Martin Heinrich

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. I thank Senator Heitkamp for her leadership on this issue. I thank the Presiding Officer for his contributions to allow us to reach what has been an incredible example of a bipartisan, balanced energy package, something we haven't seen for quite a while. I wish to recognize the many hours that Senator Heitkamp spent in meetings of every complexion under the sun, educating our colleagues who don't have oil- and gas-producing basins, as we do, on the intricacies of what does this mean for price pressures, what does this mean for consumers, are the things that you intuitively might think actually not what you would see in the actual marketplace. There was meeting after meeting with the renewable energy associations, in the solar field, in the wind field, and with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. There were people such as the Presiding Officer or the energy committee chairperson, Senator Murkowski of Alaska. I thank the Senator for that work, and it has really been a pleasure to work with her in that effort. This is a very big step for New Mexico. Obviously, at any time when oil is trading under $50 a barrel in a State where we have two big basins--the Permian Basin in the Southeast and the San Juan Basin in the Northwest, not to mention production in the Raton Basin that is coming on--it is a very big hit, not only to our job situation and to the families who rely on those jobs, but also to our public schools in the State of New Mexico. This opportunity to relax the oil export ban means something concrete for that industry and for those jobs in New Mexico. It also means something very concrete for the future of jobs in New Mexico as well. The incremental work on the renewable side is one of the single biggest pieces of policy on clean energy that I have seen in my adult lifetime. We are looking at two markets that have grown rapidly and that have produced, in solar's case, 200,000 jobs in the last few years. That would have taken an enormous hit if we would have allowed those incentives to go away. As a result of this package, we are likely going to see another 140,000 jobs in solar alone. The incremental impact on the carbon front--the extension will offset 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. That is like 26 coal-fired powerplants. These things impact small businesses across my State as well as across the country. But if you look at a small State such as New Mexico with 2 million people, we have close to 100 solar companies employing 1,600 people in these new fields, and it is growing rapidly. We have seen 358 megawatts of solar energy installed. We have 812 megawatts of wind energy currently installed and another 300 in the pipeline right now, with another 300,000 to 500,000 jobs associated with that in 2014 alone. This is the single biggest piece of predictability within renewable energy that we have seen in a very long time. We have learned the reality that one-plus-one-plus-one does not equal three. When you add a tax incentive one year, you take it away, and you add it back, the sum of those is not nearly as robust as when you have predictability over a period of time. That is what this does for our energy industries across the board. I thank the Senator for all of her work on it. I wish to ask the Senator a question, in particular. This agreement obviously didn't happen overnight. I know we have been meeting for well over a year, and you have been thinking about it even longer than that. I ask Senator Heitkamp, would you talk a little bit about why you are so passionate about this issue and what specifically it means for the people of North Dakota.

Mr. HEINRICH. I thank again Senator Heitkamp. I just wish to say how important this is for the State of New Mexico, in part from the perspective that our economy has been incredibly challenged in the last few years. Coming out of the recessions, we have not seen the growth that many of our neighbors have seen. One of the places where we have seen growth has been the solar industry. For the people working in the solar industry today, those are new jobs. Having certainty for our energy sector, which runs the gamut from the oil and gas basins that I talked about, to the incredible growth in solar energy, to the fact that we have a very strong wind component in the State--basically, the eastern side of our State is very much in the same wind-mapping zone as the Panhandle of Texas. This means predictability. It means jobs. It is one of the single biggest economic things that we could have done for the State of New Mexico since I have been in the Senate. I think we have a lot to be proud of. We were also able to extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund, something that has been working for this Nation, across the country, for 50 years. That is very much tied to our leasing of oil and gas offshore. Certainly, my colleague Senator Udall knows that program inside and out. He has been an incredible champion for it. His father made it happen when he was Secretary of the Interior. I conclude my remarks and thank you again for allowing me to engage in this colloquy. I thank our colleagues for being able to work on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, the whole policy objective of the Cadillac tax was supposed to cap excessive spending as a way to reduce health care spending and to generate revenue for other parts of the ACA. Obviously, the popular name of the tax implies that it is only going to hit a few individuals with gold-plated health insurance plans. When this was proposed and included in the ACA, people cited Goldman Sachs' executive health benefits plans as sort of the poster child for the Cadillac plan. Obviously, they chose very wisely in the way that they branded this. But this tax targets many plans that aren't gold plated; they are barely bronze plated. It solidly taxes middle-class workers. Proponents of the Cadillac tax are operating under the clearly flawed premise that plans with overly generous benefits are the primary drivers of increased health insurance programs, and we know today that is not the case. The data doesn't back it up. According to a 2014 report, the richness of plan benefits accounts only for about 6 percent of the overall increases in a plan's premium growth. The costs of employer health plans are actually driven by factors that are largely out of the control of the actual beneficiary-- things like the group's size, the health status of the firm's employees, or the age band for those employees. Geography alone accounts for 69.3 percent of a plan's premium growth, which obviously would be completely unaffected. It is clear that the Cadillac tax will hurt millions of workers, their families, retirees--all with health plans of modest value. This includes low- and moderate-income families, people on fixed incomes because they are retirees, public sector employees, small businesses, the self-employed, including three-quarters of a million New Mexicans. Let me put that in perspective: There are only 2 million of us. I ask Senator Heller, my colleague from the Silver State: What are employers in the State of Nevada expecting will happen when the Cadillac tax goes into effect if we aren't able to pass this legislation?

Mr. HEINRICH. According to one source, the Kaiser Family Foundation, one in four employers that offer health care benefits will be affected by the Cadillac tax in 2018 if their plans remain unchanged. Despite the fact that the tax doesn't go into effect until then, many employers have already begun scaling back their coverage to avoid that. Despite the fact that the tax itself is set to go into effect in 2018, we are already seeing the impacts to small businesses, to economies now. As employers consider ways to lower the costs of their health care plans, many are shifting costs to their employees. Increased deductibles, copays, out-of-pocket maximums, higher copayments and deductibles leave many, especially low- and middle-income workers, underinsured, who are exactly the folks who were not supposed to be touched by the Cadillac tax. These are definitely people in my State who are not driving Cadillacs. I can assure you of that. According to a study by the American College of Emergency Physicians, higher out-of-pocket costs result in delayed medical care as many forgo essential care when they get sick and become less likely to fill their prescriptions or stick to their doctors' treatment plans, and those with higher out-of-pocket costs are also more likely to seek medical treatment in emergency rooms--the most expensive way to get health care treatment. This is precisely what we were trying to avoid with the advent of the Affordable Care Act. I want to ask my colleague from Nevada, in particular, you mentioned a number of different constituencies whom you have heard from about this tax--people such as the culinary workers. Are they upper class, Cadillac-driving constituents or are they middle-class folks who are just trying to put food on the table and maybe send their kids to college someday? Who is going to be impacted by this?

