Martin Heinrich

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. First, I thank my friend from Oregon and I recognize the substantial leadership he has shown on this issue over the years. Long before I came to the Intelligence Committee and long before Edward Snowden began to steal documents, Senator Wyden, along with Senator Mark Udall and others, were doing everything they could--without disclosing classified information--to shine a light on the fact that the U.S. Government was collecting massive volumes of data on millions of law-abiding American citizens. My friend from Oregon deserves our thanks for that leadership. Now, after the bulk call data collection program was revealed to the public, the government, frankly, defended it and defended it vigorously. It took a number of months for the intelligence community and the rest of the administration to take a deep breath and really assess whether bulk metadata collection was necessary, whether it was effective, and to consider whether there were other less intrusive, more constitutionally grounded ways to accomplish these same goals. Starting with the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, the administration began to agree that ``some of the authorities that were expanded or created in the aftermath of September 11 unduly sacrifice fundamental interests in individual liberty, personal privacy, and democratic governance.'' And they recommended changing those authorities in order to ``strike a better balance between the competing interests and providing for the common defense and securing `the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.' '' Following that, multiple efforts have been made to update and reform FISA and to update and reform the USA PATRIOT Act. None of those have been successful. But now we are forced to come to a resolution through a combination of, frankly, procrastination, and, I think, misguided hope that the American people would look the other way while the government continued to vacuum up and store their personal information and data as part of a program that even the intelligence community acknowledges can be accomplished through less intrusive means. I will be honest. The current USA FREEDOM Act isn't what I consider perfect. For example, I prefer that it include strong reform of section 702 collection, but I accept that circumstances require us to be pragmatic, require us to govern and move forward and to work with one another in both parties to find compromise. That is what the USA FREEDOM Act is. It is a product of bipartisan compromise. That is why it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 338 to 88. And let's be blunt, many of those who voted against it didn't do so because they support bulk collection. They did so because they want to see section 215 wither and die in its entirety. That is the political reality we face today, and we need to accept it rather than demanding a continuation of a program that the appeals court has determined is illegal.

Mr. HEINRICH. I wish to expound on that point a bit, about the many other ways the government can legitimately acquire phone records of terrorism suspects, because I think this is a very important point to understand the tools that already exist that have been very effective and have proven themselves over time. There are actually a number of legal authorities that can get the same information without the government collecting billions of call records--billions of call records that, in large part, belong to innocent Americans. For example, the Stored Communications Act permits the government to obtain precisely the same call records that are now acquired through bulk collection under section 215 when they are ``relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.'' Additionally, national security letters, which I point out do not require a court order, can also be used by the government to obtain call records for intelligence purposes. Further, the government can also acquire telephony metadata on a real-time basis by obtaining orders from either regular Federal courts or the FISC for the installation of pen registers or trap-and-trace devices. Finally, individualized orders for phone records, as opposed to orders authorizing broad bulk collection, can also be obtained under section 215. I think those of us early in this debate thought that was what was going to occur under the PATRIOT Act in the first place. But that is what the USA FREEDOM Act seeks to require while prohibiting the bulk collection of millions of personal records. It even includes emergency authorization authority for the government to get records prior to getting court approval, subject to later court approval, in an emergency. The government can use any of these authorities without any more evidence than what is currently required to use the bulk phone records database, with less impact, I would point out, on the privacy interests of millions of innocent Americans. I think at this point the Senator from Oregon and I have laid out our case as to why this dragnet bulk surveillance program fails to make our country measurably safer and why it should end. I am pleased to say that a number of people have finally come around to our way of thinking on this.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Yes. I thank my friend from Kentucky and ask him if he would yield for a question without losing his right to the floor. I want to start out by prefacing this for a few minutes, from my limited experience--just over the past a little over 2 years, and I am on the Intelligence Committee now--by saying there is simply no question that our Nation's intelligence professionals are incredibly dedicated, patriotic men and women who make real sacrifices to keep our country safe and free and, in that, they should be able to do their job, secure in the knowledge that their agencies have the confidence of the American people. And Congress--those of us here--needs to preserve the ability of those agencies to collect information that is truly necessary to guard against real threats to our national security. The Framers of the Constitution, as my colleague from Kentucky knows, declared that government officials had no power--no power--to seize the records of individual Americans without evidence of wrongdoing. And it was so important that they literally enshrined and embedded this principle in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In my view, the bulk collection of Americans' private telephone records by the NSA in this program clearly violates the spirit--if not the letter--of the intentions of the Framers here. Just 6 months after my first Senate intelligence briefing, former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that exposed the NSA's massive collection of Americans' cell phone and Internet data. And as my friend from Kentucky said, not just a few Americans but literally millions of innocent Americans were caught up in what is effectively a dragnet program. It was made clear to the public that the government had convinced the FISA Court to accept a sweeping reinterpretation of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which ignited, in my view, a very necessary and long overdue public conversation about the trade-offs made by our government between protecting our Nation and respecting our constitutional liberties. I think well-intentioned leaders had, during the previous decade, come down decidedly on the side of national security with a willingness to sacrifice privacy protections in the process. And what became obvious was that because of our continued lack of knowledge of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, some within our government believed we still needed to collect every scrap of information available in order to ensure that, should we ever need it, we could query this information and track down U.S.-based threats. In doing so, the government ended up collecting billions of call data records, linked in case after case after case not to terrorists but to innocent Americans. Wisconsin Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, who I served with in the House of Representatives, who was one of the authors of the original underlying legislation--the PATRIOT Act itself--said a couple of years ago: ``The PATRIOT Act never would have passed . . . had there been any inclination at all that it would have authorized bulk collections.'' As this debate increasingly moved to the public sphere, I joined my colleagues on the Select Committee on Intelligence--Senator Wyden, who was just here on the floor a few minutes ago, and former Senator Mark Udall--in pressing the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence for some clear examples in which the bulk information collected under this metadata program, under section 215, was uniquely responsible for the capture of a terrorist or the thwarting of a terrorist plot. They could not provide any--not a single solitary example--nor could they make a case for why the government had to hold the data itself and why for so long. Thankfully, a review panel set up by President Obama agreed with us and recommended that the government end its bulk collection of telephone metadata. I will admit, however--and my friend from Kentucky has brought this up on several occasions already--that I am incredibly disappointed that the President hasn't simply used his existing authority to unilaterally roll back some of the unnecessary blanket metadata collection. Some have claimed this inaction is evidence that the President secretly supports maintaining the current program as is. That, however, is nonsense. The President has asked Congress to give him additional authorities so that he can carry out the program in an effective manner, and the USA Freedom Act seeks to do just that. The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed that bill--the USA Freedom Act--by a vote of 338 to 88, with large majorities from both parties. At a time when everyone believes we agree on nothing, large majorities of Republicans and Democrats supported that piece of legislation. Further, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the NSA is violating the law by collecting millions of Americans' phone records is even more proof that we have gone too far and need to recalibrate and, in my view, refocus our efforts. Why on Earth, I would ask, would we extend a law that this court has found to be illegal? Given the overwhelming evidence that the current bulk collection program is not only unnecessary but also illegal, I think we have reached a critical turning point, and I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for coming to the floor to force us all to have this conversation. We have kicked the can down the road too many times on this particular issue, and I believe it is time to finally end the bulk collection of these phone records and instead focus more narrowly on the records of actual terrorists. Americans value their independence. I know this is especially true in my home State of New Mexico. They cherish their right to privacy that is guaranteed by our Constitution. But some of our colleagues still think it is OK for the government to collect and hold millions of private records from innocent citizens and to search those records at will. The majority leader is asking us to act quickly to reauthorize. I believe it would be a grave mistake to reauthorize the existing PATRIOT Act, and I join my colleagues in blocking any extension of the law that does not include major reforms, including an end to bulk collection. I think we can and we must balance government's need to keep our Nation safe with its sacred duty to protect our constitutionally guaranteed liberties. And I guess this brings me to my question for the Senator from Kentucky. How on Earth can you possibly square what the Fourth Amendment says, in terms of our papers and our ability to control our own effects without a warrant, with the government's bulk collection of phone records of law-abiding American citizens?

