to face this difficult truth reminds us that we live and we are lucky to live in the most open and transparent democracy the world has ever known. Unlike the acts brought to light by the Intelligence Committee report, the willingness for self-examination is something to be celebrated about America. The report will be the subject of significant debate over the coming weeks and months and maybe even years, as it should be. Nobody should be cavalier about the risks that are associated with the release of this information, but this is a discussion our country needs to have. Although I am still reviewing the report, a couple of things are pretty clear at the outset. First, the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques failed to secure accurate information or cooperation from detainees. The very first finding of the report says: While being subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and afterwards, multiple CIA detainees fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence. Detainees provided fabricated information on critical intelligence issues, including the terrorist threats which the CIA identified as its highest priorities. Not only has torture not made the country safer, it may have made us less safe--at least according to this report. Second, the report reveals that the CIA withheld information from the FBI, the State Department, and the Director of the Office of National Intelligence. It denied access to detainees and provided inaccurate information about the interrogation tactics. Information was withheld from former Secretary of State Colin Powell out of concern he would ``blow his stack if he were to be briefed on what's been going on.'' The CIA repeatedly misled Congress and impeded oversight by its own inspector general. The report rebuts any notion that these brutal tactics led to actionable intelligence that made our country safer. It highlights the lengths to which people systematically misled other agencies, the Congress, and for years the American people. But most significantly, this report--and I thank the Presiding Officer for his service on the Intelligence Committee. It is a committee that by definition people can't learn very much about, and I know it takes a lot of time and an awful lot of work that can go underappreciated. But this week we are learning why the work on that committee is so important. Most significantly, as I was saying, this report has reminded us that the use of torture is completely at war with who we are as a country and the ideals we hold. Throughout our country's history, our American values--the notion that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable, sustainable rights--have sustained us through our most difficult times. They helped us triumph in World War II and eventually led to the fall of communism during the Cold War. They have attracted millions of immigrants to our shores. They inspired generations of Americans to rectify the inequality that exists in their own time to create a more perfect union. In fact, the values of democracy and human dignity are what brought my mother and her family to the United States after surviving the horrors of the Holocaust in Poland. It was a place that they called beautiful America, as much an idea as it was a place to them. Torture is repugnant to these fundamental American ideals. It is often said that the strength of our democratic institutions is tested during times of crisis. Understanding what happened and ensuring we won't use torture again will help our democratic institutions persevere in the future and serve future generations as well as the generations that were here before. It will demonstrate that we are better and we are stronger than our enemies. It will ensure that our uniquely American values will continue to inspire people like my mother and her parents all across the globe. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I have come down to the floor today to talk about the package of public lands measures included in the House- passed Defense bill. I am told we are likely to vote on that bill as early as tomorrow in the Senate. Within the lands package is a measure we worked on called the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act. The watershed, which is pictured here, is a beautiful parcel of national forest land up the road from Durango in the southwest corner of Colorado. I will say at the outset that our office may have introduced the bill in the Senate, but it was really the people I represent in southwest Colorado who wrote every bit of this piece of legislation. Over 6 years ago, a diverse group of local citizens, mountain bikers, anglers, outfitters, local officials, and many others all got together to talk about the future of the land. Everyone involved liked to visit the area for recreation or to do business there. Their discussion was to developing a plan to manage the area so everyone could enjoy it and benefit from the multiple uses well into the future. Over the Memorial Day weekend in 2011, the Hermosa workgroup invited my family and me for a hike through the watershed and to join the discussion, and we took them up on that offer. We loaded up the van, drove to Durango, and met the working group at the Hermosa Creek trailhead. My youngest daughter Anne, who was then probably about 8, made a hiking stick out of a nearby fallen branch, and we started up the trail with 40 or so others from the local community. The Presiding Officer knows this area well. As we climbed higher and higher, we were overcome by the beauty around us and the forests and valleys and crystal-clear streams and unspoiled views in almost every direction. After about an hour, the group pulled off the forest service trail into a meadow, and as Anne, Halina, and Caroline Bennet, my three daughters, made me a dandelion necklace out of the dandelions that were there, we started a discussion about what this area meant to the people who were on this trip. The sportsmen came to fish for native Colorado cutthroat trout and for back-country elk hunting. The mountain bikers came to enjoy single- track riding trails known throughout the country and throughout the world. The local water districts love Hermosa because it provides clean water for the city of Durango, and workers in the timber and mining industry stress that some of the watershed could contribute to extractive development in the future. The upshot of the discussion we had in the meadow that afternoon was an agreement to work together on a bill, a balanced bill that managed the watershed so it would contribute to the local economy long into the future. More than just working on this bill, I think the people in that meadow set out to prove that people in this country can still work together and set an example for the U.S. Congress. After nearly 3\1/2\ years of negotiations since that hike, we are on the verge of passing that bill