Mr. HEINRICH. I want to first welcome our colleague from Nebraska to this conversation. I am sure he has heard a lot about this from his constituents as well. I think the reason the timing of this is so critical is because we see the impacts of this coming at the moment. We still have enough time to do something about it, but we are already seeing the impacts on people who are negotiating contracts now, the impacts of business plans for this. I think the Senator from Nebraska raises a valid question in that we have a certain incentive built into the current system by virtue of having large health care plans, employer-based plans not be taxed. I actually think it points a way to a more reasonable and elegant way to potentially pay for things in the ACA that some of us value, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also have that conversation about individual plans and small business and farm and ranch plans because obviously those are people who have a very hard time attaching themselves to these large pools.

Mr. HEINRICH. I thank the Senator for the question because I think this is incredibly important. The CBO estimated that the ACA would generate $93 billion over 10 years with this tax, but when you drill down on that, only one-quarter of that--about $23 billion--actually comes from excise tax receipts themselves. The remaining three-quarters comes from revenue that would be theoretically generated from increases in taxable wages that some economists expected would be coupled with reductions in health care benefits. In other words, all the money you are saving, you are going to pass on to the employees in the form of a raise. We simply know that is not what happens in the real world. In fact, employer surveys over the past few years have conclusively pointed to one unifying fact, that at best employers will not raise wages for their workers to compensate for downgrading of employee health insurance benefits. In fact, a recent American Health Policy Institute study found that three-quarters of employers said that they would not raise wages in order to make up for less comprehensive health insurance plans. I say to Senator Heller, I know we are being joined by the leader here, and I am going to have to run to another event in a few minutes, but I want to ask you if you would maybe consider a quick wrapup. I want to make the point that I think we have gotten as far as we have with this effort because of the incredible leadership you have shown, because of the bipartisan nature of this effort, because it is simply common sense that we need to make sure people have easier access to affordable care, and that the Cadillac tax may have sounded good at the time, but we are clearly learning today that this is a Ford Focus tax that will hit your middle-class families, my middle-class working families, and it is something we ought to be able to agree should be repealed.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I start by thanking my colleague, Senator Heller of Nevada, for his partnership and his leadership in pushing this issue forward and doing so effectively. I think the amendment we saw last week speaks to just how bipartisan this has become and how important it is. These days, there truly aren't many things around this place where we get a 90-to-10 vote. This tax, which will go into effect in 2018, was meant to help pay for other parts of the Affordable Care Act by charging a 40-percent tax on the highest cost, employer-based health plans. It was supposed to target only overly generous health plans--the ``Cadillacs on the health care highways,'' so to speak. In practice, however, the tax has become more of a ``Ford Focus tax.'' It will impact middle-income families who, for reasons that are largely outside their control, have health plans that already or soon will reach their policy limits. The tax will force many employers to pay steep taxes on their employees' health plans and flexible spending accounts. It will possibly eliminate some employer-provided health care plans altogether. The Cadillac tax has already limited options for New Mexicans to curb costs and keep plans affordable. Let me give an example. I recently heard from Jamie Wagoner, the benefits and compensation manager for the city of Farmington, NM. Under her leadership, the city began implementing wellness programs to slow the increase in health spending--exactly what we all wanted. Unfortunately, the city recently learned that its wellness programs would ultimately be factored in as a benefit subject to the Cadillac tax. It doesn't make sense that benefits designed to promote health and wellness, and ultimately drive down costs, actually end up triggering this new tax. This creates an inverted incentive for employers to avoid preventive benefits, such as wellness programs, that we all know are central to keeping our health care costs under control. There are better ways to pay for the good things in the Affordable Care Act. Doing away with this onerous tax on employees' health coverage before it goes into effect will protect important benefits for workers and ensure that businesses and families get a fair deal. I have always opposed this tax on the middle class, and I worked to strip it from the ACA when I was a freshman legislator in the House of Representatives. In New Mexico, small business owners, labor unions, counties, rural electric co-ops, municipalities--you name it--all oppose the tax. When was the last time we had a piece of legislation that united all of those constituencies? That is why Senator Heller and I introduced the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2015 to fully repeal this tax. This bipartisan effort also has companion legislation in the House of Representatives--legislation that has 178 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. There was a vote on an amendment that Senator Heller offered to include a full repeal of the Cadillac tax in the budget reconciliation bill, and the amendment was adopted 90 to 10, as my colleague pointed out. The landmark reforms in the ACA have given thousands of my constituents access to affordable, quality health care for the first time in their lives. But even the strongest supporters of this law know it is not perfect, and there are some parts of it that we absolutely need to fix. This is one of them. Republicans and Democrats need to put aside the partisan politics, put aside the grandstanding, and remember why Congress passed the ACA in the first place--to expand access to quality health care for all Americans. We need to work together to produce pragmatic policy that helps us achieve that goal. So I ask my colleague from Nevada specifically how this Cadillac tax, as it is called, would impact his residents and constituents in the State of Nevada.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, the attacks in Paris were an unconscionable act of terrorism. America stands with the people of France and people of Paris, as we support those grieving and those working to deliver justice to the people involved. Make no mistake; the heinous terrorist attacks in Paris were an act of war. ISIL has barbarically killed and tortured innocent civilians, including Americans, not just in Paris but also recently in Beirut and routinely in Iraq. They operate around the globe, are well funded, well armed, and have no intention of stopping until their radical goals are realized. They continue to prey upon the innocent and manipulate the vulnerable. In some areas ISIL operates freely because of the instability created by persistent ethnic, sectarian, and religious conflicts in Iraq and Syria. But this crisis is not limited to Iraq and Syria, and the world's powers and their interests are quickly aligning in the urgent need to wipe the map clean of ISIL and its affiliates. To be clear, there are smart ways that we can destroy this barbaric terrorist organization without entangling American troops in another endless and bloody ground war in the Middle East. America has a critical role to play in that effort, but it must be part of a larger strategy and coalition, employing a full range of military might, as well as economic and diplomatic power. We can further engage in this fight in the following ways. First, we must relentlessly target ISIL headquarters in Raqqa and Mosul through air power and destroy ISIL's large oil infrastructure and refineries. Second, we must strangle the flow of foreign fighters on Syria's northern border. Third, we must compel Russia and other governments to reach a political end to the Syrian civil war so that we can unify and focus on fighting the Islamic State. Fourth, we need new measures to crack down on those who finance this terrorism and this extremism. Finally, it is time to drive a much harder bargain with an Iraqi leadership that still refuses to build a state that is politically inclusive and decentralized. Defeating ISIL cannot be solely an American solution nor should American ground troops be on the frontlines. It is past time that our Arab allies began focusing their efforts, with our support, on ISIL, militarily and economically. Ultimately, local Arab ground forces are the only lasting solution to defeating ISIL because they will be the ones left to ensure peace and stability once the more immediate military operations are concluded. Some say that we should deploy 10,000 American troops to Syria. However, we know that this strategy would require significantly more troops and would not permanently eliminate ISIL or kill their ideology. Instead, doing so may well exacerbate the conflict and