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Kentucky an additional question. I found it very helpful before I came to the floor today--and I want to thank my colleague again for raising these critical issues--to go back and read the Fourth Amendment, and I thought it would be worthwhile just to briefly read that once again here on the floor because I think it really puts you in the mind of some of the greatest Americans who ever lived. Our Framers wrote a constitution that has survived for well over 200 years now. It has survived Republicans. It has survived Democrats. It has survived political parties that came and went, and it has survived great conflicts time and again. The Fourth Amendment says: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' I would ask my friend from Kentucky his views on the resilience of this constitutional document and how he can possibly read the actual text of this Fourth Amendment without realizing that those Framers really meant for this to apply into the future to things that we hadn't foreseen yet but using the broadest terminology available, such as words like effects and papers? I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Kentucky once again. This is one of those issues that unite people on the left and the right, Republicans and Democrats, who care deeply about our national security but also care about our constitutional liberties. I think the time to fix this is upon us. And without shining a light on this, we certainly are not going to be able to make the progress we need. We have an opportunity here, and we should seize it. I yield the floor to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. HEINRICH

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

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, Americans have always had a deep connection to the outdoors. In New Mexico, families go back year after year to fish in the Santa Barbara River, to the Santa Fe National Forest to hunt, and to the Gila National Forest. Our public lands are part of our American heritage. We cherish passing that tradition on to our children and to our grandchildren. Yet this amendment would make it easier to turn our public lands over to State land commissioners and eventually to sell them outright. Make no mistake. This amendment will mean more locked gates and more ``no trespassing'' signs in places that families have used for generation. Colleagues, this land is your land. I urge Senators to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and ask for consideration of amendment No. 1024.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1024.

Mr. HEINRICH

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

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the Sportmen's Act of 2015, and I will start out by acknowledging the great work by the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, who has been a great partner in quickly moving this legislation forward. The Sportsmen's Act of 2015 is gaining new momentum and earning widespread bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, from the east coast to the west coast and, frankly, everywhere in between. Improving access for hunters and anglers, restoring wildlife habitat, and protecting the way of life that so many of us cherish are things we can all agree on because as Americans we all have a unique and deep connection to the outdoors. The Sportmen's Act of 2015 includes a broad array of bipartisan measures to enhance opportunities for hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts. It reauthorizes key conservation programs, improves access to our public lands, and helps boost the outdoor recreation economy. Hunting is a way of life for me and for many families across this great Nation, Similar to many New Mexicans, my 11-year-old son and I went out hunting on public land last fall. The bull elk we brought home will feed our family for most of the coming year, but more importantly the experience of backpacking into the Sangre de Cristos and Carson National Forest, sleeping on the ground, and hearing the elk bugle all around us will feed my son's imagination for decades to come. The Sportmen's Act will help ensure that American families can pass on these outdoor traditions year after year and for generations to come. When I travel around New Mexico and talk with sportsmen and sportswomen, their No. 1 issue is access, and that is why I am so pleased that a provision I have been championing to unlock countless public lands is included in this package. Public lands, such as the Gila Wilderness, Valles Caldera National Preserve, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument are some of the most special places to hunt and fish left on the planet. The HUNT Act directs all Federal public land management agencies to identify our shared lands where hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation are permitted but where access is nonexistent or significantly restricted and develop plans to provide that access. Additionally, a provision led by my colleague, Montana Senator Jon Tester, is also included in this bill to require a percentage of our annual Land and Water Conservation Funds to be made available to improve recreational access to difficult-to-reach public lands. Among many other bipartisan, pragmatic efforts to enhance opportunities for hunters and anglers, the Sportsmen's Act would reauthorize NAWCA, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. It is clear these efforts increase and reaffirm our country's commitment to the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, but they are just as important for the future of our economy across the West. Nationally, according to the Outdoor Industry Association, more than 140 million Americans either make their living off the outdoors or make outdoor activity a priority in their daily lives. When they do that, they end up spending $646 billion on outdoor recreation, resulting in quality jobs for another 6.1 million Americans. In my home State of New Mexico--a small State with just 2 million people--outdoor recreation generates more than $6 billion a year. It provides 68,000 jobs and $1.7 billion in wages and annual salaries. A survey done recently by New Mexico Game and Fish found that sportsmen alone spend more than $613 million per year in our State. This boost to our economy is felt by business owners, outfitter guides, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and the entire local community-- especially in our rural communities. The truth is our deep connection to the outdoors is part of the American experience and it is part of our heritage and culture in the West. It is something we learn from our mothers and fathers and pass down to our sons and our daughters. The Sportmen's Act will help protect that heritage and ensure it continues for generations to come. I thank the Presiding Officer for indulging me, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEINRICH

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

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out in 17 days. Rather than working with Democrats to pass a clean Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, many Republicans are prioritizing politics over our national security. With threats emerging every day both at home and abroad, casting doubt on future funding for the Department of Homeland Security is a terrible idea. Shutting down DHS has real consequences, especially in border States such as New Mexico. A DHS shutdown would threaten public safety, hinder interstate commerce, hurt our economy, and jeopardize critical funding for State, local, and tribal government activities. Some of my Republican colleagues are willing to let these consequences happen because they have an immigration policy disagreement with the President. That is no way to govern, and it is not real leadership. As a border State, New Mexico plays a critical role in protecting our homeland. DHS Customs and Border Protection agents and officers at New Mexico's two ports of entry at Columbus and Santa Teresa are responsible for maintaining our security and for screening vehicles and would-be crossers. These public servants put in long hours in order to keep all of us safe. They apprehend drug smugglers, human traffickers, and gang members. They also play a direct role in facilitating critical trade and interstate commerce between the United States and Mexico. That impacts our economy in New Mexico, particularly in Hidalgo, Luna, and Dona Ana Counties. New Mexico is a growing international trade center and the Columbus and Santa Teresa ports of entry are key to growing the diversity of my State's economy. Recently, a House Republican said that if we run out of DHS funding, ``it's not the end of the world.'' I disagree, and so do many of my constituents. Let me be clear about what a DHS shutdown would mean for New Mexico. It would impact our Southeast Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia. This facility trains our Customs and Border Protection agents and officers. It would also compromise sheriff and city police departments across the State who use DHS funding to increase personnel and purchase equipment. Moreover, DHS helps fund some of our most important security programs such as the New Mexico All Source Intelligence Center, a public safety partnership based out of Santa Fe that is designed to collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence. A shutdown would also risk important DHS grant funding for New Mexico at the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. This agency works closely with DHS to aid communities after natural disasters. In times of crisis, DHS works hand-in-glove with the State of New Mexico. For example, last year severe thunderstorms and floods caused disruption of oil and gas development, agricultural losses, and extensive damage to critical infrastructure across New Mexico, hitting counties such as Colfax, Eddy, Lea, Lincoln, Otero, San Miguel, Santa Fe, and Sierra. FEMA, an agency under DHS, worked collaboratively to help these communities rebuild and recover. In fact, since 2002, New Mexico has received more than $238 million in DHS grant funds. These resources provide statewide hazard mitigation assistance and help repair damaged roads, bridges, and low-water crossings after these disasters. As current cabinet secretary-designate for the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Mitchell Jay puts it, a DHS shutdown would: . . . have a very negative effect. We'll lose our grant funding for local and State emergency managers. We fund a portion of their salaries through DHS grants, and we can't, nor can the counties and municipalities, afford to absorb those costs at this time. . . . We can't afford to lose our emergency managers, they're key representatives in our communities who help develop mitigation plans for all types of emergencies. They're our first line of defense should any emergencies occur at the local level. These examples are just a glimpse at the security, economic, and emergency risks of allowing DHS funding to expire. Former Department of Homeland Security Secretaries Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, and Janet Napolitano joined in a bipartisan call for Congress to act swiftly and remove uncertainty from an agency in charge of keeping us safe. A Department of Homeland Security shutdown would also either furlough DHS employees or require many of them to work without a paycheck. That means men and women who work tirelessly to keep our Nation safe would have to live with the uncertainty of whether they are able to support their families. DHS workers don't deserve that. They shouldn't be collateral damage in an ongoing ideological battle here in Washington, DC. I would like to believe a debate such as this would be about the merits of DHS funding and the DHS funding bill, but unfortunately that is not the case. This debate is about Republicans picking a political fight with the President over an immigration system we all recognize is broken. As a way to vent their frustrations, Republicans are unfairly targeting undocumented students known as DREAMers. At times such as this, one is forced to wonder if some on the far right fear DREAMers more than ISIL. But we are not a country that kicks out our best and brightest students. We are not a nation that separates families. I have met many DREAMers over the past 10 years in New Mexico. They are smart, they are hardworking, and most of them don't know how to be anything but an American. They grew up here, and they want to give back. I have heard their stories. I have read their letters. For example, there is a bright young New Mexican named Yuri. Her family emigrated from Mexico to the United States when she was 2 years old. As a student at Highland High School in my neighborhood in Albuquerque, Yuri volunteered in our community. She served as student body president. She graduated in the top 10 percent of her class, and she received the 2013 Sandia National Laboratories scholarship. In 2013, she was approved for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--known as DACA--and is currently studying chemical engineering at the University of New Mexico. She wants to use her degree to enter the medical field. Less than 2 years ago, after much debate and compromise, the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill. That bill would have modernized our immigration system to meet the needs of our economy. It would have provided an accountable pathway to earn citizenship for the undocumented workers currently living in the shadows in our country. It would have dramatically strengthened security at our borders. Accountable immigration reform received 68 votes in this body and demonstrated the kind of legislation and the kind of leadership that is possible when we work together. The American people are frustrated with the gridlock here in Washington, DC. Frankly, I don't blame them. We need pragmatic solutions to fix our immigration system, but withholding DHS funding and jeopardizing our national security is not a solution. In fact, I would say it is emblematic of what is broken. Instead of focusing on deporting some of our country's brightest students, I would urge my Republican colleagues in the House and in the Senate to direct their attention to the real threats our country faces--the gang members, the drug traffickers, the cyber hackers, and the terrorists. Let's work together to make sure the Department of Homeland Security is adequately funded. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes to talk about the pending business--the TransCanada tar sands pipeline. I think it is helpful to start out by recognizing that we actually haven't had a global energy bill in the Senate going back to 2005. So it has been about 10 years since we have truly looked at our entire energy policy in this country and set a new course for what we should be doing in the future. Despite the fact I think bumper stickers are a little dangerous, I thought it would be helpful to at least try to encapsulate the general direction we should be going--the short and sweet of what lens we should be viewing our national energy policy through. I think if I had to boil that down to a simple and concise statement, what I would say is simply fewer imports and cleaner fuels. So as we look at different proposals over the course of this upcoming Congress, I think it will be very helpful, particularly on the energy committee and on the floor, to view these projects through that lens. Oddly enough, we are not dealing with a major energy policy as the very first thing the Senate considers as its pending business. We are dealing with one single project put forward by TransCanada, an international corporation, that has spent millions and millions of dollars over the last few years lobbying Washington for this particular project. A lot has been said about the tar sands and about oil sands, but one of the things I think would be helpful to talk about is the fundamental difference between the oil that is produced around the United States and tar sands production. At the end of the line we are talking about the energy that is produced, but at the front end there is an enormous difference between oil that is drilled in Southeast New Mexico, Northwest New Mexico, in West Texas, in North Dakota or Colorado and in the tar sands. If we look through that same lens of fewer imports and cleaner fuels, tar sands development fails on both of those fronts. We talk about more dependency in the United States on importing energy, and here we are talking about a substantially dirtier fuel source. In fact, we aren't allowed props on the floor, but when having this conversation in caucus, I brought some tar sands with me so I could show people the difference between oil and tar sands and how just toxic and sticky it is and how it represents a step backward in our overall energy policy in this country. When thinking of oil production, most people think of putting a well in place, you case the well, and there is a well pad. It has an impact, certainly, but it is substantially limited compared to what we are seeing going on in the boreal forest in northern Alberta right now. This is a picture of northern Canada. For those of us in arid Southwestern States, I can't tell you how envious we are of the kind of water one finds in this part of Canada. Also, the fish and wildlife and the forest resources are substantial. If we look at this picture, some people would say: That is the kind of place one might want to see as a national wildlife refuge or a national park. This is what the boreal forest looks like before tar sands production. The thing to remember is that tar sands are not drilled for. They are not produced the way oil and natural gas is produced. Tar sands are mined, and they are strip mined. Let us see a picture that exemplifies the boreal forest and then the tar sands production area in the back. This in the front is how it started out and the back is what you have once you are producing the tar sands. We heard from our colleague from Wyoming in his statement recently on the floor that there is no significant environmental impact from this project. But when we look at tar sands production, I don't know how we can look at a photo such as this and say there is no significant environmental impact. Let's look at the next picture, and we can take an even closer look at what the tar sands look like when it is in production. We are talking about an enormous area across northern Canada impacted in this way. As we can see, the tar sands is not oil, it is sand and bitumen together. To be able to process tar sands, to send it through this tar sands pipeline--the Keystone or any other pipeline--to be able to produce it and refine it is a very complicated process. You start by removing the forest cover, then you scrape off the topsoil, and after that you dig up the remaining tar sands and then you have to heat those up and process it to get the energy-bearing oil portion out. Just to be able to move it through a pipeline you have to heat it up, you have to pressurize it and you have to add caustic solvents. One of the reasons it has been so incredibly difficult to clean up the existing tar sands spills in places such as Michigan and Arkansas is because--unlike oil, where we have a fair amount of experience, though it is not easy to clean up--there are additional solvents and because the very sticky nature of this substance makes it almost impossible to clean up. We have had very little luck cleaning up tar sands spills to date. We see in the front of this picture the boreal forest--or what is left of it--and then we see acres and acres and acres, thousands upon thousands of acres of tar sands production. So I think the first thing that is important for people to know is that this simply is not traditional oil and gas development. It is not clear a well pad, drill a hole, and produce oil. It is the kind of impact that if it were proposed for New Mexico or New York or California or even Texas we would have enormous outcry. We don't have the kind of open-pit mining and strip mining we once had in this country, but that is what it is most analogous to. That said, another one of the claims that has been made repeatedly about this particular project is that the emissions it would create are inconsequential. So it is helpful to look at the emissions to understand that, because tar sands are fundamentally not only harder to handle but fundamentally dirtier from a pollution point of view than traditional oil resources. It is instructive to look at the difference between if we created the same amount of energy from domestic New Mexico, Texas, Colorado or North Dakota crude oil versus if we produced that energy from tar sands. Once again, we get an idea of the emissions just at the source of the tar sands development here, but if we were to build this tar sands pipeline and we burned all of that produced tar sands that will move through it, the incremental pollution impact of that, the incremental carbon pollution--not the base pollution of whether we created the same amount of energy from oil sources or from some other sources of energy, if we used oil from the United States to create this energy--not looking at that but just the increment of burning tar sands oil instead of conventional crude oil, it is the equivalent of putting 285 million cars on the road for 1 year. So the addition of carbon pollution to the atmosphere is anything but inconsequential if we look at it from the point of view that it is the equivalent of doubling Pennsylvania's cars--putting another Pennsylvania's worth of auto traffic on the road every year for 50 years. What that doesn't take into account is the additional carbon released simply because we are cutting down all the forests, eliminating the peat bogs, and fundamentally industrializing an enormous portion of Alberta and Canada. That increment is another 6 million cars' worth of carbon pollution on the road for 1 year. So that brings me to: What difference does this make? We may have seen in the news a few days ago how 2014 was the hottest year on record. I wish I could say that was an anomaly. Unfortunately, it is not. Fourteen of the last 15 years have been record-setting years. And if there is something we know from our geologic records-- from ice cores, from the science that has been done at NASA and NOAA and analyzed by our national labs and our university scientists--it is that over time the amount of carbon pollution in the atmosphere--the parts per million of carbon dioxide at any given time--tends to correlate with temperature. It doesn't matter if it comes from a volcano, it doesn't matter if it comes from the exhaust of a car. But because we have added such an enormous increment in recent years, since 1880 and the Industrial Revolution, we can see that as the parts per million of particles go up over time--this is the CO2 concentration over that time period from the Industrial Revolution to today. It is actually not quite up to date because, unfortunately, we are now up here above 400 parts per million. Over that same time period, the average temperature has gone up year in and year out, with fluctuations, but the trendline continues to go up to a very dangerous level. Adding an additional increment of carbon pollution is simply not something we can afford at a time when we need to be showing real leadership in terms of cleaning up our energy sources, moving forward to a clean energy future, and putting Americans to work here, domestically, with that approach. The temporary jobs this tar sands pipeline will create are not inconsequential. But since this has been sold as a jobs program, it is worth stepping back and talking about how much of a permanent impact this is going to make. I would make the argument that if we were truly serious