and sending it to the President for his signature. The Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act governs the entire watershed. It includes provisions to allow for multiple uses, such as timber harvesting for forest health, continued access for Colorado's snowmobilers--a critical provision to allow Silverton's winter economy to continue to prosper. The bill enhances opportunities for back-country fishing made possible by the great work of Trout Unlimited and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce native cutthroat trout to the watershed. The bill also adds--importantly--nearly 40,000 acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System, lands that provide unique and important opportunities for solitude and reflection, lands that will remain undeveloped forever so that they will always have clear streams to fish and lush forests for local outfitters to take clients into the forest on horseback. I am proud to report that the bill has the unanimous bipartisan backing of the two county commissions involved, the San Juan County Commission and the La Plata County Commission. I thank those commissioners for their leadership, collaboration, and their vision, and the two local towns, Durango and Silverton. It has the support of the Hermosa Creek Workgroup, ranging from hardrock miners to environmental groups. These are the people we say can never get along and can never get anything done because everybody has to get only their position and disregard the position that the other has, and we have proven that is not true, as I said, ranging from hardrock miners to environmental groups such as the San Juan Citizens Alliance, Conservation Colorado, and The Wilderness Society. It has the support of sportsmen, Trout Unlimited, and the back- country hunters and anglers. The Hermosa bill is also supported by the local water district, the Southwestern Water Conservation District. The outdoor recreation community--including the Colorado Snowmobile Association, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and the Trails 2000 mountain bike group--supports the measure. And support for Hermosa is especially strong from the local business community. Companies as diverse as fly shops, car dealerships, the Durango Chamber, and Mercury Payment Systems, one of the area's largest employers, all agree that protected public lands add to the region's quality of life and help them attract topnotch talent to the region. This bill grew from the grassroots up. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents worked together to cement a long-term plan for their community's future. I thank Senator Udall, a long-time champion for Colorado's public lands and wilderness, for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill. I also wish to thank Congressman Scott Tipton, our partner in the House, for supporting this bill and demonstrating that bipartisanship still exists in some corners of the Capitol. He has been outstanding to work with, as has his staff, and I look forward to collaborating on other conservation measures in the future. To close and bring this back to the beginning--I see my colleague is here--I don't have to convince most people that Colorado is a special place. Many people from all over the United States have been to our State to ski our mountains, run our rivers, or climb a 14er. The Hermosa Creek watershed represents some of the best Colorado has to offer. It deserves to be protected, and that is what this bill does. However, in some respects, I wish Hermosa didn't have to pass this way. This lands package is a great achievement. It came through a robust bipartisan and bicameral process, and that work is something truly to be commended. At the same time, I think the Hermosa Creek bill could have passed by unanimous consent years ago as a stand-alone bill, or as part of another smaller, bipartisan, bicameral package that didn't have to wait almost 6 years while local communities all across the country have been left in limbo. People there don't work on the same time that people here work, and their expectations are that we are going to move things along. No one should object to bipartisan, commonsense measures that are widely supported. But instead of regular order, we are left voting on large packages of lands bills every number of years. In fact, save one wilderness bill that passed earlier this session, Congress has not passed a wilderness bill since 2009. Congress has not passed one wilderness bill since 2009--I suppose we passed one. Last Congress was the first time a session of Congress hadn't passed a wilderness bill in the 50-year history of the Wilderness Act. That had never happened before, whether the Senate was Democratic or the Senate was Republican, whether the House was Democratic or Republican, or whether the President was a Democrat or a Republican. It never happened before. This Congress--provided the vote goes well tomorrow-- will have waited until the eleventh hour. The 2009 bill, which was one of the very first ones I voted on as a Senator, created 2 million acres of new wilderness. The package we will vote on tomorrow contains several hundred thousand acres more, including nearly 40,000 new wilderness acres, as I mentioned in the Hermosa bill. While that is great progress, and it truly is, I wish we were doing more. Despite dozens of other widely supported conservation proposals that have been introduced this session, there are only four other wilderness bills included in this package. Once again, I am strongly supportive of the package, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes. But in the new Congress we ought to hit the reset button and truly honor the intent of the Wilderness Act--which President Johnson signed into law 50 years ago--by passing more wilderness bills. I can't think of a better anniversary present for the landmark law than for the 114th Congress to return and pass more of these bills. Let's defy expectations about what the change in the majority means here. Let's lift up the bipartisan work that is happening around here and pass more of these bills. Historically conservation has been a bipartisan issue going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, and I hope we might return to the cooperation we have seen in the decades since then and get some more wilderness and conservation done for the American people. This is a glorious and beautiful country that we all represent. We ought to save some of it for our kids and grandkids by passing this package and coming together on some others. I urge yes on the bill. I thank the Presiding Officer for all of his work to make sure we could bring this lands bill together with the NDAA bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleague from Alaska for allowing me to go ahead with my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2992 is at the desk and due for a second reading.