further ISIL's recruitment efforts. We can say this because we have a historical reference, and that historical reference is not from some distant land or from another century. For nearly a decade, our brave men and women in uniform were deployed in Iraq and were asked to clear and hold multiple large cities. At the peak, in 2007, nearly 170,000 Americans were deployed on the ground, providing security in communities all across Iraq. Nearly 4,500--4,494 to be exact--gave their lives. More than 32,000 were wounded. These tragic losses happened in the very same area where ISIL now occupies a major city in Iraq, Mosul, and a major city in Syria across the border, Raqqa. The point of my bringing up the Iraq war is not to relitigate the past but to keep in mind a very important lesson--that even when deploying nearly 200,000 American men and women to stabilize one country, the strategy of clearing and holding large territory is only a bandaid. It is not the permanent solution. This is especially true when the political leadership in these countries is unwilling to create an inclusive representative government. The calls for sending 10,000 American troops to fight ISIL and to provide security both in Iraq and Syria would mean asking our sons and daughters to remain in these countries fighting year after year for decades into the future. We know that when American forces are placed in the heart of these regional conflicts, it will only further delay the more lasting solution of having local partners on the ground and our allies in the Persian Gulf taking responsibility for this region, economically and militarily. Syrian Refugee Crisis Lastly, I wish to talk a little bit about the issue of the Syrian refugee crisis. Every single Syrian refugee must be subject to the highest levels of vetting and scrutiny, including repeated biometric screenings, before ever entering the United States of America. Syria is a war zone, and we have a duty to ensure that our own homeland security is intact. The real priority, however, should be addressing the real security gaps that currently exist under the Visa Waiver Program--something on which Democrats and Republicans agree. Currently the Visa Waiver Program allows citizens of countries that qualify--38 countries, including 31 from Europe--to travel freely and stay in the United States for up to 90 days. Individuals who have purposefully traveled to Iraq or Syria, who have joined training camps or sympathized with ISIL's cause--that is where the real risk to the homeland lies. The victims who have suffered at the hands of ISIL are not the problem, and we should instead be working to close the loopholes that allow dangerous individuals with violent intentions to potentially enter our country today. In the coming days, I will be calling for reforms to our Visa Waiver Program so that we can focus on the real threats to our homeland. There is a difference between terrorists and victims of terrorism. The implicit assumption that Syrian refugees--many of whom have suffered brutally at the hands of ISIL--are a threat because of their country of origin is a rejection of American values and represents giving into our worst ethnic and religious prejudices. I am grateful that when my own father and my grandparents fled Germany in the years leading up to World War II, this country chose to see them for what they were--enthusiastic American immigrants seeking to escape the dangerous politics gripping their former nation. Had this brand of twisted anti-immigrant logic been applied to them, I can only wonder how very different my life would be today. Let's remember that the enemy in this current scenario is ISIL, not the refugees who flee from their destruction. We simply will not have the moral standing as a nation to lead this international scenario if we ignore those who have lost everything at the hands of these barbaric terrorists. ISIL has killed and tortured many innocent civilians and is actively plotting to do more harm. We should all agree that ISIL must be eliminated from this Earth, but let's learn from our past mistakes and set to this work in a way that is both strategic and effective.

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

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking my colleague the senior Senator from New Mexico Tom Udall for the incredible leadership he has shown on this issue. I know it is something near and dear to his heart and something he absolutely and truly cares about. We have had a good team working on this over the course of the last couple of months. Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado has been a great contributor to this effort. Congressman Ben Ray Lujan of northern New Mexico has taken a leadership effort on a similar effort in the House, and today we are joined by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon on this legislation as well. As many folks know, in August a large plume of bright orange mine waste spilled into the Animas River, which leads into the San Juan, and polluted the Four Corners region from Colorado to New Mexico and through the Navajo Nation. If you take a look at this photo, which was shared with me by the president and vice president of the Navajo Nation, this is not what you want to see when you look at the river that you take your drinking water from or the river that you use for irrigation or the place you go fishing or recreate and kayak on. This is not how our mountain streams in the Southwest are supposed to look. I think visually this got the attention of people all around the country as to the scope and scale of this problem. After the mine spill, I toured affected communities in New Mexico and the Navajo Nation. I met with impacted residents, including farmers in Aztec and Shiprock, San Juan County leaders, Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye, Vice President Jonathan Nez, and the attorney general, Ethel Branch. In the Southwest, water is by far our most precious resource, so you can imagine the kind of impact this disaster had on our communities. My colleagues in the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Committee on Indian Affairs have now held hearings to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's actions which led to this spill and to seek to bring proper oversight to the Agency's response. Last week, the Department of the Interior released a report of its independent technical evaluation of the EPA's action. The evaluation found that the EPA did not properly appreciate the engineering complexity of trying to clean up the Gold King mine and that it could in fact have prevented what we see here. I share the anger and frustration that not only my colleagues but, more importantly, our constituents have expressed over this terrible accident. It is why Senator Udall and I have introduced separate pieces of legislation specifically to make these communities whole. We need to continue to demand the EPA act with urgency to protect the health and the safety of the affected communities and to repair the damage inflicted on this watershed. That is our first and top priority. We are doing a disservice to the American people by not also taking action to address the thousands--thousands--of other similarly contaminated abandoned mines that literally litter the West and are leaking toxins into our watersheds--into the watersheds that provide drinking water and irrigation to our communities all across the West. There are estimates that 40 percent of western watersheds have been polluted by toxic mining waste and that reclaiming and cleaning up abandoned mines to make this right is going to cost tens of billions of dollars. This latest disaster was all too familiar for those of us from the Four Corners region and to many people around the West. Back in 1975, in an even larger accident than the Gold King blowout, a tailings pile near Silverton, CO, spilled 50,000 tons of tailings laden with toxic heavy metals into the Animas River Watershed--the watershed that drains from Colorado into New Mexico, into the San Juan and through the Navajo Nation in Arizona as well. In 1979, a breached dam at a uranium mill tailings disposal pond near Church Rock in New Mexico on the Navajo Nation sent more than 1,000 tons of solid radioactive waste and 93 million gallons of acidic liquid into the Rio Puerco. Disastrous blowouts and spills like these are easy to see. They get the media's attention, but the toxins leaking silently out of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines are doing even more damage to our watersheds each and every day. For decades before the spill, the Gold King mine actually leached water laced with heavy metals and sulfuric acid into Cement Creek, which is a tributary of the Animas. Over the last 10 years, an average of 200 gallons of highly polluted water each and every minute, or more than 100 million gallons per year, flowed out of this mine and into the Animas River via Cement Creek. The Gold King and other abandoned mines in the San Juan Mountains in southwestern Colorado continue to pollute the Animas and the San Juan Watershed as we speak. Beyond the immediate cleanup of the Gold King spill, it is high time we as a Congress overhaul our abandoned mine cleanup policies to make future disasters less likely and to address the thousands and thousands of abandoned mines that are polluting our watersheds. The Navajo Nation, which was perhaps most affected by the Gold King mine blowout, has more than 500 abandoned uranium mines. Last month, I met with officials at the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation and Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Office and learned about their efforts to clean up these literally hundreds of sites. I visited a large uranium tailings disposal pile in Shiprock--in the town of Shiprock--that sits close to the San Juan River. If you look at this map, this is the San Juan River. This is the community of Shiprock. We have the high school, the fairgrounds, and the residential area all around a permanent tailings disposal site-- something that is going to require stewardship for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Melvin Yazzie, a senior reclamation specialist with the department, also took me through an abandoned uranium mine site in the Red Valley Chapter of the Northern Navajo Nation. Carrying a Geiger counter, he showed me the abandoned mine and a nearby house that was constructed using materials contaminated with radioactive materials. Here we see Mr. Yazzie with his Geiger counter. This is obviously no longer occupied, but it gives us a sense of the impact to members of the Navajo Nation, some of whom literally have their homes built with the spillover, the rock materials that came out of these mines, and live with that irradiation each and every day. The Navajo Government is doing its best to address this legacy of uranium mining and milling, but they do not have anywhere close to enough resources or funding necessary to clean up the waste from decades and decades of uranium mining. A large reason why the Navajo Nation lacks adequate resources and why communities all across Indian Country and the entire West are dealing with pollution from abandoned mines and lack resources is that we have not updated our Federal laws on hard rock mining in 143 years. During the era of manifest destiny, the Federal Government encouraged Americans to settle newly acquired lands in the West by passing laws-- laws like the Timber and Stone Act of 1878 and the Desert Land Act of 1878, laws like the Homestead Act, which my grandparents took advantage of. Some of these laws gave away public lands and resources to private users with no strings attached and often no price tag attached. The General Mining Act of 1872 came along during this era of unrestrained western expansion. It allowed individuals and companies to claim ownership of minerals in the public domain--minerals owned by us as a nation, such as gold, silver, copper, uranium, molybdenum, and others--simply by locating a mineral source, staking a claim, and paying $5 for an acre of land. Miners did not have to consider environmental impacts or make any plans to clean up the waste, which has created the pollution and contamination we confront today. This law drew thousands of people to the West. My father and my mother's father both made a living working in hard rock mining. But shortsighted policy also left behind a scarred legacy on our lands. Unlike other 19th-century western settlement laws which have long since been reformed or replaced, the Mining Act of 1872 remains on the books today. While developers of resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal all pay royalties to return fair value to taxpayers for our public resources, hard rock mining companies still mine publicly owned minerals for free--for free--and we still don't have a plan to address a century of pollution from abandoned mines. We desperately need to bring our mining laws out of the 19th century and into the 20th century. That is why I am joining my colleagues-- Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Bennet of Colorado, and Senator Wyden of Oregon--to introduce legislation to reform our outdated and ineffective Federal policy on abandoned mines and on hard rock mining. Our legislation will require that reasonable royalties and fees from hard rock mining be used to create a dedicated funding stream for cleaning up mine waste. A reclamation program will allow States, tribes, and nonprofit organizations to collaborate on projects to restore fish and wildlife habitat affected by past hard rock mining and to repair watersheds that are the very center of our economy in the West, the source of our essential agricultural and drinking water supply for western communities up and down the spine of the Rockies. This legislation will also reform the permitting process for new mines. Hard rock mining companies will need to protect water and wildlife resources and provide financial assurance that they can actually fund reclamation cleanup and restoration efforts after their mines close so that in the future we don't have this legacy of abandoned hard rock mines. These are simply, commonsense reforms--reforms that, frankly, Congress should have adopted decades ago. I appreciate the value of the hard rock mining industry. My own family has benefited from it, and I recognize that the industry continues to provide good-paying jobs in States throughout the West. Some mining companies are already stepping up to help clean up old mining waste sites. I look forward to working with industry stakeholders to find practical ways to bring our policies into the 21st century. We cannot wait for more disasters like the Gold King mine spill for us to act. We cannot continue to do nothing while thousands of abandoned hard rock mines drain toxic metals into our rivers, water supplies, and our drinking water each and every day. We must come together and press forward for pragmatic reforms to our outdated Federal hard rock mining laws.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, I yield to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking my colleague the senior Senator from New Mexico Tom Udall for the incredible leadership he has shown on this issue. I know it is something near and dear to his heart and something he absolutely and truly cares about. We have had a good team working on this over the course of the last couple of months. Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado has been a great contributor to this effort. Congressman Ben Ray Lujan of northern New Mexico has taken a leadership effort on a similar effort in the House, and today we are joined by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon on this legislation as well. As many folks know, in August a large plume of bright orange mine waste spilled into the Animas River, which leads into the San Juan, and polluted the Four Corners region from Colorado to New Mexico and through the Navajo Nation. If you take a look at this photo, which was shared with me by the president and vice president of the Navajo Nation, this is not what you want to see when you look at the river that you take your drinking water from or the river that you use for irrigation or the place you go fishing or recreate and kayak on. This is not how our mountain streams in the Southwest are supposed to look. I think visually this got the attention of people all around the country as to the scope and scale of this problem. After the mine spill, I toured affected communities in New Mexico and the Navajo Nation. I met with impacted residents, including farmers in Aztec and Shiprock, San Juan County leaders, Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye, Vice President Jonathan Nez, and the attorney general, Ethel Branch. In the Southwest, water is by far our most precious resource, so you can imagine the kind of impact this disaster had on our communities. My colleagues in the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Committee on Indian Affairs have now held hearings to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's actions which led to this spill and to seek to bring proper oversight to the Agency's response. Last week, the Department of the Interior released a report of its independent technical evaluation of the EPA's action. The evaluation found that the EPA did not properly appreciate the engineering complexity of trying to clean up the Gold King mine and that it could in fact have prevented what we see here. I share the anger and frustration that not only my colleagues but, more importantly, our constituents have expressed over this terrible accident. It is why Senator Udall and I have introduced separate pieces of legislation specifically to make these communities whole. We need to continue to demand the EPA act with urgency to protect the health and the safety of the affected communities and to repair the damage inflicted on this watershed. That is our first and top priority. We are doing a disservice to the American people by not also taking action to address the thousands--thousands--of other similarly contaminated abandoned mines that literally litter the West and are leaking toxins into our watersheds--into the watersheds that provide drinking water and irrigation to our communities all across the West. There are estimates that 40 percent of western watersheds have been polluted by toxic mining waste and that reclaiming and cleaning up abandoned mines to make this right is going to cost tens of billions of dollars. This latest disaster was all too familiar for those of us from the Four Corners region and to many people around the West. Back in 1975, in an even larger accident than the Gold King blowout, a tailings pile near Silverton, CO, spilled 50,000 tons of tailings laden with toxic heavy metals into the Animas River Watershed--the watershed that drains from Colorado into New Mexico, into the San Juan and through the Navajo Nation in Arizona as well. In 1979, a breached dam at a uranium mill tailings disposal pond near Church Rock in New Mexico on the Navajo Nation sent more than 1,000 tons of solid