here in the U.S. Senate about the type of temporary construction jobs this pipeline would create, we would get serious about passing a transportation bill--and not only passing a transportation bill, but financing transportation in this country, financing infrastructure in this country the way we have historically. We have a deficit of trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure at this point in this country because we won't pay to maintain it. In fact, our parents' generation built an infrastructure that is the envy of the world. With the current approach in the Congress, we haven't even had the decency to maintain the infrastructure they built and pass it on to our children unimpaired, much less create additional infrastructure of the type we saw from previous generations. So if we look at the permanent jobs, as articulated in the environmental impact statement, we are talking about 30 to 50 permanent jobs from Keystone. That is slightly less than a single McDonald's, although I would argue that construction jobs are usually higher paying than McDonald's. But it gives us a sense of the kind of scale we are talking about in terms of permanent jobs. If we compare that to just regional projects in individual States--a transmission line in the Southwest, three times as many jobs as that; an electric vehicle plant in the West in Nevada, substantially many, many increments of permanent jobs more, which once again brings us to the fact that in this recovery, just in the third quarter of 2014, we saw 18,000 in clean energy jobs created in this country. We need jobs in this country. We need energy in this country. And I would argue that the sooner we commit ourselves to a clean energy job- intensive future, the sooner we will address the real challenges that are in front of us. I continue to urge the President to exercise his discretion and his veto of this. I suspect it will pass the U.S. Senate. But the sooner we get through this process, my hope is that we can return to a real debate about how we address the science that all the scientists have said is out there. We did make a big step forward yesterday in that the Senate for the first time--and the Republicans in the Senate in particular for the first time--accepted the reality of climate change. Unfortunately, right now the policy prescription is to make that climate change worse. It is time we had an Apollo project for clean energy in this country. That will take transition. That means we are going to continue to produce fossil fuels as a part of that transition. But the sooner we get serious about investing in research and development, the sooner we get serious in terms of scaling the very real and economically competitive technologies we already have, the sooner we get serious about building infrastructure, such as transmission lines to carry renewable energy from parts of the country where it can be produced today to parts of the country where it will be consumed, the sooner we will lead the world and put this country back on track to be the world leader in not only energy but in clean energy. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to refer, which would remove the public lands title from the Defense authorization bill. Like some of my colleagues, I think an appropriate place to start today is to thank Chair Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski for their efforts on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They worked so hard to come up with a package that could actually move in this divided Congress. The bills in this package have been the subject of incredibly long debate. Many of them, such as the bill we just heard about from my colleague in Maryland, have been under consideration for years. Almost all the bills included in the public lands package have received hearings in either the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee or the House Natural Resources Committee, and almost all of the bills were favorably reported by these committees. For example, every provision in the lands package relating to a national park designation or expansion and every provision designating Federal land as wilderness in this package was closely considered by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and cleared the committee with bipartisan support. I should note that many of these provisions were not only the subject of committee hearings in this Congress and markups in this Congress but in previous years as well. The public lands title is the product of lengthy negotiations with the House, with both Republican and Democratic priorities included. Some Senate provisions were modified to address concerns raised by the House of Representatives, and other House provisions were modified to address Senate concerns. This package is a compromise. There is a lot in it that I love but a few things that I absolutely don't support. There are also things that I had hoped would be in this package that will not be in this package. But that is the nature of compromise and governance. Frankly, that is something we need a lot more of around here. This package conserves our Nation's resources, our water resources, and our wildlife habitat. It preserves our Nation's culture and history and allows for the smart and responsible development of our public lands as well. We have a responsibility to future generations to be good stewards of our shared culture and the natural world. Madam President, it will come as no surprise to you or to many of my colleagues that as I travel across New Mexico, what I hear time and again from people is that they are frustrated with Washington, that Congress can't get anything done, and that ``compromise'' sounds like a dirty word to some of our colleagues. We have an opportunity to change that today. Let's work together and be willing to compromise in order to get things done for our constituents and for the American people. Our constituents across this great Nation deserve no less. I would urge my colleagues' support of the package and opposition to the motion to refer. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, as I start my comments on the land title legislation before us, I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work our chair Mary Landrieu has done on this legislation. As we just heard from the tribute to her service over the last few minutes, as the Presiding Officer said in his comments, if you Google ``bipartisan,'' there will be a picture of Mary Landrieu. I think this title sort of embodies that. We owe great gratitude to Chairman Landrieu and to Ranking Member Murkowski for the incredible negotiation and work they have put into this package. We stand on the cusp of passing one of the most significant pieces of public land legislation since the omnibus bill of 2009. I stand here to speak on behalf of this well-balanced package which is absolutely critical for jobs across the Western United States and particularly from the perspective of my home State of New Mexico. I want to say that absolutely none of this would be possible were it not for the years of effort and support from the local communities that helped to craft this legislation. Thanks to their work, New Mexico's critical public land-based economic engine will continue to grow and the energy, tourism, and sporting and recreation sectors. New wilderness and National Park Service units will continue to make New Mexico an unmatched destination for world travelers as well as to the local families who have known for centuries that New Mexico truly is the land of enchantment. I wish to start by talking a little bit about a place that is located in the Carson National Forest in northern New Mexico. This is a picture of Lobo Peak, which is part of this area called Columbine Hondo. Lobo Peak is 12,000 feet and change. It is quite a spectacular view--the kind of view most people associate with Montana or Colorado or Wyoming. The Sangre de Cristo mountains in northern New Mexico are unmatched or could match any of those mountain ranges in States found farther north in the Rockies. Columbine Hondo has been managed as a wilderness study area since 1980. It is an area that is cherished by all who know it and is a key attraction for the local tourism and outdoor recreation economy. When I was a young outfitter guide and the executive director of the Cottonwood Gulch Foundation, Columbine Hondo was one of the spectacular destinations where our students backpacked and slept under the