radioactive waste and 93 million gallons of acidic liquid into the Rio Puerco. Disastrous blowouts and spills like these are easy to see. They get the media's attention, but the toxins leaking silently out of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines are doing even more damage to our watersheds each and every day. For decades before the spill, the Gold King mine actually leached water laced with heavy metals and sulfuric acid into Cement Creek, which is a tributary of the Animas. Over the last 10 years, an average of 200 gallons of highly polluted water each and every minute, or more than 100 million gallons per year, flowed out of this mine and into the Animas River via Cement Creek. The Gold King and other abandoned mines in the San Juan Mountains in southwestern Colorado continue to pollute the Animas and the San Juan Watershed as we speak. Beyond the immediate cleanup of the Gold King spill, it is high time we as a Congress overhaul our abandoned mine cleanup policies to make future disasters less likely and to address the thousands and thousands of abandoned mines that are polluting our watersheds. The Navajo Nation, which was perhaps most affected by the Gold King mine blowout, has more than 500 abandoned uranium mines. Last month, I met with officials at the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation and Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Office and learned about their efforts to clean up these literally hundreds of sites. I visited a large uranium tailings disposal pile in Shiprock--in the town of Shiprock--that sits close to the San Juan River. If you look at this map, this is the San Juan River. This is the community of Shiprock. We have the high school, the fairgrounds, and the residential area all around a permanent tailings disposal site-- something that is going to require stewardship for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Melvin Yazzie, a senior reclamation specialist with the department, also took me through an abandoned uranium mine site in the Red Valley Chapter of the Northern Navajo Nation. Carrying a Geiger counter, he showed me the abandoned mine and a nearby house that was constructed using materials contaminated with radioactive materials. Here we see Mr. Yazzie with his Geiger counter. This is obviously no longer occupied, but it gives us a sense of the impact to members of the Navajo Nation, some of whom literally have their homes built with the spillover, the rock materials that came out of these mines, and live with that irradiation each and every day. The Navajo Government is doing its best to address this legacy of uranium mining and milling, but they do not have anywhere close to enough resources or funding necessary to clean up the waste from decades and decades of uranium mining. A large reason why the Navajo Nation lacks adequate resources and why communities all across Indian Country and the entire West are dealing with pollution from abandoned mines and lack resources is that we have not updated our Federal laws on hard rock mining in 143 years. During the era of manifest destiny, the Federal Government encouraged Americans to settle newly acquired lands in the West by passing laws-- laws like the Timber and Stone Act of 1878 and the Desert Land Act of 1878, laws like the Homestead Act, which my grandparents took advantage of. Some of these laws gave away public lands and resources to private users with no strings attached and often no price tag attached. The General Mining Act of 1872 came along during this era of unrestrained western expansion. It allowed individuals and companies to claim ownership of minerals in the public domain--minerals owned by us as a nation, such as gold, silver, copper, uranium, molybdenum, and others--simply by locating a mineral source, staking a claim, and paying $5 for an acre of land. Miners did not have to consider environmental impacts or make any plans to clean up the waste, which has created the pollution and contamination we confront today. This law drew thousands of people to the West. My father and my mother's father both made a living working in hard rock mining. But shortsighted policy also left behind a scarred legacy on our lands. Unlike other 19th-century western settlement laws which have long since been reformed or replaced, the Mining Act of 1872 remains on the books today. While developers of resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal all pay royalties to return fair value to taxpayers for our public resources, hard rock mining companies still mine publicly owned minerals for free--for free--and we still don't have a plan to address a century of pollution from abandoned mines. We desperately need to bring our mining laws out of the 19th century and into the 20th century. That is why I am joining my colleagues-- Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Bennet of Colorado, and Senator Wyden of Oregon--to introduce legislation to reform our outdated and ineffective Federal policy on abandoned mines and on hard rock mining. Our legislation will require that reasonable royalties and fees from hard rock mining be used to create a dedicated funding stream for cleaning up mine waste. A reclamation program will allow States, tribes, and nonprofit organizations to collaborate on projects to restore fish and wildlife habitat affected by past hard rock mining and to repair watersheds that are the very center of our economy in the West, the source of our essential agricultural and drinking water supply for western communities up and down the spine of the Rockies. This legislation will also reform the permitting process for new mines. Hard rock mining companies will need to protect water and wildlife resources and provide financial assurance that they can actually fund reclamation cleanup and restoration efforts after their mines close so that in the future we don't have this legacy of abandoned hard rock mines. These are simply, commonsense reforms--reforms that, frankly, Congress should have adopted decades ago. I appreciate the value of the hard rock mining industry. My own family has benefited from it, and I recognize that the industry continues to provide good-paying jobs in States throughout the West. Some mining companies are already stepping up to help clean up old mining waste sites. I look forward to working with industry stakeholders to find practical ways to bring our policies into the 21st century. We cannot wait for more disasters like the Gold King mine spill for us to act. We cannot continue to do nothing while thousands of abandoned hard rock mines drain toxic metals into our rivers, water supplies, and our drinking water each and every day. We must come together and press forward for pragmatic reforms to our outdated Federal hard rock mining laws.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Montana. I think one of the great things about New Mexico and Montana is that we are both from States that absolutely cherish the outdoors, and we have a lot of constituents who care about the activities that generate so much income from the outdoors. Obviously, I hear from an enormous number of my constituents asking us to reauthorize and permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund--to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In fact, recently there was a letter which was sent to me but was also sent to the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--to the chair and to the ranking member, the good Senator from Washington. It was signed by dozens of businesses saying: Hey, this is important to our bottom line. Please extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Please continue to support this bipartisan legacy of standing up for our natural resources in this country. My good friend from Montana mentioned the scale of what that means in his State, and it is not a dissimilar story in New Mexico. In fact, over $6 billion annually comes from outdoor recreation activities, and 68,000 jobs in our State are directly related to outdoor recreation. In fact, when I go home this weekend, we are going to be celebrating the Valles Caldera National Preserve and its management by the National Park Service. That was a property that for decades my constituents could not access. They could not hunt; they could not fish. It was private property. It was because of the Land and Water Conservation Fund that this place, which had really been on the radar screen of the National Park Service since the early part of the last century-- probably since the 1930s--could come into public ownership and now be one of the true gems in the entire Nation of our public lands. We are going to be celebrating that with our constituents on Saturday. The Secretary of Interior is coming. There are literally 100,000 acres of some of the most spectacular high-elevation grasslands and conifer forests and trout streams and elk habitat that we have ever seen, and there are businesses that rely on that. Tourism is an enormous part of our economy in New Mexico. So this is something which has been absolutely crucial to our State's economy, especially in the midst of the last decade and the challenges we have had economically. I know one of the groups who will be there on Saturday are the sportsmen, who care about utilizing the outdoors. I would ask my colleague from Montana if in Montana he hears from people who hunt and fish, as I do in New Mexico, about the importance this particular legislation has had in protecting habitat and protecting access to the places that regular, blue-collar folks can go to hunt and fish.

Mr. HEINRICH. That is absolutely right. I hear from constituents all the time who will never be able to afford one of those $5 or $10,000 elk hunts on private land but who can enter the lottery every year and who do and oftentimes rely on that to get their family through the winter and to also just pull their family together in a tradition they have had as a part of who they are for years and years. On Saturday, when we go to celebrate the Valles Caldera National Preserve, I am going to be taking my fly rod, and I am looking forward to spending the dollars that will go back into our State's game and fish coffers to make sure that resource is there again and again and again. That is what this Land and Water Conservation Fund is all about.

Mr. HEINRICH. Ironically, the money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not tax dollars. It is literally a deal that goes back five decades now where we opened up large swaths of our natural resources, our oil and gas offshore, and took a percentage of that and invested it back into protecting our natural resources. Obviously, those are natural resources that are one-time. You only get to drill for oil and produce natural gas one time. So the idea was that we would invest that in something to protect our environment, to protect our conservation lands, and to make a permanent contribution to that level of conservation.

Mr. HEINRICH. I would ask my colleague from Montana--we have heard a lot about reform. When we had the hearing in front of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we heard people on both sides of the aisle talking about how well this program works. Does the Senator think the opposition that is holding this up, that is holding back the majority of this body--a bipartisan majority, I would add--does the Senator from Montana think that reform is really what this is about or is it about a more basic, more ideological opposition to public lands and the current efforts to either sell off or transfer those public lands that our constituents rely on for access to go camping, to go hunting, to go rock climbing, to recreate, to spend time with their families?

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, from coast to coast the Land and Water Conservation Fund is the primary tool that our Nation uses to fund the protection of our natural and our cultural heritage. In my home State of New Mexico, the LWCF has protected some of our most iconic and famous landscapes--places such as the Valles Caldera National Preserve, Ute Mountain, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. These are places families go back to year after year, generation after generation to camp, hunt, hike, and fish. Our public lands are uniquely American, but the future of our outdoor places--all the places we enjoy as public lands--depends on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We must permanently authorize and fully fund the LWCF. Permanently and fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund will help ensure the outdoor places we all enjoy will be protected for future generations to enjoy as well. So I ask unanimous consent that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee be discharged from and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2101; I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, my colleague from Utah purports to speak for westerners. I want to make it clear, he doesn't speak for New Mexico, he doesn't speak for me, he doesn't speak for my constituents, and he certainly doesn't speak for the businesses that write letters to me speaking about how the Land and Water Conservation Fund has benefited their businesses--particularly businesses that rely on tourism and outdoor recreation, that rely on places like the Valles Caldera National Preserve, that rely on places like the Rio Grande National Monument for their livelihood. The reason why, as westerners, I can take my kids out and go hunting on public land and the reason we can go camping and cut firewood to heat our homes is because of the public land the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided in places like New Mexico. We had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. If anything, what we heard is that we didn't need to reform this program; that, frankly, it was working better than just about any program in the Federal Government. LWCF works. It has broad bipartisan support. It creates recreation jobs that are key to Western States. LWCF buys from willing sellers in places that oftentimes reduce how much we spend on maintaining, protecting, and managing our Federal lands. Imagine in-holdings that make it harder for our foresters to manage wildfires and to protect and do the work. We need to do a better job of managing wildfires across the West. So many of these issues that have been raised, particularly reform, are a red herring for what is truly an ideological opposition to the Land and Water Conservation Fund--a program that has put soccer fields and baseball diamonds in just about every little town across the United States. All of my counties, many of my cities, have benefited from sports fields specifically from this fund for decades now, as well as purchases like the new National Wildlife Refuge in Albuquerque's South Valley, the Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge, something the local community has enormous pride in. They had a friends group set up for this wildlife refuge before the refuge even existed. So it is an indication of just how off base and out of the mainstream some of our conversations in Washington, DC, have become that we have this ideological opposition to the Land and Water Conservation Fund--a program that is actually working as it was designed to work and that has broad bipartisan support from one coast to the other in this Nation. So I am disappointed in the actions of my colleagues. This issue is not going away. We have a strong coalition. We are going to continue to fight for the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I would argue that we ought to stop taking money out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and using it to cover other expenses within the general fund; that we should remain true to the concept of this fund as it was created back in the 1960s, under Secretary Udall, and return to a level of fiscal responsibility, where the money flowing into the Land and Water Conservation Fund actually benefits land and water. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, in the first decade of this century, when the policies of President George W. Bush entangled our Nation firmly in the war in Iraq, Iran's nuclear program surged ahead rapidly and unchecked. They added thousands and thousands of centrifuges. They built numerous and complex nuclear facilities. They stockpiled highly enriched uranium. As we evaluate the proposed nuclear accord with Iran, it is important to compare what we have achieved with our allies against this reality. I firmly believe that as we work to ensure that Iran is never able to develop nuclear weapons, facts, data, and details actually matter far more than the rhetoric you hear here in Washington, DC. Perhaps it is just the engineer in me, but when the accord became public, I sat down that morning and I started highlighting numbers. People in Washington are amazingly adept at arguing that up is down and that right is left. But numbers and data are a little harder to bend to our rhetorical will. Let's start with this most important and critical data point: Without a deal, Iran has enough nuclear material stockpiled that they could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 2 to 3 months. That is what you hear talked about on the news as breakout time. Today Iran's breakout time is 2 to 3 months. They have enough material that were they to move forward, they could break out in just a matter of months. With this accord in place, their pathway forward is blocked. What is more, the breakout time is pushed back to over a year, giving us and our allies around the world enough time to make sure they don't move down this very dangerous path. Let's move on to another key data point. If you went back to 2003, Iran only had 164 centrifuges. They surged forward--adding centrifuges, adding more advanced and complex centrifuges--to where they now have 19,000 centrifuges today. With this deal, once again, that number has rolled back. It has rolled back by two-thirds. But more importantly, of the 6,000 that remain, 1,000 of those cannot be used for enrichment, and all of them are the most basic and primitive IR-1 models. In addition, without a deal, Iran has amassed 12,000 kilograms, which is over 26,000 pounds of enriched uranium. This slide shows the public a representative example of what that would look like today. Under this accord, that is rolled back by 98 percent to just 300 kilograms. So starting from over 26,000 pounds, or 12,000 kilograms, and reducing it by 98 percent, they no longer have the capacity or the stockpile to be able to quickly move forward to a weaponization scenario. In addition, it is important to realize Iran had enriched some of its stockpile to 20 percent. That is a very dangerous figure because 20 percent is actually a lot closer to weapons grade, and that would enable them to move quickly to weapons grade. It actually takes far longer to get to 4 percent than it does to get from 20 percent to a weaponized enrichment level. Under this accord, what previously was an enormous stockpile--and where some of that stockpile had actually reached dangerous levels of enrichment--will be rolled back to a point where all of the very limited 300 kilograms have to be below 4 percent, a level of concentration and enrichment