stars and learned to navigate in the backcountry. This area has some of the best elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep habitat in New Mexico. People come from across the Nation to experience a true wilderness elk hunt in its aspen and fir forests. Fishermen will tell you that it is home to some of the last, best habitat for our native Rio Grande cutthroat trout, which is, coincidentally, New Mexico's State fish as well. Columbine Hondo is home to the headwaters of the Red River and the Rio Hondo. There is nothing more precious in a State such as New Mexico than our water. Those are major tributaries of the Rio Grande. The snowmelt from Lobo Peak, seen here, and from Gold Hill provide critical irrigation water to local acequia associations that carry on centuries- old agricultural traditions. For millennia now, these mountains, rivers, and wildlife have supported New Mexico's traditional communities. The first evidence of human habitation here stretches back 11,000 years. Nearby Taos Pueblo has been continuously inhabited for more than 1,000 years. Spanish settlers first came to the area in the 16th century. Hispanic families have relied on these mountains and their bounty for their way of life ever since. Today Columbine Hondo is a central attraction to visitors to Taos County, where outdoor recreation and tourism drive the local economy and contribute to a 68,000-job-strong public land recreation industry in our State. In addition to finally designating Columbine Hondo as a full-fledged wilderness area, this package would also expand the Wheeler Peak Wilderness by approximately 650 additional acres while modifying a boundary in order to create a loop trail accessible by mountain bikes along the Lost Lake Trail from Taos Ski Valley, to the East Fork Trail, to Red River. This proposal has broad community support, including Taos Pueblo, many local government leaders, hunters, fishermen, business owners, land grant heirs, ranchers, acequia parcientes, conservationists, mountain bikers, veterans, and literally the list could go on and on. In October, on my birthday--I could not have asked for a better birthday gift--I was able to join the Columbine Hondo Wilderness Coalition as well as regional stakeholders and local elected officials for a hike into the area to highlight the conservation and water initiatives they support. Local residents discussed why they support permanently protecting Columbine Hondo and what the area means to them and their livelihoods and their lives. Esther Garcia, an acequia commissioner and the former mayor of Questa, expressed her support well when she said: Columbine Hondo is very important to all of us. To preserve this beautiful wilderness area, we preserve our hunting, our pinon picking, our herb gathering. I thank all of the residents of Taos County who have worked hard for decades--literally decades--to make this wilderness area a reality. Also included in this public land package is a provision to transition the Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico to new management to increase public access. This proposal was developed after extensive input from local residents, sportsmen, business owners, elected officials, and is supported by a number of local chambers of commerce. Together they decided that a national preserve, managed by the Park Service, with a mandate for hunting and fishing to remain central to the management of the area, was the best way to ensure expanded public access while preserving the incredible landscape for future generations. As you can see from this photo, Valles Caldera is often called New Mexico's Yellowstone for a reason. It is literally an area that was created as a collapsed supervolcano, where cinder cones rise up out of the high-elevation grassland and where the cinder cones and the mountains that encircle this collapsed crater are covered in Douglas- fir and fir and aspen forests. It is a spectacular landscape. The Caldera is home to crystal-clear trout streams and some of the best elk habitat in the country. Since this area was transitioned to public ownership, the preserve has been managed by a board of trustees charged with generating enough revenue from user fees and other sources to make the preserve financially self-sustaining--literally the same model used for the Presidio in San Francisco, but, as you can see, this is not San Francisco. This management regime has led to drastically limited public access, with relatively high entrance and permit fees, blocking many New Mexicans and other Americans out of this public land. By shifting to Park Service management, we can open the Valles Caldera to the public while conserving the incredible, really one-of-a-kind unique resources that are found here. As someone who has been lucky enough to draw an elk tag in the Caldera, expanding hunting opportunities for the public is one of the primary reasons I am supporting this proposal. The preserve model ensures that hunting and fishing remain a central activity for the public to enjoy. National Park Service management will help balance expanded public access with conserving both the natural and the incredible cultural resources that are found in this area. Park Service management will also help bring more visitors and will raise the national profile of the preserve for visitors from outside New Mexico. The increase in visitors at the preserve is expected to bring more than 200 jobs and $8 million in wages to the local communities in the region. That is great news for places such as Los Alamos, Espanola, and Jemez Springs. We have seen elsewhere how protecting public lands spurs economic development. According to Headwaters Economics, rural counties with protected Federal lands such as national parks and preserves saw a 345- percent increase in jobs over the last four decades, whereas rural counties without commensurate protected public lands saw job increases of only 83 percent in the same period. I thank the local communities and all the elected officials who have worked so hard for decades to make this proposal possible. I thank Senator Tom Udall and former Senator Jeff Bingaman for their leadership on this issue. We all literally stand on the shoulders of giants in this community effort, as it was Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico who helped pass the Wilderness Act and who first proposed National Park Service management of the Valles Caldera in the early 1960s. Additionally, as the son of a Navy sailor who literally saw the last of the aboveground atom bomb explosions and the first of the hydrogen bomb explosions firsthand, I am especially pleased to see that the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act, which was introduced by Senator Maria Cantwell, is also included in this title. It will establish three different educational sites--one in Los Alamos, NM, one at Oak Ridge in Tennessee, and one at Hanford in Washington. Los Alamos, NM, has made incredible contributions to our Nation's nuclear history. These parks will conserve historic sites and artifacts that played a key role in the dawn of the nuclear era, while telling the story of the creation of the world's first atomic bomb and exploring its consequences for our society and our world. Finally, I would like to mention the provision in this package that will benefit New Mexico's energy economy. It is one that I know Senator Landrieu was very supportive and excited about. It is a bill that I cosponsored, but it was authored by my colleague Senator Tom Udall, who championed this effort to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management has the staff it needs to streamline the oil and gas drilling permit process, while at the same time strengthening the review system that helps them meet important environmental and safety standards. Thousands of jobs and a sizable portion of our State's economy are supported in New Mexico by the oil and gas industry. Increasing cooperation among Federal agencies and business is an important way to boost job creation, while at the same time expanding domestic energy production. Like other Americans who value our shared lands as assets to be utilized, to be enjoyed, and to be passed along to future generations, these are all things worth fighting for. I am committed to carry on my State's rich conservation history, and this legislation makes an enormous contribution to that ever-evolving story. I yield the floor to my colleague the Senator from Montana.