that is appropriate for peaceful energy purposes but not for a weapons program. In addition, without this accord, Iran's uranium stockpile today is large enough to yield 10 to 12 nuclear bombs. With this accord, they won't have enough stockpile--enough material--to produce even a single nuclear bomb. Now, we all know that verification is key to success, and under this deal Iran must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous video monitoring at its nuclear infrastructure, including Natanz, Fordow, the Arak reactor, and all of its uranium mining, milling, and processing facilities. Furthermore, there is a mechanism in place that will allow inspections of any additional sites, should we suspect covert action is being taken to build a bomb outside of their existing supply chain. Consequently, this accord breaks each and every pathway that Iran has developed to create a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort that they might pursue. We should welcome each of those developments as a major step toward both regional and international security. I have thought about these issues for a long time. I have thought about both the science and the politics of the nuclear age since I was a young boy. I remember growing up listening to my dad because he was there when this age started. He watched nuclear devices being exploded in the Marshall Islands in the South Pacific. He told me stories of what it was like to watch a mushroom cloud form over Enewetak Atoll. When I was studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the country. I know what it is like to look down into that blue glow of a reactor pool. As a Senator from the State of New Mexico, I have seen firsthand many of the world's centrifuges which are housed in my home State of New Mexico and dedicated to the peaceful production of energy. Serving on the Armed Services Committee, I helped set policy on nonproliferation and nuclear deterrence. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have received numerous briefings on both Iran's nuclear program and their capabilities. I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and the steps necessary to detect that kind of activity. It is because of this familiarity that I am confident in this accord. The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved earlier this month includes all of the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time-- the breakout time that we talked about before, which we currently are in dire need of--so that should Iran change its course in the future, the United States and the world can react well before a device can be built. We hope that scenario never occurs, but should that happen--even with this accord--it truly leaves all of our options on the table, including the military option. Some of my colleagues in the Senate object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better; however, none of them have offered any realistic alternatives. The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, has been to engage in a military strike against Iran. While the military option will always remain on the table for the United States, even as we implement this accord, it should remain our absolute last resort. As one can imagine, our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a direct military conflict with Iran occur. That dangerous path would provoke retaliation, instability, and would likely lead to a nuclear-armed Iran in a matter of just a few years rather than decades or never. Needless to say, this would be an irresponsible mistake. As former Brigadier General and Deputy to Israel's National Security Advisor Shlomo Brom has said, ``This agreement represents the best chance to make sure Iran never obtains a weapon and the best chance for Congress to support American diplomacy--without taking any options off the table for this or future presidents.'' For too long, our country has been engaged in overseas military conflicts that have cost our Nation dearly in both blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment's notice to defend our country, to defend our allies, and even our interests, but we must also look to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible. At this extraordinary moment, I am convinced that this accord is in the best interest of our Nation and that of our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran's leadership. To make peace, you negotiate with your enemies, not with your friends. Obviously any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks and the consequences of rejecting this deal are far, far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East and, for that matter, a more secure United States of America. We must seize this historic opportunity. I yield the rest of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Dr. Paul Hommert on his retirement. I have had the pleasure of working with Paul on a number of occasions during his tenure with Sandia National Laboratories. I greatly appreciate and respect his professionalism, knowledge, and dedication as the director of Sandia National Laboratories and president of Sandia Corporation. Paul has given a great deal to this Nation and to its defense. The importance of his work directly involves the complex threats facing our country focusing on national security and technology innovation. Paul began his career with Sandia as a member of the technical staff in 1976 and then gradually moved to positions of increased responsibility in a broad range of programs and management assignments. He initially led programs supporting energy research, and from the mid- to late-1990s, he was director of engineering sciences. Later in his career, Dr. Hommert became the Director of Research and Applied Science at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the United Kingdom, where he led the science and engineering organization responsible for the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent. From 2003 to 2006, Dr. Hommert led the Applied Physics Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The division was responsible for nuclear weapon design and assessment, weapon performance code development, and weapon science support. Dr. Hommert returned to Sandia to become vice president of Sandia's California site, a position he held until 2009, when he transitioned to Sandia's main site in Albuquerque to become Executive Vice President and Deputy Laboratories Director for the Nuclear Weapons Program. In July 2010, Dr. Hommert became the Director of Sandia National Laboratories and President of Sandia Corporation. Throughout his distinguished career, Paul has received numerous awards, such as the Outstanding Alumnus Award for Professional Excellence from Purdue's School of Mechanical Engineering, and a Distinguished Engineering Alumni Award from Purdue's College of Engineering. In addition, Dr. Hommert was named Laboratory Director of the Year in 2013 by the Federal Laboratory Consortium for his support of Sandia's technology transfer activities. This award recognizes federal laboratories and their industry partners for outstanding technology transfer efforts and has become one of the most prestigious honors in technology transfer. Paul has represented our country with integrity and honor, and it is my privilege to thank him for his contribution to our nation's security. I wish him best of luck, continued happiness, and offer my congratulations on his retirement.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, 3 years ago, President Obama announced that DREAMers--young people who were brought to the United States as children--would have the opportunity to apply for temporary protection from deportation through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program or what has become known as DACA. Today, more than 660,000 young people across this Nation have benefitted from DACA, including more than 7,000 in my home State of New Mexico. These are some of our brightest students and veterans who no longer have to fear deportation. Not only do DREAMers want to earn an education and work, they want to give back to their communities and their country. In fact, I would suggest that DREAMers don't know how to be anything but American. We hear again and again of the remarkable stories of immigrants overcoming very difficult challenges in the genuine pursuit of a better life. Across the country, there are DREAMers working to become doctors, scientists, lawyers, and engineers. They want to start businesses or teach in classrooms. They want to contribute to America's success. I had the privilege of meeting these twin sisters who are pictured here, Jazmin and Yazmin, earlier this year. They immigrated to the United States with their mother from Mexico when they were just 3 years old. As students at Del Norte High School in Albuquerque, Jazmin and Yazmin worked hard to earn good grades, and as juniors and seniors, they took dual credit courses at Central New Mexico Community College. Jazmin will graduate magna cum laude from the University of New Mexico with a bachelor of business administration, concentrating in finance. She earned an interdisciplinary studies distinction from the University of New Mexico Honors College, and her sister Yazmin would go on to graduate magna cum laude from the University of New Mexico with a bachelor of science in biology and Spanish, a minor in chemistry, and completed the University Honors Program. She received departmental summa cum laude honors. These two young women are working tirelessly to ensure they have a better future for themselves and their mother. In August, Jazmin will begin her second year at the University of New Mexico School of Law, and Yazmin will begin her first year at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. Given their immigration status, the journey for Jazmin and Yazmin to get to where they are today was anything but easy. They have overcome many hardships, including homelessness and hunger. After their mother--who is a single mom--suffered a stroke, it was up to them to find work to support their family, cover her medical costs, and pay for their education. To this day, there is another heavy burden these young women carry with them; it is living with the fear that at any moment their mother, whom they love dearly, will be deported because of her immigration status. Under these circumstances, you have to ask what drives these two bright young women and what keeps them going, and it is simple: They want to give back to their communities. Jazmin, who is currently a summer law clerk at New Mexico's Center on Law and Poverty, wants to be a lawyer to ensure that every person has equal access to the law. Yazmin, who is currently a medical assistant at the Casa de Salud Medical Office in the South Valley, wants to be a primary care physician so she can help families gain access to quality health care. This is who DREAMers are, and I think their stories are absolutely inspiring. This young man's name is Cesar. He is 26 years old and a DACA recipient. Cesar and his family moved from Ciudad Juarez to Las Cruces, NM, when he was in the fifth grade. As a middle and high school student, he earned great grades, and through local scholarships he enrolled at New Mexico State University. He earned a bachelor degree in biology, microbiology, and Spanish, not to mention minors in chemistry and biochemistry. When he graduated from college in 2011, Cesar couldn't put his degrees to work because of his immigration status. So instead of working in the laboratory, he went to work as a landscaper. When the President made his DACA announcement, Cesar immediately applied and was approved for deferred action. Because of DACA, Cesar was able to work and earn an income to help pay for graduate school. This year, Cesar earned his master's degree in biology and a minor in molecular biology from New Mexico State University, where he focused his research on bioinformatics. Cesar makes it a point to get involved in the local community. He has volunteered at La Casa and helped with the biology graduate organization. He said: Once you start volunteering, you wish you had more time because you love it so much. It can improve your outlook on everything you're doing. Cesar's dream is to become a doctor so he can work to help prevent disease. Soon he will take a major step toward that goal. This coming school year, Cesar will be a medical and Ph.D. student at Loyola University in Chicago. ``DACA has changed my life,'' he said. ``Within two to three years, I went from working in landscaping to becoming a medical student.'' The stories of Cesar, Jazmin, and Yazmin represent what makes this country great. They are inspiring, and there are hundreds of thousands of DREAMers like them across this country. Immigrants make the United States a more prosperous nation. In New Mexico, our State's remarkable history is rooted in our diversity, our history, and our culture, which has always been enriched by our immigrant communities and their family members. My own father is an immigrant who came to America from Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and I am sure many of us in this Chamber have immigrant roots in our own families which have contributed to America's success story. We are not a country that kicks out our best and brightest students, and we are not a nation that tears families apart. The current DACA Program is only a temporary solution. DACA recipients have to renew every 2 years in order to maintain their deferred status, but that is no way to live. It is unfair for these DREAMers to live their lives 2 years at a time. We desperately need robust immigration reform. Now, let's step back for a moment and remember that the Senate passed a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration bill almost 2 years ago now. That bill would have modernized our immigration system to meet the needs of our economy, provided an accountable pathway to earned citizenship for the undocumented workers currently living in the shadows, including making the DREAM Act the law of the land, and it would have dramatically strengthened security at our borders. Accountable immigration reform received 68 votes in this body and demonstrated the kind of legislation we can pass when we work together. As a nation, we value the twin promises of freedom and opportunity. Those ideals are important no matter where you were born. However, too many of my Republican colleagues don't see it that way. Several of them want to rescind or even defund DACA and roll back the progress we have made over the past 3 years. Why would we end such a successful program? What I would say to those who do this is come back to the table and work with us to pass immigration reform. We need pragmatic solutions to fix our broken immigration laws, and we need them now. Let's make the dream a reality after all. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. I thank my friend from Oregon and begin by saying that despite what we may have heard from talking heads on the Sunday shows and on the cable news networks, the answer is no. There is simply no evidence to support those claims. When this mass surveillance was first revealed to the public 2 years ago, the executive branch initially responded to questions like this by claiming that various post-9/11 authorities had resulted in the thwarting of approximately ``54 terrorist events in the U.S. homeland and abroad.'' Now, a number of us, including my friend from Oregon and my former colleague from Colorado, Senator Udall, began to pull on that thread to really parse down and see just what the executive branch was talking about. First, of those 54 terrorist events, it turned out that only 13 were actually focused in the United States. But more importantly, those numbers conflated multiple different programs, including authorities under section 215 and different authorities under section 702. On June 19, 2013, my colleague from Oregon and Senator Udall pointed out that ``it appears that the bulk phone records collection program under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act played little or no role in most of these disruptions. Saying that `these programs' have disrupted `dozens of potential terrorist plots' is misleading if the bulk phone records collection program is actually providing little or no unique value.'' Of the original 54 instances the executive branch pointed to, every one of them crumbled under scrutiny. None of them actually justified the continued existence of the bulk collection program. Let me take a moment, with the indulgence of our colleagues, and read what was written by Judge Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia, when he ruled in the Klayman v. Obama case. This is a little long, but I think it is important this be part of the official record of this debate. Judge Leon writes: [T]he Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature. In fact, none of the three ``recent episodes'' cited by the Government that supposedly ``illustrate the role that telephony metadata analysis can play in preventing and protecting against terrorist attack'' involved any apparent urgency. He continues to write that: []In the first example, the FBI learned of a terrorist plot still ``in its early stages'' and investigated that plot before turning to the metadata ``to ensure that all potential connections were identified.'' []Assistant Director Holley does not say that the metadata revealed any new information-- much less time-sensitive information--that had not already come to light in the investigation up to that point. The judge continues: []In the second example, it appears that the metadata analysis was used only after the terrorist was arrested ``to establish [his] foreign ties and put them in context with his U.S. based planning efforts.'' []And in the third, the metadata analysis ``revealed a previously unknown number for [a] co-conspirator . . . and corroborated his connection to [the target of the investigation] as well as to other U.S.- based extremists.'' Continuing to quote Judge Leon: []Again, there is no indication that these revelations were immediately useful or that they prevented an impending attack. Assistant Director Holley even concedes that bulk metadata analysis only ``sometimes provides information earlier than the FBI's other investigative methods and techniques.'' Finally, Judge Leon writes: []Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation--most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because of searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics--I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time- sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism. That is where the judge leaves off. And I will turn back to the Senator from Oregon to address the three cases we discussed in more detail in our amicus brief to the Second Circuit.

Mr. HEINRICH. I thank my friend from Oregon. I think he could not have chosen a more appropriate way to end than to reference what Ben Franklin said so many years ago, that great quote that ``those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'' While many reforms still lie in front of us, I think, as we move forward to approving the USA FREEDOM Act, we move a lot closer to the balance that Ben Franklin articulated so well over 200 years ago. I look forward to working with my colleague from Oregon and all of our colleagues in achieving that balance and standing up for our constituents.