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

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, torture is wrong, it is un-American, and it doesn't work. Recognizing these important realities, the President signed an Executive order in January of 2009 that limited interrogations by any American personnel to the guidelines that are in the Army Field Manual, and he reinforced U.S. commitment to the Geneva Conventions. This closed the book on the Bush administration's interrogation program. But make no mistake--these weren't enhanced interrogations. This was torture. I would challenge anyone to read this report and not be truly disturbed by some of these techniques. Releasing the Intelligence Committee's study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program to the American people today will finally provide a thorough accounting of what happened and how it happened. In addition, like my colleague and friend from Maine who spoke before me, I hope this process helps to ensure that it never ever happens again. This was a grave chapter in our history, and the actions taken under this program cost our Nation global credibility, and--let's be blunt-- they put American lives at risk. Some have suggested that releasing this report could put American lives at risk. But let's be clear. It has been the use of torture that has unnecessarily put Americans in harm's way. There is no question that there will never be a good time to release this study. We all know that for months, terrorists in the extremist group ISIS have been kidnapping and barbarically killing innocent Americans because of what we as a nation stand for. The response to their threats and terrorism should not be for us to change our American values; it should be to stand firm in our values and work with our allies to root out extremism and terrorism in all its forms. The release of this study will finally let us face what was done in the name of the American people and allow for future generations to use these findings to learn from the mistakes made by the architects of this program. This is an objective, fact-based study. It is a fair study. And it is the only comprehensive study conducted of this program and the CIA's treatment of its detainees in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Today marks an enormous, albeit painful, step into our future. It is important to know that these torture methods were the brainchild of a few CIA officials and their contractors. When I joined the Intelligence Committee two years ago, I began to read the classified report and was surprised to learn this. Frankly, it was not consistent with all of my assumptions. It wasn't what my prejudices told me to expect. But that is exactly why a fact-based study is so important. Furthermore, it is important to know that at every turn, CIA leadership avoided congressional oversight of these activities and, even worse, misled Congress. That leadership deliberately kept the vast majority of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees in the dark on the interrogation techniques until the day the President revealed the detention and interrogation program to the rest of the world in 2006--4 years after it began. Even then, misrepresentations to the committee about the effectiveness of this program continued, in large part because the CIA had never performed any comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the interrogation techniques or the actions of its officers. Myths of the effectiveness of torture have been repeated, perpetuating the fable that this was a necessary program that somehow saved lives. The committee examined the CIA's claims of plots thwarted and detainees captured as a result of intelligence gained through torture. In each and every case, the committee found that the intelligence was already available from other sources or provided by the detainees themselves before they were tortured. However, we need to stop treating the issue of torture as one worthy of debate over its practical merits. This is about torture being immoral, being un-American. Reducing a human being to a state of despair through systematic subjugation, pain, and humiliation is unquestionably immoral. It should never happen again with the blessing of the Government of the United States of America. As my colleague who spoke before me--Senator King of Maine--said so well in an interview this morning, ``This is not America. This is not who we are.'' I think that sums up how I view the revelations in that report. The information in the study released today to the public will finally pull back the curtain on the terrible judgment that went into creating and implementing this interrogation program. The decision to use these techniques and the defense of the program were the work of a relatively small number of people at the CIA. This study is in no way a condemnation of the thousands of patriotic men and women at this great Agency who work tirelessly every day to protect and defend our Nation from very real and imminent threats using lawful measures; using effective measures. In fact, the insistence that so many intelligence successes were the result of enhanced interrogations negates and marginalizes the effective work done by thousands of other CIA officers not involved in these activities. What this study does is show that multiple levels of government were misled about the effectiveness of these techniques. If secretive government agencies want to operate in a democracy, there must be trust and transparency with those who are tasked with the oversight of those agencies. As the committee carries out future oversight, we will benefit from the lessons in this study. I hope we never again let the challenges of difficult times be used as an excuse to frustrate and defer oversight the way it was in the early years described in this report. Although President Obama ended the program by signing that Executive order in 2009, any future President could reverse it. It is worth remembering that years before this detention and interrogation program even began, the CIA had sworn off the harsh interrogations of its past. But in the wake of the terrorist attacks against the United States, it repeated those mistakes by once again engaging in brutal interrogations that undermined our Nation's credibility on the issue of human rights, produced information of dubious value, and wasted millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. The public interest in this issue too often has centered on the personalities involved and the political battle waged in the release of this study, but those stories are reductive, and I hope they will soon be forgotten. Because the story of what happened in this detention and interrogation program--and how it happened--is too important, and it needs to be fully understood so that future generations will not make the same mistakes that our country made out of fear. When America engages in these acts, with authorization from the highest levels of government, we invite others to treat our citizens and our soldiers the same way. This study should serve as a warning to those who would make similar choices in the future or argue about the efficacy of these techniques. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past, and let us never repeat these mistakes again. Before I close, I wish to say how important it is to acknowledge that the Intelligence Committee's study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program represents many, many years of hard work by Members and staff who faced incredible obstacles in completing their work. The fact that this study is finished is a testament to their dedication, and it is a testament to the dedication and focus of Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Feinstein in deciding that oversight is our job, regardless of how long it takes. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be permitted to follow my remarks and speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. HEINRICH

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

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let me start out by righting a wrong. I hadn't realized Chairman Wyden, our chairman from Oregon, had not had a chance to visit the great State of New Mexico. I will fix that right now and make sure he is not only invited, but we might seek to show him some of the incredible places the two programs we are talking about today have helped preserve, protect, and make as assets to our local economy in the State of New Mexico. As we heard from our colleague Senator Udall and our colleague Chairman Wyden of Oregon as well, this month we celebrate two incredible milestones in our country's conservation history. We celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Both of these programs have been etched into the history of my home State by New Mexico conservationists with names such as Aldo Leopold, Senator Clinton P. Anderson, and Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall. When Senator Anderson steered the passage of the Wilderness Act here on the floor of the Senate, he said on August 20, 1964: In no area has this Congress more decisively served the future well-being of the Nation than in passing legislation to conserve natural resources and to provide the means by which our people could enjoy them. . . . While we stretch out the highways to carry ever-expanding traffic, while we build whole new communities to house a growing population, and while we consume more acreage for a burgeoning industry, we have set aside part of our land as it was when human eye first saw it--unscarred by man, primeval, a memorial to the Creator who molded it. Senator Anderson was also unquestionably one of the principal architects of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the 88th Congress, where so much of this work was done, was coined as the ``Conservation Congress.'' LWCF is the primary tool our Nation uses to fund the protection of our natural and cultural heritage, and I have worked diligently with my colleagues--including Senator Udall, his cousin Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Wyden of Oregon, and others--to secure full and permanent funding for this program. But even 40 years before the enactment of the Wilderness Act or LWCF, conservationist Aldo Leopold had the vision and influence to help protect 500,000 acres of mountains, rivers, and mesas in New Mexico-- which eventually became the Gila Wilderness--in order to ensure a roadless and backcountry experience free of what Aldo Leopold called ``Ford dust'' for those hearty enough to saddle up or hike into the heart of this wild country. With the passage of the Wilderness Act, it became the National Forest System's very first designated wilderness area. New Mexico is also where the idea of tribally administered wilderness became a reality when Blue Lake was returned to Taos Pueblo. Former Senator Jeff Bingaman's leadership was absolutely invaluable in conserving important public lands in New Mexico, such as the Rio Grande del Norte and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks regions, both of which were designated national monuments within the last 2 years. But the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not just about the past, as we have heard from my colleagues. The future of public lands conservation will depend on the continued collaborative efforts of our elected officials, our business owners, tribal leaders, sportsmen, conservation organizations, outdoor retailers, and others to work together to protect America's most treasured natural landscapes. Our efforts should continue our proud bipartisan history. After all, it was Representative John Saylor, a Republican from Pennsylvania, who was the lead sponsor and champion in the House of Representatives for the Wilderness Act. And it was former Republican Senator Pete Domenici of my home State who championed legislation to designate the Sandia Wilderness, a place I look upon every time I go home to Albuquerque, and who said at the time that the area ``forms a beautiful natural backdrop for the city which all the residents can enjoy.'' In New Mexico, hunters and anglers, campers and acequia parciantes, chili farmers and urban dwellers, all have a deep connection to the outdoors and benefit from the recreation, wildlife, and the water that wilderness provides. Many of my own most formative moments, decisions, memories, and turning points have occurred in these public wildlands. I remember a trip with my wife Julie to the Irish Wilderness in Missouri, a trip that we made as we were leaving our college days behind in the Midwest and heading back west to New Mexico to start our new life together. In 2001, shortly after 9/11, I backpacked through 53 miles of the Gilo Wilderness and decided on that trip to run for a seat on the Albuquerque City Council. I have many cherished memories from the trips my wife and I have made over the years along the spines of the American Rockies, the Sangre de Cristos, the Tetons, in places with names like the Pecos Wilderness, the South San Juan, Jedediah Smith, and canyons with names like Dark Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Gray, Grand Gulch, the Goosenecks, the San Juan, and of course the Chama River Canyon near my home. Wilderness is in my blood, and I make no apologies for believing that some places are so very special that we will never improve upon them. These are the places worth fighting for. I am committed to carry on my State's rich conservation history. Senator Tom Udall and I have introduced legislation to designate special places such as the Columbine-Hondo in Taos County, the San Antonio River and Ute Mountain in the new Rio Grande del Norte National Monument as new wilderness areas. It is clear that conservation and growing our economy are inextricably linked. Protected wild places contribute to the New Mexico economy in a robust and sustainable outdoor recreation community which generates $6.1 billion in consumer spending every year in the State, gives us 68,000 New Mexico jobs, and $1.7 billion in wages and salaries, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. The new Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in northern New Mexico has already yielded economic benefits since its designation. After less than 1 year since it was designated a national monument, the local community saw a 40-percent increase in visitors. As we look back on the last 50 years since the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund both became law, let us also look to the future. My children love wild places as much as I do. My son Carter will be backpack hunting for elk with me later this fall. My son Michael will join me on BLM land to chase mule deer. They have hiked the Columbine Hondo Wilderness Study Area and fished in Cruces Basin Wilderness. It is up to all of us to ensure that their children have the same opportunities we had and that we have shared with their generation. I close with a quote from Aldo Leopold's book, ``A Sand County Almanac'': When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. My understanding is that the resource situation in Southern Command has changed so dramatically in recent years that not only is this interagency task force limited, but they have literally canceled more than 200 engagement activities and multilateral exercises with our partners in the region who can multiply that effect and interdict even more narcotics as they are moving forward.

Mr. HEINRICH. --in the United States and Canada. They have to literally sit there and watch these narcotics go by without having the resources to stop them in their tracks.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Oregon, his leadership, along with Senator Crapo, on this firefighting budgeting and fire borrowing issue--that is really what it is--is critical to all of us in Western States. Every single one of us has seen communities touched by these catastrophic wildfires as our climate is changing and we see fires get bigger and bigger. But we have solutions, and the solutions are bipartisan and common sense. I can only hope that we are able to move quickly to make these budget changes. They will make a real difference for all of us up and down in the Intermountain West. Border Crisis